Where are the Threads

[droski]

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.

he has also massively overinflated the revenue projections.

 

[OrangeYankee]

If you honestly look at things... Other than some social issue winks to the far extreme wings of their given party... what is REALLY different between W and O? This is a serious "think about it question." Bush's answer to this economic downturn was exactly like obama's: Throw tons of money at things. And Obama is still in Iraq for indefinite timeframe (They aren't completely pulling out next year), and surging in Afghanistan. Bottom line... we are screwed no matter where we go with this 2 party system.

 

[lawgator1]

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.

Obama supported spending, yes, but the earmarks for pet projects, those were Congress'. Now, you may claim that the bill came down that way from the WH, but how do you think those things ended up in there in the first place?

 

[volinbham]

Obama supported spending, yes, but the earmarks for pet projects, those were Congress'. Now, you may claim that the bill came down that way from the WH, but how do you think those things ended up in there in the first place?

2 issues here:

1. The earmarks are relatively small change in the Stimulus Package.

2. Likewise with the Omnibus that he endorsed. It had a ridiculous 8-10% growth across existing programs at a time when the economy was contracting. The worst part of this is the new budget baseline that was set.

So to recap. In every instance where BO has had his impact on spending, it has been ramped up in a major way, extended into more social programs than ever and hinted at that this is just the beginning. Let's take healthcare for example - his budget calls for a $600 billion set aside so when he comes up with a program he can fund it! Seriously? Give me $600 billion and I'll figure out how to spend it. A little cart before the horse no?

Still you say we just can't know if he really will continue to expand government spending :blink:

 

[lawgator1]

2 issues here:

1. The earmarks are relatively small change in the Stimulus Package.

2. Likewise with the Omnibus that he endorsed. It had a ridiculous 8-10% growth across existing programs at a time when the economy was contracting. The worst part of this is the new budget baseline that was set.

So to recap. In every instance where BO has had his impact on spending, it has been ramped up in a major way, extended into more social programs than ever and hinted at that this is just the beginning. Let's take healthcare for example - his budget calls for a $600 billion set aside so when he comes up with a program he can fund it! Seriously? Give me $600 billion and I'll figure out how to spend it. A little cart before the horse no?

Still you say we just can't know if he really will continue to expand government spending :blink:

I doubty he'll be cutting a lot as time wears on, certainly. If the middle class can catch a breather here real soon and the economy gear up again with increased tax revenues in a few years, that is when the pressure will be off. Which is always what seems to happen.

Tell you what. You want a balanced budget and the national debt to be going back towards zero? You know who we need to elect again, don't you? Hint: Initial are B.C. and he likes to get B.J.s.

 

[rjd970]

I doubty he'll be cutting a lot as time wears on, certainly. If the middle class can catch a breather here real soon and the economy gear up again with increased tax revenues in a few years, that is when the pressure will be off. Which is always what seems to happen.

Tell you what. You want a balanced budget and the national debt to be going back towards zero? You know who we need to elect again, don't you? Hint: Initial are B.C. and he likes to get B.J.s.

I would take Bill Clinton and a truly republican majority congress all day.

 

[utvolpj]

I would take Bill Clinton and a truly republican majority congress all day.

I'm guessing LG wasn't going for the Repub Congress in his question

 

[IPorange]

If the previous administration had scorn heaped on it for doubling the national debt, shouldn't the current one have double the the scorn of the last administration, since they are projected to quadruple it? Or is this some sort of logarithmic function that I am not understanding?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I would take Bill Clinton and a truly republican majority congress all day.

I would take this as a lifetime appointment!

 

[notverycrucial]

I miss the politics board. Brings back sweet memories of a simpler time with a much simpler president.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I doubty he'll be cutting a lot as time wears on, certainly. If the middle class can catch a breather here real soon and the economy gear up again with increased tax revenues in a few years, that is when the pressure will be off. Which is always what seems to happen.

Tell you what. You want a balanced budget and the national debt to be going back towards zero? You know who we need to elect again, don't you? Hint: Initial are B.C. and he likes to get B.J.s.

unless you believe the next stock market boom is around the corner to generate the revenues to overcome his spending bent, this is absurd. Only thing that held him remotely in check was the opposition congress (which is a situation I'm comfortable with).