Obama to propose a $3.8 trillion budget tomorrow. $1.6 trillion deficit this year

[woolfe9999]

I wish politics wouldn't punish leaders who are responsible and take good care of our country.

It's the American people who are responsible. In Obama's debate with the House GOP, he made some comments about Rep. Ryan's plan to cut Medicare which I think everyone needs to listen to closely. He basically said that the two parties cannot have a serious discussion about deficit reduction because neither party wants to take ownership of the hard choices which must be made, and both are too willing to blame the other side for making those choices in order to win political browny points.

If there was no demand for such antics, there would be no supply. It's as simple as that.

In a situation like this, I think you can complain about the high budget deficit, but FFS don't complain about the tax hikes for high wage earners. Everything Obama does to reduce the deficit should be applauded even though it isn't near enough yet. Do we really want to solve this deficit problem or are we more interested in getting a "gotcha" on Obama. Which is it, deficit reduction or political games?

- wolf

 

[Elias824]

only 'negative' if we're well under full employment. what if we're actually at full employment now and this is just how it's supposed to be? what if all the positive economic action we've had for the last xx number of years have just been a house of cards built on .gov borrowing and banks making shit up?

Its a transition from industrial to post industrial society, we no longer need to hire people to work because we have robotics and computers to do everybody's job now. Weve become so efficent weve put ourselves out of work, well except for the engineers and ceo's.

 

[Craig234]

It took GWB 8 years to accumulate 3 trillion in debt through deficit spending.
Obama will have accomplished the same figure in less than 2 years.

Similarly, the US military casualties under Coolidge and Hoover were a tiny fraction of those under FDR.

FDR was lousy for all the casualties!

 

[OutHouse]

The political battle that has unfolded over the last 10 years is all about raising taxes. EVERYONE knows that we need more revenue. That can't be argued. If raising taxes is our only option, the winning scenerio for the battle is to get the other party to do the raising.

how about cutting spending???? at what point in time are you going to get pissed about the amount of taxes you pay? 50% 75% how about 100% of your money goes towards taxes? when does it end?

 

[werepossum]

It's the American people who are responsible. In Obama's debate with the House GOP, he made some comments about Rep. Ryan's plan to cut Medicare which I think everyone needs to listen to closely. He basically said that the two parties cannot have a serious discussion about deficit reduction because neither party wants to take ownership of the hard choices which must be made, and both are too willing to blame the other side for making those choices in order to win political browny points.

If there was no demand for such antics, there would be no supply. It's as simple as that.

In a situation like this, I think you can complain about the high budget deficit, but FFS don't complain about the tax hikes for high wage earners. Everything Obama does to reduce the deficit should be applauded even though it isn't near enough yet. Do we really want to solve this deficit problem or are we more interested in getting a "gotcha" on Obama. Which is it, deficit reduction or political games?

- wolf

That's a false choice. He is drastically raising federal spending, even more so than he will recoup by raising taxes on the wealthy (i.e. those with jobs.) I get no credit for reducing the number of times you get hit if I'm the one hitting you, savvy? IF he were actually cutting spending and the economy and especially unemployment were materially improving, then I would support modest tax increases such as letting the Bush tax cuts expire, especially as an alternative to increasing interest rates as a means of slowing growth to prevent inflation. As it stands Obama is leading the charge off the spending cliff and increasing taxes on everyone (well, on everyone productive) while unemployment is increasing.

 

[woolfe9999]

Similarly, the US military casualties under Coolidge and Hoover were a tiny fraction of those under FDR.

FDR was lousy for all the casualties!

You might also add that Patranus' number is incorrect. Bush racked up closer to $4.4 trillion in debt, not 3 trillion. In any event, Bush had 1 year of a shalllow recession at the end of his term to shrink the tax base. Obama has had one year of a deep recession, which will extend to two years, and the attendant need to stimulate the economy.

The comparisons are ludicrous, and of course of the point is never to propose a constructive solution.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

You might also add that Patranus' number is incorrect. Bush racked up closer to $4.4 trillion in debt, not 3 trillion. In any event, Bush had 1 year of a shalllow recession at the end of his term to shrink the tax base. Obama has had one year of a deep recession, which will extend to two years, and the attendant need to stimulate the economy.

The comparisons are ludicrous, and of course of the point is never to propose a constructive solution.

- wolf

Yeah, it's not like anything happened to the economy while Bush was president. Especially nothing happened in 2001. Nope, nothing at all. September was particularly quiet. And it's not like the sharpest debts under Bush happened when the Democrats controlled Congress. And it's certainly not true that Congress spends money, not the president. Nope, it's clear that Bush is Lex Luther for his insane spending and Obama is Superman for his, um, insane spending.

Seriously, dude, WTF? That's a McCraigwen post if I ever saw one.

 

[woolfe9999]

That's a false choice. He is drastically raising federal spending, even more so than he will recoup by raising taxes on the wealthy (i.e. those with jobs.) I get no credit for reducing the number of times you get hit if I'm the one hitting you, savvy? IF he were actually cutting spending and the economy and especially unemployment were materially improving, then I would support modest tax increases such as letting the Bush tax cuts expire, especially as an alternative to increasing interest rates as a means of slowing growth to prevent inflation. As it stands Obama is leading the charge off the spending cliff and increasing taxes on everyone (well, on everyone productive) while unemployment is increasing.

Let's be factually correct here and put everything into context. We had a large stimulus bill which we would not have had absent the recession, and by the way that bill contains tax cuts for the middle class that apply both last year and this. And of course the recession and its shrinking of the tax base is a huge factor in why the deficit is expanding. Obama believes that spending cannot be cut either last year or this because doing so would harm the economic recovery. You are free to disagree with that conclusion and suggest that massive cuts should be made right now while unemployment remains high.

I don't get what you mean by increasing taxes on "everyone productive." You are suggesting that everyone "productive" makes $250k per year or more? What is this, trickle down economics again? I'm confused, if you are such a big republican, why didn't you vote for McCain? Do people who make less than $250K not spend their money in the private sector, purchasing goods and services?

Look, I wouldn't mind seeing the tax hike put over until next year because of the present economic circumstances but unfortunately the Bush tax cut is set to expire this year rather than next. And next year, after November, Obama may not be able to get it to expire since the replublicans oppose any sort of tax hike in any situation whatsoever, without exception.

The real question here is not whether you agree or disagree with what Obama is doing for this year, it is whether you are willing to agree to whatever is necessary to solve the problem in the near term. Like it or lump it, he is saying that serious deficit reduction is not feasible until next year. When the time comes, will you be able to agree to whatever it takes to solve this problem? And by "you," I mean anyone reading this. I hear a lot of moaning and gnashing of teeth about whatever Obama does right now, whether it is a tax hike for high wage earning, short term increases in government spending to stimulate the economic, taxing banks to remove the TARP red ink, even cutting out the moon landing. So what happens next year if he is proposing big spending cuts? Are the repubs going to give him a pass on that and admit that this is what needs to be done, or are they going to make more political hey over it?

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, it's not like anything happened to the economy while Bush was president.

No, nothing like the 'biggest threat since the great depression' happened. A recession did.

Especially nothing happened in 2001. Nope, nothing at all. September was particularly quiet.

Dishonest sacracm doesn't turn the 2001 ression that was far smaller than the later meltdown into the same thing.

And it's not like the sharpest debts under Bush happened when the Democrats controlled Congress.

Let's see - that was during the economic meltdown. Oops.

But we can look at the REPUBLICAN congress under REPUBLICAN Bush spending and deficit after Clinton whittled the deficit down to 0, lewer every year.

And it's certainly not true that Congress spends money, not the president.

As has been shown many times, the President has a major influence on spencing. Hence 12 big defcits years with Reagan/Bush 41, 8 years of reduction every year to zero under Clinton, and then way back up evey year under Bush. And all the increased 'securirty' and 'war' spending under Bush after 9/11 was reported to total 30% of the increase.

Nope, it's clear that Bush is Lex Luther for his insane spending and Obama is Superman for his, um, insane spending.

Yes, Bush spent irresponsibly during better econmic times and Obama had tospend a lot to save the economy, as economists said, faced with the systemic meltdown.

Not everything Bush did was a mistake - some tax cuts were positive, but he weighted them too heavily to help the rich instead of where they would be help the economy and the country more.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yeah, it's not like anything happened to the economy while Bush was president. Especially nothing happened in 2001. Nope, nothing at all. September was particularly quiet. And it's not like the sharpest debts under Bush happened when the Democrats controlled Congress. And it's certainly not true that Congress spends money, not the president. Nope, it's clear that Bush is Lex Luther for his insane spending and Obama is Superman for his, um, insane spending.

Seriously, dude, WTF? That's a McCraigwen post if I ever saw one.

The recession when Bush took office was very shallow. It wasn't a tenth of what is happening now. It was mostly a slump in the stock market from the tech sector and dot.com bubble bursting which had relatively shallow effects on the overall economy.

Have you taken a look at WHY the deficit went up under Bush? It's just math dude. It was 2 unfunded foreign wars, 1 unfuded new Medicare entitlement, 2 tax cuts without any spending cuts to go with them, and a recession in his last year which expanded it disproportionately. Which of those things do you want to peg to the dems? Certainly there were dems who voted for some of those things, but really, I am not being biased here. I'm sticking to the facts. There is some shared blame here, the operative word being SHARED. And that same concept applies when analyzing what is going on right now under Obama.

- wolf

 

[FerrelGeek]

Whether the dems want to admit it or not, this says it all...

 

[werepossum]

whether the dems want to admit it or not, this says it all...

lmao!

 

[Sclamoz]

Whether the dems want to admit it or not, this says it all...

Well maybe not all.

 

[werepossum]

Well maybe not all.

Chart 16,972 in the "Why my insane spending is different" campaign.

Oh look, there IS a man behind the curtain. A man with enormous ears, reading a book of Marx.

 

[woolfe9999]

Chart 16,972 in the "Why my insane spending is different" campaign.

Oh look, there IS a man behind the curtain. A man with enormous ears, reading a book of Marx.

Where exactly is the insane spending? You want to break down what this insane spending consists of, and explain which Marxist projects the spending is going for. Please be very specific as to which doctrines of Karl Marx undergird the idea of economic stimulus during a recession.

The facts are these. Bush had 2 unfunded wars. Both are still going on. Bush passed a new entitlement. It is still in effect. Bush had 2 tax cuts. Both are still in effect. A recession occurred at the end of Bush's second term. It is still in effect. The recession shrank the tax base slightly in the first 3 quarters of '08, and heavily through 09.

Obama passed a $750 billion stimulus bill to combat the recession. Obama has proposed some discretionary spending increases for this year, also to combat the recession, though this pales in comparison to the stimulus outlay.

Those are facts. Tell me which facts are incorrect. You want to refute any of this, or are you more interested in making cracks about Obama's anatomy, and making ludicrous ideological claims?

- wolf

 

[Zebo]

How long will the marketplace finance massive deficit spending before demanding significantly higher yields? How will 50%+ interest rates help 75% of Americans without savings?

People say Taxes are a drain on the economy, how about interest payments to bailed out bonused bankers and foreigners which we get nothing for?

People, liberals, think this deficit spending gets to common man - when every study I've seen from any government project those already rich contractor gets ~80% of the funds, how does this help?

 

[werepossum]

Where exactly is the insane spending? You want to break down what this insane spending consists of, and explain which Marxist projects the spending is going for. Please be very specific as to which doctrines of Karl Marx undergird the idea of economic stimulus during a recession.

The facts are these. Bush had 2 unfunded wars. Both are still going on. Bush passed a new entitlement. It is still in effect. Bush had 2 tax cuts. Both are still in effect. A recession occurred at the end of Bush's second term. It is still in effect. The recession shrank the tax base slightly in the first 3 quarters of '08, and heavily through 09.

Obama passed a $750 billion stimulus bill to combat the recession. Obama has proposed some discretionary spending increases for this year, also to combat the recession, though this pales in comparison to the stimulus outlay.

Those are facts. Tell me which facts are incorrect. You want to refute any of this, or are you more interested in making cracks about Obama's anatomy, and making ludicrous ideological claims?

- wolf

Bush passes entitlements and Obama spends to "combat the recession". Right.

As for Marxist policies:
Take over health care as a government policy. Obama himself has said numerous times he is a proponent of a single payer system.

Take over school loans.

Cap and trade - the government decides how much CO2 you should be allowed to emit and requires you to purchase indulgences from a federally approved snake oi - sorry, carbon offset salesman for the rest. (By the way, notice his proposed budget includes billions in cap-and-trade taxes, that supposedly dead concept?)

Take over banks.

Take over GM and Chrysler, ignoring law to make unions whole while shafting secured bond holders. (Power to the people!)

Raise taxes and redistribute wealth for no better reason that one person earns more than another.

None of that sounds Marxist to you? The idea that government should own, or failing that manage, the means of production? The idea that wealth belongs "to the people" and government's job is to fairly redistribute it? If not - what WOULD sound Marxist?

To be fair, I very much opposed Bush's prescription drug entitlement. That too is socialism. It's one thing to subsidize medical care because someone honestly can't afford it, but completely another to subsidize medical care for a whole group simply because they reach a certain age.

However, everything you list - two wars, prescription drugs, tax cuts - was in place during Bush's term as well. You might want to look up 9/11 and the World Trade Center attacks as well; something tickling my memory seems to indicate a negative effect on the economy there. The new spending - about 30% higher - is in literally hundreds of new programs and projects. You say this is to "combat the recession", but Obama's projections show these deficits continuing and increasing over the next decade. I suppose he is planning for the recession to continue as long as needed. But I'm sure that is Bush's fault too.

 

[Ozoned]

Take over school loans.

This would make an excellent debate topic. The impact of it.....

 

[sandorski]

Bush passes entitlements and Obama spends to "combat the recession". Right.

As for Marxist policies:
Take over health care as a government policy. Obama himself has said numerous times he is a proponent of a single payer system.

Take over school loans.

Cap and trade - the government decides how much CO2 you should be allowed to emit and requires you to purchase indulgences from a federally approved snake oi - sorry, carbon offset salesman for the rest. (By the way, notice his proposed budget includes billions in cap-and-trade taxes, that supposedly dead concept?)

Take over banks.

Take over GM and Chrysler, ignoring law to make unions whole while shafting secured bond holders. (Power to the people!)

Raise taxes and redistribute wealth for no better reason that one person earns more than another.

None of that sounds Marxist to you? The idea that government should own, or failing that manage, the means of production? The idea that wealth belongs "to the people" and government's job is to fairly redistribute it? If not - what WOULD sound Marxist?

To be fair, I very much opposed Bush's prescription drug entitlement. That too is socialism. It's one thing to subsidize medical care because someone honestly can't afford it, but completely another to subsidize medical care for a whole group simply because they reach a certain age.

However, everything you list - two wars, prescription drugs, tax cuts - was in place during Bush's term as well. You might want to look up 9/11 and the World Trade Center attacks as well; something tickling my memory seems to indicate a negative effect on the economy there. The new spending - about 30% higher - is in literally hundreds of new programs and projects. You say this is to "combat the recession", but Obama's projections show these deficits continuing and increasing over the next decade. I suppose he is planning for the recession to continue as long as needed. But I'm sure that is Bush's fault too.

You don't know what a Marxist is.

 

[woolfe9999]

Bush passes entitlements and Obama spends to "combat the recession". Right.

As for Marxist policies:
Take over health care as a government policy. Obama himself has said numerous times he is a proponent of a single payer system.

Take over school loans.

Cap and trade - the government decides how much CO2 you should be allowed to emit and requires you to purchase indulgences from a federally approved snake oi - sorry, carbon offset salesman for the rest. (By the way, notice his proposed budget includes billions in cap-and-trade taxes, that supposedly dead concept?)

Take over banks.

Take over GM and Chrysler, ignoring law to make unions whole while shafting secured bond holders. (Power to the people!)

Raise taxes and redistribute wealth for no better reason that one person earns more than another.

None of that sounds Marxist to you? The idea that government should own, or failing that manage, the means of production? The idea that wealth belongs "to the people" and government's job is to fairly redistribute it? If not - what WOULD sound Marxist?

To be fair, I very much opposed Bush's prescription drug entitlement. That too is socialism. It's one thing to subsidize medical care because someone honestly can't afford it, but completely another to subsidize medical care for a whole group simply because they reach a certain age.

However, everything you list - two wars, prescription drugs, tax cuts - was in place during Bush's term as well. You might want to look up 9/11 and the World Trade Center attacks as well; something tickling my memory seems to indicate a negative effect on the economy there. The new spending - about 30% higher - is in literally hundreds of new programs and projects. You say this is to "combat the recession", but Obama's projections show these deficits continuing and increasing over the next decade. I suppose he is planning for the recession to continue as long as needed. But I'm sure that is Bush's fault too.

I asked which Marxist programs Obama is spending money on. The point here is that you are suggesting that we are having a deficit expansion because Obama is somehow a "Marxist," No, Obama's SPENDING is Keynesian, not Marxist. You are perfectly free to disagree with Keynesian economics, even vehmently so, but labelling it "Marxist" is a cheap slur. While I understand that distictions between different types of leftism can be difficult for those not on the left, I think the distinctions are legitimate and need to be pointed out.

The problem with projected budget numbers is that these projections always assume that NOTHING FURTHER will done along the way to reduce the deficit. Obama has already said he wants to reform both entitlements, and by reform, he means that the entitlements must pay for themselves on a balance sheet. He means cutting them. Projecting out a deficit over 10 years based on a stimulatory budget proposed at the moment of a recession is a classic snapshot fallacy. Are you aware that budget projections when Clinton took office suggested that the government would be bankrupt by 1995?

Your examples of Marxism at work:

Calling Obama a "Marxist" based on a healthcare plan he said he supported in the past rather than the one he has actually proposed while in office? Fascinating.

Cap and trade. We can differ on this one, but it isn't a spending program. If you think all taxes are "Marxist," then so be it. It['s certainly a lefty idea. I'll give you that much.

Taking over banks? For all of the bank takeover, he couldn't prevent massive bonus payouts and being accused of siding with Wall Street. Perhaps you mean proposed banking regulations. If so, I think you are on the wrong side of this issue.

Auto takeover? Is that a permanent condition? Do you seriously think that Obama wants the responsibility of running failed auto companies? We infused them with cash so they wouldn't go under and took a stake because we had to have some way of getting tax payer money back.

Raise taxes and redistribute wealth? We have a progressive tax system. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest; Bush lowered them; Obama wants to raise them back. Is there some sort of middle ground here ideologically where you are not a Marxist because you support 3% higher income on wealthier people than does the opposition party? Are the replubicans great free marketeers who straunchly oppose the evil Marxists because they want it 3% lower? Give me a break.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

I asked which Marxist programs Obama is spending money on. The point here is that you are suggesting that we are having a deficit expansion because Obama is somehow a "Marxist," No, Obama's SPENDING is Keynesian, not Marxist. You are perfectly free to disagree with Keynesian economics, even vehmently so, but labelling it "Marxist" is a cheap slur. While I understand that distictions between different types of leftism can be difficult for those not on the left, I think the distinctions are legitimate and need to be pointed out.

The problem with projected budget numbers is that these projections always assume that NOTHING FURTHER will done along the way to reduce the deficit. Obama has already said he wants to reform both entitlements, and by reform, he means that the entitlements must pay for themselves on a balance sheet. He means cutting them. Projecting out a deficit over 10 years based on a stimulatory budget proposed at the moment of a recession is a classic snapshot fallacy. Are you aware that budget projections when Clinton took office suggested that the government would be bankrupt by 1995?

Your examples of Marxism at work:

Calling Obama a "Marxist" based on a healthcare plan he said he supported in the past rather than the one he has actually proposed while in office? Fascinating.

Cap and trade. We can differ on this one, but it isn't a spending program. If you think all taxes are "Marxist," then so be it. It['s certainly a lefty idea. I'll give you that much.

Taking over banks? For all of the bank takeover, he couldn't prevent massive bonus payouts and being accused of siding with Wall Street. Perhaps you mean proposed banking regulations. If so, I think you are on the wrong side of this issue.

Auto takeover? Is that a permanent condition? Do you seriously think that Obama wants the responsibility of running failed auto companies? We infused them with cash so they wouldn't go under and took a stake because we had to have some way of getting tax payer money back.

Raise taxes and redistribute wealth? We have a progressive tax system. Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest; Bush lowered them; Obama wants to raise them back. Is there some sort of middle ground here ideologically where you are not a Marxist because you support 3% higher income on wealthier people than does the opposition party? Are the replubicans great free marketeers who straunchly oppose the evil Marxists because they want it 3% lower? Give me a break.

- wolf

Obama is on tape defending the proposed Democrat health care program (the Pelosi plan in the House, actually) as the fastest way to a single payer system. Given that and his stated preference for a single payer system, are we to accept that these bills are now all he wants?

When he takes partial ownership of corporations rather than making loans, then yes, I assume he wants to do so. I especially assume this when he takes a program specifically constituted to do one thing, such as TARP designed for buying up and liquidating toxic assets, and instead uses it to take partial ownership of the affected companies. When both paths lead to solvency but his path leaves the toxic assets in place and him appointing management and controlling the companies, should I really believe he did that against his will?

For the record, taxes aren't inherently Marxist, although a strongly progressive income tax is one of Marx's tenets. Taxes provide income for public needs. However taxes specifically to redistribute income, as Obama has consistently stated he wishes to do, is certainly a Marxist idea. You guys like to act like "Marxist" is some kind of slur or scare word; it isn't. It is a broad world view that government should control the means of production and redistribute wealth to make things fair. Taken to its logical extreme you have North Korea, where the government owns everything and everyone. Taken in smaller doses you have Denmark, where government takes a huge chunk of everyone's income and redistributes it more evenly, providing everyone with what it thinks they need. Two very different societies, but both are expressions of Marxist philosophy, just to different levels.