airdvr 210 #1 February 22, 2009 Obama Seeks to Halve Deficit to Half Trillion Per Year by 2013 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/22/obama-seeks-halve-deficit-half-trillion-year-end-term/ "We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline." Fiscal discipline...now that's some funny shit Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #2 February 22, 2009 It's not enough. Yes, we have some serious financial issues, but pledging to cut our spending to the point that we are still in the red year after year will only increase our overall debt. After four years, not only should the yearly balance be positive, we need to be well on our way to eliminating the debt. After eight years, we should be debt-free. The Bush supporters need to take accountability for the current spending mess - when Clinton left office, the budget had been in a surplus of over $100 billion, and Bush managed to turn it into a $455-billion deficit. How anyone can spend that much money and be so unpopular is inconceivable. The democrats are putting their short-term agendas ahead of the long-term problems our debt will create.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #3 February 22, 2009 http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/02/20/obama.mayors.stimulus.cnn?iref=videosearch Yep. And here he is lecturing mayors on "fiscal responsibility." Spend it wisely he says. Does that include mouse habitats and art endowments, one wonders. Now we have Clinton in China begging them to keep buying our debt. I heard a fitting term on the news yesterday -"tyranny of incompetence."The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #4 February 23, 2009 Quote After eight years, we should be debt-free. Now that's funny, that right there, I don't care who you are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #5 February 23, 2009 Quote-"tyranny of incompetence." Reminds me of GWB. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #6 February 23, 2009 Quote Obama Seeks to Halve Deficit to Half Trillion Per Year by 2013 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/22/obama-seeks-halve-deficit-half-trillion-year-end-term/ "We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline." Fiscal discipline...now that's some funny shit I guess you are one of those that do not believe in paying your debts???? I was under the impression fiscal responsibility requires paying one's bills Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #7 February 23, 2009 Quote was under the impression fiscal responsibility requires paying one's bills Fiscal discipline...focus.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #8 February 23, 2009 QuoteQuote was under the impression fiscal responsibility requires paying one's bills Fiscal discipline...focus. Good point. The previous administration took a very disciplined approach to raiding the Treasury and having little to show for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #9 February 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote was under the impression fiscal responsibility requires paying one's bills Fiscal discipline...focus. Good point. The previous administration took a very disciplined approach to raiding the Treasury and having little to show for it. Couldn't agree with you more. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle but what happened with the porkulus is NOT what Mr. Obama pledged in his campaign speeches.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #10 February 23, 2009 Good point. The previous administration took a very disciplined approach to raiding the Treasury and having little to show for it. ___________________________________________________ Hey you forgot one thing.It was Reid/Pelosi who could not wait to create that Banking bail out bill .Bush signed a Democrat's Bill so you blame it all on him? I for one blame them both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #11 February 23, 2009 Quote Good point. The previous administration took a very disciplined approach to raiding the Treasury and having little to show for it. ___________________________________________________ Hey you forgot one thing.It was Reid/Pelosi who could not wait to create that Banking bail out bill .Bush signed a Democrat's Bill so you blame it all on him? I for one blame them both. The architect of the bill was Treasury Secretary Paulson. However, Bush's increases in government spending, running up a $5trillion debt, started long before that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 February 23, 2009 Quote Quote Good point. The previous administration took a very disciplined approach to raiding the Treasury and having little to show for it. ___________________________________________________ Hey you forgot one thing.It was Reid/Pelosi who could not wait to create that Banking bail out bill .Bush signed a Democrat's Bill so you blame it all on him? I for one blame them both. The architect of the bill was Treasury Secretary Paulson. However, Bush's increases in government spending, running up a $5trillion debt, started long before that. The President doesn't make the budget, Congress does. So, we had a Republican and then a Democratic Congress all pouring slops into the hog trough as fast as they could. Both sides share blame in the matter - trying to say it's all the fault of a single side is a moronic ploy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #13 February 23, 2009 QuoteThe President doesn't make the budget, Congress does. So, we had a Republican and then a Democratic Congress all pouring slops into the hog trough as fast as they could. Yes, the President (Executive Branch) does write the budget. It's the PBR and everything eventually goes through OMB, which is part of the Office of the President. Every year. Congress takes the PBR, listens to briefs, and then Congress appropriates. They will add a little and subtract a little ('zeros out' a few programs, typically less than 2 dozen out of literally thousands). The vast majority of the work is done within the Executive Branch, e.g., do you really want Congress writing the budget for the DoD? The Executive Branch writes the budget, and Congress approves it. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 February 23, 2009 Congress uses the Presidential Budget REQUEST to create the budget resolution, according to documentation here. QuoteThe congressional budget process, as set forth in the Budget Act, requires Congress to annually establish the level of total spending and revenues and how total spending should be divided among the 20 major functions of government such as defense, agriculture, and health. And, from here: QuoteThe President’s budget does not have any legally binding effect, but rather initiates the congressional budget process and provides a statement of the budgetary goals of the President. After the President submits his budget proposal, OMB and other administration officials testify before congressional committees. Individual federal agencies also justify and explain their specific budget requests at congressional hearings as budgetary legislation is formulated. Agencies submit extensive written justifications, usually focusing on the proposed increase or decrease in spending, to the responsible appropriations subcommittees of each chamber. OMB ensures that agency budget justifications, testimony, and other submissions are consistent with the President’s policies by requiring agencies to clear any material through OMB before providing it to Congress. So, the President requests, Congress writes the budget resolution and appropriates the funds.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #15 February 23, 2009 Quote So, the President requests, Congress writes the budget resolution and appropriates the funds. Yes, that why it's the PBR - President's Budget Request. Congress approves (that's the resolution bills) and appropriates - two different functions. Still doesn't obviate what I wrote or that practical reality that the Executive Branch effectively writes & does the heavy lifting for the budget. I really don't want Congress writing the budget for DoD; do you? /Marg p.s. as I've written before, the real divide in DC is not Republican-Democrat. At a simplified level but with a critical spark of truth: the Executive Branch and Departments think it’s “their” money that Congress won’t give them (to execute programs, etc), and Congress thinks it’s “their” money that the Executive Branch won’t expend they way they want (as representatives of the American citizens). The “Beltway bandits” (i.e., contractors) play each off of the other. Everyone thinks that they're doing the 'right' thing for the taxpayer and the nation. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 February 23, 2009 I agree to a point - the various organizations still end up going to Congress, hat-in-hand, to try and get the money they need. I think we're talking in circles around the same point - yes, the President lays out the spending he wants for the different areas, but Congress can/does change it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #17 February 23, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Good point. The previous administration took a very disciplined approach to raiding the Treasury and having little to show for it. ___________________________________________________ Hey you forgot one thing.It was Reid/Pelosi who could not wait to create that Banking bail out bill .Bush signed a Democrat's Bill so you blame it all on him? I for one blame them both. The architect of the bill was Treasury Secretary Paulson. However, Bush's increases in government spending, running up a $5trillion debt, started long before that. The President doesn't make the budget, Congress does. So, we had a Republican and then a Democratic Congress all pouring slops into the hog trough as fast as they could. Both sides share blame in the matter - trying to say it's all the fault of a single side is a moronic ploy. It's just sheer coincidence that over last 40 years deficits have been consistently higher under Republican presidents than under Democrats, regardless of the make-up of Congress. I have a nice bridge you might like to buy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #18 February 23, 2009 Looks like it's time to pay for that war you supported so vehemently! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #19 February 23, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Good point. The previous administration took a very disciplined approach to raiding the Treasury and having little to show for it. ___________________________________________________ Hey you forgot one thing.It was Reid/Pelosi who could not wait to create that Banking bail out bill .Bush signed a Democrat's Bill so you blame it all on him? I for one blame them both. The architect of the bill was Treasury Secretary Paulson. However, Bush's increases in government spending, running up a $5trillion debt, started long before that. The President doesn't make the budget, Congress does. So, we had a Republican and then a Democratic Congress all pouring slops into the hog trough as fast as they could. Both sides share blame in the matter - trying to say it's all the fault of a single side is a moronic ploy. It's just sheer coincidence that over last 40 years deficits have been consistently higher under Republican presidents than under Democrats, regardless of the make-up of Congress. I have a nice bridge you might like to buy. It seems to be better for us when the rep side controls the house. the last 4 years of clinton the rep party controlled the house (clintons best year for fiscal responsibility) and the last 4 years of bush the dem party controlled the house (the worst spending under bush). It also shows better when one party doesn't control congress and excec branches at the same time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 February 23, 2009 Quote It seems to be better for us when the rep side controls the house. the last 4 years of clinton the rep party controlled the house (clintons best year for fiscal responsibility) and the last 4 years of bush the dem party controlled the house (the worst spending under bush). It also shows better when one party doesn't control congress and excec branches at the same time. Mark, you repeatedly make this mistake, despite correction. The GOP controlled Congress from 95 till 07. That means the latter 6 years of the Clinton Adminstration, and the first 6 of the Bush Administration. There is absolutely no doubt that the GOP generated the deficit growth this decade by cutting taxes while creating new departments and wars. BTW, why did Newt's party win in 1994? In large part, the taxes that Clinton promoted. Did that have a factor in the essentially balanced budget later? Of course, and a pretty good counter proof to the often parroted claim of: lower taxes always means more revenue, and higher taxes kills the economy. Obama's got a crappy situation here - the deficit is rampaging at the same time the economy isn't. Cutting interest rates and taxes didn't prevent this. I am happy anyone but McCain is getting the situation - that man was the least qualified to deal with this problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #21 February 23, 2009 QuoteQuote It seems to be better for us when the rep side controls the house. the last 4 years of clinton the rep party controlled the house (clintons best year for fiscal responsibility) and the last 4 years of bush the dem party controlled the house (the worst spending under bush). It also shows better when one party doesn't control congress and excec branches at the same time. Mark, you repeatedly make this mistake, despite correction. The GOP controlled Congress from 95 till 07. That means the latter 6 years of the Clinton Adminstration, and the first 6 of the Bush Administration. There is absolutely no doubt that the GOP generated the deficit growth this decade by cutting taxes while creating new departments and wars. what mistake ? the 2 worst year for spending in bush and clintons admin were when the dem's controled the house. the rep party did not control the 107 senate so the rep party didn't control congress from 97 to 05 only from 95-2000 and 02-07. and I remember both sides voted for the wars Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #22 February 23, 2009 Quote and I remember both sides voted for the wars doesn't change the facts, and the Democrats can claim they voted on bad information. (I don't buy it, but it's true that the WMD propaganda was dubious) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #23 February 23, 2009 >and I remember both sides voted for the wars True! And both sides voted for the bailout as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pmw515 0 #24 February 24, 2009 Both sides voted for TARP I. Only 3 Republicans voted for Pelosi's Stimulus Bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #25 February 24, 2009 >Both sides voted for TARP I. Only 3 Republicans voted for Pelosi's >Stimulus Bill. Yep. Like I said. It could not have passed without republican support. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #22 February 23, 2009 Quote and I remember both sides voted for the wars doesn't change the facts, and the Democrats can claim they voted on bad information. (I don't buy it, but it's true that the WMD propaganda was dubious) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #23 February 23, 2009 >and I remember both sides voted for the wars True! And both sides voted for the bailout as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pmw515 0 #24 February 24, 2009 Both sides voted for TARP I. Only 3 Republicans voted for Pelosi's Stimulus Bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #25 February 24, 2009 >Both sides voted for TARP I. Only 3 Republicans voted for Pelosi's >Stimulus Bill. Yep. Like I said. It could not have passed without republican support. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
