Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Feb. 18, 2013 | 2 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
Our president continues to call for increased government spending but says it won’t raise the deficit. I’m not someone who believes all government spending is bad or that it cannot help the economy grow, but at least when New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls for more spending, he admits it will raise the deficit.
Much of the spending the president has done over the past four years has added to the deficit; it is likely that new spending will be no different. It would be nice if the president were as straightforward as Krugman.
If President Barack Obama believes that reducing spending at this time would damage the recovery and the economy, as Krugman does, then he should come out and say so.
Then Americans can have a real debate about that.
By spinning fairy tales that more spending will not add to the deficit, the president engages in the same game played in the Bush administration: making statements and promises that simply are not supported by the facts in an effort to shield Americans from some very harsh realities.
It really does need to stop.
Michael points out "President Barack Obama believes that reducing spending at this time would damage the recovery and the economy, as Krugman does, .
- there is no spending cut -- PERIOD
January 2013 CBO report:
--- Spending in 2011 and 2014 is about the same at $3.6 trillion -
so there is "NO SPENDING CUT" year over year.
While spending is still up a trillion dollars per year from 2007 to 2011 and it is flat since Republicans took the House January 2011
--- Federal Tax revenue are increasing from $2.3 trillion (2011) to $3.2 trillion (2014 est)
So tax revenues are $900 billion higher year over year.
Tax revenues are due to income and payroll tax rate increases and Obamacare taxes mostly on the middle class
---
The SEQUESTER is in the CBO NUMBERS SO THERE IS NO CUT
The truth is that taxes are going up, costs to live are increasing and at the most, the 'rate of growth' of spending is slowing.
Neither the Republicans or the Democrats have put forth a plan that puts us on a path to spending that comes close to matching revenue.
I believe that spending cannot be cut drastically or quickly without damaging the economy, but I also believe the we cannot continue to spend at the rate we are without damaging the present and future economy.
You hear the word 'balance' used often, but to Republicans that means spending cuts and no tax rate increases and to Democrats it means higher taxes, more spending and no real spending cuts.
Real leadership would be for the President and both parties to admit that more spending will increase both the debt and deficit, more taxes will be required, we are going to have to go after the waste and fraud in the budget, both defense spending and domestic spending are going to have to be scaled back, in as fair and reasonable way as possible and entitlement programs are going to have to be modified, at least for future recipients.
Michael
March 1, the Sequester kicks in. These are the automatic spending cuts that trim 2.5 percent of the fiscal year 2013 budget with 85 billion in automatic cuts in defense and discretionary programs. Recall this was President Obama's solution to the August 2011 debt/deficit problem when the Supercommittee failed to reach a compromise. The Sequester was to become effective on January 1, 2013: The fiscal cliff. Congress and President moved it back to March 1. The latest likely solution will be to "kick the can down the road" yet again. Probably delay the sequester until September 31 or even December 31. If the GOP is smart, and I never accused them of being so, it will let the sequester happen on March 1. Then, bam boom bang: The Continuing Resolution expires on March 27 with no additional funds to operate. The Federal government closes down. No one except the government employees in Washington DC, including Congress and the President, will take notice. In fact the rest of the country will benefit with a government shutdown. Just what it deserves. Let er rip.
CarmineD
Once upon a time...........
"Neither the Republicans or the Democrats have put forth a plan that puts us on a path to spending that comes close to matching revenue."
Equally true - Neither Republicans or Democrats have put forth a plan that puts us on a path to revenue that come close to matching spending.
We have an impasse here and two sacred cows are at stake. The sacred cow of the Republicans is taxes that they refuse to raise and would prefer to lower. The sacred cow of the Democrats are the entitlement programs. Little will change until and unless both are put on the table.
We don't have a problem that is strictly spending. We don't have a problem that is strictly revenue. We have a DEFICIT problem and until we attack it from both sides, improvement will be limited.
"The sacred cow of the Republicans is taxes that they refuse to raise and would prefer to lower. The sacred cow of the Democrats are the entitlement programs. Little will change until and unless both are put on the table." @ Jim Weber
Bingo and the Sequester was born.
CarmineD
Michael says "I believe that spending cannot be cut drastically or quickly without damaging the economy..."
Michael there is NO CUT in spending and Medicare has not been fixed
What Republican have accomplished since taking the House January 2011 is flat spending at $3.6 trillion after Obama Reid and Pelosi had raised it $1 trillion per year
What Obama Reid and Pelosi have accomplished is annual tax increase of $900 billion
It is just math READ THE 2013 CBO budget forecast
Michael, have you gone off your rocker! Your comments are way off the mark. Hey! Look, if I have to point out where you are wrong with your comments.... Look, you are losing your best position when you start a false debate like the one you posted above.
Are you bored, nothing to do on a Monday, on President Day?
The system is corrupted with huge amount of money given to political candidates. Federal and State elections are being sold to the highest bidder. Stick with the facts. Don't lose your position. Don't throw away your trump card with the comments you spewed out today!
Can Michael Casler please provide the direct quote he is referring to in his "Fairy Tale", that or is this an analysis of your overall interpretation of Obama's thoughts on the budget and spending?
Without a direct quote this letter could be described as a Grim fairy tale itself.
Voters made a choice in the November elections between two competing visions for the nation's future. President Obama easily won reelection with 332 electoral votes and over 51% of the popular vote, just the first president to win 51% twice since Eisenhower in 1950s.
Democrats also picked up US Senate seats in two dark red states, North Dakota and Indiana, while retaining seats in two other red states, Missouri and Montana.
What does it mean? It means the people have spoken with their votes, saying loud and clear that they agree with the progressive vision of prosperity for all, put forth by Democrats.
The recovery from Bush's economic mismanagement is gaining steam but remains fragile. This is not the time for austerity measures that recklessly cut spending while allowing the Mitt Romney types to continue hoarding their wealth in overseas tax shelters.
I totally agree that our Legislative branch (Congress) is corrupted by money and lobbyists. That is the biggest issue we have facing us, but as long as we re-elect the same people over and over again, that isn't going to change. We need term limits, public financing of campaigns and lobbying reform. We will never get any of that by 'approving' what we do get by re-electing the same people.
The direct quote...'and it won't add a dime to the deficit'... Several of the programs the President proposed would be laudable if they were administered properly and lobbying in Congress would not insure that they money allocated was not misappropriated and wasted. And even if we say the programs would be properly administered, to say they won't add a dime to the deficit .... is just not true. We can't pay for what we spend now and the President calls for increased spending and says it won't add to the deficit? What?
If the President were wise enough and brave enough to call for increased taxes (on the wealthy or on everyone) to pay for all the increased spending plus a little more to pay for what we already spend, I'd have no problem. I could support some of the programs he proposed. But that isn't what is being proposed. Just like the previous administration and Congress, the money will be spent but it won't be paid for with additional revenue or reductions elsewhere and the deficit and debt will rise.
Michael
From Bloomberg:
"Alan Krueger, chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said in a post-speech question-and-answer session on the White House website that Obama's budget proposal will spell out the costs and how to pay for them. He repeated the president's assurance that new spending proposals won't expand the deficit.
"He's staying within the agreed-upon limits of the budget control act," Krueger said, referring to the 2011 deficit- reduction law that Obama signed to lift the nation's debt ceiling. "The president has made clear he's willing to do the difficult spending cuts to make room" for the initiatives he wants, he said. There's a "high return for these kind of investments."
Deficit Worries
The president's initiatives will be shadowed by continuing uncertainty about the U.S. economy, which unexpectedly shrank by 0.1 percent during the final three months of last year raising questions about the recovery's strength.
Most stocks rose a day after Obama's address, with the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index gaining 0.1 percent yesterday to 1,520.33, the highest level since October 2007. Retail sales in the U.S. rose 0.1 percent last month, matching the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg."
Michael seems to have contracted Obamapsychosis syndrome once again. Sad.
While he was president Bush never lifted a finger to cut spending. In fact, W cut taxes during a time of war by putting the Iraq debacle on a credit card.
Shortly after the invasion of Iraq Bush was asked what the average American could do to support the war effort. His answer was that everyone should "go shopping." Consumer buying to pay for a war is not an economic plan but it's just as good as what GOPers propose now -- scorched earth spending cuts.
And republicans wonder why voters are scared to death that they might gain control of the purse strings again someday.
Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
Let's file away the statements of President Obama and Alan Krueger and re-visit them in 6 months. I have never been a Bush apologist and I won't be an Obama apologist either.
Much of the debt and deficit is the responsibility of the former President, his administration and those Congresses. The task at hand is doubly difficult because spending wasn't property dealt with for 8 years. SOMEBODY, at SOMETIME is going to have to deal with the debt and deficit. When Bush was in office, he would not take the tough steps necessary. So far, Obama has also been unwilling to do so, and now the steps required are even more painful.
Words and promises are still as cheap as they were from 2000 to 2008. We need real leadership. Let's see if President Obama has what it is going to take.
Michael
Last proclaims "While he was president Bush never lifted a finger to cut spending."
Two observation:
1-- the FY-2007 deficit was $160 billion under Bush after that Reid and Pelosi controlled the budget
2-- liberal blame everything while Obama is in office on Congress
Is it Congress or the President that you blame
Can't blame Bush with out blaming Obama
Future....
I'm going to ask you the two questions that Carmine ran & hid from.....
In other words, he NEVER answered them..
(1) Who was the last Republican president to produce a balanced budget?
(2) Who was the last Republican president to decrease the size of the federal government?
I'm looking forward to your answer.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
The president is not calling for increased government spending. The tens of thousands of people a day that are signing up for supplemental income, medical assistance, education assistance, and various other programs are demanding additional government spending.
Deficit spending is not the fault of our presidents. It's the fault of millions of people that think they can take something from the government and not be anything to the government.
Politicians are giving people exactly what they want. Maximum entitlements with very low taxes.
Again, let's set partisanship aside and look at the facts. The people who we elect never really want to spend less and/or shrink government. Spending and growing government is how they 'stay in office'!
The only real difference is that Republicans make claims about their intentions that the 'facts' don't support.
It was OK to have two parties that wanted to spend more and more (just in different areas)... as long as we had a vibrant economy and taxes were raised somewhat from time to time.
The real problems started when our vibrant economy stopped being so vibrant and our elected leaders decided that taxing enough to make our continued spending increases somewhat affordable was just too unpopular to consider.
Nothing has changed recently and we are on the same course. Until circumstances force a change or enough Americans get frustrated enough to force a change, we will continue to travel this same course.
It will take an extraordinary President to be willing to tell the whole truth to Americans and so far, he or she has not appeared on the scene.
Michael
Gerry,
Sorry to disagree but our Presidents and our members of Congress do have a responsibility here. You're correct to point to Americans who want many benefits but also very low taxes, but we elect our leaders and expect them to tell us when what we want isn't really in our best interests. Instead, they just can't bring themselves to tell the truth because it would be unpopular. I do hold them responsible for that failure.
I used to hold just one party responsible, but my intellect and logic finally made me see the reality.
Michael
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
"The direct quote...'and it won't add a dime to the deficit'... "
That is not a direct quote.
What Obama actually said:
"... tonight I'll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago. Let me repeat: Nothing I'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It is not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth."
He never actually said "it won't add a dime to the deficit."
Casler's entire argument doesn't seem to be based on what Obama actually said.
"Nothing has changed recently and we are on the same course."
This, also, is not true.
"Here's a pretty important fact that virtually everyone in Washington seems oblivious to: The federal deficit has never fallen as fast as it's falling now without a coincident recession."
"To be specific, CBO expects the deficit to shrink from 8.7% of GDP in fiscal 2011 to 5.3% in fiscal 2013 if the sequester takes effect and to 5.5% if it doesn't. Either way, the two-year deficit reduction -- equal to 3.4% of the economy if automatic budget cuts are triggered and 3.2% if not -- would stand far above any other fiscal tightening since World War II."
Would the moderator like to expand on where this "personal attack" is?
ksand99, one form of a personal attack is when a comment can be viewed as having ridicule or disrespect, as opposed to simple disagreement, as a motive.
To the Moderator,
Thank you. I am fine with being disagreed with. I do make mistakes, as with a quote that wasn't correct and other things. What I would prefer not to see is ridicule... of myself or anyone else, so I thank you for your diligence. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
Michael
So you'll publish a letter to the editor ridiculing Obama's policies as "fairy tales" but when that same exact language is used to describe the position of Mr. Casler, it's objectionable?
You don't view that as a double standard?
Michael... Run for office on the platform that you're going to cutSocial Security, Medicare and Medicaid. See how many votes you get. People want assistance and if the politicians don't give it to them they can't get elected. A while back Social Security recipients didn't get a cost-of-living increase because inflation was muted. My wife gets $1550 a month and usually gets an increase of a few bucks a month. The outcry over not getting a cost-of-living increase was something to behold. If the gray hairs won't give up a few bucks what makes you think they're going to accept the massive cuts it would take to balance the budget. The unfunded liabilities currently sit at $66 trillion.
I do apologize about the quote. I was lazy and did not want to read through the entire state of the union again to find the quote, although I did watch the entire state of the union speech.
The government is spending nearly a trillion dollars more than comes in per year. The deficit (that is what we put on the government credit card each year) was 8.7 % of GDP in 2011 and will now be ONLY 5.3 % of GDP. Our GDP is 15 trillion dollars! Any reduction is commendable, but this is tiny.
With a debt of 16 trillion dollars, quite a bit more is going to be required over time than a tiny reduction in the deficit as a percentage of GDP.
Michael
Gerry,
I don't 'expect' that most Americans would take kindly to any changes to SS or Medicare. That doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. It means that such action would be unpopular. We are at a place where our elected representatives will not propose and pass ANYTHING that is unpopular. We will not continue to be a successful nation if we cannot make tough and unpopular decisions.
Michael
Future....
I'm going to ask you the two questions that Carmine ran & hid from.....
In other words, he NEVER answered them..
---
Fail to see the relevance of the questions WRT how much spending and how much taxing Obama and Clngress are engaged in TODAY. HERE AND NOW. rehashing who was the worst in the past is no more useful then proclaiming who was the best
Remember that the Clinton/Republican Congress that gave us a surplus also gave us a recession that immediately eliminated the surplus. And that short surplus came on a back of a gutted military
remember every president has events that may shatter any ability to put into effect their agenda
Bush had to dig out of the the Clinton DOT.COM recession and 9-11 and a Democrat Congress most of his terms
---
"I was lazy and did not want to read through the entire state of the union again to find the quote, although I did watch the entire state of the union speech."
Right... your "direct quote" was neither direct, nor a quote. The actual quote and few lines of context destroys the core of your argument.
"Any reduction is commendable, but this is tiny."
A $505 billion reduction in the deficit is tiny? That's a 40% reduction in the deficit in three years. Your perception does not seem to match the facts.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...
Another point of view.
"I don't 'expect' that most Americans would take kindly to any changes to SS or Medicare. That doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. It means that such action would be unpopular."
Mike, how do you square that with your comments in the past? You have been one of the most vocal critics of cuts to the wasteful Medicare Advantage private insurance scheme.
In August of last year, you wrote:
"Those changes to Medicare Advantage will hurt seniors like my wife."
In criticizing Medicare, you criticized the fact that Medicare doesn't cover 100% of costs, only 80%. It seems a few months ago, you were arguing that we should be spending MORE on Medicare, not less.
"Nothing I'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime." - President Obama, SOTU 2013
"[President Obama] never actually said 'it won't add a dime to the deficit.'" - ksand99
While it may be true that President Obama left himself a backdoor by saying "Nothing ... should increase" instead of "Nothing ... will increase" I think most people would feel that was the meaning to be conveyed. This is in line with Obama using a relative rather than absolute term to describe the State of the Union. ("stronger" rather than "strong" or "good".)
Strictly speaking, government spending "should" not increase the debt/deficit as long as revenues are increased to match. But we all know that simply does not happen. Our elected representatives (and ultimately the voters) have failed to answer the very basic questions of "What do we need, what do we want, and what can we afford?"
Obama can propose anything he thinks the American people want or need, but it is up to Congress, and arguably more importantly the American people themselves, to tell him what we really want and need and are willing to pay for, and how it will be paid for.
I think that we have a medical care problem in America. It is too expensive. Whether it is medicare, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, etc.... it costs too much. My issue with the ACA is that I don't think it addresses the problem, which is cost. In the past, I did not favor a government controlled health care system. That was when I had employer provided coverage. Now that I am self employed and have to purchase my own expensive insurance, I don't hold the same opinion. I'm not sure what the answer is but I know the system we have is simply too expensive. I don't think the ACA is the right prescription but I'm not sure what is.
I know the costs must be reduced or most Americans need to make a lot more money than they do now.
Michael
"Nothing I'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime." - President Obama, SOTU 2013
Send this to the masses and ask them how its interpreted.
Here's my question: How many broken promises or unfulfilled commitments does it take before the American people have had enough?
To me, this isn't a partisan question. Elected officials of both parties continue to say one thing and then do another. I'm thoroughly disgusted at this point.
Michael
"Nothing I'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime." - President Obama, SOTU 2013
Send this to the masses and ask them how its interpreted.
--
It was a deliberative lie
Boftx is correct. I was lazy and got caught, so shame on me. However, the intent of what the President said was hard to miss.
I don't expect the President to flesh out the details of how the spending will be paid for in a speech. To do so would invite attack.
Former President Bush said oil would pay for the war in Iraq but did not provide any details. When that didn't happen, he didn't say anything and Americans mostly yawned.
President Obama said the stimulus would be used to create shovel ready jobs to repair infrastructure. When that mostly did not happen, he said that shovel ready jobs were not so shovel ready and grinned. Again, Americans mostly yawned.
I could provide many other examples, but they all beg the question: How long do we continue to give these people a pass? There are not minor glitches...they are MAJOR FAILURES.
Michael
The base line CBO deficit projections can be downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43905
Table 1-1, line 30, shows the projected deficit declining to a minimum of $430B in 2015 and then beginning to rise again. (Note, these figures include the effects of the sequester from what I can tell, judging from the figures and notes on table 1-7.)
With that in mind, just what did President Obama mean when he said his proposals should not increase the deficit? If he meant that they would not increase it over the current deficit of $1,089B then he is probably correct, but if he meant that they should not increase the projected deficits then I think there is room for debate.
If as a result of his proposals we have a deficit of say $500B in 2016 instead of the projected $430 is that an increase in the deficit or not?
Just what was Obama's baseline for that claim?
And the real bottom line is this: the debt, and interest on that debt, continues to grow every year in absolute terms (line 34.) At some point we simply must put a stop to this!
So, in 2015, almost 2 full years from now, we will still be spending 430 BILLION dollars more than we bring in. Well, let's all sing hallelujah! We sure will be able to stop the debt from rising further if we get that accomplished! NOT!
Yes, at some point, we must put a stop to all this NONSENSE!
Michael
For extra credit, look at the numbers on line 32 very carefully after reading the note on line 69. What does that tell you about Social Security and the ability of the government to continue to raid the trust fund?
Of special interest is what happens to the numbers on lines 30, 31 and 32 in the years 2022 and 2023 (cols O and P, respectively.) The roll-ups in cols Q and R are even more disturbing.
I think this is where things veer from stated policy and intent to wild conspiracy theory and silly interpretive nonsense.
There will always be a faction of individuals who hear words... very clear language... and make wild interpretations of that language in order to justify their prejudices and belief systems. That entire problem is on display here for all to see.
"Obama said X." No, he didn't.
"Ok, he didn't SAY X, but he meant it!" No, he didn't.
In context, his words were very clear.
Secondly, citing CBO projections is meaningless, as the very programs and offsets Obama was talking about in the SOTU have not been evaluated by the CBO.
Both Obama's speech and the resulting Q&A cited above are clear: Obama will propose programs and offsets.
Simply, the very few who are claiming to have watched Obama's speech are omitting large swaths of it.
"To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we should do what leaders in both parties have already suggested, and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well-connected. After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks? How is that fair? How does that promote growth?"
"Now is our best chance for bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit. The American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms, and more time expanding and hiring; a tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered accountants can't pay a lower rate than their hard-working secretaries; a tax code that lowers incentives to move jobs overseas, and lowers tax rates for businesses and manufacturers that create jobs right here in America. That's what tax reform can deliver. That's what we can do together."
When you ignore the false quotes and put the speech in context, a much different picture is painted.
"So, in 2015, almost 2 full years from now, we will still be spending 430 BILLION dollars more than we bring in. Well, let's all sing hallelujah! We sure will be able to stop the debt from rising further if we get that accomplished! NOT! Yes, at some point, we must put a stop to all this NONSENSE!"
Great. Detail the cuts you want to see, and the amount of taxes you want to see raised. And explain how your cuts and additional revenue won't hurt our fragile recovery.
What programs will you cut from the 2015 budget to eliminate the $430 billion deficit, Mike?
The GOP seems to favor immediate cuts that would likely send us into another recession.
Take it from the CBO:
"We and many other forecasters had warned that, if all of the fiscal tightening that was scheduled to occur at the end of 2012 had actually occurred, the economy probably would have fallen into a recession," the CBO reported.
The CBO said that now that Congress had avoided most of the tax increases included in the fiscal cliff, the economy would grow by 1.5 to 1.75 percentage points more than it otherwise would have, avoiding the recession forecast for the first half of 2013.
The deficit and debt are long-term issues that need to be addressed reasonably, and not while we're still struggling to reduce unemployment. The immediate cuts that the right seems to favor - but refuses to detail, of course - would have damaging effects on our economy.
It is the job of the President and Congress to come up with proposed budgets. If I had the visibility that the President and members of Congress have on all the spending and all the programs, I somehow suspect I could come up with a combination of fraud reduction, elimination of duplicated programs, a streamlined tax system, etc, etc that would outperform anything I see being proposed today.
Would there be nobody that was damaged by doing this? No, but then again, I live in the real world.
Any of us that are honest realize that government always provides the worst possible scenario when any proposed reduction in spending or tax increases are proposed. Over time, we need to do a lot more of both if we want to do anything but nibble at the edges of this problem.
Michael
Y'All just spinning wheels and playing Chin Music with your solutions, links, and meaningless debates.
At the end of the day America has a problem, a spending problem.
Too many numbers to viably crunch
Too many fingers in the pie
Mike is right; we need a leader, not a tooth fairy!
The only way out of this is to beat-up on countries that have money, and confiscate their assets!
While we still have the capability to do so?
People supportive of President Obama say the Republicans want to cut spending right now and that will damage our fragile recovery.
People who don't support President Obama say that increased spending now will damage our fragile economy.
I suspect that there is some truth in both views. It's too bad that our dysfunctional government cannot reach a compromise.
Michael
Michael,
By definition a "dysfunctional government" is incapable of reaching a compromise. If that is what we have it is only the logical consequence of having a dysfunctional electorate.
thank you ksand99 for your thoughtful and obvious researched article. glad you were able to convince the moderator that you had something of value to share. Many of the posters have little or no idea what "deficit" mean. They only go by what they have been told by mostly the "bubble people." They easily forget that much of this deficit was caused by the fact 4 years ago America was in a deep fall on our way to a full blown DEPRESSION. We all know some of the real reason for this-- to name a couple-- Bank greed, two wars unpaided for, housing market collaspe, etc;: It is amazing how soon one forget what got us at this place in time. Solution-- If we could only convinces our Congrees to help create Jobs - the key word is HELP"---common sense tells us the deficit will gradually disappear. Stop whining and get busy contacting your federal legislator(s). We will only survive if we as the people" force our selfish legislators to listen to what we want instead of obeying their own self serving motives.
I agree. I just get very tired of hearing from Americans supporting one party or the other... that the dysfunction is solely or even mostly caused by:
a) The Republican Party
b) The Democratic Party
c) Conservatives
d) Liberals
The truth is that all of the above help cause the dysfunction by their belief that the opposite side is completely wrong and is the 'enemy' and that 'their' side is completely 'right' and has all the right answers.
We really are getting what we deserve. It's too bad so many of us are so stupid.
Michael
I think American voters are tired of people misleading with inaccurate, misleading quotes and dismissing facts.
Here are the facts that the GOP does not want you to know:
"Since the start of fiscal year 2011, President Barack Obama has signed into law approximately $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction for the years 2013 through 2022. Nearly three-quarters of that deficit reduction is in the form of spending cuts, while the remaining one-quarter comes from revenue increases. As a result of that deficit reduction, the projected rise in debt levels from today through 2022 has decreased by nearly 10 full percentage points of gross domestic product."
"Over the subsequent several months, Congress engaged in a protracted debate over the looming debt limit. The result of that debate was a bill titled the Budget Control Act. The act--also known as the debt-limit deal--reduced spending again. It did so mainly by setting caps on the overall amount of discretionary resources that Congress could allocate each year for the next decade. These caps were set even lower than the just-enacted, inflation-adjusted 2011 levels. So after already cutting spending several times to the tune of more than $500 billion, the Budget Control Act cut spending again--this time by approximately $860 billion. Together, the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process and the Budget Control Act are responsible for nearly $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending cuts. This is a whopping 10.6 percent reduction from inflation-adjusted 2010 spending levels."
"So where does all this deficit reduction leave us? Since the start of fiscal year 2011, Congress and the president have cut about $1.5 trillion in programmatic spending, raised about $630 billion in new revenue, and generated about $300 billion in interest savings, for a combined total of more than $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction. The result is a substantial cut in how much publicly held debt the country is expected to hold 10 years from now. Instead of reaching nearly 93 percent of GDP, debt is now projected to total about 83 percent of GDP--fully 10 points lower. And while that won't be enough to finally put the budget onto sustainable footing, it is a massive improvement. In fact, it's about two-thirds of the way toward stabilizing the debt-to-GDP ratio."
This GOP myth that Obama has done "nothing" to address the deficit is a fantasy that is not borne out by the facts.
Kevin,
What is the source for your quotes above? They are meaningless without that.
Thank you, Roger. My comments were removed because I used the same "fairy tales" construct proposed by Mike... the guy who just commented that Americans are "stupid."
Reducing the annual deficit by 40% in three years is not "nibbling around the edges. This is quite representative of what many on the right do in order to create an argument. First propose that Obama has done nothing. When that fallacy is dispatched, they say that Obama hasn't done ENOUGH.
The arguments are counter-intuitive. As you've noted, Roger, employment should be our #1 concern. The deficit is a medium-term problem, and the debt is a long-term concern. However so many of our fellow commenters would sacrifice more damage to a weak economy in service of reducing the deficit.
Deficit reduction alone is not a plan to save our economy. Immediate deficit reduction, as proposed here by several commenters, would have an immediate, substantial negative impact on employment. Unemployment would climb, thus increasing spending on social net programs and further reducing tax revenues.
The 'debt panic' narrative has gained a strong foothold with many on the right. They truly would cut off their nose to spite their face.
In fact, the recent reductions in annual deficits was met with contracting GDP in the fourth quarter of last year. They violently demand less spending, then when that reduced spending is met with a contraction of GDP, they blame everything except for their own policies.
What did Boehner exclaim at the end of 2011?
"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."
Boehner was successful... he undermined the recovery.
Michael all that is deserved at this time is AMEN. Until all of the factions you named above stop complaining and get involved by forcing their WILL on their elected representative, until then and on then nothing will change. I don't want the deficit forgotten , but what is more important at this time is JOB-JOBS- JOBS-. With jobs America can and will--quickly over come this man-made disaster. Bridges, schools and infra-structure jobs (pipe line-subways, electrical grids etc)are just some of the areas that would not be hard to begin,--- the problem once again is based purely on politics. We must Stop fighting each other and join forces to fight the common enemy. We need Government-otherwise only the strong and powerful will get what they need. Our Elected Representative have already decided what master they will serve, and it is certainly not you and I.
boftx:
KSands source is the Center For American Progress
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/b...
I can tell by your and Casler's reactions that you guys are finally beginning to have your blinders removed by the reality that Obama is not the boogieman you guys think.
O. want free pre-school, based on "need" I'm sure. Poor timing. Federal DHHS study shows $200 Billion wasted on Head Start--doesn't work much at all as they don't emphasize READING. Ditto the all-day K thing. And this thing about raising the minimum wage? Does he think that will lower the numbers of people applying for welfare benefits. Let's do the math: $14,500 for 1 of 2 adults working full time getting minimum wage--O's example had 2 parents with 2 kids. Add in $6-7K for Earned Income Credit and Additional EIC. Free utilities via LIHEA. Free food via EBT Food Stamps. Free K-12. Free Medicaid..... Let's see, that's about $30K a year for family of 4. OK it's not the Ritz but if all you can do is minimum wage work WHY do you have 2 kids?
BEFORE the recent election, O. on "The View" said EVERYBODY'S taxes will go up. If taxes go up enough, there would be no increase in deficit spending. BUT, the point should be that we cannot sustain the current rate of deficit spending.
Greece's government spending as a percent of GDP is over 50% compared to 41% in the US.
Back in the 1930's, US government spending as a percent of GDP averaged 19%. Clearly, we're spending more and not even paying for what we spend. Look below. Our entitlement costs are unsustainable. In 1990, total government spending was $2.05 trillion which is near the total of entitlement spending now in 2012. So entitlement costs passed our total government spending of 22 years ago. In 2008, total government spending was $3.03 trillion and the projected entitlement cost in 2021 is $3.2 trillion so entitlement costs eclipse total government spending in 13 years which is 9 fewer years. Entitlement costs are simply unsustainable. There are zero plans so far to rein in entitlement costs. Our current deficit is $1.1 trillion so we're not even paying for what we spend today. We can't keep ignoring our debt & deficits hoping they both go away or we die off without having to face the problem ourselves. Unless you believe in passing the debt off to your children and grandchildren.
Americans need to look at debt ridden countries like Greece to get a clearer picture of what debt can do to a country and how it reduces job prospects for its people. Currently 50% of college grads can't find work in their chosen field.
Entitlements costs then/now/future(projected by CBO):
1990 = $984 Billion
2012 = $2.4 Trillion($2,400 billion)
2021 = $3.2 Trillion(3,200 billion)
Total Government Spending
1990 = $2.05 Trillion
2008 = $3.03 Trillion
A Google search on the phrase "Since the start of fiscal year 2011, President Barack Obama has signed into law approximately $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction" lists several sites that have posted the information that Kevin provided, but the original source appears to be this from The Center for American Progress: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/b...
The pieces I have seen that quote from the original, such as the example given above which might be third or fourth hand, leave out much of the middle section of the original. It is worth reading the full original to get a better picture of what steps are being taken NOW to deal with/avoid the sequester and what the potential benefits/consequences might be.
I strongly suggest reading the ORIGINAL article and not relying on partial quotes from it.
Jeff,
Thanks for posting the link. It would seem you posted that while I was looking it up for myself. One thing to note, while that is the original, there are several bloggers and other sites that have re-posted selected portions that leave out significant information.
Overall, the original article is reasonably non-partisan but the second-, third- and fourth-hand accounts have applied a noticeable amount of spin.
Boftx:
I agree that some folks spin, but the overall truth is that KSand, Roger Warrick, peacelily, and myself have filled this thread with the truth, others have looked backwards and not been properly informed.
That is the way it usually is. KSand is universally on the side of truth.
Fairy tale economics? Bin Laden spent about $500,000 to pull off 9/11 and in repsonse, the Fairy-tale-In-Chief spent about $4 trillion: $8 million US dollars for every $1 Al Qaeda dollar. 15 of the 19 9/11 Conspirators came from Saudi Arabia but Bush invades Iraq, from which NONE of the conspirators originated.
This goes beyond a Fairy Tale and smack into Lunacyville, where the entire World gets Mooned in one act.
Michael Casler.......
Your horrible, greedy, lying republican party
destroyed our entire economy and middle class.
This is why you republicans lost two presidential
elections in a row and will lose the next two
elections.
And our great PRESIDENT OBAMA already turned our
economy around.
The only thing that you should be crying about
today is the huge rise in the price of gasoline.
The price of gas went up over 70 cents in
Las Vegas over the last two weeks.
This only hurts average and low income Americans
and also raises the price of food.
Do greedy republican run oil companies care?
There is NO REASON for the gas hike.
NONE!
And average and low income Americans can't
afford ANY CUTS to Social Security or Medicare
benefits.
NONE!
Don't even think about it.
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!
To add to SunJons comments:
Here is a must watch for all of the republicans who post here. It will make your day : http://msnbcpod.vo.llnwd.net/l1/video/po...
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
"Take it from the CBO"
The CBO also said the Obamacare was going to cost way more money, and be harder to implement.
Is it that the Dems only use the CBO when it affords them to or do they always use the recommendations and just seemed to miss the one about Obamacare?
It's kind of interesting that Conservatives are often portrayed as evil, spiteful and a host of nasty terms, but the people who have their comments removed for name calling are often the Progressives.
If President Obama gets his initiatives passed and they don't add anything to the deficit, I will stop calling his promise a fairy tale.
Michael
Chill, MC. No need to zip the descriptive language for PUBLIC FIGURES. Courts have long-ruled and it is widely accepted that one loses some rights such as privacy when one becomes a public figure. Think slander--you can say what you want about public figures (excepting threats to harm) but NOT about non-public individuals.
As you know, Michael, I / we sacrifice detail and PC redundancies in the interest of succinctness and making our points rather than droning on degenerating into an indecipherable "logic."
Michael.....
Yes, Conservatives are often portrayed as evil,
spiteful and a host of nasty terms.
Those republicans who destroyed our economy,
destroyed our middle class, who wiped out peoples
investments, who wiped out peoples retirements,
who lied us into war with Iraq, who called our
great PRESIDENT OBAMA every name in the book,
ARE EVIL, PERIOD.
"It's kind of interesting that Conservatives are often portrayed as evil, spiteful and a host of nasty terms, but the people who have their comments removed for name calling are often the Progressives."
Not really Michael, folks from the right are mostly ill informed and brainwashed, and type that way.
So when the stupidity exhibited is called for what it is, stupidity, and the other analogous words used it makes the moderators squirm.
Not surprising to me that progressives get tossed more than cons, alot of low information commentors on the right.
So, the moderator tosses comments made by Progressives because the 'truth' about conservatives makes the moderator squirm. I'll bet that assertion would be news to the moderator.
No, the comments are tossed because they amount to ridicule and personal attacks on individual non public figures. The moderator is doing the job for which he or she is being paid.
When someone won't admit what is obvious, it calls into question all the other assertions he or she makes.
Michael
Comment removed by moderator. - -
Chuck & Michael,
Here's an example:
Typical right wing poster "We were justified in going into Iraq, both parties authorized the war and there were weapons of mass destruction found".
All of these points are wrong and untrue, but variously claimed regularly by the right, either in bits and pieces or in whole.
Those of us who know the real story have a hard time dealing with practiced stupidity so we will exclaim "You must be a real moron to believe that rubbish" and the comment gets removed.
It doesn't make your sides comments any truer, they are still lies, it doesn't make the fact you have made a moronic statement untrue.
It's a byproduct of he or she who posts the dumbest stuff will likely get the most comments pointing out how dumb someone has been in their position.
Hate it or love it, it is the way it is, you guys are WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY out there, someone calls you a Martian and the comment gets zapped.
Jeff I was and to this day am not in favor of any war. There's ways of getting the end one desires without using force so I agree with you that Iraq was a huge mistake. As far as what you and others beleive, or should I say led to beleive is that lets say the Benghazi mess. you and others think that these murders were due to a you tube film made by some wack job. Things like this prove day in and out that your purely partisan and don't have the where for all to look at given situations and think for yourself. Any firstgrader knew that it was a terrorist attack but you all put blinders on and deflected conversations away from the true story. Oh and by the way this lie went on for two weeks and none of you stood up to your party and said that they misled the public. Not One of you!
Chuck, here is a case in point. Whether those murders were caused by a YouTube video or spontaneous thought or months of cold blooded planning they were attacks carried out by terrorists.
Another point of contention is your inability to look at the terrorists as the provocateurs here instead of taking a man (Obama) at his word that he would get to the bottom of it.
Hillary acquitted herself very well under incredibly vapid questions from republicans with a very limited quest for truth. They were looking for votes and campaign money, and scalps.
One should be genuinely indebted to the families of the 4 killed, but lets keep this in perspective. It is a RARE occurrence.
So, once again, it would have been easier to just say you are a ___ ____ ____ (fill in the blanks) but this would get my comment tossed, but you would still be wrong.
Some misdirection was applied to the situation, get over it. It may have caught the killers. There is and was time for clarification of the Benghazi situation.
Jeff deflection does not clarify what happened. Again you don't look at the whole picture only the one you are lead to believe. You can call people all the names you want, I consider the source, but in the end you prove my point that you and others are blatantly bias and nothing will change that.
Oh I take noone at their word, especially politicians.
What bias Chuck?
I have none, you want me to join YOUR bias AGAINST something or someone.
I think 4 families got the raw end of the deal, it doesn't translate into I have to join your condemnation of all things Obama.
To me it means we need to do better from now on and
I WANT THE SUMS A BEECHES THAT DID THIS CAUGHT, YESTERDAY.
Fairy tale?
Let's talk about real fairy tales: Once upon a time, there were supposed to be yellow cakes and Mobil WMD labs. So they sent soldiers to get them. Thousand died, including our own relatives and friends, and trillions of dollars wasted, plunging the country and the world into economic turmoil.
No blame was placed on the perps, but the same people who believed in that fairy tale want to impeach the one who is trying his damndest to get the country back to its feet amidst their intransigence.
Want more fairy tales? Rape does not make a woman pregnant. A fetus is an organ, Oh, I could enumerate more, but it is tiresome to even think about these people.
Goodnight.
Nancy......
100% on the mark.
These republicans fool no one here.
And never will again.
Case in point on trying not to use inflamatory comments when referring to some posters. a comment currently being professed by The Speaker of the US House-- He stated in bold face that "The sequester" was caused solely by President Obama. He wants the American people to believe he had absolutely nothing to do with the sequester. Many bubble heads will swear that this statement is a divine truth. It is sometimes very difficult to avoid using extreme language when the "real truth" is well know by the majority of America. I beg the question -does he believe we are blind, stupid and ignorant? His comments today and in the past were even on the alleged fair and balanced tv station, so no one can say this was only posted on a so called liberal outlet.