The only thing about the proposed $4 Trillion in cuts is that it's all smoke and mirrors. Promised cuts down the road historically have been forgotten about and reneged on when that promised trigger becomes due.

Without definitive cuts tied to any increase in debt limits, the cuts will not ever happen. Ideologues may like to embrace the rhetoric, but it don't pay the bills.

Its just amazing that no matter what happened or why the lliberal media and their readers had no problem laying it all at the feet fo George W...and in fact still do. But despite the under handed and end runs Obama made via his party dominated congress and dozen upon dozens of czars that bypass congress his two bailouts, his healthcare incentive , his throwing business after business under the bus etc etc etc...but none of this is Obama's fault. Poor guy is just misunderstood.

why the layoffs? Ask a businessman and they are all on hold to see for a better growth opportunity tax policies ,etc.

Obama is a poor leader

Delusions
 

I meant the Villages Kahuna, not you.

I know that. You were praising a post and I was responding to the glaring flaw in the post you praised. Get it now?

Obamas "service" to this nation as President has been bad for the country. Four more years would be as bad if not worse.

Need I say more?

Vote Obama in '12.

Are you serious???

It's love over substance for some.

Absolutely!!!!

You know, I was surprised at how many czars there were. WHat surprised me even more was that the HUGE increase in 'czars' didn't start with Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_branch_czars

This is another piece of evidence that we need a viable 3rd party in this country. You can say I'm "blaming Bush" but my intent is to show that the Republicans are just as bad.

Now, about the bailouts, well, once again, Chrysler has paid back their bailout YEARS early. On top of that, the government is divesting itself of GM stock. Though some complain that too much stock was given 'to the unions that destroyed GM'. Funny how an ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) is praised in other places because it gives the employees a sense of ownership. I'm thinking that the UAW's ownership stake will keep them a little more sane than in the past. Hopefully the complete WAR of union vs. management can be calmed down. I'm not saying it's going to be like Southwest Airline's relationships with IT'S unions, but we all know there was room for improvement.

Boy Howdy!!! ( as GG would say)

Waste Of Time
 

Boy, do we ever!

On one hand I'd like to see people like Michael Bloomberg, Chris Christie or even Joe Scarborough throw their hats in the ring as third party candidates. But they know that being President with a Congress that's as dysfunctional and broken as ours has been for several years, would produce nothing more than four years of frustration and ineffectiveness. Without a third party base of people running for Congress as well as POTUS, it's a waste of time.

Flaw?
 

You were quoting me not VK. How do we know what you were responding to in the original post if you don't quote that post. I will show you more respect when you start responding in more thoughtful statements that don't sound like FOX News sound bytes. Get that?

He will have doubled the deficit. He must go.

Vote The Way You Wish
 

You have every right to decide who to vote for in 2012. But at least get your reasons correct. The deficit has not doubled during the 30 months of the Obama administration. That's been covered very adequately elsewhere in the forum. Maybe you should read it.

If he stays in office and on his spending course, he will have doubled it.

I rarely even watch Fox News, so quit being an dolt. I rarely watch any TV whatsoever. If what you say is true, then Fox News sounds like me. I read and read, and then read some more.

I was responding to the same thing as you were responding to with your praise and pointing out to you the flaw in the post you were praising. Go back and re-read and then go "oooh"

Well maybe doubling is a bit of an exaggeration, but at it's essence, the statement has real time validity. The deficit has grown more under Obama than any other president and at a more accelerated pace. That's gotta be good enough for anyone to make the assessment villagegolfer has.

Just Wait
 

I won't defend President Obama's attention to the fiscal health of the country. His actions in that regard are pretty indefensible. But I think it's only fair to note that I can't think of another president who took office saddled with the cost of two wars, an economy on life support on his inauguration day, and the tax policy of his predecessor which didn't accomplish it's objectives yet for political reasons couldn't be changed. Unfortunately there's very little time left to fix that stuff before our lenders start treating us like Greece or Ireland. If you thought there were complaints and accusations before, just wait...

Remember, we re-finance about $100 billion in maturing loans every week. Unless there's someone there to buy new bonds or bills to replace those that are coming due, we'll get spending cuts all right. Big time and real fast!

Sorry, the facts don't back that up.

Bush's last deficit was $1.4T.
Obama's first deficit was $1.3T (the next is projected at $1.6T)

You are either repeating misinformation or lying. I would like to think you've been led to believe that bush's last defict was NOT $1.4T but you can go the to the Office of Management and Budget and look it up.

Are you saying this chart is a lie?
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/...s-in-pictures/

Good one. Where are you getting your figures DJ? The sources for villagegolfer's chart seem pretty unimpeachable.

I got my figures from the OMB.

For some reason, the chart isn't loading. I'm going to take a GUESS at the point you're trying to make and I'll ask the following..

Is that simply going on Calendar Years as opposed to Fiscal Years? The reason I ask is that Bush's last budget was FY 2009, which started on 10/1/2008 (before the election Obama won). The FY 2009 deficit was $1.4T, according to the OMB.

Obama's first FY was FY2010, starting Oct 1, 2009. According to the OMB the FY 2010 deficit was $1,293,489,000,000 (they list it in millions).

I got my figures here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals using the spreadsheet downloaded form the first link on that page. This includes on AND off-budget numbers.

Now, to be fair, Bush's deficits were (in order starting in FY 2002), $157B, $377B, $412B, $318B, $248B, $160B and $458B in FY 2008 before the big $1.4T in FY 2009.

But to be even more fair, Clinton's surpluses started in FY1998 and were, in order, $69B, $125B, $236B and $128B in FY 2001. Clinton's deficits ran from $203B in FY 1994 to $22B in FY 1997.

Clinton had the luxury of a fiscal conservative congress. Bush was saddled with a spend happy congress. Remember the Contract with America?

The Contract With America was released during the 1994 congressional campaign. I most certainly DO remember it.

Bush's spend-happy Congress was also GOP-controlled. It shocked me that so-called 'fiscal conservatives' would produce the Farm Bill, the Prescription Drug Plan and two wars with no way to pay for them.

To me, something happened to the GOP when they got the whole ball of wax (WH, House, Senate). They suddenly made the Democrats look like pikers when it came to spending.

That was the problem, they were not fiscal conservatives. A real conservative is fiscally responsible.

Apples And Oranges?
 

Did those deficit numbers include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

For the entire eight years of the Bush administration, the wars were funded with requests for special appropriations. Begnning with Obama, they added the costs of the wars as line budget items.

I'm sure not going to argue that our deficits haven't increased under President Obama, but are we comparing apples and oranges?

Those figures are included.

To the best of my knowledge, those costs are included. I made sure to use the column that was the total of the ON *and* OFF budget receipts and expenditures.

I believe the huge rise in Bush's last term was the stimulus package combined with plummeting tax receipts.

Ok, I finally got that to load.

There's a SLIGHT problem with that chart - it's almsot a year and a half old.

The $1.5T for Obama's first year didn't turn out to be that bad now that FY 2010 is over. By the same token, the next projection was more optimistic than the latest $1.6T coming.

Remember that chart was before the December 2010 battle that resulted in extending ALL the Bush tax cuts. The CBO can only go with what they had at the time and, the way this Congress is going, you can never tell WHAT laws will be in place next week (that can affect the projections).