PDA

View Full Version : Economics Massive understatement of Costs by Administration


HonestChieffan
03-22-2009, 08:03 AM
The administrations zeal to spend is finally coming under some scrutiny and the outlook is not good. Unless you love inflation and a return to the Carter era economics...

Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Mar 20, 7:43 pm ET


WASHINGTON President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.

The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable.

In his White House run, Obama assailed the economic policies of his predecessor, but the eye-popping deficit numbers threaten to swamp his ambitious agenda of overhauling health care, exploring new energy sources and enacting scores of domestic programs.

The dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, inevitably raise the prospect that Obama and his Democratic allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends or else pare back his agenda.

By CBO's calculation, Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year of red ink over 2010-2019.

Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.

White House budget chief Peter Orszag said that CBO's long-range economic projections are more pessimistic than those of the White House, private economists and the Federal Reserve and that he remained confident that Obama's budget, if enacted, would produce smaller deficits.

Even so, Orszag acknowledged that if the CBO projections prove accurate, Obama's budget would produce deficits that could not be sustained.

"Deficits in the, let's say, 5 percent of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios that would ultimately not be sustainable," Orszag told reporters.

Deficits so big put upward pressure on interest rates as the government offers more attractive interest rates to attract borrowers.

"I think deficits of 5 percent (of GDP) are unsupportable," said economist Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "It will lead to higher interest rates to the point where it will force policymakers to make changes."

Republicans immediately piled on.

"This report should serve as the wake-up call this administration needs," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "We simply cannot continue to mortgage our children and grandchildren's future to pay for bigger and more costly government."

But Obama insisted on Friday that his agenda is still on track.

"What we will not cut are investments that will lead to real growth and prosperity over the long term," Obama said. "That's why our budget makes a historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform. That's why it enhances America's competitiveness by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and building a clean energy economy."

Obama's $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 contains ambitious programs to overhaul the U.S. health care system and initiate new "cap-and-trade" rules to combat global warming.

Both initiatives involve raising federal revenues sharply higher, but those dollars wouldn't be used to defray the burgeoning deficit and would instead help pay for Obama's health plan and implement Obama's $400 tax credit for most workers and $800 for couples.

Obama's budget promises to cut the deficit to $533 billion in five years. The CBO says the red ink for that year will total $672 billion.

Most disturbing to Obama allies like Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., are the longer term projections, which climb above $1 trillion again by the end of the next decade and approach 6 percent of GDP by 2019.

Among about a dozen major changes to Obama's budget, Conrad is looking to curb Obama's 9 percent increase for non-defense appropriations to show short-term progress and insists that the long-term deficit and debt crisis will have to be addressed via a special bipartisan commission.

"The budget that I'll submit will cut the deficit by more than two-thirds over these first five years," Conrad. "These imbalances are just absolutely unsustainable."

The worsening economy is responsible for the even deeper fiscal mess inherited by Obama. As an illustration, CBO says the deficit for the current budget year, which began Oct. 1, will top $1.8 trillion, $93 billion more than foreseen by the White House. That would equal 13 percent of GDP, a level not seen since World War II.

The 2009 deficit, fueled by the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and diving tax revenues stemming from the worsening recession, is four times the previous $459 billion record set just last year.

The CBO's estimate for 2010 is worse as well, with a deficit of almost $1.4 trillion expected under administration policies, about $200 billion more than predicted by Obama.

Long-term deficit predictions have proven notoriously fickle George W. Bush inherited flawed projections of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus and instead produced record deficits and if the economy outperforms CBO's expectations, the deficits could prove significantly smaller.

Republicans say Obama's budget plan taxes, spends and borrows too much, and they've been sharply critical of his $787 billion economic stimulus measure and a just-passed $410 billion omnibus spending bill that awarded big increases to domestic agency budgets.

The administration says it inherited deficits totaling $9 trillion over the next decade and that its budget plan cuts $2 trillion from those deficits. But most of those spending reductions come from reducing costs for the war in Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

patteeu
03-22-2009, 09:09 AM
Very few Obama supporters care about this. They never really cared about out-of-control government spending or deficits.

wild1
03-22-2009, 09:12 AM
Look! Over there! $100 million in AIG bonuses!

RINGLEADER
03-22-2009, 03:13 PM
What's funny (or sad, depending on how you look at it) is that no matter where the deficit ends up being or how many jobs end up being lost he'll find a way to say that he cut the deficit in half and saved three million jobs or whatever it was he was promising.

Politically speaking I think half these stories that are coming out about wanting veterans to pay for their own care and Obama wanting to limit what companies can do is a ploy so that when he comes out and says he would never advocate such a thing he sounds reasonable.

Nevermind what's really going on over there or my plans that some believe will bankrupt the country -- just keep looking at how reasonable I am so my poll ratings stay high. ;)

mlyonsd
03-22-2009, 03:17 PM
It's all OK since we're planning on making 5% of the income earners buck up and take care of the deficit.

You other 95% of the population should be shining my shoes and bringing me drinks with little umbrellas btw.

RINGLEADER
03-22-2009, 03:23 PM
It's all OK since we're planning on making 5% of the income earners buck up and take care of the deficit.

You other 95% of the population should be shining my shoes and bringing me drinks with little umbrellas btw.

Can someone point to the last time a poor person hired someone?

mlyonsd
03-22-2009, 03:29 PM
Can someone point to the last time a poor person hired someone?

I'm not in charge of hiring or firing but my charity donations are hereby limited to kids that sell GS cookies, BS popcorn, or any other fund raiser for their school.

At least until we figure out who's bailing out everyone else.

RINGLEADER
03-22-2009, 03:32 PM
I'm not in charge of hiring or firing but my charity donations are hereby limited to kids that sell GS cookies, BS popcorn, or any other fund raiser for their school.

At least until we figure out who's bailing out everyone else.

Ah, but Obama has been working for ways to depress charitable donations as well. ;)

mlyonsd
03-22-2009, 03:49 PM
Ah, but Obama has been working for ways to depress charitable donations as well. ;)

I make a donation to Special Olympics every year and that one is now totally out of the question since I'm going to pay for him drinking $500 Scotch while he's practicing bowling in the WH basement.:)

Fish
03-22-2009, 04:05 PM
I wonder how differently things would be if Bush W hadn't turned the surplus he inherited into a trillion dollar deficit that was left on the White House steps for Obama to trip over when he arrived...?

***SPRAYER
03-22-2009, 04:09 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WXdMZCKCTU8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WXdMZCKCTU8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

mlyonsd
03-22-2009, 04:18 PM
I wonder how differently things would be if Bush W hadn't turned the surplus he inherited into a trillion dollar deficit that was left on the White House steps for Obama to trip over when he arrived...?

I don't under estimate the challenge Obama was handed. I'm also sure you'll admit as being a Senator he was part of what he handed himself.

But now he's throwing money that hasn't yet been earned against a wall like a pile of chit, and even he admits he doesn't know what will work and what won't.

I'd give him more of a break if his hands weren't already dirtied in the mess we're in.

RINGLEADER
03-22-2009, 04:21 PM
I wonder how differently things would be if Bush W hadn't turned the surplus he inherited into a trillion dollar deficit that was left on the White House steps for Obama to trip over when he arrived...?

Ah, the blame Bush argument surfaces.

During those salad days of surplus exactly how much of the deficit was paid off under Clinton? How much of the projected surplus came from unsustainable capital gains generated from a dot-com boom? If things were so good why were we in a recession when Bush was elected?

Government is the only economic operation that pretends the good times will last forever and subsequently make no adjustments during downturns without calling such revisions a "cut" (even if the baseline goes up).

Anyway, putting aside the actual facts of your argument, how does it change the facts of this thread: namely that OBAMA'S budget understated both its ability to generate economic growth as well as the size of the deficit OBAMA'S budget would create according to the non-partisan CBO?

mlyonsd
03-22-2009, 04:25 PM
Anyway, putting aside the actual facts of your argument, how does it change the facts of this thread: namely that OBAMA'S budget understated both its ability to generate economic growth as well as the size of the deficit OBAMA'S budget would create according to the non-partisan CBO?

The correct answer is Cheney and Rove are somehow running the CBO with Haliburton secretly funding them.

penchief
03-23-2009, 10:16 AM
The correct answer is Cheney and Rove are somehow running the CBO with Haliburton secretly funding them.

Since you mentioned patteeu's hero, Dick Cheney...

Wasn't it Dick Cheney, the neocon ringleader, who told us on Meet The Press and other news shows that "deficits don't matter." And didn't he also tell us that "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

The answer is yes, he did. The neocons believed in deficit spending as a rule. I don't. I don't like all the money that's being thrown around but you can thank Cheneyburton for running the real economy into the ground to the point where an infusion of demand is in dire need. I don't like deficit spending but if given a choice between spending a trillion dollars rebuilding Iraq or a trillion dollars rebuilding our own economy and our own infrastructure, I'm choosing America first.

Righties are okay with deficit spending as long as it's funding the military industrial complex or corporate welfare but God forbid we want to do something that will actually benefit American society. That's Communism!

penchief
03-23-2009, 10:21 AM
Very few Obama supporters care about this. They never really cared about out-of-control government spending or deficits.

Ooops. I forgot it was your hero that said "deficits don't matter" and that "Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Yep, I'll bet you were defending Dick Cheney when he made those comments.

I don't like all the spending but if we're going to do it we need to take care of our own problems before flushing a trillion dollars down the toilet in Iraq.

stevieray
03-23-2009, 10:47 AM
Damn good thing France didn't feel that way when they loaned us 40 mill..

I'm glad the Iraqis have aquired freedom..our Constituition declares all men are equal...all men, not just some..and they have the inalienable right to liberty.

RINGLEADER
03-23-2009, 10:49 AM
Ooops. I forgot it was your hero that said "deficits don't matter" and that "Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Yep, I'll bet you were defending Dick Cheney when he made those comments.

I don't like all the spending but if we're going to do it we need to take care of our own problems before flushing a trillion dollars down the toilet in Iraq.

Absolutely fair criticism but it's what they did with the deficit spending. Both Reagan and Bush's plans grew the economy. Most economists and the non-partisan CBO don't foresee the same benefits with the way Obama intends to spend the money.

As it is the liberals will get their wish list of spending projects and will have to live with the aftermath. Since there's nothing anyone can do to stop it I hope it works.

penchief
03-23-2009, 10:58 AM
Damn good thing France didn't feel that way when they loaned us 40 mill..

I'm glad the Iraqis have aquired freedom..our Constituition declares all men are equal...all men, not just some..and they have the inalienable right to liberty.

Where's our next investment in "freedom" going to be? I prefer we make that investment right here at home. How about we take care of our own problems first rather than invading and occupying another country?

penchief
03-23-2009, 11:05 AM
Absolutely fair criticism but it's what they did with the deficit spending. Both Reagan and Bush's plans grew the economy. Most economists and the non-partisan CBO don't foresee the same benefits with the way Obama intends to spend the money.

As it is the liberals will get their wish list of spending projects and will have to live with the aftermath. Since there's nothing anyone can do to stop it I hope it works.

How did they grow the economy? Their economic policies have been proven a disaster. They led to our current predicament. They shoveled their deficits into the laps of the military industrial complex and into corporate welfare. They enhanced the fake economy while devastating the real one.

KC Dan
03-23-2009, 11:05 AM
I prefer we make that investment right here at home.
They are...And at the rate of 400-500 times over war funding. Unfortunately, they may bankrupt us along the way...

Fish
03-23-2009, 11:17 AM
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7415/nationaldebtgdp9464813.gif

Notice the sharp climbing direction of the deficit when Obama took over. Seeing the direction we were headed when Obama took over, is it really that mindblowing to think that large amounts of money would be needed to correct that trend. Why ohh why can't Obama just fix this without spending money?

Will it be done perfectly? No, this is the government we're talking about. Will there be setbacks and fuckups? Of course. Is it better that we're spending that money here at home instead of in oil wars which profit Halliburton and Blackwater significantly more than the American public? IMO, absolutely.

patteeu
03-23-2009, 02:13 PM
Ooops. I forgot it was your hero that said "deficits don't matter" and that "Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Yep, I'll bet you were defending Dick Cheney when he made those comments.

I don't like all the spending but if we're going to do it we need to take care of our own problems before flushing a trillion dollars down the toilet in Iraq.

I'd be glad to defend just about anything the Greatest VP in US history* said. Do you have a link to the transcript so I can review the context?

But regardless of Dick Cheney's view, you're just confirming my statement. You never really cared about deficits or runaway spending.


---------------------
* as definitively established in a Rain Man engineered ChiefsPlanet poll (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=202652)

RINGLEADER
03-23-2009, 02:19 PM
How did they grow the economy? Their economic policies have been proven a disaster. They led to our current predicament. They shoveled their deficits into the laps of the military industrial complex and into corporate welfare. They enhanced the fake economy while devastating the real one.

By putting more money into the hands of the people who actually create and buy things. It's a more effective way of stoking the economy (or so history shows). I have more faith in the private sector to innovate and spend money and fail when something doesn't work. If you disagree that's okay too. Fact is we're going to see it tried your way on a scale never before attempted. Hope it works better this time then every other time (and place) it has been tried in the past.

penchief
03-23-2009, 04:59 PM
I'd be glad to defend just about anything the Greatest VP in US history* said. Do you have a link to the transcript so I can review the context?

But regardless of Dick Cheney's view, you're just confirming my statement. You never really cared about deficits or runaway spending.

---------------------
* as definitively established in a Rain Man engineered ChiefsPlanet poll (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=202652)

I don't see how you can make that claim. I don't like deficits but I do think that we need to do something to address the economic disaster that the Bush administration left the Obama administration. Doing nothing is not an option.

penchief
03-23-2009, 05:02 PM
By putting more money into the hands of the people who actually create and buy things. It's a more effective way of stoking the economy (or so history shows). I have more faith in the private sector to innovate and spend money and fail when something doesn't work. If you disagree that's okay too. Fact is we're going to see it tried your way on a scale never before attempted. Hope it works better this time then every other time (and place) it has been tried in the past.

We've been doing that ever since Reagan and they have proven that they are more interested in setting up off shore tax shelters and hording thier easy money rather than infusing it back into the economy. They've proven that they are more interested in exploiting overseas slave labor than they are creating jobs here in America. The very people that you put all of your faith in have already betrayed your trust and already screwed this country over.

HonestChieffan
03-23-2009, 05:27 PM
We've been doing that ever since Reagan and they have proven that they are more interested in setting up off shore tax shelters and hording thier easy money rather than infusing it back into the economy. They've proven that they are more interested in exploiting overseas slave labor than they are creating jobs here in America. The very people that you put all of your faith in have already betrayed your trust and already screwed this country over.

Have some more koolaide.

patteeu
03-23-2009, 07:03 PM
I don't see how you can make that claim. I don't like deficits but I do think that we need to do something to address the economic disaster that the Bush administration left the Obama administration. Doing nothing is not an option.

Just replace "economic" with "9/11" and that's pretty much the same thing George W. Bush said. The only difference is that he didn't throw his predecessor under the bus even though he'd have been justified in doing so.

No link for the Cheney quote, huh?

BucEyedPea
03-23-2009, 07:09 PM
Just replace "economic" with "9/11" and that's pretty much the same thing George W. Bush said.

Well, uh, neither side wasted a good crises that's for sure. Both sides did and are doing what they would have done anyway had neither crises occurred. That's the political classes for you. That's how govt grows.

penchief
03-23-2009, 08:29 PM
Have some more koolaide.

If you can't see what's happened right in front of your face over the past thirty years I'm afraid you are the one that needs to lay off the kool aid. The proof is in the pudding, bro.

stevieray
03-23-2009, 08:38 PM
Everywhere I look I sure see the 80's culture...:rolleyes:

forty plus years in the making...the culture shifted towards the me generation in the sixties.

penchief
03-23-2009, 08:44 PM
Just replace "economic" with "9/11" and that's pretty much the same thing George W. Bush said. The only difference is that he didn't throw his predecessor under the bus even though he'd have been justified in doing so.

No link for the Cheney quote, huh?

I watched Cheney defend his statement when asked about it on Meet the Press. I watched him cite Reagan in defense of his position, saying that Reagan proved they don't matter. That said, here is an article in the Weekly Standard that discusses Cheney's position. There are enough stories about his comments all over the web if you want to google them.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp

Considering that Bush let our guard down long enough to allow al Qaeda to strike us nine months into his watch is reason enough not to throw the previous administration under the bus. Especially considering that the Bush neocons mocked Clinton's "obsession" with bin Laden. But to say that they didn't try to blame Clinton for 9/11 is a little disingenous, IMO. Bush's proxies did everything in their power to divert responsibility from themselves to the previous administration by continually citing Clinton's "law enforcement approach" to the first Twin Towers bombings and to the Cole.

The difference between that and this is that this economic crisis was the direct result of Bush's disasterous economic policies and that much was evident even before the transition of power.

patteeu
03-23-2009, 09:59 PM
I watched Cheney defend his statement when asked about it on Meet the Press. I watched him cite Reagan in defense of his position, saying that Reagan proved they don't matter. That said, here is an article in the Weekly Standard that discusses Cheney's position. There are enough stories about his comments all over the web if you want to google them.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/245esggv.asp

How about a link to the meet the press transcript then? They're all available online so that shouldn't be too much to ask.

You can't find it because he never made this statement. Not in public anyway. The quote comes from a disgruntled former Bush administration official who was peddling his tell-all book. Maybe it's accurate and maybe it's not, but in the form you repeated it, it's certainly without any context at all.

Considering that Bush let our guard down long enough to allow al Qaeda to strike us nine months into his watch is reason enough not to throw the previous administration under the bus. Especially considering that the Bush neocons mocked Clinton's "obsession" with bin Laden. But to say that they didn't try to blame Clinton for 9/11 is a little disingenous, IMO. Bush's proxies did everything in their power to divert responsibility from themselves to the previous administration by continually citing Clinton's "law enforcement approach" to the first Twin Towers bombings and to the Cole.

The difference between that and this is that this economic crisis was the direct result of Bush's disasterous economic policies and that much was evident even before the transition of power.

Like I said, fiscal responsibility was never what it was about for people like you. Cheney may or may not have said that deficits don't matter, but it's Obama and his supporters who live it.

penchief
03-24-2009, 08:37 AM
How about a link to the meet the press transcript then? They're all available online so that shouldn't be too much to ask.

You can't find it because he never made this statement. Not in public anyway. The quote comes from a disgruntled former Bush administration official who was peddling his tell-all book. Maybe it's accurate and maybe it's not, but in the form you repeated it, it's certainly without any context at all..

I'll confess that I've been looking and cannot find it. However, I do remember watching a news show in which he was asked about those comments and he defended himself. I could have sworn it was Meet the Press because that was the only show I watched religiously when Russert was the host. I will keep looking because I know I didn't just imagine it. To think that he never would have been asked about such a claim would be less likely than a "disgruntled" former employee making that claim.

Like I said, fiscal responsibility was never what it was about for people like you. Cheney may or may not have said that deficits don't matter, but it's Obama and his supporters who live it.

No, you are hypocritical to assign your motives to me. Clearly fiscal responsibility was never what it was about for "people" like you. Cheney most likely did say that deficits don't matter and it was the Bush/Cheney neocons and their supporters who backed up those words through their actions.

I live my life as a fiscal conservative and would like my government to do so the same. But I also believe that government has a function. The difference between righties and lefties appears to be spending priorities. Righties prefer spending trillions on corporate welfare, the military industrial complex, and rebuilding the infrastructures of countries we destroy. Lefties prefer investing in the general welfare, the public good, and rebuilding the infrastructure of our own country. It is just as important how we spend our money and the impact that it has on our society.

I don't think that spending necessarily has to result in deficits. Unfortunately, the mess that was handed to the new administration requires immediate action which makes concerns about deficit spending secondary to the crisis, itself.

All of that said, it was clear from the start that Trickle Down Class Warfare deficit spending was intended to bankrupt the country and consolidate wealth and power. The fact that it is going to take an infusion via government spending to restore some sort of balance to the equation is not the fault of those assigned the task of fixing the devestation. It is the fault of those who gutted the system for their own benefit.

patteeu
03-24-2009, 09:17 AM
I'll confess that I've been looking and cannot find it. However, I do remember watching a news show in which he was asked about those comments and he defended himself. I could have sworn it was Meet the Press because that was the only show I watched religiously when Russert was the host. I will keep looking because I know I didn't just imagine it. To think that he never would have been asked about such a claim would be less likely than a "disgruntled" former employee making that claim.

In that case, maybe you should put this supposed Cheney quote on the shelf until you actually find some context.

No, you are hypocritical to assign your motives to me. Clearly fiscal responsibility was never what it was about for "people" like you. Cheney most likely did say that deficits don't matter and it was the Bush/Cheney neocons and their supporters who backed up those words through their actions.

I live my life as a fiscal conservative and would like my government to do so the same. But I also believe that government has a function. The difference between righties and lefties appears to be spending priorities. Righties prefer spending trillions on corporate welfare, the military industrial complex, and rebuilding the infrastructures of countries we destroy. Lefties prefer investing in the general welfare, the public good, and rebuilding the infrastructure of our own country. It is just as important how we spend our money and the impact that it has on our society.

I don't think that spending necessarily has to result in deficits. Unfortunately, the mess that was handed to the new administration requires immediate action which makes concerns about deficit spending secondary to the crisis, itself.

All of that said, it was clear from the start that Trickle Down Class Warfare deficit spending was intended to bankrupt the country and consolidate wealth and power. The fact that it is going to take an infusion via government spending to restore some sort of balance to the equation is not the fault of those assigned the task of fixing the devestation. It is the fault of those who gutted the system for their own benefit.

I'm sorry. Your actions betray your words. There's no way I'm believing that you care at all about runaway spending. You supported it in the form of Barack Obama's candidacy even before the financial crisis emerged and you haven't even flinched as plans for significantly bigger government have grown into plans for astronomically bigger government with endless deficits that dwarf the worst of the Bush deficits.

penchief
03-24-2009, 05:42 PM
In that case, maybe you should put this supposed Cheney quote on the shelf until you actually find some context.

I regret that I have yet to find proof of what I witnessed with my own eyes and ears. But I'm won't back down from what I witnessed. That said, nobody has denied that Cheney said it, not even Cheney.

I'm sorry. Your actions betray your words. There's no way I'm believing that you care at all about runaway spending. You supported it in the form of Barack Obama's candidacy even before the financial crisis emerged and you haven't even flinched as plans for significantly bigger government have grown into plans for astronomically bigger government with endless deficits that dwarf the worst of the Bush deficits.

I believe that the government should have been spending on infrastructure for the past thirty years. There are things that I do believe government should be spending on. Such as defense, infrastructure, education, research, environmental protections, health care, etc. However, that doesn't mean that I believe we should have deficit spending to do it. On the other hand, the Reagan Neocons and the Bush Neocons practiced deficit spending as a matter of policy. They've as much as admitted it.

Obama's deficit spending will dwarf Bush's only because Bush drained the well dry. We're going to have to fill that well with water before we can prime the pump again. The neocons, business crooks, and war profiteers succeeded in completely gutting our economy. They sucked every bit of life out of the system and left the new administration with nothing to work with. Now you want to point the finger at Obama who has little to no options in cleaning up the aftermath of the corpo-republican feeding frenzy.

patteeu
03-24-2009, 06:45 PM
I regret that I have yet to find proof of what I witnessed with my own eyes and ears. But I'm won't back down from what I witnessed. That said, nobody has denied that Cheney said it, not even Cheney.

LMAO How am I supposed to know if Cheney has denied saying "it" if we haven't even established what "it" is?

I believe that the government should have been spending on infrastructure for the past thirty years. There are things that I do believe government should be spending on. Such as defense, infrastructure, education, research, environmental protections, health care, etc. However, that doesn't mean that I believe we should have deficit spending to do it. On the other hand, the Reagan Neocons and the Bush Neocons practiced deficit spending as a matter of policy. They've as much as admitted it.

Obama's deficit spending will dwarf Bush's only because Bush drained the well dry. We're going to have to fill that well with water before we can prime the pump again. The neocons, business crooks, and war profiteers succeeded in completely gutting our economy. They sucked every bit of life out of the system and left the new administration with nothing to work with. Now you want to point the finger at Obama who has little to no options in cleaning up the aftermath of the corpo-republican feeding frenzy.

Penchief http://i.pbase.com/o4/23/628123/1/54421958.heart.gif Out-of-Control Spending.

penchief
03-24-2009, 07:49 PM
LMAO How am I supposed to know if Cheney has denied saying "it" if we haven't even established what "it" is?

So you think O'Neil is lying? What proof do you have that he is lying? Since he made the claim and nobody has denied it, what is a person supposed to think? Since the claim is widespread and nobody has done anything to deny it and since I saw Cheney not deny it when questioned about it I'm going to assume that he said it. You can think whatever you want.

Penchief http://i.pbase.com/o4/23/628123/1/54421958.heart.gif Out-of-Control Spending.

patteeu loves out-of-control spending, too. And Dick Cheney loves deficit spending.

mlyonsd
03-24-2009, 08:05 PM
I'm not trying to intervene here but I do vaguely remember a conversation Cheney had with some Sunday talking head. When I say "vaguely", that means take it with a grain of salt.

What I remember Cheney saying was that at a time of war deficit spending was acceptable.

My own POV on what he meant at the time and what the Obama and Democratic congress is doing is taking Cheney completely out of context.

JMO

penchief
03-24-2009, 08:12 PM
I'm not trying to intervene here but I do vaguely remember a conversation Cheney had with some Sunday talking head. When I say "vaguely", that means take it with a grain of salt.

What I remember Cheney saying was that at a time of war deficit spending was acceptable.

My own POV on what he meant at the time and what the Obama and Democratic congress is doing is taking Cheney completely out of context.

JMO

I know this will be hard to believe but I didn't even know that Obama brought it up when I responsed to patteeu's post. I just thought it was ironic that pat was pointing fingers when his hero was an advocate of deficit spending.

And thanks for mentioning about vaguely remembering the Cheney talk show appearance. As adamant as I am about my beliefs I'm not willing to make something up just to support them.

patteeu
03-24-2009, 08:30 PM
I know this will be hard to believe but I didn't even know that Obama brought it up when I responsed to patteeu's post. I just thought it was ironic that pat was pointing fingers when his hero was an advocate of deficit spending.

And thanks for mentioning about vaguely remembering the Cheney talk show appearance. As adamant as I am about my beliefs I'm not willing to make something up just to support them.

FWIW, I'm not accusing you of making anything up, I'm just accusing you of failing to verify something that you want to believe and failing to be curious about the context of the quote if it is, in fact, accurate.

It's one thing to say that deficits don't matter... as much as something else or under certain conditions, and it's a completely different thing to say that deficits don't matter at all, ever. It's completely unbelievable to me that Dick Cheney would say the latter.

penchief
03-24-2009, 08:39 PM
FWIW, I'm not accusing you of making anything up, I'm just accusing you of failing to verify something that you want to believe and failing to be curious about the context of the quote if it is, in fact, accurate.

It's one thing to say that deficits don't matter... as much as something else or under certain conditions, and it's a completely different thing to say that deficits don't matter at all, ever. It's completely unbelievable to me that Dick Cheney would say the latter.

And I think you are resorting to obfuscation because you're unwilling to confront a contradiction within your position presented by Cheney's advocacy of deficit spending as well as Reagan's and Bush's pursuit of it.

patteeu
03-24-2009, 09:00 PM
And I think you are resorting to obfuscation because you're unwilling to confront a contradiction within your position presented by Cheney's advocacy of deficit spending as well as Reagan's and Bush's pursuit of it.

It's hardly obfuscation on my part when all I'm asking you for is clarification of what Cheney actually said and the context in which he said it. You can't provide the clarification from a credible source so the waters remain muddy. But that isn't my doing.

penchief
03-24-2009, 09:25 PM
It's hardly obfuscation on my part when all I'm asking you for is clarification of what Cheney actually said and the context in which he said it. You can't provide the clarification from a credible source so the waters remain muddy. But that isn't my doing.

I suppose we could match Cheney's words to the actions of both the Reagan and Bush neocon administrations. Both pursued deficit spending like drunken sailors. They both compounded deficit spending with massive tax cuts for the top two percent. It's almost as if the deficits were intentional. I'd say that Cheney's comments jibe quite nicely with the actions of both neocon administrations of which he was a member.

patteeu
03-24-2009, 09:41 PM
I suppose we could match Cheney's words to the actions of both the Reagan and Bush neocon administrations. Both pursued deficit spending like drunken sailors. They both compounded deficit spending with massive tax cuts for the top two percent. It's almost as if the deficits were intentional. I'd say that Cheney's comments jibe quite nicely with the actions of both neocon administrations of which he was a member.

:LOL: If Cheney, Reagan, and Bush believed that deficits didn't matter at all, they would have spent money like Obama does.

Drunken sailors? Ha! Obama makes GWBush and Ronald Reagan look like Dave Ramsey clones by comparison.

penchief
03-25-2009, 07:48 AM
:LOL: If Cheney, Reagan, and Bush believed that deficits didn't matter at all, they would have spent money like Obama does.

Drunken sailors? Ha! Obama makes GWBush and Ronald Reagan look like Dave Ramsey clones by comparison.

Because they weren't handed an economic crisis that required a massive infusion of demand just to keep the economy afloat. No, Reagan and Bush only choose deficit spending as a matter of principle. They believed in it, they liked it, they thought it was good policy. Obama may be forced to spend in a big way but I don't see him pursuing deficit spending for the sake of deficit spending.

Reagan and Bush didn't have to pursue deficit spending but did so as a matter of policy. Obama has few options if any when it comes to fixing the mess that right wing economic ideology has created.

patteeu
03-25-2009, 08:36 AM
Because they weren't handed an economic crisis that required a massive infusion of demand just to keep the economy afloat. No, Reagan and Bush only choose deficit spending as a matter of principle. They believed in it, they liked it, they thought it was good policy. Obama may be forced to spend in a big way but I don't see him pursuing deficit spending for the sake of deficit spending.

Reagan and Bush didn't have to pursue deficit spending but did so as a matter of policy. Obama has few options if any when it comes to fixing the mess that right wing economic ideology has created.

Lame excuse after lame excuse. Obama was promising dramatically increased spending over that of GWBush even before the financial crisis emerged. I'm not going to apologize for Bush spending the way you do for Obama spending, but it's important to remember that Obama spending plans dwarf that of his Republican predecessors and that's even before we get to the so-called emergency bailouts. The democrats remain the party of big spending. They always have been, despite the false claims of the past 8 years.

penchief
03-25-2009, 10:13 AM
Lame excuse after lame excuse. Obama was promising dramatically increased spending over that of GWBush even before the financial crisis emerged. I'm not going to apologize for Bush spending the way you do for Obama spending, but it's important to remember that Obama spending plans dwarf that of his Republican predecessors and that's even before we get to the so-called emergency bailouts. The democrats remain the party of big spending. They always have been, despite the false claims of the past 8 years.

ha ha. You're funny.

Your boys hand the new guy a ticking time bomb and ride off into the sunset and then have the gall to politicize the crisis by criticizing the democrats for doing what has to be done to clean up their mess.

***SPRAYER
03-25-2009, 03:43 PM
Don't worry about it, B.O. will just print up some more!

Rigodan
03-25-2009, 03:56 PM
ha ha. You're funny.

Your boys hand the new guy a ticking time bomb and ride off into the sunset and then have the gall to politicize the crisis by criticizing the democrats for doing what has to be done to clean up their mess.

Education reform, Health care reform, and energy reform aren't necessary for the economy to rebound. Neither was the stimulus bill. The CBO predicted BEFORE the stimulus bill was passed that the economy would be on the rebound the second half of this year and they still passed the damn thing anyway. It was by no means necessary.