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

Don't let the fact that Obama is the first president in 57 years to actually cut spending get in the way of a perfectly good myth. Reagan didn't cut spending, Bush 41 didn't cut spending, Bush 43 didn't cut spending.

Btw, we don't have an over-spending problem at all. If we do, show me.

 

Great. Let the Republicans raise taxes on the 99% to protect the tax breaks for the 1%. I'm all for it.

Then the American people can speak their mind again in 2014.

 

That kind of waste doesn't even dent the actuarial tables. But if you want get serious and really talk 'waste', I am available.

 

Hurting the country just to stick it to Obama.
We all know what you people are trying to do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseline_(Budgeting)

Government bases budgets on projection and projections are based on expectations, any cuts you hear about are cuts from the built in increases, that is NOT from what was. Then anything, cuts or spending, for years into the future are 100% meaningless. Said another way; We could say, we will cut 2% from each government agency every year which in reality would be an increase every year. Obama is planning on no cuts from a baseline system, then insisting more revenue is needed to avert whatever the listener wants continued. What you all are missing, is the expectations (GDP) have not been achieved since FY 2007, the past four, nowhere near expectation.


Sadanie; Adding to some well presented explanations, this thread, the 2009 FY Budget, as written & presented by Bush43 in 2008, tabled by Congress, increased by a Democratic Congress by a half trillion dollars and passed in 2009. It's that budget "Continuing Resolutions" have been based on and no expectation of revenue has been close.

I'd also suggest, as would many others, that the "Housing Bubble" (2007) without artificial bottoms and the resulting "said" banking problems (derivatives) were caused by Obama and team policies rather than preventing anything. That is under Clinton, Bush43 or any Capitalist President and Administration, we would be in the forth year of growth, opposed to stagnant.

 

This is pretty silly.

This thread has quite a bit of nonsense, but this has to win some sort of prize.


interest-bearing debts - now over $16 trillion
accumulation of unsecured obligations - over $60 trillion
yearly deficit - $1.3 trillion - again
indebtedness to the rest of the world - about $5 trillion and climbing

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

Nope.

Doesnt look like a spending problem to me either

 

This is pretty silly.

This thread has quite a bit of nonsense, but this has to win some sort of prize.

interest-bearing debts - now over $16 trillion
accumulation of unsecured obligations - over $60 trillion
yearly deficit - $1.3 trillion - again
indebtedness to the rest of the world - about $5 trillion and climbing

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

Nope.

Doesnt look like a revenue problem to me either

 

We all know Democrats want to raise taxes on the middle class - that's why they're tying the middle class and upper class taxes together. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Boehner has offered the president a balanced approach to tackling the budget, now the president has shown that he LIED when he said he wanted one.

Fine then. The GOP can refuse to raise the debt ceiling and we'll hold the Democrats responsible for raising our taxes in 2014.

 

Try staying on point next time.

A and B were discussing spending before C jumped in a made an irrelevant point.

But hey, you are good at those!

 

Baseless nonsense. Obama has repeatedly stated he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts only for those making over $250k.

Great. Take the country down. It's what you so-called "patriots" have wanted to do for the past 4 years. Let Americans see what traitors to your country you really are.

 

My post was diretly on point to the post to which it responded.

Trying staying on point next time.

 

An irrelevant point but I forgot it was you and should have just ignored it.

And by the way imitation is the highest form of flattery you know. I see you struggle when responding to me to use your own words.

A compliment taken.

Thanks!

 

You took it wrong.

 

Now that's progress even if it were only 4 monosyllabic words.

Baby steps but indeed progress.

There is hope for you yet!

 

I haven't read the whole thread. I look at your posts because I respect them. Are you suggesting that the budget is balanced and the national debt doesn't exist or that the US isn't paying $225 billion per year in debt service?

 

That doesn't even remotely indicate a spending problem. All it indicates is a collection problem and the eagerness of Republicans to exchange tax freebies for votes.

 

Thanks. No, I'm not suggesting that at all. You have to read it in context to the post to which this one responded.

The point is that the deficits and debt are not simply a "spending problem" or a "revenue problem". They are a problem from revenues being less than what is spent. To pretend that a deficit is simply a matter of spending is simply political posturing.

 

That's delusional but hey, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

My mistake

 

Classic denial

 

The country can't continue to run a budget deficit of more than a trillion dollars annually. Restoring income tax rates to their level during the Clinton administration will not raise enough money to eliminate the deficit.

That leaves spending reductions as the only way to balance the budget. If sequestration goes into effect that still leaves a net budget deficit of more than $600 billion annually.

I think sequestration should go into effect and that there should be no middle class tax cut. I also think that the debt ceiling should remain unchanged.

So my question to you is what spending items obama will cut in order to eliminate the net annual budget deficit?

 

I'll bet you can't explain why it is delusional, not that I require your benefit of the doubt.

 

Gawd it's been hard getting Republicans to tell me what the appropriate level of spending should be. The only answers I get is "all spending is too much spending" or "we have a deficit so we must be spending too much". I'm just glad I don't have these folks writing my business plans. You have to BUY pencils before you can sell 'em out of a tin cup on a street corner.

 

"Too much spending" without any sort of context is the lazy mind's way of saying "duh."

 

Cut all of the defense budget, eliminate food stamps, and WIC payments, restore all tax rates to those of the Clinton years including capital gains, eliminate welfare, Section 8 payments, get rid of whatever federal funding goes to PBS and NPR, get rid of the federal dept. of education, eliminate the existing form of medicare for people who aren't near retirement age, and means test Social Security for future retirees now under the age of fifty.

 

President Obama is in a different situation than was President Clinton, he doesn't have a Republican controlled Congress since the Senate is majority Democrat, so he can afford to not put any substantial spending cuts up for more revenue.

President Clinton did a lot of bad things as a Democrat, he ended lifetime welfare as mentioned, but President Obama has more leverage in these Fiscal Cliff negotiations and will not make such concessions as he has a stronger mandate.

What the OP basically shows us is that if Republicans don't give the income tax increase, they are going to have to do more than ending loopholes for millionaires.