Four more years of increasing deficits. Way to go America!

[tlongII]

It boggles my mind that apparently to the majority of US citizens deficit reduction was not their #1 priority. I knew Obama would win, but it is dis-heartening to see where most Americans' priorities are.

 

[Natebishop3]

It boggles my mind that apparently to the majority of US citizens deficit reduction was not their #1 priority. I knew Obama would win, but it is dis-heartening to see where most Americans' priorities are.

Out of sight, out of mind. Just like credit cards, people think it's free money. Spend spend spend..... but one day it will come back to bite us in the ass.

 

[magnifier661]

It boggles my mind that apparently to the majority of US citizens deficit reduction was not their #1 priority. I knew Obama would win, but it is dis-heartening to see where most Americans' priorities are.

Yeah it really boggles my mind as well. I know civil rights are important; but if we don't have a strong economy; then our country is going to shit. Hopefully the net 4 years Obama will learn from the terrible mistakes he's made in the white house and try and bring the country together. Follow the constitution and actually have a budget that can chip away from our national debt.

If he doesn't, then I doubt we will see a majority Democratic rule in any of the governments.

 

[Eastoff]

Don't question the social issues. Until the republicans or a new party takes a socially liberal stand, it'll be really hard to tear those votes away.

 

[Natebishop3]

Don't question the social issues. Until the republicans or a new party takes a socially liberal stand, it'll be really hard to tear those votes away.

Or the country will go bankrupt because China gets tired of footing our bills.

 

[magnifier661]

Don't question the social issues. Until the republicans or a new party takes a socially liberal stand, it'll be really hard to tear those votes away.

Well it is a good idea, the social issues aren't what is going to save this union. We will be bankrupt if we keep this up.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

It boggles my mind that apparently to the majority of US citizens deficit reduction was not their #1 priority. I knew Obama would win, but it is dis-heartening to see where most Americans' priorities are.

Not true!! President Obama stated he will lower the deficit. The House wants to lower it as well. So I am sure the President's next budget will have that as a part of it unless he introduces some new legislation to do so.

 

[magnifier661]

Not true!! President Obama stated he will lower the deficit. The House wants to lower it as well. So I am sure the President's next budget will have that as a part of it unless he introduces some new legislation to do so.

He can want to lower the deficit; but if he doesn't have a budget; then it's just an idea. There needs to be major spending cuts; and he's already cut too much of many Republican spending avenues. Now he must cut into the Democrat heavily favored issues; which will make him extremely unpopular in his party. I think it's funny that taxing the 1% higher is viewed as cutting into the deficit.

These and other corrections to simple interpretations of the micro evidence on labor responses to changes in tax rates clearly suggest that aggregate labor responses to tax rates may be quite large. Moreover, as welfare economics shows, raising tax rates by only a few percentage points on a sizable tax rate base- as in President Obama’s proposal- will tend to have large costs in efficiency even when the elasticity of response to the tax increase is relatively small.

I would not argue, however, that the evidence conclusively proves that the higher taxes proposed would do significant damage. Suppose then to be conservative that there is only a 50-50 chance (I believe the true probability is much more than 50-50) that the tax increases proposed by Hollande and Obama would sizably reduce hours worked and the effort put into work relative to the magnitude of the tax increases, and would cause sizable loses in efficiency relative to the additional revenue raised. Would such probabilities justify much higher tax rates?

To answer this question, one has to consider the potential benefits and costs of raising taxes on higher income individuals, and determine whether expected benefits exceed expected costs. If higher taxes on the rich only slightly affected their work effort (the usual assumption in revenue calculations), tax revenue would rise, but not by a lot since the great majority of revenue comes from taxes on the other 98% of taxpayers. With only a little increase in revenue under the most favorable conditions about labor supply responses, such tax increases would do little to close the budget deficit, and not much additional revenue would be available to redistribute to lower income families.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2...er-income-individuals-a-good-idea-becker.html

So the gain in tax revenue from higher taxes on richer individuals would not be great even in the chance that these taxes only slightly discourage their hours worked and effort at work. But the cost to the economy in the chance that higher taxes greatly discourage their effort (relative to the magnitude of the tax increase) is likely to be substantial in terms of fewer hours worked and less work effort by high income individuals, reduced incentives to start businesses, less investments in their human capital, investing abroad rather than in the US or other countries that raised these taxes, and even migration abroad, especially in countries like France where many talented Frenchmen are already working in Britain, the US, and other countries.

So I conclude that even with considerable uncertainty about how much higher taxes on higher-income individuals would reduce their work effort and their investments, the expected gain from raising these taxes is likely to be negative. The trend toward lower marginal tax rates during the past 50 years was perhaps mainly the result of interest group pressure from higher income individuals, but it also receives support from a benefit-cost analysis of the expected effects of tax increases on behavior.

This is what I was going at. These 1% will not work as hard and reduce their US investments because their is no incentive to invest in America. They can stuff their "Swiss Bank Accounts" and invest in other countries like China or parts of Africa. And Obama can't tax them on those investments. Basically, money in America will lower by investments from the 1%.

 

[HailBlazers]

From his very own NBC:

Now that he's won, Six splitting headaches waiting for Obama

 

[Eastoff]

From his very own NBC:

Now that he's won, Six splitting headaches waiting for Obama

Yeah, "Congratulations! You get to have the hardest job!"

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Stimulus3

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Stimulus3

Well, if so, this time give the money back to the people.

 

[mobes23]

People weren't fussing when Bush ran up deficits in a strong economy. Getting all drama queened up for bigger deficits in a weak economy does not make sense. In other words, the budget problem is a problem caused by both parties and one that we need to address together. Finger pointing doesn't accomplish anything and it's not accurate.

If we're going to go the finger pointing route, then we can spend hours and days discussing whether Bush or Obama screwed up the budget more. At the end of the accusations, nothing will have been accomplished and no one will be convinced one way or another. How about ideas to make things better? Personally, I'd offer up decreases to unemployment benefits -- can't say I've read up on it lately, but last I heard, it went two years and that's way too long, if true.

 

[magnifier661]

People weren't fussing when Bush ran up deficits in a strong economy. Getting all drama queened up for bigger deficits in a weak economy does not make sense. In other words, the budget problem is a problem caused by both parties and one that we need to address together. Finger pointing doesn't accomplish anything and it's not accurate.

If we're going to go the finger pointing route, then we can spend hours and days discussing whether Bush or Obama screwed up the budget more. At the end of the accusations, nothing will have been accomplished and no one will be convinced one way or another. How about ideas to make things better? Personally, I'd offer up decreases to unemployment benefits -- can't say I've read up on it lately, but last I heard, it went two years and that's way too long, if true.

Excuse me?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

Bush needed 8 years to increase the debt 4.899 trillion; while it only took Obama 4 years to match Bush's 8 year reign.

 

[Denny Crane]

People weren't fussing when Bush ran up deficits in a strong economy. Getting all drama queened up for bigger deficits in a weak economy does not make sense. In other words, the budget problem is a problem caused by both parties and one that we need to address together. Finger pointing doesn't accomplish anything and it's not accurate.

If we're going to go the finger pointing route, then we can spend hours and days discussing whether Bush or Obama screwed up the budget more. At the end of the accusations, nothing will have been accomplished and no one will be convinced one way or another. How about ideas to make things better? Personally, I'd offer up decreases to unemployment benefits -- can't say I've read up on it lately, but last I heard, it went two years and that's way too long, if true.

Read this article, written in 2006, and get back to me.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/bush_agonistes.html

The frustration of conservatives, who constitute the Republican Party's core, with many actions of George W. Bush and the Republican Congress is hardly news. I quote dozens of prominent conservative commentators complaining about Bush's policies and proposals dating all the way back to the 2000 election in my book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."

 

[Natebishop3]

People weren't fussing when Bush ran up deficits in a strong economy. Getting all drama queened up for bigger deficits in a weak economy does not make sense. In other words, the budget problem is a problem caused by both parties and one that we need to address together. Finger pointing doesn't accomplish anything and it's not accurate.

If we're going to go the finger pointing route, then we can spend hours and days discussing whether Bush or Obama screwed up the budget more. At the end of the accusations, nothing will have been accomplished and no one will be convinced one way or another. How about ideas to make things better? Personally, I'd offer up decreases to unemployment benefits -- can't say I've read up on it lately, but last I heard, it went two years and that's way too long, if true.

Honest question: at what point does Bush stop being an excuse for Obama?

 

[mobes23]

Read this article, written in 2006, and get back to me.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/bush_agonistes.html

The frustration of conservatives, who constitute the Republican Party's core, with many actions of George W. Bush and the Republican Congress is hardly news. I quote dozens of prominent conservative commentators complaining about Bush's policies and proposals dating all the way back to the 2000 election in my book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."

Just did and it's good to see...I don't think it captured the prevailing attitude of the time, but I like it.

 

[Denny Crane]

How is it possible, at all, to compromise on deficit reduction? One side demands tax hikes to cover historically high levels of govt. spending. And they offer "cuts" that aren't cuts at all. "Instead of spending 10000000 $trillion, we'll only spend 1000 $trillion" even though we're only spending 4 $trillion now. It's a cut in the massive increase in spending. So it's easy to offer what look to be "big" cuts.

 

[Denny Crane]

Just did and it's good to see...I don't think it captured the prevailing attitude of the time, but I like it.

It was the prevailing attitude of the time. I remember after each budget year the complaints among republicans about how govt. spending was growing at a rate much faster than inflation. On all things, especially left-wing social type programs.

FWIW.

 

[mobes23]

Honest question: at what point does Bush stop being an excuse for Obama?

It's not an excuse, it's pointing out that the problem has gone on longer than Obama and happened with both parties. If anything, I'm saying let's stop pointing fingers (which accomplishes squat) and start working together to find solutions.

 

[magnifier661]

Honest question: at what point does Bush stop being an excuse for Obama?

And in all reality; Obama will double the debt spending of Bush's 8 year term.

It is estimated that if Obama's budget projects stay; the spending will be at 9.34 trillion during his two terms. And most of this spending is on Obama's actual policies he implimented his first two years.

Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.

Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now.

As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it."

His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's not an excuse, it's pointing out that the problem has gone on longer than Obama and happened with both parties. If anything, I'm saying let's stop pointing fingers (which accomplishes squat) and start working together to find solutions.

It is an excuse though. The excuse is that Bush fucked up the economy before Obama even took office, and that he needs more time to finish what he's started. That's what I've heard multiple times, so I'm not just making it up. With that said, in your opinion, at what point can Obama and his supporters no longer bring up Bush as a reason for the economy sucking? Next year? Two years? Or will Obama ride the "Bush fucked us" train four his entire eight year reign?

 

[mobes23]

Excuse me?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/



Bush needed 8 years to increase the debt 4.899 trillion; while it only took Obama 4 years to match Bush's 8 year reign.

Aren't both sets of numbers bad? Again, we can discuss all day whether the rock or the hard place is more evil and it accomplishes nothing. Also, keep in mind that federal budgets don't change year to year to match the economy. Running a large budget deficit in a strong economy means a larger deficit in a weak economy. But enough on the finger pointing. What's the right side going to offer up to meet in the middle? So far I'm hearing zero give.

 

[Denny Crane]

Aren't both sets of numbers bad? Again, we can discuss all day whether the rock or the hard place is more evil and it accomplishes nothing. Also, keep in mind that federal budgets don't change year to year to match the economy. Running a large budget deficit in a strong economy means a larger deficit in a weak economy. But enough on the finger pointing. What's the right side going to offer up to meet in the middle? So far I'm hearing zero give.

I would offer up, "cut the budget to $3T, then we'll talk about raising revenue to balance it from there."

 

[magnifier661]

Aren't both sets of numbers bad? Again, we can discuss all day whether the rock or the hard place is more evil and it accomplishes nothing. Also, keep in mind that federal budgets don't change year to year to match the economy. Running a large budget deficit in a strong economy means a larger deficit in a weak economy. But enough on the finger pointing. What's the right side going to offer up to meet in the middle? So far I'm hearing zero give.

I pointed my finger at Bush plenty. I never supported the problems Bush made. As a Republican; he embarrassed our party with frivolous spending and idiotic decisions. I put plenty of Blame on Bush. Which is why I have no problem blaming Obama.

Don't think that I'm just ranting on Obama only. I was pissed at Bush Sr. and Jr. This was the reason I voted for Clinton his two terms. That dude actually got it right. He brought both parties together; which was why the economy got a boost. Obama is so far left wing in his decisions; that it will create a "grid-lock" and nothing is going to get done. And I'm tired of Obama blaming Bush; when his administration is spending more than Bush ever did on their policies.

 

[Natebishop3]

I pointed my finger at Bush plenty. I never supported the problems Bush made. As a Republican; he embarrassed our party with frivolous spending and idiotic decisions. I put plenty of Blame on Bush. Which is why I have no problem blaming Obama.

Don't think that I'm just ranting on Obama only. I was pissed at Bush Sr. and Jr. This was the reason I voted for Clinton his two terms. That dude actually got it right. He brought both parties together; which was why the economy got a boost. Obama is so far left wing in his decisions; that it will create a "grid-lock" and nothing is going to get done. And I'm tired of Obama blaming Bush; when his administration is spending more than Bush ever did on their policies.

Clinton was responsible for NAFTA. Not a good move on his part.

 

[Denny Crane]

Clinton was responsible for NAFTA. Not a good move on his part.

NAFTA was fine. The war on drugs turned Mexico into a nation run by gangs.

 

[magnifier661]

Clinton was responsible for NAFTA. Not a good move on his part.

Absolutely; but his postives greatly outweighed the negatives IMO. Just like we can discuss the same issues with Reagan. I think of Reagan being the best President our Country ever had; but he made some mistakes as well.

When I evaluate an Administration; I see the entire picture. I look at the state of the union when he came into office, to how it was when he left.

 

[Natebishop3]

See, I look at Clinton and I see a guy who rode out the tail end of Reaganomics and then cut back military spending drastically to build up a surplus. Shit man, if you cut back our military budget you're bound to save tons of cash.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

See, I look at Clinton and I see a guy who rode out the tail end of Reaganomics and then cut back military spending drastically to build up a surplus. Shit man, if you cut back our military budget you're bound to save tons of cash.

I fully expect Obama to do this as well.