- #36
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Vanadium 50 said:DevilsAvocado, I think you're missing a data point. Debt is $14.3T, GDP is $15.2T, so the rightmost point should be 94%.
It seems they quit counting in 2009?
(I didn't see Russ's post.)
Last edited:
Vanadium 50 said:DevilsAvocado, I think you're missing a data point. Debt is $14.3T, GDP is $15.2T, so the rightmost point should be 94%.
russ_watters said:... Bush gets blamed for Obama's failure.
Vanadium 50 said:DevilsAvocado, I think you're missing a data point. Debt is $14.3T, GDP is $15.2T, so the rightmost point should be 94%.
Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO. Those costs are not insignificant, and they are going to continue.mheslep said:Reminder: Pelosi had been running the House going back to Jan 2007; Pelosi and Reed together had total control, a i.e. filibuster proof Congress since the same time.
mheslep said:Reminder: Pelosi had been running the House going back to Jan 2007; Pelosi and Reed together had total control, a i.e. filibuster proof Congress since the same time.
turbo-1 said:Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO. Those costs are not insignificant, and they are going to continue.
Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget.
talk2glenn said:This year, the entire government is paid for by supplemental approrprations bills.
Obama pledged to end the abuse of "supplemental spending" to fund the wars and put the costs of the wars back on-budget. IMO, he has made strides toward that goal. Apparently, the folks at PolitFact concur.talk2glenn said:This is one of those oft repeated talking points that everyone just knows is true, because its been said so often without challenge, but nobody is really sure what it means.
You recognize of course Obama would have also engaged in the Afghanistan conflict, and now is in Libya.turbo-1 said:Let's also remember that W started two foreign land-wars and kept the costs off-budget. Congress failed to check him, and that was their fault, but the primary responsibility for those war costs falls on the administration that started them, IMO.
Depends on the context. In the context of the total US $3.6T annual budget one can argue the wars are not significant.Those costs are not insignificant,
No, they will end as all wars do and as the Iraq war is imminently doing. However, one can easily argue that entitlement programs in fact do continue forever, or at least until the collapse of a nation.and they are going to continue.
turbo-1 said:Obama pledged to end the abuse of "supplemental spending" to fund the wars and put the costs of the wars back on-budget. IMO, he has made strides toward that goal. Apparently, the folks at PolitFact concur.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nd-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/
mheslep said:However, one can easily argue that entitlement programs in fact do continue forever, or at least until the collapse of a nation.
talk2glenn said:... I submit that this is significantly more honest, and revealing.
Willowz said:Hot-potato!
Yes the Congress writes the budget law, specifically the House does, and only the House. Of course the President, Senate Chairmen, and my granny are free to write up their own ideas on the subject and frequently do, but have only political significance, not legal.DevilsAvocado said:PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_bill#United_StatesAccording to the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1), all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives,
So he's saying that no part of the state of the American economy up to Feb 1, 2010 was his doing. You can believe whatever you want, but I'd say that based on the 2010 election results, the voting public didn't buy it.DevilsAvocado said:But okay, let’s be biased and quote a small part of http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html" :
[emphasis mine]
"As we look to the future, we must recognize that the era of irresponsibility in Washington must end. On the day my Administration took office, we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. Our response to this recession, the Recovery Act, which has been critical to restoring economic growth, will add an additional $1 trillion to the debt—only 10 percent of these costs. In total, the surpluses we enjoyed at the start of the last decade have disappeared; instead, we are $12 trillion deeper in debt. In the long term, we cannot have sustainable and durable economic growth without getting our fiscal house in order."
Barack Obama -- The White House, February 1, 2010.
The way the media and the politicians are harping on this issue, it makes one forget that the due date here is more than 3 weeks away. They can grandstand about this for another 2.5 weeks before even trying to get anything done! And I'm already fatigued from the last three times they did this!Proton Soup said:obama threatens social security checks: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html
i get the feeling that plan might backfire. but it's obvious we're not going to default.
It doesn't look to me like you read past the header, tubo-1. "supplemental spending" still happens and it is still off-budget (by definition). They gave him a pass because he also put some war funding on the budget and didn't say he wanted to end their use, just their "abuse" (which is meaningless). Obama has asked for more suppliments (3) than budgets (2).turbo-1 said:Obama pledged to end the abuse of "supplemental spending" to fund the wars and put the costs of the wars back on-budget. IMO, he has made strides toward that goal. Apparently, the folks at PolitFact concur.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nd-the-abuse-of-supplemental-budgets-for-war/
DevilsAvocado said:I don’t know about "honesty", but maybe it’s revealing that you’re presenting data from Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, as some form of 'objective truth'... At least my data came from Wikipedia, and AFAIK Wikipedia is not controlled by any political party.
But okay, let’s be biased and quote a small part of http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html" :
[emphasis mine]
"As we look to the future, we must recognize that the era of irresponsibility in Washington must end. On the day my Administration took office, we faced an additional $7.5 trillion in national debt by the end of this decade as a result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, and a new entitlement program. We also inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression—which, even before we took any action, added an additional $3 trillion to the national debt. Our response to this recession, the Recovery Act, which has been critical to restoring economic growth, will add an additional $1 trillion to the debt—only 10 percent of these costs. In total, the surpluses we enjoyed at the start of the last decade have disappeared; instead, we are $12 trillion deeper in debt. In the long term, we cannot have sustainable and durable economic growth without getting our fiscal house in order."
Barack Obama -- The White House, February 1, 2010.
PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??
PS2: I think Paul Ryan missed one label on the graph; "2008 – George W. Bush is one or two pennies from ruin the world economy."
Proton Soup said:obama threatens social security checks: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html
i get the feeling that plan might backfire. but it's obvious we're not going to default.
mege said:Lastly, Just because the President says something doesn't mean it's true. His entire campaign for 2012 is going to be 'well it's not really my fault' and unfortunately many seem to believe him. Quoting political speeches isn't really good sourcing for any information IMO.
Jimmy Snyder said:I can remember in 1968 when the Democrats were no longer a viable party.
Jimmy Snyder said:I can remember in 1968 when the Democrats were no longer a viable party.
Ivan Seeking said:True in part. As predicted by President Johnson when he signed it, passage of the Civil Rights bill cost the Dems the South for the next 40 years [and to this day still true!].
Before that we had the notorious Southern Democrats.
The tea party [Republicans] may go down as the party that destroyed the US credit rating. If we do default, no doubt that poor folks don't get their SS checks [needed for food, not Lear Jets or golf vacations, and not a matter of principle but reality].
Of course, that's just speaking as an Independent voter.
I don’t know about "honesty", but maybe it’s revealing that you’re presenting data from Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, as some form of 'objective truth'... At least my data came from Wikipedia, and AFAIK Wikipedia is not controlled by any political party.
PS: The Congress writes the budget, huh??
Ivan Seeking said:True in part. As predicted by President Johnson when he signed it, passage of the Civil Rights bill cost the Dems the South for the next 40 years [and to this day still true!].
Before that we had the notorious Southern Democrats.
The tea party [Republicans] may go down as the party that destroyed the US credit rating. If we do default, no doubt that poor folks don't get their SS checks [needed for food, not Lear Jets or golf vacations, and not a matter of principle but reality].
Of course, that's just speaking as an Independent voter.
Under House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan, passed by the Republican-controlled chamber in April, federal spending would be slashed by $6.2 trillion. The plan would also lower tax rates paid by corporations and top earners, bringing projected savings down to the $4 trillion range.
daveb said:If democrats are "tax and spend" politicians, and republicans are "reduce taxation and spending" politicians, then nothing would ever get done unless one side gives up on both of these, or each gives up on one of them.
From everything I've seen, the democrats are willing to reduce spending but hold to their increased taxes (whether you call closing loopholes in the tax code a tax increase or not is debateable anyway)http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/41257" .
When one party holds both houses, it's fairly (relative to other times) easy for the party to hold to both of their ideas. When the balance of power is mixed, as it is now, it seems the responsible thing to do is to compromise.