• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama warns about years of trillion-dollar deficits

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Obama warns about years of trillion-dollar deficits

WASHINGTON: President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday braced Americans for the unparalleled prospect of "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come," a stark assessment of the budgetary outlook that he said would force his administration to impose tighter fiscal discipline on the government.

Obama sought to distinguish between the need to run what is likely to be record-setting deficits for several years and the necessity to begin bringing them down markedly in subsequent years. Even as he prepares a stimulus plan that is expected to total nearly $800 billion in new spending and tax cuts over the next two years, he said he would make sure the money was wisely spent, and he pledged to work with Congress to enact spending controls and efficiency measures throughout the federal budget.

Obama warns about years of trillion-dollar deficits - International Herald Tribune

I see the lowering of expectations continues...

Of course, what you don't hear is that, with the Dems in complete control of the process, there's no reason whatsoever the FY2010-2015 budgets cannot have $0 in deficits.

But then, the Dems will come up with plenty of ways to excuse it, so...
 
Last edited:
I get a kick out of how conservatives, who generally sat mum while the Bush administration slashed taxes and ran up $5 trillion in debt, are now of a suddent deciding they are budget hawks now that a Dem is in charge.

Short term deficit spending in the midst of a contraction makes arguable sense. I disagree with Obama that it should require huge deficits for years to come.
 
So, wait a second...

Obama warns of continuing trillion dollar deficits, but then says that this "would force his administration to impose tighter fiscal discipline on the government."

So is Obama saying that the prospect of such deficits will force the government to impose tighter fiscal discipline...but just not enough to avoid this prospect coming to fruition?

So he's basically saying nothing at all then, right? :roll:

More, "Even as he prepares a stimulus plan that is expected to total nearly $800 billion in new spending and tax cuts over the next two years, he said he would make sure" that there'd be no effort to prevent these so-called "temporary" spending programs from turning into never-ending spending programs.

Got it.

And Ireimon, exactly which conservatives are you saying were mum? Certainly not those in Congress. Not those at National Review and The Weekly Standard. Not those pundits who are published at Town Hall. Not Rush, Hannity, or Coulter.

Who the hell are you referring to?
 
Even the most diehard Bush fans I have come across criticize him over his spending habits.
 
And Ireimon, exactly which conservatives are you saying were mum? Certainly not those in Congress. Not those at National Review and The Weekly Standard. Not those pundits who are published at Town Hall. Not Rush, Hannity, or Coulter.

Who the hell are you referring to?
Ireimon willfully confuses "conservatives" with "Republicans".
 
Here's one:

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter" The Vice President.
 
Your point?

None really. I just found it amusing. Mere minutes after hearing it on Rush, it gets posted here.
Rush took credit for being the only one to pick up on Obama admitting his economic recovery program wouldn't work based on these statements!
 
I saw it this morning, didn't hear Rush talk about it specifically.
 
Last edited:
None really. I just found it amusing. Mere minutes after hearing it on Rush, it gets posted here.
Rush had called me, and I gave him the idea.
 
Obama warns about years of trillion-dollar deficits - International Herald Tribune

I see the lowering of expectations continues...

Of course, what you don't hear is that, with the Dems in complete control of the process, there's no reason whatsoever the FY2010-2015 budgets cannot have $0 in deficits.

But then, the Dems will come up with plenty of ways to excuse it, so...

So what happens when our interest payments consume the entire budget? Do we pay for an imaginary government?
 
So what happens when our interest payments consume the entire budget? Do we pay for an imaginary government?
Don't ask ME, ask The Obama.

He and the Dems can pass any budget they want. If there is a $1T deficit, its because they -choose- for there to be a $1T deficit.
 
It's been hit and miss lately.
 
Here's one:

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter" The Vice President.

Well, uh, this quote proves that you're statement that conservatives were "mum" is false. At least this one conservative was not "mum," he merely articulated an argument about deficits under Reagan.

So, seriously, don't you whine when someone generalizes from the action or behavior of a single person?
 
So what happens when our interest payments consume the entire budget? Do we pay for an imaginary government?

Huh?

How is that at all a relevant response to the OP?

Answer: it has no relevance.

Carry on.
 
Huh?
How is that at all a relevant response to the OP?
Answer: it has no relevance.
Give him a break.
After all, when you have no effective argument, you're forced to misdirect and obfuscate.
 
So what happens when our interest payments consume the entire budget? Do we pay for an imaginary government?


Huh?

How is that at all a relevant response to the OP?

Answer: it has no relevance.

Carry on.

It's extremely relevant. Shiznit has a very good point. There is word for it, bankruptcy. When China, India and other foreign countries own our debt, it's scary to think that we could at some point not be able to make a payment.
 
It's extremely relevant. Shiznit has a very good point. There is word for it, bankruptcy. When China, India and other foreign countries own our debt, it's scary to think that we could at some point not be able to make a payment.

Your "concern" ain't relevant to the OP's comments.

That your concern might be accurate doesn't make it relevant.

BTW - bankruptcy does not apply to nations. WTF is China or Japan going to do if the US defaults on repayment? Demand that the US go Chapter 7 or something?

Grow up.
 
Your "concern" ain't relevant to the OP's comments.

That your concern might be accurate doesn't make it relevant.

BTW - bankruptcy does not apply to nations. WTF is China or Japan going to do if the US defaults on repayment? Demand that the US go Chapter 7 or something?

Grow up.

Take off your blinders, it relates quite well with the OP. The only thing lacking was extreme partisanship, which you and Goobieman more than made up for.
 
Take off your blinders, it relates quite well with the OP. The only thing lacking was extreme partisanship, which you and Goobieman more than made up for.

I guess it is relevant...if only because you said so. :roll:
 
It's extremely relevant.
Its only relevant if The Obama and the Dem-controlled congress choose to run the deficits projected here.

Those deficits arent at all necessary -- they could be reduced to $0, should those mentioned above choose to do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom