• 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!

WHitehouse: Obama to lay out Spending Plan

j-mac said:
Listen, it may surprise you to know that I actually agree with you when you are talking about control of government, liberty, big government, etc...But like I said I prefer to work within the system to change it, where as you seem to be telling me that you are standing outside the door screaming at the moon. That doesn't work.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I'm not working outside the system, I'm still voting for candidates which best echo my own political philosophy. In fact, that's the way in which our current system needs to work. Voting the lesser of two evils only leaves you with evil; and each successive administration the evil will just ratchet up. If I were working outside the system, I'd be working to bring it down. But I cannot support parties which have demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in small, constrained, responsible government. The Republocrats have demonstrated time and time again that they endorse large expansion of government, not constrained and reasonable government. If their political ideology does not line up with mine; why would I vote for it? If one of the main parties ever does come in line with my own platforms, I'll support them. But I don't see that as ever happening. They have skewed the system so much that they have essentially secured their power. It will merely bounce between R and D and each side knows that they just have to bide their time, run their mouths, run some obstructionist policies, and sooner or later they'll be back in charge. If you want to control the parties, you have to threaten their power base. It's the only way to make them come back in line.
 
USA_1 said:
The President's actual budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion.
The President's budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion.
The President's budget request for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion
Click to expand...

I have been misspeaking a little here, I should be talking deficits, not actual spending....however.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Click to expand...


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I have been misspeaking a little here, I should be talking deficits, not actual spending....however.




j-mac
Click to expand...

Obama's budget was 10% more than Bush's. Deficits grew because of the loss of revenue from the recession that began in '07.
 
USA_1 said:
Obama's budget was 10% more than Bush's. Deficits grew because of the loss of revenue from the recession that began in '07.
Click to expand...

So it had nothing to do with all of the massively increased spending that he undertook upon obtaining office eh?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Ok, according to your own post on wiki, it states that the cost of the Iraq war was about $12 Billion a month, that is approximately $144 Billion per year. In 2007 I believe that Bush's spending was around $250 Billion, now add that $144 Billion and you come out with $394 Billion. Obama's spending in February alone this year was $226 Billion. ONE MONTH! And the Shortest month of the year!!!!! Now can we get real here.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I would like to see a link for that.
 
today, barack hussein says he REGRETS it

The White House says President Barack Obama regrets his vote as a senator in 2006 against raising the debt limit.

A fight over raising the debt limit is looming, and the White House is trying to explain away the apparent contradiction between Obama's previous opposition, and his position now that it must be increased.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday that Obama believes his vote was a mistake. He said Obama now realizes that the debt ceiling is too important to be trifled with.
Click to expand...

WH: Obama regrets vote against raising debt limit - Yahoo! News

he's currently trying to convince america that he's barack THE SLASHER

failing to raise the debt ceiling, you'll be told, we all know, is CATASTROPHICALLY DANGEROUS

good crises, tho they should never be wasted, are not the right time for on the job learning, president slash

remember the time (in october) he told nymag he'd recently discovered THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SHOVEL READY JOB

he was only 862 billion dollars too late

hey, slash, WHY DID YOU VOTE AGAINST RAISING THE DEBT CEILING WHEN WHAT'S HIS NAME WAS PREZ?
 
j-mac said:
So it had nothing to do with all of the massively increased spending that he undertook upon obtaining office eh?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Most of the deficit was caused by the drop in revenue due to the recession, the tax credits and stimulus that was recommended by the Head of the Federal reserve, a guy Bush appointed.
It really would have been a different story had Obama not taken over an economy in ruins.
 
USA_1 said:
Most of the deficit was caused by the drop in revenue due to the recession, the tax credits and stimulus that was recommended by the Head of the Federal reserve, a guy Bush appointed.
It really would have been a different story had Obama not taken over an economy in ruins.
Click to expand...

I know that Obama supporters would love to continue to blame all of Obama's failings on Bush, but that just simply isn't the case anymore. I could even buy that early on in Obama's regime, but today Obama owns this crap. He has signed on to nearly ALL of Bush's policies. Now that could just be laziness, or a provision of cover to get him to the next election, I don't know, but it sure isn't leadership, and it has ruined this country.

j-mac
 
Hey guys, how about we wait to see what he has in store for this Budget before we crucify him. P.S. I respect everyones arguments, but when you try to use Bush Jr. as a point of argument and say that he is better then Obama you are clearly dillusional
 
j-mac said:
I know that Obama supporters would love to continue to blame all of Obama's failings on Bush, but that just simply isn't the case anymore. I could even buy that early on in Obama's regime, but today Obama owns this crap. He has signed on to nearly ALL of Bush's policies. Now that could just be laziness, or a provision of cover to get him to the next election, I don't know, but it sure isn't leadership, and it has ruined this country.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I am not an Obama supporter. I didn't vote for him. The truth is, even though you chose to ignore it, is that Bush left the economy in shambles. To say Obama owns the crap left him may make you feel better but it isn't entirely true.
Bush ruined this country more than Obama. Obama has spent his entire presidency trying to undo the damage done by Bush. Oh how I wish McCain had won.
 
USA_1 said:
I am not an Obama supporter. I didn't vote for him. The truth is, even though you chose to ignore it, is that Bush left the economy in shambles. To say Obama owns the crap left him may make you feel better but it isn't entirely true.
Bush ruined this country more than Obama. Obama has spent his entire presidency trying to undo the damage done by Bush. Oh how I wish McCain had won.
Click to expand...

Thus, the continued third-grade understanding of ecomonics.

Might want to check who was behind the threats and legislation that led to subprime lending. Might want to grasp who was behind the massive welfare and entitlement spending that has been adding up for decades. Might want to consider what refusing to drill for and process your own energy resources costs in money, jobs, and national security. Might want to admit that the corporate costs resulting from union thuggery does to the price of goods and the job losses abroad that result.

This isn't a mystery.
 
roger simon's journolisters, yesterday:

"obama wants to claim credit for the new frugal spirit" that is suddenly dominating our national agenda

the slasher is "sure to take credit for cutting spending even tho he fought it most of the way"

The GOP's winning streak - Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

from albany to sacramento, with madison and lansing in between, the ECONOMICS OF NOW is one hundred percent R-Y-A-N

cuomo and moonbeam brown are early forerunners, barack the slasher hussein was the last holdout

even this last remaining keynesian is now coming to the painful party

but he's LATE

and, therefore, UNCONVINCING

the slasher's a PHONY

he got his skinny butt whipped, that's the explanation

pathetic

leadership, anyone?
 
I wonder how "Mr. Slasher" will be when the Obamacare repeal vote is held as outlined?
 
Erod said:
Thus, the continued third-grade understanding of ecomonics.

Might want to check who was behind the threats and legislation that led to subprime lending. Might want to grasp who was behind the massive welfare and entitlement spending that has been adding up for decades. Might want to consider what refusing to drill for and process your own energy resources costs in money, jobs, and national security. Might want to admit that the corporate costs resulting from union thuggery does to the price of goods and the job losses abroad that result.

This isn't a mystery.
Click to expand...

You might want to research bubbles. There was no housing bubble prior to 2001, In fact we had a recession in 2001. After 2001 demand for homes was artificially stimulated by Greenspans low interest and Bush's homeownership for everyone policies. They were so successful at stimulating demand that new home construction doubled 2004 to 2006. Had they not created the housing boom there would not have been a bubble. Had there been no bubble housing would have remained stable and there would not have been a collapse of the housing sector. Home prices and supply would have been stable. Fannie and Freddie would have been fine. AIG would have been fine. The economy would have been fine.
Bush and Greenspans attempt to use the housing sector to pull us out of the recession of '01 is what brought the economy down. It was not CRA, Fannie or Freddie.
 
the obamacare repeal vote, up or down, stand alone, promised by reid as part of the deal for october, is gonna cost several senators their jobs

people like nelson and nelson and manchin and mccaskill and tester and casey and kohl and about a half dozen others are gonna be severely PINCHED

why do you think mr reid was so eager to keep hr2 off his expensive blue carpet?

good job, mr boehner
 
For those who are interested, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) now projects that the required U.S. fiscal consolidation to bring gross public debt to 60% of GDP (generally considered a sustainable long-term level) will exceed 10% of GDP. In its semi-annual World Economic Outlook, the IMF notes that the forthcoming April 2011 Fiscal Monitor will call for U.S. fiscal consolidation that exceeds the adjustments required in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The WEO explains:

Little progress has been made in many economies in specifying measures to redress remaining medium-term imbalances, and so advanced economies will still have to enact very large fiscal adjustments in order to reduce their general government gross-debt-to-GDP ratio to a level of 60 percent by 2030. According to a scenario developed in the IMF's April 2011 Fiscal Monitor, the required adjustments amount to more than 10 percent of GDP for Japan and hte United States; 5 to 10 percent of GDP for France, Spain, and the United Kingdom; and 3 to 4 percent of GDP for Canada, Germany, and Italy.

For what is worth, the IMF projects that the size of the required U.S. fiscal adjustment will amount to 11.3% of GDP. In contrast, it forecasts that the U.S. will achieve an adjustment of 4.5% of GDP. In other words, under the current framework--and the IMF notes recent discretionary spending reductions--the U.S. fiscal consolidation effort will be about 40% of what is needed.
 
in addition, today:

The International Monetary Fund lowered its forecast for U.S. growth this year, predicting higher oil prices and the pace of job gains will restrain the recovery.

“Recovery in the labor market remains lackluster,” the IMF said in the report. “The drag on 2011 growth from oil price increases largely offsets the boost from the Federal Reserve’s unconventional policies and from stronger net exports.”

“Job creation has recently accelerated, but the pace of improvement in the labor market remains disappointing considering the size of the job losses during the decline,” the fund said in the report.

The IMF also highlighted several risks to the recovery, including a spike in oil and commodity prices that “could dampen confidence and weaken consumer spending.” The housing market, which precipitated the recession that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, may see home prices decline further, according to the report.
Click to expand...

IMF Cuts 2011 U.S. Growth Forecast on Oil, Jobs

in desperate need of fiscal balance the united states has suffered a leadership void that is truly frightening

the party in power was too cowardly to produce a budget for 2011 which is how we came so embarrassingly close last week to a shutdown

reid's senate has been sitting on hr1, the gop budget, since february and has not even offered a serious counter

the president's proposal for 2012, published in february, is keynesian to the extreme, actually increasing our deficit 20% over awful 09's record

to his credit budget chair ryan has stepped forward, selflessly exposing his ribs to the lance of demagoguery and demonization

embarrassingly late on the uptake, shamed into action by the opposition, the white house dissembled YESTERDAY (plouffe on mtp, this week, sotu and fns), spontaneously sputtering it will suddenly release its OWN RYAN on wednesday

in other words, washington is finally waking up to what cuomo and moonbeam have been forced to address

finally starting to catch up to reality

the problem---barack the slasher is about the worst possible poster boy for budgetary balance

he's completely incredible, utterly unbelievable

his own base is obstinate

it's just not who these government apologists and advocates really are, it's not their character

obama's a roadblock

leadership, anyone?
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
You just ignore the fact that the reason the graph looks like that is because Obama put the wars on the budget, while Bush didn't.
Click to expand...

Ignore away......

FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[4][5]
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[6]
FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[7]
FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[8]

.....even if you believe Obama put the roughly 100 Billion/yr "on the books"........

wapoobamabudget1.jpg


.....you still have to admit to Obama's drunken sailor spending ability......THE MOST EXPENSIVE PRESIDENT IN HISTORY....
.
.
.
.
 
Boo Radley said:
If you believe presidents control the economy, you have to lay blame at Bush's feet.
Click to expand...

I dont believe that.....it is a liberal belief that Presidents are all powerfull all controlling Gawds. They arent.....albeit Kenyan Presidents seem to to be hell bent on changing that.
.
.
.
.
 
Ikari said:
Doesn't really matter, nothing will actually change. The Republocrats spent us into this mess, and they'll continue to do so. We'll get into more wars, waste more American lives and American dollars, become more in debt to China; and all we'll have is the same players running and the same idiots arguing that their retard is the better retard so we should vote for him.
Click to expand...

A Plethora of Tea Party Republicans were elected last November.........less than 4 months into their spotlight.......they delivered The Largest Spending Cut in US History.

Change can happen........as soon as we stop electing Democrats and Rinos.....and empower The Tea Party.
.
.
.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom