A perspective on government spending

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_starinvestor, Feb 17, 2010.

  1. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Nightfall in America - WSJ.com

    The reason for these rising deficits is the huge increases in federal spending--the intended growth of the federal government--that Congress and the president are pushing. The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2020.

    It isn't even possible to put a math equation together to pay the debt down in the next ten years.

    Biggest government of all time; and biggest spending agenda in U.S. history.

    For those that like to deflect the spending issue back to the Bush Administration, consider this little detail:

    Michael Boskin, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under the first President Bush, noted in The Wall Street Journal last week that President Obama will have added more debt in his first two years in office than George W. Bush did in eight years.

    spending/stockpiling debt at a rate of 4X that of Bush II.

     
  2. justasimpleguy

    justasimpleguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    425
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean like when Bush tripled the debt in 8 years while privatizing the military, starting two wars without any plan to finish them, trashing social welfare programs, shredding environmental regulations and giving the finger to the world? No. Oh well it was worth a try.
     
  3. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere


    Here we go again. Same old twisted crap from the one hit wonder.

    ..:sleeping:
     
  4. ericbythebay

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    304
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Verified:
    Photo
    Bush and Obama are both big spenders, don't try and kid yourself. Bush had eight years, when he left office the country had more debt than when he took office. Obama is on track to do the same.
     
  5. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Agree.

    Only Obama's administration is spending at a much greater rate - see OP.
     
  6. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere

    .....:sleeping:
     
  7. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    You missed the part where "Pelosi-Reid" budgets were actually for less spending than what Bush had proposed in his budget sent to Congress. In reality, if Bush had gotten his way, our deficits would be even higher. Just as has been the case since the 1980s, the only side of the aisle showing any fiscal restraint when they're in power are the Dems. The Reps howl about fiscal discipline when the Dems are in control, but when they themselves are in control, the Reps always act like a teenage girl on a shopping spree with daddy's platinum card.

    So, thanks for the 'perspective' and the purposefully misleading information. It serves as a good reminder as to why the Reps were kicked out of office and haven't done a damn thing to prove that they have learned from their disastrous mistakes of the past and will not repeat them ever again. Hell, the Republicans haven't even confessed to their epic failures, let alone apologize for them. The notion that they should be or have been forgiven by voters is ludicrous. The idea that the Republicans are capable of leading this country is an absolute joke right now to everyone but the Republican base. They have done NOTHING to lead this nation forward for years and everyone knows it.
     
  8. scottredleter

    scottredleter New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    748
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    I thought Dick Cheney put all this to rest when he said that deficits don't matter... that's the way that dumb-shit reagan saw things too... Just run up the bill and then try to paint the democrats as tax and spend liberals
     
  9. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    I know, right? Plus now we're paying for two wars in the budget vs. off the books through 'emergency supplementals' as Bush did. Plus all the bailouts, support for the auto industry, increased demand for unemployment payouts, increased demand for social services, job stimulus, etc., etc. - all to clean up the colossal mess left by the previous administration.

    You unfortunately have to spend money to pull out of recession and stimulate the economy. I keep trying to explain this to starpoop, but some people are hopeless ideologues and beyond help. btw, totally down with the rest of your post too.

    So true.
     
    #9 maxcok, Feb 21, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2010
  10. ZOS23xy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,073
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    directly above the center of the earth
    And also hovering about is the banks not being regulated, the old problem of the cost of oil and gas and people just not interested in solutions, working for solutions and interested in pointing and laying blame. There's the diminished mentality at work when the whole of the problem can be laid at the feet of anyone "liberal".

    Existing problems of a scientific nature are being turned into politics. What a stupid idea.
     
  11. LambHair McNeil

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    1
    ...the only side of the aisle showing any fiscal restraint when they're in power are the Dems...

    That's hilarious.
     
  12. dreamer20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Providence

    So were you laughing when the senate Republicans voted against "pay as you go" on Jan 28, 2010? Fortunately senate Democrats voted to adopt statutory pay-go rules for legislative business , in what party leaders described as an affirmation of their commitment to budgetary discipline...

    McCain, Three Other GOPers, Reverse Support For Pay-Go
     
  13. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    ^Reminds me of the balanced budget act that the Dems passed which led to a budgetary correction and eventually supluses by the end of the 90s, which was later repealed once Bush II took over, and we all know what happened to the budget after the Reps ran if for a few years.

    Isn't it funny how the surpluses Dems built up through good leadership were supposedly 'bad' for us, and had to be frittered away by the Republicans on tax breaks for the rich, BS wars, and other corrupt BS. The Reps even told us that 'deficits were good for the country'.. yet all we got to show for 8 years of their leadership is an absolutely wrecked economy and unimaginably huge deficits. And now that the country is pretty much fucked, and nobody is entirely sure what the best course of action is, where are the republicans? Are they being honorable leaders and taking responsibility for what they did? Nope. Are they out there being exemplars of leadership in bringing forth compelling new ideas to solve the crisis that their ideology and their votes created? Of course not, because the Republicans are not leaders, and they are not honorable, respectable or anything else that could be described as a desirable trait to have in a leader of men.
     
    #13 B_talltpaguy, Feb 23, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2010
  14. LambHair McNeil

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    1
    Pay-go rules are just a sham. Democratic Congresses have no problem setting them aside to raise spending but promise to faithfully enforce them when dealing with the subject of tax cuts - tax cuts being something that can help out (even if temporary in nature) when trying to come out of steep recessions.

    The 1990s were a unique decade, with fiscal changes brought about the the end of the Cold War and the resulting inflation-adjusted cuts in the defense budget throughout the decade. The fiscal follies of both sides were tamed by having split-party rule in Washington from 1995-onward, and the skyrocketing stock market (tech bubble) of the late 90's papered over a lot of state and federal balance sheets.

    Besides, when you get down to it, that surplus money was more due to the Social Security trust fund + the stock market than any one party's brilliant ideas or execution. After all, if either Gingrich-inspired or Clinton-led policies were to credit, then why did neither side predict the surpluses in advance of their arrival?

    I didn't exonerate the Republicans and what they did during the 00's. Bush was never a fiscal conservative & the only conservative side of him that I could find was on judicial nominations. Given the history of Republicans in the 00's when they held the reins and what Dems have started proposing in the way of deficit spending in their first full year of unified control of Washington, all of this is akin to arguing over whether lions or tigers are preferable when it comes to guarding the chickens.
     
  15. dreamer20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,492
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    N.Providence
    The Bush Budget Deficit Death Spiral

    Whether or not surpluses were anticipated, in 1993 President Bill Clinton planned to move the deficit mountain he encountered and had faith that he would achieve this objective. Democrats in the House of Representatives, also having faith in Clinton's Economic and Deficit reduction plan of 1993, voted for it in an overwhelming majority , whilst all Republicans voted against it.

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever. [/FONT]

    The Clinton Record - Clinton's Accomplishments
     
  16. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    The expansion under Clinton had EVERYTHING to do with the dot-com boom, and nothing to do with tax policy.
     
  17. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    That's funny*: according to conventional wisdom, it was the 1994 midterms and Gingrich's tenure as Speaker that led to Clinton's increased "pragmatism**" and eventually led to the budget surpluses. At the time, it was heralded as a true bi-partisan triumph toward fiscal sanity.

    *Funny strange, not ha-ha.

    **"Pragmatism" meaning that he moved from "far left" to a centrist, though in reality he was always a centrist, especially on social issues.
     
  18. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Apparently, ideology and belief, regardless of its high level of convolution, is more important than actual facts to some people.
     
  19. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Why is it you never see the queen with a face and the transvestor in the same room? I would think all you have to do is change names get back on and support you alter ego.
     
  20. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest


    I don't disagree. However, the raging fury of the technology bubble made any type of tax policy a mere rounding error during that era. In other words, nothing was stopping the economic expansion. Nothing in monetary or fiscal policy changes would have caused a hiccup.

    Sarah Palin could have surfed that wave into a surplus.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted