Obama's new budget to cut deficit in half

[charrison]

Oh you mean when Reagan was Prez?

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic,

But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he, Reagan, requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.
So why do Republicans repeat this lie so often? Silly question, isn't it.

Damm facts, always making republicans look bad and calling out their lies as well. :awe:

You are right facts are trickly. Congress was controlled by democrats the entire time reagan was in office. Replblicans had a slim majority in the senate his first term.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

nice try at twisting the facts.

 

[JSt0rm]

Half of Obama's Deficit is still three times larger than Bush's largest deficit, lol.

What was the deficit on bushes last year? I seem to remember 1.5 trillion?

 

[Vette73]

You are right facts are trickly. Congress was controlled by democrats the entire time reagan was in office. Replblicans had a slim majority in the senate his first term.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

nice try at twisting the facts.

FACEPALM.

False. Dems only had majority of Congress for 2 years while Reagan was prez.

Congress = House + Senate

R's had control of the senate for 6 years while Reagan was prez.
Dems had about 60% majority in the house but Southern D's voted with reagan more than not. That and there is no filibuster in the house.

Thats not twisting, thats just facts.

 

[sandorski]

And the biggest joke of them all:

It isn't.

 

[werepossum]

FACEPALM.

False. Dems only had majority of Congress for 2 years while Reagan was prez.

Congress = House + Senate

R's had control of the senate for 6 years while Reagan was prez.
Dems had about 60% majority in the house but Southern D's voted with reagan more than not. That and there is no filibuster in the house so Majority has less power then the Senate.

Thats not twisting, thats just facts.

Obviously you fail to understand the filibuster; it empowers the minority, not the majority. In the House, the majority is free to do anything for which it can keep its own party's votes. In the Senate, the majority needs a super majority of votes to move legislation forward. In modern times only the Democrats have had such a super majority, and for a comparatively short time.

 

[Vette73]

Obviously you fail to understand the filibuster; it empowers the minority, not the majority. In the House, the majority is free to do anything for which it can keep its own party's votes. In the Senate, the majority needs a super majority of votes to move legislation forward. In modern times only the Democrats have had such a super majority, and for a comparatively short time.

And as said the Southern Dems voted with Reagan so the Filibuster was worthless and had no pull in the senate. There were enough D's that they vote with Reagan many times in the house. There were a lot of D's from the south that voted with Republicans more than the D's overall during that time.

 

[charrison]

FACEPALM.

False. Dems only had majority of Congress for 2 years while Reagan was prez.

Congress = House + Senate

Duh, I used the wrong word. The point is I was making the distiction between the two.
zfacts are fcts, but very often twisted very far to the left. Democrats held far more power in the house/senate than did republicans during reagans term.

R's had control of the senate for 6 years while Reagan was prez.

slim majorite as I stated.

Dems had about 60% majority in the house but Southern D's voted with reagan more than not. That and there is no filibuster in the house.

Right.....

Thats not twisting, thats just facts.

No it is twisting. If it not twisting, lets talk about how the republican congress affected the budget surplies of clintons term. Ths bias is easy to see in zfacts when looking at topics like this.

 

[etrigan420]

Thank God that the Republicans will at least slow down his money train... but hey... they inherited this problem from the Democratic congress... so they get a pass for as long as it takes, right?

I'll give them exactly as long as most Republican's have given the President...by my reckoning, their time has already expired...flush 'em.

 

[werepossum]

And as said the Southern Dems voted with Reagan so the Filibuster was worthless and had no pull in the senate. There were enough D's that they vote with Reagan many times in the house. There were a lot of D's from the south that voted with Republicans more than the D's overall during that time.

By that standard Republicans have never controlled the Senate within my lifetime, as witnessed by Lugar, Collins, Jeffers, Snow . . .

 

[blackangst1]

What was the deficit on bushes last year? I seem to remember 1.5 trillion?

2008 was $438 billion. 2009 was 1.4 trillion.

 

[zsdersw]

I can count on one hand the number of politicians proposing/supporting serious cuts to entitlements. Until that number grows by, oh, roughly 15347%.. nothing's gonna happen to get the finances stable.

 

[sandorski]

2008 was $438 billion. 2009 was 1.4 trillion.

Yes, it was. The 2009 Deficit was 1-2 Months into Obama's first Term and was thus mostly Bush's Spending/Deficit.

 

[werepossum]

I can count on one hand the number of politicians proposing/supporting serious cuts to entitlements. Until that number grows by, oh, roughly 15347%.. nothing's gonna happen to get the finances stable.

Agreed. We're currently borrowing 42 cents of every dollar of federal spending. We can and should cut discretionary spending, but entitlements will have to be cut, and taxes raised, to avoid ultimately bankrupting the country. Either way, barring some technological breakthroughs our standard of living is going to drop.

And that may not be such a bad thing. Dave Ramsey refers to our lifestyle as "spending money we don't have to buy things we don't need to impress people we don't like." A lot of people during this severe recession have greatly cut back even though they still have jobs. I suspect that many have learned that your standard of living can go down and your happiness still go up.

 

[Craig234]

No it is twisting. If it not twisting, lets talk about how the republican congress affected the budget surplies of clintons term. Ths bias is easy to see in zfacts when looking at topics like this.

OK, let's. Clinton had a Democratic majority in both houses his first two years, so let's compare them to the six with a Republican House on deficit reduction

Turns out, the deficit reduction was a pretty steady one over the 8 years and the first 2 reduced it just as much as the last 6 - and indeed paved the way for it with a tax increase on the top 2%. If anything, the stock market boom that helped the economy came later and helped the Republican period. So Republicans did not cause it.

 

[chucky2]

Do you mean the dot.com boom that then busted?

 

[charrison]

OK, let's. Clinton had a Democratic majority in both houses his first two years, so let's compare them to the six with a Republican House on deficit reduction

Turns out, the deficit reduction was a pretty steady one over the 8 years and the first 2 reduced it just as much as the last 6 - and indeed paved the way for it with a tax increase on the top 2%. If anything, the stock market boom that helped the economy came later and helped the Republican period. So Republicans did not cause it.

Turn out, if you look at the data, defecits did not start to fall until after republican congress took over.

 

[Acanthus]

We have more people feeding at the government trough (welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc) now more than any other time in our history.

And what good is per capita? One if five people in the country derive their income from a government job (local, state, federal) or for a company that depends on taxpayer financing. I could care less about per capita... let's talk dollar amounts here.

Taxes do not have to rise. Payroll taxes were cut 2%. Who do you think could manage that money better... me or the federal government? anytime people get to keep more of the money they earn... the better it is for our economy. Sure people put money in banks... but to think it just sits there is ludicrous. banks lend that money to businesses.

Freeze the budget... all of it. Get rid of crap like the NEA. reduce defense spending. Lots of areas to reduce spending. If the federal government can really freeze spending levels.. the CBO predicts tax revenues will rise 7% per year... eventually revenues catch up to the budget. Throw in an amendment that caps the federal budget at a fixed percentange of GDP... and we can survive... without raising taxes.

Nothing you said had tangible numbers. We can't just freeze spending on everyone and let inflation be the cuts anyway.

You can't complain about the effectiveness or efficiency of government programs if you are running them on a shoestring budget. I'm not talking about the government teat here. I'm talking about lines at the social security office. Lines at child and family services. Regulatory issues with pricing on natural gas and electricity effectively subsidizing utilities with government aid... The gini index is at all time highs and poverty is spreading like wildfire. The problem is not that people are on welfare. The problem is that people need welfare because there are no jobs. Cutting aid to the bottom and middle is only going to widen the problem.

Taxes need to be raised on the high end. It is inevitable.

The "cuts" solution to a labor crisis is the equivalent of saying: "My car is running out of gasoline, so i'm going to take the seats out to reduce the weight." Your vehicle is still going to run out of gas, and you'll get an extra 2 miles off of the last gallon.

 

[PeshakJang]

OK, let's. Clinton had a Democratic majority in both houses his first two years, so let's compare them to the six with a Republican House on deficit reduction

Turns out, the deficit reduction was a pretty steady one over the 8 years and the first 2 reduced it just as much as the last 6 - and indeed paved the way for it with a tax increase on the top 2%. If anything, the stock market boom that helped the economy came later and helped the Republican period. So Republicans did not cause it.

For some reason Craig thinks that he can spout a bunch of lies, and nobody will actually do any research to prove what a liar he is.

From a deficit of -$255 Billion in FY1993, the first two years of Clinton's term saw a reduction to -$203, and then -$164 in FY 1995. Total reduction is $91 Billion over 2 years.

Once the Republicans took over the house, the deficit for -$164 in FY 1995 went, by year, -$107, -$21, +$69, +$125, +$236, +$128. Total change from FY1995 to FY2000, $310 Billion over 5 years.

FY2001 saw a surplus of $128, which is down from FY2000, but by the middle of 2000 is when the tech bubble began to deflate.

The surplus, FYI, was only on paper. Year over year, our debt went up every year. Social security "surpluses" are the ONLY reason there were budget surpluses. On-Budget, 1999 and 2000 were the only years with actual surpluses.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Are we still trying to argue that somehow Clinton wan't the most fiscally responsible President of the last 30 years?

 

[LegendKiller]

So says the beneficiary of the bail out (which was necessary).

He should never of aquiesced to the tax breaks for the rich no?

Once again not to repeat myself...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31246099&postcount=38

I work for a foreign bank, not a TARP bank.

I agree 100%, he should have fought them tooth and nail on the tax breaks to the rich, he wimped out.

 

[The-Noid]

I work for a foreign bank, not a TARP bank.

I agree 100%, he should have fought them tooth and nail on the tax breaks to the rich, he wimped out.

Does that mean you didn't get a big bonus this year? UBS/CS/BCS flaked out on comp this year but it was a fairly crappy 4Q. HSBC bonuses looked to be OK.

Let's also be perfectly honest. Every bank that had a prop desk or traders worldwide was a recipient of the TARP. The writedowns and impairments in the illiquid global mac / fixed income derivatives trading portfolios would have bankrupted any bank left that was already teetering from the mortgage book and other AFS/HFT securities. The market was illiquid, the derivatives that have no collateral would have been worthless because even if the bank was left the counterparty wouldn't have been. The TARP also brought on an excuse for a 3Q period where FICC spreads were gigantic and banks were able to repair their balance sheets from trading profits.

If I hedge my mortgage book with Bank B even with daily settle if Bank B is gone and I am counting on the hedge and can't find another Bank to take the exposure I am going to eat it.

Every bank that has an investment bank or prop trading is connected. It is the nature of the current system. If you look at the Fed's list of borrowings post Lehman it is not just US banks, the world was subsidized both fiscally by the TARP by taking away counterparty risk and adding liquidity and monetarily via repo liquidity for in some cases very sketchy collateral.

 

[The-Noid]

The budget is fucked, let's all be honest about it.

The USA is reaching critical mass on entitlements and there is simply no way around it.

Best case scenario we have about 5-6 more years of good Treasury issuance, worst case scenario 2-3.

The good thing is that politicians like in Europe will be powerless to stop what is coming. If the government doesn't get the fiscal house in order the capital markets will do it for them.

As Alan Moore wrote adapting Thomas Jefferson, "People should not fear their government. Government should fear their people."

Yoxxy will adapt it further, "People should not fear their government. Government should fear their creditors."

Right or left, wrong or indifferent the USA has muddled itself into a poor situation and there really is no choice. In the end it will be raised taxes and SEVERE CUTS.

 

[ericlp]

The cost of both wars combined is less than one year's deficit under Obama. (And that is 8_ years of war)

Hahaha! Where still paying for it moron. Were still in it! What about all the wounded that came home that we gotta pay for? What about the TRILLIONS we borrowed? Do you think we might actually have to pay interest on that "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" cake walk?

Sheesh,

Wake up. Smell the coffee. I'm still wondering what we accomplished, besides a BIG PILE of DEBT with interest mounting by the second.

Yawn, wake me up when you have something useful to tell us.

 

[Craig234]

Hahaha! Where still paying for it moron. Were still in it! What about all the wounded that came home that we gotta pay for? What about the TRILLIONS we borrowed? Do you think we might actually have to pay interest on that "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" cake walk?

Sheesh,

Wake up. Smell the coffee. I'm still wondering what we accomplished, besides a BIG PILE of DEBT with interest mounting by the second.

Yawn, wake me up when you have something useful to tell us.

Don't go in a coma - rather tell him to post again when he has something useful to say.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The cost of both wars combined is less than one year's deficit under Obama. (And that is 8_ years of war)

Not to mention that the original statement alone is just a lame attempt to change the subject of the original discussion at hand, i.e. Obama's Budget plan.