Spending Out of Control

[Baffled]

Why is it that in the face of unfathomable economic debt, our government, in particular the current administration/congress, continues to spend money it does not have? Why are the concepts of cutting spending and budgeting so foreign? To me it feels like Obama has an agenda, right or wrong for the country, that takes precedent over this most critical issue. This is not Obama bashing, this is a serious question I pose so save the defensive remarks for another thread - just looking for honest thoughts from both sides of the political spectrum

"Some people live and learn, some people just live"

 

[PeteEU]

The US has been spending out of control since Reagan. He started the trend and the rest minus Clinton (since he had a surplus) have just continued the trend. That is what right wing fantasy borrow and spend politics get you.

 

[The Uncola]

Why is it that in the face of unfathomable economic debt, our government, in particular the current administration/congress, continues to spend money it does not have? Why are the concepts of cutting spending and budgeting so foreign? To me it feels like Obama has an agenda, right or wrong for the country, that takes precedent over this most critical issue. This is not Obama bashing, this is a serious question I pose so save the defensive remarks for another thread - just looking for honest thoughts from both sides of the political spectrum

"Some people live and learn, some people just live"

Why is it righties are only concerned with "unfathomable economic debt" when they are out of power, but deficit spend like drunken sailors with a pocket full of no limit credit cards when they are?

:tomato:

 

[soccerboy22]

Why is it that in the face of unfathomable economic debt, our government, in particular the current administration/congress, continues to spend money it does not have? Why are the concepts of cutting spending and budgeting so foreign? To me it feels like Obama has an agenda, right or wrong for the country, that takes precedent over this most critical issue. This is not Obama bashing, this is a serious question I pose so save the defensive remarks for another thread - just looking for honest thoughts from both sides of the political spectrum

"Some people live and learn, some people just live"

This isn't something new. This is something one party bitches about until it convinces the public that they will fix the problem. Then when elected they just continue spending money just in a different area. Fiscal responsibility is all but dead in our politicians.

 

[Baffled]

Why is it righties are only concerned with "unfathomable economic debt" when they are out of power, but deficit spend like drunken sailors with a pocket full of no limit credit cards when they are?

:tomato:

Once again these things turn into a forum for people to get a little hot under the collar. Lets look at some numbers and if you really think that the country while under Obama will not (already has) exceed the spending of the last administration, you are the one living in fantasy land

According to the Congressional Budget Office a few weeks ago, the CBO expects the Obama budget over the period 2010 to 2020 will run a cumulative deficit of $11.3 trillion — $1.2 trillion more than the administration predicted back in February. By 2020, total federal debt would reach an astonishing $20.3 trillion — up from $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008. That looks like a pretty big increase if you ask me or any self respecting statistician

A couple of excerpts from a recent article by James Capretta sum it all up. The president likes to say he inherited a mess. He did in fact enter office during a deep recession that sent deficits soaring on a temporary basis. But his policies have unquestionably made an already difficult medium- and long-term budget outlook much, much worse. The problem is that President Obama is a world-class spender. He wants to pile massive new commitments on top of a bloated and unreformed government. He is willing to raise taxes to pay for some of his wish list, but far from all of it. For the rest, he plans to run up the nation’s debt with reckless abandon. CBO’s numbers tell the story

The administration has been touting a supposed three-year spending “freeze” as evidence of its determination to cut the budget back. But only a very small portion of the budget would be frozen, and only after the administration had spent two years stuffing in more funding.

This sounds familiar… That’s right, it was McCain’s platform during the election. Bush spent too much as well... the difference is that the economy is taking a nosedive if you have not noticed and real steps need to be taken right now. I would write more, but I need to go and put some more on my no limit credit cards and I have an appointment to buy a home through Fannie Mae for no money down and no credit check

 

[Baffled]

This isn't something new. This is something one party bitches about until it convinces the public that they will fix the problem. Then when elected they just continue spending money just in a different area. Fiscal responsibility is all but dead in our politicians.

I totally agree with this - the problem is the bipartisanship in this country and all the politicians wanting to save their political careers knowing that if they make tough decisions to cut spending for the good of the country, they will be out of a job. In the meantime, we keep piling debt up on our children and their children. Somebody needs to step up - Republican or Democrat, I could care less

 

[soccerboy22]

I totally agree with this - the problem is the bipartisanship in this country and all the politicians wanting to save their political careers knowing that if they make tough decisions to cut spending for the good of the country, they will be out of a job. In the meantime, we keep piling debt up on our children and their children. Somebody needs to step up - Republican or Democrat, I could care less

I agree, but I would also go farther. We have programs here in the States that people like. They don't want to get rid of them, but to pay for them taxes have to be raised. And that is the last thing Americans want to do is pay more taxes. So, we need to cut the programs we can't pay for, but people like them and don't want them to be cut. That leads us to having programs that people like having and don't want to get rid of, but aren't willing to pay for through taxes. People need to get it through their head that if you want these programs you need to pay higher taxes to pay for them and if you don't want to pay the taxes then the programs die and whatever funding it got goes elsewhere.

 

[Baffled]

I agree, but I would also go farther. We have programs here in the States that people like. They don't want to get rid of them, but to pay for them taxes have to be raised. And that is the last thing Americans want to do is pay more taxes. So, we need to cut the programs we can't pay for, but people like them and don't want them to be cut. That leads us to having programs that people like having and don't want to get rid of, but aren't willing to pay for through taxes. People need to get it through their head that if you want these programs you need to pay higher taxes to pay for them and if you don't want to pay the taxes then the programs die and whatever funding it got goes elsewhere.

Amen brother - it is really simple if you get rid of the entitlement mindset in this country. If you can't pay for it, you don't get it, excluding people who truly do require help and assistance. People don't want to pay more taxes so the only other option is to cut spending and handle your business so to speak. I did forget the third option which is to increase the deficit and spend away and let someone else deal with it. Unfortunately, I think the time for someone else to deal with it is right now, but it is political suicide to make tough cuts like the ones that are required

 

[The Uncola]

Once again these things..

Nonsense.

Top 3 deficit spenders, in decreasing order:

#1 George W Bush

#2 Ronald Reagon

#3 George H W Bush

Those are the facts, minus the :spin:.

Sorry you don't like reality.

 

[Baffled]

Nonsense.

Top 3 deficit spenders, in decreasing order:

#1 George W Bush

#2 Ronald Reagon

#3 George H W Bush

Those are the facts, minus the :spin:.

Sorry you don't like reality.

Numbers from the CBO are nonsense I guess. In three years this list will start with #1. Obama without a doubt. I love how facts get dismissed as nonsense

 

[The Uncola]

Numbers from the CBO are nonsense I guess. In three years this list will start with #1. Obama without a doubt. I love how facts get dismissed as nonsense

This is the first year of ANY Obama Administration budget.

2009 was a George W Bush budget.

Those are the facts.

Sorry you don't like reality.

 

[Cephus]

I agree, but I would also go farther. We have programs here in the States that people like. They don't want to get rid of them, but to pay for them taxes have to be raised. And that is the last thing Americans want to do is pay more taxes. So, we need to cut the programs we can't pay for, but people like them and don't want them to be cut. That leads us to having programs that people like having and don't want to get rid of, but aren't willing to pay for through taxes. People need to get it through their head that if you want these programs you need to pay higher taxes to pay for them and if you don't want to pay the taxes then the programs die and whatever funding it got goes elsewhere.

I would like to see an end to unfunded mandates. Within every new program must be a means for paying for it entirely. The people must vote on the program along with the means for funding it. If the funding ever ceases, the program automatically stops. Except in the most extreme circumstances, I think that selling bonds needs to be ended as a means of paying for programs.

 

[randel]

Why is it that in the face of unfathomable economic debt, our government, in particular the current administration/congress, continues to spend money it does not have? Why are the concepts of cutting spending and budgeting so foreign? To me it feels like Obama has an agenda, right or wrong for the country, that takes precedent over this most critical issue. This is not Obama bashing, this is a serious question I pose so save the defensive remarks for another thread - just looking for honest thoughts from both sides of the political spectrum

"Some people live and learn, some people just live"

if this isnt 'obama bashing', you would have been better served to leave out the phrase 'in particular the current administration.....', as it would add credibility.

 

[Baffled]

if this isnt 'obama bashing', you would have been better served to leave out the phrase 'in particular the current administration.....', as it would add credibility.

Bashing Obama would include conspiracy theory insanity, his ties to terrorist, his intent on taking over the world and ruining the country, his muslim background and such. I don't buy into to this stuff and I can't stand it when people start trying to stir this type of stuff up, but what I do see is ridiculous spending by the Obama administration in the face of our current financial situation and economy. Having lost all credibility already, I will go out on the proverbial limb and tell you that I don't care who is in office Dem or Rep - we need to cut spending and come down to reality - period.

 

[Josie]

The US has been spending out of control since Reagan.

?? How about since FDR?

 

[PeteEU]

?? How about since FDR?

Not really. There is no problem in spending it self. The problem comes when that spending is done via taking on debt or massive deficits and that has really only been done on a huge scale since WW2.. by Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 and now somewhat Obama.

But I know where you are going.. and I refuse to go there

 

[Camlon]

This is the first year of ANY Obama Administration budget.

2009 was a George W Bush budget.

Those are the facts.

Sorry you don't like reality.

Republican presidents haven't been good at cutting spending, and Clinton did well, but point is. Obama si by far the worst spender. The deficits you will see under Obama is terrible and way more than any other President. Do you think that's good for the US?

Also, if it was only due to the financial crisis, then why does deficits increase again from 2012 and is way more than Bush deficits for all of his terms. Also, if it was Bush fault, then why doesn't governmental consumption as a percentage of GDP not recover to around 35%, but increases to 45% till 2015. Obama is basically increasing taxes and deficits.

 

[The Uncola]

Republican presidents haven't been good at cutting spending, and Clinton did well, but point is. Obama si by far the worst spender. The deficits you will see under Obama is terrible and way more than any other President. Do you think that's good for the US?

Also, if it was only due to the financial crisis, then why does deficits increase again from 2012 and is way more than Bush deficits for all of his terms. Also, if it was Bush fault, then why doesn't governmental consumption as a percentage of GDP not recover to around 35%, but increases to 45% till 2015. Obama is basically increasing taxes and deficits.

Maybe Obama should play the "put major expenses off budget" game so his numbers look better like Bush did? It's quite humerus, in sadly dark way, that those on the right NEVER complain when untold amounts of our resources are spent killing people, blowing up other nations, and handing our Treasury to the richest of the rich, but then go into a freakin' tizzy because someone suggests taking care of our own people.

Some fools are fooled. I'm not.

 

[Camlon]

Maybe Obama should play the "put major expenses off budget" game so his numbers look better like Bush did? It's quite humerus, in sadly dark way, that those on the right NEVER complain when untold amounts of our resources are spent killing people, blowing up other nations, and handing our Treasury to the richest of the rich, but then go into a freakin' tizzy because someone suggests taking care of our own people.

Some fools are fooled. I'm not.

I don't care about the republicans, and I'm not a republican myself. I live in Auckland. I didn't support the Iraq war, even in the beginning. Democrats did.

However, the point is. Obamas is spending way more than any other President before him. This is in a situation where US desperatly need to get spending under control and stop borrowing money. Do you think Obamas deficit spending is good for the US? Who is going to clean up the mess Obama is making?

 

[The Uncola]

I don't care about the republicans, and I'm not a republican myself. I live in Auckland. I didn't support the Iraq war, even in the beginning. Democrats did.

However, the point is. Obamas is spending way more than any other President before him. This is in a situation where US desperately need to get spending under control and stop borrowing money. Do you think Obamas deficit spending is good for the US? Who is going to clean up the mess Obama is making?

Correction:

Some Democrats supported the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq. ALL Republicans (with a couple of notable exceptions) were gung ho and spoiling for a fight with __________. (insert appropriate derogatory anti-Islamic slur here)

No previous President was left the kind of economic crisis that Obama has had to confront upon taking office. Extreme crisis requires extreme measures to quell them. Quite frankly, if anything, Obama has done far too LITTLE about the plight of displaced workers CAUSED by three decades of nonsense "free trade" and "free market" economics. The utter failure of that kind economic policy is quite clear to anyone that takes an honest view of the havoc it has reaped on the entire planet.

 

[Camlon]

Correction:

Some Democrats supported the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq. ALL Republicans (with a couple of notable exceptions) were gung ho and spoiling for a fight with __________. (insert appropriate derogatory anti-Islamic slur here)

No previous President was left the kind of economic crisis that Obama has had to confront upon taking office. Extreme crisis requires extreme measures to quell them. Quite frankly, if anything, Obama has done far too LITTLE about the plight of displaced workers CAUSED by three decades of nonsense "free trade" and "free market" economics. The utter failure of that kind economic policy is quite clear to anyone that takes an honest view of the havoc it has reaped on the entire planet.

I allready debunked the financial crisis argument, but you seem to forget it when I don't mention it in every single post.

Also, if it was only due to the financial crisis, then why does deficits increase again from 2012 and is way more than Bush deficits for all of his terms. Also, if it was Bush fault, then why doesn't governmental consumption as a percentage of GDP not recover to around 35%, but increases to 45% till 2015. Obama is basically increasing taxes and deficits.

Hence, Obama doesn't have any reason to increase spending and deficits in the way he does. Do you think it is a good policy to increase spending like Obama does?

Also, the plight of displaced workers is a bit overdramatization. If we look at happiness in countries and comepare different models. Socialism (Eastbloc countries, Russia, Cuba, etc. ) Social democracy (France, Germany Scandinavia, Southern Europe can be debated) Anglo-saxon model (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States) Free markets (Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, etc.)

You will see that anglo-saxon countries are the happiest ones, countries with socialism are extremly unhappy and social democracies are on par with free markets. So, I wouldn't call it utter failure when in reality it is creating the happiest nations in the world. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_lev_ver_hap-lifestyle-happiness-level-very-happy

I think the reason countries with socialism is unhappy is because you are preventing them from completing their dreams. A lot in life is the strive of improving your own conditions. If you punish everyone who tries to get ahead, then you make life miserable because you have nothing to work for. Also uneccesary regulations decreases the feeling of freedom. I want to do what I want to do. I don't want to hear that I can't work more than 40 hours a week, for some unknown reason. I don't want to be forced into a closed shop and my ability has no effect on my wages. Many social democracies did actually force you to join a labour union who will work against you if you are not a leftist, for instance Sweden before 1990. We need to have freedom in our lives, regulations should be carefully considered and should always be weighed up against freedoms.

Social democracy is better than socialism, but still have many of the same problems.

BTW: You should look into public efficiency. Then you will find that the countries with the biggest states are also the most inefficient public sector as well. For instance, there isn't many services you will not get in Australia, that you get in France or Sweden. However, Australians pay a lot less inn taxes. Around 30% less, because Sweden and France has a lot of hidden taxes, like payroll tax. And of course wages after tax in Sweden and France is much lower than Australia. An engineer in Australia earns around 60K australian dollars, Sweden 30K after tax. Store assistant? 15K in sweden, Australia 23K. Everyone is worse off. What keeps Sweds somewhat happy, because they don't know this yet, and think Sweden is one of the best countries in the world.

 

[The Uncola]

I allready debunked the financial crisis argument, but you seem to forget it when I don't mention it in every single post.


Hence, Obama doesn't have any reason to increase spending and deficits in the way he does. Do you think it is a good policy to increase spending like Obama does?

Also, the plight of displaced workers is a bit overdramatization. If we look at happiness in countries and comepare different models. Socialism (Eastbloc countries, Russia, Cuba, etc. ) Social democracy (France, Germany Scandinavia, Southern Europe can be debated) Anglo-saxon model (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States) Free markets (Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, etc.)

You will see that anglo-saxon countries are the happiest ones, countries with socialism are extremly unhappy and social democracies are on par with free markets. So, I wouldn't call it utter failure when in reality it is creating the happiest nations in the world. Happiness Level very happy (most recent) by country

I think the reason countries with socialism is unhappy is because you are preventing them from completing their dreams. A lot in life is the strive of improving your own conditions. If you punish everyone who tries to get ahead, then you make life miserable because you have nothing to work for. Also uneccesary regulations decreases the feeling of freedom. I want to do what I want to do. I don't want to hear that I can't work more than 40 hours a week, for some unknown reason. I don't want to be forced into a closed shop and my ability has no effect on my wages. Many social democracies did actually force you to join a labour union who will work against you if you are not a leftist, for instance Sweden. We need to have freedom in our lives, regulations should be carefully considered and should always be weighed up against freedoms.

Social democracy is better than socialism, but still have many of the same problems.

Repeating the same nonsense as if it will change reality, again and again, doesn't make it any truer. I really don't have the time to waste knocking down the same ol' tired, false rightie talking points for the hundredth time. Have a nice day.

 

[Baffled]

Repeating the same nonsense as if it will change reality, again and again, doesn't make it any truer. I really don't have the time to waste knocking down the same ol' tired, false rightie talking points for the hundredth time. Have a nice day.

Typical response when hit with reality

 

[The Uncola]

Typical response when hit with reality

No, actually the proper response when dealing with willful ignorance and deceit.

 

[American]

The US has been spending out of control since Reagan. He started the trend and the rest minus Clinton (since he had a surplus) have just continued the trend. That is what right wing fantasy borrow and spend politics get you.

He didn't start it. It was out of control when it became about entitlements instead of national defense.