B_talltpaguy
Experimental Member
Good to see you finally admit that Bush's presidency was a failed one.
CBO: Under Obama's Budget Debt Level Will Rise to 90% of GDP in Nine Years
- Thread starter Trinity
- Start date
Really? Your response to this is to divide the difference by 4 assuming that Bush didn't explode the deficit right before leaving office? Not even including the gigantic cost of his upper-level tax cuts.Your own link says:
at the end of Bush's term debt was 78% of GDP not 80% - you must use the same advisors and accountants as Obama.
I wasn't aware that Clinton's presidency faced the same things that Obama's been having to deal with. For one thing, Obama's been investing in alternative fuels, college education, small business tax credits, infrastructure renewal, and various other things; secondly, recessions always result in more government spending in any sane government.
His budget tells no story other than he's actually investing in things that, frankly, would have been FAR cheaper if invested in 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. Pretty much the only thing I'm getting out of this is "it's my grandchildren's problem, not mine."
Actually, yes, you CAN blame Bush for spending our money on absolutely stupid things that you can't even call "investments." You're basically condoning Bush taking out a $100,000 bank loan to buy a bunch of balloons while attacking Obama for taking out a similar bank loan to start a business. You can't bring up what he campaigned on, either, and accuse him of breaking those promises a year into plans that are meant to pay off over several years - even decades in some cases (such as gas emissions). That's just silly and you know this.No. Obama can't deficit spend increasing the debt and deficit to record amounts above what Bush did and keep blaiming it all on Bush. Obama campaigned on Paygo. Obama campaigned on fiscal responsibility. Obama campaigned on balancing the budget. Obama campaigned on not leaving future generations burdened with debt. Obama is NOT doing any of that. Obama's Stimulus didn't stimulate jobs so he had to pass numerous jobs bills which is just BILLIONS MORE IN STIMULUS that is adding to the deficit. That's on Obama. That was Obama's error in Presidential judgement. Obama forced an unpaid for entitlement that will cost Trillions. Obama is mishandling TARP. Obama's Mortgage Program is a failure. Under Obama Wall Street is still doing the same things that got us in this mess. Obama, Obama Obama. Sorry but he can't blame Bush for his own mistakes, his failure to lead or his administration's inability to do what he claimed he could do in the campaign.
Obama's legacy will be HIS legacy. If what he does during his administration fails...it will be a failed Presidency for...Obama.
Know what else I don't get? How you can accuse Obama of doing a "government takeover" while also accusing him of "mishandling TARP" when he's pretty much done everything he can legally do as President (with a half-assed bill pushed under Bush, by the way) to force these banks into paying off their loans. You can't bitch and moan for him to do more, than call him a commie for putting payment caps on the CEO's. And you also can't accuse the stimulus bill of not creating any jobs until you can find an economist that doesn't see how rebuilding roads, funding fuel research, and various other things creates jobs; and you never will find an economist that will tell you that, because that makes no sense.
Oh, and if what he does "fails," (which there's no actual reason beyond Fox News talking points to believe this) it's a failure for the entire country. Seriously?
I didn't say or admit that so you are incorrect...but I'd have no problem saying it. Obama's legacy is his own too. If Obama couldn't handle the problems he should not have campaigned for the job.
No. My response was clear. Your response was wrong.
What you aren't aware of is a whole lot apparently. Taking government spending past sustainability is insane actually.
The only one you're getting that from is Obama. He is pushing off enormous amounts of debt on future generations - which is something he claimed he would not do. Obama's budget demonstrates that he lacks the leadership to conduct proper accounting of funds - his projections are off by more than a Trillion and he lacks the leadership and the experience to turn a recession into a surplus as President Clinton was able to do in 8 years or even get close to balancing the budget in 10 years.
You are irrational or not listening. I blame Bush for spending on stupid things right with you.
No...I'm not. I called out Bush for his failings. That is in the past. Now we have problems that we need to fix. We need the right leader to address the problems. Obama isn't starting a business that will generate profits. You are confused. Did you read the article? Obama's own budget over 10 years shows deficits increasing due to his spending, spending and spending. And it is worst than what is in his budget because his healthcare plan is based on accounting gimmicks. An unpaid for entitlement program is not a business - it is an expenditure that could break us. Social Security is now going increasing our deficit 6 years early - that is not generating profits. Medicare, Medicaid and on. The areas of our economy that generate funds are still suffering despite Obama's failed stimulus. High Unemployment means the government isn't collecting necessary taxes (revenues).
Of course voters can...and they should.
If Obama campaigned on PayGo and fails to pay as he goes on the majority of his spending...he is breaking his promise in his first year in office. If his budgets ten years out show his deficits exploding then Obama is failing to cut the deficit.
It is apparent - you don't get it. Obama had a half of TARP to spend. As President he handles the entire program...and he could have chosen to cancel his half and adjust the rules. He didn't. Obama is responsible for his administration's management or mismanagement of TARP. The Stimulus failed to create the jobs promised just like Obama's mortgage plan failed to help the number of homeowners promised.
yep, very convincing. Bad math =/= argument; neither do semantics regarding rounded numbers.
What you aren't aware of is that one-time investments aren't the same as, say, tax cuts that cost just as much and are actually sustained. You seem to be fond of crying "debt this" and "debt that" while ignoring the investment behind it, yet you wonder why nobody's taking you seriously. You ever try going to a bank with that attitude?What you aren't aware of is a whole lot apparently. Taking government spending past sustainability is insane actually.
So you think that, for Obama to do the right thing for your grandchildren, he should just ignore today's problems? Yeah, that ostrich approach always works out well. Let's ignore alternative fuels while China and India begin increasing their demand exponentially for the same limited fuels, even assuming you're a nut who doesn't find the widespread scientific concensus on global warming to be enough for CO2 emissions to convince you.
While we're at it, let's also refuse to invest in highways, high-speed rail, fiber-optic cables, and other necessary infrastructure if we hope to compete internationally in the next 20 years. Let's also cut funding for college students; that's sure to help our competitiveness.
And really? Obama's clearly choosing optimistic variables for his projections, but it's not to the extent that you would like to believe. And again, how is any of this relevant to Clinton - a president who, 15 years ago, chose to ignore the same problems that exist today?
No, you're irrational in assuming that Obama's spending policies are even remotely in the same direction as Bush's.
You also seem to be fond of calling Obama out for Bush's failings as well. You acknowledge that the country has its problems, and then completely ignore it thereafter to vaguely bash on Obama for *gasp* necessarily spending money on those same problems that have literally been decades in the making.
And again, health care reform is based off optimistic variables. You're eating that "accounting gimmicks" crap from the same Congressman that actually uses accounting gimmicks and voodoo-economic theory to campaign on privatizing social security. Social security, by the way, is having its high costs because of baby-boomers reaching retirement as well as rising unemployment and increased poverty; you know, those things that tend to happen during recessions. You seem pretty desperate to pin SS, Medicare and Medicaid on Obama despite the fact that their budget problems are not only completely unrelated to the guy, but also that health care reform is taking a gigantic chunk out of wasteful Medicare spending (and guess what? It's almost exclusively because of private contracts in Medicare part D).
But then again, you know what would REALLY cut costs? The "socialist" policies he initially pushed for, such as a public option (or better, single-payer), removal of protectionist policies (that pharmaceuticals and insurers lobbied hard to keep in place), and all that other cool "socialist" stuff.
yay for cyber soundbites, huh? Not even going to bother pointing out all the ways this distorts what I said in the part of the sentence you chose to omit.
You know how a loan works, right? It's one of those things where you borrow money with the intent of using that investment to pay it back later. If you'd like, feel free to point out which bills since PayGo don't have payment plans.If Obama campaigned on PayGo and fails to pay as he goes on the majority of his spending...he is breaking his promise in his first year in office. If his budgets ten years out show his deficits exploding then Obama is failing to cut the deficit.
It is apparent that you don't get how separation of powers work. There's only so much the president can legally do to modify the effects of a bill passed by Congress. Hell, even the CEO pay cap had him getting flak with Fox calling it "unconstitutional." However, since we're on this, last I recall repayment on those TARP funds increased sharply after Obama came into office; you know, just take that for what it's worth.
And regarding the Stimulus and mortgage funds: Who cares if they didn't meet obviously optimistic goals? They still did their jobs. In fact, most economists have suggested MORE stimulus spending.
Wow, can't believe I actually spent 20 minutes spelling this out to someone who clearly won't change their stance just for the sake of not changing their stance.