What are they basing this on? Obama wont be President in 2020, or even in 2017. He might not even be President in 2013.
Baseline = ???????? There are going to be significant deficits in the near future no matter who is President. We'll have an additional many trillions of debt over the next decade regardless. And, given that interest rates on federal debt remain at historically low rates in the vicinity of zero, no one sane gives a fuck. If there were a god, PUMA trolls would not exist and Obama would have sane opposition. We sure as hell would be better off if he had sane opposition. But Obama's opposition is even more fucking nuts than his supporters, and the brains of Obama's opposition are approximately the consistency of oatmeal, and the chemical composition of oatmeal as well. Overdose on kibbes and bits already, PUMA troll. Douse yourself in lighter fluid and die in a fire. Fuck off and die. Lick your balls, if you can. But please, whatever you do, do something more useful than your usual act.
I wonder if we're that far removed from the recession to return the unspent stimulus and raise taxes.
Sadly that doesn't get us off the hook - we'll be obligated to pay for all the mismanagement done during Obama's watch just as surely as we're still paying for Carter's with dead Americans.
Funny, here in Ontario, we did it the other way around... Back in '91, we elected the blatant socialists as opposed to the sorta socialists. It took all of a few weeks for them to reduce unemployment by giving clerical jobs to thousands of people... many in hospitals. Flashforward to '96 and what passes for conservative was elected to cut the waste. Thta meant two very unpopular moves; the first were hospital closures to eliminate the quadruplication of services and staff (sort of like competitive insurance, however...). The actual facillities didnt go away, but many were amalgamated under umbrella administrations. At the same time, they did this with cities. "Metropolitan Toronto" became Toronto; York, East York, Etobicoke, et al became one government. (Before you cry about centralizing even municipalities, I'll remind you how Mississauga was formed...) Point of this is, that despite the decade of conservatives rebuilding the mess the NDP left behind, and they took the flack in public opinion for doing what needed to be done. Could any of the options in '08 be doing much better? I doubt it.
Probably a little bit less, but only a little. Both of our major parties have no stomach for reigning in spending - it buys them votes, don'cha know - and seem to think the money just falls down from the sky or some shit.
So, placing the blame solely at the feet of this Democrat administration, is a little bit stupid and partizan?
Yes, it is. The current Republican Party is almost as bad as the Dems. No question about that. Both parties are failures and need to go bye-bye. Since the Dems are currently in power, they're in the hot seat and deservedly so.
Nope. The blame fell squarely on Bush and Republicans during their spendthrift reign just as surely as the blame now falls on Obama and the spendthrift Democrats during their reign. They are not equivelent by any means. Each is a discreet event worthy of contempt and disapproval, and one does not in any way make the other excusable. To simply say all politicians suck or all politicians spend too much is to say not very much at all. [Nobody gets a free pass just because the other guys are scummy too.] Obama is the man who will have to sign off on this budget extravagance. Reid and Pelosi are the architects and leadership behind this budget grossness.
You miss the point. Those of us responding so far are not giving anyone a free pass, we're saying both sides are equally guilty for the mess we're in. A pox on both their houses.
Fix social security? Nobody would suggest such a thing right? Certainly nobody on the left has. Labour and Conservative parties in the UK are identical are they not? From my vantage across the pond they sure seem to be. Someone who doesn't pay US taxes kibitzing casually about things they will never pay for, somehow finds it simple to equate hundreds of billions with trillions and trillions. It's not the same fuckin thing; anybody who wants to spend less is invariably a conservative. They are not equivalent, however awful the entire Congress' desire to buy votes may be.
It's in the OP you idiot. The debt held by the public as of now is 53% of GDP. In 2020, it's expect to be around 90% of GDP. To contrast that historically, when Bill Clinton left office in 2000, the amount of debt held by the public was 35% of GDP. When GWB left office, it was 53%, an increase of almost 20%. Not good, but nowhere nearly as bad as an increase to 90%. Even by 2012 it is estimated to be around 70%. What we are seeing here then is a continuation of GWB's policies in that it would have the same effect (increase). That is the point here, not your sophist stating of the obvious "well there will always be debt." Oh and one another thing. Give it up with the PUMA comments. They don't mean shit. If anything, I find it laughable since I've noticed that lately you've become all anti-Obama also, calling for his impeachment (a little crazy if you ask me) and what not. That's fine, welcome to the party. But don't lash out at the PUMAs because they were smarter than you and were the first to see through this charade, long before you did. Face it: The gullible believed, while Obama and his thugs deceived. You were among the gullible. Always remember that.
Ah, nope, because he is the one doing it. Excusing him because had someone else one they might have done similar things is something only you could come up with.
Then why place so much of the blame on 'Obama' when clearly all American politicians are at fault, and all just the same? Why isn't the anger directed at all of them if they are (as seems so) all exactly the same.
The anger is directed at those who DO IT, not those who might do it. Bush spent way too much on many things, so Clinton etc we were angry at them too. However, no one has come within orders of magnitude of what Barry is doing, hence the far greater rage.
The stimulus would have certainly happened under a conjectural third term for Bush or first term for McCain. Romney would have likely vetoed it, Huckabee IIRC was for a more limited version of the bill, and the rest of the candidates didn't really have a chance past the early stages. However, I think the thing that bothers most folks on the right is the ongoing deficits are going to include some truly massive and hideously expensive social policies, including Obamacare (in some form) and carbon regulation or cap and trade. The first will likely increase the deficit even more, while the second one penalizes the hell out of business, which itself will lead to reduced taxable income from business and higher unemployment rates. It's a pretty eye opening combination. And of course, all this means greater government control, which is something a large portion of the US population is wary of.
The anger about the debt is directed at Obama because it's not really anger about debt. It's anger about a Republican not being President, and debt is an excuse. They use debt as an excuse because it plays into traditional beliefs about the parties, even if those beliefs are completely disconnected from reality. In any event, believe it or not, we want more government debt right now. Interest rates on short and medium term term treasuries are at or below expected long term GDP growth rates, and even the rates on long term dept are barely above anticipated long term growth rates. On top of that we've got a huge output gap, with idle resources wasting away, resources that government spending could put to use; this is as opposed to better economic times where government spending largely displaces resources that would otherwise be in use. Because of multiplier effects and the current idleness of resources, every dollar the government spends right now adds more than a dollar to GDP. What matters, from a fiscal health point of view, is the ratio of debt service payments to GDP. Given how low annual interest rates are on federal debt (about 3.6% on ten year debt), a fiscal GDP multiplier on federal spending that's averaging about 1.5 depending on the specifics of the spending involved, and anticipated annual future GDP growth in the 2.5% range, even long term financing on federal spending isn't going to raise the ratio of debt service to GDP.
Probably far lower. Why? The same reasons the deficit problem was much better in the 1990s. Divided govt. If McCain or another Republican had won, he would most certainly have faced a strong Democratic Congress. A democratic congress would've passed many large spending bills, a Republican president would probably have vetoed them. The Republican minority in Congress would've helped sustain the vetos.
Your efforts to soothe over the state of the National Debt is predictably ridiculous. But if you won't hear it from me that the debt is getting to be a problem, hear it from Hillary (whom you claim to have been a supporter of): The rest of us are like Hillary telling you to be quiet before you help the country go off the cliff, and you are Greenspan doing . So save your protestations that the debt is fine, it's not an issue at all, and go back to being an Edwards supporter, child. It suits you much better.
Hillary is only saying this now because she's working for political brownie points. Opposing Obama despite working for him. The question is does she really believe it. If so, make her POTUS, and give her a Republican Congress like ol' Bill had. For all I care she can get a blowjob in the Oval Office too.
I think she does because she has to deal with the fallout from this everyday in her job. Part of the problem we have seen in getting others to come around to the more difficult foreign policy decisions that need to be made is that the perception of the US around the world, from a place of strength, has weakened since Obama became President. Sure, we may seem more affable, but people also see the US as being 'weaker' given the state of our economy. And with policies from Obama only making it worse, he is encouraging that diminished standing. If that is your starting point then, it becomes all that much harder to get people on board to the things you would like them to support. Well, no doubt Hillary would make a great President much like Bill (she is more socially liberal and fiscally conservative than he was)....I have to say, I don't think she will ever be President. She doesn't seem to have much, if any, desire to run again (I look at her words carefully, seeing if there might be any such indication). I haven't seen it. I think at this point in her life, she just wants to move on to the next stage of her life, being mother of the bride, grandmother, philanthroper with the Clinton Foundation working on Women's Rights, etc. I mean, who knows after all, but just the sense I've been getting.
The last two years of Bush don't bear that out in the slightest, and there's no indication that McCain is any more a fiscal conservative than Bush was.
Wrong. Continuing to put malinvestments to use hurts the economy because people won't liquidate them and use the cash for something people really want at the new, more accurate time preference schedule.
I'm starting to like Obama. The last president from Illinois was a pain the ass who hindered my cause. This one seems to be promoting it.
