He's off to a flying start. $825b pork bill. another $50b housing bill. Talks of at least another trillion for "fixing" the housing issue. Good work, man! Oh, and he's also got universal healthcare on his agenda. I am so proud!

2/24/2009 12:24:13 AM

this thread is full of novel, innovative ideas i haven't seen or heard anywhere else

and i'm sure all the discussion in it will be rational and even-handed

2/24/2009 12:30:11 AM

You know, I wonder where I heard of such "ambitious" goals such as cutting the budget deficit in half in just four years.

Oh yeah! It was George W. Bush. In 2004.

http://tinyurl.com/ce2wam

Wonder how that one went?

2/24/2009 12:46:49 AM

^ you do realize that is an irrelevant observation, don't yoU?

2/24/2009 12:52:03 AM

9/11 changed everything

2/24/2009 12:52:09 AM

Obama is doing exactly what he should be doing right now -- spending. Thank god he's not listening to TWW peckerwoods when making policy decisions.

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 12:58 AM. Reason : .]

2/24/2009 12:54:13 AM

Quote :

"^ you do realize that is an irrelevant observation, don't yoU?"

Irrelevant in what way, exactly? It seems like it could apply in multiple senses - Republicans who lambast this plan erstwhile being shown up by their prior president, and a general comment upon the complete lack of initiative toward balancing the budget by both parties when in charge.

If anything, it's an instructive example.

2/24/2009 12:57:08 AM

^^ Obama isn't doing much of anything. The "stimulus" bill was written by Nancy Pelosi who ran political rings around both him and Reid. Right now, he's showing just how much of a lightweight he is. This isn't to say he can't / won't recover, but this bill doesn't have much to do with Obama.

Not to mention the constitutional fact that it isn't the President who spends money.

It is also pretty asinine to assume that undirected spending by government will magically stimulate the economy.


Besides, this thread is about measuring Obama's own goals against his own actions. The comparison is legitimate. Shit, cutting the deficit in half would essentially reduce spending to current levels, maybe a bit higher.

2/24/2009 1:14:11 AM

And the bills signed by Bush were written by John Dennis Hastert, so what?

2/24/2009 10:21:17 AM

He's banking on a fiscal recovery and subsequent revenue boom to halve the deficit. Ending the Iraq war and raising taxes on the rich only gets him halfway there, the other half will have to come through factors largely out of his control.

I did like his campaign promise to eliminate government programs that "don't work". I'm curious to see if he follows through with that promise, or if was the kind of empty rhetoric that self-professed budget hawks are famous for but rarely follow through on. As it is, the stimulus package featured a pretty broad expansion of government, including new departments and entitlement increases that have no expiration date. I'm curious about what kind of cuts he will make in order to balance out that spending, since he has pledged not to raise taxes "on 95% of Americans" and you can only get so much money out of business and the rich before the higher tax levels drag down the whole economy. The law of diminishing returns absolutely applies to taxation on the rich.

2/24/2009 10:51:38 AM

Quote :

"^^ Obama isn't doing much of anything. The "stimulus" bill was written by Nancy Pelosi who ran political rings around both him and Reid. Right now, he's showing just how much of a lightweight he is. This isn't to say he can't / won't recover, but this bill doesn't have much to do with Obama."

The bill has to do with Obama. I know congress is the body at the wheel here, but Obama sitting in the president seat makes a big difference - resistance is just that much more futile as they have the support of the executive.

2/24/2009 12:20:59 PM

Quote :

"ONE PARTY SYSTEM"

or if you prefer

Quote :

"TWO SIDES OF SAME FUCKING COIN"

2/24/2009 12:30:21 PM

I think the issue is that there are too many sore losers in this world. err...I mean republicans

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 12:32 PM. Reason : s]

2/24/2009 12:32:01 PM

fuck both republicans and democrats. I swear I do not freaking care anymore. The giant amount of treasury bills out there is abnormal and does something unnatural to the world we live in.

If Obama increases the debt significantly further, which he will, this will show that both sides of the isle primarily in mind the objective of driving our country into the ground with debt so that they can tell an uninformed majority that their administration got them what they want.

What are our options? Democrats will increase our deficit, Republicans will increase our deficit. Fuck the excuses. 9/11? The financial crisis? yeah right. You think they won't find something else by the time we get out of the junk we're in right now? They will. All of this talk is bull. Economists agree that the deficit should be paid off in the course of a macro-economic cycle, meaning that we should put it off, I understand, but I don't believe any of these slimeballs running the country will do that.

Obama will not be like Clinton, there is almost no chance the budget will be turned around in 4 years. We'll likely still be unbalanced in 2012, and the net deficit will probably number more like 15 trillion. Even if they gain the capability to pay it off, I don't believe they will.

Fuck the petty issues that people claim separate dems and repubs. They share the most important quality by far: irresponsibility.

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2009 12:46:32 PM

If only McPalin would have won.

Relatively Obama has been acting rather moderate compared to the spend happy democrats in the house. From my observation even Obama realizes that given the nature of the current economic crisis it is time to put partisan bickering aside and work with republicans to get something done.

The dems on the other hand are acting like a 17 yr old girl who FINALLy got ahold of their mothers credit card and are going crazy.

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 12:57 PM. Reason : as]

2/24/2009 12:53:50 PM

just in time for the Mayan Calendar-predicted end of world event

2/24/2009 3:03:44 PM

^^so it's the dems in congress who are the immature ones?!

i could see an argument for both parties. but there's no way you can exclude the republicans' temper-tantrums of late from any talk of immaturity

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 4:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2009 4:48:33 PM

2/24/2009 5:20:48 PM

Quote :

"so it's the dems in congress who are the immature ones?! i could see an argument for both parties. but there's no way you can exclude the republicans' temper-tantrums of late from any talk of immaturity "

well the republicans are behaving like a 3 yr old who just had their favorite toy taken from them.

What gets me is i'd think the variance between political views would be greater due to region within the US than rather they are republican or democrat. For example SC democrats being more fiscally conservative than California liberal democrats or vice versa. Since in reality certain aspects of the bill would greatly benefit the constituents for some GOP congressman while very little to some Dems.

Somehow the vote for the stimulus package is split right down the party line. I know not every democrat voting for it likes the bill and i know not every republican disagrees with the next effect.

2/24/2009 6:09:34 PM

Quote :

"And the bills signed by Bush were written by John Dennis Hastert, so what?"

because the post I was referring to gave Obama credit for the bill. By most accounts, the President had limited influence on what went into this bill.

Bush 43, or at least the executive branch, exercised far more influence over the Republican House and Senate during his presidency than Obama has so far in his.

2/24/2009 7:31:59 PM

I would think so since Obama has only been president for less than 2 months.

2/24/2009 9:47:20 PM

Quote :

" Bush 43, or at least the executive branch, exercised far more influence over the Republican House and Senate during his presidency than Obama has so far in his."

This is an interesting assertion. Why do you believe that to be the case?

2/25/2009 12:58:48 AM

2921 days of presidency vs 22 days is probably a good place to start

2/25/2009 1:27:52 AM

Quote :

"complete lack of initiative toward balancing the budget by both parties when in charge."

I would say Clinton had the budget thing figured out pretty well...

I feel like 100 years from now Bush will only be remembered as the 9/11 president. If that hadn't happened, he would have been lost in history with the likes of Franklin Pierce and Chester Arthur (because who can name anything they ever accomplished without google or wikipedia?)

[Edited on February 25, 2009 at 3:50 AM. Reason : -]

2/25/2009 3:47:58 AM

Obama's budget forecast for 2012 includes revenue from carbon trading. CAN'T WAIT FOR THAT ONE!

[Edited on February 25, 2009 at 11:04 AM. Reason : for reference see: California]

2/25/2009 10:59:20 AM

lol. carbon trading is the funniest shit ever.

2/25/2009 11:01:39 AM

Quote :

"2921 days of presidency vs 22 days is probably a good place to start"

Right, cause Congress has a calendar and once you are in office for 23+ days they start listenning to whatever you say.

2/25/2009 11:27:09 AM

anyone who advocates some kind of 'carbon trading' instead of a simple carbon tax, or just a selective energy tax, is advocating a more corrupt and powerful government.

AMBIGUITY IS OUR FRIEND

2/25/2009 11:50:09 AM

Quote :

"Obama's budget forecast for 2012 includes revenue from carbon trading. CAN'T WAIT FOR THAT ONE!"

OH NOs the liberal gov't stole you monies!!!

2/25/2009 11:54:16 AM

yeah guys, think of the golf tournaments that need to be hosted

2/25/2009 7:21:08 PM

like the one North Trust sponsored with its bail out money !

2/25/2009 10:15:31 PM

Quote :

"Bush 43, or at least the executive branch, exercised far more influence over the Republican House and Senate during his presidency than Obama has so far in his"

hahah, not to harp on this but really man? the guy has been in office for less than 2 months

plus, you have to spend money to make money so we have to spend some to get the economy back on track. any business understands that simple principle and it applies across the board.

i, for one, am thankful that we are not going to be spending over 10 billion a month for 7 + years on a war we shouldnt be fighting (soon)

2/26/2009 8:45:19 AM

Quote :

" plus, you have to spend money to make money so we have to spend some to get the economy back on track. any business understands that simple principle and it applies across the board."

Do you think before you post? What business works this way? Sure, the detroit automakers want to make money so they should go out and build a bridge to nowhere? It matters what you spend your money on! You cannot buy bling for your car and call it a sound business investment.

To ignore the contradition in your post, starting a war overseas would be great for the economy. Afterall, you need to spend money to make money, and bombing the rest of the planet back into the stone age would cost a lot of money, so afterwards America would be rolling in prosperity, right?

[Edited on February 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/26/2009 10:10:02 AM

^^lol. Obamas not going to end the iraq war any time soon. and that 10 billion is nothing compared to the ammount that was wasted in the "stimulus" bill.

[Edited on February 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM. Reason : a]

2/26/2009 10:11:19 AM

Quote :

"I would say Clinton had the budget thing figured out pretty well..."

Yeah, he really did, didn't he? he just sat there and took credit for something that he had no influence over, namely the tech boom. Oh, but he did slaughter our military. How's that working out for us? Oh, right, we can't even field an adequate fighting force in Iraq. Way to go Bill!

2/28/2009 2:23:54 PM

How is he going to do that when they keep spending?

2/28/2009 2:58:10 PM

If republicans really want to make a come back and get their point across than here's a simple idea.....

STFU, let Obama do what he wants (within reason), and stop your partisan bickering. A year or two from now if nothing is better or has gone worse than you can be like "I told ya so"; McPalin 2012 or whoever you want to elect. Right now they just give an appearance of acting like a toddler who just had his pacifier taken away. Obama or the Congressional majority leaders can not get anything done with republicans whining that the plan of action is foolish, detremental to America, and the liberal socialists are taking over to invite Al Qaeda to have tea at the white house.

At least give shit a chance.



[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 3:00 PM. Reason : l]

2/28/2009 3:00:08 PM

why give shit a chance when you KNOW it is doomed to failure. that would be the epitome of irresponsibility. Obama is trying to be a new FDR, and, let's face it, FDR is the reason we are in this mess right now with his MASSIVE expansion of the Federal Government

2/28/2009 9:44:57 PM

FDR started the snowball rolling to government interference in everything, and he did it by exploiting an economic crisis. The economic crisis now is nothing like the Depression, but the slimy Rahm Emanuel said not to let a crisis go to waste, and Obama is definitely using it to push through stuff that even his supporters know are detrimental to our country. It's a huge power grab, and he's not even really hiding it.

2/28/2009 9:48:43 PM

the Democrats are basically doing with the housing crisis (which they started) what dubya did w/ 9/11

2/28/2009 9:50:55 PM

you're right. Obama says he can reduce the deficit by half by raising taxes but the increases would be so high they would never be practical.

2/28/2009 9:53:05 PM

Quote :

"why give shit a chance when you KNOW it is doomed to failure."

Is that what Faux News or Ann Coulter told you. I do not really agree with a lot of stuff Obama wants to do but I do not blindly say "oh no thats not going to work" before i even research or fully understand what he is saying.

Obama: I propose XYZ policy

GOP Douche: OH NO THE LIBERALS ARE COMING THIS IS A HORRIBLE IDEA AND WILL RUIN THE NATION.

2/28/2009 9:59:01 PM

well, when we look at, you know, history, we can see the same things he is proposing. And those things failed or caused tremendous harm to the country. Obama is calling for nationalizing the student loan industry. Hmmm, how did the government getting involved in the housing loan industry turn out? Oh, right, it's what caused the housing bust. Guess that worked out well. He wants to limit oil research and is increasing taxes on it. How did that turn out? Oh, right, Carter did that, and it led to tremendous shortages here and increased our dependence on foreign oil. Hmmm, seems to have worked really well, too.

2/28/2009 10:02:46 PM

The liberal response has been to let him try and see if his mess will work, but anybody that can read and comprehend history will know that it won't. Unless, that is, they are blinded by their affection for him or they refuse to admit that they supported a candidate who was not a good choice.

2/28/2009 10:26:57 PM

^^ Yes, I too find it quite scary that most of what Obama is proposing as modern experimentation is all right out of Hoover's Administration.

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 10:28 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/28/2009 10:28:16 PM

Quote :

"Obama is calling for nationalizing the student loan industry."

You see I disagree with this. I have accepted the fact that no matter who is president they will do some things I like and a lot of things I don't like. The difference is how much of the later the Commander in Chief carries out while in office. After the last administration Obama has a lot of catching up to do in order to achieve the same magnitude of disagreement as far as policy goes.

The choices I have is to bitch every time Obama opens his mouth or to chill for the moment, speaking up my displeasure at certain major issues i disagree with, and going with the flow for now. I have trouble, eventhough i have agreed with McCain politics in the past, believing we would be a lot better off; accelerating towards economic recovery had McPalin won the election.

Quote :

"The liberal Republican response has been to let him try and see if his mess will work [b]bitch no matter Obama's policy toward an issue is even if deep down they agree.[/s]"

choose your fucking battles. Like or not the GOP is not going to win any fans if they spend the next 4 years kicking and screaming over EVERY issue that comes up; slowing legislation purely over partisanship, preventing important bills from being passed (shitty or non-shitty).

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM. Reason : l]

2/28/2009 10:34:41 PM

You are the only one talking about Republicans. The people who are opposing what Comrade Obama is doing are sensible Americans belonging to all (or no) parties. Opposing idiotic measures by a Democrat president doesn't mean that you are a Republican. Hell, they do stuff that is as stupid as what he is doing.

2/28/2009 10:43:48 PM

http://www.concordcoalition.org/press-releases/2009/0226/concord-coalition-supports-president-obamas-deficit-reduction-goal-warns-mu

Quote :

"The Concord Coalition said today that President Obama's pledge to cut the deficit in half by 2013 is a positive and achievable goal but warned that it would still leave the nation on an unsustainable fiscal path. Concord praised the administration for improving transparency in the budget by using realistic policy projections and specifying several offsets for new initiatives. It warned, however, that spending cuts and tax increases used to fund new initiatives would no longer be available to close the existing long-term budget gap. "This budget clearly demonstrates that very difficult choices must be made to bring the deficit under control. Even with a strong and rapid economic recovery, a substantial reduction in troops deployed in Iraq and revenue gains from expiring tax cuts, the budget is still deep in red ink in 2013 and the debt is still growing faster than the economy. Any effort to permanently improve the fiscal outlook beyond the 10-year budget window will require more fundamentally addressing the structural causes of our budget imbalance -- demographic change and rising health care costs," said Robert Bixby, executive director of The Concord Coalition. While the concept of revenue neutrality and pay-as-you-go budgeting is highlighted in the budget, the administration does not apply paygo principles to extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts--a rather large exception. Not paying for these tax cuts leads to an additional $2 trillion in deficits over 10 years, not including additional debt service costs. Constructively, the budget identifies spending cuts and tax increases--some of the hard choices that will be required to fund the administration's new priorities. Most notably, the budget contains a health care reserve fund designed to enforce a deficit-neutral plan for health care reform. Following through on the offsets required to pay for health care reform will be politically difficult, yet essential, to achieve President Obama's deficit reduction goals. More importantly, additional hard choices regarding health care reform will be necessary to accomplish the administration's essential longer-term goal of "bending the curve" of unsustainable health care costs. "As the president said in his address to Congress, we have a responsibility not to pass on to our children a level of debt they cannot afford. This budget recognizes that we cannot achieve that goal without substantially changing course from the current fiscal path. Such change can only come through public engagement, shared sacrifice and a bipartisan willingness to consider all options," Bixby said. "

So, what else can we tax?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmOHx5Ftez8

Quote :

"http://^^ Yes, I too find it quite scary that most of what Obama is proposing as modern experimentation is all right out of Hoover's Administration."

Well, let's be fair, the top tax rate is nowhere near what it was then though the dangers of a global trade war are trumpeted by the Economist. It's pretty much certain now in Europe. Not that the trade we have with NAFTA is free anyway...

[Edited on March 3, 2009 at 7:29 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2009 7:26:49 PM

Can someone clarify something for me? (and this isn't a partisan slam).

The government runs a deficit EVERY YEAR (save Clinton's years). Obama says he'll cut our excess spending in half within four years. My question is so what?

If I run up my credit card debt every year, but never stop overspending (regardless of amount) then eventually I'll go bankrupt.

How is the federal government different (other than the fact that to a degree they can control their "income")?

3/3/2009 9:55:47 PM

because "cutting the deficit in half" is half-way to cutting it to zero.

Of course, we all know what happens when deficits reach zero - Republicans pass tax cuts to "give the people their money back" and the debt continues to grow

3/3/2009 9:58:54 PM