E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC's Chuck Todd and "Meet the Press" moderator David Gregory examine the goals outlined in Barack Obama's second inauguration speech.
With inaugural festivities over, President Barack Obama and members of Congress have returned to budget trench warfare.
House Republicans will vote Wednesday on suspending the federal government’s debt limit until May 19 in the latest chapter of this ongoing saga that has consumed Washington for the better part of the last two years.
GOP leaders hope that by passing their bill, they will not only postpone another debt limit confrontation with Obama, but will put the onus on the Democratic-controlled Senate to pass a budget resolution which would set spending levels for federal programs for the coming fiscal year. The Senate hasn't passed a budget resolution since 2009.
At a press conference Tuesday evening, House Speaker John Boehner reminded reporters that although House Republicans have passed budget resolutions for the past two years, “it’s been nearly four years since the Senate has done a budget.”
He said that the Republican debt limit bill will include a provision that if the Congress doesn't enact a budget resolution, members should not be paid.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor added, “If this country needs to incur more debt, Senate, please show us your plan to repay that debt, please show us your plan to control spending.”
Passing a Senate budget resolution, Republicans argue, will require Democrats to show their hand: they will need to vote for additional tax increases.
That theory was given some credibility by comments by the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer, D- N.Y., who said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Senate adoption of a budget resolution is “going to be a great opportunity for us. Because in our budget that we will pass, we will lift tax reform, which many of my Republican colleagues liked, but it’s going to include (additional) revenues. It’s a great opportunity to get us some more revenues … You’re going to need more revenues as well as more (spending) cuts to get the deficit down.”
Susan Walsh / AP
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio waits for the start of a Joint Session of Congress in the House Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Jan. 4, 2013.
He added, “We’re going to do a budget this year. And it’s going to have revenues in it. And our Republican colleagues better get used to that fact.”
By eliminating some tax credits, deductions and preferences, tax reform could make the tax system more efficient, helping spur economic growth and generating increased tax revenues.
Senate Democrats could use a budget procedure known as “reconciliation” to enact tax increases – and they would need no Republican votes in order to do so. Under Senate rules, changes considered under reconciliation can’t be filibustered, so they could be enacted by a simple majority, instead of requiring a 60-vote majority.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning that he wanted senators to “work to end wasteful tax loopholes and (to) balance thoughtful spending reductions with revenue from the wealthiest among us.”
A few hours later, Reid sidestepped a direct question from a reporter about whether the Democrats plan to use the budget reconciliation process to enact tax increases, referring reporters to Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray, D- Wash.
And in comments to reporters Tuesday, Senate Finance Committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., pointedly refused to make any commitment to using the budget reconciliation procedure to undertake tax reform. He said he was committed to working on tax reform and “I want to try to find the process that works best.”
In his response to Reid on the Senate floor, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell signaled his opposition to any new tax increases on top of those which Obama signed into law on Jan. 2 and those included in the 2010 Affordable Care Act. McConnell said: “the revenue question has been settled.” Later in comments to reporters, he added, “the tax issue is over.”
McConnell complained that Obama’s “far left-of-center inauguration speech” was “not designed to deal with the transcendent issue of our era, which is deficits and debt.”
Rep. Allyson Schwartz discusses the president's speech and his second term agenda, as well as the fight over the debt ceiling.
He and other Senate GOP leaders sounded like they were on the same page as their House GOP counterparts, thanking the House leaders for putting the focus on the need to enact a budget and to deal with the growing debt.
One reason for a Republican delay in a debt standoff with Obama is to allow the post-inaugural afterglow and Obama’s popularity some weeks to fade. But it’s not clear the Republicans will be in a stronger position politically in May than they are now. And it is also not clear how GOP leaders plan to handle two March spending deadlines which remain in place: the March 1 start of automatic spending cuts and the March 27 expiration of a continuing spending resolution that funds government operations.
The wording of the GOP leaders’ statements leaves the inference that they might well be willing to pass a series of short-term debt limit increases – even though Obama has said he opposes raising the debt limit in short-term increments.
If Republicans think they can use the budget process to enact curbs in the growth of entitlement spending and if Democrats believe they can use the budget process to enact tax increases, then perhaps both sides will end up disappointed.
It all hinges on the willingness of each side to accept trade offs.
It was significant that in his inaugural address Obama said, “We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.” But he said nothing about the danger of the growth of federal debt and addressed entitlement spending only by presenting its virtues. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, he declared, "do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”
Leave a Comment:
The Senate should present a budget with a serious revamp of the tax breaks for oil and energy producers and remove many of the loopholes that allow corporations with billions in profit from paying little or no taxes. The GOP wanted to target "loopholes", but focused on things like mortgage deductions. After all the lip service to loopholes and deductions by Romney, McConnell and the GOP, let Reid submit a budget that forces the GOP to put their words into actions, or get them again on record as to why they support corporations and the wealthy.
Wood... we should be so lucky... However, I am not sure what you call lip service. There was actually no real budget produced by the Democrats.
How about some decent reviews of the pork expenditures of the past? There is so much to trim. I certainly hope the Democratic Senate will actually come up with a budget so that there is a document on the table to discuss!
The Senate hasn't passed a budget resolution since 2009.
Wood.....In order to get rid of corporate welfare, you need to quit electing democrats who write a large majority of the corporate welfare bills. The GOP would be behind closing the loopholes. We have always been for that. We are talking two entirely different things when it comes to loopholes though. The GOP think that we should close corporate loopholes, but your complaints are about Individual Income tax loopholes. You can't get rid of corporate tax loopholes when we are talking about individual income taxes.
Let the games begin...! So are those the same loopholes that were placed within the Fiscal Bill? Allowing those same 1-2%ers an avenue to bob and weave their way out of having to pay more taxes? What is next...? Taxing the Middle Class...? I thought they were not supposed to be touched... Right? Is this where the finer details are now coming to light? *laughs*
GOP just remember Social Security is not an entitlement!
I have worked and anyone else that has put money into FICA do not raid Social Security!
Please, no new taxes! Those making over $450,000 already had to turn their heat down 1 degree this winter, sell one of their yachts, and put their Skybox season tickets on e-bay for 10% off.
Please, no new taxes! Those making over $450,000 already had to turn their heat down 1 degree this winter, sell one of their yachts, and put their Skybox season tickets on e-bay for 10% off.
40 empty......No one is trying to "raid" social security. I don't know where you got that. The problem is that you and everyone else who paid into social security and medicare did not pay in enough to fund your retirement. Now we are looking at the prospect of not having enough money to pay for your SS and Medicare. What should we do? Increase taxes? Raise retirement age? Suggestions? We simply do not have enough money to pay for all the promises.
GOP is responsible for 3/4 or 12T of our 16T debt.
Massive Borrowing and Spending under GOP:
30 years of GOP UNFUNDED WARS-FOR-PROFIT (their profit)
Multi-trillion StarWars (SDI)
Multi-trillion Gulf War
Multi-trillion Afghan War
Multi-trillion Iraq War
30 years of GOP UNFUNDED PROGRAM after UNFUNDED PROGRAM
Medicare Part D (senior vote grabber)
Dept. of Homeland Security
The hated TSA
No Child
Bush's Trillion Dollar TARP Bailout
Not to mention all those billions for Corporate Subsidies
Plus the coup-de-grace; the REPAIR BILL for the massive GOP economic collapse.
Stupid GOP/TEA.
Pay for all of YOUR spending and THEN we'll talk about cuts.
.
I saw a lot of talk about increasing revenues in that article, but nothing about decreasing spending.
Its time we all pay our fare share. I'm going to have to raise taxes on all individuals earning above the poverty level.
Now some will call me a big tax and spend socialist but thats just who I am.
Join me at socialist party usa . org to find out how we can finnish our transformation of this once great nation.
We don't have a spending problem. Just because we spend 1 trillion more every year than we did 6 years ago doesn't mean we cant just take more and more of the peoples money. They don't even know how to spend it properly.
Give me your money and I will spend it in a way that it betters everyone in the country, not just the greedy bastards who worked and earned it.
The next thing to do is close the tax incentives to move jobs overseas ..Close the corporate welfare loop holes like the billions of dollars given to the oil industry each year for exploration (they know where the oil is) .. increase the taxes to 55% on gifts given to executives such as bonus money - stock options - Golden Parachutes (call it the Gift Tax)... this congress under Boehner is scheduled to work 22 out of 52 weeks this year some weeks with only 2 days no week with all 5 days most weeks are 3 or 4 days ..Id like to see Congress earn their pay and when a bill is filibustered who ever is philibustering the bill should remain on the floor of the senate the entire time except for meals and restroom time. .. As an American I am tired of a do nothing Congress and any obstruction to the will of the people
Facsist whacko,
I see that the rich will always have enough money to pay you for their bj's.
The Presidential election is over.....President Obama was re-elected.......now, it's time to raise taxes on the working people. .............Is anybody really suprised?
Delays, walking away, walkouts, promises of votes that don't take place. The Party of Nothing and No rears its ugly head again! Republicans are scum!
Hopefully tomorrow their approval rating of 26% will drop another point or two to 25% or less1 The dying throws of a political party!
Oh this ought t be good. Democrats proposing thoughtful spending cuts. ROTFLMFAO Democrats never like a spending cut.
This will be interesting to watch. Lets see how much more taxes the Senate can pile on top of the working class? The only way to increase spending is taxes no matter how Chuckie Schumer dances around the word. If the Senate proposes any spending cuts they will probably be 10 years down the road which means they will never happen. But you can bet your backside taxes would go up immediately if the Senate gets their way.
How about the republicans stopping the entitlements to the republican voting farmers who make up 2% of the workforce and get 14% of the budget not to grow crops, crop subsides, set asides etc.
I don't see any farmers turning down their handouts!
US1776 - quit shooting off BS in your posts. Obama has spent over 5T during his first 4 years. That blows your 12T right out the window. Google the facts and you will see who did what to whom in the debt, than you can delete your own post.
JimO,
Your BS is showing total lack of knowledge!. As president he is locked into Bills and laws that have been in affect for decades and require the spending of the money that you blame on Obama. It would have to be spent regardless of who is president.
How about the $4,000,000,000,000 wasted by bush on his lost wars. Where is your outcry on that spending that was all bush not laws or existing entitlements that were passed by republicans and Democrats years ago!!
Put america first. You guys really tick me off with that "didn't pay enough into the SS Trust fund" crap. You ever happen to look and see what happened? The congress "borrowed" the trust fund for other expenditures then did not repay it (with interest). SS was designed to earn interest on the Trust Fund, it would have been self supporting sometime in the 70's due to compounding interest on the trust fund (invested in Treasury SEcurities). No money in the fund, no interest earned. Of course I know you hate math but the truth is you might notice how much your home mortgage interest costs? Well the trust fund was designed (and worked for many years) to operate and be self sustaining that way. But you idiots just can't handle the power of math can you. Let's say it this way, the moneys were stolen from my paycheck and never landed in my SS savings account. So keep up the talk, but we actually know what happened, you might want to catch up.
Razor,
The pork you are talking about in more cases than not come from red states and republicans. Think of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska.
As I said, google, get some facts before you post. No president after Carter is free from guilt, including the current President.
What's with all the Farmer hate? I thought you guys supprted "Farmer Dave."
Put America First, one more thing, SS is self supporting till 2040 as it stands at this moment. It is the future that we looking to fix. But then does anyone listen to those stupid talking points you get. If the congress will replace the stolen SS trust fund it won't take to much to fix the thing there after (if we do it soon and get the compounding interst).
When Democrats get blamed for all the spending and farmers get way more than their share I sure as heck bring it up. Now if we could cut the Pentagon in half that would be the HEAVEN rather than all the waste for 2 lost wars and 7,300 wasted lives. Lives are more important than money!!
Kick the can down the road. Standard Republican GOP move. Can't they think farther then 3 months?
clwyd, you do know that the president called one of those wars you are frothing at the mouth about a "war of necessity." Right? ..........and the other one was voted for by many congressional democrats?
online.wsj.com/article/SB125054391631638123.html
Yes Toxic,
I know most of those comments came out when the bush administration talked about, or rather lied about WMD. I'm calling them what they are and most military strategists call them. Lost Wars! Wasted wars! Lost Lives! $4,000,000,000,000 flushed down the drain! But then that money to most righties is for Freedom isn't Free! Afghanistan and Iraq never threatened us and the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia who we never went to war with, just to remind you!
Toxic, Yes, let's raise the taxes even higher on the 5% that now control 45% of the wealth. Remember up from 41% two years ago and 43% last year. I guess when you only pay 14% like most of them do compared to the rest of us paying closer to 20% you can get people like Toxic to say anything! Oh, Why did you use the wsj article. Good God we may be in that same Wacko Walker state! If so? I loved the speaker at the MLK Day Ceremony telling Walker what he did to collective bargaining in the state would have disgusted MLK. Wacko is disgusting so what do you expect! he was sitting 10 feet away and he's been told off like that two years in a row. I be the won't attend next year. Hopefully he will be behind bars like his one aide who got sentenced to 2 years in prison and the other 6 aides that got probation. Nice company Scotty boy!
clwyd, rant all you want, Afganistan was a war of necessity, as president Obama put it, and the democrats went along with the war in Iraq. I must have hit a button with you as your multiple comments are just a bunch of cr@p.
Yes, lets raise income taxes, we can tax the 49% who pay nothing yet suck up 80% of all government entitlements. Most of Obama voters fall into the freeloader category.
O'Bama has created an army of takers and has effectively blocked the producers. O'Bama has made the U.S. a Nation of "Takers" and blood-sucking Welfare/Free Phone Deadbeats where over 50% of the population are Slaves to O'Bama's Entitlements. The problem is O'Bama's 'it is my way and no other way, I WILL NOT COMPROMISE". He is creating debt to the point, that if the U.S. survives O'Bama's Socialist Agenda, it will take countless generations to pay off the debt merrily created by O'Bama and the Tax & Spend Democrats. O'Bama is a Cancer that needs needs permanently removed from office.
Democrats=Gimmedats
Huh? You apparently don't even know what the debt amount was before Obama took office the first time. Newsflash for you: It was 9T. Where did you get your 12T? In the back of your ass? Read that and educate yourself.
There isn't 30 years of war listed here. And you do realize that Obama has had every opportunity to pull troops out of the ME but he has yet to pull all of them? So why aren't you blaming him for some of the spent military money? Star Wars was in the 80s. Get over it.
No different than not deporting illegal immigrants (illegal immigrant grabber)
I don't see Obama trying to get rid of the DHS. Why aren't you complaining about that? Why only complain about what the GOP does and not why the DNC is *not* doing something that would make you happy? You just like complaining about the GOP. You probably don't even care whether the liberals fix these issues; you would still complain that they had to waste their time fixing issues "caused by" the GOP.
I don't see Obama trying to get of this one. Why aren't you complaining about that?
If Obama would quit aborting them this problem would be fixed.
Obama voted for TARP. Did you know that? He even gave a speech on the Senate floor supporting it. Bush only approved about half of the funds initially. After then-Senator Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, he asked Bush to request the second half of the TARP funds to be allocated to TARP. Did you know that? Read this: Obama has spent about $150 million compared to Bush's $260 million under TARP. Read this: assuming you want to stop sounding like an idiot by accusing Bush of doing it all.
You mean like all the subsidies that the Obama administration has given to 'green' companies, even companies that have still went bankrupt (which means we won't get the money back now)? Remember Solyndra? Ener1? Fisker? Tesla? Fisker and Tesla still exist but they have encountered production delays and Tesla hasn't even turned a profit yet while Fisker has sent production overseas. What business does the gov't have giving these companies subsidies? The fact that Solyndra's loan was initiated under Bush doesn't change anything; Obama could have canceled it, but he didn't.
What proof is there that the recession was due to the GOP? And why do you believe the government should have paid for anything to repair it? The collapse started with the housing market and cascaded to other industries such as construction. It got so bad that credit dried up for many businesses, even companies as large as GM so without being able to make products companies couldn't make money so they laid off people. What was it about the housing market that started it all? Too many people getting loans they couldn't pay for. And it eventually caught up with us as a country after a few years of people riding low interest rate mortgages before their high adjusted rate mortgages adjusted.
The government is not the economy. Consumers and businesses are. So anyone who believes the government can fix and is obligated to fix (like Obama thinks it is) an economy in which it only plays a minor role (less than 25%) is insane. The government can make conditions right (lower taxes so we have more money) to get us spending again but it should not be in the business of spending money on our behalf to replace us. That's not how a capitalist economy operates. If you think it should then you are insane. Governments make everything cost more because of bureaucracies, and yet people like the idea of the gov't controlling our healthcare. If you want to talk about repair bills what about the REPAIR BILL that Obama is forcing on every citizen to pay back our f*cking debt of $7 trillion he has racked up in just 4 years? Each person now owes more than $50k. How do you feel about that? Why aren't you complaining to Obama about why he has no qualms about making us owe so much? Under Bush it was only $28k per person.
Stupid liberals. See, I can play this game too, except I put facts in the rest of my message.
Obama used to be the president of change. You sound just like him. You continue blaming the past president. If Obama really represented change he would take responsibility even if it wasn't his to take in order to be a true leader and accept the hand he was dealt. Maybe you should ask Obama how he plans to pay for his healthcare bill? Why should we allow him to put us further into debt? Can a family be put further into debt and expect to survive? No. Quit blaming the GOP. It doesn't matter who spent the money. Obama is in power now. He can STOP the spending if he wants to, but he doesn't want to. That's the difference. He chided Bush for increasing the debt limit but is more than willing to have it extended for his own benefit. He is a damn hypocrite.
You don't include any facts in your ludicrous statements and yet you expect people to believe them because you, of no authority, said them. Try again.
Debt by Presidents ending as of 12/31/2012 - This data can be found on the PresidentialDebt.org web page. I know many believe that Clinton ended with a plus, he actually did, but the debt still did increase during his tenure.
Carter 4 Years - 276,666,000,000
Reagan 8 Years - 1,754,182,000,000
Bush 4 Years - 1,492,617,000,000
Clinton 8 Years - 1,485,209.013,697
Bush 8 Years - 5,037,586,851,015
Obama 4 Years - 5,432,925,185,957
The website removed my first couple links in my post:
national debt under Bush and Obama: www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
TARP money given by Obama and Bush: www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/TARP/
Had to correct a comma rather than a period in President Clinton's figures.
Debt by Presidents ending as of 12/31/2012 - This data can be found on the PresidentialDebt.org web page. I know many believe that Clinton ended with a plus, he actually did, but the debt still did increase during his tenure.
Carter 4 Years - 276,666,000,000
Reagan 8 Years - 1,754,182,000,000
Bush 4 Years - 1,492,617,000,000
Clinton 8 Years - 1,485,209,013,697
Bush 8 Years - 5,037,586,851,015
Obama 4 Years - 5,432,925,185,957
The problem with electing millionaires into office is that many of them make their money off of other people's money while they take none of the risk onto themselves. Romney for example as CEO of Bain Capitol increased his wealth by purchasing businesses, having those businesses borrow money they could not afford so he could pay himself bonuses and then when those businesses went bankrupt, none of the money came out of his pocket, instead it came from the worker's pension funds. So the workers lost their jobs as well as lost their pensions joining the 47% Romney so despised. Then he wants all of us to think he is such a great businessman because he is so wealthy, but his wealth came at the price of 7 companies driven to destruction and tens of thousands of employees put out of work! And people still wanted to vote him in as president?! That's what these millionaires of today on Wall Street love so much, they are risking other people's money and lives and even when they fail, and most times they want to fail, they make a profit!
"Debt by Presidents ending as of 12/31/2012"
Considering that congress spends money not presidents, those numbers are mostly worthless.
94% of the national debt belongs to just 3 people. Reagan, bush, and bush/cheney. If they could have balanced their budgets instead of spending like drunken sailors we would have almost no national debt today.
ReaganBushDebt.org
U.S. National Debt Graph + Voodoo-Economics Slides
Let me see...we expect a Senate that has not presented or passed a budget since 2009 to get a clue and pass one this year? Ha ha ha...but seriously folks we deserve better than we are getting from the Congress and the Administration. They should all have their pay and benefits frozen until they present a balanced budget.
Next
Why politicians, etc. are lying when they say we need to cut Social Security and Medicare because of the deficit:
The deficit was not caused by "entitlements" (SS, etc) it was caused by the crash in 2008 which was caused in large part by fraudulent practices of the banks and mortgage companies:
Economist Dean Baker:
...While the promotion of budget hysteria is one of the largest industries in Washington, the most important and widely ignored fact about the budget situation is that we have large deficits today because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy. This is not a debatable point.
The budget deficit was just 1.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2007. Before the collapse of the housing bubble the deficit was projected to remain low for the next decade and the debt-to-GDP ratio was actually falling. This would have been the case even if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to continue.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/04/take-your-hands-off-social-security/
Social Security is a separate trust fund and does not contribute one dime to the deficit. As a matter of fact, it is against the law for it to run a deficit. It is also not broke, it has a huge surplus:
Lies Linking Social Security to the National Debt
By Jeanine Molloff
Most Americans don't understand how Social Security and Medicare are funded, and as a result have been bamboozled by a curious assortment of corporate network 'talking heads,' (yes this includes CNN), and astroturf organizations whose sole purpose is to muddy intellectual waters--allowing corporate interests to reign supreme. They con us by crafting and massaging several myths regarding public programs.
Lie#1: Social Security is Broke....
This national myth is my all time favorite. Not only is Social Security NOT BROKE--IT IS THE ONLY FEDERAL PROGRAM WHICH IS FULLY FUNDED. I repeat--SOCIAL SECURITY IS FULLY FUNDED, ALWAYS HAS BEEN. The problem lies in the fact that the government has continually raided the monies all of us have paid into the system, to subsidize corporate tax breaks, unbridled military spending and what have become routine Wall Street bankster raids on the public dime. In fact, this raiding was discussed during the alleged 'surplus' years of the Clinton administration. In a heated congressional testimony by then Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and US Senator Ernest F. Hollings--the ongoing use of Social Security monies for general revenue projects was exposed. (Source: click here) If anything, the Fed Reserve 'owes' monies to the Social Security Fund.
Lie#2 : Social Security and Medicare Contribute to the National Debt...
Even a fiscal conservative like Sen. Max Baucus has testified that Social Security does not belong in deficit reduction talks. Baucus, as the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, held a hearing entitled "Perspectives on Deficit Reduction: Social Security" just this May. Baucus explained that:
"Social Security benefits are financed only through payroll taxes and the Trust Fund." Baucus further explained that Social Security, ..."is not responsible for the deficits we face in the general fund today. Therefore, I believe Social Security should not be part of our efforts to reduce these deficits." (Source : http://www.advisorone.com/node/20983) In fact the federal law FORBIDS any mingling of Social Security monies with general revenues. Baucus himself clearly stated that, ..."Social Security must remain separated from the rest of the Federal budget and the program cannot borrow money from the general Federal budget." (Source : http://www.advisorone.com/node/20983)…
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lies-Linking-Social-Securi-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110724-711.html
The deficit is not dangerous and will not destroy our economy. Likewise it will not create jobs if we cut it (probably just the opposite) and also our children are not going to pay for it if we don't cut it. Economist Dean Baker, again:
"… The deficit chicken hawks that dominate Washington policy debates are warning us that financial markets will panic if we don't soon get our debt under control, with investors fleeing the dollar and interest rates soaring. Japan's ratio of debt to GDP of 240 percent is more than twice that of the United States, yet the interest rate on long-term government bonds is hovering near 1.0 percent and the government's main concern is that the yen is over valued … "
From Ezra Klein, Washington Post
Interview with economist James K. Galbraith
James Galbraith is a son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith and Catherine (Kitty) Atwater Galbraith and is the brother of the former diplomat and commentator Peter W. Galbraith. He earned his BA, magna cum laude, from Harvard in 1974 and Ph.D from Yale in 1981, both in economics. From 1974 to 1975, Galbraith studied as a Marshall Scholar at King's College, Cambridge.[1]
From 1981 to 1982, Galbraith served on the staff of the Congress of the United States, eventually as Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee.[1] In 1985, he was a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution.[1]
Galbraith: The danger posed by the deficit 'is zero'
James Galbraith is an economist and the Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. chair in government and business relations at the University of Texas at Austin. He's also a skeptic of the prevailing concern over America's long-term deficit. With many people now comparing America's fiscal condition to Greece, I spoke with Galbraith to get the other side of the argument. An edited transcript of our conversation follows.
EK: You think the danger posed by the long-term deficit is overstated by most economists and economic commentators.
JG: No, I think the danger is zero. It's not overstated. It's completely misstated.
EK: Why?
JG: What is the nature of the danger? The only possible answer is that this larger deficit would cause a rise in the interest rate. Well, if the markets thought that was a serious risk, the rate on 20-year treasury bonds wouldn't be 4 percent and change now. If the markets thought that the interest rate would be forced up by funding difficulties 10 year from now, it would show up in the 20-year rate. That rate has actually been coming down in the wake of the European crisis….
Why then are so many politicians (Including Obama/Democrats) business people etc. so hysterical about the debt and adamant about cutting "entitlements"?
Ignorance, corruption, blind faith in an orthodoxy ("Free-market" economics), ambition, self interest and, yes, class warfare.
No one claimed that SSI and Medicare/Medicaid caused the deficit. What Republicans have been arguing is that projected outlays will take a larger and larger percentage of the projected revenues until we are spending more than 100% of GDP on those three programs. This too is not debatable - it is arithmetic.
Exactly what has been argued over and over on these boards. The Bush tax cuts caused economic growth which - over time - would more than make up for the "lost revenue".
It has a huge surplus of I.O.Us. Thanks to the Democrat congress in the 70's, Social Security - which was running a huge surplus - was taken out of trust and used in the general fund. It was replaced with I.O.U.s so, yes, you can say that the social security trust is fully funded but not with real money. Those I.O.U.s will have to be paid back because Social Security is quickly going to start paying out more than it takes in. It might be a lot sooner than people realized since record numbers of people are applying - and receiving Social Security Disability payments which were never factored into the long term sustainability of the program. Add to that Medicare and - to a lesser degree -Medicaid and eventually we won't have enough revenue - no matter what the tax rate - to pay for these programs.
Eventually the debt payments to SS will have to
No sooner than the fiscal cliff is avoided by postponement and tax increases...then very next words out of the Senate Leadership is the need for additional revenues (even more tax increases)!
Exactly when....yes WHEN...are they going to come forward with spending cuts? Our grandchildren are going to shoulder more government debt, per person, than anyone else on the planet...at this point it makes no difference what administration put it on...IT'S TIME TO START PAYING IT OFF.
If they are not going to cut spending...then raise taxes on EVERYONE...and do it through a national sales tax...the rich pay more, the under ground economy group pays more and yes...the poor pay more as well. Perhaps when the poor are taxed the cry to cut spending will reach their ears.
This is complete BS and shows a total lack of understanding of how the economy works. Lowering taxes so that you have more money does absolutely nothing for you. Because the government doesn't just lower your taxes, it lowers everyone's taxes. And so everyone has more money...but guess what, they are all trying to buy the same thing(s). So you just end up paying more for the same thing.
Rather, government is able to do things, economically that none of us can. It has economies of scale that none of us can muster individually. That is the whole and major purpose of government.
If there were no government involvement in the economy, there would be no long-term projects, no long-term advancements, very little research that did not pay off immediately, and therefore, we would have advanced considerably less than where we are currently.
When the economy can afford them.
Right. When we can borrow money at historically low rates, that's the time to not do that.
Rather, we should pay off the debt, ruin the economy due to excessive austerity, create an even BIGGER deficit, and THEN try to borrow money to fill the hole when the interest rate is much higher.
You are so smart.
The poor are already over-taxed. That's why they ended up poor in the first place.
The transcendent issue of our era is job growth and the shrinking of the middle class. Fix that, and we will have much smaller deficits and debt because we will have a much sturdier tax base.
The idea that half of America is lazy, shiftless moochers is idiotic. Virtually everyone wants to work. THAT is the transcendent issue of era - providing everyone with the opportunity.
JimO,
If your wife bought a new car last year on payments and you write the payment checks this year, are you the one responsible for that spending or is she?
This is where the deficit comes into play. Clinton left office, leaving a budget for GW that had a surplus. When Bush left, he also left behind a budget deficit of about $1.4 trillion annually. That is debt he created that required recurring payments. If Obama simply spent based upon the budget Bush left, he would have incurred $5.6 trillion in new debt over four years. But in fact he incurred less than that despite the fact that Bush also left the economic crisis which resulted in less revenues, so the debt would have been even high yet under Obama if he just stayed with Bush's budget. But in fact, Obama reduced deficit spending. Any deficit will result in more debt, but the deficit Bush left did not just go away when he left the White House.
The deficits under Obama came from the commitments Bush made some of which keep right on contributing to the deficit to this day. Bush "bought the car" on payments that continued long after he was gone. Obama signed the checks, but they were for previous commitments. This is what 1776 is saying. Yes that debt was incurred while Obama was signing the checks, but the bills he was paying were handed to him when he walked into office. They don't just disappear when a new guy is in the Oval Office. All that stuff 1776 listed didn't just go away because Bush did.
The fact is that Obama has reduced the deficit spending from when he walked in. I'm sure you don't want to believe it, but it is indeed true. Are you suggesting that a new President just renege on the commitments of the previous President? The fact is that he is obligated to pay those bills whether it is deficit spending or not. You really don't get it, do you?
PutAmerica First,the Social Security has already been "raided" - fourty years ago. They had a wonderful surplus, which was covering everything nicely, until Congress moved the surplus into the General Fund, leaving IOU's, which NEVER GOT PAID. That's one major thing wrong with our Government - they don't how to pay anything back! And they're always robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Byron, the poor are over taxed only because they buy more cigarettes, and booze than most. And most in my area have no incentive to work, except once in a while - just enough to get their cravings filled. We're getting "communes", filled with pickup campers, sheds, old house trailers, buses, all on the same property, not paying any kind of rent. They do nothing for our community, have no insurance of any kind, go every other week to the Food Bank, then trot off to the bar. These are the ones that make our entitlement programs so expensive. Our Government needs to weed out the loafers and leeches of our society.
@Byron Raum: Wrong Byron; even Senator Richard Durbin is calling for these cuts;
"We can't be so naive to believe that just taxing the rich will solve our problems, said Senator Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. "Put everything on the table. Repeat. Put everything on the table", stated the Senator in a speech at the Center for American Progress. "Progressives cannot afford to stand on the sidelines and deny the obvious".
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/27/news/la-pn-durbin-progressives-fiscal-cliff-20121127
Note to Senator Durbin: Evidently some on the vine continue to deny the obvious!
Shouldn't the Senate follow its own rules on the budget process?
Bill,
How foolish you are! Tell those words to a relative who is in a wheelchair and who doesn't drink or smoke and never has. Strokes can do that. So typically right wing a comments and narrow minded. Totally out of touch with reality!
Byron and others,
In case you guys hadn't noticed the taxes we are paying today are the lowest since the 1960's. Greed can make us blind to this!
Toxic,
You did hit a button. The war was a lie and so was the information fed to Congress to vote for it. It hits a button because two of my former students came home in body bags and we all wonder why? "Freedom isn't Free" is a line of BS when it comes to these two wars!
Funny how the Democrats were able to pass budget resolutions the last two years of the Bush terms, and they were the two highest passed under that administration. How liberals can tout Democrats as somehow being the fiscally responsible party is beyond comprehension. Since Obama has been president, Democrats have decided that we don't need no stinking budget. We can just spend this country into oblivion and blame it on Bush. No budget no pay seems reasonable. But lets finally see what Democrats feel this country needs to be spending and where. Lets see how many new taxes are going to be needed to cover the Democrat spending spree. My guess is that with Harry Reid behind the bill, expect Washington accounting gimmicks, no real spending cuts, and a ton of new taxes. Which by the way, Democrats don't like the term taxes any longer, they prefer to call it revenue increases.
As an Independent, and glad I can claim that, why in the hell cannot you Dems accept the fact that this President owns the debt he has created, he has created more debt than any other President and he will continue creating debt over the next four years at a rate that will ruin the USA. The big surplus that Clinton left was only 238 billion and that was only a short term plus as the payment to the debt had not yet been paid out. Clinton did create an increase of 1.4 trillion in the debt, much less than Bush and a whole lot less than Obama.
I just realized as I scrolled down and read this article again how much I want to put my fist in Bonehead Boehner's face. The fact that he has the House approval rating of 15.2% is further proof you should too!
PutAmericaFirst says:
Well, let's just look at the record: George W. Bush was a Republican president with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress for 6 years. What an ideal environment for the Republican reform that you mention. And here's what we got:
Make Your Taxes Disappear!
Michael Scheer April 2005
IN A SEASON OF campaign rallies and million-dollar ad buys, President Bush opted for one decidedly understated ceremony. On October 22, just 11 days before the election, he boarded Air Force One to sign $137 billion in new tax breaks for corporate America, one of the largest industry giveaways in two decades. His signature expanded exactly the sort of tax avoidance he had railed against at a campaign rally that morning: "The rich hire lawyers and accountants for a reason when it comes to taxes," Bush had told a roaring audience at a hockey arena in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. "That's to slip the bill, and stick you with it."
It was an apt description of the vaingloriously named American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Though the law began as an effort to end a $5 billion-a-year corporate tax subsidy that had been declared illegal by the World Trade Organization, it had grown into a hydra-headed beast. The law's principal author, Ways and Means Committee chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), jokingly referred to it as "Miss Piggy" on the House floor. Arizona Senator John McCain decried "the worst example of the influence of special interests that I have ever seen." The president's own Treasury secretary, John Snow, bemoaned the myriad "tax provisions that benefit few taxpayers." Top White House economists protested one new loophole that would cut $3 billion, primarily from the taxes of pharmaceutical and high-tech companies, without yielding "any substantial economic benefits."
Almost every industry in America received special favors. The tax cuts included half a billion for shipbuilders Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, $100 million for NASCAR racetrack owners, and $9 million for arrow manufacturers. Importers of Chinese ceiling fans—like Home Depot—got a break, as did energy companies angling to build a natural gas pipeline in Alaska. About $231 million went to reduce the taxes of shopping-mall developers in the states of key House and Senate members. Four Texas companies received special dispensation to shelter their profits in the Caribbean. The law also cut taxes on railroads, coffee roasters, timber firms, and Hollywood studios. General Electric received tax benefits worth more than $1 billion over the next decade.
"From the beginning to the end, this was designed by lobbyists," says C. Eugene Steuerle, codirector of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, who spearheaded corporate tax reform as a member of the Reagan Treasury in 1986. "The only question was whether this was the worst tax bill in our lifetime or the worst tax bill in U.S. history."
Yeah, you talk a good fight, just like Republicans. But history contradicts you. The champions for for corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks have always been Republicans - usually under the guise of "job creation" which is exactly what we have seen from the Republican majority over the last 2 years. Examined critically, every one of the "job creation" bills passed in the last 2 years that the Republicans complain cannot get a hearing in the Senate are thinly-veiled tax breaks for some Republican's favorite donor.
So let me fix that for ya:
In order to get rid of corporate welfare, you need to quit electing Republicans who write a large majority of the corporate welfare bills.
Try again...
The poor are already over-taxed. That's why they ended up poor in the first place.
That's pretty funny. They get their welfare cash assistance which they didn't earn, then they file income tax returns on it, and due to their poverty level they get twice what was taken out that they didn't earn.
My prediction is they'll leave all the corporate welfare in, they'll continue to allow the welfare citizens to file income tax returns with all the extra credits, they'll continue to let illegal aliens file for returns, and then they'll completely shaft the middle class AGAIN.
Libs could give an absolute @!$%# about the middle class.
Typical ignorant Liberal... businesses don't pay taxes... to them it's just one more operating cost... they pass it on to US, the consumers... so when you get rid of tax breaks for risky oil exploration and drilling, all you do is increase the price of crude, and consequently the price of gas at the pump... so what you're actually calling for is a tax increase on everyone who buys gas... what a moron you are.... that type of tax increase hurts the most vulnerable of us, seniors living on fixed incomes and low income families....
The solution is simple, impose a 50% payroll tax on the employer and employee's share of all wages. We've been listening for the last 4 years (well, 70 years, but who's counting) how higher taxes are good for the economy. So, this will inspire everyone to work hard and employers will definitely want to higher more people, thus expanding the economy. This will also give government more money to do their worthwhile endeavors. It's a win-win-win for everyone!
Another know-it-all conservative who didn't pass (or never took) Economics. There is a limit to how much they can pass onto consumers. The limit to how much they pass on is determined by the elasticity of the supply-demand curve for that product. The rest is taken out of corporate profits, which, oh, horrors!, probably does nothing more than trim a coupla $million from that $100Million the CEO makes!
I invite you to actually learn some economics!
Interesting that the liberals still want to talk history on debt accumulation. Most are incorrect, but lets assume they are for fun....What do you expect Bush, Reagan, Carter or Clinton to DO about it now? They're gone.
Obama is in office for 4 years and just got re-elected for another 4. He is 100% responsible for what he does. So, either he cuts the debt or he adds to the debt.
So, liberals, you must blame him for not cutting the debt or you must support additional reckless spending like his predecessors. At some point, someone, Rep or Dem, must be fiscally responsible. Who will it be?
EEngineer, you really should look at the profit margins for industries. Oil has one of the lowest profit margins, so yes this cost will be passed on to consumers.
Oddly, the favored industries of liberals have high margins and yet get tax breaks: see Hollywood and various green energy companies.
We need to raise taxes now! Our government does not have a spending problem..., it is a mental illness, that makes them believe they are playing monopoly...
Of course the PROGRESSIVES (we no longer have LIBERALS nor DEMOCRATS) are pondering MORE TAXES so they can SPEND MORE.
They are just trying to keep up with Mr. Obama's agenda:
The only MENTAL ILLNESS I can see are the PROGRESSIVES and their surrogates.
Elastic or inelastic supply/demand curves refer to the response of the market to increases in price, they have nothing to do with profit margin.
As crude oil prices increased, oil company profits increased. They were able to pass the increased cost of their raw materials (+a little bit, hence the increase in profits) on to the consumers. This is the perfect example of an inelastic supply/demand curve. A rise in price results in little to no dip in demand.
Again, I encourage you to actually learn a little bit about economics.
Nothing will help the economy come roaring back like a good, stiff, tax hike...
This is the time to put aspects of Simpson Bowels in place. There are many common sense and reasonable provisions in that plan. Something for every body.
If Obama had embraced the Simpson Bowles plan during his first term there would have been no need for him to campaign. But that whole effort was just a stall tactic, designed to make Obama appear concerned about the debt and the deficit while spending continued unabated. Once the report was issued by Obama's blue ribbon commission, it wasn't given so much as a second thought. Proof that no one can trust anything our political leaders have to say, as talk is cheap and never solves anything. So until this country has term limits in Congress and a balanced budget amendment, future generations are going to pay a heavy price for the irresponsible behavior we see today.
Charles Schumer, D- N.Y., who said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Senate adoption of a budget resolution is “going to be a great opportunity for us. Because in our budget that we will pass, we will lift tax reform, which many of my Republican colleagues liked, but it’s going to include (additional) revenues. It’s a great opportunity to get us some more revenues … You’re going to need more revenues as well as more (spending) cuts to get the deficit down.”
They love that revenue term. Who's next for more taxes?
Let's work on getting people employed (Jeff Immelt head of job council)
And any of the idiots in Congress that votes for additional taxes (again!) without meaningful, immediate cuts needs to be voted out of office at the first opportunity and possibly tried for treason.
Jane....democrats love the term "revenue" instead of "taxes" just like republicans love "job creators" instead of "wealthy".
Kevin,
Obamas term is Job Council
Which only meant once last year, probably because Immelt is busy moving GE jobs overseas instead of trying to put Americans back to work. We could use some job creation Kevin.
Isn't it special how the head of Obama's jobs council is the CEO of a major corporation that pays zero in taxes, and keeps profits and jobs overseas. Obama bashed his challenger during the campaign for doing the same, but no surprise he has never had a problem with it when the perpetrators are supporting the Democratic Party. There is so much hypocrisy in Washington these days that it is almost impossible to see through it.
Even more interesting GE owns 80% of NBC Universal.
The Republicans should have stood their ground on the debt ceiling issue. Unfortunately the old guard seems to be afraid to stand up to Obama - this must change. I'm afraid they are afraid of the media - they want to be liked - which is sickening - they don't need to be liked - they need to brave on with conservatism. The real problem is the need for more truly conservative members of congress like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. The Republicans lost the election because they failed to get their base out in the election - because we put forward a milk toast moderate Republican that did not show enough aggressive contrast to the flawed vision of a true liberal ideologue. Take heart conservatives and fellow Republicans - keep your heads in reality - despite the media's attempt to remake reality - Obama is not that popular - in actual votes he got 4 million less votes than he did in 2009. He had less than half as many show up for his inauguration. He had no landslide - he got 51.1% of the vote - he won a total of 26 states - Reagan had two landslides - one where he got almost all 50 states. The media is trying to draw comparisons between Obama and Reagan - which is beyond laughable. Reagan aggressivley defended the Constitution - Obama chooses to try and subvert and destroy it. We are a country of 350 million plus Americans....only 64 million voted for Obama. So keep your heads in reality. Obama has no mandate despite the liberal media hype. He is on a March but there will hopefully be unknown events that will get him off track - at the same time lets pray an eloquent statesman able to educate the masses on the virtues of a free economy and its ability to elevate the masses begins to take shape. We currently have 7.8% unemployment and this president made no mention of job creation in his inaugural speech. What Obama wants has been tried and proven to be a failure at creating a sustaining civil society - from pseudo-Marxism to Socialism to Communism - it has been done and it's failures are littered thru History. The speech was a pathetic attempt to sound like a great president - a pathetic attempt from a pathetic man.
I think they will stand their ground, but they have to get a plan in place. They spent so much time dealing with the fiscal cliff that they are unprepared for a battle with the debt ceiling.
The House didn't need to stand their ground on the debt ceiling. They got almost everything they wanted on taxes from the fiscal cliff deal, probably more than they expected. By pushing back the debt ceiling issue they can now focus on the Sequestration spending cuts and the FY2013 budget for federal spending. Unless the House chooses to put tax issues into that legislation, the discussion will only be about spending cuts.
The Senate will pass a budget (revenues and cuts) that will get the support of House Democrats. Boehmer will do what he did with the Fiscal Cliff. He will send it to the House for an up/down vote. The Tea-Party will be able to vote against it and avoid a challenge for their right in 2014. The bill will pass with just a handful of reasonable Republicans. Why? Because the Republican strategy of the last 4 years has failed and Republicans need to regroup. Their number one goal now is not to defeat the President but to re-habilitate the Republican brand. They need a new message that appeals to a new electorate. I think you will see a much more mellow Republican Part. Boehmer will not run for Speaker in 2-14 even if Republicans hold the House. The Republican Party of the last 4 years is going down.
B707 - perhaps you don't understand the rules of our Constitution. The Senate CANNOT pass legislation that contains revenue increases (or cuts) and send it to the House. ALL revenue bills must ORIGINATE in the House of Representatives - PERIOD!
Unless the House of Representatives passes a bill that contains revenue increases or cuts, the Senate (and Obama) can do nothing but sit on the sidelines and mourn their misfortunes.
The Senate will handle the revenue issue through the reconciliation process. The House will pass whatever bill puts this whole thing behind them. This is not about the Constitution or the House. It's about rehabilitating the Republican Party and at this point only the Senate can Rehabilitate it without incurring the full wrath of the Tea-Party. I am talking survival politics, not Constitutional law.
Whats wrong with a flat tax on everyone, we have too many people living off the backs of others.
Republicans would stand their ground if the mainstream media weren't so openly liberal. The media will simply tout whatever the Democrats tell them too, as they have long forgotten the purpose of a free press. Remember the adage, ye who controls the press controls the masses. Truer words were never spoken, and our mainstream media is complicit, not questioning in how they report.
IF you think that the government will spend your money more wisely than you say "Aye" and vote democrat.
Then I'll say it. I am happy to pay into and receive the services that our local, state, and federal governments provide. America would be a third world nation otherwise. Oh, that's what the tea party is aiming for isn't it. That aside, I am all for eliminating wast full spending, and eliminating fraud, and abuse. And I believe that is what Sen. Schumer will propose in his bill. President Obama has not proposed an increase in taxes on the middle class as some on this board have already claimed as fact.
A proud democrat.
Berndog or dumbdog its easy to see that you dont pay much income tax. I bet you were for the death tax too eh. Schumer is just another loud mouth liberal.
stopfreeloaders
Local, state, and federal money goes into providing you police protection, fire protection, water, food, what little education you have, a court system, the roads that we travel everyday. Kind of makes you a freeloader doesn't it?
Aye! There is a jobs bill sitting on Boners desk for years now that is modeled on the New Deal. The New Deal worked and we are still reaping the rewards of all the infrastructure that was built. But it is wearing out. Let's do it again!
Yeah! How about those shiny new F-16 we are giving to the muslim brotherhood. I bet Berndog is real happy to be paying for the brotherhood too.
Obama said it was only fair that the rich pay a little bit more to pay off the deficit...did Obama take an arithmetic class over the holidays???
What???
Budgets that the House and Senate pass are not legislation, they are frameworks to be used to structure the actual appropriation bills that direct the Administrative Branch how and how much money it can spend. Anything the Senate may put into their budget regarding taxes is simply a wish list. Unless the House of Representatives puts proposed tax changes into legislation that they then pass and send it over to the Senate for action, there is nothing the Senate can do about raising taxes. Thanks to our Constitution, all tax revenue bills MUST originate in the House. Neither the Senate nor Obama are in a position to demand anything from the House regarding either tax cuts or tax increases. ALL the power over taxes now belongs to Boehner and the Republicans.
Please Democrats jack up the taxes on all Americans. I'm sure that will cause a vast increase of jobs. While your at it make sure you add an 18% carbon tax so all the utility prices increase. Perhaps we can make more social programs like feed the use to be middle class a few crumbs.
Aunt I'm hearing voices Anna.
Perhaps we as Democrats should just pass taxes on registered Republicans. That the ticket.....
They do. Most of the takers of government programs are obama supporters.
Print more money Democrats. Why bother with taxes. It really is to far gone to stop the Fiscal collapse anyways. I understand that China now wants the state of California for its share of money we owe them. As a staunch Democrat please turn the state over immediately.
They already did. Where have you been?
Besides China has real strong anti gun laws. I'll bet the gangs in California will be exterminated in a quick manner.
When I heard Obama speak I had an Orgasm also.....
I think most of the posters here have an orgasm when they even think about Obama.
Liberals just can't seem to decide whether Obama has engineered a recovery or whether we are still stuck in recession...
Bush's recession ended 43 long months ago.
We are now basking in the glow of Obama's recovery!
Isn't it grand?
Liberals just can't decide what to do with the whacked out republican party that is doing everything within it's power to continue the Bush recession despite the gains President Obama and the Democratic party have achieved.
It's not grand.
Dems think they can spend their way out of debt then blame the gop for their own shortcomings
Once again, lies are the only thing republicans have.
It worked in the 1930s. The New Deal was a stimulus.
It worked in the 1950s. Ikes hiway building program was a stimulus.
It did not work in the 1980s. Reagan spent the money on military misadventures, so it was wasted.
It did not work in the 2000s because the money was wasted on military misadventures instead of infrastructure.
See the pattern here?
Berndog,
Perhaps the blow hard Democrats could show us a balanced budget or any budget since they can't figure out the process since 2009.
Next
Notsosure10,
Maybe the wacked out republicans can show us anything other than being crazy.
Next
In follow up to my earlier post - I just checked the election results for Ronald Reagan - since the media of late is trying to draw parallels -
1979 Reagan vs. Carter - 44 states to Carter's 6 and 50.8% to Carter's 41% - now that was a landslide
1983 Reagan vs. ? - Reagan 525 Electoral votes and 60% of the popular vote
So don't let any liberals or Democrats try to suggest Obama even comes close to being Reaganesque. It is beyond laughable - the pitiful man in the White House got 51.1% of the vote in re-election and got 4 million fewer votes than he did in 2009 - there are however several records Obama is likely to set:
-More folks added to Food Stamps than any other President
-More high unemployment throughout an entire presidency
-Racking up more total debt than any US president in history
-Presiding over record unemployment for the black community - any time spent in Detroit or Philly Barry?
-Fooling more Americans into believing he truly cared about the middle classs
He will set records all right - but don't ever compare him to Reagan or Lincoln or even Bill Clinton for that matter.
Reagan would be drummed out of the Republican Party of today, assuming he could win a primary.
BTW, Reagan raised taxes 11 times and tripled the deficit. Kinda sorta does make him more like the stereotypical liberal.
BTW. Regan CUT TAX RATES. He raised Excise Taxes and other type of taxes like that. He also agreed to raise taxes in return for spending cuts. He was DOUBLE-CROSSED by Tip O'Neil and didn't get the spending cuts.
Yes, Reagan cut taxes on the rich and raised taxes on the rest of us.
Oh could you at least come up with some new b.s. to spew. Same old lies over and over and over from the right wing of this stupid gun crazy country! Reagan raised taxes over and over and over again. He shifted all the wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and started the downward spiral of the middle class over the last 30 years. These are called FACTS. Get a clue and quit with the Fox News crap. Man!
And P.S. Allison whatever I believe thinking people of America have probably said this about two billion times but here goes again; President Obama did not cause the Depression, Bush did hence the reason so many people had to go on food stamps, unemployment etc. It takes a good 10 years to come out of the type of Depression we were in and believe me it was a depression not a recession. So, once again, go back to school or something, pull your head out of your arse or whatever but no more "food stamps" etc. etc. etc. Come up with something new please. I beg you.
Does anyone want to respond to UnitedStates 1776? I don't do stupid and/or uninformed voters.
You don't do stupid, because you are an idiot! Talk about your LOW-INFORMATION/UNINFORMED VOTER? @!$%#brain Allison YOU are the epitome of LOW EVERYTHING!!!!!!
Newsflash... Obama supports more debt and more deficit spending! Shocker.
Still clueless. The President cannot spend one dollar of federal revenue...unless/until that revenue is allocated by Congress.....which includes the GOP run House.
How did he spend 5 billion last week in Executive Orders with a stoke of the pen then? I guess I missed Congress on that one. How much has he shoved through with his EO's & other ploys? Oblabla Care?????
Deerjerk: Anything that the President spends has already been approved by the Congress. Learn a little about how your government works.
How has be been able to spend anything then if Congress has not passed a budget in 4 years? They never authorized jack other than the debt ceiling and if I am not wrong, the debt ceiling is not a spending approval.
How about a budget there Dem's?
How about you follow the process and get the Executive branch to sit down an shut up for a minute so we can get this Country back on track?
Obama has proposed a budget every year....which gets promptly shot down in the House. And a budget gets passed every year, either as a budget or as a CR. Which gets us to the GOP budget. If you have your house on the market for $500K and your only offer is a $200K take it or leave it offer, are you remiss if you don't try to negotiate? The GOP Ryan budget was DOA before it passed...and the GOP knew it.
Presidents send Congress a budget request. They normally don't vote on it and are free to ignore it. The House and Senate are responsible for developing their own budgets. Remember when Pelosi announced that the Bush budget was "dead on arrival"??? The Boehner House is sending that same message to Obama.
So how many votes did Obama's Budgets get in the Senate? Did Harry Reid even bring them up for a vote?
Learn how your government works, moron.
A budget requires the House and the Senate, moron
Obama is being gracious about it because he gets what he wants, even if for only a few months, delivered on a platter. Why wouldn't he be gracious?
IF there were ANY adults in the room in the House, Senate, or White House, they would ALL be concerned about how much debt we are leaving for our children and their children to pay off.
The US debt per person is 3x the amount per person for Canada and 5x the amount per person for the UK.
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/trendy/plots/963
Tell me why ANY of us should feel good about our debt level increasing, with no plan to get it under control?
debt ceiling and deficit are two separate issues.
I think the president is inline for another Nobel piece price again. Just like the first one for.......nothing.
woodbutcher,
One leads to the other since your thinking requires some stimulation. Let me guess your a professor of mathematics at an Ivy League University...right? Increasing the debt leads to a higher deficit and or national debt unless you have a budget that balances revenue with expenses. Lesson over.
Next
You want to stop this insanity?All the crap about entitlement? Everybody quit their jobs and hop on the entitlement band wagon and see how far you go before you are thrown off because there "ISN'T" enough money for it..When all the "FREE" stuff runs out, It's every man/woman for themselves and you /we , AIN"T one of them. There's no way the "LITTLE" (the rich) will support the LOT (US). OH!! and social security is NOT an entitlement. We pay for it EVERY week.
Whats so sad is if all the democrats were to die tomorrow it wouldn't even be noticed in the work force.
You wouldn't know what the work force looks like.
27 of the 32 states that take more than they give are red states.
14 of the 18 states that give more than they receive are blue states.
It is us hard working tax paying Democrats who are supporting you welfare queen republicons. When are you going to secede so we can get our budget under control?
Red State Socialism | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Republicans got more than they ever dreamed of in the fiscal cliff deal. 99.3% of taxpayers saw their Bush tax cut rates made "permanent", only 0.7% are impacted, and even billionaires now have lower tax rates than they did in 2000. That is only a fraction of the top 1%. Republicans have been trying to make these temporary tax rates permanent for almost 12 years. Bush2 has a big smile on his face.
With tax increases now off the table, Republicans can focus solely on spending cuts. They now have the power. Americans want to see cuts in federal spending, and that is the issue that Congress will be debating over the next few months.
Obommie the commie is coming after everything you have. He just wants to go on more tax payer funded vacations and let his wife shop for the "great" clothes she wears from tramps "r" us
Shut up HOSER.
The only body in the three tiered system of government in this nation that is allowed to pass budgets and spend money is the House of Representatives! Read the Constitution! It is as clear as day! The only reason Boehner is passing the buck is because his party relies on the Tea Party that hates all government, who refuses to pass a Republican budget, as the Constitution requires, even though they control the House with their majority!
No President or Senate can spend one dollar without House of Representative approval!
Blaming President Obama for the debt that the House ran up, and the past wars and spending, while not one Republican stood up to say no,and the President gave tax breaks to the already too rich buddies, is really stretching the truth about as far as the world is wide!
Get off your talking points! They are lies designed to convince your minions to vote for you, while your leaders pray at the altars of Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers.....
Bingo! The Republicans run up debt then blame the other guy. The blind lemmings that support them cant seem to understand that they would sell them down the river in a heartbeat. How can people be so stupid.?
Isn't it great! The Tea Party and conservative Republicans are "strangling the beast" of big government. Obama is even helping them out by making the Bush tax cuts "permanent" for 99.3% of taxpayers and according to the CBO this legislation will add another $4 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. Obama and the Dems will be forced to make deep spending cuts. What a hoot!
While it is true that not one penny can be spent by the federal government without legislation passed by the House, it is also true that not one penny can be spent by the federal government without legislation passed also by the Senate and also signed into law by the President. It takes all three.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading you're comment after your incorrect statement about the Republican controlled house not passing budgets.
When the Republicans took over the House they Passed a Budget for the second half of FY 2010, even though it was supposed to have been passed by Oct 1st of 2009, you remember Pelosi was in charge of the House in 2009.
In 2010 the Republican controlled house passed a Budget for 2011, and again for 2012. You can't tell me you've forgotten about the two Ryan budgets that you have demagogued for the last two years?
Where do you think all the Democrats inaccurate talking points came from such as the Republicans want to destroy Medicare, they want to throw grandma over the cliff, they want Grandma to starve, etc.
The really sad thing is that the longer they put off changing Medicare and Social Security the more drastic the changes will have to be to fix them and if they don't act at all they will simply collapse in a decade or two.
Most of the increase in government spending came from the house and senate when Dems controlled everything.
Ban democrates , that will fix the issue !
Yes that the ticket. MORON
Democratic rule is giving way to a projected budget surplus in California, after nearly a decade of GOP failure.
D-#######
What BUDGET SURPLUS in CA.? We just RAISED our Sales Tax to 8.5% and the top Income Tax to 13.3%.
Last time I looked Ca. was 19 BILLION IN THE HOLE LAST YEAR! Where did you get your info?
Rat cheer:
"Brown, a Democrat with a national reputation as a liberal, plays up his penny pinching in California. He has repeatedly stressed the need for spending restraint, even amid signs the state economy is picking up.
California job growth tops the national average, unemployment has fallen below double-digit levels for the first time in nearly four years, and voters in November approved a tax increase that closed most of the lingering budget gap.
The state Department of Finance on Thursday projected unemployment will fall to 9.6 percent this year and 8.7 percent in 2014."
Go Governor Moonbeam!
California Budget Surplus? Governor Introduces Plan That Eliminates Deficit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/10/us-usa-california-budget-idUSBRE9090PV20130110
D-1129384
From your article.
PROPOSING isn't an actual Budget. By the time the Democrats in the Legislature get done with Brown's PROPOSED Budget. It will be like all the rest,Billions in the RED!
I've lived my entire life in California. It's been run into the ground. It's been pretty much a blue state since 1988. The 7th largest economy in the world. One of the worst school systems in the nation. The 510 is a combat zone as is the 313. One of the highest taxed states. Lot's of tech companies headquartered here that have most of their operations in other states and countries. Entertainment industry that completes most of their production in other states and countries. A freeway system that is in disrepair and largely inadequate. A huge unemployment rate and a steady influx of foreign workers for everything from agriculture to tech. But hey, at least we have some awesome weather and open space. Want to know what the future holds for the U.S.? Look no further than the formerly great state of California. The funniest thing... it's like a frog in a jaccuzzi who doesn't know the water's getting hotter. It just dies, without it ever seeing it coming.
Do not understand or comprehend how and or why the GOP comes up with the worst, incompetent leaders ever to set foot in the house of Reps. This TURKEY Boehner is the absolute worst they have come up with and they sure have had some doosies.If the Country thinks they made a change ,they sure have . That position has gone from bad to probably the worst ever Speaker in my 83 YEARS on this earth. God Bless America should now be God Help America with this latest group.
I bet you vote straight ticket eh old man.
I don't give two craps about the debt and the deficit- I care about jobs, jobs, jobs.
GOP reasoning will have us pay off $16 trillion dollars before we can solve any other problems in America.
The GOP didnt seem to care when they were running up, the huge deficit. in fact it was Dick Cheney whom said deficits dont matter. Then when a Dem takes over its all about the deficit? What a holes!
And as far as jobs go. Why would the Republicans in Congress block each and every proposed jobs bill?
They are simpleton obstructionists and traitors to our nation.
Were currently paying $220+ Billion dollars a Year to service that debt, A.K.A. interest.
How many roads do you think we could fix with an extra $220 billion dollars a year?
How many teachers could we afford for our schools?
How many other things do you think of we could be spending $220+ billion dollars a year on instead of making interest payments on our debt?
D-1129384
I don't give two craps about the debt and the deficit- I care about jobs, jobs, jobs.
It's not society's job or the Governments job or Wall Streets job to "take care of you" That's your job
If you really cared about jobs you wouldn't have voted for Obama, duh.
President Obama has had 30 straight months of positive job growth which is way more than Bush had. When he took office the GDP was -5%, it is now passed+3% . When President Obama took office, the Dow was at 7000 it is now above 13600. When President Obama took office he had two failed wars that where not paid for, literally handed to him like a hot potato. He has sense ended the Iraqi war, is ending the Afghan war and saving the tax payers billions of dollars in the process. But you screwed up republicans just can't seem to come to grips with reality so you deflect and blame. Cowards all of you.
Berndog,
Keep reading the Department of Labor reports until you look at the participation rates. I know it is difficult for you to understand since you have been drinking the Kool aid but there less people employed than in 2009. So we have had a net loss of employment since 2009 and the unemployment rate is still 8.7% not the promised 5.4% from President Obama. Funny how selective your reading and hearing skills are. Here is a link for your education.
By the way the Democrats talked long and hard to get us into Afghanistan and Iraq and passed bills to pay for it. Try reading the Congressional records for that one.
Another fine example of Democratic leadership from behind. Just like passing those bills "to find out what is inside".
www.bls.gov
Next
I agree D! Who cares about our growing debt and Trillion dollar deficits? That's for my children and grandchildren to worry about, right?