It's Becoming More and More Apparent: We Can't Afford Obama

[KittenKoder]

And the CBO credits the the majority of the surpluses of the 1990s on the 1993 budget reduction act. ( NOT one single R voted for it)

except there were NO surpluses
that was all a lie

Without the SS surpluses, Clinton would have had some deficits, although they would have been much smaller than what Bush had. One thing people forget is that surplus SS money has been decreasing every year since Clinton left office, making it more and more difficult to run a balanced budget. And this will only get worse as we move forward. This is why SS and Medicare must be revamped completely. They are our two biggest problems long term.

The only problems SS and Medicare have are that they keep getting raided when the government fucks up. They don't need to be revamped, they just need to be kept away from politicians more.

 

[Care4all]

And the CBO credits the the majority of the surpluses of the 1990s on the 1993 budget reduction act. ( NOT one single R voted for it)

except there were NO surpluses
that was all a lie

Without the SS surpluses, Clinton would have had some deficits, although they would have been much smaller than what Bush had. One thing people forget is that surplus SS money has been decreasing every year since Clinton left office, making it more and more difficult to run a balanced budget. And this will only get worse as we move forward. This is why SS and Medicare must be revamped completely. They are our two biggest problems long term.

This is actually not correct Auditor....the SS surplusses peaked under president bush, not clinton, although big, clinton's were relatively small compared to the SS surplusses used for deficit reduction the past 8 years....i think from here on out, they get smaller and smaller....

in fact i think that the days of SS surplus are probably over....sooner than we anticipated due to this recession and higher, unexpected unemployment....

 

[Care4all]

After only two months, we're beginning to see what a mess Obama and the Dems are about to create. I was willing to give Obama a chance, but based on what his own people are telling us, we can't afford to give him a chance. We need change now. The path he is putting us on has to be changed. When he said he was bringing change to Washington, I don't think anyone believed it was to destroy the US economically, but that is what is about to take place if people don't start demanding real change.

Audit Finds Dire Deficits in Obama BudgetBy ANDREW TAYLOR, AP
posted: 28 MINUTES AGOcomments: 121filed under: National News, The Obama PresidencyPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (March 20) —

President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.
The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month — a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable.

Audit Finds Dire Deficits in Obama Budget

Actually, you're mistaken. Someone DID think the "change" he was bringing was to destroy the nation economically. I thought it. And I have a big, fat, hairy "I told you so" for the gullible leftist sheep.

any solid reasons for you thinking such that you can tell us? was it him being a democrat or something more specific that gave it away to you?

care

 

[DiveCon]

except there were NO surpluses
that was all a lie

Without the SS surpluses, Clinton would have had some deficits, although they would have been much smaller than what Bush had. One thing people forget is that surplus SS money has been decreasing every year since Clinton left office, making it more and more difficult to run a balanced budget. And this will only get worse as we move forward. This is why SS and Medicare must be revamped completely. They are our two biggest problems long term.

This is actually not correct Auditor....the SS surplusses peaked under president bush, not clinton, although big, clinton's were relatively small compared to the SS surplusses used for deficit reduction the past 8 years....i think from here on out, they get smaller and smaller....

in fact i think that the days of SS surplus are probably over....sooner than we anticipated due to this recession and higher, unexpected unemployment....

which doesnt disagree with what he said at all

 

[KittenKoder]

Without the SS surpluses, Clinton would have had some deficits, although they would have been much smaller than what Bush had. One thing people forget is that surplus SS money has been decreasing every year since Clinton left office, making it more and more difficult to run a balanced budget. And this will only get worse as we move forward. This is why SS and Medicare must be revamped completely. They are our two biggest problems long term.

This is actually not correct Auditor....the SS surplusses peaked under president bush, not clinton, although big, clinton's were relatively small compared to the SS surplusses used for deficit reduction the past 8 years....i think from here on out, they get smaller and smaller....

in fact i think that the days of SS surplus are probably over....sooner than we anticipated due to this recession and higher, unexpected unemployment....

which doesnt disagree with what he said at all

Thanks for pointing out Care's blinders DiveCon, though I would have had more fun doing it.

 

[Care4all]

This is actually not correct Auditor....the SS surplusses peaked under president bush, not clinton, although big, clinton's were relatively small compared to the SS surplusses used for deficit reduction the past 8 years....i think from here on out, they get smaller and smaller....

in fact i think that the days of SS surplus are probably over....sooner than we anticipated due to this recession and higher, unexpected unemployment....

which doesnt disagree with what he said at all

Thanks for pointing out Care's blinders DiveCon, though I would have had more fun doing it.

Good morning Kitten,

Reading comprehension is a good thing!!

oh, quite contraire that it was the same thing that Auditor said....the part corrected, is that Auditor said that the surplusses peaked under Clinton.

Implying that GWB DID NOT use as much SS Surplus to balance or reduce his budget deficit, as Clinton did....

And it is quite the OPPOSITE. President Bush used hundreds of billions more in SS surpluses to reduce his budget deficit than President Clinton did....

AND, because we no longer have huge SS surplusses going forward to reduce or mask our budget deficit, Obama's budget deficit will be bigger, much bigger than President Bush's EVEN IF Obama did NOT spend a dime more on his budget than President Bush.

The whole and truthful picture of what is happening with our deficits getting larger can not be discerned unless we take all of that in to consideration, imo

So the "blinders" happen to be worn by you my dear and dive and others.....not me!
Care

 

[Silver Diva]

I think Obama and the Democrats should do nothing. I think they should introduce prayer in schools, allow guns in bars, and as the Pope recommends, ban the sales of condoms. I think if they do that....and pray.....most of all pray.....the same God that made the world 6000 years ago will fix the problem of the economy!

 

[Care4all]

I think Obama and the Democrats should do nothing. I think they should introduce prayer in schools, allow guns in bars, and as the Pope recommends, ban the sales of condoms. I think if they do that....and pray.....most of all pray.....the same God that made the world 6000 years ago will fix the problem of the economy!

smart ass!

care

 

[KittenKoder]

which doesnt disagree with what he said at all

Thanks for pointing out Care's blinders DiveCon, though I would have had more fun doing it.

Good morning Kitten,

Reading comprehension is a good thing!!

oh, quite contraire that it was the same thing that Auditor said....the part corrected, is that Auditor said that the surplusses peaked under Clinton.

Implying that GWB DID NOT use as much SS Surplus to balance or reduce his budget deficit, as Clinton did....

And it is quite the OPPOSITE. President Bush used hundreds of billions more in SS surpluses to reduce his budget deficit than President Clinton did....

AND, because we no longer have huge SS surplusses going forward to reduce or mask our budget deficit, Obama's budget deficit will be bigger, much bigger than President Bush's EVEN IF Obama did NOT spend a dime more on his budget than President Bush.

The whole and truthful picture of what is happening with our deficits getting larger can not be discerned unless we take all of that in to consideration, imo

So the "blinders" happen to be worn by you my dear and dive and others.....not me!
Care

"Without the SS surpluses, Clinton would have had some deficits, although they would have been much smaller than what Bush had. One thing people forget is that surplus SS money has been decreasing every year since Clinton left office, making it more and more difficult to run a balanced budget. And this will only get worse as we move forward. This is why SS and Medicare must be revamped completely. They are our two biggest problems long term."

He didn't say that, though you could get the implication if you worry too much about what party he more strongly supports. There was no implication really, what he was saying is that the amount left in the surpluses was less, not who spent it nor how. This could happen for many reasons, not just through increased spending but also higher unemployment, lower interest, and probably many more that I just can't think of. The only error he did make was saying SS and Medicare need changing (though it's not entirely an error because Jr AND Clinton made some changes that fucked up Medicare in other areas) it is the fact that we need to protect it from people taking the money to pay for their other fuck ups instead. The systems are not the cause, the people stealing from them are.

 

[tigerbob]

I think Obama and the Democrats should do nothing. I think they should introduce prayer in schools, allow guns in bars, and as the Pope recommends, ban the sales of condoms. I think if they do that....and pray.....most of all pray.....the same God that made the world 6000 years ago will fix the problem of the economy!

Welcome to the board.

 

[Care4all]

Thanks for pointing out Care's blinders DiveCon, though I would have had more fun doing it.

Good morning Kitten,

Reading comprehension is a good thing!!

oh, quite contraire that it was the same thing that Auditor said....the part corrected, is that Auditor said that the surplusses peaked under Clinton.

Implying that GWB DID NOT use as much SS Surplus to balance or reduce his budget deficit, as Clinton did....

And it is quite the OPPOSITE. President Bush used hundreds of billions more in SS surpluses to reduce his budget deficit than President Clinton did....

AND, because we no longer have huge SS surplusses going forward to reduce or mask our budget deficit, Obama's budget deficit will be bigger, much bigger than President Bush's EVEN IF Obama did NOT spend a dime more on his budget than President Bush.

The whole and truthful picture of what is happening with our deficits getting larger can not be discerned unless we take all of that in to consideration, imo

So the "blinders" happen to be worn by you my dear and dive and others.....not me!
Care

"Without the SS surpluses, Clinton would have had some deficits, although they would have been much smaller than what Bush had. One thing people forget is that surplus SS money has been decreasing every year since Clinton left office, making it more and more difficult to run a balanced budget. And this will only get worse as we move forward. This is why SS and Medicare must be revamped completely. They are our two biggest problems long term."

He didn't say that, though you could get the implication if you worry too much about what party he more strongly supports. There was no implication really, what he was saying is that the amount left in the surpluses was less, not who spent it nor how. This could happen for many reasons, not just through increased spending but also higher unemployment, lower interest, and probably many more that I just can't think of. The only error he did make was saying SS and Medicare need changing (though it's not entirely an error because Jr AND Clinton made some changes that fucked up Medicare in other areas) it is the fact that we need to protect it from people taking the money to pay for their other fuck ups instead. The systems are not the cause, the people stealing from them are.

NO KITTEN, the ss surplusses HAVE NOT BEEN DECREASING SINCE CLINTON....

HAVE NOT!

This is the part i have CORRECTED....

the ss surplus was at its peak DURING GWB'S reign , NOT SINCE CLINTON, but since Bush 2.

Bush used several hundred BILLION MORE in SS surplus than Clinton did to balance his deficit or to reduce his deficit.

WHY do you and others keep saying that the SS surplus PEAKED under Clinton, WHEN IT DID NOT? It peaked under GWB..... SO gwb USED MORE of our SS surplus funds to reduce his budget deficits THAN any other President.... PERIOD.

Care

P.s. Let me see if i can get the actual numbers, and i will link it, when i find it again....

 

[Annie]

Obama's Out of Control Spending Dwarfs the Wasted AIG Bailout Money - Bonnie Erbe (usnews.com)

Blog EntryComments (19)
Obama's Out of Control Spending Dwarfs the Wasted AIG Bailout Money
March 17, 2009 10:21 AM ET | Bonnie Erbe | Permanent Link | Print
By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

President Obama's profligate spending habits are starting to look an awful lot like his predecessor's, and that's not good. Here, for example, are three things the president did yesterday. These are three things that simply cannot be done simultaneously with a straight face:

First, the President expressed outrage over the horrendous abuse of government bailout money by insurance giant AIG—the same issue that has the rest of official Washington zooming off into outer space:

President Obama vowed to "pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses." But that pledge might have came too late. About $165 million in retention payments went out Friday to employees at Financial Products, after numerous discussions with the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.​

Problem with his outrage is, the government funds were used as bonuses on Mr. Obama's watch. President Obama could legitimately object to $165 million in wasteful government spending if he weren't simultaneously in the process of committing waste on a much grander scale....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/opinion/22rich.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Has a ‘Katrina Moment’ Arrived?

By FRANK RICH
A CHARMING visit with Jay Leno won’t fix it. A 90 percent tax on bankers’ bonuses won’t fix it. Firing Timothy Geithner won’t fix it. Unless and until Barack Obama addresses the full depth of Americans’ anger with his full arsenal of policy smarts and political gifts, his presidency and, worse, our economy will be paralyzed. It would be foolish to dismiss as hyperbole the stark warning delivered by Paulette Altmaier of Cupertino, Calif., in a letter to the editor published by The Times last week: “President Obama may not realize it yet, but his Katrina moment has arrived.”

Six weeks ago I wrote in this space that the country’s surge of populist rage could devour the president’s best-laid plans, including the essential Act II of the bank rescue, if he didn’t get in front of it. The occasion then was the Tom Daschle firestorm. The White House seemed utterly blindsided by the public’s revulsion at the moneyed insiders’ culture illuminated by Daschle’s post-Senate career. Yet last week’s events suggest that the administration learned nothing from that brush with disaster....

and the left's favorite economist:

More on the bank plan - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

MARCH 21, 2009, 12:30 PM
More on the bank plan

Why was I so quick to condemn the Geithner plan? Because it’s not new; it’s just another version of an idea that keeps coming up and keeps being refuted. It’s basically a thinly disguised version of the same plan Henry Paulson announced way back in September. To understand the issue, let me offer some background.

Start with the question: how do banks fail? A bank, broadly defined, is any institution that borrows short and lends long. Like any leveraged investor, a bank can fail if it has made bad investments — if the value of its assets falls below the value of its liabilities, bye bye bank....

 

[DiveCon]

Good morning Kitten,

Reading comprehension is a good thing!!

oh, quite contraire that it was the same thing that Auditor said....the part corrected, is that Auditor said that the surplusses peaked under Clinton.

Implying that GWB DID NOT use as much SS Surplus to balance or reduce his budget deficit, as Clinton did....

And it is quite the OPPOSITE. President Bush used hundreds of billions more in SS surpluses to reduce his budget deficit than President Clinton did....

AND, because we no longer have huge SS surplusses going forward to reduce or mask our budget deficit, Obama's budget deficit will be bigger, much bigger than President Bush's EVEN IF Obama did NOT spend a dime more on his budget than President Bush.

The whole and truthful picture of what is happening with our deficits getting larger can not be discerned unless we take all of that in to consideration, imo

So the "blinders" happen to be worn by you my dear and dive and others.....not me!
Care

"Without the SS surpluses, Clinton would have had some deficits, although they would have been much smaller than what Bush had. One thing people forget is that surplus SS money has been decreasing every year since Clinton left office, making it more and more difficult to run a balanced budget. And this will only get worse as we move forward. This is why SS and Medicare must be revamped completely. They are our two biggest problems long term."

He didn't say that, though you could get the implication if you worry too much about what party he more strongly supports. There was no implication really, what he was saying is that the amount left in the surpluses was less, not who spent it nor how. This could happen for many reasons, not just through increased spending but also higher unemployment, lower interest, and probably many more that I just can't think of. The only error he did make was saying SS and Medicare need changing (though it's not entirely an error because Jr AND Clinton made some changes that fucked up Medicare in other areas) it is the fact that we need to protect it from people taking the money to pay for their other fuck ups instead. The systems are not the cause, the people stealing from them are.

NO KITTEN, the ss surplusses HAVE NOT BEEN DECREASING SINCE CLINTON....

HAVE NOT!

This is the part i have CORRECTED....

the ss surplus was at its peak DURING GWB'S reign , NOT SINCE CLINTON, but since Bush 2.

Bush used several hundred BILLION MORE in SS surplus than Clinton did to balance his deficit or to reduce his deficit.

WHY do you and others keep saying that the SS surplus PEAKED under Clinton, WHEN IT DID NOT? It peaked under GWB..... SO gwb USED MORE of our SS surplus funds to reduce his budget deficits THAN any other President.... PERIOD.

Care

P.s. Let me see if i can get the actual numbers, and i will link it, when i find it again....

yes, they have
thats the point you are missing
while they may not have decreased every year since clinton, they have been decreasing
you just want to defend your party
its blatantly obvious

 

[auditor0007]

except there were NO surpluses
that was all a lie

Without the SS surpluses, Clinton would have had some deficits, although they would have been much smaller than what Bush had. One thing people forget is that surplus SS money has been decreasing every year since Clinton left office, making it more and more difficult to run a balanced budget. And this will only get worse as we move forward. This is why SS and Medicare must be revamped completely. They are our two biggest problems long term.

exactly
they never should have been using the SS money to reduce how bad the deficit looked
not under Clinton, not under Bush 1 or 2 or under Reagan
not sure just how far back it goes
but it was wrong when they started doing it

I believe it was Reagan that started this, after FICA taxes were increased to cover upcoming shortfalls.

 

[auditor0007]

except there were NO surpluses
that was all a lie

Without the SS surpluses, Clinton would have had some deficits, although they would have been much smaller than what Bush had. One thing people forget is that surplus SS money has been decreasing every year since Clinton left office, making it more and more difficult to run a balanced budget. And this will only get worse as we move forward. This is why SS and Medicare must be revamped completely. They are our two biggest problems long term.

The only problems SS and Medicare have are that they keep getting raided when the government fucks up. They don't need to be revamped, they just need to be kept away from politicians more.

Had the surpluses not been raided, we would still be heading toward a massive shortfall, but it wouldn't have been quite as bad. As it stands now, we must revamp both SS and Medicare or face a massive future tax increases. The program was never meant to pay out benefits for an average of fifteen years, which is close to where we are headed. People are living much longer, so they're going to have to work much longer. It's a simple fact.

If people want to retire at 65, then they'll have to do it on their own savings. The only thing that is currently making this difficult is the way health insurance premiums work. They are increased dramatically the older you get. Even if you work for a company, that companies rate is based on the average age per recipient. The more older workers you have, the higher your health insurance premiums. This does not make it conducive to keeping older workers and is something that must be addressed if we expect people to work past 65.

 

[auditor0007]

except there were NO surpluses
that was all a lie

Without the SS surpluses, Clinton would have had some deficits, although they would have been much smaller than what Bush had. One thing people forget is that surplus SS money has been decreasing every year since Clinton left office, making it more and more difficult to run a balanced budget. And this will only get worse as we move forward. This is why SS and Medicare must be revamped completely. They are our two biggest problems long term.

This is actually not correct Auditor....the SS surplusses peaked under president bush, not clinton, although big, clinton's were relatively small compared to the SS surplusses used for deficit reduction the past 8 years....i think from here on out, they get smaller and smaller....

in fact i think that the days of SS surplus are probably over....sooner than we anticipated due to this recession and higher, unexpected unemployment....

You are correct that they peaked under Bush, but Clinton still used them as part of his surplus in the couple years that we had surpluses. And yes, they surpluses are almost gone now, and soon they will become deficits. Actually, I just looked it up. According to one source, SS surpluses peaked last year and will now begin heading downward. By 2018, the surpluses will be gone and we'll start heading into deficits.

 

[auditor0007]

which doesnt disagree with what he said at all

Thanks for pointing out Care's blinders DiveCon, though I would have had more fun doing it.

Good morning Kitten,

Reading comprehension is a good thing!!

oh, quite contraire that it was the same thing that Auditor said....the part corrected, is that Auditor said that the surplusses peaked under Clinton.

Implying that GWB DID NOT use as much SS Surplus to balance or reduce his budget deficit, as Clinton did....

And it is quite the OPPOSITE. President Bush used hundreds of billions more in SS surpluses to reduce his budget deficit than President Clinton did....

AND, because we no longer have huge SS surplusses going forward to reduce or mask our budget deficit, Obama's budget deficit will be bigger, much bigger than President Bush's EVEN IF Obama did NOT spend a dime more on his budget than President Bush.

The whole and truthful picture of what is happening with our deficits getting larger can not be discerned unless we take all of that in to consideration, imo

So the "blinders" happen to be worn by you my dear and dive and others.....not me!
Care

Obama will have a substantial surplus for the next few years, but it will be heading downward, where it was heading upward under Bush. 2008 being the peak year, 2009 should be close in revenue to 2008, but will gradually come down.

 

[DiveCon]

Thanks for pointing out Care's blinders DiveCon, though I would have had more fun doing it.

Good morning Kitten,

Reading comprehension is a good thing!!

oh, quite contraire that it was the same thing that Auditor said....the part corrected, is that Auditor said that the surplusses peaked under Clinton.

Implying that GWB DID NOT use as much SS Surplus to balance or reduce his budget deficit, as Clinton did....

And it is quite the OPPOSITE. President Bush used hundreds of billions more in SS surpluses to reduce his budget deficit than President Clinton did....

AND, because we no longer have huge SS surplusses going forward to reduce or mask our budget deficit, Obama's budget deficit will be bigger, much bigger than President Bush's EVEN IF Obama did NOT spend a dime more on his budget than President Bush.

The whole and truthful picture of what is happening with our deficits getting larger can not be discerned unless we take all of that in to consideration, imo

So the "blinders" happen to be worn by you my dear and dive and others.....not me!
Care

Obama will have a substantial surplus for the next few years, but it will be heading downward, where it was heading upward under Bush. 2008 being the peak year, 2009 should be close in revenue to 2008, but will gradually come down.

look for it
congress will likely increase the max threshold for paying SSI and FICA

 

[auditor0007]

Good morning Kitten,

Reading comprehension is a good thing!!

oh, quite contraire that it was the same thing that Auditor said....the part corrected, is that Auditor said that the surplusses peaked under Clinton.

Implying that GWB DID NOT use as much SS Surplus to balance or reduce his budget deficit, as Clinton did....

And it is quite the OPPOSITE. President Bush used hundreds of billions more in SS surpluses to reduce his budget deficit than President Clinton did....

AND, because we no longer have huge SS surplusses going forward to reduce or mask our budget deficit, Obama's budget deficit will be bigger, much bigger than President Bush's EVEN IF Obama did NOT spend a dime more on his budget than President Bush.

The whole and truthful picture of what is happening with our deficits getting larger can not be discerned unless we take all of that in to consideration, imo

So the "blinders" happen to be worn by you my dear and dive and others.....not me!
Care

Obama will have a substantial surplus for the next few years, but it will be heading downward, where it was heading upward under Bush. 2008 being the peak year, 2009 should be close in revenue to 2008, but will gradually come down.

look for it
congress will likely increase the max threshold for paying SSI and FICA

That step will almost certainly happen at some point, but that in itself will not be nearly enough. Raising the age when benefits can first be taken is the most logical and cost effective way to reduce overall costs without cutting benefits drastically. By reducing the amount of years people can collect, we can keep the benefits at current levels; people just will have to wait longer before they can collect on them. This will be even more important when looking at Medicare, which has a much bigger shortfall than SS.

 

[KittenKoder]

Obama will have a substantial surplus for the next few years, but it will be heading downward, where it was heading upward under Bush. 2008 being the peak year, 2009 should be close in revenue to 2008, but will gradually come down.

look for it
congress will likely increase the max threshold for paying SSI and FICA

That step will almost certainly happen at some point, but that in itself will not be nearly enough. Raising the age when benefits can first be taken is the most logical and cost effective way to reduce overall costs without cutting benefits drastically. By reducing the amount of years people can collect, we can keep the benefits at current levels; people just will have to wait longer before they can collect on them. This will be even more important when looking at Medicare, which has a much bigger shortfall than SS.

However all of that could be avoided if the government just left it alone altogether instead of bleeding it for their mistakes.