Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
as you said....i never said bush's spending got us into this mess
do you stand by that statement or not
yes
no
or do you now believe bush's spending got us into this mess. so, did bush's spending get us into this mess
yes
no
I'll repeat:
I never said that Bush's spending got us into this mess. I have said that Bush's tax cuts, which cut revenues by hundreds of billions annually, plus his increased spending on the military and wars, are the primary reasons the debt increased $5 trillion over the past 8 years when he had inhereted a surplus budget.
as you said....i never said bush's spending got us into this mess
do you stand by that statement or not
yes
no
or do you now believe bush's spending got us into this mess. so, did bush's spending get us into this mess
yes
no
I'll repeat:
I never said that Bush's spending got us into this mess. I have said that Bush's tax cuts, which cut revenues by hundreds of billions annually, plus his increased spending on the military and wars, are the primary reasons the debt increased $5 trillion over the past 8 years when he had inhereted a surplus budget.
ok, so it wasn't bush's spending, it was the tax cuts....so he could have spent all that money, just not given tax cuts....odd given you seemingly support obama's plan which cuts taxes....and that obama is spending MORE than bush.....
you do know that obama has told the vast middle class that they are getting tax cuts....
I'll repeat:
I never said that Bush's spending got us into this mess. I have said that Bush's tax cuts, which cut revenues by hundreds of billions annually, plus his increased spending on the military and wars, are the primary reasons the debt increased $5 trillion over the past 8 years when he had inhereted a surplus budget.
ok, so it wasn't bush's spending, it was the tax cuts....so he could have spent all that money, just not given tax cuts....odd given you seemingly support obama's plan which cuts taxes....and that obama is spending MORE than bush.....
you do know that obama has told the vast middle class that they are getting tax cuts....
I think my position is clear and succint. You don't need to mischaracterize it.
I have never supported Obama's tax cuts, except that I have supported the Govt using fiscal stimulus solely to address the recession. I am against any tax cuts when the Govt in $11T in debt. IMO he needs to repeal all the Bush tax cuts and add another 10% or so on folks making a couple million on top of that.
I think long term Obama needs to raise taxes, cuts spending in some areas, and balance the budget. If he doesn't I will be criticizing him for it. I've said this many times.
Does that clear it up?
ok, so it wasn't bush's spending, it was the tax cuts....so he could have spent all that money, just not given tax cuts....odd given you seemingly support obama's plan which cuts taxes....and that obama is spending MORE than bush.....
you do know that obama has told the vast middle class that they are getting tax cuts....
I think my position is clear and succint. You don't need to mischaracterize it.
I have never supported Obama's tax cuts, except that I have supported the Govt using fiscal stimulus solely to address the recession. I am against any tax cuts when the Govt in $11T in debt. IMO he needs to repeal all the Bush tax cuts and add another 10% or so on folks making a couple million on top of that.
I think long term Obama needs to raise taxes, cuts spending in some areas, and balance the budget. If he doesn't I will be criticizing him for it. I've said this many times.
Does that clear it up?
so it is ONLY the tax cuts that made the deficit and it is ONLY those who vote or support tax cuts that are responsible for the deficit....
you do realize that obama voted for bush's tax cuts, by voting for "bush's" budgest and by continuing tax cuts under obama's budget....so how is it you can say obama is telling the truth when he says "i inherited this mess"
Not enough revenues.
I don't think I've ever actually said that. I've said I support the need for stimulus spending and that spending that creates demand in the economy makes sense in a recession like this.
I've never gone thru the Obama speniding plan per se and evaluated whether I thought particular spending items met that criteria or that I otherwise approved, and I don't think I've ever offered an opinion on that.
I supported Bush giving tax rebates in 2001 because there was a concern of a recession. But most of the time Bush was in office, the nation was not in a recession. Deficits can be warranted in a recession; not when the economy is growing well. Even military spending during a recession can be beneficial; it employs folks and creates demand when the private market is failing in this regard.
Yes, you've stated that you agree with his spending. You've said that Bush's spending got us into this mess, but that even more spending by Obama is going to get us out. It makes no sense whatsoever.
I've never stated Bush's spending got us into this mess. That is false.
I've said that spending on stimulus in a recession can be warranted.
In a recession like ours, people are afraid and lack confidence. So are busineses. They don't spend. Since people aren't buying as much stuff, business cut back because there isn't enough demand for production. They fire people. That creates less demand, more fear. Also, an unusual characteristic of this recession is that the dominating financial institutions made a wholesale error in guaging the risk of their mortgage investments. Because their asset values were falling rapidly, and because they feared that other banks and financial institutions weren't sound, they weren't lending money. That credit freeze threatens the health of the entire economy that uses credit to operate.
In this situation, Govt spending can help by creating demand for goods and services. To meet the Govt's reqiurements, businesses hire and spend. The argument is that that can halt the precipitous decline of the economy, improve confidence, and get the production cycle started back into the positive direction again.
So that is why a shitload of spending makes sense now when it might not if the economy is functioning well.
oh lord....
then whose deficit did obama inherit?
The current deficit consists of three primary components. Two have have caused deficits since the Govt budget was balanced in 2000, the third is a more recent phenonemon.
1) Revenues were cut significantly because of the tax cuts, and have grown much more slowly than GDP.
2) Spending increased more than GDP, mostly on the military, the wars, and some on health care.
3) Stimulus spending to avoid a depression.
Whose fault these items are which have caused the deficit is a matter of debate.
IMO the fault of the decreased revenues can be fairly laid at the feet of the Bush administration.
The spending increase for the military and Iraq war can be fairly laid at the feet of the Bush administration. Health care increases not so, that is a programic increase that I wouldn't blame him or anyone for, though you could argue that he had 8 years and did little to fix the health care system.
The fiscal stimulus spending is necessary because of the recession and mortgage credit fiasco. Whose fault that is ... well we could start another 10 threads on that one.
This looks like approx. quadruple in the first year to me. The WAPost numbers (used in their article and graph) came from the CBO.
Projected Deficit - washingtonpost.com
OK, I see why you're confused. That article talks about the deficit. You had said debt. Those are two totally different things.
The deficit is a measure in any given year the difference between expenditures and revenues.
The debt is the accumulation of amount borrowed.
Obama possilble might quadruple the debt (depending upon how you measure it) but he is not going to quadruple the debt, or even close to it.
As Diamond Dave how to measure a deficit, and he'll tell you to look at how much the Govt borrowed in a year. Using that measure, the Govt borrowed over a trillion dollars in Bush's last year, and Obama is unlikely to even double that, stimulus spending and all.
They are related. Debt is just accumulated deficits, so the deficit absolutely has an impact on what the total debt becomes. But, you just keep cheerleading for all of that Obama spending, while I'm sure you bitched about whenever there was an "R" in the Whitehouse.
oh lord....
then whose deficit did obama inherit?
The current deficit consists of three primary components. Two have have caused deficits since the Govt budget was balanced in 2000, the third is a more recent phenonemon.
1) Revenues were cut significantly because of the tax cuts, and have grown much more slowly than GDP.
2) Spending increased more than GDP, mostly on the military, the wars, and some on health care.
3) Stimulus spending to avoid a depression.
Whose fault these items are which have caused the deficit is a matter of debate.
IMO the fault of the decreased revenues can be fairly laid at the feet of the Bush administration.
The spending increase for the military and Iraq war can be fairly laid at the feet of the Bush administration. Health care increases not so, that is a programic increase that I wouldn't blame him or anyone for, though you could argue that he had 8 years and did little to fix the health care system.
The fiscal stimulus spending is necessary because of the recession and mortgage credit fiasco. Whose fault that is ... well we could start another 10 threads on that one.
So.... When Obama said that he planned to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, and when he keeps his promise (which would be earth-shattering, to be sure), we'll move that fault from Bush's feet to Obama's, right? I mean, who, in their right mind, sees such a massive deficit, caused by decreased revenues and increased spending, and makes a decision to further decrease revenues and increase spending? Real stimulating, wouldn't you say?
The current deficit consists of three primary components. Two have have caused deficits since the Govt budget was balanced in 2000, the third is a more recent phenonemon.
1) Revenues were cut significantly because of the tax cuts, and have grown much more slowly than GDP.
2) Spending increased more than GDP, mostly on the military, the wars, and some on health care.
3) Stimulus spending to avoid a depression.
Whose fault these items are which have caused the deficit is a matter of debate.
IMO the fault of the decreased revenues can be fairly laid at the feet of the Bush administration.
The spending increase for the military and Iraq war can be fairly laid at the feet of the Bush administration. Health care increases not so, that is a programic increase that I wouldn't blame him or anyone for, though you could argue that he had 8 years and did little to fix the health care system.
The fiscal stimulus spending is necessary because of the recession and mortgage credit fiasco. Whose fault that is ... well we could start another 10 threads on that one.
So.... When Obama said that he planned to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, and when he keeps his promise (which would be earth-shattering, to be sure), we'll move that fault from Bush's feet to Obama's, right? I mean, who, in their right mind, sees such a massive deficit, caused by decreased revenues and increased spending, and makes a decision to further decrease revenues and increase spending? Real stimulating, wouldn't you say?
Absolutely, if Obama does not take action to reduct the projected deficits, it will be his fault they are continuing.
So.... When Obama said that he planned to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, and when he keeps his promise (which would be earth-shattering, to be sure), we'll move that fault from Bush's feet to Obama's, right? I mean, who, in their right mind, sees such a massive deficit, caused by decreased revenues and increased spending, and makes a decision to further decrease revenues and increase spending? Real stimulating, wouldn't you say?
Absolutely, if Obama does not take action to reduct the projected deficits, it will be his fault they are continuing.
You see/hear anything in his plans that point to a reduction in the projected deficit? I'm not talking about what has already been shown by the CBO projections that indicate a drop-off after 2009. I mean actual reductions to those deficit numbers, 'cause all I've been hearing is "we must do".
Absolutely, if Obama does not take action to reduct the projected deficits, it will be his fault they are continuing.
You see/hear anything in his plans that point to a reduction in the projected deficit? I'm not talking about what has already been shown by the CBO projections that indicate a drop-off after 2009. I mean actual reductions to those deficit numbers, 'cause all I've been hearing is "we must do".
Some things. He's been call for investigating reduction of spending in some areas, even if on a small scale. Today there was news about eliminating offshore tax havens and loop holes, which will increase revenues.
So I don't count the deficit projections as cast in stone; and that is not even considering that the CBO has historically been WAY off on its forecasts.
But I've stated numerous times that Obama's projected deficits bother me. I think he needs to cut spending and increase taxes, though in the middle of a recession neither is arguably the best immediate course of action.
You see/hear anything in his plans that point to a reduction in the projected deficit? I'm not talking about what has already been shown by the CBO projections that indicate a drop-off after 2009. I mean actual reductions to those deficit numbers, 'cause all I've been hearing is "we must do".
Some things. He's been call for investigating reduction of spending in some areas, even if on a small scale. Today there was news about eliminating offshore tax havens and loop holes, which will increase revenues.
So I don't count the deficit projections as cast in stone; and that is not even considering that the CBO has historically been WAY off on its forecasts.
But I've stated numerous times that Obama's projected deficits bother me. I think he needs to cut spending and increase taxes, though in the middle of a recession neither is arguably the best immediate course of action.
Yes, I saw the news.
[excerpt]
The president, who hammered on this issue during his long campaign for the White House, said at a White House event that his plan would generate $210 billion in new taxes over 10 years and "make it easier" for companies to create jobs at home. Over a decade, $210 billion would make a modest dent in a federal deficit expected to swell to $1.2 trillion in 2010.
Under the plan, companies would not be able to write off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad. The goal is to reduce the incentive for U.S. companies to base all or part of their operations in other countries.
He said the government also is hiring nearly 800 new IRS agents to enforce the U.S. tax code.
Congress is expected to resist significant portions of Obama's plan.
Obama cracks down on overseas tax loopholes - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com
So, the revenues that would be gained are over a 10-yr. period, well beyond HIS administration, even if he were to be reelected, AND he will need an additional expenditure to cover the salaries of those 800 additional enforcers NOW.
I also find your comment re. the CBO interesting, considering it's generally the "go to" source whenever discussions re. budgets and deficits and debts of Presidents come up -- particularly from those defending the Democratic administrations.
In any case, I wouldn't, and havent, say that "it's cast in stone". All I'm saying is, I see no evidence, from word or deed, that indicates anything other than increased spending and decreased revenue. I had a problem when Bush didn't behave like a conservative in this regard, so I sure have a problem with it now.
Some things. He's been call for investigating reduction of spending in some areas, even if on a small scale. Today there was news about eliminating offshore tax havens and loop holes, which will increase revenues.
So I don't count the deficit projections as cast in stone; and that is not even considering that the CBO has historically been WAY off on its forecasts.
But I've stated numerous times that Obama's projected deficits bother me. I think he needs to cut spending and increase taxes, though in the middle of a recession neither is arguably the best immediate course of action.
Yes, I saw the news.
[excerpt]
The president, who hammered on this issue during his long campaign for the White House, said at a White House event that his plan would generate $210 billion in new taxes over 10 years and "make it easier" for companies to create jobs at home. Over a decade, $210 billion would make a modest dent in a federal deficit expected to swell to $1.2 trillion in 2010.
Under the plan, companies would not be able to write off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad. The goal is to reduce the incentive for U.S. companies to base all or part of their operations in other countries.
He said the government also is hiring nearly 800 new IRS agents to enforce the U.S. tax code.
Congress is expected to resist significant portions of Obama's plan.
Obama cracks down on overseas tax loopholes - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com
So, the revenues that would be gained are over a 10-yr. period, well beyond HIS administration, even if he were to be reelected, AND he will need an additional expenditure to cover the salaries of those 800 additional enforcers NOW.
I also find your comment re. the CBO interesting, considering it's generally the "go to" source whenever discussions re. budgets and deficits and debts of Presidents come up -- particularly from those defending the Democratic administrations.
In any case, I wouldn't, and havent, say that "it's cast in stone". All I'm saying is, I see no evidence, from word or deed, that indicates anything other than increased spending and decreased revenue. I had a problem when Bush didn't behave like a conservative in this regard, so I sure have a problem with it now.
I acknowledged his actions thus far were small. But you asked if I'd seen anything. *Hopefully* they are just the start of a lot more to come. Obama has at least been talking about the deficit and the problem with it, which is a refeshing contrast to the Bush administration which for few exceptions just put its head in the sand and pretended like the record deficits it created didn't exist.
As far as the CBO, they are a reliable source for actual budget information. And their forecasts are as good as anyone's. But any forecast, including the CBO, is subject to great inaccuracy because of the unforseen.
As one example, when Bush took office, the CBO was projecting a couple trillion in surpluses. In fact Bush put the country another $5 trillion in debt. CBO's forcast was only $7 trillion in that case.
selfless whining bastards ,,, I hate that bony finger waving bitch..
they whine cause now they don't have the Republicans to blame,, I love it.. the party of no stuck by their principles and the party of no principles and tax evaders are pissed off. wheeee another day in DUmbdum!
Yes, I saw the news.
[excerpt]
The president, who hammered on this issue during his long campaign for the White House, said at a White House event that his plan would generate $210 billion in new taxes over 10 years and "make it easier" for companies to create jobs at home. Over a decade, $210 billion would make a modest dent in a federal deficit expected to swell to $1.2 trillion in 2010.
Under the plan, companies would not be able to write off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad. The goal is to reduce the incentive for U.S. companies to base all or part of their operations in other countries.
He said the government also is hiring nearly 800 new IRS agents to enforce the U.S. tax code.
Congress is expected to resist significant portions of Obama's plan.
Obama cracks down on overseas tax loopholes - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com
So, the revenues that would be gained are over a 10-yr. period, well beyond HIS administration, even if he were to be reelected, AND he will need an additional expenditure to cover the salaries of those 800 additional enforcers NOW.
I also find your comment re. the CBO interesting, considering it's generally the "go to" source whenever discussions re. budgets and deficits and debts of Presidents come up -- particularly from those defending the Democratic administrations.
In any case, I wouldn't, and havent, say that "it's cast in stone". All I'm saying is, I see no evidence, from word or deed, that indicates anything other than increased spending and decreased revenue. I had a problem when Bush didn't behave like a conservative in this regard, so I sure have a problem with it now.
I acknowledged his actions thus far were small. But you asked if I'd seen anything. *Hopefully* they are just the start of a lot more to come. Obama has at least been talking about the deficit and the problem with it, which is a refeshing contrast to the Bush administration which for few exceptions just put its head in the sand and pretended like the record deficits it created didn't exist.
As far as the CBO, they are a reliable source for actual budget information. And their forecasts are as good as anyone's. But any forecast, including the CBO, is subject to great inaccuracy because of the unforseen.
As one example, when Bush took office, the CBO was projecting a couple trillion in surpluses. In fact Bush put the country another $5 trillion in debt. CBO's forcast was only $7 trillion in that case.
The "anything" that you saw, however, also isn't cast in stone yet if Congress is expected to resist major portions, and you didn't mention the expenditures required to get it going. I'm not going to argue whether or not heads were in the sand, or who was attempting to do what with regard to where we are now. As far as I'm concerned, there's plenty of blame to go around, and if Obama is going to deliver on his major promise ("Change you can believe in") then he'd better figure out what it takes to do it.
Oh, and when Bush took office, the CBO obviously did not anticipate 9/11 or the actions taken in the Middle East - related or not. I'm also not going to debate that here, but that would be the reason for a projected surplus turning into a debt.
I acknowledged his actions thus far were small. But you asked if I'd seen anything. *Hopefully* they are just the start of a lot more to come. Obama has at least been talking about the deficit and the problem with it, which is a refeshing contrast to the Bush administration which for few exceptions just put its head in the sand and pretended like the record deficits it created didn't exist.
As far as the CBO, they are a reliable source for actual budget information. And their forecasts are as good as anyone's. But any forecast, including the CBO, is subject to great inaccuracy because of the unforseen.
As one example, when Bush took office, the CBO was projecting a couple trillion in surpluses. In fact Bush put the country another $5 trillion in debt. CBO's forcast was only $7 trillion in that case.
The "anything" that you saw, however, also isn't cast in stone yet if Congress is expected to resist major portions, and you didn't mention the expenditures required to get it going. I'm not going to argue whether or not heads were in the sand, or who was attempting to do what with regard to where we are now. As far as I'm concerned, there's plenty of blame to go around, and if Obama is going to deliver on his major promise ("Change you can believe in") then he'd better figure out what it takes to do it.
I don't recall exactly what Obama promised on the budget, but I don't think he promised to balance it, and especially not in light of the impending recession. I recall him being more ambiguous about it, in contrast to Clinton who focused more on it, which was a reason I supported her as first option.
Actually, as with many things, he has "shifted" his views considerably from the early days of his campaign.
[excerpt]
E-mail|Share|Comments (0)|Recommend (0)
Share this page using one of the following services:
Del.icio.us
Digg
Mixx
Stumble Upon
What is this?
Election 2008
Democrats Outline Plans to Balance Budget
Listen: NPR Special Coverage of the Democratic Presidential Candidates' Debate (Dec. 13)
add | download
Listen: Scott Horsley reports on All Things Considered
add | download
Scott Olson
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut greet the audience. Getty
NPR.org, December 13, 2007 · Democratic presidential hopefuls pledged Thursday to put the country on the road to a balanced budget by raising taxes for wealthy Americans and big corporations.
But they all agreed there is no quick fix when it comes to reducing the country's $127 billion deficit.
"You can't do it in a year. It'll take time, but the economy will grow again when we start acting fiscally responsible," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who took the stage with five of her Democratic rivals for the final debate before Iowa's caucuses on Jan. 3.
Clinton said she would cut costs and implement programs to make the government run more efficiently, harkening back to the 1990s when her husband, former President Bill Clinton, left the Bush administration a budget surplus.
Eliminate Tax Cuts for Wealthy, Corporations
"We don't have to go back very far in our history in fact, just to the 1990s to see what happens when we do have a fiscally responsible budget that does use rules of discipline to make sure that we're not cutting taxes or spending more than we can afford," Clinton said. "I will institute those very same approaches."
The deficit hit a record high of $413 billion in 2004 before declining to $162.8 billion for the 2007 budget year, which ended Sept. 30.
Clinton and her rivals also called for higher taxes on the country's wealthiest citizens and big corporations to help put the country back on sound financial footing.
"The truth of the matter is the tax policy has been established by the big corporations and the wealthiest Americans," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. "What we ought to be doing instead is getting rid of those tax breaks."
The candidates also acknowledged the need to cut government waste and make changes in programs, including Medicare, but Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said it will take a new kind of politician to actually make that happen.
Eliminating Waste
"We are not going to make some of these changes unless we change how business is done in Washington," Obama said. "The reason that we can't negotiate for prescription drugs under the Medicare prescription drug plan is because the drug companies specifically sought and obtained a provision in that bill that prevented us from doing it."
Both Obama and Edwards have criticized Clinton for being too accommodating of corporate interests on matters including health care and the need for a change is a common theme of Obama's campaign.
Democrats Outline Plans to Balance Budget : NPR
(CBS) Former treasury secretary Robert Rubin, who is advising Barack Obama, and former Hewlett-Packard head Carly Fiorina, who is advising John McCain, said on Face The Nation Sunday that a balanced budget is foreseeable despite a federal deficit that has ballooned to more than $400 billion.
"We could have had surpluses during this decade," said Rubin. "We started the decade with surpluses and we had good federal revenues. But instead, because of the fiscal policies put in place, we had deficits through all this period.
"What Senator Obama has said is that he is committed to restoring sound, long-term fiscal conditions," Rubin continued. "I think that's essential if we're going to have a good and strong economy. He said he'll pay for everything he's going to do with respect to Social Security and Medicare.
Rubin said "we could absolutely get back" to a balanced budget.
WASHINGTON, August 3, 2008
McCain, Obama Advisers See Balanced Budget - CBS News
Q: This years deficit will reach $455 billion. Wont some programs you are proposing have to be eliminated?
OBAMA: Every dollar Ive proposed, Ive proposed an additional cut hat it matches. To give an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesnt help seniors get better. Its a giveaway. I want to go through the federal budget line by line, programs that dont work, we cut. Programs we need, we should make them work better. Once we get through this economic crisis, were going to have to embrace a culture of responsibility, all of us, corporations, the federal government, & individuals who may be living beyond their means.
McCAIN: Id have an across-the-board spending freeze. I know how to save billions of dollars in defense spending. One would be the marketing assistance program. Another one would be subsidies for ethanol. I would fight for a line-item veto, and I would certainly veto every earmark pork-barrel bill.
Source: 2008 third presidential debate against John McCain Oct 15, 2008
Note the caveat.... "Once we get through this economic crisis". As if this economic crisis should be reason for adding fuel to the fire.
Oh, and when Bush took office, the CBO obviously did not anticipate 9/11 or the actions taken in the Middle East - related or not. I'm also not going to debate that here, but that would be the reason for a projected surplus turning into a debt.
Of course, lots of things happen that can't be foreseen, which is why forecasts are so unpredictble.
We could have a huge rally in the stock market that makes the recession much less severe than anticipated. Who knows?
