Are We Completely Nuts?

[jwoodie]

USA Today's headline reads: "Obama Supported on Guns, Debt" and goes on to report that the public supports "Obama's Approach" to the Federal Deficit by a margin of 45% to 38%.

This is not a political rant, but does anyone know what "Obama's Approach" is? I have not been able to discern it as anything other than raising other people's taxes. Is this a serious approach to the federal deficit? Are there some other details I am missing? Seriously, I would appreciate some enlightenment on this subject.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Obama wants the closing of tax loopholes for the wealthy and for corporations, like GE, which did not pay a dime of taxes on $14.2 billion in profits, to be part of the plan to narrow the deficit. The republicans don't want to do that. They are, once again, on the wrong side of history on this. He is not, to my knowledge, asking for increased tax rates.

 

[ConHog]

USA Today's headline reads: "Obama Supported on Guns, Debt" and goes on to report that the public supports "Obama's Approach" to the Federal Deficit by a margin of 45% to 38%.

This is not a political rant, but does anyone know what "Obama's Approach" is? I have not been able to discern it as anything other than raising other people's taxes. Is this a serious approach to the federal deficit? Are there some other details I am missing? Seriously, I would appreciate some enlightenment on this subject.

The average American is an idiot dude.

Sad, but true. Most of those polled don't even know what they are talking about to begin with. They just like Obama , so boom yeah I like his policies, and no thought beyond that.

And I'm not saying that is a liberal thing either, plenty of people who don't know jack except that they don't like Obama either, so anything he suggest must be a bad idea.

 

[jwoodie]

Obama wants the closing of tax loopholes for the wealthy and for corporations, like GE, which did not pay a dime of taxes on $14.2 billion in profits, to be part of the plan to narrow the deficit. The republicans don't want to do that. They are, once again, on the wrong side of history on this. He is not, to my knowledge, asking for increased tax rates.

OK, but what is the other "part of the plan" to narrow the deficit?

 

[Wiseacre]

Obama's approach is pure liberal tax and spend policy; he doesn't believe we have a spending problem, he thinks we have a revenue problem. As in raise taxes on the top 2% as much and as often as possible. As though there is no negative impact at all in doing so. And quite frankly, his entire agenda for the next two years is to win back the House for the Dems so he can have free reign for the last two years of his presidency. I don't think he cares overly much for the rest of us in the meantime, perhaps he rationalizes his approach by assuming that he'll fix everything once he destroys the GOP.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Obama wants the closing of tax loopholes for the wealthy and for corporations, like GE, which did not pay a dime of taxes on $14.2 billion in profits, to be part of the plan to narrow the deficit. The republicans don't want to do that. They are, once again, on the wrong side of history on this. He is not, to my knowledge, asking for increased tax rates.

OK, but what is the other "part of the plan" to narrow the deficit?

reduce spending

 

[UKRider]

Obama's approach is pure liberal tax and spend policy; he doesn't believe we have a spending problem, he thinks we have a revenue problem. As in raise taxes on the top 2% as much and as often as possible. As though there is no negative impact at all in doing so. And quite frankly, his entire agenda for the next two years is to win back the House for the Dems so he can have free reign for the last two years of his presidency. I don't think he cares overly much for the rest of us in the meantime, perhaps he rationalizes his approach by assuming that he'll fix everything once he destroys the GOP.

He's certainly got his work cut out for him on that. At this point I don't see him getting there.

 

[oldfart]

This is not a political rant, but does anyone know what "Obama's Approach" is? I have not been able to discern it as anything other than raising other people's taxes.

Fair question deserving a fair answer, with a minimum of political tripe. Going back to 2010, Obama has consistently supported two policies:
1. In the short term, the economy still needs stimulus because the the original stimulus package was too small.
2. In the medium and long term, deficit reduction is needed and should be achieved by a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. He has achieved some of each and lobbies for more of both.

Is this a serious approach to the federal deficit? Are there some other details I am missing? Seriously, I would appreciate some enlightenment on this subject.

It's a more serious approach than declaring large portions of the budget off limits or stating that any tax increases are off the board. The real questions about achieving deficit reduction are do the numbers add up and how much of the reduction comes out of the hide of the people proposing any given plan.

 

[ReallyMeow]

Obama's approach is pure liberal tax and spend policy; he doesn't believe we have a spending problem, he thinks we have a revenue problem. As in raise taxes on the top 2% as much and as often as possible. As though there is no negative impact at all in doing so. And quite frankly, his entire agenda for the next two years is to win back the House for the Dems so he can have free reign for the last two years of his presidency. I don't think he cares overly much for the rest of us in the meantime, perhaps he rationalizes his approach by assuming that he'll fix everything once he destroys the GOP.

as opposed to what? the republicans spend and put it on the credit card policy? YES we do have a revenue problem. if reagan and the bush's had balanced their budgets, our national debt would consist only of the loss of revenue due to the recession (which republicans also own).

 

[Wiseacre]

Obama's approach is pure liberal tax and spend policy; he doesn't believe we have a spending problem, he thinks we have a revenue problem. As in raise taxes on the top 2% as much and as often as possible. As though there is no negative impact at all in doing so. And quite frankly, his entire agenda for the next two years is to win back the House for the Dems so he can have free reign for the last two years of his presidency. I don't think he cares overly much for the rest of us in the meantime, perhaps he rationalizes his approach by assuming that he'll fix everything once he destroys the GOP.

He's certainly got his work cut out for him on that. At this point I don't see him getting there.

I dunno, it helps when you've got the media on your side. The constant hammering on the repubs does enter the public consciousness, and outside of FoxNews and conservative radio there's not a lot of the other side of the dabate. It's not unlikely that if the economy does ot do well over the next 20 months or so that Obama will use every argument and opportunity to blame it on the House repubs. They did lose some seats in the 2012 election, right? And I don't know that they're helping themselves much with their fractionated messages either. They need a leader and right now they ain't got one.

 

[Wiseacre]

Obama's approach is pure liberal tax and spend policy; he doesn't believe we have a spending problem, he thinks we have a revenue problem. As in raise taxes on the top 2% as much and as often as possible. As though there is no negative impact at all in doing so. And quite frankly, his entire agenda for the next two years is to win back the House for the Dems so he can have free reign for the last two years of his presidency. I don't think he cares overly much for the rest of us in the meantime, perhaps he rationalizes his approach by assuming that he'll fix everything once he destroys the GOP.

as opposed to what? the republicans spend and put it on the credit card policy? YES we do have a revenue problem. if reagan and the bush's had balanced their budgets, our national debt would consist only of the loss of revenue due to the recession (which republicans also own).

Pretty funny, a liberal talking about balanced budget and debt considering Obama's record in his first term. I'm not going to defend the repubs' record either, alhough it's fair to note that the democrats owned the House in those days. There's no defending Bush43 IMHO, the man overspent money like a drunken sailor, but still not nearly as bad as Obama. And here's the kicker: Bush43 didn't have a Tea Party movement holding his feet to the fire.

 

[PaulS1950]

Republicans and Democrats alike have spent well over their budgets for decades. No party is worse or immune from blame. If you want to do something about it then vote Libertarian.

 

[ReallyMeow]

Obama's approach is pure liberal tax and spend policy; he doesn't believe we have a spending problem, he thinks we have a revenue problem. As in raise taxes on the top 2% as much and as often as possible. As though there is no negative impact at all in doing so. And quite frankly, his entire agenda for the next two years is to win back the House for the Dems so he can have free reign for the last two years of his presidency. I don't think he cares overly much for the rest of us in the meantime, perhaps he rationalizes his approach by assuming that he'll fix everything once he destroys the GOP.

as opposed to what? the republicans spend and put it on the credit card policy? YES we do have a revenue problem. if reagan and the bush's had balanced their budgets, our national debt would consist only of the loss of revenue due to the recession (which republicans also own).

Pretty funny, a liberal talking about balanced budget and debt considering Obama's record in his first term. I'm not going to defend the repubs' record either, although it's fair to note that the democrats owned the House in those days. There's no defending Bush43 IMHO, the man overspent money like a drunken sailor, but still not nearly as bad as Obama. And here's the kicker: Bush43 didn't have a Tea Party movement holding his feet to the fire.

bush owns thr transition from a 400 bil deficit to a 1.4t deficit too
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Submitted by George W. Bush
Deficit $407 billion (estimated)
$1.413 trillion (actual)[1]

and the tea party has been an encumbrance on recovery efforts, not a boon.
http://i.imgur.com/azayr.jpg

Republicans and Democrats alike have spent well over their budgets for decades. No party is worse or immune from blame. If you want to do something about it then vote Libertarian.

nonsense, everytime we have a blue president, the deficit goes down.

 

[Wiseacre]

" bush owns thr transition from a 400 bil deficit to a 1.4t deficit too "

Oh, I don't think so, it was Obama that pushed through that $862 bimllion Stimulus Bill that didn't stimulate. Andhe's the one that kept spending going higher ever since.

" and the tea party has been an encumbrance on recovery efforts, not a boon. "

Oh, I don't think so but that wasn't the point. We were talking about the spending restraint that the Tea Parties bring to the table that didn't exist when Bush was president. He may well have spent money like a drunken sailor anyway, but nowhere near the extent that Obama has.

" nonsense, everytime we have a blue president, the deficit goes down. "

You've GOT to be kidding me. Let's see, is the debt lower now than when Obama took office? NO. Did Clinton lower the debt over his 8 years? NO. How about Carter? NOPE. LBJ? Nope. JFK? NO. Everytime? Oh, I don't think so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama wants the closing of tax loopholes for the wealthy and for corporations, like GE, which did not pay a dime of taxes on $14.2 billion in profits, to be part of the plan to narrow the deficit. The republicans don't want to do that. They are, once again, on the wrong side of history on this. He is not, to my knowledge, asking for increased tax rates.

Actually, XXXXX. What he wants is different loopholes for the rick people he likes. He wants loopholes for corporations that hire vets, corporations that hire Americans, corporations that sell health insurance, and corporations that waste corn by mixing it with gasoline.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama wants the closing of tax loopholes for the wealthy and for corporations, like GE, which did not pay a dime of taxes on $14.2 billion in profits, to be part of the plan to narrow the deficit. The republicans don't want to do that. They are, once again, on the wrong side of history on this. He is not, to my knowledge, asking for increased tax rates.

OK, but what is the other "part of the plan" to narrow the deficit?

reduce spending

If his plan is to reduce spending why is he adamantly opposed to the spending cuts of $44 billion that are coming up in March?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is not a political rant, but does anyone know what "Obama's Approach" is? I have not been able to discern it as anything other than raising other people's taxes.

Fair question deserving a fair answer, with a minimum of political tripe. Going back to 2010, Obama has consistently supported two policies:
1. In the short term, the economy still needs stimulus because the the original stimulus package was too small.
2. In the medium and long term, deficit reduction is needed and should be achieved by a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. He has achieved some of each and lobbies for more of both.

Is this a serious approach to the federal deficit? Are there some other details I am missing? Seriously, I would appreciate some enlightenment on this subject.

It's a more serious approach than declaring large portions of the budget off limits or stating that any tax increases are off the board. The real questions about achieving deficit reduction are do the numbers add up and how much of the reduction comes out of the hide of the people proposing any given plan.

Excuse me? How is he being sensible by declaring what he calls the single largest driver of the deficit off limits?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

as opposed to what? the republicans spend and put it on the credit card policy? YES we do have a revenue problem. if reagan and the bush's had balanced their budgets, our national debt would consist only of the loss of revenue due to the recession (which republicans also own).

Pretty funny, a liberal talking about balanced budget and debt considering Obama's record in his first term. I'm not going to defend the repubs' record either, although it's fair to note that the democrats owned the House in those days. There's no defending Bush43 IMHO, the man overspent money like a drunken sailor, but still not nearly as bad as Obama. And here's the kicker: Bush43 didn't have a Tea Party movement holding his feet to the fire.

bush owns thr transition from a 400 bil deficit to a 1.4t deficit too
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Submitted by George W. Bush
Deficit $407 billion (estimated)
$1.413 trillion (actual)[1]

and the tea party has been an encumbrance on recovery efforts, not a boon.
http://i.imgur.com/azayr.jpg

Republicans and Democrats alike have spent well over their budgets for decades. No party is worse or immune from blame. If you want to do something about it then vote Libertarian.

nonsense, everytime we have a blue president, the deficit goes down.

I am sorry, but there is no way to address this point by any means other than pointing out you XXXXX. How is Bush responsible for the deficit that is over $1,000,000,000,0000 higher than he proposed when Obama signed it along with the stimulus he specifically asked for that is included in that deficit figure?

It takes a large degree of gall to claim that Obama, or anyone since Eisenhower, has reduced the deficit.

 

[PaulS1950]

nonsense, everytime we have a blue president, the deficit goes down.

When was the last balanced budget? BOTH parties have over-spent their budget for decades. It goes up and it goes down but it never evens out.

Here you can find out:

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress

The last balanced budget was inthe years 1955 to 1957

 

[ReallyMeow]

" bush owns the transition from a 400 bil deficit to a 1.4t deficit too "
Oh, I don't think so, it was Obama that pushed through that $862 billion Stimulus Bill that didn't stimulate. And he's the one that kept spending going higher ever since.

Im sorry cleaning up their mess isnt as easy as obama snapping his fingers and creating jobs from the sky, for free. compare the first two years of recovery against the last 2 years of recovery, its clear why keynesism is the bread and butter of first world countries, and every man for himself is the mantra of the 3rd world.

" and the tea party has been an encumbrance on recovery efforts, not a boon. "
Oh, I don't think so but that wasn't the point. We were talking about the spending restraint that the Tea Parties bring to the table that didn't exist when Bush was president. He may well have spent money like a drunken sailor anyway, but nowhere near the extent that Obama has.

think of the economy in the same mindset as if your car is wrecked. its in the shop, thats a cost you're going to have to eat. on top of that, you need to get a rental, thats how you're going to get to work and get paid. in this role the republicans are the snively teenage girl that wrecked the car (economy) with a lack of attention (low regulation) who now retorts to the complaints about how much damage her irresponsibility caused with the accusation that you're just as bad as spending all that money on the rental.

I mean, its not like if politicians let anti union rhetoric get in the way, they will simply let bridges we know are at risk of falling down, fall down...WHOOPS.
I-35W Mississippi River bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" nonsense, everytime we have a blue president, the deficit goes down. "
You've GOT to be kidding me. Let's see, is the debt lower now than when Obama took office? NO. Did Clinton lower the debt over his 8 years? NO. How about Carter? NOPE. LBJ? Nope. JFK? NO. Everytime? Oh, I don't think so.

deficit and debt arnt interchangeable words, clinton came a hair short of balancing the budget, the debt did shink under lbj and carter (proportional to gdp I concede), reagans fiscal irresponsibility ruined everything.
National Debt Graph by President

whats the deficit now? 900 billion instead of 1.4 trillion?