• 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's FY 2012 Budget

That's funny coming from somebody calling himself a Conservative, and not an Idependent... Were you cult following Bush when he spent a trillion dollars too?

I was against the Bush spending but when I voted in 2000 I had a choice, Bush vs. Gore and then in 2004 it was Bush vs. Kerry. I chose Bush twice and voted wisely. During the Bush term we had a recession when he took office and then 9/11. 9/11 cost the country according to the GAO over a trillion dollars and then he left the country in a recession. From 2007 to 2010 5 trillion has been added to the debt. Democrats controlled Congress during those 4 years and no President spends a dime without Congressional approval.
 
What you want is someone else to take over your personal responsibility issues? Why do you believe the Federal Govt. can give you what you WANT? What you seem to want is the utopia that liberals always promise and never deliver. A govt. that is big enough to give you all that you WANT is also big enough to take it all away. Our Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, you want equal outcome. Affordable healthcare is a relative term and different depending on the individual. In spite of history you seem to believe the govt. can provide affordable anything? Name for me one thing that the govt. has provided that has reduced costs and improved quality?

Liblady says "i WANT access to decent, affordable healthcare for all. i WANT access to a good education for all. i WANT our corporations to stop polluting our earth while raping consumers. i WANT equal opportunity for all. i WANT our country to continue to be a beacon of hope. "... and you respond by attacking her for being a liberal.

You always do this Conservative... just attack liberals and lecture them. You lectured her about responsibilities like she isn't a responsible adult who wants something all Americans do, instead, you could have reminded her that Conservatives want affordable healthcare too and have a better plan. You come off like Conservatives don't care or give a sh*t about the people or their needs, and that's kind of the stereotype liberals like to portray of Conservatives.. WTG
 
I was against the Bush spending but when I voted in 2000 I had a choice, Bush vs. Gore and then in 2004 it was Bush vs. Kerry. I chose Bush twice and voted wisely. During the Bush term we had a recession when he took office and then 9/11. 9/11 cost the country according to the GAO over a trillion dollars and then he left the country in a recession. From 2007 to 2010 5 trillion has been added to the debt. Democrats controlled Congress during those 4 years and no President spends a dime without Congressional approval.

So it's always the liberals fault... but you aren't a "cult follower?"
 
I don't think Europe has as much debt though... America will have to spend less or pay off some major debts to be on the same level of European socalism

Where have you been for the last year. Several European nations have a larger debt to GDP ratio than the U.S. It is hard to believe that just three years ago a 300 billion deficit got people upset, now because of partisan politics people brush off trillion dollar deficits.

This game to insure some cheap politician gets reelcted while bankrupting the nation should sicken everyone.
 

Let's see: National debt percentage increase, year-to-year:
  • 2000-2001 2% (Clinton's last budget, dot-com bubble burst),
  • 2001-2002 7% (Bush's first budget),
  • 2002-2003 9% (Bush's second budget),
  • 2003-2004 9% (Bush's third budget),
  • 2004-2005 8% (Bush's fourth budget),
  • 2005-2006 7% (Bush's fifth budget),
  • 2006-2007 6% (Bush's sixth budget),
  • 2007-2008 11% (Bush's seventh budget, real estate bubble burst),
  • 2008-2009 19% (Bush's eighth budget, financial industry collapse),
  • 2009-2010 14% (Obama's first budget),
  • 2010-2011 4% (Obama's second budget, half year).
The structural deficit was created in Bush's first term when the Senate was evenly split between the parties and the House controlled by the G.O.P. It was exacerbated by the 2003 tax cut when both houses were controlled by the Republicans. To be sure popular Democrats supported these irresponsible policies but Republicans have owned them all along.

But, I'm sure you see it differently. More important is focusing on real solutions and those don't honestly consist solely of budget cuts or tax increases. Only a combination of the two will help America out of this hole.

Obama doesn't get any credit for solving the problem; at least, not so far. The G.O.P. by offering ridiculous, even harmful policies aren't helping either. I honestly doubt the Tea Party has anything realistic to contribute now or the future. I suspect the 112th Congress will end up passing the problem to the 113th with little change.

See also: Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
See also: Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008
 
Liblady says "i WANT access to decent, affordable healthcare for all. i WANT access to a good education for all. i WANT our corporations to stop polluting our earth while raping consumers. i WANT equal opportunity for all. i WANT our country to continue to be a beacon of hope. "... and you respond by attacking her for being a liberal.

You always do this Conservative... just attack liberals and lecture them. You lectured her about responsibilities like she isn't a responsible adult who wants something all Americans do, instead, you could have reminded her that Conservatives want affordable healthcare too and have a better plan. You come off like Conservatives don't care or give a sh*t about the people or their needs, and that's kind of the stereotype liberals like to portray of Conservatives.. WTG

Thanks for the advice, I have been wrong many times but not in my responses to Liblady. We have a long history and if it were anyone else I would probably handle it differently but not with her.
 
Let's see: National debt percentage increase, year-to-year:
  • 2000-2001 2% (Clinton's last budget, dot-com bubble burst),
  • 2001-2002 7% (Bush's first budget),
  • 2002-2003 9% (Bush's second budget),
  • 2003-2004 9% (Bush's third budget),
  • 2004-2005 8% (Bush's fourth budget),
  • 2005-2006 7% (Bush's fifth budget),
  • 2006-2007 6% (Bush's sixth budget),
  • 2007-2008 11% (Bush's seventh budget, real estate bubble burst),
  • 2008-2009 19% (Bush's eighth budget, financial industry collapse),
  • 2009-2010 14% (Obama's first budget),
  • 2010-2011 4% (Obama's second budget, half year).
The structural deficit was created in Bush's first term when the Senate was evenly split between the parties and the House controlled by the G.O.P. It was exacerbated by the 2003 tax cut when both houses were controlled by the Republicans. To be sure popular Democrats supported these irresponsible policies but Republicans have owned them all along.

But, I'm sure you see it differently. More important is focusing on real solutions and those don't honestly consist solely of budget cuts or tax increases. Only a combination of the two will help America out of this hole.

Obama doesn't get any credit for solving the problem; at least, not so far. The G.O.P. by offering ridiculous, even harmful policies aren't helping either. I honestly doubt the Tea Party has anything realistic to contribute now or the future. I suspect the 112th Congress will end up passing the problem to the 113th with little change.

See also: Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
See also: Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

Quite a change, I don't see that Clinton surplus that you claim existed. The GOP offered nothing from 2007-2011 because they had no control and were shut out of the process. nice try. Notice that your balance of power stops at 2008, wonder why? Could it be that because 5 trillion was added to the debt from 2007-2010?
 
Let's see: National debt percentage increase, year-to-year:
  • 2000-2001 2% (Clinton's last budget, dot-com bubble burst),
  • 2001-2002 7% (Bush's first budget),
  • 2002-2003 9% (Bush's second budget),
  • 2003-2004 9% (Bush's third budget),
  • 2004-2005 8% (Bush's fourth budget),
  • 2005-2006 7% (Bush's fifth budget),
  • 2006-2007 6% (Bush's sixth budget),
  • 2007-2008 11% (Bush's seventh budget, real estate bubble burst),
  • 2008-2009 19% (Bush's eighth budget, financial industry collapse),
  • 2009-2010 14% (Obama's first budget),
  • 2010-2011 4% (Obama's second budget, half year).
The structural deficit was created in Bush's first term when the Senate was evenly split between the parties and the House controlled by the G.O.P. It was exacerbated by the 2003 tax cut when both houses were controlled by the Republicans. To be sure popular Democrats supported these irresponsible policies but Republicans have owned them all along.

But, I'm sure you see it differently. More important is focusing on real solutions and those don't honestly consist solely of budget cuts or tax increases. Only a combination of the two will help America out of this hole.

Obama doesn't get any credit for solving the problem; at least, not so far. The G.O.P. by offering ridiculous, even harmful policies aren't helping either. I honestly doubt the Tea Party has anything realistic to contribute now or the future. I suspect the 112th Congress will end up passing the problem to the 113th with little change.

See also: Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
See also: Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

You probably know that the stimulus package that was enacted in the 1st quarter of 2009 was added to the Bush 2008-2009 number so the chart is garbage. You also probably know that as the debt number grows the annual debt as a % of total debt goes down.

So if the best you can do is cheap numbers games, it adds nothing to a serious discussion of a real problem.
 
Quite a change, I don't see that Clinton surplus that you claim existed. The GOP offered nothing from 2007-2011 because they had no control and were shut out of the process. nice try. Notice that your balance of power stops at 2008, wonder why? Could it be that because 5 trillion was added to the debt from 2007-2010?

Had to address the 2009 deficit as well because as usual you try and re-write history. Did Bush sign the approx 800 billion stimulus supplemental in February 2009? did any of that affect the 2009 deficit? How about the 50 billion GM/Chrysler takeover? How about the 100 billion dollar war funding supplemental in first quarter 2009? How about the 350 billion that Bush left Obama out of the TARP funding? Why are you ignoring those and blaming it all on Bush? By the way did Obama vote for the 700 billion TARP fund? Let's be intellectually honest for a change.
 
You probably know that the stimulus package that was enacted in the 1st quarter of 2009 was added to the Bush 2008-2009 number so the chart is garbage. You also probably know that as the debt number grows the annual debt as a % of total debt goes down.

So if the best you can do is cheap numbers games, it adds nothing to a serious discussion of a real problem.

Chappy seems to believe that he/she is dealing with a typical group of liberals who buy what they are told and aren't well informed. Apparently trillion dollar deficits don't matter since they are a smaller percentage of the total debt. Now I have heard everything
 
… there may be a wind blowing that says we can no longer pass the buck and find comfort.

The odd part about that is the 2012 budget IGNORES Obama's own debt commissions findings entirely. I think there are more adults in the room since the mid-term election. …


Perhaps the Tea Party achieved that: the deficit and the national debt are now forefront before the Congress and the people. I think Obama has already signaled that deficits were an issue for him from the early days of his administration but even the Republicans are now focused like a laser beam on the issue where once their mantra was spoken by Vice President Cheney.

Where the Tea Party fails in my opinion is their one size fits all solutions: cut, cut, cut.

And, your point is well taken, Obama ignored the recommendations of his own debt commission. I think he finally stopped negotiating with himself. Both sides of this debate must meet and hammer out the agreements. I just don't think the House leadership has the backing they need from their own membership to compromise on anything these days.

To solve America's long term budget issues, there must be spending cuts in the major, sacrosanct expenditure areas but likewise there will be significant tax increases in things like the mortgage interest deduction. Finding the tolerance point both in program reductions and tax increases is a political compromise both sides will have to endorse for our nation to “win” this battle.
 

Perhaps the Tea Party achieved that: the deficit and the national debt are now forefront before the Congress and the people. I think Obama has already signaled that deficits were an issue for him from the early days of his administration but even the Republicans are now focused like a laser beam on the issue where once their mantra was spoken by Vice President Cheney.

Where the Tea Party fails in my opinion is their one size fits all solutions: cut, cut, cut.

And, your point is well taken, Obama ignored the recommendations of his own debt commission. I think he finally stopped negotiating with himself. Both sides of this debate must meet and hammer out the agreements. I just don't think the House leadership has the backing they need from their own membership to compromise on anything these days.

To solve America's long term budget issues, there must be spending cuts in the major, sacrosanct expenditure areas but likewise there will be significant tax increases in things like the mortgage interest deduction. Finding the tolerance point both in program reductions and tax increases is a political compromise both sides will have to endorse for our nation to “win” this battle.

Glad to hear that you always agree with Dick Cheney. What does any of that have to do with Obama creating more debt in 3 years than Bush did in 8? Reagan debt was 1.7 trillion in 8 years, Obama's will be over 5 trillion at the end of this year. Seems to me that someone from San Francisco has a different vision than the rest of the Country as to the role of the govt.
 
Last edited:
Chappy seems to believe that he/she is dealing with a typical group of liberals who buy what they are told and aren't well informed. Apparently trillion dollar deficits don't matter since they are a smaller percentage of the total debt. Now I have heard everything

Not everything. Now Obama frames new spending as investments. I really think he feels he is smarter than everyone. All he has to do is put his spin on something and people like Chappy swoon.

This B.S. would be sort of funny if I did not have a 19 year old son whose generation will have to pay for this obscene spending spree.
 
Not everything. Now Obama frames new spending as investments. I really think he feels he is smarter than everyone. All he has to do is put his spin on something and people like Chappy swoon.

This B.S. would be sort of funny if I did not have a 19 year old son whose generation will have to pay for this obscene spending spree.

My five grandkids will be paying for this insanity as well.
 
You probably know that the stimulus package that was enacted in the 1st quarter of 2009 was added to the Bush 2008-2009 number …

I know no such thing but do tell. [Not that it really matters, we'll be paying no matter which budget year the debt was incurred. The point was the deficit has existed and Obama's policies have hardly addressed it either way, nor, do his proposals today.]

I made a point of saying the “Bush years” because both political parties participated in the ill founded policies that led to the economic collapse. I personally think the Democrats were not hardly as irresponsible as the Republicans but pressing the issue doesn't make the budget quandary any less difficult. Americans owe the money no matter who's to blame.
 
Where the Tea Party fails in my opinion is their one size fits all solutions: cut, cut, cut.
Typically also meaning -> privatize it...so people still spend on it, just at whatever level makes sense for them personally.

To solve America's long term budget issues, there must be spending cuts in the major, sacrosanct expenditure areas but likewise there will be significant tax increases in things like the mortgage interest deduction. Finding the tolerance point both in program reductions and tax increases is a political compromise both sides will have to endorse for our nation to “win” this battle.

Aha, and how do we solve issues when politicans, by your own admission, can't seem to do this? The Tea Party might argue that we would not have an issue with a government that can't tackle hard problems if individuals were in charge of those hard problems. It solves the issue, yet you don't like the answer...why? Arent you capable of balancing your own budget within what you define as your own wants and needs? If we always try and use government to sovle individual problems, and individuals don't have to make hard choices...don't we perpetuate a populace that is incapable of making hard choices and learning from them?

You point out that it happens under both dems and republicans...yes. So again, taking it out of BOTH of their hands, again solves that.

What are the cons for that solution?
 
Glad to hear that you always agree with Dick Cheney. What does any of that have to do with Obama creating more debt in 3 years than Bush did in 8? Reagan debt was 1.7 trillion in 8 years, Obama's will be over 5 trillion at the end of this year. Seems to me that someone from San Francisco has a different vision than the rest of the Country as to the role of the govt.

Funny how you don't actually comprehend my post; I don't think you're serious about addressing America's deficit or its debt — you see this topic as a cudgel to pound the crap out of your political opponents. Too bad so many conservatives aren't ready to discuss this topic honestly. Peace out.
 
I know no such thing but do tell. [Not that it really matters, we'll be paying no matter which budget year the debt was incurred. The point was the deficit has existed and Obama's policies have hardly addressed it either way, nor, do his proposals today.]

I made a point of saying the “Bush years” because both political parties participated in the ill founded policies that led to the economic collapse. I personally think the Democrats were not hardly as irresponsible as the Republicans but pressing the issue doesn't make the budget quandary any less difficult. Americans owe the money no matter who's to blame.

Yes we owe the money and the extra 1.6 trillion we will add this year and 1.4 trillion next year. Who cares which party did what 10,20, 30 years ago. We should in looking forward. Do you really advocate spending $100 billion a year for the next decade in afghanistan as an easy example?

Let's do it the easy way. Have a balanced budget so that politicians would have to raise taxes to pay for whatever they want to spend. It is too easy to say people don't want to cut anything. That is true because they want stuff they do not want to pay for. Also taxes should be paid by most working people. To have trillion dollat deficits and nearly half the country pay zero federal INCOME taxes is a travesty.
 
Funny how you don't actually comprehend my post; I don't think you're serious about addressing America's deficit or its debt — you see this topic as a cudgel to pound the crap out of your political opponents. Too bad so many conservatives aren't ready to discuss this topic honestly. Peace out.

You have been in this forum for a long time and I know have seen my posts on the subject where I have given actual line items to cut. This thread is about the Obama budget which isn't a serious attempt to cut anything. It was you that brought up Clinton and Bush and I called you on it giving you actual data and facts. Still you don't comprehend the size of the problem just like Obam. His budget does nothing to reduce the debt thus it matters now whether I am serious or not but it is obvious he isn't/
 

Perhaps the Tea Party achieved that: the deficit and the national debt are now forefront before the Congress and the people. I think Obama has already signaled that deficits were an issue for him from the early days of his administration but even the Republicans are now focused like a laser beam on the issue where once their mantra was spoken by Vice President Cheney.

Where the Tea Party fails in my opinion is their one size fits all solutions: cut, cut, cut.

And, your point is well taken, Obama ignored the recommendations of his own debt commission. I think he finally stopped negotiating with himself. Both sides of this debate must meet and hammer out the agreements. I just don't think the House leadership has the backing they need from their own membership to compromise on anything these days.

To solve America's long term budget issues, there must be spending cuts in the major, sacrosanct expenditure areas but likewise there will be significant tax increases in things like the mortgage interest deduction. Finding the tolerance point both in program reductions and tax increases is a political compromise both sides will have to endorse for our nation to “win” this battle.

Well, once in a lifetime the stars align. I actually agree to a point.


J-mac
 
Obama Sends $3.7 Trillion Budget to Congress - FoxNews.com

Will hear it is folks. Looking at it this budget doesn't save any real money.

Got to say I'm really disappointed. But to be fair it's political suicide to attack SS, Medicare, Defense etc. and this ridiculous deficit didn't just show up on Obama's watch. It's been brewing for some time.

The problem is our politicians value their reelections more than they do what's good for the country. Obama included. The American people don't want to hear the truth.
 
Left slams Obama over safety net - Feb. 15, 2011

Boy.. Barry just can't win, can he... :rofl:

It doesn't come as a shock that Republicans aren't thrilled with President Obama's budget proposal. But Democrats aren't exactly jumping for joy either.

Obama's budget targets community block grants, a program that helps low-income people pay their energy bills, and the popular Pell grant program to aid college students. All are part of the social safety net Democrats often fight to protect.

And that has the left howling.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal organization that boasts 700,000 members, took Obama to task before the budget was even officially released.
 
Got to say I'm really disappointed. But to be fair it's political suicide to attack SS, Medicare, Defense etc. and this ridiculous deficit didn't just show up on Obama's watch. It's been brewing for some time.

The problem is our politicians value their reelections more than they do what's good for the country. Obama included. The American people don't want to hear the truth.


I don't think that is quite true today. Although in the past you are absolutely correct in that we didn't want government to touch our entitlements, in today's climate where the administration is putting out farcical budgets with spending as far as the eye can see, we know that hard choices are going to have to be made. We can do this by starting with what the deficit commission suggested.


j-mac
 
I don't think that is quite true today. Although in the past you are absolutely correct in that we didn't want government to touch our entitlements, in today's climate where the administration is putting out farcical budgets with spending as far as the eye can see, we know that hard choices are going to have to be made. We can do this by starting with what the deficit commission suggested.


j-mac

At some point, things get so bad that addressing the obvious issues with SS, Medicare and Medicaid will no longer be political suicide. We see State governors taking on entitlements in NJ, CA and NY and those governors are getting high marks from public polls. What's his name in Florida before the election (key there: before) in 2010 identified SS will have to go to 67 or 70 years old - he still go elected by a large margin. IN FLORIDA.... there are enough blue hairs in that state to kill any politician.

It may be time.
 
Back
Top Bottom