Disgusted with obama administration - Part II
-
gut
LMAO....it's private sector debt that is overhanging our economy? Seriously? And not that $17T+ and counting federal debt?BoatShoes;1484545 wrote:Bill Clinton is a talented politician but the surplus that occurred on his watch was what lead to the accumulation of private sector debt that has been overhanging our economy ever since. -
BoatShoes
Oh c'mon, he's not a plotting maestro lol.gut;1484569 wrote:It's not a stutter, it's choosing his words very very very very carefully. The question is why? Maybe that's just the lawyer in him, but people who choose their words carefully are generally not viewed as sincere and forthcoming (probably because a lot of lawyers do it).
He obviously doesn't choose his words carefully when he talks like Savannah, Georgia is on the Gulf...or talks about how business owners didn't build roads in bridges in a way that could be construed and demagogued by the Gut's of the world as him saying business owners didn't build their businesses.
He's just not as smooth as the caricature of Obama that liberals have created. He can read and doesn't have a southern draw. Apparently that qualifies as being a "great speaker" in the wake of W. It was always kind of a myth that Obama is a great speaker off-prompter and that the talk radio crowd has been right about. -
BoatShoes
Yes. The "Federal Debt" is just a poorly chosen name leftover from a bygone era for the total dollar amount in what are basically Savings Accounts at the Federal Reserve and is a financial asset to the private sector and/or the foreigners who send us their real output in exchange for electrons at the FED.gut;1484570 wrote:LMAO....it's private sector debt that is overhanging our economy? Seriously? And not that $17T+ and counting federal debt?
Since we've started paying interest on Reserve Accounts they're not functionally any different and nobody...not even you...worries about our ability to pay interest on those Reserve Accounts. -
gut
My god. Romney/Ryan are apparently "well to the left" of me? You really have zero grasp of the real world. You really and truly believe that anyone who doesn't support unbridled govt spending is a "deficit scold/radical conservative". This is not only ignorant, it's retarded. I'm sorry, but you've begun to completely distort reality in order to cling to your beliefs and ideals.BoatShoes;1484536 wrote:I'm well to the left of Obama and he has disappointed me. Obama is well to the left of Romney/Ryan and they are (apparently) well to the left of you.
Here you are saying it's "irresponsible" to balance the budget in 10 years, like that's some sort of voodoo austerity. Yet just recently you were lauding Obama for reducing the deficit down below $800B - cut in half over 4 years, and average of over $200B a year. And yet you will make the claim that an $80 reduction in the deficit per year over a decade is not only irresponsible, but impossible? Nevermind what happens when we get real economic growth (if Obama hasn't destroyed the next 10 years already).
And, sorry, you are in full denial about that post I highlighted. It's dripping with "disappointment" over Obama but also shows that you can't actually bring yourself to hold him accountable or blame him for his shortcomings - it's a very "backhanded" disappointment. I'm glad you posted it, because I think it's very representative of the typical liberal that has a sense your ideals are ineffective and failing, but your heart prevents you from admitting it and so you must externalize the failures and find someone or something else to blame. This is something Obama does extraordinarily well - the solutions are always out of his control and roadblocked by the Repubs.
You can't bring yourself to acknowledge that he's an absolute failure as a leader, and instead blame others without a hint of awareness that a failure of leadership is ALWAYS the fault of the leader and not those he is supposed to lead. And Obama barely even pretends to attempt to reach across the aisle and bring the parties together, yet you'll blame the Repubs.
Truthfully, you're not disappointed with Obama - you're disappointed with Repubs (and perhaps don't even realize). You attempt to feign criticism of Obama in what I can only guess is an attempt to appear less extreme, but the fact is you can barely finish a sentence criticizing him without making qualifications or excuses. You are not disappointed with Obama, you are disappointed with what he has accomplished and in your bizarre world he owns 0% of his failings. -
gut
I don't know WTF you read, but you have to find some more mainstream source material. That's batshit crazy left-wig thinking used to justify unbridled spending. But it does explain a lot.BoatShoes;1484576 wrote:Yes. The "Federal Debt" is just a poorly chosen name leftover from a bygone era for the total dollar amount in what are basically Savings Accounts at the Federal Reserve and is a financial asset to the private sector and/or the foreigners who send us their real output in exchange for electrons at the FED.
Since we've started paying interest on Reserve Accounts they're not functionally any different and nobody...not even you...worries about our ability to pay interest on those Reserve Accounts.
Nobody worries about our ability to service our debt? REALLY? I'm speechless. And you think I don't worry about our ability to service our debt? Wow, you really are demonstrating that you have 0 ability to recall anything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, even when those ideas are horribly, horribly wrong.
Go familiarize yourself with the concept of "rolling over debt", then do a little research on the current effective rate...the average maturity of federal debt....and then figure out what happens if rates rise 3 or 4 points (which would still be below historical averages). Then get back to me. -
gut
So he doesn't choose his words very carefully? Do you think he actually talks like that in casual conversation? So he's just not particularly intelligent and articulate then?BoatShoes;1484573 wrote:Oh c'mon, he's not a plotting maestro lol.
I'm REALLY learning a lot about how you think, and it explains a lot, it really does. -
BoatShoes
I wasn't "lauding" Obama for closing the deficit lol. If I had my way, we wouldn't be closing the deficit at all under current conditions. I was saying, on the standards of deficit scolds who actually want the deficit to be reduced, they ought to be happy. My point is that you and the others who have this contempt for deficits ought to be pretty pleased w/ Obama's performance on closing the deficit.gut;1484577 wrote:My god. Romney/Ryan are apparently "well to the left" of me? You really have zero grasp of the real world. You really and truly believe that anyone who doesn't support unbridled govt spending is a "deficit scold/radical conservative". This is not only ignorant, it's retarded. I'm sorry, but you've begun to completely distort reality in order to cling to your beliefs and ideals.
Here you are saying it's "irresponsible" to balance the budget in 10 years, like that's some sort of voodoo austerity. Yet just recently you were lauding Obama for reducing the deficit down below $800B - cut in half over 4 years, and average of over $200B a year. And yet you will make the claim that an $80 reduction in the deficit per year over a decade is not only irresponsible, but impossible? Nevermind what happens when we get real economic growth (if Obama hasn't destroyed the next 10 years already).
And, I said Romney/Ryan are a apparently left of you because I'm trying to be accomodative of where you're saying they are on the deficit scold spectrum. You're saying they don't qualify as hardcore deficit hawks in our political spectrum. You're acting like they're moderates in our political spectrum and they absolutely are not.
Also, please stop saying I support "unbridled" government spending. I provided a useful metaphor. The Buckeyes should issue enough tickets to fill their stadium...that is not "unbridled". There is a clear limit. The capacity of the stadium. There is a clear limit in the real world on the size of tax cuts/government spending...the real capacity of the economy. That is a limit and has no relation to "unbridled".
And, it is you who is acting like Romney/Ryan are firmly not within the farther right of our political spectrum. I said very clearly that Obama is a mild deficit hawk but is not a hardcore radical conservative. The Congressional Progressive Caucus are mild deficit doves but are hawkish in the sense that they want to raise taxes to close the deficit...which is wrong. Steve LaTourette was a mild deficit hawk supportive of Bowles-Simpson before he retired. Romney/Ryan were well to the right of them in their denouncing of deficits.
There is a spectrum. Me (Deficits are neither bad nor good).............Progressive Libs (We need to close deficit with only tax raises on rich)..........Centrist Libs (Obama) (We need a mix to close the deficit over time but no need for balanced budget).......Bowles Simpson Crowd (little more than libs...Balanced Budget Not necessary)..........Centrist GOP (Barely exists)................................................Romney/Ryan (Expansionary Austerity...close deficits in 10 years...privatize entitlments)...................................Tea Party and/or Ron Paul (Slash Spending Now...Shut down the Government).
Bowles Simpson is a fiscally conservative/anti-deficit position and it is in the center of our discourse. the modern GOP is well to the right of that. -
BoatShoes
He doesn't choose his words very very very very very very very carefully...as if he's some kind of deceptive, insincere doucher...as you suggested. There is a difference.gut;1484584 wrote:So he doesn't choose his words very carefully? Do you think he actually talks like that in casual conversation? So he's just not particularly intelligent and articulate then?
I'm REALLY learning a lot about how you think, and it explains a lot, it really does.
He is intelligent and articulate and misspeaks from time to time not unlike the rest of us. He's not that great off-prompter when he's put on the spot and talks about policy issues and the like and his mistakes are amplified by right-wing demagogues because they don't like his reputation as this "great speaker" and are butthurt over the way the media treated W's flubs. -
BoatShoes
lol I said nobody worries about the FED's ability to pay interest on reserve accounts. Of course people like yourself who have a gold standard mentality worry about servicing our "debt" but that is silliness. The point is that you don't have this same worry about Reserve Accounts which aren't functionally any different.gut;1484582 wrote:I don't know WTF you read, but you have to find some more mainstream source material. That's batshit crazy left-wig thinking used to justify unbridled spending. But it does explain a lot.
Nobody worries about our ability to service our debt? REALLY? I'm speechless. And you think I don't worry about our ability to service our debt? Wow, you really are demonstrating that you have 0 ability to recall anything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, even when those ideas are horribly, horribly wrong.
Go familiarize yourself with the concept of "rolling over debt", then do a little research on the current effective rate...the average maturity of federal debt....and then figure out what happens if rates rise 3 or 4 points (which would still be below historical averages). Then get back to me.
Nobody talks about it at all or considers the dollars denominated in reserve accounts as part of our "national debt". If you go to the Cleveland FED, the accounts are effectively the same. The FED securities accounts "count" as part of our national debt whereas the Reserve Accounts don't.
Also, you're talking about "if rates rise" on our national debt. The FED can pay whatever interest rate it wants. Nobody worries about the interest rate on Reserve Accounts and the FED's ability to make those payments. Operationally it's the same. -
BoatShoes
LOL. You could've just called me a liar and been done with it.gut;1484577 wrote:And, sorry, you are in full denial about that post I highlighted. It's dripping with "disappointment" over Obama but also shows that you can't actually bring yourself to hold him accountable or blame him for his shortcomings - it's a very "backhanded" disappointment. I'm glad you posted it, because I think it's very representative of the typical liberal that has a sense your ideals are ineffective and failing, but your heart prevents you from admitting it and so you must externalize the failures and find someone or something else to blame. This is something Obama does extraordinarily well - the solutions are always out of his control and roadblocked by the Repubs.
You can't bring yourself to acknowledge that he's an absolute failure as a leader, and instead blame others without a hint of awareness that a failure of leadership is ALWAYS the fault of the leader and not those he is supposed to lead. And Obama barely even pretends to attempt to reach across the aisle and bring the parties together, yet you'll blame the Repubs.
Truthfully, you're not disappointed with Obama - you're disappointed with Repubs (and perhaps don't even realize). You attempt to feign criticism of Obama in what I can only guess is an attempt to appear less extreme, but the fact is you can barely finish a sentence criticizing him without making qualifications or excuses. You are not disappointed with Obama, you are disappointed with what he has accomplished and in your bizarre world he owns 0% of his failings.
It's not hard to understand. I don't think Obama has been a good president but he is not the epic, woeful incompetent, AA catastrophe, failure of leader, destroyer of world's growth destroying knave that you, MB, believer, Jmog, QuakerOats, all of our other conservative OCer friends and every other conservative and the talk radio/right wing media and modern GOP make him out to be.
In the same vein, I voted for George W. Bush but didn't think was a great president but he was not the bumbling baffoon, hell-bent on conquereror, heartless, blood-thirsty disaster and megolomaniac that liberals made him out to be.
(It also happens to be the case, in my opinion and from my perspective, that Obama gets even more unjustified grief from conservatives than Bush got). -
BoatShoes
Again, I don't believe in unbridled government spending. We could cut taxes low enough (at this current level of government expenditure) that would bring us to full employment. Some tax cuts are better than others but it would all get us there eventually. A tax cut beyond the level that brought us to full employment would be inflationary and is not desirable.gut;1484582 wrote:I don't know WTF you read, but you have to find some more mainstream source material. That's batshit crazy left-wig thinking used to justify unbridled spending. But it does explain a lot.
The limit is the real economy. -
QuakerOatshttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/355384/sixth-senior-irs-official-departs-wake-targeting-scandal-eliana-johnson
The 6th crook has now departed amid the 'phony IRS scandal'. -
BoatShoesStephen Moore fleshes out pretty clearly why I should be unhappy with Obama's performance but why deficit-hawks ought to be happy. Amazing the flack that Obama gets from the deficit scolds/right wingers.
"The Budget Sequester is a Success"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323477604579000933006361834.html
Obama was not "who liberals have been waiting for" and yet the conservatives continue to trash him at every step for being a marxist/socialist who is also woefully incompetent.By Stephan Moore
August 11 (WSJ) — The biggest underreported story out of Washington this year is that the federal budget is shrinking and much more than anyone in either party expected.
Consider the numbers: According to the Congressional Budget Office, annual outlays peaked at $3.598 trillion in fiscal 2011. After President Obama’s first two years in office, many in Washington expected that number to hit $4 trillion by 2014. Instead, spending fell to $3.537 trillion in fiscal 2012, and is on pace to fall below $3.45 trillion by the end of this fiscal year (Sept. 30). The $150 billion budget decline of 4% is the first time federal expenditures have fallen for two consecutive years since the end of the Korean War.
This reversal from the spending binge in 2009 and 2010 began with the debt-ceiling agreement between Mr. Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in 2011. The agreement set $2 trillion in tight caps on spending over a decade and created this year’s budget sequester, which will save more than $50 billion in fiscal 2013.
As long as Republicans don’t foolishly undo this amazing progress by agreeing to Mr. Obama’s demands for a “balanced approach” to the 2014 budget in exchange for calling off the sequester, additional expenditure cuts will continue automatically. Those cuts are built into the current budget law.
In other words, Mr. Obama has inadvertently chained himself to fiscal restraints that could flatten federal spending for the rest of his presidency. If the country sees any normal acceleration of economic growth (from the anemic 1.4% growth rate so far this year) [<---Obviously doesn't realize that deficit reduction is harming growth lol], the deficit is on a path to drop steadily at least through 2015. Already the deficit has fallen from its Mount Everest peak of 10.2% of gross domestic product in 2009, to about 4% this year. That’s a bullish six percentage points less of the GDP of new federal debt each year.
Admittedly, this fiscal progress follows the gigantic budget blowout that began with the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency and the first two years of Mr. Obama’s. In fiscal 2009 alone, federal spending surged by $600 billion. That same year, outlays as a share of GDP reached a post-World War II high of 25.2%. But by the end of this fiscal year, outlays as a share of GDP could fall to as low as 21.5%. At least for now, the great Washington spending blitz of the Obama first term is over.
Some $80 billion of the outlay savings have come from one-time partial repayments back to the government for the hundreds of billions spent on the bailouts of banks and of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And defense hawks won’t be happy that at least half of the fiscal retrenchment has been due to cuts in military spending. The defense budget is on a pace to hit its lowest level (as a share of GDP) since the days of the post-Cold War “
eace dividend” during the Clinton years. These deep cutbacks could be dangerous to national security, but as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were winding down, defense would have been cut under any scenario. To their credit, at least Speaker Boehner and House Republicans have made sure that the defense drawdown has gone toward deficit reduction—instead of being spent on domestic social-welfare programs, as happened after the Vietnam War.
The sequester cuts in annual budgets for the military, education, transportation and other discretionary programs have also been an underappreciated success, with none of the anticipated negative consequences.
Discretionary spending soared to $1.347 billion in fiscal 2011, according to the CBO, but was then cut by $62 billion in 2012 and another $72 billion this year. That’s an impressive 10% shrinkage. And these are real cuts, not pixie-dust reductions off some sham baseline. Discretionary spending as a share of the economy hit 9.4% of GDP in fiscal 2010 but fell to 7.6% this year and is scheduled to slide to 6.4% in Mr. Obama’s last year in office.
The sequester is squeezing the very programs liberals care most about—including the National Endowment for the Arts, green-energy subsidies, the Environmental Protection Agency and National Public Radio. Outside Washington, the sequester is forcing a fiscal retrenchment for such liberal special-interest groups as Planned Parenthood and the National Council of La Raza, which have grown dependent on government largess.
But the fiscal story isn’t all rosy. The major entitlements remain on autopilot and are roaring toward insolvency. Thanks in large part to Mr. Obama’s aversion to practical fixes (LOL), the Congressional Budget Office calculates that through July of this year Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending are up $73 billion from just last year. This doesn’t include ObamaCare, which is scheduled to add $1 trillion of new costs over the next decade.
So the fiscal progress reported here is no excuse for complacency. But it does call into question the wisdom of a government-shutdown confrontation over the budget this fall or a debt-default showdown that runs the risk of suspending the spending caps and sequester and revitalizing an increasingly irrelevant president.
Liberals had hoped that re-electing Mr. Obama, the most pro-spending president since LBJ, would unleash another four years of Great Society government expansion. Instead, spending caps and the sequester are squashing these progressive dreams. Welcome to the new fiscal reality in Washington. All Republicans need to do is enforce the budget laws Mr. Obama has already agreed to. Entitlement reforms will come when liberals realize that the unhappy alternative is to allow every program they cherish to keep shrinking. -
gut
LMAO....Stephen Moore was clearly not giving Obama credit for that, nor does Obama deserve any. Obama went along with the sequester because he thought the Repubs wouldn't stomach the defense spending cuts. They called his bluff.BoatShoes;1485901 wrote:Stephen Moore fleshes out pretty clearly why I should be unhappy with Obama's performance but why deficit-hawks ought to be happy. Amazing the flack that Obama gets from the deficit scolds/right wingers.
I mean, have you forgotten all the doomsday scenarios Obama threatened if they let the sequester take effect? This is the sort of dishonest and disingenuous arguments you make. Here you are trying to prop-up Obama drawing inferences and conclusions from an article that aren't made by that article. Republicans have accomplished this in spite of Obama, not because of him, and it has drawn the typical whining/complaining/campaigning in response.
"In other words, Mr. Obama has inadvertently chained himself to fiscal restraints that could flatten federal spending for the rest of his presidency."
Moore also missed a pretty critical deficit offset: dividends/interest from TARP and Fannie/Freddie (and gains on sale of toxic assets). Tens of billions have flowed in from these programs that are reducing the deficit, but as Moore points out the biggest reduction is from the simple elimination of huge 1-time stimulus spending the first two years.
At the end of the day, despite all that the deficit is still @$800B and nearly double anything Bush did before the financial crisis. It's a neat trick for Obama to get credit from you for reducing a deficit from a huge sinkhole he himself helped create (and just wait until Obamakare kicks in).
But thanks for posting. It's easy when you unintentionally make my points for me (much like Obama has accidentally and unintentionally lowered the deficit). -
BoatShoes
I didn't suggest Moore gave Obama "credit".gut;1485921 wrote:LMAO....Stephen Moore was clearly not giving Obama credit for that, nor does Obama deserve any. Obama went along with the sequester because he thought the Repubs wouldn't stomach the defense spending cuts. They called his bluff.
I mean, have you forgotten all the doomsday scenarios Obama threatened if they let the sequester take effect? This is the sort of dishonest and disingenuous arguments you make. Here you are trying to prop-up Obama drawing inferences and conclusions from an article that aren't made by that article. Republicans have accomplished this in spite of Obama, not because of him, and it has drawn the typical whining/complaining/campaigning in response.
"In other words, Mr. Obama has inadvertently chained himself to fiscal restraints that could flatten federal spending for the rest of his presidency."
Moore also missed a pretty critical deficit offset: dividends/interest from TARP and Fannie/Freddie (and gains on sale of toxic assets). Tens of billions have flowed in from these programs that are reducing the deficit, but as Moore points out the biggest reduction is from the simple elimination of huge 1-time stimulus spending the first two years.
At the end of the day, despite all that the deficit is still @$800B and nearly double anything Bush did before the financial crisis. It's a neat trick for Obama to get credit from you for reducing a deficit from a huge sinkhole he himself helped create (and just wait until Obamakare kicks in).
But thanks for posting. It's easy when you unintentionally make my points for me (much like Obama has accidentally and unintentionally lowered the deficit).
This is what I said;
you chose this part to quote.Stephen Moore fleshes out pretty clearly why I should be unhappy with Obama's performance but why deficit-hawks ought to be happy.
Funny that you chose that sentence. YOU should not be all that upset that this alleged big spending liberal has chained himself to fiscal restraints. You should be much happier than the alternative considering spending has gone down under his watch than was ever conceivably imagined by conservatives. I am the one who has the better cause for grief...a good president doesn't "accidentally and unintentionally" get roped into the wrong policy."In other words, Mr. Obama has inadvertently chained himself to fiscal restraints that could flatten federal spending for the rest of his presidency."
Let alone, he was the one who idiotically proposed the sequester...thinking that Republicans would care too much about Defense cuts to let it happen. It was a dumb idea on his part on his part. So idiot or not, he and Jack Lew were the ones that came up with this silly idea bringing all this deficit reduction. Don't you remember when you guys were saying "Why is Obama so afraid of the Sequester going into effect when he was the one who proposed it?" -
jmogTo believe that Obama has lowered the deficit is about as logical as believing the Moon landing was a hoax.
One time stimulus is gone=lower deficit
Sequestor (that Obama campaigned against)=lower deficit
Now, both of those have happened and we are still at 3/4 of a trillion in deficit and it will get worse as Obamacare rolls in.
So please stop acting like Obama is a deficit hawk, it is disingenuous at best, a bold faced lie at worst. He didn't want either of the 2 major things that dropped the deficit to happen but yet they still did. On top of that he created the largest future deficit causing legislation. -
BoatShoes
1. Obama never intended for the stimulus to be permanent. And, it did indeed expire unlike was predicted by conservatives who falsely claim that stimulus spending always stays forever. Why would he not get at least a partial claim to deficit reduction that occurs after its lapse for not designing a permanent, indefinite stimulus when he had nearly full control of the government when it was passed? Immediately after the stimulus he turned to Healthcare and stopped progressive democrats in their tracks because he wanted a plan that cost <$1 trillion over a decade according to the CBO.jmog;1486168 wrote:To believe that Obama has lowered the deficit is about as logical as believing the Moon landing was a hoax.
One time stimulus is gone=lower deficit
Sequestor (that Obama campaigned against)=lower deficit
Now, both of those have happened and we are still at 3/4 of a trillion in deficit and it will get worse as Obamacare rolls in.
So please stop acting like Obama is a deficit hawk, it is disingenuous at best, a bold faced lie at worst. He didn't want either of the 2 major things that dropped the deficit to happen but yet they still did. On top of that he created the largest future deficit causing legislation.
2. I agree Obama campaigned against the sequester after he realized that Republicans had duped him and would jump on the grenade. We have to remember though, why did He and Jack Lew initially come up with the idea??? as an incentive to get congress to pass a deficit and budget deal. Obama was dumb/wrong for ever wanting a debt/deficit deal instead of more stimulus and he was dumb/wrong to negotiate the sequester. But, he demagogued the Sequester because he wanted a different budget deal....not more stimulus like a dove would want.
Just read his words...
And my personal favorite....
"I've been hearing from my Republican friends for some time it is a moral imperative to tackle our debt and deficits in a serious way," Mr. Obama said. "What I've said to them is, let's go."
3. So, you are wrong. What does he want to replace the sequester with...stimulus...more deficit spending? No! He wants to replace it with a different deficit reduction plan."We might as well do it now," he said. "Pull off the band aid. Eat our peas."
He wanted a budget deal that was better than the Sequester but still closed the deficit and idiotically negotiated the sequester. It was a bad strategy on his part but he nevertheless wanted a smaller budget deficit. He also wanted the debt-financed stimulus spending to end. The American Jobs Act he proposed would've been "fully paid for" and was not projected to add to the deficit by the CBO.
4. The whole reason he went with Obamacare as opposed to something like Weiner's Medicare 4 All bill is because he had the CBO on his side saying it wouldn't blow up the deficit the way Republicans still pretend it will. I am sorry you do not believe the CBO.
So yes...Obama is a definitely a deficit hawk. He had a brief moment where he passed a really lame stimulus bill and they designed it to expire and immediately turned to a deficit-focused healthcare bill and then the debt-deficit.
Again, there is a deficit-dove/deficit-hawk spectrum that is not unlike the liberal-conservative spectrum. Because you Jmog are a conservative and much bigger deficit hawk than Obama does not mean Obama is a dove and not a hawk. Obama is definitely not a dove. His offers and proposals have been slightly to the left of Bowles Simpson. Even the Congressional Progressive Caucus which wants to tax the rich into oblivion are deficit hawks!
A deficit dove like me wants bigger deficits from cutting tax cuts or raising spending until full employment is achieved. Obama wants the opposite...higher taxes and lower spending. (Not to mention Obama is doing his best Ron Paul impression rambling on and on and on about inflation whenever he talks about who he will pick for FED chair when we have crippling unemployment and miniscule inflation...I'm in the twilight zone when Conservatives think this guy is some kind of liberal messiah ahhhh!!)
The conservative repudiation of people who are conservative but not puritanically conservative is a good analogy.
Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney...these guys are not viewed as "true conservatives" according to some conservatives nowadays...that may be true. However, they're definitely not liberals. In the same way, Obama is a deficit hawk even if he's not as hardcore as you would prefer. -
jmogSo Obama gets credit for doing nothing? He couldn't get more spending passed and therefore the stimulus lapsed and he gets credit for it? How about the consevatives fighting his spending getting that credit.
He was duped? Come on, you can't be serious. He created the plan as a ploy to get the conservatives to do whatever he wanted because he didn't think they were serious about spending cuts. When they called his bluff he then went out whining/complaining that the sequester was going to kill America. He couldn't get a deal done so he again gets credit and/or he was duped?
Come on boat, there is no way you believe all this crap you just said.
In the end the point is this, when you bring in 15-17% of GDP in taxes you can't continuously spend 20+% which is what has been done since 2008. -
tk421
I still don't understand how you can say the budget has gone down when spending will be HIGHER than last year. Must be some magic money. -
BoatShoes
He didn't "do nothing" as you suggest.jmog;1486283 wrote:So Obama gets credit for doing nothing? He couldn't get more spending passed and therefore the stimulus lapsed and he gets credit for it? How about the consevatives fighting his spending getting that credit.
He was duped? Come on, you can't be serious. He created the plan as a ploy to get the conservatives to do whatever he wanted because he didn't think they were serious about spending cuts. When they called his bluff he then went out whining/complaining that the sequester was going to kill America. He couldn't get a deal done so he again gets credit and/or he was duped?
Come on boat, there is no way you believe all this crap you just said.
In the end the point is this, when you bring in 15-17% of GDP in taxes you can't continuously spend 20+% which is what has been done since 2008.
He made a really dumb offer of spending cuts to the GOP tand they accepted it rather than using it as a catalyst for a bargain for spending cuts/tax raises.
It's not really about "credit" per se. He doesn't deserve "credit" for having his offer accepted...but the argument you made is that he is not a deficit hawk...that is wrong.
The fact that he failed to get his preferred deficit reduction plan and instead had his even worse poison pill deficit-reduction offer accepted and enacted idoes not mean he's not a deficit hawk! Additionally, folks like yourself should be happy as a clam that the deficit is falling like a rock while Obama teh 5oCializt is president! Instead, you guys constantly complain when a Republican could only dream of closing a deficit so fast.
And, I acknowledged before that Obama and the Democrats exaggerated the effects of the sequester and payroll tax raise a bit...but that was with the help of conservatives who made it seem like they were saying the world would end and the sky would fall (They weren't...they just said it was bad and tried to make it clear....it is bad, it is harming our economy and they were right).
As I pointed out in previous threads on the matter, the world would not end but it would just result in slower growth and drag on the economy and the unemployment rate would not improve. In fact the economy is growing slower now in the wake of the Sequester and the Payroll tax raise than when we were running "Trillion Dollar Deficits Gahhh!!" And, this is perfectly predictable.
And as to your last point...Obama doesn't want to do that lol and he's tried to close that gap since the financial crisis. However, I will say that I disagree in principle with you and Obama that we should be doing that.
There's no reason why a monetary sovereign "couldn't" spend that much/cut taxes that much at a time like now when the economy is depressed(so long as it wasn't too much that it was inflationary and the Central Bank responded properly to an increase in inflation expectations and the real capacity of the economy could absorb the extra dollars.)
Be happy. You guys managed to hold enough ground that the supposed great liberal hope put an offer on the table for the largest amount of deficit reduction in generations. -
jmog
This paragraph right here is proof you have lost touch with reality.BoatShoes;1486327 wrote:
And, I acknowledged before that Obama and the Democrats exaggerated the effects of the sequester and payroll tax raise a bit...but that was with the help of conservatives who made it seem like they were saying the world would end and the sky would fall (They weren't...they just said it was bad and tried to make it clear....it is bad, it is harming our economy and they were right).
Also, Obama's budget plan was more spending and more taxes. THe problem with his plan was that higher tax rates do not equal higher revenue w.r.t. GDP, never has, never will. So his deficit reduction "plan" was a big lie and he either knew it or is stupid. -
BoatShoes
It's about Federal Expenditures as a percentage of our economy. If our economy is department store we're buying a smaller percentage of the goods available for sale in the store even though the nominal number on our bill is higher.tk421;1486325 wrote:I still don't understand how you can say the budget has gone down when spending will be HIGHER than last year. Must be some magic money.
This is Federal Government total expenditures over GDP
-
BoatShoes
But also I was talking about the deficit. The payroll tax raise has had a significant impact in closing the gap. Do you deny that the payroll tax increase of 2% of the dollars workers earn every day when people have to work are going to have an impact??tk421;1486325 wrote:I still don't understand how you can say the budget has gone down when spending will be HIGHER than last year. Must be some magic money. -
BoatShoes
You know how you're always like "You realise that is an opinion Boat?" This is an opinion...one that the CBO happened to disagree with. The consumption oriented taxes in the ACA make it possible to achieve higher than average levels of taxation as a percentage of GDP (as in Euro countries w/ VATs etc.)jmog;1486330 wrote:This paragraph right here is proof you have lost touch with reality.
Also, Obama's budget plan was more spending and more taxes. THe problem with his plan was that higher tax rates do not equal higher revenue w.r.t. GDP, never has, never will. So his deficit reduction "plan" was a big lie and he either knew it or is stupid.
Obama's budget may have had more spending and more taxes and may not have been sufficiently hawkish enough for conservatives...but it was nevertheless a budget that was meant to keep our deficits w/in an acceptable percentage of gdp....which is acceptably fiscally conservative enough to Central Banks, Ratings agencies, etc.