• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama, McCain and Fiscal Disaster

ProfJohn

Lifer
From realclearpolitics.com

Federal budget policy is a dry subject with far too many numbers and charts, which makes it uninviting to most Americans. But the theme of the current budget story is one that could have come from a blockbuster summer movie: We are doomed. There is a fiscal asteroid on course to pulverize us, and no one is coming to the rescue.

The problem is simple and depressingly familiar. This year, federal spending will exceed federal revenue by more than $400 billion. Given the weak state of the economy, the deficit will get worse before it gets better.

Actually, it may never get better, because the current shortfall coincides with the start of the most dreaded fiscal event of all time: the retirement of the baby boomers, who will soon consume eye-popping amounts in Social Security and Medicare.

If that's not bad enough, Bruce Willis is not on hand to intercept the doomsday object before it arrives. Worse yet, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain wants the job.

The latest proof came when McCain unveiled his economic plan, in which he vows to eliminate the deficit in four years. His plan to balance the budget is simple: He plans to balance the budget. Exactly which programs he will trim to reach that goal are anyone's guess.

For someone with a reputation as a fearless foe of congressional earmarks and pork-barrel waste, McCain is amazingly timid in taking on the rest of the budget. About his only specific proposal is a one-year freeze in those discretionary programs that don't involve defense or veterans.

McCain doesn't say how much that would save, but it wouldn't be a lot. Those expenditures amount to only 17 percent of all federal outlays. Eighty-three percent of the budget would keep on growing. After a year, so would the other 17 percent.

He vows to follow up with "comprehensive spending controls." But promising to control spending in general means promising to control nothing in particular.

Just because voters will go along with a vague limit on total outlays doesn't mean they are willing to surrender funds going to them or their favorite causes. It's one thing to inform a toddler that he shouldn't eat too much candy. It's another to take the Tootsie Roll Pop out of his hand.

The Republican standard-bearer, however, acts as though the task will be easy. Among the methods offered in this plan: "Eliminate broken programs. The federal government itself admits that one in five programs do not perform." How about naming one? How about promising to pound a stake through its heart?

When it comes to spending, though, Obama is even worse. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation added up all the promises made by the two candidates and found that McCain's would cost taxpayers an extra $68 billion a year. Obama's add up to $344 billion a year.

The Illinois senator's pledge to get tough on unnecessary expenditures is as solid as cotton candy. Among his vows is to "slash earmarks to no greater than what they were in 2001," but earmarks make up less than 2 percent of the budget. Trying to restore fiscal discipline by cutting earmarks is like trying to lose weight by adopting an exercise program for your left index finger.

Obama claims he'll pay for all his new spending with new revenues and spending cuts. But like McCain, he has been hazy on the details. And it will be far easier for him to get Congress to approve new spending than to enact the measures needed to pay for it. Unless Obama is willing to take on his own party with the veto pen, we should expect four more years of irresponsible budgeting.

His only defense is that he would not have to make up as much lost revenue as his rival. The Tax Policy Center says his tax plan would cut federal receipts by $2.7 trillion over the next decade, compared with $3.6 trillion for McCain.

The details differ, but the basic picture is the same regardless of who wins: Washington will spend more, red ink will roll down like a mighty river, and we as a nation will continue to dodge the critical choices we face.

It would be nice to think some unexpected event will save us from the consequences of that folly. But as McCain is fond of saying, it's always darkest just before it goes totally black.
They both suck.

When are the American voters going to wake up and realize that we can't spend like this forever?

Or worse, when are the people who pay little in taxes going to realize that you can't raise taxes forever?

50% of the country pays virtually no taxes and a lot of them get hand outs from the government. It is going to be hard as hell to get them to understand that such a system can not last forever.
 
Actually I have been consistent in my calling for a balanced budget.

Last spring I was creating nearly monthly threads showing the shrinking deficit, until the economy went to hell.

What will be real fun is watching the people who run around attacking Bush for over spending run around and defend Obama when he does the same.
 
I have a problem with anyone who is fiscally irresponsible, when its my money they are spending even more so
 
I'm for a lot more fiscal responsibility.

Having said that, you're not in much of a position to lead the charge. You posted this right-wing author (Steve Chapman, who writes for several right-wing journals as well as his newspaper column) without proper attribution. Gee surprise, he uses a propaganda technique to look 'fair' by criticizing both, while coincidentally McCain's problem is $68B while Obama's is $344B.

That's a little like "They both suck. McCain will bring huge unnecessary wars, and Obama has that embarrassing former pastor."

In fact, I just skimmed the column, and even saw what appears to be a 'hidden' reference to Obama's race:

But as McCain is fond of saying, it's always darkest just before it goes totally black.

Anyway, where were you and the meda in 1992 telling us Clinton would bring a lot more fiscal responsibility? Where were you and the media in 2000 warning us about Bush?

We all know things that will help with fiscal responsibility: the public caring, leadership, systemic fixes to reduce the role of money in campaigns.

When I see you pushing the Democrats' efforts to reduce the role for lobbyists, then I'll see you actually trying to help on the issue, not sneak in an anti-Obama hit piece.
 
Originally posted by: Dari
STFU. You had no problem when Bush and Reagan did it but now it's suddenly a problem for you?

You have no clue to the consistency of Prof John`s opinions and posting!
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Actually I have been consistent in my calling for a balanced budget.

Last spring I was creating nearly monthly threads showing the shrinking deficit, until the economy went to hell.

What will be real fun is watching the people who run around attacking Bush for over spending run around and defend Obama when he does the same.

McCain can't name anything because inevitably it would include things like welfare, and that is political suicide. Obama, for the same reason.
 
I'm basically socially liberal (a balance of protection of individual freedoms and the expectation that the government will do all reasonably possible for the best of the general good) and fiscally conservative. (Heck, my forefathers have been in New Englander since the pilgrim days, and if there is one thing us New Englanders know it's being cheap). My undergraduate degree (many years ago) was in economics which I have followed since then as a hobby.

I would not rank either Obama or McCain as a potential economic disaster. My personal analysis of McCain is that he is an economic simpleton who follows whatever direction his lobbyist advisors tell him, with barely any consistent logic except the conventional GOP mantra about less governmental interference and regulation. But if McCain is elected Congress will probably stand up to him more, greatly limiting the additional damage he can do to the economy.

Obama I see as cut from pretty much the same economic cloth as Bill Clinton, who (in my view) was probably the most fiscally effect and responsible President we have had in my lifetime. So-called conservatives are more upset that Obama will be diverting funds from corporate welfare than any specifics of his proposals.

That said, either Obama or McCain will be heads and shoulders above PJ's fav, GW Bush, who was an utter economic disaster. Bush combined the worst of Reagan's trickle down economics with budget busting spending exceeding even the LBJ years. Bush was "spend and spend" without the slighest regard for the country's future.

The GOP cliche of "tax and spend" Democrats is vastly overblown-more akin to the boogeyman under a child's bed.
 
The faster they spend the faster they run the budget into the ground, the faster these goddamn social programs HAVE to be cut. Spend and spend some more I say. The only way we'll see meaningful reform in this country is when theres no more money to be spent.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The beautiful thing about America is that it will survive in spite of itself.

Even Rome fell. While it's cute to assume America is too wonderful to collapse, history says otherwise. We're busy engineering our own fiscal destruction.
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
I'm basically socially liberal (a balance of protection of individual freedoms and the expectation that the government will do all reasonably possible for the best of the general good) and fiscally conservative. (Heck, my forefathers have been in New Englander since the pilgrim days, and if there is one thing us New Englanders know it's being cheap). My undergraduate degree (many years ago) was in economics which I have followed since then as a hobby.

I would not rank either Obama or McCain as a potential economic disaster. My personal analysis of McCain is that he is an economic simpleton who follows whatever direction his lobbyist advisors tell him, with barely any consistent logic except the conventional GOP mantra about less governmental interference and regulation. But if McCain is elected Congress will probably stand up to him more, greatly limiting the additional damage he can do to the economy.

Obama I see as cut from pretty much the same economic cloth as Bill Clinton, who (in my view) was probably the most fiscally effect and responsible President we have had in my lifetime. So-called conservatives are more upset that Obama will be diverting funds from corporate welfare than any specifics of his proposals.

That said, either Obama or McCain will be heads and shoulders above PJ's fav, GW Bush, who was an utter economic disaster. Bush combined the worst of Reagan's trickle down economics with budget busting spending exceeding even the LBJ years. Bush was "spend and spend" without the slighest regard for the country's future.

The GOP cliche of "tax and spend" Democrats is vastly overblown-more akin to the boogeyman under a child's bed.

WSJ: Obama's economic plan is the Nanny State on Steroids.

Sounds like a boogeyman all right, an all too real one.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
In fact, I just skimmed the column, and even saw what appears to be a 'hidden' reference to Obama's race:

But as McCain is fond of saying, it's always darkest just before it goes totally black.

:roll: Are you really that stupid?

Sheesh, why is it that you leftists always try to use the "i can't prove it but I know it's there - race card"
 
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: Dari
STFU. You had no problem when Bush and Reagan did it but now it's suddenly a problem for you?

You have no clue to the consistency of Prof John`s opinions and posting!

I never read him rail against the current administration when it comes to spending. Now, all of a sudden, it's a problem? You may be fooled but I'm not.
 
Craig!!!!! Get it through your thick skull that Clinton was not talking about fiscal responsibility when he ran for President. He talked a little about shrinking the deficit, but he NEVER talked about a balanced budget. If you don't believe me then find me a quote pre-1994 in which Clinton talks about balancing the budget.

Clinton also talked about a middle class tax CUT!!!! Yes, Clinton wanted to cut taxes, or so he said.

I also don't remember the media 'warning' us about Bush.

Finally, I have no clue who the guy who wrote this is. Instead of attacking him though can you refute his points? His McCain $68B Obama $334B stats come from an outside source and yet you want us to believe he is not being 'fair' because he quotes them?

You need to get out of San Francisco, it's warped your brain.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig!!!!! Get it through your thick skull that Clinton was not talking about fiscal responsibility when he ran for President. He talked a little about shrinking the deficit, but he NEVER talked about a balanced budget. If you don't believe me then find me a quote pre-1994 in which Clinton talks about balancing the budget.

Clinton also talked about a middle class tax CUT!!!! Yes, Clinton wanted to cut taxes, or so he said.

I also don't remember the media 'warning' us about Bush.

Finally, I have no clue who the guy who wrote this is. Instead of attacking him though can you refute his points? His McCain $68B Obama $334B stats come from an outside source and yet you want us to believe he is not being 'fair' because he quotes them?

You need to get out of San Francisco, it's warped your brain.

Does McCain's $68B plan include his 'in it to win it' and '100 years' regarding Iraq?
 
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: Dari
STFU. You had no problem when Bush and Reagan did it but now it's suddenly a problem for you?

You have no clue to the consistency of Prof John`s opinions and posting!
I never read him rail against the current administration when it comes to spending. Now, all of a sudden, it's a problem? You may be fooled but I'm not.
Perhaps you need to work on your reading skills then.

Quotes from me about Bush's spending:
"Bush has SUCKED when it comes to spending. I am first and foremost a fiscal conservative, therefore Bush has pretty much sucked as President."

"There is no doubt that Bush has sucked at controlling spending over the past 7 years, but the Democrats are showing no signs at all of doing a better job."

"Where did I 'excuse' Bush for his spending?

Didn't even mention Bush in this thread. And you should know that spending is the one thing that conseratitives are most annoyed about when it comes to Bush. Bush's record on spending SUCKS. "

"Bush has sucked as far as size of government goes..."

"Ok... we all agree that Bush sucks when it comes to growth in spending. "

"And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks. "

Want to see them in threads? Go to advance search type in "bush spending" and Author "profjohn" select "messages" and hit search.

BTW I am sure you will read this and realize you were wrong and will promptly apologize :roll:
 
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig!!!!! Get it through your thick skull that Clinton was not talking about fiscal responsibility when he ran for President. He talked a little about shrinking the deficit, but he NEVER talked about a balanced budget. If you don't believe me then find me a quote pre-1994 in which Clinton talks about balancing the budget.

Clinton also talked about a middle class tax CUT!!!! Yes, Clinton wanted to cut taxes, or so he said.

I also don't remember the media 'warning' us about Bush.

Finally, I have no clue who the guy who wrote this is. Instead of attacking him though can you refute his points? His McCain $68B Obama $334B stats come from an outside source and yet you want us to believe he is not being 'fair' because he quotes them?

You need to get out of San Francisco, it's warped your brain.
Does McCain's $68B plan include his 'in it to win it' and '100 years' regarding Iraq?
The $68B is the amount in additional spending beyond what we spend today. Therefore you would not include the 100 years in Iraq since we are already spending money on that. But even if you included Iraq spending that would only add another $100 billion a year which puts him at $168B vs. Obama and $334B. Which means he would still be spending less than half of what Obama wants to spend.
 
Please Non Prof John, you have no right to talk about fiscal conservatism when you have been a big Reagan and GWB shill. In just eight short years GWB has added somewhere between 3.6 to four trillion to our national debt, and much of that spending has been on programs that do nothing to long terms benefit the country.

As to your assertion that the media has done nothing to warn about GWB is just bullshit, but if you don't read, its just not our fault. And now that the GWB administration gets close to done and over, you are suddenly waking up to the fact that GWB&co and the Republican congress has been spending money like drunken sailors and tossing most of it on off budget spending that goes right on the national debt. WE have been telling you that for years and you ignored us, and now you are just beyond pathetic.

As it is, it took 12 years of fidcal sanity under GHB and Clinton to recover from the spend and borrow of Ronald Reagan, we even had a balanced budget for two years, and in just one short year GWB placed us right back in to the red as he went reddder and redder thereafter. And while everyone was screaming about the phony off budget accounting, PJ dozed on in denial, and the only time you ever woke up, you were defending GWB as a fiscal conservative, and now you are back implying its the democrats fault.
 
Lemon, see my post above when I talk about Bush and spending.

I supported Bush because no matter how bad he may have been on spending he would still be better than Gore or Kerry.

Same with McCain v. Obama. You can have McCain's plan to spend $68B more per year or Obama's plan to spend $344B more per year. McCain's plan may suck, but it is still a LOT better than Obama's.
 
Many posters here need to come to grips with the fact that the government cannot influence the vast majority of people to be more fiscally responsible. Taking away the hand outs and entitlement programs will do one thing and one thing only. It will make these irresponsible people very desperate. It will not make them more responsible. It will not make them go out and get a job if they are currently choosing to be unemployed. It will not make them spend less money on things they do not need because there is very little fat for them to cut in the vast majority of cases. It will not make them stop having sex. It will not make them use condoms or BC. It will not make stop popping out babies.

Desperation leads to desperate action. Most of the time, this means crime. It means stealing. It means killing. It means neglecting the rights and freedoms of others in general including those within their own family even more than they already do. It means their kids have an even lesser chance of leading a life as an adult which is better than their parents and hopefully will not require any kind of government handout. It means a whole lot of things that most of us would prefer to not be exposed to and if you think that somehow your life will not be impacted by it then you got another thing coming. I am very glad that I pay to prevent that sort of thing from impacting my life. Obviously I would prefer to not have to pay for it and for my life to magically not be impacted by the result, but I realize that I do not have a choice.

I also realize that there are more effective ways to improve our current state. I realize these programs could use some revision in order to be more effective. I realize that the programs themselves could be revised in such a way which could result in motivating those who are on them to get off even if it only effects 5%-10% more of these people. I support many kinds of revisions which have been presented here in the past but the whole idea that our solution lies within cutting these programs down to virtually nothing is absolutely ludicrous.



 
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Many posters here need to come to grips with the fact that the government cannot influence the vast majority of people to be more fiscally responsible. Taking away the hand outs and entitlement programs will do one thing and one thing only. It will make these irresponsible people very desperate. It will not make them more responsible. It will not make them go out and get a job if they are currently choosing to be unemployed. It will not make them spend less money on things they do not need because there is very little fat for them to cut in the vast majority of cases. It will not make them stop having sex. It will not make them use condoms or BC. It will not make stop popping out babies.

Desperation leads to desperate action. Most of the time, this means crime. It means stealing. It means killing. It means neglecting the rights and freedoms of others in general including those within their own family even more than they already do. It means their kids have an even lesser chance of leading a life as an adult which is better than their parents and hopefully will not require any kind of government handout. It means a whole lot of things that most of us would prefer to not be exposed to and if you think that somehow your life will not be impacted by it then you got another thing coming. I am very glad that I pay to prevent that sort of thing from impacting my life. Obviously I would prefer to not have to pay for it and for my life to magically not be impacted by the result, but I realize that I do not have a choice.

I also realize that there are more effective ways to improve our current state. I realize these programs could use some revision in order to be more effective. I realize that the programs themselves could be revised in such a way which could result in motivating those who are on them to get off even if it only effects 5%-10% more of these people. I support many kinds of revisions which have been presented here in the past but the whole idea that our solution lies within cutting these programs down to virtually nothing is absolutely ludicrous.

You do understand that our country existed for well over 100 years prior to the enactment of these relatively recent and vast federal entitlement programs, don't you? And do you think crime has gone down by huge percentages since then?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Lemon, see my post above when I talk about Bush and spending.

I supported Bush because no matter how bad he may have been on spending he would still be better than Gore or Kerry.

Same with McCain v. Obama. You can have McCain's plan to spend $68B more per year or Obama's plan to spend $344B more per year. McCain's plan may suck, but it is still a LOT better than Obama's.

You have no credibility here, PJ. We all know that you'd support the Republican candidate even if he promised to quadruple spending, you'd just find yet another excuse to justify it. This is the price you pay for all your intellectual dishonesty.
Case in point, when did you finally admit that Obama even had a plan? Just yesterday, you claimed he didn't. And while you can finally admit that McCain does intend to increase spending, you ignore the fact here that he also intends to continue cutting taxes (and thus revenue) as well, continuing the Bush's trend of increasing deficit, debt, and thus fiscal irresponsibility. It's just like balancing a checkbook, remember?
 
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The beautiful thing about America is that it will survive in spite of itself.

Even Rome fell. While it's cute to assume America is too wonderful to collapse, history says otherwise. We're busy engineering our own fiscal destruction.

Why do people try to tie the success/failure of a government to individual people? It doesn't work like that. The fed can go down in economic flames... people will still succeed.
 
Back
Top