Democrats versus Republicans

[US27inKS]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Just a small point...but we'll see if it is true later on. Obama actually did not say he would cut the deficit in half.
What he said was that he would cut the deficit HE INHERITED in half.
That is quite a differences considering what has been added on since 1/20.

Maybe it is just me...but I have gotten sensitive to lawyer talk...and he is a lawyer...sooooo....let's just wait and see what he really meant!

We all know that everything depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Just ask Bill Clinton (yet another lawyer).

[sck5]

actually cam if that is what he said there is no telling what he means because that sounds like the deficit at the end of 4 years will be half of the one he inherited on Jan 20. Hard to imagine that happening but I think you are right that there is some lawyer dodge in there somewhere. But actually I am more easily pleased than that - I know we are going to have a big huge deficit this year and probably next also. I want to see a good trend established after that. Trying to fix everything all at once is like trying to turn an oil tanker on a dime - you cant do it and might break something trying.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by sck5

wind magic

When the government runs a surplus it is reducing the debt. Clinton ran a suplus in his last years in office. He did reduce the debt in those years though it is true that overall across his whole term the debt grew because he started from a position of inheriting a big deficit (as dems always do when they follow repubs)

See this graph - the blue area at the end of Clinton represents paying down the debt. All of the pink areas are increasing debt. See if you can spot a trend for each president! (By the way, this data is from the Congressional Budget Office which was run by Repubs at the time this chart was made)

http://www.well.com/user/sunbear/deficit.jpg

Sck5, you are right about his last few years, of course, I should have chosen my words more carefully.

[PBzeer]

Unfortunately for Bambi, it doesn't matter what has happened, all that matters now, is what is happening. Five weeks in, and there's still no plan, just more promises. Someone needs to tell him the election is over and now he has to govern.

[PBzeer]

Now that I've read the whole speech, can someone tell me what office Obama is running for? It was a great campaign speech, but we already knew what he wants to do. When's he going to start telling us how he's going to do it?

[PBzeer]

"According to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the overall federal debt has increased every single year for the past 50 years. The last time it declined from one year to the next was from 1956 to 1957."


The apparent surplus's from the late '90's were due to not including the interest obligations to repay the various entitlement trust funds being used for general spending.

[erps]

Is that what they call "cooking the books"?

[sck5]

"The apparent surplus's from the late '90's were due to not including the interest obligations to repay the various entitlement trust funds being used for general spending."

No. The surpluses were real. A deficit or surplus refers to dollars in compared to dollars out in a given year. You are trying to add future obligations to that. I agree that is an important thing but it doesnt add to CURRENT YEAR deficits. By the way, it is something your buddy Bush had firmly in mind when he reduced the stated 10 year cost of his tax cuts by eliminating the last year of them - We all know that he really wanted to make them permanent, but many of us thought that only counting 9 years of tax cuts in a 10 year accounting period was a pretty bush league maneuver. What do you think?

[PBzeer]

It's money that has to be spent. That's why it's called an obligation. Like most fiscal numbers put out by any President, they are full of accounting gimmicks to portray the picture they desire.

The only relevant point about the Bush Tax Cuts at this point in time is that Obama is going to let them expire on the very people who make the investments and take the risks to create wealth, which, in turn, creates jobs. And while he makes a point of saying that no one under $250k will see an increase, that holds true only if he doesn't continue to expand government. Because the top 2% can't pay enough taxes to pay for everything he's promising. Which means, for instance, instead of you deciding if you want to pay for a doctor visit, you'll pay for it anyway in higher taxes that you don't have a choice about, to support "universal healthcare".

Add up the promises, and if he only delivers on half of them, you'll get a nice tax increase before his term is over. Even if he cuts the deficit in half, as he claims he will, it will still be almost $200 billion above Bush. That money has to come from somewhere.

I don't really understand why you want to keep talking about Bush though. Bambi's going to make him look like a deficit hawk by the time he's done.

[sck5]

"The only relevant point about the Bush Tax Cuts at this point in time is that Obama is going to let them expire on the very people who make the investments and take the risks to create wealth, which, in turn, creates jobs."

All that wealth they "created"? Its all gone now. Those wonderful entrepreneurs managed to cart off a fair amount before the house of cards collapsed but if I were you I wouldnt be bragging about all the wealth that got created during the Bush years when the stock market is back at 1997 levels.