Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #1 
If you're a regular reader of the misc forum, if you're a Tea Party individual, or even if you're a Liberal, you've certainly read over the last two years how President Obama has spent trillions of dollars and has put our Country on a path to a debt exceeding 14 trillion dollars or more.  I can only hope you didn't buy this argument and I'd like to try and explain why it's mostly misinformation.

If you follow politics at all you know that the new House is trying to cut spending by $32 Billion, $61 Billion, or maybe even $100 Billion.  Who knows where they're going with this.  If the President has truly spent trillions of dollars, you're probably shaking your head in bewilderment as to why the cuts may seem so minuscule.  Well the answer is you've been misled.  There are, and never were, no trillions of spending dollars to cut.

The President did increase non defense discretionary spending.  This President campaigned on things he felt needed to be addressed.  For example, he wanted to put more teeth back into the EPA.  He wanted to make a college education more available to our youth.  He wanted investment in green technology and other innovations to help improve our long term economic and security outlook.  He put these into his budgets and, if you compare the average increase of the previous administration, he probably did add an extra $50 billion or so over the last two years to fund his vision.  That's what new Presidents do.  I, for one, think most of these will pay great dividends over the years to come.

You can mention TARP but that was Bush's plan with Obama's blessing.  So that brings us to the $787 Billion stimulus, the one Republicans like to exaggerate as a Trillion dollar stimulus.  Well one third of this was tax cuts for all.  Republicans do that all the time.  Another third was to take care of the vast number of citizens requiring out of work help, food stamp help, and other safety net needs due to an economy that collapsed.  The Republicans signed on to these benefits last December as well.  And the last third went to infrastructure for two reasons...one was to stimulate the economy as a vast number of economists said was necessary and the the second was to repair and upgrade roads, bridges, airports, seaports, and the like.  I'll never understand why an investment in military spending, in order to keep us safe, is acceptable while an investment in infrastructure, that also leads to keeping citizens safe, is so despised.

Our debt situation can largely be laid at the feet of a collapsing economy and banking system.  We can blame an Rx program for the elderly that many felt need not be funded.  We can blame it on two wars, often managed ineptly, and on major tax cuts during the previous Administration that cut revenue significantly.  An end to estate tax and a 4.6% tax cut for the top earners cannot be ignored when one talks about our long term debt.  Add an increasing interest cost from years of reckless fiscal mismanagement and you have a clearer and more accurate picture of our long term debt dilemma.  This President didn't try to add to a reduction of revenue and, in fact, did everything he could to reinstate some of the tax breaks from the Bush years.  In my opinion, it's unfair to tie Obama's hands and then chastise him for our rising deficits.  Actually, I simply see it as a form of 2010 and 2012 campaigning.  The President is in a significant bind and the opposition is going to take full advantage of it.

I think today's budget debates spell it out quite clearly.  If the Tea Party folk can find but $61 Billion to cut in discretionary spending, that's all the proof one needs to know that comments like "he's quadrupling the debt" or "he's spending trillions of dollars" represent little more than misleading rhetoric.  The proof is in the numbers.  Please pay close attention as we move forward from here.   


   

POV

Registered:
Posts: 2,715
Reply with quote  #2 

Thanks for that, Dewey.  Clear, concise and in a nutshell.   Perhaps a handout to my conservative friends.

bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,979
Reply with quote  #3 

Quote:
That's what new Presidents do.  I, for one, think most of these will pay great dividends over the years to come.



I, for one, think Obama is sinking our economy.....

The damage Obama has already done to America is concerning enough......The big problem is, there is more to come...

Quote:
He wanted investment in green technology and other innovations to help improve our long term economic and security outlook.

I can't help but laugh at this....We better get to drilling and quickly, too!

Quote:
For example, he wanted to put more teeth back into the EPA.  


The EPA is getting kicked around in Congress right now....That's a dangerous organization....Even democrats are joinging in to handcuff the EPA.... 
LMUfan

Registered:
Posts: 7,421
Reply with quote  #4 
God help me for getting involved in this discussion but here goes.  One of the biggest problems we have as a nation is that 1 out of every 4 people employed are employed by some governmental agency.  That means 1/3 of my salary is going to pay for government employees.  That doesn't include the things that government buys, it's just the people.

We are way too top heavy, and it can't be sustained.  It's akin to a pyramid scheme.  What happens when the majority of employed people in this country work for the government?  Didn't the Soviets try out this method once with terrible results?

Softballfanatic

Registered:
Posts: 1,152
Reply with quote  #5 

LMUFan---Now you really did it! You stepped into the dreaded Misc. pit  and asked for devine intervention while disparaging government employees!  Oh yeah, VERY WELL SAID!!!!


__________________
Jerry Wallace "For The Love Of The Game"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #6 
LMUfan - First off, my research shows about 1 in 7.5 Americans in the workforce work for the Government.  Read here.  Secondly, I've often estimated that about 74-77% of my total income becomes take home pay.  Factor in the 7.65% we set aside for our future Social Security insurance, in the event we become disabled or live to retirement, and our actual burden on salary lowers to about 17%.  That's a far cry from 1/3 of one's salary.

Finally, this thread wasn't meant to debate those who believe Government is too big.  That's a fair argument to make.  This thread wasn't intended to debate the wisdom of large Government programs like SS, Medicare, and Obama's new health care bill.  Again, I understand those who think we as citizens should handle those obligations in our own manner.  That's a fair debate as well. 

No, this thread was started simply to dispel the many misleading comments that this President has and will spend Trillions more than necessary while in office.  If that were indeed true, cutting $32 Billion or $61 Billion would be an easy assignment for the House and would not require extenuating steps, such as ending support for public radio and TV, to reach their goals.  To me, these budget cut proposals are evidence that excess spending is nowhere near the exorbitant levels some make it out to be.  That was the focus of my comments and, as you can see, the counters or explanations regarding this narrow point have been minimal at best.     


LMUfan

Registered:
Posts: 7,421
Reply with quote  #7 
Dewey,

Sorry I stuck my nose in this thread.  I'll concede to your research.  However, I'll also argue that it doesn't matter who is president or who our representatives in congress are.  It's clear, at least to me, that they all see their primary job is not to do what is best for the health and well being of the country.  They see job one is to get reelected.  With that goal in mind they do what is necessary to get the most votes, no matter how devastating the results may be.  This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, it's a disease that permeates all politicians. 

An aside, your tax analysis is flawed because it's lack of depth.  You didn't take into account sales tax, gasoline taxes, local hotel taxes, property taxes, telephone tariffs, license plate fees, capital gains taxes, taxes on interest, and on an on.  It's probably closer to 50% than it is to the 17% that you suggest.
oldscout

Registered:
Posts: 3,492
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMUfan
Dewey,

Sorry I stuck my nose in this thread.  I'll concede to your research.  However, I'll also argue that it doesn't matter who is president or who our representatives in congress are.  It's clear, at least to me, that they all see their primary job is not to do what is best for the health and well being of the country.  They see job one is to get reelected.  With that goal in mind they do what is necessary to get the most votes, no matter how devastating the results may be.  This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, it's a disease that permeates all politicians. 

An aside, your tax analysis is flawed because it's lack of depth.  You didn't take into account sales tax, gasoline taxes, local hotel taxes, property taxes, telephone tariffs, license plate fees, capital gains taxes, taxes on interest, and on an on.  It's probably closer to 50% than it is to the 17% that you suggest.
On the road-going to scout a couple games tomorrow at UNLV.....but got to tell you LMU,barking up the wrong tree...DEWEY  The GOV.

__________________
Terry Schneider
" Fear not tomorrow, God is already there ".
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #9 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LMUfan
Dewey,

An aside, your tax analysis is flawed because it's lack of depth.  You didn't take into account sales tax, gasoline taxes, local hotel taxes, property taxes, telephone tariffs, license plate fees, capital gains taxes, taxes on interest, and on an on.  It's probably closer to 50% than it is to the 17% that you suggest.


LMUfan - C'mon, I know you're good with math.  Even if all your disposable income, (estimated at 75% of gross), was used to purchase taxable goods, that probably only adds another 10%, at most, of your "gross" income.  We know that isn't the case but I'll give you another 5% and make it 22%.
LMUfan

Registered:
Posts: 7,421
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey

Quote:
Originally Posted by LMUfan
Dewey,

An aside, your tax analysis is flawed because it's lack of depth.  You didn't take into account sales tax, gasoline taxes, local hotel taxes, property taxes, telephone tariffs, license plate fees, capital gains taxes, taxes on interest, and on an on.  It's probably closer to 50% than it is to the 17% that you suggest.


LMUfan - C'mon, I know you're good with math.  Even if all your disposable income, (estimated at 75% of gross), was used to purchase taxable goods, that probably only adds another 10%, at most, of your "gross" income.  We know that isn't the case but I'll give you another 5% and make it 22%.


Dewey,

I'm not willing to go into personal finances as you are.  But I will say that the taxes you pay and the taxes I pay appear to be radically different.  I'm not sure which one of us is closer to the norm but I will say that looking at one family's tax return is not a representative sample.  Aside:  Can I have the phone number of your tax accountant?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #11 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LMUfan

Dewey,

I'm not sure which one of us is closer to the norm but I will say that looking at one family's tax return is not a representative sample.  Aside:  Can I have the phone number of your tax accountant?


Agreed. In the meantime, here's a hypothetical.  $100,000 gross salary, $35,000 in deductions and exemptions, equals $65,000 taxable.  Federal tax about $9,000, State about $3000, Real Estate $3,000, misc tax $1,000, and if one takes a high estimate on all the sales tax paid during the year with the disposable income, add about $6,000 more for a total of $22,000 or 22% of gross.  As I said, SS is a a personal investment set aside for future requirements and is not included. 

If you're way higher than my hypothetical, stop trying to calculate your percentage of taxes, enjoy life, and go find that accountant.  Now I'm off to a T-Ball game.  Have a good one.  
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,078
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey

Quote:
Originally Posted by LMUfan

Dewey,

I'm not sure which one of us is closer to the norm but I will say that looking at one family's tax return is not a representative sample.  Aside:  Can I have the phone number of your tax accountant?


Agreed. In the meantime, here's a hypothetical.  $100,000 gross salary, $35,000 in deductions and exemptions, equals $65,000 taxable.  Federal tax about $9,000, State about $3000, Real Estate $3,000, misc tax $1,000, and if one takes a high estimate on all the sales tax paid during the year with the disposable income, add about $6,000 more for a total of $22,000 or 22% of gross.  As I said, SS is a a personal investment set aside for future requirements and is not included. 

If you're way higher than my hypothetical, stop trying to calculate your percentage of taxes, enjoy life, and go find that accountant.  Now I'm off to a T-Ball game.  Have a good one.  

There are so many more taxes and fees assessed to citizens every day, as LMU stated, that your $1000 misc. tax does not even scratch the surface. Here in CA if you only burn 20 gallons of gas a week you will spend over $500 just in gas taxes, not including the sales tax. Have you ever looked at your utility bills to see all of the taxes and "fees", as they like to call them, added on to the bill? Good luck with a $3000 property tax bill here as well. The daily taking of money from the public by the government is mind boggling.

__________________
#SCOTUS
YAY!!is GAF
LMUfan

Registered:
Posts: 7,421
Reply with quote  #13 
Spazdad,

You are correct.  We have so many taxes imposes upon us that we easily forget them all.  I pay over $300 per year in tax just on lunch!  And, assuming those restaurants make a profit I'm helping them pay taxes on those profits.

JackDandy

Registered:
Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #14 
Dewey, face it Obama = Socialist get over it.
If he had his way we would send every penny that we earn to him so he could divide it up as he sees fit.
For the socialist Obama, private business is nothing more than a necessary evil to serve as a cash cow to fund his entitlement programs which are designed to create more government dependents which in turn continue to vote for those who promise to continue the cycle of entitlements.

Let me put it this way, our economy is like a big wagon being pushed up a hill. Obama and the democrats keep promising more people a free ride in exchange for their vote. Well now we don't have enough people pushing because the majority are riding. So guess what,the wagon is starting to roll backwards. Meanwhile, the people in the wagon (kinda like the Wisconsin union turds) are complaining because someone is asking them to get out and push a little. We are on the verge of losing the wagon all together and we STILL have democrats complaining that they better not lose their entitlements and hand outs.

__________________
When Communism comes to America it will be wrapped in an empty suit and promising hope and change.

Jack Dandy
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #15 
spazdad - I added another $6,000 in my hypothetical to cover these miscellaneous taxes of which you speak.  I still can't get anywhere near 50% of gross earnings going to various governments. 

The purpose of this thread was simply to point out how blame and disgust, as it relates to Government, is generally exaggerated.  Obama hasn't, and won't, spend trillions above and beyond other Presidents and, secondly, most of us don't pay anywhere near 50% of our total income in taxes.  But that doesn't mean many won't continue to believe it.   
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #16 

JD - I made a significant effort in the first post to inform any readers we may have that the gross exaggerations they often read here regarding Obama and spending are just that, exaggerations attempting to diminish this Administration.  You've chosen to venture off on yet another tangent of criticism, probably because this topic was hard to rebut.  And so it goes.  I'll just stay focused on my original point this time around.   

JackDandy

Registered:
Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #17 

Actually Dewey your original post was so full of liberal talking points, opinion, spin, and for lack of a better term, total BS that I chose not to waste my time disproving it point by point  it.


__________________
When Communism comes to America it will be wrapped in an empty suit and promising hope and change.

Jack Dandy
JackDandy

Registered:
Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #18 
Dewey, lets just leave out the spin and get down to the facts.
What was the debt and deficit when Obama took office and what are they after his first 2 years?
Oh and don't give us this crap about having to raise the debt to "save or create" jobs. How many millions of jobs have been lost in the last 2 years?



__________________
When Communism comes to America it will be wrapped in an empty suit and promising hope and change.

Jack Dandy
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackDandy

Dewey, lets just leave out the spin and get down to the facts.

What was the debt and deficit when Obama took office and what are they after his first 2 years?




On 1/7/2009, the CBO projected a deficit of $1.2 trillion two weeks before Obama took office.  We've been down this road once before...and once is enough.  An economic disaster, coupled with tax cuts that Obama felt were necessary along with the Bush tax cuts for higher income earners, that Obama was forced to extend, will both contribute greatly to continued revenue suppression and deficits for years to come.

$275 billion of the tax cuts Obama wanted for economy stimulation came in the stimulus.  I don't hear anyone asking for those to be returned.  The stimulus also provided about $300 Billion for infrastructure and making a college education more available.  They say avoiding $1 of deficit spending on infrastructure today will result in a larger deficit down the road.  If you're roof needs replacing and you have no money, you may have to put it off but the expense down the road will be greater.  Finally, they say over $200 Billion of the stimulus went to help families hit hard by the collapsing economy and to States to keep necessary workers, (cops, firemen, teachers), on the job.  I suspect our children will forgive us for this small added debt to help our seriously ailing citizens suffering from this once in a lifetime economic disaster and to keep needed services in tact until we can resolve the situation.

I see facts here and not spin, (I suppose one could argue that the Obama tax cuts in the stimulus and the Bush tax cuts had no effect on revenue but my argument to the contrary is far from spin).  On top of this, we have an affordable health care act that the CBO says will save over a trillion in deficits during the next 20 years, (others are capable of finding a site that confirms this CBO projection). 

I hope that's enough factual support for now but my question remains...if one wants to accuse Obama of a budget that is spending trillions of unnecessary
dollars, how come the House can find only $30-60 Billion without eliminating other programs in their entirety?   
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #20 
Here are some more facts.  In 1997, spending was $1.60 trillion.  Rightly or wrongly, spending has been going up an average of 5.8% each year since 1997.  If you do the math each year, that means in 2008 spending was likely to be $2.98 Trillion.  What was it in 2008?  $2.98 Trillion.  If you do the math up to 2012, spending projects to be $3.73 Trillion.  What is Obama's budget for 2012?  $3.75 Trillion.  That said, and if truth be told, while we are getting spending back in line, it's also a fact that Obama projects to spend a total of $1 Trillion excess during the years 2009-2012 and I think we understand where most of that took place.  But anyone in 1997, or 2008, who could not predict a federal spending budget of $3.7 Trillion in 2012, probably had some difficulty in their math class.  Again, Obama is not spending trillions of excess dollars but, that said, solutions to this growing debt must still be found.  I just happen to believe spending cuts aren't the only answer.  

Edit:  It's probably unfair to suggest in 1997 one could have guessed the 2012 spending budget.  From 1990 until 9/11, spending actually averaged an increase of only 3.8% annually.  As a result of wars, and later the elderly drug program, annual spending averaged 6.5% after that.  In 2002 spending was $2 Trillion and when adding 6.5% growth to 2008, it projects to $2.93 Trillion.  What was it in 2008?  $2.98 Trillion.  Take it to 2012 and it projects to $3.73 Trillion.  The Obama budget is $3.75 Trillion.  That's probably a better picture of the last twenty years or so. 
oldscout

Registered:
Posts: 3,492
Reply with quote  #21 

Wonder what the Feb. deficit will be ?


__________________
Terry Schneider
" Fear not tomorrow, God is already there ".
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldscout

Wonder what the Feb. deficit will be ?


If it's too high, do you want to work on revenue or spending or both?  If all I'm spending money on is food, rent, and medical bills, and I'm still short, what should I do?

Setting aside the $1 Trillion used to fund the 2009 stimulus and the 2010 extension of benefits, my post shows the Obama budget is growing the same rate as it did for 7 years under Bush, 6.5%.  Revenue suppression is responsible too.  But in a era of Tea Party, revenue's off the table as was shown during the lame duck session.   
JackDandy

Registered:
Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #23 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackDandy

Dewey, lets just leave out the spin and get down to the facts.

What was the debt and deficit when Obama took office and what are they after his first 2 years?




On 1/7/2009, the CBO projected a deficit of $1.2 trillion two weeks before Obama took office.  We've been down this road once before...and once is enough.  An economic disaster, coupled with tax cuts that Obama felt were necessary along with the Bush tax cuts for higher income earners, that Obama was forced to extend, will both contribute greatly to continued revenue suppression and deficits for years to come.

$275 billion of the tax cuts Obama wanted for economy stimulation came in the stimulus.  I don't hear anyone asking for those to be returned.  The stimulus also provided about $300 Billion for infrastructure and making a college education more available.  They say avoiding $1 of deficit spending on infrastructure today will result in a larger deficit down the road.  If you're roof needs replacing and you have no money, you may have to put it off but the expense down the road will be greater.  Finally, they say over $200 Billion of the stimulus went to help families hit hard by the collapsing economy and to States to keep necessary workers, (cops, firemen, teachers), on the job.  I suspect our children will forgive us for this small added debt to help our seriously ailing citizens suffering from this once in a lifetime economic disaster and to keep needed services in tact until we can resolve the situation.

I see facts here and not spin, (I suppose one could argue that the Obama tax cuts in the stimulus and the Bush tax cuts had no effect on revenue but my argument to the contrary is far from spin).  On top of this, we have an affordable health care act that the CBO says will save over a trillion in deficits during the next 20 years, (others are capable of finding a site that confirms this CBO projection). 

I hope that's enough factual support for now but my question remains...if one wants to accuse Obama of a budget that is spending trillions of unnecessary
dollars, how come the House can find only $30-60 Billion without eliminating other programs in their entirety?   

Dewey you didn't answer my question, all you did was give us excuses, opinion, and spin again and then you called it fact. For instance you say that Obama had to take care of firemen, police, and school teachers, yet we all know that really means that he had to pad the pockets of their unions. Also you say we have an affordable health care bill that the CBO claims will save billions, yet we know for a fact that the democrats left out things like the 500 BILLION Dollar Doctor fix when they turned the bill in to the CBO in order to get the CBO numbers that they desired. So stop spinning and lets deal with facts.
Now please tell me, What was the debt and deficit when Obama took office and what are they after his first 2 years?
 

__________________
When Communism comes to America it will be wrapped in an empty suit and promising hope and change.

Jack Dandy
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #24 
JD - You had two days to read this and that's what you came back with?  Not sure what you're point is but I don't know the exact debt in January of 2009.  These deficits came largely due to a collapse in our economy and previous tax cuts.  Are you holding this President responsible for both of those?  I'm addressing spending budgets in as clear a manner as I can. If spending in 2008 was $2.98 Trillion, tell me what you think it should be in 2012?

I also made the point that if you think Obama is spending trillions that need not be spent, why can't the House find more than $30-60 Billion to cut?  Seems mighty small if what you say is true. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #25 
Let me try this another way.  Here's federal spending from 2002-2008 in Trillions:

$2.0, $2.15, $2.29, $2.47, $2.66, $2.73, $2.98.  If you do the math, that's about 6.5% per year growth in spending.

Unless you thought Obama was going to come in, wave a magic wand, and stop the 6.5% growth of Government spending, here is what 2009-2012 would have been under likely any President:

$3.12, $3.33, $3.54, and $3.77 trillion.  The 2012 budget projected to be $3.77 trillion and Obama's 2012 budget is just that.  I don't know how he was going to stop that 6.5% annual growth in spending.  That said, the total spending during these four years should have been, (add those first four), $13.8 Trillion.  Obama is on target to spend $14.8 trillion.

Despite the fact 2009 is shared responsibility between Obama and Bush, I'll concede that Obama has added $1 Trillion to our debt.  We won't argue whether it saved further suppression of income or saved jobs that would have led to more UE and safety net expenses.  If one wants to suggest the stimulus didn't help, or that they knew for sure it wouldn't help, that's a fair case to make.  Of course, I would disagree.  The only point I'm making here is that $1 trillion added to debt is the only thing anyone can come up and apply it to a decision by this President.

Finally, I too believe that growth has grown too high and I suspect health costs, Medicare, and Medicaid have increased at higher percent levels and have caused spending to climb from 4% to 6% growth levels.  Part of the reason for the affordable health care act was to address these growing costs.

Now please, for once, address these spending isssues and not deficits. 
oldscout

Registered:
Posts: 3,492
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldscout

Wonder what the Feb. deficit will be ?


If it's too high, do you want to work on revenue or spending or both?  If all I'm spending money on is food, rent, and medical bills, and I'm still short, what should I do?

Setting aside the $1 Trillion used to fund the 2009 stimulus and the 2010 extension of benefits, my post shows the Obama budget is growing the same rate as it did for 7 years under Bush, 6.5%.  Revenue suppression is responsible too.  But in a era of Tea Party, revenue's off the table as was shown during the lame duck session.   

As usual  you keep bringing up what Bush spent to justify Obama's spending. i have said before they both spent TOO MUCH,we have reached a point where we have to stop the dang spending & make cuts in our budgets & Government. The thing you don't seem to understand that current spending is unsustainable.

Frankly I don't care who spent the most or whose fault this is. I do know we have to stop the train wreck & to that point you & I will most likely always disagree.
By the way,how do you not count the stimulus & ext of benefits in Obama's #s, I didn't see you excluding anything from Bush spending...but either way,I say stop the darn spending,make cuts.
Also where is the president in most the discussions? Is he leading-following-snoozing-I do see where he says we need more money for education,now that is a novel idea.

__________________
Terry Schneider
" Fear not tomorrow, God is already there ".
JackDandy

Registered:
Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #27 
Dewey, first of all, I do have a life outside of UCS forum. So I didn't spend 2 days thinking of a response to your spin, I actually had not read the Misc forum for several days.
Anyway, I still don't understand why with all of your tedious research, you can't answer What was the debt and deficit when Obama took office and what are they after his first 2 years?
By the way, most of us Republicans were not happy with Bush when it came to spending. So your childish answer of "Well Bush did it too!!" is wearing a bit thin.
As for why the House "can't find" more than 30-60 billion in cuts, well... that is more of your liberal spin and tricks. You know good and well that getting the big spending democrats to agree to ANY cuts is like pulling teeth. So the republicans are trying to take small steps that they think they can get the dems to agree to.
You libs would actually rather see this country go bankrupt than to cut spending on your precious entitlement programs because you know that once those people are off the government teet, they are no longer voting democrat.  

__________________
When Communism comes to America it will be wrapped in an empty suit and promising hope and change.

Jack Dandy
JackDandy

Registered:
Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #28 
By the way, I thought all the money was for police, firemen, and teachers?
Harry Reid: Save federal funding for the cowboy poets!

__________________
When Communism comes to America it will be wrapped in an empty suit and promising hope and change.

Jack Dandy
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #29 
oldscout - Other than Iraq, I am not criticizing Bush for spending.  I criticize President Bush for devastating our revenues with tax cuts and for not funding the drug program.  This is not about Bush but about budget history.

For years, federal spending grew about 3.5% per year and then it climbed to a little over 6%.  I don't say that as a criticism but as a fact for budget analysis.  I understand the prescription drug program for the elderly and a questionable war with Iraq will cost money.  What I don't understand is why we once we make the initial expense, why doesn't spending growth go back to 3.5% increase per year.  Why is our spending budget growing at a higher pace today than during the Clinton years?  If you ask me, I suspect it's health costs, Medicare, and Medicaid that are skyrocketing.  That was the point I was making.

With that in mind, how much would you expect spending to increase due to population growth and baby boomers aging?  This isn't about Bush or Obama but just a question on how much spending should go up each year without any new programs?

OK, now that we've concluded that spending has grown 6.5%/year from 2002-2008, why are we surprised that spending is growing at 6.5%/year during the Obama Administration?  Simple question.  Assuming no new government programs, do you think federal spending should grow year to year?  Do you account for inflation?  Population growth?  What percent would you predict?  From 2002-2008 spending grew 6.5% annually for whatever reason and during Obama's four years it will grow 6.5% again, (not including the $1 trillion previously discussed).  What is the difference?  People around here are trying to say government is growing faster than ever and I'm simply trying to say that's a bunch of baloney.  Again, this has nothing to do with the last Administration. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #30 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackDandy
Dewey, first of all, I do have a life outside of UCS forum. So I didn't spend 2 days thinking of a response to your spin, I actually had not read the Misc forum for several days.
Anyway, I still don't understand why with all of your tedious research, you can't answer What was the debt and deficit when Obama took office and what are they after his first 2 years?
By the way, most of us Republicans were not happy with Bush when it came to spending. So your childish answer of "Well Bush did it too!!" is wearing a bit thin.


JD - Again, I don't know what point you are trying to make but why don't you just link the answer?  Secondly, this has nothing to do with what Bush did just using the annual spending history to make my point.  I'll ask you what I asked oldscout.  Assuming no new programs, what would you expect annual government spending to go up a year when you consider inflation, aging, and population growth?  Were you surprised to know that outside of the 2009 stimulus and December unemployment extension, annual spending growth continues at the same 6.5%?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.