http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_budget
Quote: With the economy performing worse than hoped, revised White House figures point to deepening budget deficits, with the government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year.
The deficit for the current budget year will rise by $89 billion to above $1.8 trillion — about four times the record set just last year
Yeah, that Obama sure knows what he's doing. I can see where all those claims about "tax and spend Dems" are completely unfounded.
And lucky us, we've got health care reform coming! Imagine your physician being as beligerent and ignorant as your kid's teacher.
Of course... the Republican's had a long time where they didn't care to balance the budget either... and their excuse was that compared to overall GDP it didn't matter.
I know this is somewhat apples to oranges, but my point is that the Republican's can't complain when they didn't do their job to keep the budget in balance either.
(05-11-2009 09:11 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_budget
Quote: With the economy performing worse than hoped, revised White House figures point to deepening budget deficits, with the government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year.
The deficit for the current budget year will rise by $89 billion to above $1.8 trillion — about four times the record set just last year
Yeah, that Obama sure knows what he's doing. I can see where all those claims about "tax and spend Dems" are completely unfounded.
And lucky us, we've got health care reform coming! Imagine your physician being as beligerent and ignorant as your kid's teacher.
Come on Torch. Obama has called for cutting 17 billion in spending. He's making the "tough" choices to return us to fiscal responsibility.
They're being honest about it. No splitoff of war costs to make the numbers better, etc.
Peter Orszag has warned that the federal budget is a mess and will get a lot worse if we don't do something about health care in the next 10 years.
I like him. Extremely smart, no-nonsense, straightforward, honest assesments, and about as apolitical as you can get in DC.
Economic Growth, from a Financial Analysis position(as opposed to a Ideological smaller govt. perspective), is more important than a balanced budget. What worries me is his attacks on small business and siding with the Unions, long term that could reverse growth and the budget deficits at same time.
(05-11-2009 09:33 AM)Artifice Wrote: [ -> ]I like him. Extremely smart, no-nonsense, straightforward, honest assesments, and about as apolitical as you can get in DC.
He's a very smart guy, but apolitical? Not anymore.
He continues to spout the party line that the current deficits are because of a problem Obama inherited, which doesn't pass the smell test at all.
He's right, we do have to do something about health care. But the current deficit doesn't even account for what his boss, Obama, wants to do. That will increase that deficit even more.
(05-11-2009 09:17 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ]Of course... the Republican's had a long time where they didn't care to balance the budget either... and their excuse was that compared to overall GDP it didn't matter.
I know this is somewhat apples to oranges, but my point is that the Republican's can't complain when they didn't do their job to keep the budget in balance either.
Repubs blew it. You're correct. However we're talking about a
4x increase in a year's time...all from people who complained we needed a change from Bush's overspending.
(05-11-2009 10:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Repubs blew it. You're correct. However we're talking about a 4x increase in a year's time...all from people who complained we needed a change from Bush's overspending.
really amazing isn't it, how on so many things they can within a years time get away(Thanks MSM) with doing a complete and total 180 on so many issues.
and the Media will point out the CBO's 'non-partisian' analysis on this in reports today.....or just repeat Obama talking points of 'inherited from Bush' who apparently forced him to adopt massive Govt. spending that dwarfs the previous big spending.
(05-11-2009 10:31 AM)GGniner Wrote: [ -> ]![[Image: wapoobamabudget1.jpg]](http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/04/10/wapoobamabudget1.jpg)
Call me nuts, but when I see this chart, I see a trend toward a balanced budget...it was TARP that destroyed it.
Imagine if Bush had been fiscally responsible, and gotten congress to make deeper budget cuts in 2004-2006. At any rate, the actuals in this chart would likely surprise most anyone, given the tone the MSM kept playing.
it was TARP, which is now somewhat small compared to the Stimulus and other social engineering scheme spending.
an interesting sidenote, for anyone wondering how they can justify spending so much outside of being insane. The United States "Credit Worthiness" or "credit rating" increased(for the better) under Bush, at one point in 2006 it was twice as good as it was during the 1990's. Also, the Nations Debt Burden, not the big number everyone focuses on, but the Debt contrasted with Tax inflows also decreased until the last 6 months or so.
all because the Economy grew, tax rates remained stable and tax inflows soared at a higher pace than the budget deficit.
The ObamaMessiah Toe-Suckers REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT the DR's chart. You @holes cannot recognize that compared to post 9/11 Bush, and BO's 4X INCREASE IN DEFICIT IS OFF THE F'ING CHART. And you defend this lunacy with the talking points. You are wearing me out justifying BO's bad behavior by pointing to Bush's bad behavior. WAKE UP YOU STUPID F'ING MORONS, BO IS KILLING THE COUNTRY.
(05-11-2009 10:13 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2009 09:33 AM)Artifice Wrote: [ -> ]I like him. Extremely smart, no-nonsense, straightforward, honest assesments, and about as apolitical as you can get in DC.
He's a very smart guy, but apolitical? Not anymore.
He continues to spout the party line that the current deficits are because of a problem Obama inherited, which doesn't pass the smell test at all.
Facts dont pass the smell test? Okay.
Listen to the guy once. Listen to the support he has across the aisle. That article "criticizes" the current budget with the following statement:
Quote:Annual deficits would never dip below $500 billion and would total $7.1 trillion over 2010-2019. Even those dismal figures rely on economic projections that are significantly more optimistic — just a 1.2 percent decline in gross domestic product this year and a 3.2 percent growth rate for 2010 — than those forecast by private sector economists and the Congressional Budget Office.
Which is exactly what he's been saying for months. I watched him say it. Wait, actually he said more than $7.1 Trillion. He's a realist.
Obama 'inherited' the 8,000 plus Pork spending request he's already signed into law, Bush and the Republicans in congress made him do it of course!
Dem Logic: Bushes spending and congressional pork was devistating for the economy, because of that the Dems need to spend
4x as much our first year of unaccountable power and the only reason we are doing this is because of Bushes initial spending!
like an alcoholic trying to cure his problem by drinking even more.
of course its all political b.s. and is really about Payback for the Investment that his contributors paid to get him elected.
Meanwhile, the AP actually fact-checks them some.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...TE=DEFAULT
(05-11-2009 11:09 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]MLB, this is for you
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTE...zE=&w=MA==
I agree that the cycles change and therefore the republican's had to move backwards... no denying that, IMO.
The only point I was making is that the Republican's ***** now but made excuses during the Bush presidency as far as deficits go. I said it was apples to oranges in terms of total $$$, but the point is that the Republican's had the congress and presidency and didn't stay true to their "morals".
Edit: Go back and see my posts over the last several weeks in this forum... I've mentioned the cycles multiple times. I also state that I don't like either party, neither has the best interest of average American's in mind...
(05-11-2009 11:53 AM)mlb Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2009 11:09 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]MLB, this is for you
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTE...zE=&w=MA==
I agree that the cycles change and therefore the republican's had to move backwards... no denying that, IMO.
The only point I was making is that the Republican's ***** now but made excuses during the Bush presidency as far as deficits go. I said it was apples to oranges in terms of total $$$, but the point is that the Republican's had the congress and presidency and didn't stay true to their "morals".
Edit: Go back and see my posts over the last several weeks in this forum... I've mentioned the cycles multiple times. I also state that I don't like either party, neither has the best interest of average American's in mind...
MLB, I wasn't accusing you of anything. I just thought the article supported what you said in some ways.
(05-11-2009 10:13 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2009 09:33 AM)Artifice Wrote: [ -> ]I like him. Extremely smart, no-nonsense, straightforward, honest assesments, and about as apolitical as you can get in DC.
He's a very smart guy, but apolitical? Not anymore.
He continues to spout the party line that the current deficits are because of a problem Obama inherited, which doesn't pass the smell test at all.
He's right, we do have to do something about health care. But the current deficit doesn't even account for what his boss, Obama, wants to do. That will increase that deficit even more.
Doesn't pass the smell test? Seems to me that there was a HUGE deficit when he came to office. Seems to me that our infrastructure has been falling apart for years because of neglect(ie. no money) so money has to be spent to update them. Basically, what I feel doesn't pass the smell test is your post. It is complete BS.
(05-11-2009 12:20 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]Doesn't pass the smell test? Seems to me that there was a HUGE deficit when he came to office. Seems to me that our infrastructure has been falling apart for years because of neglect(ie. no money) so money has to be spent to update them. Basically, what I feel doesn't pass the smell test is your post. It is complete BS.
What infrastructure are you talking about?
(05-11-2009 12:20 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2009 10:13 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2009 09:33 AM)Artifice Wrote: [ -> ]I like him. Extremely smart, no-nonsense, straightforward, honest assesments, and about as apolitical as you can get in DC.
He's a very smart guy, but apolitical? Not anymore.
He continues to spout the party line that the current deficits are because of a problem Obama inherited, which doesn't pass the smell test at all.
He's right, we do have to do something about health care. But the current deficit doesn't even account for what his boss, Obama, wants to do. That will increase that deficit even more.
Doesn't pass the smell test? Seems to me that there was a HUGE deficit when he came to office. Seems to me that our infrastructure has been falling apart for years because of neglect(ie. no money) so money has to be spent to update them. Basically, what I feel doesn't pass the smell test is your post. It is complete BS.
No money? How odd, many of us pay quite a bit of money in terms of taxes, tolls, etc. Maybe you don't. Maybe Obama's appointees don't. But many of us do. So it appears that you're pretty well unqualified to discuss what passes a smell test.
