The Obama Deficit

[dude1394]

What would be different with McCain...well

Debate between McCain vs. Obama, October 15, 2008:
"What would I cut?" McCain asked. "I would have, first of all, an across-the-board spending freeze. Some people say that's a hatchet. That's a hatchet, and then I would get out the scalpel."
"It sounds good," Democrat Barack Obama replied. "In fact, an across-the-board spending freeze is a hatchet, and we do need the scalpel, because there are some programs that don't work at all. Some programs are underfunded. And I want to make sure we are focused on the programs that work."

I think you could trust him to tell the truth.

[dude1394]

Now THIS is the way to cut the deficit..

The Senate cleared a key parliamentary hurdle Saturday on a spending bill that finances almost half the federal government and increases funding for the agencies it covers by an average of 10 percent.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

What would be different with McCain...well




I think you could trust him to tell the truth.

That's why he suspended his campaign to give hundreds of billions of dollars to his banking buddies. It's the across-the-board spending-freeze...

You're naive.

[dude1394]

I think it is you that is naive and simplistic. I am easily able to separate what was going on with tarp from a vote-buying stimulus and a 10% increase in spending.

[dude1394]

This is going to get ugly. 53percent of GDP good grief.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Report-In-one-year-US-debt-has-risen-from-41-to-53-percent-of-GDP-79253352.html

Today's report from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a sobering read:
Over the past year alone, the public debt of the United States rose sharply from 41 to 53 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Under reasonable assumptions, the debt is projected to grow steadily, reaching 85 percent of GDP by 2018, 100 percent by 2022, and 200 percent in 2038.However, before the debt reached such high levels, the United States would almost certainly experience a debt-driven crisis — something previously viewed as almost unfathomable in the world’s largest economy.


"Public debt" refers to the portion of the debt not held by the government in its various trust funds.
The solution, the report states, must revolve around reforms to "programs that are growing faster than the economy -- notably Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and certain tax policies." (The latter is identified elsewhere as the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.) These cheery-eyed suggestions are the most frightening part of the report. They are so obvious, and they have so little chance of being put into effect.


The current Democratic Congress is always happy to lean harder on the taxpayer, but that well is pretty shallow and already running dry, and higher taxes will not help the cause of future growth. And as for the entitlement reforms -- the most important part of any fiscal solution for the U.S. government -- widespread dependency on entitlements has made reform politically impossible. Republicans were turned back by the special interests blocking Social Security reform in 2005. Democrats' planned cuts to Medicare have made senior citizens the strongest opponents of President Obama's planned health care reforms.


What does a fiscal crisis look like? The report offers a few small hints:
Well before the debt approaches such startling heights, fears of inflation and a prospective decline in the value of the dollar would cause investors to demand higher interest rates and shift out of U.S. Treasury securities. The excessive debt would also affect citizens in their everyday lives by harming the American standard of living through slower economic growth and dampening wages, and shrinking the government's ability to reduce taxes, invest, or provide a safety net.


The national path of least resistance leads to that or something like it, and neither party seems equipped or prepared to prevent it.

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by dude1394

1.1 Trillion buys a lot of votes.

Yeah, especially since the biggest chunk of money in the stimulus bill went back to tax payers as tax cuts, and the 2nd biggest chunk went to state and local governments to keeps cops, firefighters and teachers from being laid off.

It never ceases to amaze me how the right wing could stop being deficit hawks, starting the moment Bill Clinton handed GW Bush a budget surplus. They sit quietly while Bush promises the Iraqi Oil Money will finance the war, then he charges a trillion dollars on his Chinese funded Amex card. Instead of asking Americans to pay their fare share, he put war funding off budget.. They say nothing as his lack of regulation of the financial markets combine with the Gramm Leach bill to melt down the economy. They whine slightly when Bush borrows another 750 billion to keep the economy from collapsing. Then its suddenly Obama's fault that Bush hands him a budget with a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

Now, Barry is in charge. The amateur president has the economy growing, unemployment stabilizing, and hopefully trending down. The stock market is recovering, the car companies still exist, the banks are paying back the TARP loans, and next year, perhaps medical bankruptcy and pre-existing conditions will no longer threaten the financial health of anyone who gets sick. Jobs remain a problem, but with unspent stimulus money coming on line next year and more focus, its just a matter of time before that picture improves too. The Republicans only hope is that it doesn't. And they should be ashamed of themselves, because when they root for Obama to fail, they are really hoping for the economy to get worse.

Thats just sick.

So I wouldn't worry so much about jobs or the deficit. Obama has done such a good job of cleaning up all the other messes Bush left behind, I'd be surprised if he doesn't handle the2 as well.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by G-Man

Yeah, especially since the biggest chunk of money in the stimulus bill went back to tax payers as tax cuts, and the 2nd biggest chunk went to state and local governments to keeps cops, firefighters and teachers from being laid off.

It never ceases to amaze me how the right wing could stop being deficit hawks, starting the moment Bill Clinton handed GW Bush a budget surplus. They sit quietly while Bush promises the Iraqi Oil Money will finance the war, then he charges a trillion dollars on his Chinese funded Amex card. Instead of asking Americans to pay their fare share, he put war funding off budget.. They say nothing as his lack of regulation of the financial markets combine with the Gramm Leach bill to melt down the economy. They whine slightly when Bush borrows another 750 billion to keep the economy from collapsing. Then its suddenly Obama's fault that Bush hands him a budget with a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

Now, Barry is in charge. The amateur president has the economy growing, unemployment stabilizing, and hopefully trending down. The stock market is recovering, the car companies still exist, the banks are paying back the TARP loans, and next year, perhaps medical bankruptcy and pre-existing conditions will no longer threaten the financial health of anyone who gets sick. Jobs remain a problem, but with unspent stimulus money coming on line next year and more focus, its just a matter of time before that picture improves too. The Republicans only hope is that it doesn't. And they should be ashamed of themselves, because when they root for Obama to fail, they are really hoping for the economy to get worse.

Thats just sick.

So I wouldn't worry so much about jobs or the deficit. Obama has done such a good job of cleaning up all the other messes Bush left behind, I'd be surprised if he doesn't handle the2 as well.

And to think, you have such logical opinions when we're talking basketball.

The true fiscal conservatives complained about increased spending and expansion of government under Bush. Don't blame us. Blame the people that took over the Republican party during the Bush administration, because they weren't fiscal conservatives.

What's really odd is that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. One the one hand, you decry the things that Bush did fiscally, but on the other hand you praise Obama. They are both big spenders who believe that printing more government money and borrowing from the next generation is the way to solve problems.

I agree with your point that Clinton (and a Republican Congress) handed the Bush administration a budget surplus. Since then we've had nothing but reckless spending and financial cowardice from Washington. The shame is that if Bush had coupled tax cuts with reductions in spending, we really could have steered this country's financial ship the right way. Instead, we now have to wait for the inevitable to occur -- tax increases AND spending reductions. Unfortunately, no one has the political courage to do what has to be done, so it will likely take a long time and cost a lot more.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by G-Man

They sit quietly while Bush promises the Iraqi Oil Money will finance the war, then he charges a trillion dollars on his Chinese funded Amex card..

we just elected the Republicans out of office for that.
and we're about to do the same to the Democrats that we put in their place - because they are only making things worse.

[92bDad]

Amazing, under Clinton...we had a Republican lead congress that attained a so-called surplus. (We didn't run up a war debt because Clinton chose to look the other way...leaving Bush to be attacked on 9/11 due to intel cuts by Clinton)

Under Bush...we had a Democrat lead congress that attained major debt...we also had bipartisan support of the War, based on the USA being attacked (or do we forget this minor detail)

We then had a smear campaign against Bush and Republicans...using the War (Which nobody likes...even if it is necessary to defend this nation and our freedom)...It is clear that Bush had to give and take in order to maintain support for the troops...in other words to spend money on the war, he allowed the Democrats to spend on other things, and he looked the other way on domestic financial issues that the Democrats were wrecking...all so that his one focus, the War could be managed with success.

Now the Liberal Elitest have turned the tables and taken over the White House as well as a higher majority of the Congress...they are wishy washy on the war, realising behind closed doors that it is needed, but trying to find a way to bail out...so that they can continue to spend on other social programs. They need to drive the debt up, they need this nation to be dependant on them...after all, once you give the people a program, how do you shut it down without looking bad? We are seeing uncontrolled spending by this administration/congress...yes the previous was also spending, but as stated, it was clearly driving by the unwillingness of the Democrats to follow the lead of the President.

As far as Faults for President Bush...He actually trusted the Democrats to do the right thing, as they do in Texas, but he found in National Politics...it's a different game and thus he had to give and take in order to secure as many American Lives as possible.

Now we see the Democrats ram rodding their socialist agenda to the point of which we may never recover in our lifetime...if we ever actually do.

How in the world, do they get away with SPEND SPEND SPEND, while they have NO MONEY? If you are I made decisions like the current administration, we'ld be arrested and in jail. Something about Madhoff comes to mind.

As they say, it is what it is...at this point, I'm not sure that even a strong conservative election in 2010 or 2012 can fix the mess that Obama and the Democrats have created.

Freedom, it was nice while it lasted...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

And to think, you have such logical opinions when we're talking basketball.

The true fiscal conservatives complained about increased spending and expansion of government under Bush. Don't blame us. Blame the people that took over the Republican party during the Bush administration, because they weren't fiscal conservatives.

What's really odd is that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. One the one hand, you decry the things that Bush did fiscally, but on the other hand you praise Obama. They are both big spenders who believe that printing more government money and borrowing from the next generation is the way to solve problems.

I agree with your point that Clinton (and a Republican Congress) handed the Bush administration a budget surplus. Since then we've had nothing but reckless spending and financial cowardice from Washington. The shame is that if Bush had coupled tax cuts with reductions in spending, we really could have steered this country's financial ship the right way. Instead, we now have to wait for the inevitable to occur -- tax increases AND spending reductions. Unfortunately, no one has the political courage to do what has to be done, so it will likely take a long time and cost a lot more.

Ideology aside, there is a fairly huge difference between running a budget deficit when the domestic economy is humming along at full employment, and the global economy is in possibly the most benign period in global history versus running a deficit when both the US and global economies are circling the drain.

I am not going to claim that a dem president/congress wouldn't have run up huge deficits in 2005 (for instance) as well... but the fact that it happened was clearly crappy. In 2005 you have the teenager running up the mastercard bill to buy ANOTHER big screen tv ... in today's instance you have the teenager maxing out the visa to repair his used car --- HOPEFULLY it is so the bastage will be able to drive to a damn job if he ever finds one.

But you are correct, also. What Obama and Pelosi need to do RIGHT NOW is start chipping at the 2012-2015 deficit.... those are the ones that are economically scary, because they even at full employment they will be above 4% of GDP and rising.

[dude1394]

And we just added what...about 800billion for a health care bill.

Fiscal Errors: The U.S. government's unprecedented spending splurge, with no end in sight, is creating a mountain of debt that endangers both our economy and way of life. Can something be done about it?
Anyone who reads IBD knows we're not doomsayers. Sometimes, in fact, we've been chided for cockeyed optimism in the face of even the gloomiest prognostications. Our faith in America's resilient economy, the world's largest and most creative, and in the productive people who make it go, was reason enough.
That said, we face a rather stark fact today: The current path for U.S. debt is unsustainable.
Our $14 trillion economy is more than three times bigger than the next largest in the world. But our debt will soon surpass even the bloated level of WWII, when we were literally fighting for our lives and freedoms with a weak economy struggling to emerge from the Great Depression.
In just the last year alone, according to a report this week from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), total U.S. public debt has jumped to $7.6 trillion, or 53% of GDP, from $5.7 trillion, or 41% of GDP.
Also this week, to accommodate its out-of-control spending, Congress will vote to lift the U.S. debt limit by $1.8 trillion - to almost $14 trillion. Why now? They don't want to do it in 2010, an election year.