On Nov 24, 6:06*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
I especially liked his comments about Newt. *He asked if we want the man who
couldn't run the House worth a damn to now run the entire country.

Newt ran the House just fine, thank you. His contract with America
even
resulted in Clinton signing legislation that "ended welfare as we know
it".




He
expressed serious disaffection with Obama's lack of leadership but tempered
that with the acknowledgment that people who tell the truth to the American
electorate don't stand much chance of getting elected or re-elected.

What does telling the truth have to do with Obama?



We've "had it all" for many years after WWII and we want that to continue,
despite the massive changes that have taken place in the world and the fact
that we were basically the only game in town after the war - European and
Asian manufacturing dropped to the lowest levels ever because their
factories were destroyed, leaving us with a gigantic playing field that's
been shrinking ever since.

One of the few things you've posted that is true. So, why the class
warfare that blames all the USA's problems on the wealthier,
successful
Americans? For example, you constantly complain that the loss of
maufacturing jobs is due to evil corporations. Yet here you
acknowledge that there
are powerful world economic forces directly involved.




What burns me is the number of people who insist the
deficit is all Obama's doing, even for things that were appropriated long
before anyone knew his name like continuing benefits for all the soldiers of
WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, GW1, Somalia, etc.

Welcome to the club. It burns me when you claim the current
recession and collapse in housing prices is all Wall Street's fault.
I and others here have given you our list and it's long and includes
everyone from Wall Street, to govt, to those that bought houses
they could not afford because they believed housing only went up.

I also don't recall blaming all of the deficit on Obama. Nor have
I seen anyone else here, ie Kurt, KRW, etc either. What we
have said is that under Obama the rate of adding to the deficit
has increased greatly due to SPENDING. Spending has increased
40% in just the past 4 years. $4tril in new debt has been added
under Obama, bringing the total to $15tril $4tril of the $15tril
in just 3 years. Was there excessive spending under Bush
and the Republican Congress? Yes. But his deficits averaged
$250bil a year. The current deficit is $1.6 tril. See the
difference?

We also take exception when someone tries to point to the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as being major contributors to
the $15tril deficit because it's simply not true.




President Bush inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades). Then, hit
with a recession, he was forced into deficit, just like Obama. *Then he cut
taxes, growing the deficit to $400 billion a year. Then, the economy boomed
between 2005 and 2008, reducing the deficit to $200 billion a year.

Which shows why the tax cuts were needed and how well they worked.
Thank you. And unless one had a crystal ball and could see the
subrpime
collapse coming, it was reasonable to assume the deficit would
continue
to decline. All that would have been needed was to control spending.
Or even better, under Bush, they could have controlled spending then,
in
which case the deficit would have been either smaller or non-existent.


Then,
the financial crisis hit, and the Bush deficit ballooned to $400 billion
again.

When Obama took over in 2009 during the worst recession since the Great
Depression he signed an $800 billion spending increase at the same time that
GDP and tax collections tanked. The combination of these two factors--growth
in spending and a drop in revenue--exploded the deficit to $1.4 trillion.

Cool. Sounds good. A one time thing blew the deficit out to
$1.4tril.
So, tell us then, why is it that now, 3 years later, we have a deficit
of $1.6tril?
And why Obama's last budget shows deficits of $1tril a YEAR FOR THE
NEXT
DECADE? And that's under the assumption that the economy has
recovered soon and has a healthy growth rate.

Republicans insist that President Obama has exploded the size of federal
government spending in his tenure as President, and it is true that he has
increased it. But President Bush actually increased federal spending by more
than 2X as much as Obama has.

True, but it took 8 years under Bush. Obama has managed it in just 3
years.





Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because
of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he
inherited from President Bush.

If that's true, then spending should have gone up one year, in 2009.
Yet, here we are in 2011 and spending is $3.8 tril. In 2008, it was
$3.0 tril.
There goes that argument.




But the increase in federal spending under
Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush . . . From
2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion,
from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

It's actually a bit less, from $1.8 tril to $3.0, but close enough.
You think
maybe 911 and all the money that had to be spent on homeland security,
taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, etc had something to do with it?
Granted, they should have cut spending elsewhere, but of course
you libs would have none of that, would you?

And again, that is over 8 years of Bush compared with 3 years of
Obama.



From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has
risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year.

It's actually $3tril to $3.8.

It has also now begun to decline. In other words, federal government
spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President
Obama.

It hasn't declined one bit. Right now the FORECAST is for it to
decline
from $3.8tril to $3.7 tril. That's a tiny decrease and only a
FORECAST.
Meanwhile, your pal Obama is running around screaming "Pass it now!"
for his new $500bil spending bill. Do what he wants and the budget
just
went up another .5tril in one shot. See the problem here?



What really troubles me, aside from the hypocrisy of those wanting to blame
Obama for spending increases properly credited to Bush, is that the increase
in government spending isn't the only factor that has caused the deficit.
What some pols conveniently (deliberately?) forget is the precipitous
fall-off in government revenue from taxes.

Sure, no one is denying that is a factor too. But why is it that
Obama's own
budget shows deficits of $1tril a year for the next decade? A budget
that includes the forecast that the economy will have recovered?
See the problem?





Sadly, Obama's stimulus hasn't had as big an impact on the economy or tax
collections as he and his advisors like Tax Cheatin' Timmy G. promised it
would.

It did have about the effect than many predicted it would though.


The sheer enormity of the mess Obama inherited suggests it's
possible that nothing would have fixed our stalled economy by now.
Approaching the next election even rabid Obama supporters are unhappy with
his over-promising along with many of the decisions he has made. *But who's
*really* to blame?

Nothing can satisfy the rabid loons that Obama has chosen to align
himself with. Some hate him for keeping Gitmo open. Some for
accelerating
the war in Afghanistan. Some for changing his mind on trying
terrorists
in NYC. Some for bombing Libya. Some for not spending even more.
Many for not creating some ultimate socialist utopia.

And ironically those same loons fail to give him credit for even
Obamacare.
Must be tough being Obama.




There are two reasons for the collapse. *The Bush tax cuts, which reduced
revenue, and the weak economy, which has reduced the incomes and capital
gains upon which most federal taxes are based.

What collapse is that? What we have is a SPENDING problem.



President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal
revenue, while federal spending growth continued. *This combination
ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.

Yes, but as you acknowledge, the deficit was declining and down to
just $161bil
by 2007. Here's a new question. Are you for or against a balanced
budget
ammendment?



By the middle years of the Bush presidency, however, on the strength of the
housing boom and strong economic growth (much of it, unfortunately, was
illusory: built on borrowed money with too much leveraging and too little
real collateral) federal revenues began to grow rapidly. *By 2007, in fact,
the gap had almost closed. *But that huge surge wasn't sustainable.

What huge surge, Mr. Monday morning quaterback? The ecomomy was
doing OK, but it wasn't spectacular. There was no particular reason
to
think that housing was going to collapse suddenly.



*When
the housing bubble burst the economy plunged into deep recession. And then
President Bush handed President Obama the worst recession in more than 70
years, leaving Obama to both take the blame and clean up the mess.


No denying that. But it's what Obama has done that in response that
is the
problem. For example, the economy was already in a severe crisis.
Was that
the time to ram through Obamacare, which polls showed then and
continue
to show now, the public did not want? Was it a good idea to burden
businesses
with that cost and uncertainty? Was it a good idea to halt all new
drilling in
the Gulf because of one oil well? Was it a good idea to vilify much of
business,
from drug companies and healthcare companies to Wall Street? Is it a
good idea to engage in classwarfare on those making $200,000 a year,
many of whom are small business owners, where most new jobs are
created?
Is it a good idea to have the NLRB suing
Boeing to prevent a new factory in SC that will emply 2000 from
opening?
Is it smart to be screwing around with Boeing and the 787 with $100bil
in
orders and tens of thousands of jobs depending on it?



The recession eviscerated federal revenues, which still have not regained
their 2007 bubble highs. President Obama's stimulus, meanwhile, helped add
about $600 billion to federal spending. The combination of these two factors
ballooned the deficit from $400 billion when President Bush left office to
nearly $1.3 trillion now.

$600bil? Where did that come from? Just the one stimulus bill was
$850bil. And if it was $600bil over 3 years, why is spending this
year at
$3.8 tril and why is it forecast at about that level for next year?
Must
be a magical $600bil.



Even those who believe the "Bush Boom" was real and not just debt-fueled
"book cooking" will eventually have to admit the recession and financial
crisis began on his watch, and the deficit was already exploding when
President Obama took office. *It's very hard to escape the conclusion that
President Bush bears a lot of the responsibility for our current quagmire..

If it was debt fueled book cooking under Bush, what the hell is it
under Obama? Does Obama or you support a balanced budget
ammendment?



A quick look at:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...icit_brief.php

There are several unmistakable bulges in the deficit that correspond to the
Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII and the AfRaq wars. *Wars cost money
and to cut taxes in the middle of a war projected to cost more than 3
trillion dollars was almost certain to increase the deficit. *But voters on
the right appear to believe that Great War Fairy will magically appear and
cover those debts.

No war fairies. Per your own statements above, the deficits under
Bush were declining and were down to $161bil in 2007. With some
spending restraint and had not the subprime recession occured, the
deficit could have been taken to zero.




*Voters on the left also appear to believe the Medicare
and Social Security Fairies will magically cover the shortfalls that will
soon plague those programs. *These fairytales will eventually come to a very
unhappy ending as long as spending overtakes revenues.

In apportioning blame, it's important to note that Congress approved all of
the decisions by both Presidents regarding the economy. *Both sides have
contributed mightily to the mess that is our current economy.

That's true. But which side now is willing to address them? Who
is in favor of a balanced budget ammendment? Who has put forth
a plan to tackle entitlement spending? From the whitehouse all
we hear is class warfare and crickets...



Voters were deliriously happy as Congress cut taxes and increased spending -
we had, so we thought, our cake and got to eat it, too. *Some are cheering
now as Republicans promise us that by cutting taxes and spending we'll find
our way out of the deep, dark woods. *In the real world, Greece and the UK
have shown that enacting austerity in the midst of a fragile recovery
doesn't work.

Funny, I thought what they showed was were socialism, big govt, and
reckless spending will get you.



Less spending results in even less growth and less tax
revenues. *It's a bitter, vicious cycle that in the past has often led to
war when economics caved in on themselves and entire countries entered
economic death spirals.

Look where more govt spending has gotten us. Solyndra done
anything for you lately?




In short, we all want our free lunch. *We expect the Great War Fairy to pick
up the tab for wars that have gone on twice as long as WWII and with victory
just as elusive as it was on day one. *Politicians know how much we like our
wars and our welfare, and promise more each election even though the numbers
tell us that at some point in the future the waiter is going to bring us a
check for all those lunches and we'll end up having to wash dishes to pay
for it. *Lots and lots of dishes. *Very dirty dishes.

What troubles me the most is that former and current SecDefs from both
parties agree that this is exactly the wrong time to force across the board
cuts on the Pentagon. *I'm not sure we'll ever learn the lesson of staying
away from wars of choice, as SecDef Gates (R) said, because wars of
necessity come along often enough. *With tensions rising both with China and
Iran, will we have both the stomach and resources to deal effectively with
those situations? *Those former SecDefs say no, and I tend to agree with
them.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wit...ead-showdown-l...

The arguments against defense cuts haven't just come from the right,
though. Secretary of Defense Panetta has been arguing against them since
August and, most recently, just yesterday: *Automatic spending cuts that
could result from a special congressional committee's failure to reach a
deficit-reduction agreement could "tear a seam" in ...

read more »

My, my. I would think you'd be in favor of military spending cuts.
You
don't like it when we use the military, so why not make cuts. Don't
you just want to send Al-Qaeda a cake?