Obama’s New Budget: $3.77 Trillion
He is proposing a $744 billion deficit:
So far, senior Republicans have rejected the proposal, which would sharply increase both spending and deficits next year over current projections. While the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecasts $3.6 trillion in outlays in the fiscal year that begins in October, Obama calls for $170 billion more.
And while the CBO forecasts a deficit of $616 billion in 2014, Obama calls for a larger gap between spending and revenues of $744 billion, administration officials said, or 4.4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.
Don’t forget the “investments”! As the lede puts it: “President Obama plans Wednesday to unveil a $3.77 trillion spending plan that proposes modest new investments in infrastructure and education, major new taxes for the wealthy and significant reforms aimed at reducing the cost of Social Security and Medicare.”
That which cannot go on forever, won’t.
UPDATE: The L.A. Times portrayal:
Ah yes, the old “we will cut a bajillion dollars over ten years” hoax. Not surprising that the editors help perpetrate that hogwash.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: Republicans should agree to raise taxes by a bajillion dollars over ten years. Just cut them in the upcoming year.
I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.
faxhorn (ff9b4f) — 4/10/2013 @ 7:20 amThis idea that reducing the rate of growth is a cut is beyond Orwellian. It is no surprise that the MFM eats it up every time.
AUSTERITY!
JD (b63a52) — 4/10/2013 @ 7:23 amfood stamp’s budget is a joke only an inveterate propaganda slut like Jeanne Sahadi could take seriously I think
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/10/2013 @ 7:29 amTricksy!
SarahW (b0e533) — 4/10/2013 @ 7:34 amThey should vote on the Obama tax hikes and ginormous deficits budget today in the House and Senate, just to get that out of the way. He is not really interested in the process anyway, he just wants to raise taxes, and pay off Dem special interest groups.
JD (b63a52) — 4/10/2013 @ 7:37 amPresident Obama’s normal response, when one of his programs
The economist Dana (3e4784) — 4/10/2013 @ 7:50 amfailsfails to produce the anticipated results, is to double-down, and do it all over again, this time with more money. The notion that maybe, just maybe, his programs don’t work, is simply something he cannot consider.Dana – That is leftist economics in a nutshell. If it doesnt work, it is because they did not bugger us long and hard enough.
His proposed spending levels are an 8% increase over baseline 2010.
JD (b63a52) — 4/10/2013 @ 7:52 amThe greatest disservice the Down Low Prostitute perpetrates is now the rest of government can strut around pretending to earn their keep and arguably giving a rip by comparison.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/10/2013 @ 8:00 amBoehner will bend over, grab his ankles, push a 6% increase, and call it a cut.
JD (b63a52) — 4/10/2013 @ 8:02 ammaybe mtv can replace “buckwild” with “flip yo dc hizzy”
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/10/2013 @ 8:48 amBoehner (finally) had a great quote in summarizing Dear Leader’s demand that a change in the growth rate to Social Security be coupled with higher taxes on the wealthy:
I hope Boehner and the rest of the GOP really hammer home this issue. We are always told by liberals that when negotiating issues both sides should focus on what they both agree upon and then tackle the contentious issues later. Boehner and the GOP should say, “If the President really believes that chaining the CPI is important in guaranteeing the long-term health of Social Security and our federal budget, then he needs to stand up to the liberal wing of his party. Reform should not be dependent upon raising taxes yet again.”
I would actually support reforming the tax code and closing loopholes, provided that any additional revenue raised is used to cut corporate tax rates in an effort to promote growth. Obviously, the Democrats just want to use that revenue to keep spending at the irresponsible levels that the last two administrations have supported.
JVW (4826a9) — 4/10/2013 @ 8:59 amHmmm. . . adding links to comments doesn’t appear to be working today.
JVW (4826a9) — 4/10/2013 @ 9:00 amBecause they don’t want to reform the tax code. They want to take more and more money from the evil rich, so they can spend spend spend. They already got their tax hikes on the evil rich, and as soon as they did so, started to demand more. It is who they are. It is what they do.
JD (b63a52) — 4/10/2013 @ 9:05 amBecause they don’t want to reform the tax code. They want to take more and more money from the evil rich, so they can spend spend spend. They already got their tax hikes on the evil rich, and as soon as they did so, started to demand more. It is who they are. It is what they do.
No doubt. But I think this is one of the areas where the GOP can win on the policy front. The message should be that given:
1) Everybody seems to think the rich have unfair advantages in the tax code,
2) The entire GOP and even prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton think that our high corporate tax rate puts us at an economic disadvantage,
3) Businesses are not hiring, which is hurting our economy,
there should be a strong argument that closing tax loopholes for individual filers while also reforming corporate tax policy (ending crony capitalism giveaways while cutting rates) should be a win-win as it will spur hiring and lead to growth which will help bring down the deficit. The trick for the GOP is to divorce the chained CPI from the tax debate and push a “Grand Compromise” where tax reform for individuals leads to tax reform and a lowering of the rate for corporations.
JVW (4826a9) — 4/10/2013 @ 9:17 amAlso, it should be noted that many Democrats would oppose tax reform because they like using the tax code to reward behavior they like (e.g. “green” initiatives) and punish behavior they dislike (e.g. outsourcing).
JVW (4826a9) — 4/10/2013 @ 9:19 amAnd he couldn’t deliver this turkey on time?
Utter incompetence.
SPQR (b60db7) — 4/10/2013 @ 9:30 amSPQR–
Obama’s problem is that brown nosers and boot lickers aren’t the best at getting stuff done. But anyone with a brain (e.g. the entire original economic team) has long since left Neverland.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/10/2013 @ 10:01 amThis, BTW, won’t bode well if we have to fight a real war. He’s also driven out his best military in favor of the politically reliable.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 4/10/2013 @ 10:02 amI see HOSTAGES, lots and lots of HOSTAGES.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/10/2013 @ 10:33 amPresident Obama plans Wednesday to unveil a $3.77 trillion spending plan that proposes modest new investments in infrastructure and education,
Without knowing any of teh details, I can tell you taht the “investments” are all stupid, or cost a dozen times more than they should, especially since they are in “infrastructure” (which has been a Democratic hobby horse for over 20 years now) and “education” (a money pit if there ever was one)
There are no better causes you can think of to waste money, and accomplish nothing. (If you accomplished anything, you would undercut your argument for more money.)
All these spending programs exist to create jobs (for mostly union workers) not to get any result.
All that is required for a politician to advocate that with a straight face and an easy conscience is not to ask too many questions.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/10/2013 @ 10:53 amsignificant reforms aimed at reducing the cost of Social Security and Medicare.”
This is a change in the calculation of the cost of living index. It saves money if certain assumptions turn out to be correct. I think it is quite possible it could cost money. After all, the current method was changed years ago to what it is to save money, if I am correct.
President Obama has been pushing for this ever since he has been in office. He wants this to be viewed as a concession to the Republicans.
You know Republicans want to hurt the little people, Democrats want to hurt the rich people, and they reach a compromise and do a little bit of both.
The Republicans haven’t proposed this, at least anyway in exchange for agreeing to higher taxes, so now he’s making the first move.
Barack Obama has had the exact same end game in mind for four years.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/10/2013 @ 10:59 am16. Comment by SPQR (b60db7) — 4/10/2013 @ 9:30 am
And he couldn’t deliver this turkey on time?
He couldn’t decide to. And he wasd trying to get some Republicans to come out in front and favor the chaining of the CPI.
He was trying to write the script for both sides on the budget. He’s been trying to do that since he became President.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/10/2013 @ 11:03 am“He was trying to write the script for both sides on the budget. He’s been trying to do that since he became President.”
Sammy – Yes, dithering, leading from behind and avoiding responsibility, the hallmarks of Obama’s presidency.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/10/2013 @ 11:19 amThat’s more than just economics. It’s the classic sign of a rigid ideologue.
Yet Obama constantly gets away with declaring himself a pragmatic centrist. He praises Pelosi for being a pragmatist. And then accuses the GOP of being ideological. Putting “politics before country,” etc.
It’s probably too much to hope for for somebody in the GOP to point out who the ideologues actually are. It’s pretty freakin’ obvious when you point out why you’re calling Obama an ideologue; that it isn’t just empty name-calling.
Yet they don’t do it.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/10/2013 @ 11:48 am“It’s probably too much to hope for for somebody in the GOP to point out who the ideologues actually are. It’s pretty freakin’ obvious when you point out why you’re calling Obama an ideologue; that it isn’t just empty name-calling.
Yet they don’t do it.”
Steve57 – I disagree. Members of the GOP take body shots at Obama all the time it’s just that nobody hears them or sees them.
Seriously, apart from Fox shows, where are they going to say that kind of stuff? They don’t get invited on the alphabet network shows if they don’t play along. News shows edit the crap out of criticism of the president.
Nice piece at Daily Caller from Monday on
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/10/2013 @ 12:18 pmLink did not embed – Obama the Shameless
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/08/obama-the-shameless/
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/10/2013 @ 12:19 pm“But but Obama cut the deficit!” Yes, you’ve cut the deficit that you created in the first place so you got plenty of room to work with. If the deficit he created hadn’t existed, he would have been constantly increasing it.
Kaitian (437c8e) — 4/10/2013 @ 1:57 pmI will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.
Comment by faxhorn (ff9b4f) — 4/10/2013 @ 7:20 am
— I will gladly have my great-grandchildren owe you 100 years from now for a hamburger that I should have made for myself at home today.
Icy (cfe637) — 4/10/2013 @ 2:38 pmPresident Obama’s normal response, when one of his programs fails fails to produce the anticipated results, is to double-down, and do it all over again, this time with more money. The notion that maybe, just maybe, his programs don’t work, is simply something he cannot consider.
Comment by The economist Dana (3e4784) — 4/10/2013 @ 7:50 am
“Hey Rocky, watch me pull the funding for this massive entitlement program out of my ass!”
“Again? That trick never works.”
“This time for sure! Presto!!!”
FAIL
“Wrong ass!” [or, “Wrong, ass!”]
Icy (cfe637) — 4/10/2013 @ 3:01 pmYou folks easily forget: Reagan tripled the deficit and cut taxes 11 times; Bush-43 doubled the deficit and reduced taxes favoring the wealthy; and Obama increased the deficit a half again more, and increased taxes on those making over $400k.
A question for the rational folks out there: Whose spending and tax cutting policies have made the most sense?
Perry (299c3e) — 4/10/2013 @ 3:34 pmRaise your hand if you know perry is a clown.
JD (07c8d1) — 4/10/2013 @ 3:39 pmPerry, why do you show so much contempt for math ?
Elephant Stone (8a7f08) — 4/10/2013 @ 3:47 pmNot Obama’s. Do I win a prize?
Ag80 (f872ce) — 4/10/2013 @ 3:47 pmPerry is part of the problem, not the solution. He is bridging gaps to nowhere.
JD (07c8d1) — 4/10/2013 @ 3:49 pmPerry,
We went through this before-it was the democrats under Reagan who pushed for expansions of social security and medicare as well as welfare. Bush in the 5 years he had legislative control, those were among the MOST prosperous years 2002-2006 America ever experienced in its history.
It soared in 2007/2008 under the democrats bloted exceseswhich caused the crash
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 4/10/2013 @ 3:50 pmWow, gang, check out what Amity Shlaes just posted on her Facebook wall (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Amity-Shlaes/148759175426):
JVW (4826a9) — 4/10/2013 @ 3:54 pmPerry Rocks!
http://qkme.me/3tu5p7
Colonel Haiku (7d6f25) — 4/10/2013 @ 3:55 pmJVW – they will decide when you have saved enough.
JD (07c8d1) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:03 pmJVW – they will decide when you have saved enough.
I mean, this has to just be a negotiating ploy so that the Democrats can have something to immediately give up, right?
JVW (4826a9) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:07 pmIs there anything that could possibly be more obnoxious than the Obama Administration trying to proclaim “reasonable levels of retirement saving”? This has to be the most obnoxious group to ever inhabit Washington, DC.
JVW (4826a9) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:11 pmJVW – it fits in perfectly with his stated philosophies.
JD (07c8d1) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:17 pmPerry wrote:
First of all, Perry was referring to the national debt, not the deficit, so that’s his first mistake.
Second, it’s certainly true that the national debt increased by 85% — which isn’t “doubled” — during the eight years the younger George Bush was President, something that Perry himself called “pathetic.”
Under President Obama, the national debt has increased in dollar terms more than a trillion more than it was increased under President Bush, and if he gets anywhere close to his way on the budget, it will have more than doubled before his eight miserable years are up.
This is a ridiculous argument: the answer is that all of them have spent too much money. But if spending was too high under President Bush — and it certainly was — it was always less than 20% of GDP; under President Obama it has never been below 23% of GDP, levels not seen since World War II.
We spent way, way, way too much under President Reagan, and way, way, way too much under President Bush, but even they were just bush league (pun intended) in spending compared to President Obama.
The Dana who caught the error (af9ec3) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:25 pmyou cannot deduct Autism Service Horse unless Autism Service Horse costed more than 7.5% of your GAI so I decided to get a combination plate with carnival you pollo
happyfeet (3b30b7) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:32 pm*carnitas y* pollo I mean
happyfeet (3b30b7) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:33 pmFor Dana’s benefit, I repeat, with his correction accounted for:
Reagan tripled the national debt, Bush-43 almost doubled the national debt, and Obama has increased it about half-again more.
These are the facts, Dana!
Perry (299c3e) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:36 pmPerry @ 30:
Got a little careless here, so let me correct my mistakes:
You folks easily forget: Reagan tripled the
Perry (299c3e) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:41 pmdeficitdebt andcutraised taxes 11 times., and Obama has increased it about half-again more.
Obama has increased it over a TRILLION more than Bush did, in half the time.
JD (b63a52) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:47 pmReagan in teased the national debt by 1.9T. Obama did half of that with the corrupt failed stimulus, and exceeded the Reagan totals, based on Dems in Congress dishonest negotiations (promises to cut in future), in less than 2 years. Obama beat Bush’s 8 year total is less than 4 years.
JD (b63a52) — 4/10/2013 @ 4:54 pmIt’s odd to say that Reagan raised taxes that Senator O’Neill actually fought tooth and nail against Reagan to raise.
It’s as though democrats are ashamed of the truth of their record.
Dustin (6e7388) — 4/10/2013 @ 5:02 pmDustin… Dems run from who they really are, but do a good job of convincing some that they are what they are not.
Colonel Haiku (7d6f25) — 4/10/2013 @ 5:06 pmSeacrest swatted.
Watcher1 (171f1d) — 4/10/2013 @ 5:15 pmPerry has admitted he is careless. He is also boring and his synapses seem never to connect on mathematical issues. Can we stop paying attention to his mental meanderings please?
elissa (5a3118) — 4/10/2013 @ 5:26 pmElissa is right.
Dustin (6e7388) — 4/10/2013 @ 5:45 pm“I work here is done.”
– Perry
Colonel Haiku (7d6f25) — 4/10/2013 @ 5:46 pmBy the time Obama’s second term is done, he will have more than doubled the national debt, so Perry’s little asides are rather stupid.
Big surprise, I know.
SPQR (768505) — 4/10/2013 @ 5:48 pmPerry likes him some Obama debt — cuz of its debt for teh children.
Icy (cfe637) — 4/10/2013 @ 5:51 pmhttp://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/
Good reading from Stanfords John Taylor
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 4/10/2013 @ 7:19 pm“Can we stop paying attention to his mental meanderings please?”
elissa – It is pure intellectual incontinence. Perry needs to wrap his head in Depends.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/10/2013 @ 7:47 pmMy heart is breaking tonight for these poor dispirited progressive souls.
“He has never been forthright about this issue,” Kingson said. “He has always been reticent to speak out about protecting Social Security.”
Kingson suggested that the Obama administration was being “disingenuous” about the actual scope of the cuts, using Washington-speak to refer to it as a “tweak” or a simple change in the way benefits are calculated.
But he has long suspected Obama has wanted to slash Social Security benefits.
“I really think he believes that for whatever reason, this program needs to be cut,” Kingson said. “But what he’s doing is disrespectful — it’s undermining the institution.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/chained-cpi-social-security-cuts-obama-budget-liberals-2013-4
elissa (5a3118) — 4/10/2013 @ 10:41 pmHis budget never even balances. And without balancing the government all he can do is slow down the rate of growth of the debt. And we need to reduce the debt in REAL numbers not in percentages of this and that or the other thing. Otherwise we have a rather hefty compounded interest tax on the elderly called inflation.
One thing is clear from Obamacare, this tax proposal, and many other actions that Obama and his Democrat extremists HATE the elderly with a purple passion. I’m not gracious enough to not return that hatred with heavy interest.
{^_^}
JD (1a2024) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:53 amJD
I dont think democrats even realize the damage Obama is doing to them as well, I mean who’s going to service the increased debt? Everyone! Cant they get it through their head that overspending isnt the same as arguing what to spend the budget on
At this rate in Obama’s final year – we will be spending more on debt service than we take in in federal taxes and the end result we be a new tax on everyone,not just the rich
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 4/11/2013 @ 6:13 amend result will be a new tax… sorry
E.PWJ (1cedce) — 4/11/2013 @ 6:14 amall he can do is slow down the rate of growth of the debt
Is this how he rationalizes saying he’s “cutting the debt”, that his new budget makes it less than it would be at its current rate of growth?
“Hey, cheer up, I’m only using a ‘cat-o-7-tails’ instead of 9”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/11/2013 @ 7:02 am“Hey, cheer up, I’m cheating on you only 2-3 times a week now.”
Perry wrote:
Hysterically funny. This is a case of something technically true, but changing the denominator to get the answers you want.
The Official Inflation Rate, as reported by the federal government, was -0.34% in 2009, 1.64% in 2010, 3.16% in 2011, and 2.07% in 2012. That works out to be a total of 6.637% inflation in four years. (If you multiply $1,000 tomes the annual inflation rate, each year, and compound the result, you will get $1,066.37.)
Now, if President Obama had run up 6.637% more debt than was added under President Bush, they’d be the same, factoring in inflation. Trouble is, under President Obama, in just 4 years, 2 months, and 9 days, the national debt has been increased by $6,181,397,363,294.08, compared to $4,899,100,310,608.44 in eight years under President Bush, or 126.17% more, in just slightly more than half the time. That’s well beyond the rate of inflation.
And he ain’t done yet! If you look at the tables in the President’s budget submission, you’ll see that he plans on spending 22.2% of GDP at the federal level in FY2014, far more than was being spent under President Bush, and a level not seen since World War II, except for all of President Obama’s previous years. More, his budget, based on him getting all of the new taxes he has proposed, assumes that total federal revenues will max out at 18.9% of GDP in FY2018, still significantly below what he thinks we should spend; he plans on increasing the national debt even more. Even if we agreed with your silly denominator games and accepting with the optimistic economic assumptions the President has used, has taken, he has projected a national debt of $20.027 trillion at the end of FY2016, when he would still have four months left in office. That would be an 88.46% increase over slightly less than eight years, compared to the 85.52% increase under President Bush that you have called “pathetic.”
Those are what thinking people would recognize as facts.
The mathemetician Dana (3e4784) — 4/11/2013 @ 8:02 amThe (ideological) mathematician Dana @ 64:
The denominator is exactly what places spending policy in context, which ideological Dana of course does not like.
He has also always steadfastly denied the repercussions of the Great Recession with President Obama inherited from Dana’s beloved Bush-43.
Moreover, and importantly, Bush’s spending was largely for wars of choice, which by the way have had disastrous outcomes, especially in Iraq, estimated to be about $3 trillion. Not a word from Dana about that.
Admittedly, by his failed escalation in Afghanistan, added to his unfettered drone strikes globally, Obama has had his hand in this Bush-43 cookie jar as well.
Nevertheless, as a matter of fact, in spite of the Great Recession, President Obama has decreased the National Debt as a percentage of GDP every year since the f/y 2009 mess which Bush-43’s Great Recession, his heritage to President Obama and our nation.
Even Elissa cannot quarrel with this fact, as Dana sits in the corner continuing to beat his ideological drums!
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 10:24 amPerry – your sophistry is laughable, and predictable. Obama’s “best” projected deficit is almost double Bush’s worst.
JD (f5b0a4) — 4/11/2013 @ 10:46 amJD, obviously you did not peruse the chart which I provided. Go back now and take a look.
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 10:50 amPerry, you are a moron. The chart you linked does not match your label. The chart you linked was SPENDING as a percent of GDP. Not National Debt.
Again.
For the thousandth time.
Clueless.
There is nothing Perry about which you seem abashed to demonstrate your utter lack of clue.
SPQR (768505) — 4/11/2013 @ 10:58 amJD, and Perry’s mislabeled chart shows the usual Democrat lie of attributing FY2009 spending to Bush.
SPQR (768505) — 4/11/2013 @ 10:59 amI am shocked, SPQR, shocked I tell you, that Perry is being dishonest. Again.
JD (b63a52) — 4/11/2013 @ 11:02 amYeah, I know, JD. I should not shock you like that.
SPQR (768505) — 4/11/2013 @ 11:25 amDuh! If Obama decreased spending, isn’t that something that Republicans (and all of us) should like, because decreasing spending contributes to decreasing the national debt below where it otherwise would have been.
I would not expect ideologues to agree, even though they know it to be the truth.
I like the green line in this chart even better, because it shows graphically the negative impacts on our economy because of the national debt increases of Reagan and Bush-43, mentioned here.
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 11:34 amIn other words, these policy errors are cumulative. But you ideologues want to dump it all on President Obama!
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 11:36 amHere is something interesting. Imagine that “Perry” was a brainless automaton, always supporting the Democrats under all circumstances, and always blaming the Right.
How would his posts be different?
On the other hand, folks on the Right are very unhappy with the how GWB did many things, with Romney, etc.
So it is amusing when a cheerleader with pom-poms calls someone else an ideologue.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 4/11/2013 @ 11:43 amPerry wrote:
[guffaws] Kind of like the Administration saying, “See! Unemployment is down to 7.6%!” when the only reason is that the denominator has been changed, and, had the participation rate remained the same — meaning: had potential workers not gotten so discouraged by the Obama economy — as in the worst of the recession, the unemployment rate would still be 10%.
It is a fact, a stone-cold fact, that more has been added to the national debt during President Obama’s 4¼ miserable years, 26% more, than was added during 8 years under President Bush; you called “$4 trillion” in debt added under President Bush “pathetic,” remember?
To use you scale, for the debt to increase as much as a fraction of previous debt as happened under President Bush, it would have to increase by $9.089 trillion, and you’d say that was somehow comparable to the far-too-high increase of $4.899 trillion under President Bush.
And here I thought that you took math at Penn!
The Dana who can obviously do math better than Perry (not that that's saying much) (3e4784) — 4/11/2013 @ 11:56 am“Duh! If Obama decreased spending, isn’t that something that Republicans (and all of us) should like, because decreasing spending contributes to decreasing the national debt below where it otherwise would have been.”
Perry – If I don’t buy that new Porsche I can’t afford my debt would be below where it would otherwise have been. Am I being extra, special, fiscally responsible for not spending money I should not spend in the first place and wasn’t planning to spend?
That’s exactly the analogy you are making with Obama and nobody buys that BS.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/11/2013 @ 12:02 pmPerry wrote:
You can look at President Obama’s own proposed FY2014 budget, and you will see that he has proposed increasing spending every single year, for as far into the future as he can project.
As a percentage of GDP, his proposals have come down from the 25.2% of GDP rate he hit us with in FY2009, but in every year, for as far into the future as he projected (FY2018) he is planning for spending as a percentage of GDP to be higher than any year under President Bush.
The Dana who looked it up (3e4784) — 4/11/2013 @ 12:04 pmSPQR wrote:
Perry knows, full well, from having had this discussion many, many times before, that the FY2009 budget should have been signed into law by President Bush, but the Democrats who controlled the Congress figured that Barack Hussein Obama would win the 2008 election, and funded most of the government via continuing resolutions at FY2008 levels, until they passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, which wasn’t introduced until February of 2009, and which was signed into law by the idiot currently in the White House. And that was on top of the misbegotten stimulus plan.
The blogger Dana (3e4784) — 4/11/2013 @ 12:08 pmDuh! If Obama decreased spending, isn’t that something that Republicans (and all of us) should like, because decreasing spending contributes to decreasing the national debt below where it otherwise would have been.
You really are dumb, Perry. Aggressively so.
JD (f5b0a4) — 4/11/2013 @ 12:44 pmPerry wrote:
The war in Iraq is over, and has been over for a couple of years now. President Obama is in the process of surrendering in Afghanistan, and projects that we will have
cut and runpulled our combat troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.Why is it, then, that President Obama projects spending more, every year, than in any year under President Bush, as a percentage of GDP, when he said that “Bush’s spending was largely for wars of choice,” and those wars will both be over? (The President’s budget submittal assumed that they would be over.)
In FY2000 and 2001, we spent 18.2% of GDP at the federal level, and were doing reasonably well. President Obama’s budget projects solid economic growth (he’s projected that before, and was wrong, so take that with a large grain of sodium chloride) in the outyears, yet he still wants to spend over 21% of GDP at the federal level. I know that Perry thinks highly of how government was run during the Clinton Administration; why does he support the high spending plans of President Obama when the lower spending rates under President Clinton pleased him before?
The inquisitive Dana (3e4784) — 4/11/2013 @ 1:01 pmPerry wrote:
So, then, we can take away all of the blame of the explosion in welfare spending away from President Bush, and place it on Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson, and you’ll accept that, right? 🙂
Thing is, you have claimed that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were “wars of choice” and blamed them on President Bush, but can’t seem to tell us why President Obama is spending so much more, even when one of those wars is over and he projects that the other will be in less than two years.
The Dana who noticed (3e4784) — 4/11/2013 @ 1:05 pmDana – don even get me started on how many times the Dems projected surge levels of costs out for a decade, something that would never happen, and then claimed savings from same in order to finance one of their big government schemes. I lost track how many times they spent that phantom savings.
JD (f5b0a4) — 4/11/2013 @ 1:25 pmRemember when Afghanistan was the just and right war, not a war of choice? Good times.
JD (f5b0a4) — 4/11/2013 @ 1:27 pm“Duh! If Obama decreased spending, isn’t that something that Republicans (and all of us) should like, because decreasing spending contributes to decreasing the national debt below where it otherwise would have been.”
Perry – This sounds like the “saved” part of the ridiculous “jobs created or saved” invented to claim credit for his failed stimulus program.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/11/2013 @ 1:40 pmWe need to re-write this budget as a Walmart special:
askeptic (b8ab92) — 4/11/2013 @ 2:04 pm$2.999T!
askeptic proposed:
I’d love to see that, given that total federal spending was $2.983T! in FY 2008. Unfortunately, President Obama and the unchecked eleventy-first Congress jacked up FY 2009 spending to $3.518T! an increase of 17.94%.
I have the totals in an easier-to-read chart on my site.
The Dana who crunched the numbers (af9ec3) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:12 pmDana, that $2.983T works for me, we could use the extra $16B for paying down the debt – each and every year until there was more available.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:19 pmOf course, everyone knows that it is just impossible to put an actual freeze on Federal Expenditures, what with the baseline on Entitlements. However, there must be a lot of administrative bloat that could be trimmed in those programs.
Perhaps it’s time for the Federal Civilian Workforce to start working 5.5 days/week again?
Of course, using the “Snow Lists” is a remarkably good place to start in RIFing the DC workforce – if they can complete their jobs on bad days with such a reduced force, just think what they can do when they don’t have to worry about floods and blizzards?
The Dana who noticed @ 81:
Did you purposely ignore what I said and you quoted, Dana?
It’s just like you folks, when commenting on the passing of Margaret Thatcher, praised her staunch conservatism while ignoring the “Socialist” policies she not only supported but actually spoke out in their favor!
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:21 pmWasn’t it Margaret Thatcher who remarked that the problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of everyone else’s money?
askeptic (b8ab92) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:30 pmThe Dana who crunched the numbers @ 86:
Crunching the numbers provides no frame of reference, as usual from you Dana. Like, you know, again, no mention of the Bush Great Recession which President Obama inherited.
Do you expect folks to forget that? Do you expect rational people seeking the truth to find your remarks like these credible? And worse, President Reagan tripled the national debt. Your only remark: “Hysterically funny. This is a case of something technically true, but changing the denominator to get the answers you want.”
So it is against the rules of right wing ideologues to criticize one of their own, like Reagan, isn’t it Dana?
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:37 pmPerry
Which party had legislative control of the house and the senate in 2007, 2008?
E.PWJ (f44e22) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:42 pmComment by Simon Jester (c8876d) — 4/11/2013 @ 11:43 am
Imagine that “Perry” was a brainless automaton, always supporting the Democrats under all circumstances, and always blaming the Right.
How would his posts be different?
I don’t think yet any computer program can pass the Turing test.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:42 pmPerry
E.PWJ (f44e22) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:44 pmThebudget fiascos of 2007 and 2008 which impacted directly the “economy” he inherited was submitted and passed by his party with his co-sponsorship
Obama increased the debt more in less than 2 years than Reagan did in 8 years, Perry.
JD (f5b0a4) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:44 pmThe inquisitive Dana @ 80:
President Clinton did not inherit a Great Recession from his predecessors, and by current standards also had a fairly functional Congress at the time who cooperated with him to create a budget surplus, which Bush-43 proceeded to disassemble.
These facts somehow do not move our great mathematician Dana, because he is too tied to the current right wing anti-Obama ideology, who don’t even subscribe to having up or down votes and debates of important issues in the Senate.
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:50 pmPerry
Gingrich didnt give Clinton a choice, and Dana doesnt deserve snarc, he’s been quite fair to everyone like DRJ
E.PWJ (f44e22) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:56 pmE.PWJ @ 91:
Good question! Wall Street financial shenanigans/malfeasance and the control of the Senate by rule of the filibuster by the minority party controlled our government at the time, and largely still do. Or have you forgotten?
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 3:58 pmSorry E.PWJ, but it is hardly “snarc” to disagree with Dana and point out his one-sided thinking. That said, does this classify as snarc?
Interesting how even an insult is overlooked by the team!
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:03 pmPerry wrote:
There was a recession in 1991-1992, which Governor Clinton used well to defeat the elder President Bush; had you forgotten? Yet even with that recession, President Clinton never jacked spending up to 25.2% of GDP.
In fact, federal spending slowly decreased during President Clinton’s term, getting down to 18.2% of GDP. You can blame the evil President Bush all that you want, but, for a Democrat, you don’t even want to follow the Clinton model.
1994 was not a good year: the economy wasn’t officially in recession, but it was very stagnant . . . and with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, spending was bought down in FY1994, by 0.4% of GDP. When the Republicans took control of the Congress, spending dropped even further, and the economy was doing fine.
So, why do you want to ignore the pattern of the President you have praised, when it worked, and support the huge-spending Barack Obama, whose policies haven’t worked?
The Republican Dana (af9ec3) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:06 pm“President Clinton did not inherit a Great Recession from his predecessors, and by current standards also had a fairly functional Congress at the time who cooperated with him to create a budget surplus”
Perry – Heh! There goes your selective memory again. Are you talking about the cooperative congress which forced Clinton to accept tax cuts, welfare reform and shut down the government? Is that the Congress you claim cooperated with Clinton? I remember it a little differently.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:11 pmPresident Clinton did not inherit a Great Recession from his predecessors, and by current standards also had a fairly functional Congress at the time who cooperated with him to create a budget surplus, which Bush-43 proceeded to disassemble.
He did leave the dot com bubble, and a fictional projected surplus. The part a out Congress is hysterical. Pure comedy.
JD (f5b0a4) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:15 pmNotice how Perry ignores Dem control of House and Senate, and control of House, Senate, and White House for the first 2 years of Obama’s failure.
JD (f5b0a4) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:17 pmComment by JD (f5b0a4) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:15 pm
President Clinton did…leave the dot com bubble, and a fictional projected surplus…
No, the projected surplus was real and everyone agreed on it. President $&Lick Willie spent the last last two or three years of his Adminsitration trying to hide the surplus.
He insisted that Social Security surpluses be put in a lockbox, which is technically impossible to do.
He wanted tough budget negotiations, because it is easier to slip things into bills in such circulmstances and to prevent the Republiocans from cuttinmg taxes.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:21 pmOh I saw some frustrations by Dana with your total disengenious, your deliberate lying.
Its disaapointing but the legitimate ones like you, well educated, well meaning, when confronted by daley SPQR, Dana, JD – when your argumentsare debunked by a solid unbreachable wall of facts, people like you tend to get nastier and more dishonest because without the ability to move goalposts, your arguments can simply go nowhere.
I feel you have been brainwashed and in the reconditioning to remove the emoitional appeals of false promises of shared wealth and largess – its a painful journey back to the reality that you are on your own for your own happiness and success AND WHAT A GREAT GIFT THAT IS!
E.PWJ (f44e22) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:22 pm@98
elissa (182906) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:27 pmHi. I just went and dug my “One-Sided Thinking” meter out of the garage, dusted it off and have it plugged in. I plan to apply it on this thread and will report back later what I detect.
The Republican Dana @ 99:
It appears the Dana still cannot distinguish between a difficult recession (2001) and a Great Recession (2007). For a comparison of these two recession, see here! He also forgets that it took a huge spending spike, the greatest in our history, to get us on the right track to recover from the Great Recession.
I will also quickly point out that Reagan and Bush-41 raised taxes significantly, a remedy which your party refused until recently to grant to President Obama. This then reduced the need to increase spending during Reagan and Bush-41, even though Reagan with his spending, in spite of his tax increases, still increased the national debt by a factor of 3.
No logical and rational person can deny the major impact of the Great Recession in the midst of an almost totally dysfunctional Senate and an increasingly dysfunctional House the last two plus year.
Oh wait, then there is Dana, conveniently leaving out important and significant information.
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:31 pmJD @ 102:
And notice how JD forgets about the record use of the filibuster by Senate Repubs during the first two years of Obama, and in the midst of an out-and-out fiscal crisis, and still do to this day.
Republicans simply do not want up or down votes in the Senate, and still don’t. In my mind, this behavior borders on treason!
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:36 pmThere is ZERO evidence that porkulus staved off a Great Recession.
JD (f5b0a4) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:37 pmWhat is true about this statement First – it makes no sense. 2nd,the dysfunction is our form of government, where we change our govt every 2 yrs. So, what you are stating is that any republican resistance is causing harm to the country because, your party is bent on removoingour money and our freedomsand its JUST not going to happen
E.PWJ (f44e22) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:49 pm“Crunching the numbers provides no frame of reference, as usual from you Dana.
Do you expect folks to forget that? Do you expect rational people seeking the truth to find your remarks like these credible?”
Perry – This is from your comment # 30 above:
You folks easily forget: Reagan tripled the deficit and cut taxes 11 times; Bush-43 doubled the deficit and reduced taxes favoring the wealthy; and Obama increased the deficit a half again more, and increased taxes on those making over $400k.
Now reread your whine about context and point it out to me in your comment.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:50 pmDaley, the context refers to the times when certain actions were taken, which is exactly what I described.
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:53 pm“And notice how JD forgets about the record use of the filibuster by Senate Repubs during the first two years of Obama”
Perry – Democrats had a filibuster proof majority, didn’t they? Plus they could count on Snowe, Collins and other deserters. Do you ever think before you comment?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:55 pmE.PJW: The extent of the use of the filibuster by Republicans is unprecedented. Won’t you agree that all matters deserve both debate and an up or down vote?
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:56 pm“Daley, the context refers to the times when certain actions were taken, which is exactly what I described.”
Perry – Bulldookey. You completely omit what was going on at the time when the actions were taken and then turn around and criticize Dana for not slobbering over Obama for screwing up the recovery. The only consistency you have is the lack of consistency.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:57 pmDaley, you should know that the Dems cover a wide spectrum of views compared to the essentially lock-step behaving Republicans! And this filibuster-proof Senate you describe was marginal, since one defection was all that counted.
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 4:59 pmExactly what did I ignore, Daley. You make accusations without examples!
Perry (11ec37) — 4/11/2013 @ 5:00 pmDaley
Of course Reid and Daschle NEVER used the ‘buster themselves…
E.PWJ (f44e22) — 4/11/2013 @ 5:04 pm“E.PJW: The extent of the use of the filibuster by Republicans is unprecedented.”
Perry – More convenient memory. How long ago was it when the obstructionist shoe was on the other foot. Remember Nancy Pelosi representing the “Party of No?” How about Harry Reid filibustering the Iraq War funding? What about the nuclear option and the Gang of 14?
Shameless liars when it suits your purposes is what you are.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/11/2013 @ 5:08 pm“Exactly what did I ignore, Daley. You make accusations without examples!”
Perry – What do you call comment #110? What is the frame of reference for each of your claims about Reagan, Bush and Obama? Heck, you still can’t even understand the difference between debt and deficit, so why should I trust anything you say?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/11/2013 @ 5:12 pmIt borders on treason to oppose destructive leftist policies
JD (f5b0a4) — 4/11/2013 @ 5:23 pmRand Paul and McCain are doing a chorus line cha cha cha right now – I CAN SEE IT!
E.PWJ (f44e22) — 4/11/2013 @ 5:24 pmPerry wrote:
I don’t see much recovery at all. If you correct for the workforce participation rate, unemployment is still 10%; the only way it has dropped is that so many people got discouraged by the Obama economy and dropped out of the work force.
You claim that “a huge spending spike, the greatest in our history,” which we are al glad to see you admit happened, got us out of the recession, but, after four years, our economy is in the doldrums. It seems just as probable to me that the spending spike didn’t help at al, and may well have hurt the economy, by piling on so much debt.
BUt, even if we accepted everything you stated, that still doesn’t explain why the President you like so much wants to spend so much more money even in years in which he projects strong economic growth, and even after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over.
The persistent Dana (af9ec3) — 4/11/2013 @ 5:35 pmI’m tempted to hijack this thread as well.
But instead I’ll just ignore it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/11/2013 @ 6:08 pmI admire everyone’s effort, to a degree, but earnest attempts to remediate Pervy is like treating the biowaste bag resulting from a colostomy as tho ’twere a donated organ.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/11/2013 @ 6:46 pmOur esteemed host wrote:
Alas, we’re not Democrats, and that means we don’t lie deliberately. And we’d wind up with enough RINO wobblies who’d actually keep that promise.
The honest Dana (3e4784) — 4/12/2013 @ 5:53 amKaren, the Lonely Conservative, noted that government at all levels — federal, state and local — now spends more per household than the median income. How the Hell can that work?
The frugal Dana (3e4784) — 4/12/2013 @ 6:00 am“This is on par with Obama’s claim that the budget addresses deficit reduction while proposing to spend more than any other budget in American history. It’s 36.5% higher than the FY2007 budget, the last one to pass in a Republican Congress with a Republican President’s signature. It’s 22% higher than the Democratic budget that passed for FY2008. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP has only grown 11.8% since 2007, and 9.7% since 2008 (when the Great Recession started). The Obama budget increases have far outstripped economic growth, even without recalculating for inflation.”
JD (b63a52) — 4/12/2013 @ 6:42 amJapan and Abe’s “first major test comes in June when the government presents its plans for deregulation”.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/us-japan-economy-abenomics-idUSBRE93A13B20130411
Cart, meet horse. Abe commits sepuku more likely.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/12/2013 @ 10:32 amIt’s been pointed out that a change to “chained CPI” would also raise taxes because income tax indexing is tied to the CPI.
It would cut spending more than it raisede taxes, except that Obama wants to exempt some means tested programs from the change, so by itself it would be about half expenditure cits and half tax increases.
Chained CPI cuts the rate of iunflation hy aboiut one quarter of one percent a year, if I undersdtand things correctly.
I don’t think it’s correct. the idea is that people could substitute apples for pears or oears for apples, but a price index should use the exact same items. If some go up too much others go up less.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/12/2013 @ 10:59 amI substitute 12 year scotch for 20 year scotch really pretty frequently
happyfeet (d694f7) — 4/14/2013 @ 5:38 pm