Originally Posted by actor

today, it would jeopardize any economic recovery if massive spending cuts were to be enacted immediately. Obama is looking for a long-term solution. I thought you conservatives wanted to leave the country in better shape for your children and grand-children.

We can start by eliminating all the new spending programs enacted by Obama over the past 3 years, and fire all the czars, and fire all but one person of the First Lady's staff, and roll back the wages of the WH staff. That would save us plenty right there.

It'll be hard to replace the money that was used as an Obama slush fund, otherwise known as the "stimulus", but with diligent and immediate cuts that are greater than any debt ceiling hike, we can slowly build ourselves back to some economic security.

The next step would be to remove the main problem, which is Obama himself in 2012, and that alone should increase our credit rating.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

We can start by eliminating all the new spending programs enacted by Obama over the past 3 years, and fire all the czars, and fire all but one person of the First Lady's staff, and roll back the wages of the WH staff. That would save us plenty right there....

Oh boy, it's just this kind of arithmetic-avoiding thinking that got us into this mess. That and blaming the President, who hasn't enacted even one spending bill in his entire term. In fact, no President from either party has enacted a spending bill in U.S. history.

If you want to blame the Democratic Congress for continuing the profligate spending practiced by the Republican Congress which preceded them for the eight years when George Bush was President, you'd demonstrate your knowledge of high school civics. But blaming either Bush or Obama for this financial crisis--other than possibly their failure to veto spending bills or starting or continuing wars without Congressional approaval--smacks of the misguided partisanship that got us into this mess and is now preventing us from agreeing on the obvious ways to begin to get out of it.

Tell me, Richie, how much would your proposal save--maybe $2-3 million? Just to remind you, the amount of money we've borrowed is more than $14 trillion. If you want to include the unfunded liabilities such as Medicare, Social Security, the prescription drug plan, Medicaid, etc., we're in the hole to the tune of $54 trillion!

Just to put the arithmetic in perspective for you Richie, that's almost five years worth of the entire Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. Laying off a few bureaucrats and personal staff might make you feel good, but "saving us plenty"...puleeze.

DO THE ARITHMETIC...it's not that hard!

Argue, argue, argue. You don't need to. Which is better, another 4 years of Obama and his crew or just about any Republican running?

Vote Republican. Save the nation.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Oh boy, it's just this kind of arithmetic-avoiding thinking that got us into this mess. That and blaming the President, who hasn't enacted even one spending bill in his entire term.

If you want to blame the Democratic Congress for continuing the profligate spending practiced by the Republican Congress for the preceding eight years when George Bush was President, you'd demonstrate your knowledge of high school civics. But blaming either Bush or Obama for this financial crisis--other than possibly their failure to veto some spending bills--smacks of the misguided partisanship that got us into this mess and is now preventing us from agreeing on the obvious ways to begin to get out of it.

Tell me, Richie, how much would your proposal save--maybe $2-3 million? Just to remind you, the amount of money we've borrowed is more than $14 trillion. If you want to include the unfunded liabilities such as Medicare, Social Security, the prescription drug plan, Medicaid, etc., we're in the hole to the tune of $54 trillion!

Just to put the arithmetic in perspective for you Richie, that's almost five years worth of the entire Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. Laying off a few bureaucrats and personal staff might make you feel good, but "saving us plenty"...puleeze.

DO THE ARITHMETIC...it's not that hard!

Oh please VK, I'm just tweaking you honking liberals who still think Obama walks on water and the conservatives are lurking under bridges. I'm making a point here and if you can't see it, it explains a lot to me.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Oh boy, it's just this kind of arithmetic-avoiding thinking that got us into this mess. That and blaming the President, who hasn't enacted even one spending bill in his entire term. In fact, no President from either party has enacted a spending bill in U.S. history.

If you want to blame the Democratic Congress for continuing the profligate spending practiced by the Republican Congress which preceded them for the eight years when George Bush was President, you'd demonstrate your knowledge of high school civics. But blaming either Bush or Obama for this financial crisis--other than possibly their failure to veto spending bills or starting or continuing wars without Congressional approaval--smacks of the misguided partisanship that got us into this mess and is now preventing us from agreeing on the obvious ways to begin to get out of it.

Tell me, Richie, how much would your proposal save--maybe $2-3 million? Just to remind you, the amount of money we've borrowed is more than $14 trillion. If you want to include the unfunded liabilities such as Medicare, Social Security, the prescription drug plan, Medicaid, etc., we're in the hole to the tune of $54 trillion!

Just to put the arithmetic in perspective for you Richie, that's almost five years worth of the entire Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. Laying off a few bureaucrats and personal staff might make you feel good, but "saving us plenty"...puleeze.

DO THE ARITHMETIC...it's not that hard!

Let's get down to the facts and actually DO THE ARITHMETIC rather than pontificating BS showing you know little or nothing about the subject. For the last four decades Federal outlays have averaged between 18 & 19% of GDP - a sustainable level. Today Obama and his various 'stimulants and investments' have increased the Federal budget to 24.1% of GDP and project it going above 30% - totally unsustainable levels. This administration has the nation on a path to default on our debt through its profligate spending.

It is not that income to the Federal Government has significantly fallen, but that expenditures have gone out of control. Bring Federal spending back down to 18% of GDP or even 21% and we have a problem we can deal with. Right now expenditures are at 24% and climbing.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

...For the last four decades Federal outlays have averaged between 18 & 19% of GDP - a sustainable level. Today Obama and his various 'stimulants and investments' have increased the Federal budget to 24.1% of GDP and project it going above 30% - totally unsustainable levels....It is not that income to the Federal Government has significantly fallen, but that expenditures have gone out of control....

Originally Posted by BBQMan

...Today Obama and his various 'stimulants and investments' have increased the Federal budget to 24.1% of GDP and project it going above 30% - totally unsustainable levels....
It is not that income to the Federal Government has significantly fallen, but that expenditures have gone out of control....

You're only partially...and selectively...right. Check the chart.

From about 1975 until 2000, government spending actually exceeded 20%...it looks like it averaged about 22-23% of GDP for those 25 years. Would you call that "unsustainable"? You might, depending on which party was in power, I suppose. But during that quarter century, our economy performed pretty doggone well. The chart below shows that our GDP grew in all but a few years at a rate that looks like it averaged about 3-4%.



But you're quite wrong regarding your statement that "...It is not that income to the Federal Government has significantly fallen..." That's plainly wrong. Federal revenues have fallen, from an average of about 17-18% of GDP from 1975 and as high as over 20% in 2000. But they have declined dramatically since then, to as low as about 15% now. Presumably, the Bush tax cuts had quite a lot to do with that result. A lowered GDP that resulted from deep recession also had a lot to do with the result.

As far as government spending is concerned, you are quite right. Since 2008-9 spending as a percentage of GDP has skyrocketed. How much was the result of unecessary increased spending and how much the result of a reduced GDP resulting from the worst recession since 1929? That takes a lot more analysis, but it certainly has an effect.

On the spending side, I guess I might ask how much of the increased spending was done to address the financial crisis that was reaching full-blown proportions just as Obama was being inaugurated? How much was the result of the two wars which he inherited from the prior administrations? Again, more analysis is needed. But unless you're a complete partisan and maintain an ignorance of recent history, you've got to conclude that both had significant economic effect.

I won't defend the actions of the Congresses that were in power since 2000, regardless of their party or ideology. They were all profligate spenders as well as people who paid absolutely no attention to governing in the way their predecessors did. And that spending and inattention to governance is largely what got us where we are now.

For you to place all the blame on one President who came into office 30 months ago to find two wars and the worst financial crisis in 75 years is complete hogwash. Look at the charts. More importantly, tell us all what you would have done facing the same circumstances?

Barack Obama will have to take responsibility for his presidency. That assessment will be made sometime in the future. But to say that he is totally responsible for what has happened in the last 30 months and what may happen in the next year or so is nonsense.

Who will you blame if the current fiscal crisis is permitted to spin out of control? The POTUS? Or the polarized and partisan politicians who refuse to negotiate short- and longer-term solutions that people from all political or ideological persuasions know are necessary.

Ahh forget it...I already know your answer.

What do you think would save more money?

Cutting White House staff or bringing home National Guard reservists and going back to paying those tens of thousands of soldiers their 38 days/year of pay instead of 24/7 combat pay?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

You're only partially...and selectively...right. Check the chart.

From about 1975 until 2000, government spending actually exceeded 20%...it looks like it averaged about 22-23% of GDP for those 25 years. Would you call that "unsustainable"? You might, depending on which party was in power, I suppose. But during that quarter century, our economy performed pretty doggone well. The chart below shows that our GDP grew in all but a few years at a rate that looks like it averaged about 3-4%.



But you're quite wrong regarding your statement that "...It is not that income to the Federal Government has significantly fallen..." That's plainly wrong. Federal revenues have fallen, from an average of about 17-18% of GDP from 1975 and as high as over 20% in 2000. But they have declined dramatically since then, to as low as about 15% now. Presumably, the Bush tax cuts had quite a lot to do with that result. A lowered GDP that resulted from deep recession also had a lot to do with the result.

As far as government spending is concerned, you are quite right. Since 2008-9 spending as a percentage of GDP has skyrocketed. How much was the result of unecessary increased spending and how much the result of a reduced GDP resulting from the worst recession since 1929? That takes a lot more analysis, but it certainly has an effect.

On the spending side, I guess I might ask how much of the increased spending was done to address the financial crisis that was reaching full-blown proportions just as Obama was being inaugurated? How much was the result of the two wars which he inherited from the prior administrations? Again, more analysis is needed. But unless you're a complete partisan and maintain an ignorance of recent history, you've got to conclude that both had significant economic effect.

I won't defend the actions of the Congresses that were in power since 2000, regardless of their party or ideology. They were all profligate spenders as well as people who paid absolutely no attention to governing in the way their predecessors did. And that spending and inattention to governance is largely what got us where we are now.

For you to place all the blame on one President who came into office 30 months ago to find two wars and the worst financial crisis in 75 years is complete hogwash. Look at the charts. More importantly, tell us all what you would have done facing the same circumstances?

Barack Obama will have to take responsibility for his presidency. That assessment will be made sometime in the future. But to say that he is totally responsible for what has happened in the last 30 months and what may happen in the next year or so is nonsense.

Who will you blame if the current fiscal crisis is permitted to spin out of control? The POTUS? Or the polarized and partisan politicians who refuse to negotiate short- and longer-term solutions that people from all political or ideological persuasions know are necessary.

Ahh forget it...I already know your answer.

This "a president isn't responsible for spending as it has to go through congress" president along with a democratic majority shoved through a bil unread in the middle of the night that will not only by any measure bankrupt this country but will destroy healthy competition and transform it to a single payer system. the simple truth is Obama won't own the economy he has carried to 24% of GDP