Drowning in debt: Obama's spending and borrowing leaves U.S. gasping for air

[Brigandier]

***

Oh, a point on how each party only helps perpetuate the increase of debt. Liberals, generally supporting entitlement progams, create the initial debt of starting the program and the costs of running the program. The costs of running a program increase over time, and as history shows even conservative estimates turn out to be far too low for the true cost. Republicans generally favor lower taxes and increases to military spending. Thankfully, military has remained relatively constant to GDP and impacts the debt very little. Their tax cuts, however, decrease revenue and drive the need to cover portions of the budget, normally covered by taxes with more debt. The liberals create programs that the republicans short fund with tax cuts. As the machine whirs it is a tug of war between which party can get more of what it wants, accelerating the machine to its final course.

The problems of modern politics cannot be solved by modern politicians. The problem isn't just in the politics, it's also in the denial of the existence of such a problem. One party points the finger at the other, ignoring the fact that regardless of party control, no one becomes happier and nothing really changes. The only benefactors of this system of governance are not the people but the select few positioned to influence and capitalize on a looter's system. The only reason Keynesian policies were allowed to get out of control is because of the productive potential reached following WWII. Economic policies, based on demand and faith, benefited from the country of factories created during WWII. Excess production and positive morale led to an age of prosperity that was co-opted by an economic movement that's proof of validity were small changes at the end of The Great Depression and an economic boom following a triumph over an enemy that demanded America rise to its full productive potential.

 

[SickBeast]

I was told recently that in California they pay MORE tax than we do here in Canada, yet they don't have universal health care.

IMO the US needs a third and maybe even a fourth political party. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have proven themselves to be incompetent. I'm willing to give Obama some more time before judging him too harshly, but I'm not impressed with his handling of the economic crisis thus far, and I'm not entirely convinced that his impending arrival didn't play a role in it.

What we need is LESS GOVERNMENT and lower taxes. It blows my mind how little they can accomplish with half of our collective monies.

 

[SickBeast]

Just as an aside, some of the 'infrastructure spending' here in Canada involves paving my parents street and giving it a new sidewalk. The problem is that their street and sidewalk are currently in absolute pristine condition! I have no issue with the spending so long as they do something useful with the money! What a waste!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Spend borrow and tax, you can't expect much from a man that has never run anything.

That may be true so what was Bush`s excuse....cat got your tongue??

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: rpanic
Obama 2007

Question, where is the stimulus money going to come from for your plan?

Obama "umm its just paper money"

your point??? I get it -- you don`t have one!! hahahaaaa

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I was told recently that in California they pay MORE tax than we do here in Canada, yet they don't have universal health care.
IMO the US needs a third and maybe even a fourth political party. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have proven themselves to be incompetent. I'm willing to give Obama some more time before judging him too harshly, but I'm not impressed with his handling of the economic crisis thus far, and I'm not entirely convinced that his impending arrival didn't play a role in it.

What we need is LESS GOVERNMENT and lower taxes. It blows my mind how little they can accomplish with half of our collective monies.

let me get this straight....
Your canadian? You have no say in this ......
I didn`t know canadians could mvote for POTUS>>..hmmm

 

[ericlp]

Where was PJ when bush was spending 3-4 Trillion in Iraq? Hello? where oh where were you?? This is the norm now I guess.

It's really funny to see all the Repugs try to defend bush when he was spending trillions YET if a Dem spends TRILLIONS they all start freaking out. Oh well... The sooner it's bankrupt the better.

 

[Xellos2099]

Bush spend no where near 3-4 trillion in war.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Bush spend no where near 3-4 trillion in war.

This is exactly why we need to divert more money to education. Our public schools have obviously failed.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Bush spend no where near 3-4 trillion in war.

whats funny is we have this jr High School kid who doesn`t understand that this did not happen over night....Ir happenned on Bush`s watch, but and now we have to figure out how to correct all the stoopid things Bush allowed to happen!!

 

[PJABBER]

Why all of the hatred and the selfish circular arguing? The outright lying by the offer of false accounting and exaggerated numbers that are so easily refuted, the nit picking and the self righteous blaming and the pointing of fingers?

Why so little real response to the thought in the article and the statements made there?

The U.S. has been on an exceptional course as a society and as a nation throughout its history. Many have died in that struggle to allow us in the current generation to benefit from their efforts.

The article points out that unrestrained government spending and taxation will certainly be borne in this generation that so foolishly overspends the wealth of the nation. But it is the generations to follow that will be crushed by that which we so foolishly borrowed now for them to pay off later.

What are we ourselves leaving to the next generation? The shame of debts that cannot be paid, the empty promises of happiness without struggle, without effort? A bitter and irreconcilable divide for the sake of a passing partisan gain?

There is a gathering murmur, a call, a cacophonous sound resonating that we must rein in a Government, and that does include political parties in power and without, that is blindly intent on spending us into a ruinous structural deficit.

American attitudes and behavior have undergone a substantial change. We are saving more and paying down debt. We are transforming our society from a consumer culture to a culture of thrift. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll, Americans were asked which economic issue facing the country concerns them the most. Deficit reduction ruled over health care. Half were prepared to defer spending or to spend less, even if it meant extending the recession.

Why then do our elected officials fail to see the light? They excuse their own profligacy by pointing at our own pointing of fingers at each other while blocking their ears to the pleas for thrift before ruin is inevitable. Or maybe all they hear is the siren call of legacy and of power and privilege, of programs which bring empty honor but also the destructiveness of unintended consequences and unimagined costs.

This article and those yet to come simply point out the truth - the Government, which is beholden to us, is spending beyond reason. As taxpayers and as citizens, it is up to us to let our elected officials know that it is time to follow the wise path of frugality as we are also doing in our own lives.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Spend borrow and tax, you can't expect much from a man that has never run anything.

But you can expect it from a shitty b-list actor, an ex-CIA chief who is partly responsible for the failure to predict the fall of the Soviet Union (whose father was a traitor), and a coke head who drove a baseball team and an oil company into the ground.

Oh boy... I welcome this comparison. Obama's deficit in his first year is close to Dubbya's in all eight. And he wants to add more on rather than try to fix the problem.

Do you really want to go down this path?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Spend borrow and tax, you can't expect much from a man that has never run anything.

But you can expect it from a shitty b-list actor, an ex-CIA chief who is partly responsible for the failure to predict the fall of the Soviet Union (whose father was a traitor), and a coke head who drove a baseball team and an oil company into the ground.

Oh boy... I welcome this comparison. Obama's deficit in his first year is close to Dubbya's in all eight. And he wants to add more on rather than try to fix the problem.

Do you really want to go down this path?

Sure, why not? At least Obama's spending is meant to deal with an immediate problem rather than fighting foreign wars of choice. Also, we are in a deep recession. Like Japan of 1997, trying to fix your fiscal problems in a recession is a bad, bad idea. It may not make sense to you but Obama is thinking long term rather than just trying to clean up Bush's mess. The best time for government to spend money is now, when nobody else is.

 

[StageLeft]

I found two articles this morning among the first ones I looked at headlines of:
Bank of England to Warn of Deflation

Wadhwani told the Telegraph he saw growing evidence the UK was tracking a similar path to that of the Japanese economy in 1990s, which apparently recovered from its initial economic crisis only to fall into stagnation for decades.

and

Second Stimulus Needed to Avoid Lost Decade

The world economy needs a second stimulus if it is to avoid the fate of Japan in the 1990s when the country was stuck with years of sluggish growth, Nobel laureate and professor of economics Paul Krugman told CNBC Monday.

I've heard of comparisons with Japan for a year now. I have two questions:

1) Do any of the more notable optimists here believe the US can avoid a Japan-like scenario (meaning heavy government crediting of companies and years of flat or barely moving growth)
2) Is a Japan scenario really that bad? Japan is crowded, but in terms of standard of living I'm not sure how bad it is. Unemployment is typically low. On the other hand, entering a Japan-scenario feels like a last chance; i.e. what happens if you're in that situation and then hit another recession? We'll find out soon by watching Japan in this one, I suppose.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bush Legacy at work. Thanks Bush.

And it only took two replies for this response to be posted. Amazing.

Being the Truth, it should have been the first post. What's truly amazing is how many people don't understand that.

Obviously, a new president does inherit some of the issues or "legacy" of the previous president. I agree with that for sure. However, look at the deficit projections from the CBO for both of Obama terms (assuming he wins in 2012). When exactly does he take responsibility, or are you going to keep parroting the "But...But...But...Bush!" line until 2016?

I find it humorous that you guys are quick to pin a lot of this on Bush (and believe me, I am not saying he doesn't deserve some of the blame), but when Carter and Reagan are discussed, all of Carter's issues which were passed to Reagan were the fault of Nixon, Ford, etc. Come on, let's be fair here.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bush Legacy at work. Thanks Bush.

And it only took two replies for this response to be posted. Amazing.

Truth hurts, huh?

It would hurt if I were a Bush supporter, which I am not. When are you guys going to assign responsibility to the Democrats for anything? I know the answer to that -- you won't ever. There will always be some excuse.

And in the end, I don't care -- you partisan hacks can argue back and forth about who to blame. Instead of finger pointing and endless streams of sound bites, Washington needs to address the problems and fix them. I don't care if it is a Democrat or Republican that fixes the issues, as long as they get fixed.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
All the rest of the Republicans in here spewing lies that Dems have been in control since 2006 are FULL OF SHit and should be tried for treason and deported.

Congratulations, you have sunk lower than even my lowest expectations for you.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Spend borrow and tax, you can't expect much from a man that has never run anything.

But you can expect it from a shitty b-list actor, an ex-CIA chief who is partly responsible for the failure to predict the fall of the Soviet Union (whose father was a traitor), and a coke head who drove a baseball team and an oil company into the ground.

Oh boy... I welcome this comparison. Obama's deficit in his first year is close to Dubbya's in all eight. And he wants to add more on rather than try to fix the problem.

Do you really want to go down this path?

Only because the war spending was "off the books" and was not counted in the deficit numbers during the Bush administration.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
2) Is a Japan scenario really that bad? Japan is crowded, but in terms of standard of living I'm not sure how bad it is. Unemployment is typically low. On the other hand, entering a Japan-scenario feels like a last chance; i.e. what happens if you're in that situation and then hit another recession? We'll find out soon by watching Japan in this one, I suppose.

I'm no economic expert, but I can't help thinking a Public Debt-to-GDP ratio of 170-198% (depending on source) is not a good thing.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bush Legacy at work. Thanks Bush.

And it only took two replies for this response to be posted. Amazing.

Truth hurts, huh?

It would hurt if I were a Bush supporter, which I am not. When are you guys going to assign responsibility to the Democrats for anything? I know the answer to that -- you won't ever. There will always be some excuse.

And in the end, I don't care -- you partisan hacks can argue back and forth about who to blame. Instead of finger pointing and endless streams of sound bites, Washington needs to address the problems and fix them. I don't care if it is a Democrat or Republican that fixes the issues, as long as they get fixed.

I would say Obama's got at least another 6 months to a year before it's "his fault".

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Spend borrow and tax, you can't expect much from a man that has never run anything.

But you can expect it from a shitty b-list actor, an ex-CIA chief who is partly responsible for the failure to predict the fall of the Soviet Union (whose father was a traitor), and a coke head who drove a baseball team and an oil company into the ground.

Oh boy... I welcome this comparison. Obama's deficit in his first year is close to Dubbya's in all eight. And he wants to add more on rather than try to fix the problem.

Do you really want to go down this path?

Sure, why not? At least Obama's spending is meant to deal with an immediate problem rather than fighting foreign wars of choice. Also, we are in a deep recession. Like Japan of 1997, trying to fix your fiscal problems in a recession is a bad, bad idea. It may not make sense to you but Obama is thinking long term rather than just trying to clean up Bush's mess. The best time for government to spend money is now, when nobody else is.

You say this like Obama has DECREASED spending in the WOT.....are you that foolish?

 

[ccbadd]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Where was PJ when bush was spending 3-4 Trillion in Iraq? Hello? where oh where were you?? This is the norm now I guess.

It's really funny to see all the Repugs try to defend bush when he was spending trillions YET if a Dem spends TRILLIONS they all start freaking out. Oh well... The sooner it's bankrupt the better.

We have spent $700 billion in Iraq as of TODAY! And guess who also voted for funding it??? Try Obama whhile in the Senate along with TARP. Add the two together, $1.3 billion and look at the deficit before our current asswhole in charge and make an honest evaluation instead of fabricating faulse data to try to prove a false point.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bush Legacy at work. Thanks Bush.

And it only took two replies for this response to be posted. Amazing.

Truth hurts, huh?

It would hurt if I were a Bush supporter, which I am not. When are you guys going to assign responsibility to the Democrats for anything? I know the answer to that -- you won't ever. There will always be some excuse.

And in the end, I don't care -- you partisan hacks can argue back and forth about who to blame. Instead of finger pointing and endless streams of sound bites, Washington needs to address the problems and fix them. I don't care if it is a Democrat or Republican that fixes the issues, as long as they get fixed.

Yep. And in one or maybe two election cycles when the Dems fail to deliver their promises, and do nothing more than sink us deeper, they, too, will be elected out. Its the natural way of a republic. The GOP had their time, and now its the Dems time. They just seem to be on a fast track to debt accumilation compared to the GOP is all.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Spend borrow and tax, you can't expect much from a man that has never run anything.

But you can expect it from a shitty b-list actor, an ex-CIA chief who is partly responsible for the failure to predict the fall of the Soviet Union (whose father was a traitor), and a coke head who drove a baseball team and an oil company into the ground.

Oh boy... I welcome this comparison. Obama's deficit in his first year is close to Dubbya's in all eight. And he wants to add more on rather than try to fix the problem.

Do you really want to go down this path?

Only because the war spending was "off the books" and was not counted in the deficit numbers during the Bush administration.

That's partly true, but in the end what matters is the actual debt number and at the rate Obama is going he truly is putting to shame Bush's poor fiscals. Bush brought the debt stratospheric and Obama is blasting it well off into space.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Where was PJ when bush was spending 3-4 Trillion in Iraq? Hello? where oh where were you?? This is the norm now I guess.

It's really funny to see all the Repugs try to defend bush when he was spending trillions YET if a Dem spends TRILLIONS they all start freaking out. Oh well... The sooner it's bankrupt the better.

I don't know that I see anyone defending Iraq here but if they are, that is pretty bad. Iraq was an ill conceived, ridiculous engagement that was an enormous waste of money but more importantly, lives. Regardless, using the expense of that war to somehow justify the Democrats spending trillions on their own pet projects is also wrong.