Interesting article Betty, however whether we reached level ground in the 90s doesn't change the obvious point that Republicans have consistently dug the hole while Democrats have consistently filled the hole during their respective administrations.
You know, like Howard Dean, I'm conflicted about the sequester. I'm happy to see defense spending cut however I'd prefer the Pentagon have the flexibility to cut the programs they feel are not as essential. Will the defense cuts simply come from the "peace dividend" that will result from the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan that would have occurred in 2014 anyway? It seems ridiculous to use the same rate to cut funding from non-defense agencies like the CDC that never saw the buildup that the military had.
I'm still waiting for a member of the right-wing brain trust to explicate how spending money is worse than taking money out of the economy entirely by hiding it in offshore accounts.
Also, I had chicken last night and I'm not sure what I'm having tonight. Except beer. I know there will be beer.
Nice post Fish. Republicans and their loyalty to obscene military spending is a blatant example of cronyism. I also agree that for all their talk of "conservatism" I am not aware of any real plans for cuts offered by the GOP, not even shallow or symbolic cuts. If we get a sequester shouldn't all federal politicians pay be lowered 2.5%? It wouldn't save much money, or affect the pockets of politicians very radically, but it would be a nice symbolic act.
Medical care costs for working people are simply larceny, and tragically the stolen profits are not going to working doctors or nurses or medical professionals. The big money is in admins, bean counters, and corporations. The examples sited in your healthland report are a snowflake on the tip of an iceberg.
Since this is what Betty wants to hear it must be true. (To her).
Dems & Reps both are guilty of big spending and cronyism.
Some of you may enjoy this:
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
Why would anyone believe that Republicans care about the debt? I mean talk about liars. Sure they whine incessantly about spending when Democrats are in office, but when THEY are in the White House, they NEVER do anything about it. The first thing Bush did when he got in office was to give the surplus away with tax cuts. He didn't say that we were going to use that money to pay down the scary national debt. The debt and spending only became issues again once Obama took office. Face the facts, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all increased spending and budget deficits while Carter, Clinton, and Obama have all decreased spending and budget deficits. Anyone who is truly concerned about spending and the debt should support Democrats for they are the only party doing anything about it.
Another way to view this is to look at the Republican plan to cut spending. They will never say exactly what they want government to stop doing. If you want to shrink the size of government, government has to stop doing things. But the things that cost all the money (defense, SSI, Medicare) are VERY popular with the public. If Republicans actually run for office on a platform of eliminating any of these programs, they would lose (see Romney rejection of Paul Ryan plan). So they become very vague and talk about reducing "spending" which may or may not involve these programs. When pushed about what government should stop doing, the say they would eliminate "Big Bird" which would cut less than 0.00001% from the federal budget. That's not a joke. That's the real number. The joke is the Republican budget plan.
If you want to read an article that isn't really fun or little but which exposes why medical bills are so high check this very long article from Time:
It's pretty objective, pointing out why Obamacare won't work, why raising the Medicare age is a retarded idea that will raise costs, and why single payer is the best system but can never happen in the US. The fight over Obamacare should be exhibit A in the case of how Republicans put political ideology over deficit reduction and efficient government. Obama would have caved to whatever they wanted in exchange for a few votes but they chose not to even participate in crafting the most important legislation in our lifetime. They failed the American people.
Here's a fun little article
Senator Graham............ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ift7g3eHQNk
Nice use of the word hyperbolic, but very little substance in that post. Not everyone who thinks the federal government takes and spends too much of it's citizens money, and still manages to run up enormous debt is a bible thumper. I agree Bush is hugely in the blame, as well as Reagan.
What I don't understand is why you would even claim Obama is spending less, when he unabashedly wants to spend even more to cure our countries ills. Every annual budget proposal he has submitted has asked for even larger increases in federal spending than congress will allow. Clearly more government spending is a goal of his. I'm sure he has his reasons and theories, and I would like to think the man honestly wants what is best for his country. I haven't read of the current admin falsely claiming it is spending less, why would you?
You have a truly dizzying intellect, gnu guy. I see you are no longer concerned with being literal, as we don't literally spend 2 trillion more dollars every year. But I know that you are just being hyperbolic so I won't call you a liar. Listen, I understand that percentages and proportions can be scary. This level of mathematics is complicated. It requires knowledge of BOTH a numerator and a denominator. This can cause anxiety among conservatives and the belief that you are somehow being tricked. It's why you guys fundamentally reject science. I get it.
I see, so spending more is really spending less. When you multiply spending by an arbitrary and easily manipulated number like GDP and express real dollars as a percentage. Then you can say we are spending less, even though we are spending more. Makes a lot of sense. Obviously all those extra cars on the road call for 2 trillion more dollars in federal spending every year.
And if the deficit increases every year, but doesn't increase as much as a percentage in a given year that is the same as decreasing, right?
I had fish and chips tonight. It was delicious.
As a percentage of GDP, total federal expenditures are declining under Obama. This is a fact. Arguments that attempt to use total expenditures as a benchmark for fiscal responsibility year over year are foolish on their face. This is because as time goes on, there are more people in the country using more services. More people mean more cars on the road, more planes in the air, more people in court and more kids in school. Therefore the government must build more roads and runways and courthouses and schools. Luckily it also means there are more people producing more goods and paying more taxes. This is called economic output. Evaluating federal spending requires a knowledge of the economic output over that same time period to provide context and allow temporal comparisons. So thanks for the terrible argument gnu guy, you've opened your mouth and removed all doubt about the basic economic knowledge of the average conservative.
Conservatives tanked the economy and ran up HUGE deficits under Bush claiming deficits don't matter while they are in office. Then they used the debt to push their austerity solutions which ended up causing double and triple dip recessions in places like the UK. Meanwhile Keynesian economic models are vindicated once again under Obama as the US economy has been growing steadily and our deficits are shrinking. I don't see how conservatives have the balls to say that liberals don't understand economics. All conservatives can do is use 10 year budget projections (which are always wrong) to try to instill fear of the future in the public. They have been claiming that our debt will lead to unsustainable interest rates for 20 years now. They are the party of Chicken Little and never ever the party of viable solutions to our problems. In economic terms, they are bankrupt.
+yep, Goebbels took poison and killed all his children, real smart !!
Really. Goebbels was much smarter than Hunter.
Landsnark, I disputed the statement that "Obama has cut spending" because it is literally false. I also dispute your statement that "Your taxes are lower...blah blah blah" because mine are not.
Not here to insult anyone, unless they are obnoxious enough to compare Jack Hunter to Joseph Goebbels, but I think I have a right to dispute outright lies.
The federal government gets by without having to provide transparent and honest financial statements.
The U.S. Treasury’s "balance sheet" does list liabilities such as public debt, but it does not include the massive unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and other federal future obligations.
A conservative estimate of Washington’s unfunded liabilities for the year ending in 2011 is $87 trillion. That’s more than 500 percent of our 2011 GDP of $15 trillion.
When the accrued expenses of the government's entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually.
That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.
Washington would have to collect $8 trillion in tax revenue, not to pay off our national debt and have reserves against unfunded liabilities, but just to avoid accumulating more debt.
Recent IRS data show that individuals earning $66,000 and more a year have a total adjusted gross income of $5.1 trillion.
In 2011, corporate profit came to $1.6 trillion. That means if Congress simply confiscated the entire earnings of taxpayers earning more than $66,000 and all corporate profits, it wouldn't be enough to cover the $8 trillion per year growth of U.S. liabilities.
Face it we are broke... and your knowledge of economics is rudimentary at best.
Somethin smells fishy alright.
A combination of budget cuts and economic growth will pare the deficit to the lowest level since 2008, the Congressional Budget Office said in its first comprehensive analysis of the government’s finances since last month’s deal to put off the so- called fiscal cliff.
Next year’s gap will be $616 billion, the nonpartisan agency said.
The long-term budget outlook nevertheless remains grim, with baby boomers steadily swelling the ranks of Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries, according to a CBO report.
The government will rack up at least $7 trillion in deficits over the next decade, the agency said,
pushing the publicly held debt up to almost $20 trillion by 2023!
Although modest progress has been made on short-term fiscal issues, the CBO outlook shows us that the nation has by no means solved its debt problem,” said Michael Peterson, president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes deficit reduction.
The CBO also said it anticipates economic growth will be slow this year, with real gross domestic product rising by just 1.4 percent, in part because of budget-cutting in Washington.
It predicted faster growth next year, with the economy expanding by 3.4 percent. The jobless rate will remain above 7.4 percent through next year, according to the CBO.
I think maybe someone was right about economics..and its not the pimp.
That's fun, gnu name. The debt is shrinking. Federal spending is in decline. Your taxes are lower today than they have ever been before in your life and likely ever will again.
These are facts.... except I cannot be sure your taxes won't continue to lessen. Here is where you insult me and just say it isn't so.
Fish drip: "Obama has cut spending" Federal spending: 2007/4.9 trillion, 08/5.3, 09/6.0, 10/5.9, 11/6.1, 12/6.2 trillion dollars.
Shorter Fish Pimp: write things that are literally untrue, put false quotes in other peoples mouths, claim anyone who disagrees with his nonsense is hateful.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper