http://www.drudgereport.com/flashocs.htm In an interview with CSPAN, Obama points out the obvious, but it does not seem to be obvious to folks who support the status quo. I am no Obama fan. But I can't tell you how good it makes me feel to see Obama stand up and speak the simple truth. And the simple truth is: "we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything" He has a few other gems, including telling California to solve its own problems. Why is this news? Well, I have never seen a sitting President stand up and say: "We are out of money". It has finally dawned on somebody in power that we as a nation are at the end of the line. All that is standing between us and economic disaster are the Chinese and other Asian central banks not showing up at our Treasury auctions. That's it.
The President spent all the money of America and did it in five months... that's some sort of liberal record isn't it?
We were out of money before he took office. We've been out of money for how many years now? The sad part is, Obama knows we are out of money but continues to spend.
He really has no choice, its the path of least pain, yet the destination isnt pretty. I just wish he would have better advisers, he is surrounded by the same clowns that got us into this mess. Why the hell is Ben even around, and idiots like Geithner?! Insanity!
At least Obama is trying to invest in America and not just piss away the money he's spending which puts him miles ahead of the GOP over the last 30 years. This is the chickens coming home to roost from Reagan's decision to turn us from the world's largest creditor into its largest debtor in less than 8 years and from Bush's incredible fiscal irresponsibility.
Yeah, and the Democrats had nothing to do with all that spending......oh wait, nevermind. It is long past time that people realize that their is only one party in Washington DC. We have one party that is two-headed. That party is called Incumbency. Their only job is to get re-elected. Period. And if you believe any different then you will believe anything.
Exactly. Since 1960 the United States has balanced the budget all of 5 years. And that was because the Treasury collected far more tax revenues than they thought they would because of the technological boom of the late 1990's created incredible growth. Unfortunately, that happens once or twice per century.
At least he didn't ride that boom and spend everything that came from it. And lets not forget how much of that boom came from NAFTA.
It is in the nature of politicians to spend every nickle that circumstances allow. Just have a look at the unfolding disaster in California. The Republicans there won't pass a budget. The Democrats, for their part, spend every dollar available, spend some more, and then borrow. What happens next is that the new government spending becomes permanent and becomes a baseline for the following budgets. Watch what happens to our "temporary" stimulus spending in DC.
Both parties and both presidential candidates were falling all over themselves to figure out who could best spend our surpluses. Honestly, I do think it is time to stop looking backwards and assigning blame. We are where we are. In addition, the anti-stimulus crowd made their best arguments, but the stimulus is now fact. Let's move the conversation forward. Those on the anti-deficit side should be pleased with the rhetoric from Obama about the long term. You can question his sincerity but at least he is talking about how our current spending is unsustainable. And we all know that he is talking about the big entitlements that make up the largest chunk of our yearly spending. In my mind, the greatest thing about Obama is that he is not simply looking to winning again in 2012 (although I am certainly not saying that he is not motivated to do so). He is attempting to focus the conversation way, way down the road. So, for example, when looking at health care, the question shouldn't be how much it costs in 2010 or 2011. The relevant question will be what the effect will be in 10 years, 20 years or longer. Same with our energy policy. Same with the auto industry. Same with global warming. Same with education.
It is unsustainable. We are looking at increasing taxation to 90% of GDP within just a few years. If it continues as such, there will most definitely be a new administration, with wildly different policies.
That is the hope. I do not question Obama's sincerity, but Obama's effectiveness is limited by the congress at hand. For example, during the campaign, Obama pledged that all cap and trade permits would be auctioned. The house's plan says that only 15% will be auctioned. There are literally dozens of issues where Obama has tried to cut, only to be faced down by a congress that is absolutely unwilling to make any cuts in the budget.
Very true. I'm tired of the analogy but it is true. The ship of state turns slowly. The key is that someone needs to do the steering. As you might have guessed by now, I like Obama. But that does not mean I am sure that he will be successful. I do think what he is attempting to do is necessary. It's only been a few days past 100 and I think what you will see is that he will continue to work at the grass roots level to push change from the bottom up and that he will continue to court key allies from both parties in congress to ultimately do what needs to be done.
And they have no reason to be unless and until Obama vetoes a spending bill or ten. Would he do that to a bill from a Congress with his own team in power?
Well, this is the hope. But the Republicans got a little taste of Obama's bipartisanship rhetoric when he called them into the White House after the election and said, "guys, I won". As it turns out, Obama's bipartisanship equals agreeing with him. It is possible that Obama got a wake up call when he tried to trim a little here and a little the from the budget and the Democrats fought off tiny spending cuts. It might finally be dawning on him that the congressional Democrats are going to drive his administration, and the country, off the cliff. Folks, this is the endgame and Obama knows it.
Obama's interview with CSPAN was clearly a trial balloon. This might be the most direct statement EVER from a President regarding this situation, and it is no coincidence it came in the middle of a long holiday weekend. In the next days and weeks you might see obfuscation and a little misdirection, but he could be forging a new direction. What direction that is I have no idea. We know it includes higher taxes but really, its all about spending and he knows it.
Well, my issue with the anti-stimulus crowd and the teabaggers is that they struck me as so disingenuous and self-serving and partisan in their complaints about deficits and debts and government spending. Many of their complaints were legitimate, but where have they been the past few decades as both Democrats and Republicans put budget after budget on the national credit card? If those people are as willing to take to the streets and make spectacles out of themselves about this issue the next time a Republican is in the White House or the next time the Republicans control Congress, I might take them a bit more seriously. But... I don't think it'll happen.
I don't see it that way. Think of this example: Your wife likes to shop. She occasionally puts things on your credit card, and you are surprised at your extra $200-300 dollars a month that you didn't plan for. Okay, so you are annoyed, but you can handle it. But then your wife goes out and gets a credit card in her own name, and racks up $5,000 in debt buying things for the house, and then realizes that she can't pay it off because you are her source of income. So she comes to you, you get mad, have a serious talk, and you end up fronting the bill. At least your house looks nice, right? But wait...it gets better. One day, your lawyer calls and says that your wife took out a second mortgage without your consent, and she now owes the bank $300,000 for a private jet rental and a few nights on a rented private island with her best friend. Its not the same any more, is it? That is divorce, right there, no other information necessary. So tell me...why didn't he divorce her when he was seeing the $200 credit card bills? Or even the $5,000 bill? Is it hypocritical or two faced of him to divorce her because she had already been spending too much? Is there a point where the last straw breaks the camels back, and you won't take it anymore? I don't know a single damn republican ANYWHERE who approves of how much Bush spent. Hell, even the most partisan assholes on talk radio consistently bashed bush for how much he spent. The whole republican party was critical of Bush's spending. But when unacceptable spending is amplified three times in less than100 days, and your 40 year spending projects are now set to double your spending as a percent of GDP...you aren't going to sit back and say "well I didn't protest before, so I would be a hypocrite to protest now!!". Hell no...you protest. So where were all the loud republicans when we were racking up the budgets little by little over the past 20 years? They were pissed, but they were like a classroom full of schoolkids complaining about their mean teacher. Now they have turned into Tiananmen Square protesters...not because they are hypocrites, but because the circumstances have changed. Dramatically.
It is a difference of degree, but not of kind. ElJefe wonders where these folks were when we had $400 billion dollar deficits. Now he is shocked that people are pissed with $2 TRILLION dollar deficits. Note to ElJefe, the folks who were out teabagging stopped voting Republican years ago.............THAT'S WHY THAT PARTY STARTED LOSING ELECTIONS.
What are you talking about? Maybe you don't know very many Republicans, but for the first 3/4 of his presidency, Mr. Bush had Republicans in control of Congress. If they wanted him to spend less, they could have not given him all he wanted. But they didn't do that, they enabled him. If they claim otherwise now, they're lying.
This is just silly. Not to defend Bush’s spending, but at least his deficits were declining year over year. Obama is using the financial meltdown to greatly expand the Federal Government’s long term commitments and projecting trillion dollar deficits for years to come.
OK, so what was the magic number that caused the deficit to be intolerably large and to cause people to take to the streets? My cynicism tells me that it was "whatever the Obama Administration rolled out there," but I'd like to hear what it was from your mouth... er, keyboard. And that's why the Republicans started losing elections? Really? Seriously, it's only been four months since the most recent Republican administration left town. It doesn't really take much for me to remember the unpopular pointless war and the general level of incompetence that characterized that administration and for me to give a derisive laugh at your nonsensical, revisionist "that why that party started losing elections" statement.