Obama is putting things in place to gradually reduce the debt

[courseofhistory]

Obama submitted a budget. If you understand the economy a little you will realize that many things which are in effect when the president takes over will continue to have an effect on things for years to come.

Cutting things enough to make a difference will put the country into recession. Obama found that out the hard way (which btw isn't the same as lying about how fast you ran a marathon--one is simple and straightforward--the other, the economy is very, very complicated. So I will cut Obama some slack on what could be done. The same goes for Mitt Romney. I don't think he will be able to do what he thinks/says he can do.

However, Obama's actions so far have actually put many things into motion that will ultimately reduce the debt--front loaded vs. the Bush backloaded debt and more.

In two instances, this made Obama’s policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obama’s decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years — at a total cost of $620 billion — to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.

The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obama’s spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obama’s planned deficit reduction.

There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have. In total, the policies Obama has signed into law can be expected to add almost a trillion dollars to deficits. But behind that total are policies that point in very different directions. The stimulus, for instance, cost more than $800 billion. So did the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $600 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, and hundreds of billions more in unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.

LINK[/

 

[Bigfoot]

OMG, his budget's are like bad Sci-fi. How many congressional votes do his budgets receive?

 

[courseofhistory]

OMG, his budget's are like bad Sci-fi. How many congressional votes do his budgets receive?

It is up to the Congress to tweak the budget to be more to their liking and in some instances, they change things to the point of everyone voting hating it! That's what happened to Obama.

Care to address the actual issues mentioned in the OP?

 

[Stephanie]

lol, more propaganda from Ezra Kline

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I heard someone here had a chunk of land on the moon to sell. I'm guessing it's the OP

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama submitted a budget. If you understand the economy a little you will realize that many things which are in effect when the president takes over will continue to have an effect on things for years to come.

Cutting things enough to make a difference will put the country into recession. Obama found that out the hard way (which btw isn't the same as lying about how fast you ran a marathon--one is simple and straightforward--the other, the economy is very, very complicated. So I will cut Obama some slack on what could be done. The same goes for Mitt Romney. I don't think he will be able to do what he thinks/says he can do.

However, Obama's actions so far have actually put many things into motion that will ultimately reduce the debt--front loaded vs. the Bush backloaded debt and more.

In two instances, this made Obama’s policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obama’s decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years — at a total cost of $620 billion — to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.

The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obama’s spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obama’s planned deficit reduction.

There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have. In total, the policies Obama has signed into law can be expected to add almost a trillion dollars to deficits. But behind that total are policies that point in very different directions. The stimulus, for instance, cost more than $800 billion. So did the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $600 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, and hundreds of billions more in unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.

LINK[/

I understand Reagan's economy and what he had to bring America out from. What Reagan did worked in less time than it is taking obama to start.

 

[driveby]

Obama submitted a budget. If you understand the economy a little you will realize that many things which are in effect when the president takes over will continue to have an effect on things for years to come.

Cutting things enough to make a difference will put the country into recession. Obama found that out the hard way (which btw isn't the same as lying about how fast you ran a marathon--one is simple and straightforward--the other, the economy is very, very complicated. So I will cut Obama some slack on what could be done. The same goes for Mitt Romney. I don't think he will be able to do what he thinks/says he can do.

However, Obama's actions so far have actually put many things into motion that will ultimately reduce the debt--front loaded vs. the Bush backloaded debt and more.

In two instances, this made Obama’s policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obama’s decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years — at a total cost of $620 billion — to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.

The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obama’s spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obama’s planned deficit reduction.

There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have. In total, the policies Obama has signed into law can be expected to add almost a trillion dollars to deficits. But behind that total are policies that point in very different directions. The stimulus, for instance, cost more than $800 billion. So did the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $600 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, and hundreds of billions more in unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.

LINK[/

Backloaded savings.....

 

[IGetItAlready]

OMG, his budget's are like bad Sci-fi. How many congressional votes do his budgets receive?

It is up to the Congress to tweak the budget to be more to their liking and in some instances, they change things to the point of everyone voting hating it! That's what happened to Obama.

Care to address the actual issues mentioned in the OP?

You couldn't possibly be more wrong and I couldn't be less interested in taking the time to set you straight as your demonstrated lack of understanding implies any effort would be wasted.

But for what it's worth, you do have the means by which to get it sitting right in front of you.

 

[IGetItAlready]

I heard someone here had a chunk of land on the moon to sell. I'm guessing it's the OP

The OP likely believes the moon is a farce as he's never been slapped upside the head with it.

 

[Stephanie]

I heard someone here had a chunk of land on the moon to sell. I'm guessing it's the OP

The OP likely believes the moon is a farce as he's never been slapped upside the head with it.

He and Ezra probably believes Obama gradually created the moon..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Romney has taken Medicare, Social Security, defense, and tax increases off the table.

He has no chance of making any meaningful reduction in the deficit with that policy.

 

[Moonglow]

Romney has taken Medicare, Social Security, defense, and tax increases off the table.

He has no chance of making any meaningful reduction in the deficit with that policy.

Rpubs are to busy fawning over Mittens and old women opening up their wombs for Ryan.