Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is disingenuous to imply that Obama has cut spending.
That's not disingenuous, that's factual. He agreed to cut $38 billion in the debt ceiling deal, which Boehner said was the “largest real dollar spending cut in American history.” He also signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 which cut over $900 billion in spending, and he has proposed further spending cuts in the fiscal cliff talks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
It is also disingenuous to imply that this problem can squarely be pegged on 1 party or simply Reagan and Bush Jr.
I definitely don't claim that one party is solely responsible, but to say that they're equally guilty is a false equivalency. Reagan and Bush Jr.'s greatly increased spending coupled with tax cuts are the main reason, along with decreased revenues and automatic spending increases (unemployment insurance, etc.) caused by the 2007 financial crisis, for the current situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Bush Jr. failed us fiscally. So far so has Obama.
He can only play the hand he's dealt, he inherited an economy in major recession with a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion. What would you do? Cut unemployment benefits? Then these people are no longer able to contribute to the economy because they have no income (btw, I like Martin Feldstein's idea for unemployment insurance). The purpose of unemployment insurance is to act as an automatic stabilizer. If you cut it, demand shrinks, business slows, and employers lay people off and/or cut hours. Now these laid off/reduced hours people cannot contribute as much to the economy and the economy shrinks further and we're back in recession. This shrinking economy results in reduced tax revenues which result possibly in an even greater budget deficit (if the decrease in revenues is greater than the spending savings). Same thing happens if you lay off government workers in droves. Everything is interconnected, the government is not a household budget where you can simply stop eating out and going to the movies when the credit card bill gets too high.
Unfortunately, this precarious position we're in right now with both a massive national debt and a sputtering economy could have been prevented if we had used the Clinton surpluses and projected Bush surpluses to pay down the debt. Instead everyone was greedy and short sighted and stuck their hands out for tax cuts and rebate checks in lieu of doing the responsible thing and paying down the debt, and now because of it we're between a rock and a hard place.
Let's do some simple math. The Blamer-in-Chief ONLY harps about soaking the rich now; no talk about jobs, no talk about cutting the deficit, nothing to show LEADERSHIP.
Okay, I give in. Let's soak those rich b-tards. CBO says it will bring in $80 billion. Won't even mention that many of these are business owners who create the bulk of the jobs in this country. Now, let's apply that $80 billion to the $1.2 trillion Obama deficit. (We're going to have to use big numbers now; you can handle that?)$1,200,000,000,000 minus $80,000,000,000 = $1,020,000,000,000
Perhaps you can explain how low capital gains rates on personal income is related to job creation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
Now, how does the Blamer-in-Chief plan on handling that $1.02 trillion deficit? ?? ?? That's right; no answer because he has NO plan.
Please use you "higher education" to explain what was the "plan" when Reagen tripled the national debt and Bush increased it by 250%, in relatively better financial times?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
The reason that we grown-ups don't want to give Infant Obama the right to raise tax rates indefinitely, ad nauseum, is that he will only SPEND that money on new programs to benefit those of you who voted for him. He has NO PLANS to reduce the deficit.
If you want to be owned by China, then please move there.
Which programs are those? The intent to not make Social Security and Medicare recipients shoulder the entire burden for deficit reduction? Is that a partisan plan to your "more educated" way of thinking?
In June 2012, CBO summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.[36][37]
The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:
$3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
$1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
$1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
$0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)[38]
The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:
Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
It is disingenuous to imply that Obama has cut spending.
It is also disingenuous to imply that this problem can squarely be pegged on 1 party or simply Reagan and Bush Jr.
Bush Jr. failed us fiscally. So far so has Obama.
I agree with this. However, Bush Jr started his first term with a much healthier economy and a projected surplus. Choices he made were very poor indeed.
Obama needs to reign in spending. But, he came into his term with a seriously damaged economy and ongoing deficits, playing the hand he was dealt. It is a tough call to abandon seniors and the unemployed.
I agree with this. However, Bush Jr started his first term with a much healthier economy and a projected surplus. Choices he made were very poor indeed.
Obama needs to reign in spending. But, he came into his term with a seriously damaged economy and ongoing deficits, playing the hand he was dealt. It is a tough call to abandon seniors and the unemployed.
Two entirely different scenarios.
Bush Jr. he failed. But the 1990s were not some economic utopia. What did Bush inherit?
1) Falsely projected rosy surpluses that wouldn't have come to fruition no matter who was in office.
2) The myth that the 1990s was full of surpluses when every single fiscal year since 1957 has seen the national debt increase per the US Treasury Dept.
3) The repeal of Glass-Stegall created by Republicans, but with a majority of Democrats voting for it and Bill Clinton "proud to sign it"...helped set up problems in the 2000s.
4) The 1990s saw the housing market bubble grow. Whether or not you want to blame the government that was tinkering around with mortgages -- the fact remains that the Housing Market bubble clearly had formed and grown the last 3 years under Clinton and was left for Bush (who failed) to clean it up.
5) The famous dot com stock bubble popped right as Clinton was leaving office...that bursting bubble can't be blamed on him and that did effect tax revenue.
6) I am not 100% sure that Clinton's permanent most favored nation status to China has been a huge success.
7) I am not 100% sure the bi-partisan NAFTA that both Bushes and Clinton supported has been a total success either - this was put in place in the 1990s before Bush Jr.
8) Is it possible that the 1990s saw a nice boom from the growth of the internet and the biggest numbers of baby boomers entering their peak spending years - but saw the formation and continuation of problems???
Last edited by michiganmoon; 12-20-2012 at 04:45 AM..
That's not disingenuous, that's factual. He agreed to cut $38 billion in the debt ceiling deal, which Boehner said was the “largest real dollar spending cut in American history.” He also signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 which cut over $900 billion in spending, and he has proposed further spending cuts in the fiscal cliff talks.
I definitely don't claim that one party is solely responsible, but to say that they're equally guilty is a false equivalency. Reagan and Bush Jr.'s greatly increased spending coupled with tax cuts are the main reason, along with decreased revenues and automatic spending increases (unemployment insurance, etc.) caused by the 2007 financial crisis, for the current situation.
He can only play the hand he's dealt, he inherited an economy in major recession with a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion. What would you do? Cut unemployment benefits? Then these people are no longer able to contribute to the economy because they have no income (btw, I like Martin Feldstein's idea for unemployment insurance). The purpose of unemployment insurance is to act as an automatic stabilizer. If you cut it, demand shrinks, business slows, and employers lay people off and/or cut hours. Now these laid off/reduced hours people cannot contribute as much to the economy and the economy shrinks further and we're back in recession. This shrinking economy results in reduced tax revenues which result possibly in an even greater budget deficit (if the decrease in revenues is greater than the spending savings). Same thing happens if you lay off government workers in droves. Everything is interconnected, the government is not a household budget where you can simply stop eating out and going to the movies when the credit card bill gets too high.
Unfortunately, this precarious position we're in right now with both a massive national debt and a sputtering economy could have been prevented if we had used the Clinton surpluses and projected Bush surpluses to pay down the debt. Instead everyone was greedy and short sighted and stuck their hands out for tax cuts and rebate checks in lieu of doing the responsible thing and paying down the debt, and now because of it we're between a rock and a hard place.
You are completely disingenuous to the point that it may not even be worth having a conversation with you.
1) Cutting 'future' increases in spending - while spending still increases - does not make one a spending cutter.
2) Bush Jr. did not in reality inherit any surpluses. Those were rosy projections that did not see things like the dot come bubble bursting. The national debt has increased every single fiscal year since 1957 per the US Treasury -- so I would argue the 1990s had zero true surpluses.
3) Yes Bush left a 1.4 Trillion Dollar Deficit to Obama if you point out that Bush's last fiscal year ended on September 30th of 2009 AND INCLUDED Obama's Stimulus of half the original number.
4) You are crediting Obama with the 2011 Budget Control Act as a big cut....you realize this is what Obama is trying to get out of!!! And is blaming the Republicans for not having a solution for getting out. This has not gone into effect yet. You have no interest in being truthful...this conversation is a waste of time. Bye.
Last edited by michiganmoon; 12-20-2012 at 04:53 AM..
You are completely disingenuous to the point that it may not even be worth having a conversation with you.
1) Cutting 'future' increases in spending - while spending still increases - does not make one a spending cutter.
Obama has submitted 4 budgets (2010-2013)- $3.6 trillion, $3.8 trillion, $3.7 trillion, and $3.8 trillion. The dollar number has gone up slightly, but it has increased less than the GDP during this time. So spending as a percentage of GDP has in fact decreased over the last 4 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
2) Bush Jr. did not in reality inherit any surpluses. Those were rosy projections that did not see things like the dot come bubble bursting. The national debt has increased every single fiscal year since 1957 per the US Treasury -- so I would argue the 1990s had zero true surpluses.
It's true that the dollar value of the national debt has increased every year since 1957, but that is not a good measure of the national debt because it fails to factor inflation and the increases in GDP. A national debt of $5 trillion in 1950 is nowhere near the same as a national debt of $5 trillion in 2000. When you plot the national debt as a percentage of GDP, it most definitely decreased during the 1990s.
4) You are crediting Obama with the 2011 Budget Control Act as a big cut....you realize this is what Obama is trying to get out of!!! And is blaming the Republicans for not having a solution for getting out. This has not gone into effect yet. You have no interest in being truthful...this conversation is a waste of time. Bye.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 is done and over with, so I'm not sure how he's "trying to get out of" it. It went into effect in August of last year. The automatic sequester has not yet been triggered, if that's what you mean.
The latest offer to Boehner in the fiscal cliff talks includes $930 billion in cuts (and $1.3 trillion in revenue).
3) The repeal of Glass-Stegall created by Republicans, but with a majority of Democrats voting for it and Bill Clinton "proud to sign it"...helped set up problems in the 2000s.
4) The 1990s saw the housing market bubble grow. Whether or not you want to blame the government that was tinkering around with mortgages -- the fact remains that the Housing Market bubble clearly had formed and grown the last 3 years under Clinton and was left for Bush (who failed) to clean it up.
5) The famous dot com stock bubble popped right as Clinton was leaving office...that bursting bubble can't be blamed on him and that did effect tax revenue.
6) I am not 100% sure that Clinton's permanent most favored nation status to China has been a huge success.
7) I am not 100% sure the bi-partisan NAFTA that both Bushes and Clinton supported has been a total success either - this was put in place in the 1990s before Bush Jr.
8) Is it possible that the 1990s saw a nice boom from the growth of the internet and the biggest numbers of baby boomers entering their peak spending years - but saw the formation and continuation of problems???
These are valid points, Clinton does deserve a lot of the blame. He also pushed for less stringent credit and down payment requirements for lower income borrowers.
I don't think the housing bubble had really started until he was out of office though. If you look at housing prices they didn't seem to really shoot up until 2003.
Bush Jr. he failed. But the 1990s were not some economic utopia. What did Bush inherit?
1) Falsely projected rosy surpluses that wouldn't have come to fruition no matter who was in office.
2) The myth that the 1990s was full of surpluses when every single fiscal year since 1957 has seen the national debt increase per the US Treasury Dept.
3) The repeal of Glass-Stegall created by Republicans, but with a majority of Democrats voting for it and Bill Clinton "proud to sign it"...helped set up problems in the 2000s.
4) The 1990s saw the housing market bubble grow. Whether or not you want to blame the government that was tinkering around with mortgages -- the fact remains that the Housing Market bubble clearly had formed and grown the last 3 years under Clinton and was left for Bush (who failed) to clean it up.
5) The famous dot com stock bubble popped right as Clinton was leaving office...that bursting bubble can't be blamed on him and that did effect tax revenue.
6) I am not 100% sure that Clinton's permanent most favored nation status to China has been a huge success.
7) I am not 100% sure the bi-partisan NAFTA that both Bushes and Clinton supported has been a total success either - this was put in place in the 1990s before Bush Jr.
8) Is it possible that the 1990s saw a nice boom from the growth of the internet and the biggest numbers of baby boomers entering their peak spending years - but saw the formation and continuation of problems???
I agree with many of your points.
The situation when Bush Jr took office was still far better than the one in 2008. There is no question about that. Had Bush stuck to the plan we would have been far better off instead of making major unfunded tax cuts which failed to result in revenue growth while adding substantially to the deficits. The war in Iraq is viewed by many as a complete waste of resources, both human and material. And while bubbles are much easier to identify in hindsight, it was quite evident as early as 2002, yet those in control (executive, congress, FED) failed to act.
These were choices.
There is considerable evidence that the deregulation which led to the housing bubble can be traced back as far as July 1978 (section 121) and was exacerbated by The Tax Reform Act of 1986 and The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The deregulation of banking, culminating in the repeal of Glass-Steagal, began in the 1980s. It is not hard to see that this was a long tern bipartisan clusterfuch!
While surpluses were only forecasts, legislation was in place to balance the budget and contain deficits. Changing course was not in our best interest. If you look at the CBO numbers I posted you can see you are preaching to the choir on the remaining issues. i.e. "$3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)".
If you are going to blame the executive branch for encouraging low income home ownership you need to go back 50 years and include every single president.
Obama is a terrible president unless you have your hand out for free money, then he's the best president ever. It figures since the only real job he ever had was one summer in Honolulu selling ice cream cones. He'll probably go back to that Baskin-Robbins next week and visit with the "folks" like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
