.
.
.
.
.
In his interview with CBS anchor Scott Pelley the president was asked about assuring Americans that around $20 billion dollars of Social Security checks will be sent to us on August 3rd. President Obama responded that these are not just Social Security checks. These 7 million payments also include payments to veterans and disability checks.
The president also stated that “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it”.
What president Obama can do is pressure the Democrats in office to lay their plan on the table just as the Republicans did three months ago when they “unveiled a budget proposal that they claimed would avert a debt-driven “economic collapse” by cutting more than $6 trillion over the next decade.”
In fact it has been 804 days “since congressional Democrats have passed a budget.” It’s time to look in the mirror and not play hardball with the American public, many of whose daily lives depend on those monthly checks.
Mr. President. You wanted to be our commander-in-chief. Now govern as one.
I guess if Obama can’t guarantee my Social Security check in August – – I guess I can not guarantee my Quarterly Income Tax payment will go out September 15, 2011.
That quarterly income tax payment far exceeds my miniscule Social Security payment. I guess my paying into Social Security for over 45 years means nothing to Obama.
DOn’t f-n blame it on Obama dude. Your fellow Republicans have been trying to eviscerate Social Security since… well, no, since it was created.
I’m hoping Obama is bluffing anyway. But even if not, he wouldn’t be talking about SS if he weren’t being forced into a corner by the Rethugs.
Also, it’s spelled guarantee.
And if only all those defenders of Social Security hadn’t been lying to the American public all these years, claiming that SS is a $2.6 trillion self-funding program (when in actuality, the government has borrowed all of that $2.6 trillion), the public might be better informed as to who is to blame when the SS checks supposedly don’t go out.
The House Dems have pretty much agreed to close 4 trillion in the debt with 17% coming from closing tax loopholes. 83% will come from spending cuts. The Dems have even been willing to cut benefits and other entitlements, which has been off the table since well since Social Security and Medicare were first installed. Earlier this year the Tea partiers suggested a 15-85 split. Who’s playing unnecessary hardball now.
Also, it is true that those checks might not go out. The treasury has to pay down our interest payments first and foremost, otherwise US bonds could be downgraded significantly –> increasing interest rates –> ironically, increasing your debt even further. Even if the treasury pays down the interest first, US bonds will still be downgraded by the rating agencies (Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch) but not by as much.
Paying into SS has never meant a damn thing. It always an extra slush fund in times of emergencies when the economy slumped. It will always be connected with the general budget, but it’s kind of difficult to balance a budget when old people keep on demanding better medical benefits and the government decides to give people tax cuts during good times for absolutely no good reason.
Which Democrats have been willing to cut entitlements?
Vern. I can place blame on your party for its failure to bite the bullet for over 800 days when your side controlled both houses.
And what about the 2,920 days from 2000-2008. And don’t give me a song and dance about it being “past time to be able to look back and ascribe ‘blame'”. The debt accumulated during that period is not a phantom.
The truth is, our debt problem was created by Democrats AND Republicans. In case you missed that in your partisan haze, let me repeat it…out debt problem was created by Democrats AND Republicans.
anon. I did not say that Republicans do not share some of the blame for the debt. What you are doing is going off the track. My point was that the Dem’s in Congress failed to present a budget for 804 days. That is the point I was making. Am I mistaken on that fact?
Our side provided a budget around 90 days ago that represents our proposal. Would you like to have me provide a link to it?
You’re right. Congress isn’t doing it’s job. Hasn’t been for some time. As for the Ryan plan, it has zero chance of passing. And many Republicans have already walked back from it.
The President, reportedly, is ready to go for the “big deal” that would reach 4 trillion in cuts. John Boehner, reportedly, WAS on board. That is, until the hardline Republicans in the House decided they didn’t want to do their job.
Really, Larry…on this particular issue, it’s a waste of time to focus on one party. That’s what you did in this post.
Try to stay focused and actually present the facts anon. Larry is right about the Democrats’ failure to comply with their mandated requirement to present a budget. If you have facts that Republicans previously failed to comply during their time in power, feel free to present them.
You also oversimplify Obama’s proposal (which I still haven’t seen other than a $4 trillion number). His “cuts” are far from just cuts. First, they include taxes (you know, the word Obama will never say but always proposes), so they are far more than cuts. Second, I suspect (like I said, I haven’t seen any real proposal from Obama) that his “cuts” are going to include a slower rate of increase which both parties laughably claim are actually cuts.
And Larry is right about focusing on one party because the Republicans are the only party that actually has made a budget proposal (unless you count Obama’s one earlier this year that failed to get a single vote). The Democrats should be held accountable for shirking their duties for political purposes (that largely failed when they were still swept out of office in 2010).
Amen, brother. How convenient that libs always forget that basic fact, Larry, despite your persistent efforts to remind them.
Where did I say that Democrats hadn’t failed to pass a budget in the period Larry speaks of? Where? Please, spare me the straw man.
As for the administration’s proposal, it reduces the debt by around 4 trillion through cuts and revenue increases. But then, you knew that already, right, so this feigned naivete on your part is silly.
As for your third paragraph, again, I did not dispute Larry’s accounting for that limited period. I made a larger point about the debt in general.
Really, was all that you wrote supposed to pass as a serious argument?
That’s hilarious anon. You’re drinking the Obama Kool Aid so often even you can’t admit what they are – “revenue increases”? What a joke. They’re called taxes.
And you still ignore the fact that the Democrats haven’t offered any serious budget proposal. But since you’re too in the weeds to even address the argument, I don’t expect you to get it.
The Democrats in the House aren’t in the majority, genius. It’s Boehner that the deal is going to have to be cut with. But then, you already knew that, right, so your silly argument about the Democrats is just that…silly.
Can you explain to me how taxes are not revenue increases? What part of that is inaccurate?
Not only that, most of these revenue increases Obama was going for aren’t properly called tax hikes unless you really stretch the language. We’re talking about ending a lot of tax loopholes, stopping subsidies to ethanol and big oil, discontinuing a lot of stupid tax credits that only help very rich people and large corporations, etc.
Of course, everything has changed since yesterday – since the big Turtle Cave – hasn’t it?
Vern, don’t give me the weak claim that those “loopholes” are going to fix the budget problem. You know as well as I that Obama wants to tax (yes, tax) the rich as his primary “revenue increase.” But even that won’t make a dent as long as entitlements are left as they are.
Anon has typically gone off topic and off the deep end, so I’m left yet again with Vern as the only rational liberal on here.
Obama wants to tax (yes, tax) the rich as his primary “revenue increase.”
Me as well, me as well. Get the upper brackets back to at least where they were under Clinton, and the economy was booming, and we had a surplus, and all was well, and all will be well.
Vern. You know better. Except for daylight savings time we cannot turn the clock back.All might be well if we didn’t have a date in our history called 9/11 that has cost us over one trillion dollars in Afghanistan alone. If we captured or killed Bin Laden prior to that date we would not have endured the on-going cost of war.
I should clarify – I and other liberals would like to tax the rich more. I would guess Obama also would, although he’s pretty hard to read sometimes. But this was NOT part of the plan he was offering. He’s a realist, a negotiator. Like practically nobody on your side is.
Vern. Negotiator? Perhaps community organizer. If Obama was such a great negotiator why don’t we have a deal today?
“If Obama was such a great negotiator why don’t we have a deal today?”
To quote John Boehner, it takes two to tango.
Your side doesn’t want to tango.
“Vern, don’t give me the weak claim that those “loopholes” are going to fix the budget problem.”
Hey genius, who, exactly, has claimed that revenue increases are the SOLE fix for the budget? Oh wait a second…that’s just another straw man argument on your part. Man, you are a MASTER of that!
One of us liberals’ biggest claims, however, is that at a time of recession like this, balancing the budget is NOT by any stretch our biggest priority.
This is a time when deficit spending is proper and necessary, to jumpstart our economy. Last year’s stimulus did good work, but it was only 1/4 the size it needed to be to electroshock this great economy back to health.
Larry: Except for daylight savings time we cannot turn the clock back.All might be well if we didn’t have a date in our history called 9/11 that has cost us over one trillion dollars in Afghanistan alone. If we captured or killed Bin Laden prior to that date we would not have endured the on-going cost of war.
God damn it, now you’re pissing me off. The biggest war expense has been Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and was totally illegal and based on lies. I don’t want to change the subject to that anyway or I’ll get mad. How did that come up anyway?
Vern,
You should talk to Leon Panetta. He recently said that we most definitely were in Iraq because of 9/11. You liberals need to get your stories straight.
Leon Panetta said something stupid and wrong. What, you think we all agree with each other? I don’t know WHAT the f– he was talking about.
Except that Bush successfully made Americans think – for a couple of years – that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. And he couldn’t have pulled off that invasion/occupation if it weren’t for 9/11 and the unquestioning, terrified credulity of the American people (and pathetic cravenness of Congress.)
Sorry Vern, but I couldn’t help tweaking you since he is the Secretary of Defence and all.
Most liberals don’t feel the need to move in lock step like conservatives.
Panetta is a war hawk. Yeah, I said it…Panetta is a war hawk.
So are you saying that because Panetta says it, it’s true? Weak.
No, he was saying that since Panetta said it, and Panetta is allegedly a “liberal,” it must now be the liberal talking point that the rest of us liberals should be spouting.
We’re not like you guys, Newbie. We think for ourselves.
You should tell anon and Anonster that – they missed the memo.
Why we’re really mired in this INSANITY; because the Republicans will do ANYTHING to take down Obama and they don’t care if they ruin the economy in the process.
From Salon;
Republicans listening to Erick Erickson, of course
BY ALEX PAREENE
Oh, wonderful. Dave Weigel says House Republicans are passing around a brilliant Erick Erickson post arguing that they should blow up the entire U.S. economy BECAUSE OBAMA WILL GET THE BLAME.
The thesis:
Should the United States lose its bond rating, it will be called the “Obama Depression”. Congress does not get pinned with this stuff.
Hah. Ha ha ha. Just like the “Clinton government shutdown” that was not at all blamed on Newt Gingrich. No one ever blames Congress for stuff! Americans love Congress far, far too much to blame them for things.
Of course Erick Erickson’s analysis of the debt ceiling situation is simplistic, incorrect, and stupid. Erick Erickson wrote it. He’s a clown. When he’s not making incredibly stupid Hitler analogies or threatening to scare census workers with shotguns or calling on citizens to beat lawmakers to a “bloody pulp” over dishwasher detergent regulations, Erick Erickson is generally weeping salty tears of imagined victimhood over people calling him on the dumb shit he constantly says and writes. …….
Anyway, keep reading Erick Erickson, Republicans! Sure, you’ll ruin the entire country, but he will also lead the Republican party right into a hilarious and devastating political meltdown. Since we’re all probably screwed anyway we may as well enjoy ourselves.
Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. As usual, the GOP is overplaying it’s hand, and anyone who thinks that Obama will be blamed by a majority of Americans for a failure to make a deal is completely divorced from reality.
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2292/americans-support-higher-taxes-really
HOuse and Senate Republicans have to decide who they’re most a-scared of – the Tea Partiers who yank their chains, or the Wall Street / big business interests that fund them. I’m going with the latter. McConnell’s already cracking.
anon. Thanks for the blog link which led me to the June 5th Washington Post poll.
Grading the president on the economy 20% of those polled strongly approved Obama while 49% strongly disapproved his leadership.
On the budget deficit 16% approved his performance while those who disapproved were 49%.
Here’s the link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_060511_ATMIDNIGHT.html
Based on the above cited June 5th poll I would disagree with you on who the American people will fault for the current status of our nation since he assumed office.
Except, no matter how badly a President polls, Congress ALWAYS polls worse.
Vern. That is true. However, can you explain how president Obama trails faceless Republicans in the recent polls 47 to 39%? Source. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/generic-republican-candidate-beats-obama-poll
Faceless Republicans are the best ones. You can use your imagination to give them good qualities, qualities that would make them decent Presidents. None of the real Republicans match up to Mr. Faceless.
Vern. Faceless Republicans carry no baggage.
However, I know you will agree that it’s really too early to make any predictions for next Nov.
Well perhaps the GOP should run a faceless candidate. LOL.
That lady who had her face ripped off by that drunk chimpanzee. Is she a Republican?
Larry, you really don’t want to disingenuously misrepresent polls the way Geoff Willis does. That 16% figure is those who “strongly” approve of his performance on the deficit. The “net” approval is 33%.
And the number for Congressional Republicans is even lower.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/tag/congressional_approval.html#.TiCBC79nojw
But then, you’re free to remain in denial.
*on that link, click on “Congressional Republicans Job Performance” for polling data.
Anon. Should I repeat what they posted about the president?
At least twice as many Americans in the poll disapprove of his leadership relating to the economy & budget as commander-in-chief than those who support him.
I have heard that he’s a sensitive guy. You would think he might see the handwriting and change his ways by truly moving to the center rather than faking it to get reelected.
Anon. This post is not about Congress. The expression that the buck stops on his desk does not apply here as he doesn’t appear to be concerned about how many bucks we borrow and spend that exceed our income.
I really don’t see how Barack could move any more further to the center than he already has. Throughout his term, really.
Although I realize you can’t see that, stuck way out there in the far right outfield as you are.
anon. Your focus on congressional job approval forces me to check out Gallup where I found some interesting facts .July 2008 and Dec 2010 when I believe the Dem’s controlled Congress
PRINCETON, NJ — Americans’ assessment of Congress has hit a new low, with 13% saying they approve of the way Congress is handling its job. The 83% disapproval rating is also the worst Gallup has measured in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance. Note: This was for Dec 2010 before we took over the House. The next lowest Gallup rating for congress was in July of 2008 at 14%.
Anon. Feel free to blame Republicans. My advice to our other readers. “Trust, but verify.”
See? You just can’t focus without playing juvenile partisan games. Everybody KNOWS – and I already mentioned – that Congress ALWAYS polls below the President.
No Vern. I will not give Anon a pass.
He said Congressional REPUBLICANS scored below the president.
While I agree with you that Congress polls lower he should not have singled out the GOP.
For that reason I have provided data that addresses Congress when controlled by the Dem’s where the numbers were 13 and 14%.
Folks. As this debate is about our federal debt lets recap receipts vs outlays from 2001 through 2011.
check out:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z3.xls
“Scroll down and look at 2001-2011. The largest deficit Bush ever ran was 428 billion (totaling just under 2 trillion over 8 years). I’m not saying that’s something to be proud of, but we were fighting two wars and that was to be expected. However, if you look at the 3 years for Obama (2011 being a projection), he’s nearly tripled Bush’s largest deficit every year! Every year! That’s roughly 4 TRILLION DOLLARS in deficits in 3 years. Take away his check book now. No more taxes. Cut, Cap and Balance with a caveat that the tax code must be reformed by the end of the year!” Note . These are 3rd party remarks.
Gilbert comments continued. Peeling the data from the above link I see that receipts in 2001, the first year of the W administration, were $1,991.1 billion with outlays at $1.862.8 or a surplus of $128.2 billion.
In 2002, under W, we experienced the first deficit at $157.8 billion
In 2005, the start of W’s second term, our receipts topped 2 trillion at $2,153.6 billion with outlays of 2,472.0 leading to a deficit of $318.3 billion. Our receipts continued to increase in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the final year of W’s term in office, at $2,524.0 billion against outlays of $2,982.5 the highest during his 8 years in office. This was his highest deficit year at $458.6 billion dollars
We change parties in 2009 where receipts tank dropping to $2,105.0 billion while expenses break the next barrier at $3,517.7 billion resulting in a deficit of $1,412.7 breaking the trillion dollar ceiling for the first time. This is triple George W Bush’s highest deficit.
Anon, Vern and all those other readers who blame Bush 43 for our financial crisis need to look at the hard numbers.
In 2010 receipts increased to $2,167.7 however our outlays also increased to $3,456.2 billion resulting in a deficit of $1,293.5 billion.
For 2011 receipts are projected at $2,173.7 with outlays of $3,818,8 or another record deficit reaching $1,645.1 billion dollars. We have now exceeded one an half trillion dollars. What we have is a runaway train. Please, apply the brakes before we go over the cliff.
Vern. Give it up. If you have issue with my response tell Anon to focus on ALL members of Congress. We are in agreement on their combined approval ranking.
anon. No, while we are both Republicans from Mission Viejo, I’m not Geoff.
Go back and read my comment again. I stated the “strongly” category in my remark about his performance.
The TRUTH, Larry (don’t worry, I know you’ll NEVER admit it, so this is just for those folks who dabble in FACTS);
Bush’s Budget Projects Deficits
Bush on 2009 Budget
President Bush discusses the 2009 budget following a cabinet meeting Monday at the White House.
By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
President Bush yesterday unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget plan for fiscal 2009 that will leave deficits of more than $400 billion this year and next, forcing his successor to grapple with a range of unpalatable choices to close the gap, according to lawmakers and budget experts.
From the Cato@Liberty;
George W. Bush: Biggest Spender Since LBJ
Posted by Chris Edwards
The Congressional Budget Office has released final budget numbers for fiscal year 2009. The numbers allow us to take a last look at the Bush administration’s record on spending from a statistical point of view.
President George W. Bush’s last year was fiscal 2009. Outlays that year were $3.522 trillion, according to the CBO. However, $108 billion was spending for the 2009 economic stimulus package passed under President Obama. Bush was thus roughly responsible for $3.414 trillion of spending in 2009, which includes outlays for the financial bailouts enacted under his watch. (For FY2009, $154 billion for TARP and $91 billion for Fannie and Freddie).
Spending in Bush’s first year (FY2001) was $1.863 trillion, thus he presided over an 83-percent increase in overall federal spending, which includes defense, domestic, entitlements, and interest. Even without TARP and Fannie/Freddie, spending was up a huge 70 percent under Bush over eight years. By contrast, total spending under eight years of President Clinton increased just 32 percent.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/george-w-bush-biggest-spender-since-lbj/
This is the CATO INSTITUTE, Larry. Are you gonna call ’em some left-wing propagandists?
Anonster. Statistical point of view? No. Hard data reports spending in Bush’s 8th year was $2.925.5 trillion not 3.522. You can’t list 2001 AND 2009 for W.
Let me say that although he would truly have done a better job at the helm than Obama, Bill Clinton is not the current president. Are you proposing a trade-in for that older, proven model?Vern knows that I had issues with W as he was a big government leader.
Notice how “Progressives” try to divert attention away from Obama? Nice try but no cigar.
Larry,
It’s true that the 2001 budget was not Bush’s (it had a surplus), but even if you put your fingers in your ears and say as loud as you can, lalalalala, it WON’T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE 2009 BUDGET WAS BUSH’S.
YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CAN NOT HIDE FROM BUSH’S DISMAL LEGACY;
January 7, 2009 (Larry, note that the date is, BEFORE Obama took office)
From The Committee on the Budget;
CBO Report Confirms President Bush’s Fiscal Legacy
Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its annual fiscal outlook, painting a bleak picture of the economy, the budget deficit, and growing debt. CBO reports a stunning $1.186 trillion budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 and large deficits for as far as the
eye can see. Even these large numbers, however, understate the true size of the deficits that the outgoing Administration is leaving behind for years to come, because by law the CBO forecast cannot incorporate the costs of ongoing policies that are not reflected in current law. CBO also forecasts real decline in the size of the economy for 2009 as well as rising, sustained unemployment rates above 9.0 percent for most of 2010.
CBO’s report provides the penultimate chapter on this Administration’s dismal fiscal record. In January 2001, the Clinton Administration left office with a budget surplus projected to be $5.6 trillion over ten years. The Republican Administration has squandered that budget surplus, and now is leaving a projected deficit of well over $4 trillion for that same period (2002-2011). As bad as this record is, the final accounting of the Bush Administration’s fiscal legacy will grow worse as it is updated to reflect the cost of legislation to address the economic crisis and the deterioration of critical services that have foundered under eight years of neglect.
**********************************************************
I know you don’t like to read too much, but this article from 2005 clearly saw the writing on the wall;
After Bush Leaves Office, His Budget’s Costs Balloon
By Jonathan Weisman and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, February 14, 2005; Page A01
For President Bush, the budget sent to Congress last week outlines a painful path to meeting his promise to bring down the federal budget deficit by the time he leaves office in 2009. But for the senators and governors already jockeying to succeed him, the numbers released in recent days add up to a budgetary landmine that could blow up just as the next president moves into the Oval Office.
Congress and the White House have become adept at passing legislation with hidden long-term price tags, but those huge costs began coming into view in Bush’s latest spending plan. Even if Bush succeeds in slashing the deficit in half in four years, as he has pledged, his major policy prescriptions would leave his successor with massive financial commitments that begin rising dramatically the year he relinquishes the White House, according to an analysis of new budget figures.
Bush’s extensive tax cuts, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit and, if it passes, his plan to redesign Social Security all balloon in cost several years from now. His plan to partially privatize Social Security, for instance, would cost a total of $79.5 billion in the last two budgets that Bush will propose as president and an additional $675 billion in the five years that follow. New Medicare figures likewise show the cost almost twice as high as originally estimated, largely because it mushrooms long after the Bush presidency.
“It’s almost like you’ve got a budget, and you’ve got a shadow budget coming in behind that’s a whole lot more expensive,” said Philip G. Joyce, professor of public policy at George Washington University.
By the time the next president comes along, some analysts said, not only will there be little if any flexibility for any new initiatives, but the entire four-year term could be spent figuring out how to accommodate the long-range cost of Bush’s policies………..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21721-2005Feb13.html
Anonster. Do you remember where you were on 9/11/2001?
I do. I was at my dentists office in Tustin around 7 a.m.
On April 9, 2001 the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget of the United States Government was generated.
Table S-17 projected receipts of $2.221 trillion dollars against expenditures of $1.938 trillion which would have resulted in a surplus. However, on 9/11 the world, and this Nation as we know it, changed.
That first Bush budget included $325 billion to defend America. President Obama’s 2012 Department of Defense base budget is $530,024,959,000. A big number. A half trillion dollars unless my math is blurred.
No one could have predicted the death and destruction that we experienced at the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in PA.
In Oct 2001 we sent 11,000 troops to Afghanistan. The costs associated with that military expenditure was surely not anticipated nor included in the April 2001 document.
As the Bush tax cuts were addressed in the current budget debate let me point out that they occured in 2001 and 2003. I find it worth mentioning that our receipts jumped up as a result of that achievement.
During Bill Clinton’s reign we took in $1.991.1 trillion dollars in 2001. This was folllowed by $1.853.1 in 2002, $1.782.3 in 2003, $1.880.1 in 2004.
Now watch the jump. In 2005 receipts exceeded 2 trillion for the first time reaching $2.153.6 followed by $2.406.9 in 2006, $2.568 in 2007, $2.524 in 2008 and $2105 in 2009.
Yes, I would argue that the tax cuts resulted in our receiving more revenue as documented, even during the recession.
Anonster. Salon. A credible? source yet Vern gets upset if we quote FOX News?
Yes, Salon is a legitimate journalistic enterprise that has broken a lot of important stories. Was there anything in the above you found questionable? Do you not believe Erick Ericson’s column is being passed around Capitol Hill? Why would that be hard to believe?
Does Salon have an endless list of debunked stories like FOX does? I’ve never heard of that. And I don’t get upset when you quote FOX. I just laugh, and think I need to hear it from somewhere else before I can take it seriously.
PS this Salon piece is an opinion piece. The factual part of it comes from the highly respected Dave Weigel.
Vern. That’s your opinion.
While you have MSNBC on your list of favorite cable channels I rarely tune in except to watch Chriss Matthews turning on his anti-GOP spin machine.
Therefore Dave Weigel is not highly respected by me as I have not read or viewed him in action.
“President Bush yesterday unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget plan for fiscal 2009 that will leave deficits of more than $400 billion this year and next, forcing his successor to grapple with a range of unpalatable choices to close the gap, according to lawmakers and budget experts.” from Anonster post.
If Bush could keep the red ink to 400 billion plus, why can’t the current guy do it?
Because he inherited Bush’s wars and Bush’s recession. Why don’t you compare Bush’s deficits to Clinton’s deficits. Oh yeah. There weren’t any.
Vern. How far back do you want to take this?
You led the charge blaming Bush 43 for our current financial disaster. While he ran up deficits they never exceeded a trillion dollars in a single year as our current occupant on Pennsylvania Ave.
Bush’s recession? So here we are three years later, your man spent how much on corporate bailouts? What is the unemployment and under-employment numbers that his Stimulus was to keep below 8%?
I was talking to Cook, and also:
your man spent how much on corporate bailouts?…
We’ve got almost all of that back. And the banks are still in great shape (whether that was fair or not) and most dramatically we still have our auto industry, which is thriving and employing!
Vern. Let’s not pick winners and losers. “Too big to fail” rewarded big campaign contributors while letting the little guy, who does not have high priced lobbyists in DC, fend for themselves.
Cook. Mind the gap. Brings back memories of underground train service in London.
Yes, $400 billion is a huge number. However today we talk in the trillion dollar range as if it were chump change
Why did the US economy collapse at the end of Bush #2 term?
The mover and shakers and money makers could see the writing on the wall.
If the republicans are the friends to big business, why is it a democrat administration spending the entire future to bail big business out? (Who is the best friend of the rich now?)
The middle classes of other countries are revolting. Here in the USA the rich are being bailed out and the poor are given food stamps and free rent and medical.
How long do you expect the US middle class to hold out?
The 2012 election is coming up, who is going to offer the “new deal”.
Until americans wise up and DEMAND public financing of our elections, all legislation will be skewed towards the rich, who, due to their army of lobbyists, dictate the direction of the country.
And they DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE “MIDDLE CLASS”.
Anonster. Are you referring to the CTA and CRA in our state who own many of our elected officials?
If so you are correct. The poor and minorites are the ones who lose their property to make way for developers. Even Bill Lockyer has recently acknowledged the abuses of our redevelopment agencies.
“I really don’t see how Barack could move any more further to the center than he already has. Throughout his term, really.”
Vern, you’re a little late or really early for April Fool’s Day.
Well, like I said, you and Larry and Geoff are WAY OUT in the RIGHT outfield, but when we lefties (whose positions are actually shared by a hell of a lot of Americans) elected what we took to be a progressive President, we expected a few things, and got a lot less:
We thought the criminal excesses of the Cheney-Bush imperium, conducted under the rubric of the War on Terror, would be investigated and punished, so that no future administration (let alone this one) would torture, kidnap, indefinitely imprison without charge, wiretap without court order, etc. on and on.. All we got was “we must look forward not backward.” And a lot of the same behavior from the new boss!
We did want health care reform and universal coverage. We would have preferred single-payer, the only way to cover all of us while saving money. But we would have settled for at least a public option so that even as folks were forced to buy coverage for themselves, at least the private insurance profiteers would have some competition and be forced to keep their prices down. Instead we got a President who made a grand bargain to get the private insurers millions more customers — and he STILL gets accused of Communism!
And while we’re on the topic of healthcare reform. We expected a big part of that would be allowing the government to bargain with Big Pharma to buy drugs in bulk, and if not, at least to purchase from Canada where the prices for the same things are like 10%. Pero no. So Obama and the Democrats may continue to get some financial support from Insurance and Pharma, but there really hasn’t been sufficient reform or savings.
And we thought we might have a President who’d kick ass on the Wall Street and banking crooks who drove us into this ditch we’re still struggling to get out of. We knew better as soon as he started naming his financial team – same old Wall Street names. There’s been a little reform but very modest and timid – just little enough that Obama and the Dems may continue to get some Wall Street support. Woo-hoo!
We kind of expected less warmongering, although we did hear Obama promise to draw down in Iraq while doubling down in Afghanistan. Still, we thought that latter would be more temporary. Well, after a much-trumpeted “drawdown” we still have more troops in Afghanistan than we did when Obama entered, we’ve got 15,000 in Iraq and have lost a dozen there just recently, and we’ve been spreading our secret covert warfare to half a dozen more nations in the region.
Let’s see. All the progress he’s made on gay rights, and (not) made on immigration, has been very slow, tardy, and reluctant. I could go on.
Oh yeah, a big one. We totally didn’t expect the CRIPPLING BUSH TAX CUTS to be extended.
You guys in your little Fox-News bubble continually talk yourselves into a frenzy over how extremely leftwing the current government is. No, it is actually very centrist. You lot are just off the charts.
And I am going to vote for the guy again, over whatever loonie you all put up. I think he may be a little more fearless in his second term. But even if not, there’s more space for us leftists to fight under a centrist than under a fascist.
Oh c’mon Vern, you really don’t expect Newbie, Geoff and Larry to factor in inconvenient little realities such as these, do you?
anon and anonster. did Media Matters, the conservative source of all truth cover this speech?
This is from a speech Obama made in 2006:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.
Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006
I don’t know about Media Matters – they generally specialize in debunking rightwing lies. But I did hear the question of that vote addressed on MSNBC.
Dick Durbin was on – who also voted “NO” on the debt ceiling raise that particular year – and he explained that his vote and Obama’s votes were “protest votes” to protest Bush’s wasteful policies. The Wars, the unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy, the Medicare Plan D.
But he also said, and I’m paraphrasing by memory: “The debt ceiling raise is something that you KNOW needs to pass. So if you’re going to vote NO on it as a protest, you’re also looking over your shoulder to make sure it’s still gonna pass … otherwise you quickly change your vote.”
That’s how it is in the Senate. Neither Barack nor Dick were trying to come close to defaulting the US.
Vern. That’s a cop out. How many times did Senator Obama vote “present” when serving in the IL legislature? One area of his experience that Conservative Republicans will not debate is his ability to wiggle out of decision making by voting PRESENT. “Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted “present” 129 times as a state senator.”
Vern. We would expect nothing less from you than to support your candidate next Nov.
You do have me at a disadvantage. As of today I have no idea who our candidate will be.
Obama admitted his vote as a Senator was “political”. He admitted that.
Kinda like when you admitted that you had no idea 18-year-old males have to register for the draft. Oh wait…you didn’t admit that. Nevermind.
So we didn’t need any Media Matters to explain this. Between MSNBC and Barack himself, we know exactly what happened. Long before Larry did.
Vern/Anon. So Obama ‘s prior vote was “political.” Nice try.
Trillion dollar decisions should not be taken lightly. Stand firm even if you stand alone if you truly believe its the right thing to support or oppose. Reminds me of the British Open where professional golfers threw grass in the air to see which way the wind was blowing.
Whatever.