Debt As Far As The Eye Can See
President Barack Obama sent Congress a $3.83 trillion budget on Monday that would pour more money into the fight against high unemployment, boost taxes on the wealthy and freeze spending for a wide swath of government programs.
The deficit for this year would surge to a record-breaking $1.56 trillion, topping last year’s then unprecedented $1.41 trillion gap.
$2.97 TRILLION in debt in just two years? Obama does realize that someone will have to pay that back someday, right?
But, its Bush’s fault right? RIGHT?
(sarc)
Let me remind our civics challenged friends that all budgets actually are introduced by the House of Representatives. Must be passed through both the House and Senate and then sent to the President for signature.
The House and Senate have been controlled by Pelosi and Reid since 2006.
So that means that even the deficits for the last year of the GWB Administration were created by .... wait for it….
Democrats!
Own it, Embrace it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 0940 hrs
The president proposes and the Congress disposes. Since, but including Nixon, deficits have been much higher under Republicans than Democrats. It took you what, six years, to act askance over deficits?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 0953 hrs
Keith this is debt spending of a while new kind… Obama is outdeficit spending all of his predecessors combined.
And Owen never gave Bush a pass on spending.
The real question is why you libs who screamed and yelled about Republican spending have no issue when you guy does the same and a whole lot more.
Posted by Fred on February 01, 2010 at 1006 hrs
I saw a fascinating graph (should have bookmarked it, trying to find it again - will post link if/when I do) that had showed that the deficits went down when Republicans had control of the Senate. The House and President were not factors…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1009 hrs
Fiscal 2007 deficit, $160.7 billion.
October 2009 deficit, $176 billion.
Can you see the difference Keith?
http://dad29.blogspot.com/2010/02/his-lips-are-movingso-hes-lying.html
Posted by Fred on February 01, 2010 at 1012 hrs
The House and Senate have been controlled by Pelosi and Reid since 2006.
So that means that even the deficits for the last year of the GWB Administration were created by .... wait for it….
Democrats!
Own it, Embrace it.
There isn’t enough hard drive space available to hold all the “fuck you”‘s this deserves.
Look at this graph then tell me again how this is Obama’s deficit.
Most of this deficit is the result of the government being run by an administration on a reckless spending spree that delusionally thought “deficits don’t matter”.
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was told “deficits don’t matter” when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.
O’Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush’s economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from “the corporate crowd,” a key constituency.
O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due.” A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
-Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004The GOP put two massively expensive wars, two massively expensive tax cuts, and a massively expensive prescription drug program on the national credit card and is now blaming the Democrats when the bill is due.
Yes… some of Obama’s spending is discomforting, but the majority of it meets the goals of the stimulus package (“timely, temporary, and targeted”), and did help to pull our economy back from the edge of collapse.
To defer all the blame for this deficit onto the Democrats is shockingly disingenuous and unworthy of any response other than a big fat middle finger.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1111 hrs
Fred,
What was the deficit in FY 2008
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1111 hrs
3 trillion deficit is est. $120,000.00 for every single person in this country.
We don’t get to spend it but we get to pay it back. This is a transfer of wealth from many to the few.
Doesn’t it make you feel more secure?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1115 hrs
Deficit in FY 2008 was about $480B… Obama deficits well over a Trillion
3rd Way… glad to see I’m over the target
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1124 hrs
I am glad to see you can’t read a graph.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1127 hrs
Hey 3rd. Wasn’t Obama part of the senate that voted for all that deficit spending. You know, before he became president present? Didn’t he vote in the senate, to screw us all with increased debt.
Now he and the dems get to own it. Own it 3rd Way. Love it, it’s what you voted for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1132 hrs
Deficit in FY 2008 was about $480B… Obama deficits well over a Trillion
I don’t think we will be able to cover much of that with a sales tax increase.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1132 hrs
Ah - and the adjustments begin...
In its budget proposal to be released on Monday, the White House predicts a record $1.6 trillion budget deficit for the fiscal year that ends September 30, the Capitol Hill source said.
The estimate for the current fiscal year is significantly higher than the $1.35 trillion figure forecast by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office last week.
Own it, Embrace it!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1150 hrs
Always the class act 3rd way.
Posted by Fred on February 01, 2010 at 1151 hrs
Maybe if we hadn’t been so quick to “forgive” all of that third world debt we were owed we wouldn’t be so deep in the mess we’re in today. Sure hope those “we” owe will be just as magnanimous regarding “our” debt. Oh wait, we’re still handing out money like there’s no tomorrow, with even less chance of getting any of it back. Well, if nothing else we can always feel good about how nice we were before we bankrupted ourselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1200 hrs
Wasn’t Obama part of the senate that voted for all that deficit spending. You know, before he became president present? Didn’t he vote in the senate, to screw us all with increased debt.
Has there been a Republican filibuster against the budgets since 2000?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1211 hrs
The budget can go through on a 51-vote majority.
Let’s also have a little history lesson. When George W. Bush and a Republican Congress issued their final budget, FY2007, the federal government spent $2.72 trillion. Democrats took control of Congress and issued their own budget for FY2008 and negotiated it with Bush for his signature, spending $2.98 trillion. Democrats didn’t bother to negotiate the FY09 budget with Bush, instead issuing continuing resolutions for spending and delivering a final budget of over $3.1 trillion. (H/T Ed Morrissey) And today its $3.83T for next years budget.
The NYT can try to spin this as much as they want, but the Dems own the explosion of the deficit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1237 hrs
The current budget is always the responsibility of the current administration and current congress. The NYT graph is absurd, and intentionally so, 3rd Way. The current congress and administration are under no obligation whatsoever to continue past spending habits and programs, and have within their power the ability to balance the budget anytime they see fit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1257 hrs
Here’s my point neo, I don’t think that anyone in elected office in DC is faultless in this, well maybe Ron Paul, but I do not know that for sure.
Doug said it best,
These people are lucky that the American public will always be too busy arguing about who is more corrupt to see that all of them are corrupt.
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/quite_a_bar_bill/
All you have to do is insert the appropriate language to reference spending instead of corruption.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1308 hrs
And THAT, f or o is why the tea parties grew last year.
The voters rejected the republicans for spending irresponsibly in 2006 and 2008. However, the democrats have made them look like pikers in the spending department.
The voters will most likely return to the republicans in November in large measure just like they did in VA, NJ, and MA in elections thus far. At best, maybe we’ll get some good, solid people that can balance a checkbook in that crew, most likely, it will just slow down our trip toward the edge of the cliff.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1322 hrs
Can someone tell me what the Department of Energy actually does?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1326 hrs
At best, maybe we’ll get some good, solid people that can balance a checkbook in that crew, most likely, it will just slow down our trip toward the edge of the cliff.
Hope your are correct.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1340 hrs
Can someone tell me what the Department of Energy actually does?
They energize stuff…duh!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1430 hrs
21.Can someone tell me what the Department of Energy actually does?
Not much, which is a good thing. Compare them, if you will, to the EPA, Dept. of Labor, Dept. of Education, and a host of other inept and unconstitutional offices that cost us $billions every day!
We need someone to run for President with the cojones to disassemble the federal govenment and return control (and tax revenue) to the individual states where it belongs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1435 hrs
The NYT graph is absurd, and intentionally so, 3rd Way.
If you didn’t like that graph you might like this one better.
The lion’s share of the deficit was caused by the previous administration’s spending increases and tax cuts followed by the bottom falling out of the tax revenue base and an explosion of Medicaid and unemployment insurance spending related to a faltering economy.
The deficit is Obama’s problem, but it isn’t a problem of his creation. Saying the deficit is his creation, or that he “owns” it, is a classless claim deserving of an equally classless response.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1545 hrs
The new graph is the debt, not the deficit. The deficit contained in the budget the president submits to congress is 100% owned by the president. None of it is due to any past administration. He can submit a balanced budget if he wishes to. Personally, I’d like to see that. Congress might immediately declare it DOA, but then congress would have to answer for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1629 hrs
I wonder what it would have cost if we didn’t run up the deficit and decided it was more prudent to go into another Great Depression…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1757 hrs
The deficit contained in the budget the president submits to congress is 100% owned by the president. None of it is due to any past administration. He can submit a balanced budget if he wishes to.
Again with the disingenuity. A balanced budget would be completely inviable politically and economically and would likely lead to the second great depression. You might want to see that happen, but you would be part of a very, very small minority.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1807 hrs
I think that would depend on who you believe.
Keynes or Kudlow?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1809 hrs
Federal spending is not keeping us from a depression, although it may soon cause one.
Like a wise man said: Keynesian economics is when you take a bucket of water from the deep and of the pool, spill half of it on the deck, throw the other half into the shallow end of the pool and declare the shallow end deeper.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1818 hrs
Would that be giving the nod to Mr. Kudlow, Bro?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1901 hrs
No, it would not, fact or opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1919 hrs
So it is Mr. Keynes then, is it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1943 hrs
It’s not just spending that makes a deficit, so does revenue shortfalls.
One thing Obama is dealing with for sure is the issue of Bush’s upper income tax cuts, which will reduce revenue by $2.11 trillion through this past decade, not including the $400 billion in interest payments since all of this is deficit financed.
And yes Fred, seemed like there was very little criticism of Bush’s deficits on this blog, or any other right wing blog. Funny how few of you guys now admit voting for Bush.
Heard Hannity spouting off about deficit spending this afternoon while trapped in a car. You guys really have no shame.
And yes, I do find fault with Obama not making any cuts in military or home land security spending. Vast pools of waste there for sure but untouchable of course in your cult.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 2118 hrs
Hey, Keith, you don’t think the 10-17% unemployment rate that Obama helped create has anything to do with decling revenues.
But to be honest with you, I do think there can be some cuts across the board including defense and homeland security.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 2211 hrs
And declining revenues from Governor Doyle’s budgets?
Posted by Fred on February 01, 2010 at 2214 hrs
How exactly Dan did Obama create that employment rate (why does this feel like dejavu?)
There is a real answer here Dan, but I doubt if you have it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 2315 hrs
Let’s see, Keith, just of the threats of raisding taxes and threats of more regulation have something to do with it. Also, fear of inflation and rising interesst rates because the huge deficits.
Here, in LasVegas, we can blame Obama directly for unemployment with his comments about not visiting Las Vegas.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 2336 hrs
If I understood it correctly, a big part of the trillion dollar deficit last year (which had some Bush fingerprints on it as well) was due to $750 billion being spent on TARP.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong there.
But the great thing about TARP is that the TARP program as applied solely to banks might actually make money. Those TARP funds loaned to the banks are all being paid back. And TARP money lost is being covered by the interest being paid by the banks that are able to pay back.
So that last year of Bush deficit really may not end up being that bad. Within three years, it is plausible that all $750 billion could come back into the treasury via repayment.
However it won’t. Why? Because Obama views the TARP money not as an investment. He views it like all our money——a personal slush fund to redistribute as he sees fit. He’s taken big chunks of the undisbursed TARP money and burned it on his UAW buddies and wants to blow more of it on other crap. So that’s on him. He owns it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 2348 hrs
500 million of the tarp has been paid back. But instead of putting towards the debt - Obama is spending that too!
Bush’s 2008 deficit was just under 500 Billion (w/o tarp)
Obama at 1.4T and 1.5T this year makes Bush look like a saver.
The tax and spend liberal comes shining through.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2010 at 0030 hrs
All increasing taxes will do is force more money into avoidance schemes… see the UK for a current example
You need to grow the economy to grow revenue. Taxing and regulating the bejeebers out of every entity that employs someone or makes something will not make that happen.
Prepare for the double-dip…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2010 at 1216 hrs
No, I don’t subscribe to Keynes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2010 at 1233 hrs
Obama’s gonna pay it off with his STASH!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2010 at 1403 hrs
It’s not just spending that makes a deficit, so does revenue shortfalls.
Based on the amount by which he is increasing spending, I think we can agree that it is about spending.
One thing Obama is dealing with for sure is the issue of Bush’s upper income tax cuts, which will reduce revenue by $2.11 trillion through this past decade, not including the $400 billion in interest payments since all of this is deficit financed
2.11T through the next decade? so you are saying 200B/yr? You think that keeping 200B dollars per year in the hands of individuals who can then use it to create jobs, or purchase goods and services is a bad thing?
And yes Fred, seemed like there was very little criticism of Bush’s deficits on this blog, or any other right wing blog. Funny how few of you guys now admit voting for Bush.
I didn’t really post anything on this blog during Bush’s presidency… But if you want to hear it now… I voted for Bush in 2004, because of his pledge to fight for social security reform. He failed in EVERY other regard domestically.
Heard Hannity spouting off about deficit spending this afternoon while trapped in a car. You guys really have no shame.
Hannity is a fake, he is about as real as Michael Savage. They are both morons, and deserve to be taken as such. Hannity’s entire radio show feels like it is read off a teleprompter, whether that is because it is or because he is so smooth and eloquent is unknown to me, because I hate his program.
And yes, I do find fault with Obama not making any cuts in military or home land security spending. Vast pools of waste there for sure but untouchable of course in your cult.
My cult? What the “lets try and protect America from terrorism cult”? I am sure there is tons of waste in homeland security, because there is tons of waste in EVERY GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. It seems to me that the most logical place to go after efficiencies would be to do it in the most expensive programs the government provides, which are entitlements…. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and the costs of those programs grows at unbelievable rates every year.
Now, does that mean that I would oppose cutting military spending? NO, not at all. I am certain there are dollars to be saved in homeland security as well. I bet there is probably a homeland security office in Tuscaloosa, or Kalamazoo or Walla Walla that could be shut down. I bet there are hundreds of positions at the pentagon that are redundant…. But that doesn’t change the fact that domestic entitlement spending is still more costly, and outgrowing military spending.
Dont believe me? Here is some documentation from your beloved CBO…
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7851/03-08-Long-Term Spending.pdf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2010 at 0722 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134032
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 06:24 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 106
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 06:37 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).