Our Massive Deficit "Isn't a Product of Spending"

[Odessa78]

On CNBC last night, I participated in a discussion about America's debt and debt ceiling problems -- which are inextricably linked, despite the Left's bizarre insistence that they're two separate and distinct issues. I made the overtly partisan statement that Republicans are the only political actors in Washington who are even remotely serious about dealing with the debt crisis -- and the Democrat on the panel seemed determined to prove me right. Most of the fireworks came toward the end of the exchange, when Democratic strategist Mark Hannah decided to go the full hack. He began by attacking House Republicans as "extreme" and "reckless" for even suggesting that a debt ceiling increase should be paired with spending cuts. Then, when Reason's Peter Suderman brought up the inconvenient posture Sen. Barack Obama adopted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Hannah jumped in to argue that Obama was justified in taking that stand to push back against the spending that "exploded" under President Bush. (In case you're keeping score, opposing a debt limit increase in the face of "exploding" spending and a national debt of $8.6 trillion is totally kosher. Doing so after that debt has nearly doubled is "reckless"). Finally, when confronted with the unprecedented budget deficits under President Obama, Hannah dug deep and served up an airtight defense:

Video

Arguing with Liberals: Our Massive Deficit "Isn't a Product of Spending" - Guy Benson

[tommyjo]

There are massive problems with the link you posted. Here the the two primary ones

1. The author is a "policital editor"...he doesn't understand the situation...nor does he care...his sole goal is to push a political agenda.

2. The public is incredibly misinformed when it comes to all matters as it relates to the deficit, debt, spending revenue and the federal budget. Every post on this site proves that.

Now on to the particulars...the author immediately refers to it as "Obama's spending". Right there, you are being fed a political agenda. Not an honest discussion of the facts. Why? Because if the author provided you with an honest discussion of the facts you would be scared poopless and deman ACTUAL action instead of meaningless political rhetoric.

The author then calls the factual data related to the so called "Bush tax cuts", the wars, Medicare Part D and recession "laughable". What he fails to mention is that a well known and widely cited 2001 10 yr projection by the CBO showed budget surpluses that would be of such magnitude that the US had the ability to wipe out the entire debt by 2011. The author wants you to believe that the tax cuts, war spending, unfunded Medicare Part D and the recession had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the the ending of the surpluses and return to deficit spending. In the warped view of the far right and the majority of posters on here, nothing that happened between 2001 and the inaugural of President Obama had one thing to do with our present situation. (Even Larry Gude will tell you this is nonsense).

Added to that the author wants you to believe that the day President Obama took office every penny of spending was solely his fault. Only a complete fool would believe that.

But, allow me to expand on that idiotic commentary. I've said this before... 70% of federal spending goes to 4 MANDATORY areas. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, defense and interest on the debt. Please explain which of these programs were forced upon us by President Obama. SS was passed in the 30s...Medicare/Medicaid in the 60s...interest on the debt and national defense are addressed in the Constitution (Yes...there are actually whole parts of the constituion that don't have a damn thing to do with owning weapons built for mass murder!)

Everything else the federal govt does is covered in the other 30% of spending. Please explain which of these programs were forced upon us by President Obama that resulted in our annual deficit? The stimulus? Yup...roughly $830 billion passed 4 years ago...."Obamacare" nope...that doesn't start until 2014. Air traffic control? The Federal Highway system? Food safety? The Centers for Disease Control? NASA? Mine Safety? OSHA? The line the author is feeding you must result in President Obama having thought up and passed each and every federal program that accounts for that other 30%.

According to your link...the deficit (and all spending) is solely the responsibility of the current President. And you believe that?

Now on to some additional points:

The author says we need to reduce spending. He is absolutley correct. What does he suggest we do? (nothing) Remember 70% of spending goes to Social Security Medicare Medicad, interest and defense. According to Alan Blinder(1)...we take in enough revenue to cover 74% of spending. So we have 70% going to those 4 mandatory areas...30% to everything else and a 26% deficit.

Are you starting to see the problem or are you just going to bury your head in the sand like everyone else here?

This is not a problem than can be solved solely by cutting spending. If it was the author would say what he could cut. But he doesn't...why?

This is also not a problem that can be solved by rasing revenue alone...as the left would have you believe. That should also be obvious. Don't get fooled for one second into believing that the so called "Bush tax cuts" were made "permanent" by the fiscal cliff deal. We can't afford it...unless of course we want the Baby Boomers to go without Social Security checks and Medidare coverage.

medicare, btw, is out of money in 2022...in that year Medciare costs to the govt are expected to exceed $1trillion per year.

All your author did was give you about 25% of the story...he told you half truths about the debt and deficit...decried it a an Obama spending problem...then didn't even have the balls to note one thing he would cut.

Oh wait...I forgot about the author's "go to the mat on the CR fight". Remember the spending and revenue ratios? 26% deficit....30% of the budget to non-manadatory spending (the areas covered by CRs). Is he willing to kill every other federal program and agency? For that is what it would take.


The general population of the US wants every program and benefit provided to them at full value and doesn't want to send a single cent to DC to pay for them. We want SS checks...new knees and hips...aircraft carriers...predator drones...safe food...safe planes trains and automobiles...new roads and schools...but expect someone esle to pay for it...and then complain when we have to borrow the money from someone else.

(1) Econbrowser: Debt-ceiling economics and politics

[aps45819]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

The public is incredibly misinformed when it comes to all matters as it relates to the deficit, debt, spending revenue and the federal budget. Every post on this site proves that.

Seriously??

You don't see a problem with spending over a TRILLION dollars a year more than we receive in revenue and do that every freakin' year. The people (like you) that don't see that as a problem are idiots

[Password]

FYI,

Federal budget deficit
Then: -1.4 trillion (FY 2009)
Now: -$1.1 trillion (FY 2012)

contrary to most reports from the right wing, the deficit has DECREASED under Obama.

The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Password

FYI,

Federal budget deficit
Then: -1.4 trillion (FY 2009)
Now: -$1.1 trillion (FY 2012)

contrary to most reports from the right wing, the deficit has DECREASED under Obama.

.

Whew!...Thanks. I can see that the current deficits are MUCH lower.

I'm relieved. Nothing to see here any more...I'll move along.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

The general population of the US wants every program and benefit provided to them at full value and doesn't want to send a single cent to DC to pay for them. We want SS checks...new knees and hips...aircraft carriers...predator drones...safe food...safe planes trains and automobiles...new roads and schools...but expect someone esle to pay for it...and then complain when we have to borrow the money from someone else.

Why sure. Is there a problem with that?

[Lurk]

Originally Posted by Password

FYI,

Federal budget deficit
Then: -1.4 trillion (FY 2009)
Now: -$1.1 trillion (FY 2012)

contrary to most reports from the right wing, the deficit has DECREASED under Obama.

Isn't it just like the liberals to equate a decrease in the rate of growth as a reduction in the total? Since we overspend $0.3 trillion less each year than we did before, the deficit is miraculously gone. WOW, what magical thinking can they come up with next?


But I am glad the liberals have now determined that it wasn't Bush's fault after all.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by aps45819

Seriously??

You don't see a problem with spending over a TRILLION dollars a year more than we receive in revenue and do that every freakin' year. The people (like you) that don't see that as a problem are idiots

And he proves that everyday on the forums.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Password

FYI,

Federal budget deficit
Then: -1.4 trillion (FY 2009)
Now: -$1.1 trillion (FY 2012)

contrary to most reports from the right wing, the deficit has DECREASED under Obama.

The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor.

"Ok, hon - I know a few years back I suddenly began drinking FOUR CASES of beer a day - but I am down to 3 and a half. So I'm doing better".

"Improving" marginally over a colossal first year debt unprecedented isn't something to be proud of - from a man who declared he'd actually cut the deficit IN HALF. He spent an insane amount of money the first year, and has cut it back only slightly since.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Password

FYI,

Federal budget deficit
Then: -1.4 trillion (FY 2009)
Now: -$1.1 trillion (FY 2012)

contrary to most reports from the right wing, the deficit has DECREASED under Obama.

The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

It should go without saying that this post is not an argument for Obama’s fiscal policy. The current President promised change, but he is continuing the wasteful and profligate policies of his big-spending predecessor.

No, it has not. When Obama took office the deficit was at around $450 billion. During his first year it jumped up to $1.850 trillion. This was due to stimulus. Subsequent years remained above $1 trillion; nowhere near the levels of when he entered into office. So, from the point that he entered office deficits still remain well above that of when he entered into office. They have not decreased under Obama. They have only decreased from the amount of what Obama initially accured. A REAL decrease would mean that Obama was able to reduce the deficit below the $450 billion mark he inherited. This didn’t happen by any stretch of the imagination.

Government Spending Chart: United States 1997-2017 - Federal State Local Data