Where are the Threads

[BigPapaVol]

about how the last administration doubled the national debt? Our last administration was an absolute embarrassment on this front and deserves any scorn we can heap upon it, but this current crowd deserves some sideways glances too.

Given that projections for this year include a deficit 4 times larger than last year's record, I assumed that we'd have a few folks on here grousing. Where'd everyone go on the issue?

 

[allvol123]

Ha! Was thinking the same thing today. Looks the LGs, OWBs, and others are MIA on this issue.

 

[hndog609]

about how the last administration doubled the national debt? Our last administration was an absolute embarrassment on this front and deserves any scorn we can heap upon it, but this current crowd deserves some sideways glances too.

Given that projections for this year include a deficit 4 times larger than last year's record, I assumed that we'd have a few folks on here grousing. Where'd everyone go on the issue?

If not called out on the issue it would seem that, for obvious reasons, they wouldn't be bringing it up on their own.

 

[rjd970]

Can't we chalk up about $700 Billion of that to the last administration and TARP? In all fairness, it was backed up by Obama too...but he wasn't the man in charge.

Just making sure we are heaping scorn both ways here.

I understand that Obama has been equally crappy thus far though on the spending front, and is set to exceed Bush. It is noted.

 

[utvolpj]

Its not like we're going to run out of money so I say spend it all. If we need more we'll just hire a few temps down at the mint to work overtime.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Who cares if we spend money, all we have to do is print money, hello!

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

Its not like we're going to run out of money so I say spend it all. If we need more we'll just hire a few temps down at the mint to work overtime.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

i hoep to God you are joking, otherwise you need to go back to HS econ class

 

[Lexvol]

George Will : Upside-Down Economy - Townhall.com

In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by "an immense, tutelary power" determined to take "sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate." It would be a power "absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident and gentle," aiming for our happiness but wanting "to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness." It would, Tocqueville said, provide people security, anticipate their needs, direct their industries and divide their inheritances. It would envelop society in "a network of petty regulations -- complicated, minute and uniform." But softly: "It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them" until people resemble "a herd of timid and industrious animals" of which the government is the shepherd.

 

[utvolpj]

i hoep to God you are joking, otherwise you need to go back to HS econ class

I have a degree in Econ so I'll be fine. But I appreciate the concern

 

[lawgator1]

First, I appreciate the effort by BPV to be even-handed in his criticism of over-spending by both administrations. We could use a bit more of that around here, if you ask me.

Having said that, the announced theory behind the current spending spree is that its temporary, designed to keep people and certain business sectors afloat while the economy turns around. Now, the last administration ended on that note, and there is some academic support for the notion.

But, I'd be a liar if I said I was not also suspicious that its an excuse to push through some long-sought spending in areas we don't need in the long term. If we are honest, those on the left will admit their own unease at it, while those on the right will admit that they really can't prove the long-term agenda based on what is going on now in terms of spending, given that its an extension of what a pro-business Republican administration started back in September of last year.

The reality is that we won't know how well this works -- or doesn't work -- for a number of years.

 

[KB5252]

First, I appreciate the effort by BPV to be even-handed in his criticism of over-spending by both administrations. We could use a bit more of that around here, if you ask me.

Having said that, the announced theory behind the current spending spree is that its temporary, designed to keep people and certain business sectors afloat while the economy turns around. Now, the last administration ended on that note, and there is some academic support for the notion.

But, I'd be a liar if I said I was not also suspicious that its an excuse to push through some long-sought spending in areas we don't need in the long term. If we are honest, those on the left will admit their own unease at it, while those on the right will admit that they really can't prove the long-term agenda based on what is going on now in terms of spending, given that its an extension of what a pro-business Republican administration started back in September of last year.

The reality is that we won't know how well this works -- or doesn't work -- for a number of years.

But this is not how it was sold to the American people.

I would also argue that Obama's plans to move forward with health care reform goes a long way in showing there is a long term agenda here.

 

[droski]

what i find hillarious/annoying is that obama is employing the same; win at all costs, the ends justify the means, i know better the rest of the country does; tactics that the democrats and the media went apecrap about with cheney and bush, but no one is talking about it.

 

[vols4sure]

First, I appreciate the effort by BPV to be even-handed in his criticism of over-spending by both administrations. We could use a bit more of that around here, if you ask me.

Having said that, the announced theory behind the current spending spree is that its temporary, designed to keep people and certain business sectors afloat while the economy turns around. Now, the last administration ended on that note, and there is some academic support for the notion.

But, I'd be a liar if I said I was not also suspicious that its an excuse to push through some long-sought spending in areas we don't need in the long term. If we are honest, those on the left will admit their own unease at it, while those on the right will admit that they really can't prove the long-term agenda based on what is going on now in terms of spending, given that its an extension of what a pro-business Republican administration started back in September of last year.

The reality is that we won't know how well this works -- or doesn't work -- for a number of years.

I would have to say that there is significant evidence of long-term spending as compared to little evidence, if any, that he plans this to be short-term.

 

[Lexvol]

what i find hillarious/annoying is that obama is employing the same; win at all costs, the ends justify the means, i know better the rest of the country does; tactics that the democrats and the media went apecrap about with cheney and bush, but no one is talking about it.

My biggest fear is media collusion with the govt. This is not Hannity or Rush speak (before the accusations fly). This is unchecked spending taken at face value by a herd of reporters who are socialists at heart, and they are doing a disservice to the American people.

 

[utvolpj]

How much gov't spending on programs is actually just temporary?

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

My biggest fear is media collusion with the govt. This is not Hannity or Rush speak (before the accusations fly). This is unchecked spending taken at face value by a herd of reporters who are socialists at heart, and they are doing a disservice to the American people.

the founding fathers distrusted the media, however that was their intent, the media was never supposed to be in line with the government, they were SUPPOSED to provide the populus with what was going on, so the information didnt come strate from the state, where as now the media with the exception of a few are doing anything they can to gain favor with the annointed one

 

[droski]

How much gov't spending on programs is actually just temporary?

most of it is theoretically temporary, but we all know how that works. don't tell me 3 years from now the democrats and local politicians wont be up in arms about all the poor people losing jobs or the poor people losing funding that were never supposed to be permanent in the first place.

 

[volinbham]

First, I appreciate the effort by BPV to be even-handed in his criticism of over-spending by both administrations. We could use a bit more of that around here, if you ask me.

Having said that, the announced theory behind the current spending spree is that its temporary, designed to keep people and certain business sectors afloat while the economy turns around. Now, the last administration ended on that note, and there is some academic support for the notion.

But, I'd be a liar if I said I was not also suspicious that its an excuse to push through some long-sought spending in areas we don't need in the long term. If we are honest, those on the left will admit their own unease at it, while those on the right will admit that they really can't prove the long-term agenda based on what is going on now in terms of spending, given that its an extension of what a pro-business Republican administration started back in September of last year.

The reality is that we won't know how well this works -- or doesn't work -- for a number of years.

Bush "announced" that his deficit spending would be short-term.

As for evidence of long-term, you need to look beyond the stimulus bill. BO has announced a massive budget and massive spending plans on education, healthcare and energy. These are long term plans and his office projects a deficit of over 1/2 trillion by the end of his term (large even by W standards).

Anyone who complained about W's deficits should be crapping their pants about BO's.

 

[BigPapaVol]

First, I appreciate the effort by BPV to be even-handed in his criticism of over-spending by both administrations. We could use a bit more of that around here, if you ask me.

Having said that, the announced theory behind the current spending spree is that its temporary, designed to keep people and certain business sectors afloat while the economy turns around. Now, the last administration ended on that note, and there is some academic support for the notion.

But, I'd be a liar if I said I was not also suspicious that its an excuse to push through some long-sought spending in areas we don't need in the long term. If we are honest, those on the left will admit their own unease at it, while those on the right will admit that they really can't prove the long-term agenda based on what is going on now in terms of spending, given that its an extension of what a pro-business Republican administration started back in September of last year.

The reality is that we won't know how well this works -- or doesn't work -- for a number of years.

This is the main component of the lie. When has the government ever set a spending precedent and simply stopped it at some point? The money is always allocated to some "more pressing" need.

 

[lawgator1]

what i find hillarious/annoying is that obama is employing the same; win at all costs, the ends justify the means, i know better the rest of the country does; tactics that the democrats and the media went apecrap about with cheney and bush, but no one is talking about it.

I would have to say that there is significant evidence of long-term spending as compared to little evidence, if any, that he plans this to be short-term.

My biggest fear is media collusion with the govt. This is not Hannity or Rush speak (before the accusations fly). This is unchecked spending taken at face value by a herd of reporters who are socialists at heart, and they are doing a disservice to the American people.

Bush "announced" that his deficit spending would be short-term.

As for evidence of long-term, you need to look beyond the stimulus bill. BO has announced a massive budget and massive spending plans on education, healthcare and energy. These are long term plans and his office projects a deficit of over 1/2 trillion by the end of his term (large even by W standards).

Anyone who complained about W's deficits should be crapping their pants about BO's.

This is the main component of the lie. When has the government ever set a spending precedent and simply stopped it at some point? The money is always allocated to some "more pressing" need.

All very reasonable points. My impression is that certain of the spending is not permanent, certainly the bank stimulus portion is not. And then I read about various specific purchases and spending that is singular in nature.

I don't know what the breakdown is between actual expansion, let's say, of entitlement programs like Medicare or any federal share of Medicaid.

It would be interesting to know what the numbers are of what is being opened up as perpetual spending on a year over year basis, versus what would have to be renewed.

 

[volinbham]

All very reasonable points. My impression is that certain of the spending is not permanent, certainly the bank stimulus portion is not. And then I read about various specific purchases and spending that is singular in nature.

I don't know what the breakdown is between actual expansion, let's say, of entitlement programs like Medicare or any federal share of Medicaid.

It would be interesting to know what the numbers are of what is being opened up as perpetual spending on a year over year basis, versus what would have to be renewed.

How about the Omnibus spending bill where BO endorsed and sanctioned 8 - 10% increases in funding for ongoing programs; despite the fact that Stimulus money was already growing these programs? In effect, many of the programs saw increases of over 40% all while the country's economic output was shrinking and taxpayers were facing no increases and sometimes cuts to their income.

This was his first shot at non-temporary spending and he jumped on for a major increase.

 

[volinbham]

It would be interesting to know what the numbers are of what is being opened up as perpetual spending on a year over year basis, versus what would have to be renewed.

The history of our budgeting process whether R or D controlled is that once existing programs receive a bump in spending there is rarely (if ever) a reversal in the spending. In fact, when the GROWTH is smaller than it has been in the past it is referred to as a CUT even though spending increases.

The current administration has shown far less fiscal responsibility than the previous one and that is saying A LOT!

 

[droski]

The history of our budgeting process whether R or D controlled is that once existing programs receive a bump in spending there is rarely (if ever) a reversal in the spending. In fact, when the GROWTH is smaller than it has been in the past it is referred to as a CUT even though spending increases.

exactly. the best we can hope for is that when the economy recovers that these programs don't receive more funding and just stay stable.

 

[lawgator1]

How about the Omnibus spending bill where BO endorsed and sanctioned 8 - 10% increases in funding for ongoing programs; despite the fact that Stimulus money was already growing these programs? In effect, many of the programs saw increases of over 40% all while the country's economic output was shrinking and taxpayers were facing no increases and sometimes cuts to their income.

This was his first shot at non-temporary spending and he jumped on for a major increase.

As we all have discussed here repeatedly, much of that was due to individual Congresspeople holding out for dollars to their districts or states. When Bush and the Republicans controlled things, they had to do the same thing lat last year. Obama had to, as well.

I hate it. I posted here when the Bush stimulus passed that I hoped they would create a list of the members of Congress who used the situation to get spending in their areas and publicize it as the extortion it was. Same thing for Obama. I wish he had the nerve to do that.

Reality is that neither Bush nor Obama, nor any Republican or Democrat in the WH, that has to deal with the Congress to get what he wants, will ever expose individual members.

I wish they would. But they won't.

The history of our budgeting process whether R or D controlled is that once existing programs receive a bump in spending there is rarely (if ever) a reversal in the spending. In fact, when the GROWTH is smaller than it has been in the past it is referred to as a CUT even though spending increases.

The current administration has shown far less fiscal responsibility than the previous one and that is saying A LOT!

I agree with the first paragraph. I am not as willing to go along on the second because he's been in office for 120 days and one budget cycle in extraordinary times. You will probably turn out to be right. But we don't know that (and we also don't know what the increased tax revenues might be given a quicker or more sustained economic turnaround).

 

[volinbham]

As we all have discussed here repeatedly, much of that was due to individual Congresspeople holding out for dollars to their districts or states. When Bush and the Republicans controlled things, they had to do the same thing lat last year. Obama had to, as well.

Had to? He supported it!

I hate it. I posted here when the Bush stimulus passed that I hoped they would create a list of the members of Congress who used the situation to get spending in their areas and publicize it as the extortion it was. Same thing for Obama. I wish he had the nerve to do that.

Reality is that neither Bush nor Obama, nor any Republican or Democrat in the WH, that has to deal with the Congress to get what he wants, will ever expose individual members.

I wish they would. But they won't.

You certainly are passing the buck here. Congress wrote the Stimulus plan that BO sent them. He was the primary driver. He certainly could do so on other spending.





I agree with the first paragraph. I am not as willing to go along on the second because he's been in office for 120 days and one budget cycle in extraordinary times. You will probably turn out to be right. But we don't know that (and we also don't know what the increased tax revenues might be given a quicker or more sustained economic turnaround).

His own projections for planned spending and revenues over the time period show massive (historically high) deficits. He has announced spending plans that go well beyond stimulus.

I find it interesting that you love to read between the lines to tell us what people are "really" thinking but with BO, you simply take his word and ignore his actions to date.