Obama Taking Us Over the Fiscal Cliff As He Proposes MORE Spending

You don't know what the fiscal cliff is, do you JP5? I'll give you a hint: it has little to do with our budget deficit. We can spend, spend, spend all we want or slash the government budget to the bone and the fiscal cliff would be utterly unaffected.

Meanwhile, the president demanding a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits... Is that the same thing as the debt ceiling? Because if so, I don't see how anyone could consider this a bad idea given what happened in 2011. Furthermore, let's remember that the debt ceiling does not tell congress "this is how much money you can spend", but rather "this is how much of your credit card debt you can pay off". It doesn't stop spending, it merely stops us from paying for what we have already agreed to buy. The only way it works as a brake on spending is by threatening to ruin our credit rating if we don't heed it. How anyone could consider this a bad idea is beyond me. You'd have to have been asleep for the last 3 years or something.

As for stimulus spending... Okay, this is where it gets utterly incoherent. The entire reason why the "fiscal cliff" is bad is because it takes money away from the lower and middle classes, which are strapped for cash and thus unable to provide the demand they normally do, and because it sucks government demand out of an economy which is starved for demand in the first place, which is essentially bound to send us right into another recession. Macroeconomics 101, essentially, and nobody is rejecting the notion that it would be horrible for the economy - not even those who reject Keynesian macro (which makes no sense, seeing as in their economic models, this should really have no effect). The effects of the last stimulus were overwhelmingly recorded by economists as positive, and it makes perfect sense for an economy which is still suffering from a lack of demand to get more spending on public works and government jobs. And yet, this is somehow an utter nightmare, that the president could propose the exact opposite of the fiscal cliff?

I'm with Krugman; the term "fiscal cliff" is far less fitting than the term "austerity bomb". This isn't a case where, if we spend too much, we'll go over a fiscal cliff of debt from which our economy cannot recover; this is a case where, if we miss this deadline and congress goes through with its cuts, we'll go over a fiscal cliff of austerity from which our economy probably will not recover.

And just for reference? If we do have an "overspending" problem, it is completely unrelated to our economic problems, because our current economic state would require more spending.

 

The right wing media never told you about it, eh? I'm amazed at how often I get this response from our conservative friends. You just cannot rely on the likes of Rush and Sean to give you "fair and balanced" objecting information.

Year - outlays - % GDP
2009 3,517.7 25.2%
2010 3,456.2 23.8%
2011 3,598.1 23.8%
2012 3,540.0 22.6%

Reagan years:

1981 678.2 21.7%
1982 745.7 22.9%
1983 808.4 22.9%
1984 851.9 21.7%
1985 946.4 22.4%
1986 990.4 22.2%
1987 1,004.1 21.2%
1988 1,064.5 20.9%

Outlays: CBO.gov
GDP: BEA.gov

 

In a perverse way, you are actually correct! But real economists know that all these "stimulus" gambits, along with all the "Quantitative Easing" maneuvering was funded by money that the Federal Reserve System pulled, literally, out of thin air -- creating a gigantic fraud-balloon... and that's all it is. Hey, you give any idiot trillions of dollars in imaginary money to blow, and he'll be able to show some "improvement", right? Borrowing money to create the illusion of prosperity is bull****, and believe this if nothing else: nobody ever spends their way out of debt and into real prosperity! Ha! Even today, Ben "Bailout" Bernanke is blowing $40 Billion Dollars every month in even more imaginary money on toxic mortgage-backed securities to help his clients in the banking cartels! Got a snappy comeback for that?!

That's why we need a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, because otherwise we'll simply tunnel deeper and deeper into devastating levels of debt never dreamed of before... and Comrade Obama is just the guy to take us all the way down!

 

So... the debt is far more important than the state of the economy? And, what's more, in the case of a national disaster (say, Yellowstone erupts), we should be forced to cut everything else in order to get the funds to fix the mess made?

 

I thought too much debt meant you had to cut taxes...

just like surpluses mean you have to cut taxes.....

 

So Obama wants to end the Congress' power of the purse, given to them by the Founding Fathers. This emperor-wanna-be wants all power to himself. I am heartily glad he can't run for a third term because then we'd never get rid of him.

 

No, the fear is that in failing, he crashes and burns the country's financial system!

 

If I became president proposed and passed a trillion dollars spending over three years above and beyond the budget, and then when ahead and claimed I was fighting to shrink the deficit and claimed i was successful when those one time increases in spending disappeared yet yearly budgets increased would you take me seriously?

 

LOL. And perhaps you should read a bit further beyond what Obama tells you.
Spending did come down in 2010, but it wasn't the result of spending cuts, but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending. TARP money....as you will remember, was the Bush Stimulus, that was paid back WITH interest. Obama was counting that against his own spending! TOO FUNNY. So, it was NOT the result of spending less.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398.html

The first year of the Obama presidency, 2009, is the largest year in decades, with federal outlays totaling a whopping 25.2 percent of GDP. Since then, federal outlays relative to GDP have fallen, but they are still incredibly large. In fact, you have to go back to 1946 to find a year when federal outlays were as large as they have been ​

every

year of the Obama presidency

AND concerning the deficit, Obama has definitely made it dramatically worse as the chart in this article shows........

"The chart is startling. It shows that President Obama walked into a massive budget deficit and he made the situation worse. Prior to President Obama’s inauguration, and in the absence of any of his policies, the CBO estimated that the FY2009 budget deficit would be an incredible 8.3 percent of GDP. George W. Bush again bears a lot of the responsibility, and ​

​

as with spending, President Obama turned bad into worse."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...g-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

“The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama’s watch, the [Nutting] analysis counted them as government spending cuts,” the AP said. “It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.”

​

​

​

​

​

​

Pretty much explains how his numbers looked so good. Nothing he did. Looks like Obama has done a good job of fooling a bunch of folks on this one. AND if you insist on claiming he actually cut spending himself.....then show us where in his budget he CUT anything? Name one program he actually CUT in his first couple of budgets. There wasn't any.
​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

And that analysis was from The Washington Post; not Rush and not Hannity. ​

​

​

 

Liberals such as Iriemon see Obama as walking on water. All I see is Obama with his feet in a puddle of urine as he pees on America.

Obama's goal is to "fundamentally change America". He does that by first crashing the system. He induces a second Recession, which is his intent, he then goes with an even larger power grab than he accomplished with the first Stimulus. Even more Unemployment. Even more "taxing the rich". A takeover of 401-K's. That has always been the plan.

FLAME REMOVED Obama doesn't give one rip if you lose your job. Just suckle that gubmit teat, and **** !

 

No, he wants to end Congress's power to scrap our credit rating. Because that is literally the only thing the debt ceiling can do.

 

I don't know what Nutting did, but I agree Obama inherited a huge deficit and spent a lot to avert a depression. The explanation doesn't contradict what I said one iota. Under Obama, the Govt has seen spending cut -- twice -- for the first time in decades. Which you were not aware of. Spending growth in the fiscal years he's been president has been the lowest in decades.

If it was a Republican who had done that we'd be hearing he's a savior from conservatives.

Now you know.

 

Depends on whether you told the whole story. If you explained how Conservatives predicted the deficit would hit $1.9 trillion under Obama, and last year it was down to $1.1 trillion, following the biggest drop in the deficit in history, I'd start to take you seriously. If you explained how spending was actually decreased, twice, for the first time in 6 decades, I'd take you more seriously. And if on top of that, you pointed out how the obstructionists in the House blocked his attempts to increase revenues, I'd start being downright impressed.

 

Your dishonesty in reporting what should be FACTS is always striking!

As you said. . .2009 was the highest year for the deficit as % of GDP. . .BUT WHAT YOU DON'T say is that 2009 WAS BUSH'S BUDGET year. . .including the bail out that happened that year! In fact, you subtly imply the opposite since you name 2009 as Obama's first year of Presidency
WITHOUT SAYING that, although 2009 was the first year of Obama's presidency. . .it was also THE LAST YEAR OF BUSH's BUDGET!

Are you just posting this kind of spin because you believe that everyone in this forum is stupid, or are you just "preaching to the choir," those who are always willing to believe ANYTHING negative about President Obama?

Either way, it is not honest and doesn't reflect ANY respect for other posters. . .and it totally discredits you.

 

KNOCK IT OFF !!!!!! Bush left $400B in TARP money unspent. Obama spent it. On Bush's tab. Then we got the actual "Stimulus" in 2009. No Bush fingerprints on that either.

When a fool calls someone else a liar ................. where should we find the truth ?

 

Really? The first thing you do if your family gets in financial trouble is to "cut spending?"

That may be true. . .if you are spending on "unecessary" items, such as dining out, buying shoes at $150.00 a pop, or having your house cleaned by a cleaning service. . OBVIOUSLY, you can "cut spending,". . .for a start!

But, if you suddenly face a catastrophic event, maybe your youngest child break his leg and, although you have insurance, you still have to cover $500.00 in deductible and 20% in co-payment. . .and you don't have that money, and your "spending" is already limited to bare necessity, such as a roof over your head, basic food on the table to feed your 2 kids, and a 6 year old car that needs gas to take you back and forth to work. . .how much "spending cut" can you REALLY make? Okay, maybe you can cut down your cable service to the bare minimum, and cut out the weekly trip to McDonalds or Pizza Huts for the kids. . .you may even decide to give up you car and ride a bike to your job. . .if it is less than 15 miles away from where you live! But, obviously. . ."cutting spending" ALONE is not going to resolve your problem.

So. . .what do you do? Maybe you get ANOTHER JOB. . .to bring in more REVENUE! Maybe you start baking cookies out of your kitchen, maybe even with your kids' help, so you can sell those cookies to your co-workers and earn a little extra money. Maybe you even ask your 16 year old to take a weekend job to pay for his own school supplies or the new shoes he badly needs.

Well. . THAT is the way REAL people BALANCE THEIR BUDGETS!

REAL people. . .that is, people who do NOT have so many extras and are not already splurging on 2 Cadillacs and a Lexus in your three car garage, or "on an annual cruise vacation," and their daughter is not use to wearing only $200.00 shoes and carrying $400 purses. . ., REAL people MUST look not only in CUTTING spending, but ALSO increasing revenues.

And. . .it is very probable that, those REAL people will try to avoid cutting spending on their FOOD BILLS, if they can cut some fat on less "necessary" items, such as keeping the old car running a little longer, and cutting down on the weekly gifts to their church!

 

Or a partisan tale one wanted to hear.

Obama has had record deficits every year he has been president, who cares how much they drop year to year, they are still over $1 trillion a year. Each one is well over 6% of the GDP of the whole country. A real thing to be proud of. You can start the partisan blaming of the other side now. Realize its nothing more than admitting the inability of Obama to lead effectively and deal with the situation he is in.

Once again spending decreased because 1 time spending efforts such as the stimulus and TARP ended, not because of decreases in budget spending. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is still higher than federal revenue as a percentage of GDP ever were. Lets jump up and down and celebrate a small tick downward when we are still well above anything that is even remotely fiscally stable!! Its like jumping up and down with happiness because your favorite team only lost by three points instead of seven.

Let me get this right, he resigned the Bush tax cuts because of obstructionism? Are you telling me that if he refused to sign them, they wouldn't have expired? Sounds to me like he caved. Also Sounds to me like you are easily impressed. Not surprised from an Obama sycophant though. I thought Bush was an idiot with $400 billion deficits, Obama eclipses that and I rightly deride him for such. I am not big on supporting people who fail even if its a minuscule step in the right direction regardless of party.

 

No, Americans know where their free stuff comes from. And btw, Obama barely won.

 

Willard's plan off the bat was to send the deficit soaring with 6 trillion in even more spending, and his fiscal plan was to raise taxes on the poor and middle class to give to the rich. The right wingers don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about anything, but bankrolling the snot out of their cronies.

 

It is obvious that you like to insult people. . . because you have nothing factual to answer!

And, I do not believe that even you would misspell a word as blatantly as that "MAROON" you try to pass for a "non-insult."

At least, if you want to be disgusting and break the rules of this forum (without even mentioning the rules of civility), have the courage of your conviction and spell the world "MORON," correctly. Or is that the "chicken way" to insult people?

Either way, the BUSH $400 BILLIONS IN TARP MONEY WERE MET TO BE SPENT. What did you think? that they were supposed to sit under a mattress someplace? This and the stimulus is what PREVENTED A DEPRESSION!

And, I guess you think that all the deficit left by Bush, and all the servicing of that debt just disappeared and that the budget went back to ZERO the day President Obama took office, right? And that all the commitments that BUSH had in HIS budget for 2009 just "appeared" on January 21, 2009?

Not even you can be that ignorant!

The fact is that the 2009 budget WAS BUSH's. Just as the 2001 budget WAS CLINTON's!

Whether or not you like it is a moot point!

 

Yes you are quite right, when you are fiscally underwater you do both, try to cut spending and raise revenue. But if you were serious about it you would cut spending everywhere you can and you would raise revenue anyway one could. The problem is our revenue raising process is a broken mess too many deductions, credits, rates, and other bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Are spending is also wasteful and much is lost to fraud and abuse. Neither side is really addressing the issues because both have bases they want to please in order to stay in office. It has become about what can I make the other group of Americans forgo in order to keep what I have. This is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to the extreme and propagated by both parties and interest groups of all types. We are all supposed to be equal under the law. The government is supposed to work for the betterment of all people in this country. Instead we have hundreds of laws in regards to taxes to real estate, and everything in between which gives to one group at the expense of another.

I call Bull(*)(*)(*)(*), I am sick of it, and I am sick of people who advocate for more at the expense of another. We need to end this crap.

To do this we need a simplified tax code, I say everyone pays the same rate, on all income irregardless of type. No credits no deductions nothing. That way people at all income levels can decide if the level of government they have now is worth what they pay. Its easy to say we need more government when someone else is paying for it or some else suffers because of it. But that is just greed to the core and it comes from the rich, poor and middle class.

 

The fact is that when spending cuts can NOT solve a financial disaster. . .one has to do ANYTHING possible to ALSO increase revenues.

And, asking the very wealthy to take a 3% cut on their HUGE annual salary is the most expedient way to do it. . .and the most fair.

In anyway. . .I do not believe that President Obama really cares about what you think, remember. . . HE WON in part BASED ON HIS PLAN TO LET THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY END.

 

In a way, I hope the Republicans keep balking at raising taxes for people who already make more than enough money. It will show the country where their true loyalties are. Sure we'll go over the fiscal cliff, but at least people will see them for what they are, and that is of course, paid shills for those who already have more than most people ever will.

If there is no compromise, it will be the Republicans who take the blame for it, as the president has already stated he is willing to keep the tax cuts for all but the wealthiest people, which includes most of the voters in this country. Of course the Republicans are not doing it, because they don't, and have never, cared for anyone but the rich.

 

While your statements are obviously factually untrue, rich liberal musicians don't want to lose money now that Obama has been reelected. Can't we find a way to not screw over rich Obama supporters?

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...orted-obama-team-up-evil-grover-norquist.html

 

What proof is there that the stimulus prevented a depression? I want to read this. Don't forget Obama voted for TARP as well, and no he didn't have to spend it. He could have gone to congress and gotten them to curtail the rest of the spending. But he was for it, so wasn't going to happen. Not surprising since it was the Big Bank Bailout.

There was no 2009 budget omnibus passed during Bush in 2008 for FY 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Now this of course wasn't the whole 2009 FY budget, Bush passed one of those continuation budgets, we have been running on since 2010, that funds the government for a few months earlier in 2008, in order to avoid government shutdown. So 2009 FY budget is both on Bush and Obama. Now that you know that, if you want to know the monetary costs of each part they passed you can look it up if you want.