Another Failed Promise

[DC Tom]

Yes, you must love, so much so that you post any nonsense that squirts out of your brain. So the Bush tax cuts didn't create deficits?

 

You Republicans have blinders on your brains

 

I'm not a Republican.

 

And you are aware that the government can't just sit on a great big pile of cash, right? It has to do something with it.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

I'm not a Republican.

 

And you are aware that the government can't just sit on a great big pile of cash, right? It has to do something with it.

 

But wasn't his argument basically that the Bush tax cuts widened the deficit? What does the fact that the government must give back extra money to the people have to do with this?

[Rob's House]

But wasn't his argument basically that the Bush tax cuts widened the deficit? What does the fact that the government must give back extra money to the people have to do with this?

Which of the Bush tax cuts do you advocate repealing? Do you want to repeal the tax cuts to the middle class or just the "rich"?

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Which of the Bush tax cuts do you advocate repealing? Do you want to repeal the tax cuts to the middle class or just the "rich"?

 

I would advocate for all over a period of time providing that the economy continues to improve. The important thing in letting those tax cuts go is that they are raised slowly over a period of years as not to shock the economy. Close the deficit slowly.

[DC Tom]

But wasn't his argument basically that the Bush tax cuts widened the deficit? What does the fact that the government must give back extra money to the people have to do with this?

 

How could the tax cuts widen a deficit that didn't even exist (at least on paper) when the tax cuts were enacted? Isn't the argument that they CAUSED the deficit?

 

 

Which is a retarded argument anyway. Spending causes deficits. Don't spend, no deficit. You're like my wife, who thinks she has credit card debt because she doesn't make enough money. No, dear, you have credit card debt because you spend $500 a month on useless ****.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

How could the tax cuts widen a deficit that didn't even exist (at least on paper) when the tax cuts were enacted? Isn't the argument that they CAUSED the deficit?

 

 

Which is a retarded argument anyway. Spending causes deficits. Don't spend, no deficit. You're like my wife, who thinks she has credit card debt because she doesn't make enough money. No, dear, you have credit card debt because you spend $500 a month on useless ****.

 

That would be my point. Why would you enact a tax cut and continue to spend like a drunken sailor.

[Magox]

How could the tax cuts widen a deficit that didn't even exist (at least on paper) when the tax cuts were enacted? Isn't the argument that they CAUSED the deficit?

 

 

Which is a retarded argument anyway. Spending causes deficits. Don't spend, no deficit. You're like my wife, who thinks she has credit card debt because she doesn't make enough money. No, dear, you have credit card debt because you spend $500 a month on useless ****.

I mean, do you blame her? Look what she has to put up with everyday.

[Koko78]

How many campaign promises is Obama going to break? How many does that make it, I can think of six offhand. How do all you lemmings not call him out for what can either be one of two things, either his insincerity or ineptitude? Because he' either lying to us, or he is so naive and has such a horrid economic team that they just aren't able to foresee things.

 

The best Obama excuse I used to read from the libs on the old BBMB politics forum was that no one believed Obama when he made those idiotic promises, therefore they don't count.

 

He's always been more interested in campaigning than in leading. What a waste of 4 years.

[OCinBuffalo]

How could the tax cuts widen a deficit that didn't even exist (at least on paper) when the tax cuts were enacted? Isn't the argument that they CAUSED the deficit?

 

 

Which is a retarded argument anyway. Spending causes deficits. Don't spend, no deficit. You're like my wife, who thinks she has credit card debt because she doesn't make enough money. No, dear, you have credit card debt because you spend $500 a month on useless ****.

The thing is, it's not the $500 that gets you. It's the useless ****, but even more so, it's the logic.

 

I'd pay $500 a month for them to put in a bank in case something happened to me without batting an eye.

 

But then I think: why the F am I paying you anything? You have a job. So...out! Out of here! I want to watch my on demand shows in peace....yes, I know I should eat less pizza, and drink less, yes, I remember about next weekend, and yes, I know there's nothing in the fridge but ketchup. Don't you think there's relationship between me booting you and you asking me these questions? What, are you getting them in now cause it's your last chance? It is Hienz though, so it's damn good ketchup, which automatically makes you wrong about everything and absolves me of all the stupid things I say and do. Now out, damn you, woman. Do not return for at least 36 hours, and only if you come back bearing treats and a DVD that pleases me. Yes, of course we can have dinner tomorrow, but only Indian and only if you go and get it. I'll pay.

 

And....that's why I don't have a wife!

Edited February 14, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

 

 

And....that's why I don't have a wife!

 

 

Happy Valentines Day OC.

 

.

[Magox]

So, naturally I've been reading virtually everyone's take on the Presidents errrrr budget proposal, and the coverage for the most part has been fair.

 

 

Dana Millbanks opinion piece, who is what I would consider to be a centrist Democrat has this to offer: Obama's budget games

 

The White House’s budget for fiscal 2013 begins with a broken promise, adds some phony policy assumptions, throws in a few rosy forecasts and omits all kinds of painful decisions. Even then, the proposal would add $1 trillion more to the national debt than Obama contemplated a few months ago — and it is a non-starter on Capitol Hill, where even Senate Democrats have no plans to take it up. It is, in other words, exactly what it was supposed to be: a campaign document.

 

The opposition picked up Sperling’s metaphor and ran with it. “He has punted again,” said Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the House Budget Committee chairman.

 

Actually, it was more of a kickoff, and Ryan opted to receive: He’ll introduce his own budget in the coming weeks, and it is likely to have large tax cuts for the wealthy and deep cuts to entitlement programs — giving Obama exactly the foil he wants for the fall campaign.

 

But as a budget writer, Obama whiffed. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, although offering a few kind words for the president’s proposal, said the plan “would barely stabilize the debt — and at too high a level.”

 

Then there is ABC's Jake Tappers revisit of Obama's failed promise Obama's Broken Deficit Promise

 

“This is big,” wrote White House director of new media Macon Phillips in a February 23, 2009 blog post, ”the President today promised that by the end of his first term, he will cut in half the massive federal deficit we’ve inherited. And we’ll do it in a new way: honestly and candidly.”

 

Indeed, President Obama did make that promise that day, saying, “today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

 

 

USA TODAY's Editorial piece: Obama's budget plan leaves debt bomb ticking

 

The best test of a budget proposal these days is whether it reins in the national debt, which is projected to equal a troubling 74% of gross domestic product this year. The last time the publicly held debt was that high as a percentage of the economy was in 1950, when the nation was still paying off the stupendous amount of money it had to borrow to fight and win World War II.

 

 

The election-year budget President Obama sent to Congress on Monday fails that test. Yes, Obama's budget has a lot of deficit reduction — some $4 trillion over the next 10 years. But the plan would still add $6.7 trillion in deficits over the next decade, with the debt-to-GDP ratio creeping up to about 77% through 2022. Beyond that, long-term figures buried deep inside the budget show the debt would shoot up again after 2022 and just keep going, driven by an aging population and the escalating cost of Social Security and health care.

 

By comparison, credible proposals from Obama's own deficit-reduction commission and by the Bipartisan Policy Center in 2010 both aimed at reducing the debt to 60% of GDP and keeping it headed down. Obama's plan does not even begin to do that. Nor, for that matter, does it fulfill his 2009 promise to halve the deficit by the end of his first term.

 

The reason Obama was unable to keep the short-term promise is that the Great Recession was deeper and lasted longer than economists expected three years ago. That development was largely beyond his control. But the reason the president's budget doesn't fix the longer-term problem is that for all its spending cuts and revenue increases, it relies on gimmicks and avoids some problems instead of tackling them.

 

 

Most glaringly, Obama takes credit for about $850 billion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were paid for with borrowed money in the first place. These aren't "savings," notes the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "When you finish college, you don't suddenly have thousands of dollars a year to spend elsewhere — in fact, you have to find a way to pay back your loans."

 

WSJ's take : Obamas amazing budget

 

Federal budgets are by definition political documents, but even by that standard yesterday's White House proposal for fiscal year 2013 is a brilliant bit of misdirection. With the abracadabra of a tax increase on the wealthy and defense spending cuts that will never materialize, the White House asserts that in President Obama's second term revenues will soar, outlays will fall, and $1.3 trillion annual deficits will be cut in half like the lady in the box on stage.

 

All voters need to do is suspend disbelief for another nine months. And ignore the first four years.

 

The real news in Mr. Obama's budget proposal is the story of those four years, and what a tale they tell.

 

• Four years of spending of more than 24% of GDP, the four highest spending years since 1946. In the current fiscal year of 2012, despite talk of austerity, Mr. Obama predicts spending will increase by $193 billion to $3.8 trillion, or 24.3% of GDP. The top chart shows the unprecedented four-year blowout.

 

• Another deficit of $1.327 trillion in 2012, also an increase from 2011, and making four years in a row above $1.29 trillion. The last time that happened? Never.

 

• Revenues at historic lows because of the mediocre recovery and temporary tax cuts that are deadweight revenue losses because they do so little for economic growth. The White House budget office estimates that for the fourth year in a row revenues won't reach 16% of GDP. The last time they were below 16% for any year was 1950.

 

• All of this has added as astonishing $5 trillion in debt in a single Presidential term. National debt held by the public—the kind you have to pay back—will hit 74.2% this year and keep rising to 77.4% next year. The bottom chart shows the trend.

 

Economists believe that when debt to GDP reaches 90% or so, the economic damage begins to rise. And this doesn't include the debt that future taxpayers owe current and future retirees through the IOUs in the Social Security "trust fund."

 

And then there's the NY Times take of the presidents budget: The Presidents Responsible 2013 budget

 

 

President Obama’s 2013 budget was greeted on Monday with Republican catcalls that it is simply a campaign document, but election-year budgets are supposed to explain priorities to voters. This one offers a clear and welcome contrast to the slashing austerity — and protect-the-wealthy priorities — favored by Republican Congressional leaders and the party’s presidential candidates.

 

 

The president’s budget calls for long-term deficit reduction, but its immediate priority is to encourage the fledgling economic recovery. Instead of trying to stabilize the budget on the backs of the poor, it would raise taxes on the wealthy and on big banks and eliminate many corporate tax loopholes.

 

Well there you have it, we know who's shilling for who

 

 

All in all, the coverage was accurate. I could of posted the typical right and left wing views, but decided to post the "acceptable" large news outlets.

 

For me, the budget is what the presidency is mainly about, it details a long view of how to stimulate the economy and address our spending and revenue issues while hopefully addressing our entitlement programs.

 

The president does address revenues, even though taxing the "rich" by all reasonable economists view doesn't even come close to solving the revenue issues and is more political than anything else. I'm a substance person, and any rational person knows that the taxing the rich dogma is just that, a political dogma and NOTHING else.

 

In regard to cutting spending. Sorry, but the wars ending doesn't and should't count, and that comes from the bipartisan Policy center.

 

And when it comes to addressing Entitlements. Ok.... Nada

[IDBillzFan]

In regard to cutting spending. Sorry, but the wars ending doesn't and should't count, and that comes from the bipartisan Policy center.

 

And when it comes to addressing Entitlements. Ok.... Nada

The quote from USA Today about war spending puts in a nutshell precisely how ridiculous this budget is.

 

"When you finish college, you don't suddenly have thousands of dollars a year to spend elsewhere — in fact, you have to find a way to pay back your loans."

 

Sad thing about liberals; a reduction in spending in one place simply means increased spending in another, even when the reduction in spending is actually just a reduction in borrowing.

 

I read an interesting note on Paul Ryan's next plan coming out (the one Millbank anticipates to be Obama's perfect foil): it is being presented with bi-partisan support. I don't recall specifically who, but he has a moderate Dem on board with the idea that entitlements absolutely must be addrressed in the budget. As the upcoming campaign goes, it will obviously come down to two different ideas of our country, but I suspect Obama is banking on the fact that Joe-on-the-street doesn't care about our debts and deficits any more. We'll see if that happens.

Edited February 14, 2012 by LABillzFan

[whateverdude]

A couple of EMPs would fix everything

[DC Tom]

That would be my point. Why would you enact a tax cut and continue to spend like a drunken sailor.

 

There was a SURPLUS.

[whateverdude]

I'm thinking the high altitude type would be best. Middle of the country this side of the Canadian border would be the best placement.

[B-Man]

If your primary goal in "developing" a budget is Fairness (and I suspect....re-election) rather than an honest attempt to fund necessary programs and raise necessary revenue, then this Obama budget is what results.

 

It's not hard to understand the disincentives to job creation in Mr Obama's proposal.

 

If the government wants more people to quit smoking, it increases the taxes on cigarettes. Similarly, if the government wants more people to quit investing, the appropriate policy is an increase in taxes on investment income.

 

 

And if the government really wants to kill job creation and new investment, it should double the tax on capital gains.

 

 

So where's the common sense in this call for more roadblocks to investment, more disincentives for the financing of companies and startups in the private sector, when 12.8 million Americans by the government's calculations are already out of work? Millions more aren't counted as unemployed because they've given up looking for work and left the workforce and millions more are working at reduced pay or reduced hours

 

 

.

[Magox]

Talk about embarrassing

 

 

 

On Sunday’s “Meet the Press” on MSNBC, White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew explained away the Senate’s then-1,019-day failure to pass a budget by misleading viewers on Senate rules.

 

When pressed by host David Gregory to explain the Senate’s failure, and how the government has continued to fund itself despite this failure, Lew, who previously served as the White House’s budget director for both President Barack Obama and President Bill Clinton, said, “One of the things about the United States Senate that I think the American people have realized is that it takes 60 — and not 50 — votes to pass something. And there has been Republican opposition to anything that some Democrats have tried to do, so it is a challenge in the United States Senate to pass legislation when there is not that willingness to work together.”

 

Senate rules dictate that a budget vote cannot be filibustered, and requires only a simple majority to pass. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The budget resolution is a ‘concurrent’ congressional resolution, not an ordinary bill, and therefore does not go to the president for his signature or veto. It also requires only a majority vote to pass, and its consideration is one of the few actions that cannot be filibustered in the Senate.”

 

The Democratic caucus gained a majority in the United States Senate in 2007, won a super majority in the 2008 election that saw Barack Obama win the presidency, and held that super majority until Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown won a special election in December 2009. Despite taking further losses in the 2010 elections, the Democrats still maintain the majority.

 

Clearing any doubt that his statement was not a mistake, and was specifically in reference to the budget, the former Obama budget director told CNN’s “State of the Union,” “But we also need to be honest — you can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes, and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support. So unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, [senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed. And I think he was reflecting the reality of that that could be a challenge.”

 

This is the chief of staff, who ran the OMB,” Lenwood Brooks, policy director of the fiscally conservative, non-partisan group Public Notice, told The Daily Caller. “I can’t believe it.”

 

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/14/obama-chief-of-staff-and-former-budget-director-misleads-voters-to-blame-gop-for-budget-debacle/#ixzz1mNkQpiUS

Edited February 14, 2012 by Magox

[Bigfatbillsfan]

The quote from USA Today about war spending puts in a nutshell precisely how ridiculous this budget is.

 

Sad thing about liberals; a reduction in spending in one place simply means increased spending in another, even when the reduction in spending is actually just a reduction in borrowing.

 

I read an interesting note on Paul Ryan's next plan coming out (the one Millbank anticipates to be Obama's perfect foil): it is being presented with bi-partisan support. I don't recall specifically who, but he has a moderate Dem on board with the idea that entitlements absolutely must be addrressed in the budget. As the upcoming campaign goes, it will obviously come down to two different ideas of our country, but I suspect Obama is banking on the fact that Joe-on-the-street doesn't care about our debts and deficits any more. We'll see if that happens.

 

Even NPR was reporting earlier that the budget this year looks more like a stump document. No way this thing gets passed.

[IDBillzFan]

Talk about embarrassing

I would not be surprised if it was self-imposed embarrassment for the sake of lying to blame the GOP. He's playing Baghdad Bob, if you will. But why didn't Gregory challenge him on this? Did the host of Meet the Press not know this? Or did he know it, and opt to let the story advance that the reason nothing is getting done in the Senate is because of the tea party folks in Congress?

[Magox]

The whole thing is embarrassing, not only did he not press him on the issue of the 50 votes, but why hasn't ANYONE brought up this video

 

I mean, you know how Gregory likes to catch people with gotcha questions, specially those who hold conservative values, that would of been the ultimate gotcha.

 

Nope, he'd rather ask Santorum about how he has ran a strictly social conservative campaign (which is an exaggeration) and about his wife and the way he interpreted in Santorums book; his wife's role at home.

 

Which btw, I thought he answered both of them really well. I suppose this sort of questioning works for those who obsess over his "rooster in the ass" sweater/vest.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Magox