WSJ: The deficit is much, much worse than you think

posted at 8:47 pm on August 25, 2009 by Allahpundit

How much worse? So much that even Paul Krugman might be slightly uncomfortable with it.

Emphasis on might and slightly.

Many of the current budget assumptions are laughably implausible. Both the White House and CBO predict that Congress will hold federal spending at the rate of inflation over the next decade. This is the same Democratic Congress that awarded a 47% increase in domestic discretionary spending in 2009 when counting stimulus funds. And the appropriations bills now speeding through Congress for 2010 serve up an 8% increase in domestic spending after inflation.

Another doozy is that Nancy Pelosi and friends are going to allow a one-third or more reduction in liberal priorities like Head Start, food stamps and child nutrition after 2011 when the stimulus expires. CBO actually has overall spending falling between 2009 and 2012, which is less likely than an asteroid hitting the Earth.

Federal revenues, which will hit a 40-year low of 14.9% of GDP this year, are expected to rise to 19.6% of GDP by 2014 and then 20.2% by 2019—which the CBO concedes is “high by historical standards.” This implies some enormous tax increases.

CBO assumes that some 28 million middle-class tax filers will get hit by the alternative minimum tax, something Democrats say they won’t let happen. CBO also assumes that all the Bush tax cuts disappear—not merely those for the rich, but those for lower and middle income families as well. So either the deficit is going to be about $1.3 trillion higher than Washington thinks, or out goes Mr. Obama’s campaign promise of not taxing those who make less than $250,000.

In other words, a $9 trillion hole over 10 years is the pie-in-the-sky best-case scenario. Fun fact: Back in March, when the White House was still scoffing at CBO’s $9 trillion estimate, White House budget director Peter Orszag actually admitted that if CBO was right then The One’s budgets would be unsustainable. And now here we are, five short months later. Our options:

“We’ll either need wrenching, wrenching spending cuts, a boom in the economy or a new funding source or some combination to get this fiscal house back in order,” Darda said.

Income tax hikes alone won’t be enough, said Darda. We may need a national sales tax.

“We’re all going to have to have a stake in this game,” Darda said. And we’re all going to have to pay a little bit more and probably get a little bit less.”

Exit question: At what point does the Democrats’ sheer arrogance in pressing ahead with new spending programs during a budget meltdown become an issue unto itself? The fact that they’ve dug us deeper into a hole is one thing; that they refuse to change course now that they know full well how deep the hole’s become is something else entirely. When does the debate over ObamaCare become a debate about the left’s fundamental seriousness in addressing a looming fiscal catastrophe?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The Democrats have been in control of Congress for years. and now they have the White House too and what do they do when they caught with their pants down? Blame Bush.

When Bush forced through his tax cuts (that you probably hailed as the source of an economic miracle) and enacted major spending programs, he had majorities in both the House and Senate. You can’t just ignore the facts.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 9:46 PM

And you’ll do this by going to Kevin Rudd’s Australia?

AUINSC on August 25, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Only as a tourist. Sun and Fun and Foster on Bondi Beach.

bayview on August 25, 2009 at 9:46 PM

bayam:

You idiot. The financial policies of Bush my behind. I can still remember the Democrats over riding Bush’s veto on the S-CHIP program and the farm bill, because he was too stingy.

That is what they said.

And it was the Democrats who took control of Congress 6 years into Bush’s tenure with a budget deficit of about $170 billion. Now look at it.

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 9:47 PM

Only as a tourist. Sun and Fun and Foster on Bondi Beach.

bayview on August 25, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Actually, that doesn’t sound too bad, now that you mention it.

AUINSC on August 25, 2009 at 9:49 PM

Great news.

Buy what you want now because soon you will only be able to buy what you absolutely need.

Bishop on August 25, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Implode?

Different parts of the country will experience different levels of fallout.

Once people experience on-going black-outs and the water gets cut-off then they won’t have much time to get out. Or you show up to work and the company left over the week-end – those would be some small clues. Or you go to the store and notice higher prices and less stock on the shelves.

It may be time to think of exit strategies. Like “War of the World” types.
It won’t be long before some states will be the last refugee to a dying USA.

izoneguy on August 25, 2009 at 9:50 PM

bayam:

When Bush got his tax cuts through, the economy took off and tax receipts sored. In fact April 2006 was the biggest pay day the IRS ever had.

Now the Democrats come along and lie to everyone about how only a handful of evil horrid vile disgusting blood sucking anti American capitalists are going to have to pay taxes and everyone else will get free stuff.

BTW, a lot of Bush’s tax cuts were for the poor and middle class, are the Democrats going to bring those back too? I ask that because I know some poor folks who have not paid taxes in years and it will come as a shock to them if Obama lies to them yet again and raises their taxes too.

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 9:50 PM

When Bush forced through his tax cuts (that you probably hailed as the source of an economic miracle) and enacted major spending programs, he had majorities in both the House and Senate. You can’t just ignore the facts.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 9:46 PM

The big spending happened before Republicans controlled congress and after they lost it. It was generally a compromise — Democrats agree to do what is in the best interest of the country, but only if they get to spend a lot of money that wasn’t theirs.

Count to 10 on August 25, 2009 at 9:51 PM

Social justice does not come cheap folks.

chief on August 25, 2009 at 9:43 PM

And if Obama gets his way it will cost an arm and a leg…literally.

18-1 on August 25, 2009 at 9:51 PM

“We’re all going to have to have a stake in this game,”

I’ve heard this crap before from some lying President.

drjohn on August 25, 2009 at 9:52 PM

Buy what you want now because soon you will only be able to buy what you absolutely need.

Bishop on August 25, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Which is exactly why the clunker program was a “success”/

Rovin on August 25, 2009 at 9:53 PM

Tick, Tick, Tick…

Fletch54 on August 25, 2009 at 8:50 PM

Yeah, my blood’s so mad feels like coagulatin’
I’m sitting here just contemplatin’
He can twist the truth, his conscience knows no regulation.
Trillions of dollars for his fascist legislation
And tea rallies alone can’t bring sane governation
When the American Constitution is disintegratin’
This whole 1984 Obama animal farm world is just too frustratin’

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

MB4 on August 25, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Unless the deficit is like a couple gajillion dollars, I can guaran-fricking-tee that it’s not “much, much worse than I think.” Of course I’m a notorious pessimist.

mjk on August 25, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Social justice does not come cheap folks.

chief on August 25, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Social justice is just socialists stealing from the productive to give to the mooches.

thomasaur on August 25, 2009 at 9:54 PM

There is a silver lining to this train wreck. The numbers are so large now that any pretense at paying it back is laughable. Now the question becomes, when and how do we default.

My guess is it will take at least 30 years before we are selling the silverware. Meanwhile, party on dude!

patrick neid on August 25, 2009 at 9:43 PM

If you’re smart enough to figure out that default is inevitable, then don’t you think the people who are lending us the money have figured that out too? When it becomes accepted wisdom that we are going to default then it’s game over, and not party on dude.

DFCtomm on August 25, 2009 at 9:55 PM

If you’re afraid of rationed health care today, believe me, that’s nothing compared to what this country will be forced to adapt in the next decade if radical changes aren’t made to structurally reduce the cost of health care in the US.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Afraid of rationed healthcare? I’m a realist, there absolutely will be massive rationing of care in the future because the obligations of Medicare and Social Security are staggering. The last I looked the unfunded liabilities of the two programs combined with federal prescription drug assistance is nearing $200,000 per person alive today. You couple that with the fact that our actual debt will take probably a hundred years to pay back and this whole debate we’re having about any Democratic proposed healthcare plan seems trivial. Let’s take a look at how much of a realist you are.

As Warren Buffet pointed out 6 years ago, if this country had simply kept tax rates intact and piled the surplus into social security and Medicare, the problems would have been pushed back for another 30 years. And in 30 years, the demographic challenges of today and tomorrow will have passed.

Where do you get that the demographic will balance this mess out? Last I looked Social Security projected revenues will remain pretty much unchanged at 5% GDP for the next hundred years while outlays continue to rise during that same time frame till it nears 7% GDP. How do you figure, things will have passed?

lowandslow on August 25, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Actually, that doesn’t sound too bad, now that you mention it.

AUINSC on August 25, 2009 at 9:49 PM

My other planned destination (as a tourist!!) when I go on strike is Prague. I am doing my research and hope to expand on the list.

bayview on August 25, 2009 at 9:56 PM

Slavery is freedom. Oppression is liberation. Ignorance is enlightenment. Death is life. Bankruptcy is frugality.

Cheshire Cat on August 25, 2009 at 9:56 PM

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction combustion.

MB4 on August 25, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Another re-write

thomasaur on August 25, 2009 at 9:57 PM

It’s cute watching liberals complain about Bush’s “big spending programs” as we all quiver under the shadow of $9,000,000,000,000 in new debt.

*giggle*

Lehosh on August 25, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 9:47 PM

It’s unfortunate that you can’t act like a big boy and refrain from calling people names.

Blaming Democrats for programs pushed by Bush himself, such as the prescription drug benefit for seniors or the war in Iraq, is absurd. Instead of acting responsibly by asking Americans to make a sacrifice and pay for the cost of war, Bush simply excluded most of the war costs from annual budget outlays to hide its real impact.

In addition, Bush pushed through considerable tax cuts that many Republicans predicted would bring about a supply side economic miracle. In actuality, those cuts nothing more than help fuel a bubble and power artificial growth as consumers spent their tax rebates on housing and (mainly) imported goods.

Keep in mind there were credible voices of dissent in the face of Bush’s tax cuts. Both Alan Greenspan and Paul O’Neill predicted that the tax cuts were irresponsible policies that would create much larger deficits. (Neither of these men blamed the Democrats, by the way.)

I know that you disagree. So tell me, exactly what spending bills and tax cuts were the responsibility of the Democrats? Hopefully you won’t point to policies enacted when the GOP was in control of the House and Senate. To be honest, I’m not aware of anything that you can point to.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Slavery is freedom. Oppression is liberation. Ignorance is enlightenment. Death is life. Bankruptcy is frugality.

Cheshire Cat on August 25, 2009 at 9:56 PM

I still hate big brother. Where’s my gin?

blankminde on August 25, 2009 at 9:58 PM

“We’re all going to have to have a stake in this game,”

I’ve heard this crap before from some lying President.

drjohn on August 25, 2009 at 9:52 PM

And the moral is, the more there is for him, the less there is for you.

Cheshire Cat on August 25, 2009 at 9:58 PM

It’s cute watching liberals complain about Bush’s “big spending programs” as we all quiver under the shadow of $9,000,000,000,000 in new debt.

*giggle*

Lehosh on August 25, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Actually, it is even better when you recall that the Left’s complaint at the time was that Bush wasn’t spending enough with these programs.

18-1 on August 25, 2009 at 10:00 PM

They need to sell Alaska back to Russia, resind the Louisiana purchace back to France, Sell Florida back to Spain, Sell Manhattan back to the Dutch and then just maybe Washington DC might have enough cash to pay back some debt. All adjusted in today money.

tjexcite on August 25, 2009 at 10:03 PM

Where do you get that the demographic will balance this mess out? Last I looked Social Security projected revenues will remain pretty much unchanged at 5% GDP for the next hundred years while outlays continue to rise during that same time frame till it nears 7% GDP. How do you figure, things will have passed?

lowandslow on August 25, 2009 at 9:55 PM

For whatever reason, every couple generations you see a baby boomsthat disrupts the demographic picture. If a boom starts in 5 years, then 22 years later you suddenly have a torrent of new taxpayers entering the workforce, just as the baby boomers have moved on to the big house in the sky. Of course, no one can accurately predict what the population growth curve will look like in the future. That’s why Buffet simply pointed out that pushing the problem out into the future may be an adequate solution.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:03 PM

It’s cute watching liberals complain about Bush’s “big spending programs” as we all quiver under the shadow of $9,000,000,000,000 in new debt.

*giggle*

Lehosh on August 25, 2009 at 9:57 PM

You use what ya got, even if it isn’t much.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Why do you insist on defending horrible policy with bad policy. Bush is out of office, and it’s Obama’s economy and wars now.

DFCtomm on August 25, 2009 at 10:03 PM

I still hate big brother. Where’s my gin?

blankminde on August 25, 2009 at 9:58 PM

No animal shall drink alcohol … … … to excess.

Cheshire Cat on August 25, 2009 at 10:03 PM

I still hate big brother. Where’s my gin?

blankminde on August 25, 2009 at 9:58 PM

No animal shall drink alcohol … … … to excess.

Cheshire Cat on August 25, 2009 at 10:03 PM

Sometimes too much to drink is never enough.
- Mark Twain

MB4 on August 25, 2009 at 10:04 PM

bayam:

I am not a boy.

And spare the crap about Bush’s program, that drug program cost about half of what the Democratic alternative was and what is more, they are planning to nix the present program and replace it with the more expensive and intrusive one. So left to their own devices the Democrats would have spent more on a drug prescription program and they would not have had private plans like Medicare Advantage around, nor would they have allowed Health Savings Accounts to ever come into being.

And after the tax cuts went into effect and the economy began to grow the deficit actually started to shrink and it was shrinking until the Democrats took control of Congress.

I am not saying that government in general was not spending too much, but there is no comparison to the kind of over the top, out of control, unprecedented and potentially economically suicidal spending we have seen since the Democrats got total control of the government.

They are like crack addicts who won the lottery. They just can not stop themselves.

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 10:06 PM

The new funding source should be revenues from oil and natural gas drilling. And opening up our energy resources will also provide the boom Darda is talking about in jobs and economic growth. There is one politician in America who understands this and can do this. Can’t wait until 2012 for Sarah America!

milemarker2020 on August 25, 2009 at 10:07 PM

bayam:

What makes you think there will be any social security system in 22 years. I hope there is, but I think that if the present course is continued we will be so far in the hole that a lot of these programs will have to end.

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 10:09 PM

That’s why Buffet simply pointed out that pushing the problem out into the future may be an adequate solution.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:03 PM

Well excuse me if I don’t think that continuing the path of passing on debt we didn’t need to accumulate to future generations in hopes they procreate enoughs to cover it is sound fiscal policy.

lowandslow on August 25, 2009 at 10:09 PM

The Democrats have been in control of Congress for years. and now they have the White House too and what do they do when they caught with their pants down? Blame Bush.

As Barack Obamoleon was deceiving the neighboring RINOs he was also tricking his own sheeple. The scapegoat was again SnowBush. Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to SnowBush. In fact many of the claims begin to sound ridiculous to the objective mind. Of course, Squealer Gibbs’s mission is to keep everything subjective in the minds of the sheeple.

Cheshire Cat on August 25, 2009 at 10:10 PM

I am not a boy.

They are like crack addicts who won the lottery. They just can not stop themselves.

You didn’t name a single real program passed by the Demos that drove the deficit up in a significant way, just all the terrible things that supposedly ‘might have’ happened. But thanks for the nuanced explanation. Why do I even waste time listening to Buffet or Greenspan….

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:10 PM

No animal shall drink alcohol … … … to excess.

Cheshire Cat on August 25, 2009 at 10:03 PM

Animal Farm right?

Very appropriate…. unfortunately.

Yakko77 on August 25, 2009 at 10:11 PM

Cheshire:

Too true.

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 10:11 PM

It is just amazing to me that liberals can have the gall to come on here and attempt to lecture us about how to control deficits.

They are in charge of everything and the deficit is exploding right before our eyes. The deficit went down to zero during the clinton/gingrich years because they worked together. I remember democrats spitting up blood over the spending cuts, then taking credit for the surplus.
Not giving ANY credit to the EEEVVIL Gingrich of course.

Now you have 3 years of deficit reduction starting in 2004, and who’s president? why it’s BOOOOSH!! so no credit for him.
Fast forward to now O and the socialists are in charge and the deficit skyrockets. And these people come on here and say how democrats will save us from the evil republican deficit.
I mean you can’t make that sh*t up.

B Man on August 25, 2009 at 10:14 PM

bayam:

What? The Democrats controlled Congress for more than the last two years, they funded all the programs. Do you not understand how this works?

Look at the spending since Obama took office, that is not Bush…for Chrisake, Bush did not even sign the last budget. The Democrats just passed one spending resolution after the other and waited for Barack to win so that he could sign the budget he actually helped pass. Bush’s name is not even on it.

You are completely incapable of assuming responsibility for the inevitable outcome of your own policy. Cowards.

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 10:15 PM

And btw, Buffet is not exactly thrilled with the spending himself and anyway he is a bad billionare capitalist and a lot of people seem to think that Greenspan’s monetary policy was more than a little responsible for the meltdown.

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 10:16 PM

What makes you think there will be any social security system in 22 years. I hope there is, but I think that if the present course is continued we will be so far in the hole that a lot of these programs will have to end.

Unless something is done to address the health care bubble, this country will be bankrupt. The Chinese have already announced their plans to start dumping dollars by buying as many assets (land, companies, mines) as they can around the world. As the Chinese cash in their dollars for real assets, eventually others will reach the same conclusion- that the dollar isn’t worth much more than the paper it’s printed on. At some point in the future, foreign investors will simply walk away as the treasury tries to auction off another 150 bil in monthly securities. When that happens, not even a million in the bank is going to protect you.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:16 PM

bayam:

BS. The health care crisis my behind. You are just spouting talking points, you do not even know what you are talking about. Even the CBO report makes it plain that Obamacare will not fix anything, it will only drive up costs. You have lost this argument.

The point my dear is that if the economy is wrecked, the currency devalued, there will be no social security.

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 10:20 PM

And Bush never sent a budget to Congress that they did not want to spend more. They never cut any spending at all.

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 10:20 PM

He’s got the whole economy in His hands,
He’s got the whole economy in His hands,
He’s got the whole economy in His hands,
He’s got the whole economy in His hands,

He’s got my bankers and my brokers in His hands,
He’s got my bankers and my brokers in His hands,
He’s got my bankers and my brokers in His hands,
He’s got the whole darn bailout in His hands.

He’s got the unions and undocs in His hands,
He’s got the commies and panthers in His hands,
He’s got the greenies and terrorists in His hands,
He’s got the whole left wingers in His hands.

He’s got my GM and my Chevy in His hands,
He’s got my Fannie and my Freddie in His hands,
He’s got takeovers and bailouts in His hands,
He’s got the whole mess in His hands.

He’s got everybody’s doctors in His hands,
He’s got everybody’s dentists in His hands,
He’s got the whole mass media in His hands.
He’s got the whole world in His hands.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 25, 2009 at 10:20 PM

You are completely incapable of assuming responsibility for the inevitable outcome of your own policy.

Perhaps you’re right, Bush’s deficit problems were rooted in the final years of his administration when Dems forced programs onto his agenda. But I don’t want to trade barbs with you.

Or if you think that the treasury and administration weren’t forced to act aggressively in the face of economic meltdown or that our banking system wasn’t on the brink of total collapse, you’re welcome to your own opinion. I’m not going to respond.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:21 PM

When does the debate over ObamaCare become a debate about the left’s fundamental seriousness in addressing a looming fiscal catastrophe?

When does the debate become about why they are inducing the catastrophe?

The administration is full of Marxists whose life goals are the destruction of capitalism. What better way to do so than to collapse it from the top down?

spmat on August 25, 2009 at 10:23 PM

BS. The health care crisis my behind. You are just spouting talking points, you do not even know what you are talking about. Even the CBO report makes it plain that Obamacare will not fix anything, it will only drive up costs. You have lost this argument.

I never said that Obama’s healthcare plan would reduce spending or solve the health care crisis. You just added those words yourself. Take a breather… you’re beginning to sound like my online stalker or something.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:23 PM

bayam:

Actually I think that if any president heard the words financial collapse, he would act. I am not as strict on that as some people are. But I do think that the Democrats took advantage of the situation to push through a lot of programs and pile on a lot of debt that was just not necessary.

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 10:23 PM

Default? there is no reason to default on anything.This deficit shouldnt worry anyone, its obvious there is a plan. Just keep on printing and de-value the dollar to the point where we can just pony up the couple trillion needed from under the couch cushions.

Koa on August 25, 2009 at 10:27 PM

Well what do you want from a bunch of clowns who never worked a day in their life? Just a bunch of government grant welfare generation graduates!Hey A-Holes 1+1 still =2

sonnyspats1 on August 25, 2009 at 10:30 PM

bayam:

This is what you said:unless something is done to address the health care bubble, this country will be bankrupt.

Sounds to me like you are saying it will save money. No, I am not a stalker, but you might be.

Terrye on August 25, 2009 at 10:31 PM

I’m not going to respond.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:21 PM

Take a breather… you’re beginning to sound like my online stalker or something.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:23 PM

Pussy troll. Why don’t you ban yourself? It’s not like anyone is going to miss you.

dave c on August 25, 2009 at 10:32 PM

Unless something is done to address the health care bubble, this country will be bankrupt. The Chinese have already announced their plans to start dumping dollars by buying as many assets

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:16 PM

HAHAHA…give me a sec…AHHAHAHAH

Are you actually claiming the total loss of faith by the Chinese in the American dollar is because of this mythical HEALTH CARE CRISIS you keep whining about?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Holy jesus that is rich.

ClassicCon on August 25, 2009 at 10:35 PM

2 trillion, is about $158,000 per family…think of what that could do if every family received a $158,000 check.
Homes, autos, repairs…now make it so they have to buy domestic, and within three years…now, would that stimulate the economy?
We could do that every three years for probably about 12 years…everyone would have a chance at a college degree, new autos, nice clothes, drugs and the finest hookers…regardless, better then what they are doing now.

right2bright on August 25, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Check your math, champ. $2 trillion doesn’t even go that far.

Jimmy Doolittle on August 25, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Shite, I was laughing too hard to close my blockquote.

ClassicCon on August 25, 2009 at 10:36 PM

You didn’t name a single real program passed by the Demos that drove the deficit up in a significant way, just all the terrible things that supposedly ‘might have’ happened. But thanks for the nuanced explanation. Why do I even waste time listening to Buffet or Greenspan….

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Social security, medicare, medicaid to name the biggies, and if you listen to Greenspan then you have my sympathy for what has happened to your 401.

DFCtomm on August 25, 2009 at 10:42 PM

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:23 PM

I’ve seen this AssHole before…can’t remember where just now…..

Not to worry…typical hand wringing, angry, brain dead F#*kTard….

BigWyo on August 25, 2009 at 10:48 PM

You didn’t name a single real program passed by the Demos that drove the deficit up in a significant way, just all the terrible things that supposedly ‘might have’ happened. But thanks for the nuanced explanation. Why do I even waste time listening to Buffet or Greenspan….

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 10:10 PM

A little history lesson on Social Security

http://www.redstate.com/izoneguy/2009/08/22/democrats-resisting-obama-on-social-security-or-moe-made-me-get-going-on-this-subject/

izoneguy on August 25, 2009 at 11:00 PM

Geithner: We’ll do whatever it takes to reduce the deficit.
Question: Including reducing the size of the government?
Geither: hem, hah, ur, …

PackerBronco on August 25, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Bishop on August 25, 2009 at 9:50 PM

A lot of folks are losing even that. The incoming Bozo tax hikes have employers bunkering down, laying off everyone they can and spending as little as possible.

dogsoldier on August 25, 2009 at 11:26 PM

The democrats are either treasonous fascist pigs or ignorant beyond compare. Take your pick.

Griz on August 26, 2009 at 12:05 AM

Griz on August 26, 2009 at 12:05 AM

Why do we have to choose?

AUINSC on August 26, 2009 at 12:09 AM

How about this? Let em institute a national sales tax on everyone. Those that have not been taxed start to wake up that Obama is costing them. Those that are paying taxes already are up in arms and ready to get rid of all the Dems. In 2010 take back Congress and instead of repealing the national sales tax, repeal the IRS!

Christian Conservative on August 26, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Christian Conservative on August 26, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Nice idea but taxes, once imposed, NEVER go away. I DO like your idea though.

Mojave Mark on August 26, 2009 at 12:21 AM

The deficit is more than a huge tax load that we, our children and our grandchildren will have to pay off. Our financial security will be directly related to our national security.

If we have a 9 trillion dollar deficit, that puts our interest payment somewhere around $20 billion per month to service the debt, which is probably going overseas to creditors.

That’s money that won’t be available to put towards defense.

The more debt that we carry, the less leverage we’ll have to bargain with countries.

“The borrower is a slave to the lender.”

That will be true not only for us taxpayers, enslaved to the government, but it will be true of our nation, enslaved to other nations, weakened by our irresponsible behavior.

Pazman on August 26, 2009 at 12:59 AM

The government has become like an out-of-control, compulsive spender.

It’s time to take away their credit card, and for us to do some major intervention. They have become addicted to the power, and they’re in total denial. Obama and the Congress should be forced by the court to attend a 12-step program to get some sanity back or they are going to destroy the country.

Pazman on August 26, 2009 at 1:08 AM

Kennedy is dead.

xblade on August 26, 2009 at 1:32 AM

The real question here is a few hundred years old. Rousseau and Paine debated it. Do men have inalienable rights, or do all rights flow from the State? Is the State a limited entity charged with service to citizens, or do citizens exist to enrich the State and live under it’s rule? Are rewards to be distributed as they are earned by individuals, or as the State sees fit? Do we want a country with a government, or the reverse?

Meremortal on August 26, 2009 at 1:38 AM

Kennedy dead? Must go look…

Meremortal on August 26, 2009 at 1:40 AM

Kennedy is dead.

xblade on August 26, 2009 at 1:32 AM

I pray for his soul, but I don’t have a magic wand to clean up his messes.

mkm19602000 on August 26, 2009 at 2:04 AM

Let me tell you what this information does for an average, low-middle class woman: it makes me hunker down, stop spending, hoard and wait. It makes me more protective of resources and less free to be innovative and less free to stimulate the economy in it’s proper form (that is, not in liberal spending bills.) True story, if they raise our taxes, we will (as just one family) suffer badly. We will not be able to save, not be able to pay off student loans, not be able to purchase anything, we won’t be getting that new house, and I won’t be going to graduate school any time soon.

But, that could be what they want.

Mommypundit on August 26, 2009 at 4:47 AM

What has happened to America? What we need is O.P.M. – Other Peoples Money. “A New Funding Source”. How about O.I.L.

Nuclear Power would also be nice (even freakin’ wind mills at this point), but that takes even longer to get going, and traditionally even a mention of oil impacts the economy immediately due to speculation.

Agrippa2k on August 26, 2009 at 5:11 AM

GM To Remove ‘Mark Of Excellence’
Logo From Vehicles
Associated Press, by Staff

Finally! Truth in government.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 26, 2009 at 7:30 AM

When Bush forced through his tax cuts (that you probably hailed as the source of an economic miracle) and enacted major spending programs, he had majorities in both the House and Senate. You can’t just ignore the facts.

bayam on August 25, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Even if all of your assumptions are true, does that make it right to spend our country into bankruptcy? Is that the type of change you wanted? Neither party is blameless, but if we want our freedom back, we had better keep speaking out and doing everything necessary to stop this attitude of tax and spend. Wake up, “there is no free lunch”!!!

hillbilly on August 26, 2009 at 9:25 AM

Jethro and Uncle Jed Axelrod done guessed wrong again. Just too many zeros in this ciphering equation I guess. But the bottom line is things are gettin beter!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Come and listen to my story about a man named O
Poor community organizer looking to spread a little dough

bluegrass on August 26, 2009 at 9:42 AM

The Heritage Foundation; “The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.”
Ted Kennedy is okay with this, as of this morning.

Cybergeezer on August 26, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2