Big Government: The cultural issue
posted at 5:56 pm on February 1, 2010 by Karl
As Pres. Obama’s $3.8 trillion budget lands with a thud, The Hill asked commentators, legislators and intellectuals whether approving it will hurt Democrats in November. Kudos to Sydelle Moore for ordering the responses to allow the Instapundit to prebut the founder of Craigslist:
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit said:
Yes. One telling indicator is a growing effort by the remaining Obama partisans to paint Bush as an equivalent big spender, even though the Bush deficits were much smaller than Obama’s, and declining thoughout most of his second term. Not that Bush was any prize, but Obama’s deficits are of an entirely different magnitude.
Obama’s deficits are unsustainable, and obviously so. To use Al Gore’s frog-boiling metaphor, the stove may have been on “simmer” before, but Obama has turned it up to “11″ and now the frog is kicking.
Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, said:
Most of the deficit was directly or indirectly inherited from prior years. If that’s honestly communicated in the media, then the people who caused the deficit will have problems.
If honestly communicated, then this helps the Democrats.
Seems like the people who complain about this budget are the people who caused it. We need more honesty about that.
The Instapundit’s link provides a graphic refutation of Newmark’s claim that Obama’s deficits were inherited from the Bush administration or the GOP Congress. Ironically, Newmark is correct in the larger sense. The federal government’s structural deficits are inherited from an entire series of prior administrations. Quite a bit of those inherited problems stem from entitlement programs passed on a bipartisan basis — though Democrats prefer to take all of the credit, and none of the blame for them.
However, the smartest answer to the question of whether Obama’s big-taxing, even bigger-spending, deficit-growing and government-growing budget will hurt Democrats may come from National Review’s Rich Lowry, who compares Obama’s current predicament to that of Bill Clinton:
The backlash against Democrats in 1994 was famously attributed to “gays, guns, and God.” Obama has mostly avoided stoking opposition around that hot-button triad, but faces a very similar backlash. Why?
Big government became a cultural issue. The level of spending, the bailouts, and the extent of the intervention in the economy contemplated in health-care reform and cap-and-trade created the fear that something elemental was changing in the country — quickly and irrevocably.
Just as Clinton ran up against the country’s cultural conservatism, so has Obama. But Obama is encountering its fiscal expression, the sense that America has always been defined by a more stringently limited government than other advanced countries. If Obama is rebuked in November, it won’t be a “gays, guns, and God” backlash, but an “American exceptionalism” backlash.
Obama has added fuel to it with his serial apologies for America and his cringing attitude abroad, which has made him sound, in John Bolton’s evocative phrase, like a “post-American” president.
Arguing the numbers in Pres. Obama’s budget is a crucial and important debate… among policy wonks. In the broader public, it merely adds to the perception that Obama is keen on converting the United States into a Euro-style, corporatist, social democracy. That is a bad look for an election year.
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 Next »
Why is every internet king a real douche bag?
jukin on February 1, 2010 at 6:01 PM
Don’t forget for a second that the “Guns” part of that hot button triad is simmering just beneath the surface.
Juno77 on February 1, 2010 at 6:02 PM
Keep that perception out there, Homey.
OmahaConservative on February 1, 2010 at 6:02 PM
It’s a disaster in any year.
trigon on February 1, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Stupid question.
Does this budget have to be voted on by the House and Senate?
Knucklehead on February 1, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Obama personifies our deficits.
molonlabe28 on February 1, 2010 at 6:06 PM
Obama became a Senator in 2004, and was part of the Liberal majority from ’06 to the time he became President, right? Sometimes these people need reminding that Democrats have had power for some time now – since shortly before things started to go down hill.
forest on February 1, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Hey, Craig, are your still pimpin’ Ho’s online to keep your business afloat? Idiot.
Fletch54 on February 1, 2010 at 6:09 PM
U.S. Americans see their president bowing to all schmucks of the world, incl. terrorists, China bragging at Davos, Mr. Friedman of the NYT lamenting Massachusetts’ outcome, the Congress and Obama’s arrogance and they go “Oh, yeah, not so fast!”.
Schadenfreude on February 1, 2010 at 6:11 PM
It is clear that iObama and his team have no real world experience. You see, in the real world, if you tried this “budget” thing, you would be in JAIL for writing a TRILLION dollars in bad checks!
UnderstandingisPower on February 1, 2010 at 6:11 PM
There are a number of deficits which the progressive liberals will pay for in the coming elections:
-Budget deficit
-Truth deficit
-Corruption deficit
-Lobbyist deficit
-Transparency deficit
-Employment deficit
-Tax deficit
-Hearing deficit
-Socialism/marxism/communism deficit
-Stupidity deficit
ClanDerson on February 1, 2010 at 6:11 PM
Spelling error in the headline, Karl. “Cutural”.
Doodad Pro on February 1, 2010 at 6:12 PM
OT:
How does one get a hold of Karl and the other posters while Ed and AP are away?
The news on Drudge is that in mimicking an attack by Iran our SBX radar failed during a test:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0120076120100201
Wasn’t this the same system that wasn’t allowed to try stopping a North Korean missile attack this past spring and summer? Maybe you should have let them try Barry. Now, they will have to scramble to figure out what went wrong when they could have been working on any problem since last summer.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 1, 2010 at 6:12 PM
with the help of the msm, it continues…
cmsinaz on February 1, 2010 at 6:12 PM
Obama’s Budget — Straight From La La Land
Where is AnninCA?
OmahaConservative on February 1, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Are geeks and nerds democrats???
He’ll be b*tching when the government decides next year to raise the top income from 39.6% to 60%.
Oil Can on February 1, 2010 at 6:13 PM
exactly!
they keep forgetting that little tidbit when they are bashing the (R)s on the msm talk shows…dear leader lent a hand in this
cmsinaz on February 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM
Beck said on TV that some revenue in the budget is supposed to come from cap-n-trade. What do they know that we don’t?
Tom
marinetbryant on February 1, 2010 at 6:15 PM
PBHO reinforces the big stupid things with the little stupid things, such as getting involved in college football playoff schemes.
Bishop on February 1, 2010 at 6:15 PM
Hey Craig! Would that be 2007, 2008, and 2009 when DEMOCRATS ran Congress? You know, THE FOLKS WHO SPEND THE MONEY?
GarandFan on February 1, 2010 at 6:15 PM
..and tax junkie?
leftnomore on February 1, 2010 at 6:16 PM
Just another partisan moron. The truth is the budget deficit that Nancy Pelosi “inherited” was $162 billion, and Bush had been president for 6 years. Almost four years later and, more than a year since Bush left office the deficit is $1.6 trillion. Why is that so difficult for guys like Craig to understand.
It is just like the whole debate over Saddam and his weapons, the Democrats said for years that he had them, Saddam was dangerous, they passed the Iraqi Liberation Act and a Democratic Senate passed the force resolution to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq, but when the whole thing became unpopular they feigned innocence.
They are driven by the politics of the moment and just assume that people will not notice their inconsistencies and lies.
Terrye on February 1, 2010 at 6:18 PM
I’m thinking that this graph will be on the “must have” T-shirt this coming election season.
applebutter on February 1, 2010 at 6:19 PM
A Majority Of States Are Now Insolvent: Quantifying The Disastrous Unemployment Situation
Using data provided by ProPublica we have been able to confirm that indeed standalone states are for the most part now bankrupt and have no reserves left in their coffers when it comes to funding ever increasing insurance benefits. As ProPublica indicates, there are now 26 states which have depleted their trust funds, among these are the usual suspects including California, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which now rely exclusively on borrowings from the Federal government to prevent the cessation of insurance payments to recently unemployed workers. Currently all states collectively posses $10.7 billion in trust fund assets(with the bulk held by less impacted states such as Washington ($2.6 billion), Louisiana ($1.1 billion) and Oregon ($1.1 billion). On the other hand, 26 states currently rely exclusively on the Federal Government, and have borrowed a combined $30 billion through December to fund payments. ProPublica estimates that another 8 states will be insolvent within 6 months, as their trust funds also approach 0.
The most bankrupt states are California, with $6.8 billion in borrowings, Michigan ($3.4 billion), New York ($2.4 billion), Pennsylvania ($2.2 billion) and Ohio ($1.9 billion).
MB4 on February 1, 2010 at 6:19 PM
Glad you asked!
Folks on the Twitter can send me stuff at @justkarl.
Karl on February 1, 2010 at 6:19 PM
‘The budget presented by our president today could only have been written by Rosie Scenario.’
leftnomore on February 1, 2010 at 6:20 PM
The real backlash will be the American people’s refusal to embrace socialism.
d1carter on February 1, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Wow.
Craigslist insistence on keeping the erotic services category on their site was a bit of mystery to me.
Now that I have a better Idea of who Craig is, not so much.
Dorvillian on February 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM
Obama is destroying the Democratic Party and they’re too dumb to realize. He will not destroy America, because Americans are on to his dishonest ways.
Will there be anything left of the Democratic party after November? And where they go, the media is not far behind.
EMD on February 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM
Man, all that blue is hard to read. Couldn’t you have just linked the headline in blue?
OmahaConservative on February 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM
No worries about the states – Obama’s budget includes $25B to bail them out so they can continue to spend money like crazy. Nice to have Uncle Obama and Congress to continually rescue them so they don’t have to make the tough decisions. Kick the can down the road once again.
markytom on February 1, 2010 at 6:22 PM
How ’bout us non-Twitter-types?
OmahaConservative on February 1, 2010 at 6:22 PM
“I Won the Presidency and All I Got was this Lousy Deficit.”
Such whining only shows that Token is utterly incapable of governing. List THAT in your trashy online column, CRAIG.
leftnomore on February 1, 2010 at 6:24 PM
That is a freaking genius column by Rich Lowry. I think it will be very influential in this election year. Democrats ignore it at their peril.
rockmom on February 1, 2010 at 6:25 PM
“We need more honesty about that.”
Go f*ck yourself. You and the “Craigslist” you rode in on. You and your filthy infantile leftist friends. Marxist-capitalist scum. What would you know about “more” honesty, you don’t even know what honesty is.
rrpjr on February 1, 2010 at 6:26 PM
Here in Indiana, Mitch Daniels is taking a lot of flack for cutting education. The state can not run a deficit, and so someone had to get the ax. You would not believe the whining and finger pointing.
Terrye on February 1, 2010 at 6:26 PM
Almost every internet king. I submit that Bill Gates is a frakkin prince.
jlibson on February 1, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Is that why Obama has added a 16% increase in education spending? Is this really just another way to bail out the states?
markytom on February 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM
I don’t know what benefits are like in other states, but in Pennsylvania they are very generous. I just spent a year getting unemployment and got $27,000. I would have had to find a job making at least $45-50,000 to produce as much take-home pay, especially with commuting costs. Not a ton of jobs out there in that salary range. I had zero incentive to take a lower-paying retail or administrative job, though there are many openings in my town.
It may seem callous and heretical, but I think the Feds need to pull the plug on all these unemployment extensions. People need some real incentive to take any job they can find and get back to work and paying taxes.
rockmom on February 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
MB4 on February 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM
+1
OmahaConservative on February 1, 2010 at 6:32 PM
That graph distorts the truth, deceiving people who don’t have a firm grasp of economics. The federal deficit is driven by both government spending and incoming tax revenue. The massive recession triggered by the financial panic of 2008 dramatically cut incoming tax revenue, pushing the deficit out of the ballpark.
I’m not defending Obama. Obama’s first budget included significant spending increases, pretty much across the board (which I strongly oppose). However, the main drivers of the current deficit are (a) the structural deficit built into federal spending today and (b) lower tax revenue caused by the recession.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? During the Clinton years, the budget deficit was progressively decreased year over year. During Clinton’s final year, the budget was clearly in the black- into surplus territory. Today’s structural deficit comes from Bush II.
bayam on February 1, 2010 at 6:33 PM
A lot of people are losing their jobs in the school systems here, so no, there is no bail out. A lot of states are having the same kinds of problems.
Terrye on February 1, 2010 at 6:38 PM
What party controlled the Congress when that budget was cut? And to be honest, we paid for some of those military cuts later.
Terrye on February 1, 2010 at 6:39 PM
Obama and the Democrats are destroying this country by running up deficits that will strangle business opportunity by using all available money, effectively turning us into a socialist country with tax freedom day moved from May to Nov.
The Repubs had better find some balls and get Scott Brown seated, void the bills Kirk voted on and fight this thing tooth and nail and loudly.
We cannot afford this debt! We will be spent into socialism while the Repubs and corrupt Dems Pander.
Pitchforks and torches, gentlemen surround them with pitchforks and torches and don’t let em in or out until they fear for their miserable lives!
dhunter on February 1, 2010 at 6:40 PM
I always love when someone wants to talk about “deceiving people who don’t have a firm grasp of economics,” then ask a question like this. Our structural deficit and debt problems moving forward are due in no small part to the entitlement programs mentioned in the original post. Only one of those — Medicare Part D — can be laid at GWB’s feet. Social Security (and the COLA tacked on in the 1970s) and the rest of Medicare cannot be blamed on Bush, except to the extent that he did not or could not get Congress to reform them — but that’s true of every other administration, including the current one.
Karl on February 1, 2010 at 6:41 PM
Gee, and to think I assumed it required an IQ to create an entry on a comments board.
leftnomore on February 1, 2010 at 6:42 PM
I understand what Newmark is saying; however, it doesn’t give Obama an excuse to raise the deficit when he just promised Wednesday night that we were going to have a spending freeze.
deidre on February 1, 2010 at 6:44 PM
Because they’re mostly from Kookafornia. That, or they’re immature people who want to be “in” with the Hollywood/Soros crowd.
mr.blacksheep on February 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM
Perhaps, but in 2000 there was a clear path in the minds of people like Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffet to keep the budget balanced for another 30 to 40 years, thereby punting on the entitlement problem until most Boomers had passed- at which point, it may not be a problem any longer. At this point, however, you’re right. The only way to tackle the problem will require cutting spending on entitlement programs.
bayam on February 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM
bayam, it does not distort the truth half as much as the Democrats do on a daily basis. They have made no attempt to deal with entitlement reform or offer alternatives, all they do is whine, complain, lie and spend.
Terrye on February 1, 2010 at 6:50 PM
The deficit is grossly irresponsible and reckless. It is plainly an attempt to sabotage the country — nobody could be stupid enough to believe that it will create real jobs. To so believe would betray a puerile, almost childlike (if not childish) understanding of how wealth (translation: jobs) is (are) created.
If this kind of crap works, why isn’t Zimbabwe the most fantastically wealthy country on the face of the planet? Why did the USSR collapse? If it really works, why haven’t we done more of it in the past? What has happened when it has been tried elsewhere?
This is not good, and I hope that it can be blocked in the Senate (or even the House) by politicians who are now afraid for their jobs.
mr.blacksheep on February 1, 2010 at 6:52 PM
http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/layoffs-jan.htm
MB4 on February 1, 2010 at 6:56 PM
About 3 weeks ago I was in my car. I was listening to a local station on the radio. The guys are funny most of the time, but every now and then read stories that they come across. One was about a man, who had recently been dumped by a girlfriend. So he went to craigslist and put an ad out there, that he was a woman (his ex girlfriend) and her fantasy was to be raped. Some guy answered the ad. The boyfriend gave the would be rapist all the info he needed, and the doof who answered the ad did the rape. Only to find out later this woman had nothing to do with the ad. So he goes to prison. So will the boyfriend.
All of this, thanks to craigslist, and we’re to believe that he has the smarts, and savvy to know the “truth” about the debt, and finaces? I hardly think so. This guy doesn’t have the common sense to employ people to moderate or do some fact checking on ads that are put on his site.
He’s as sick a socialist as the others we’re seeing, and wouldn’t know the “truth” if it bit him in the arse.
capejasmine on February 1, 2010 at 6:59 PM
When in doubt tax, regulate, borrow, and spend. It ALWAYS works.
jukin on February 1, 2010 at 7:00 PM
Even if your’e correct, do 2 wrongs make a right? I really dislike it when either side is willing to say anything just to “score points” and get their less educated ranks worked into a frenzy. If anything is every going to get fixed in this country, you need some bipartisan agreement based on a common agreement of what’s going on.
bayam on February 1, 2010 at 7:01 PM
bayam
You are aware that both the House and Senate are controlled by Democrats since 2007? All spending for 2008 and 2009 was created and approved by Congress. Not some, all. 100%
chimney sweep on February 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM
ClanDerson on February 1, 2010 at 6:11 PM
.
A deficit of trust…and a SURPLUS OF STUPID.
dont taze me bro on February 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM
Yeah but this graph is outdated now. It looks much WORSE
Christian Conservative on February 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM
It looks much WORSE when you update the graph with the latest numbers. (Sorry somehow the comment got set without hitting Submit.)
Christian Conservative on February 1, 2010 at 7:04 PM
I’ll soon take all my troubles over to Obama Rue
You know The One with the never ending Hope and Change shtick
He’s got a pad down on Pennsylvania avenue
He’ll be passin’ out little bottles of Obama Potion Number Nine
I’ll tell him that I’m having trouble with my mortgage payments
It’s gotten even worse in these last few weeks
He’ll kiss me on the cheek and he’ll made a magic sign
He’ll say “What you need is Obama Potion Number Nine”
He’ll turn around and gave me a wink
He’ll say “I’m gonna have my Michelle make it up right here in the White House sink”
It’ll smell like Chicago, it’ll look like socialist ink
I’ll hold my nose, I’ll close my eyes, I’ll take a drink
I won’t know if it is day or night
I’ll start grabbin’ everyone else’s money that is in sight
But when there’s nothin’ left to grab
It’ll break my little bottle of Obama Potion Number Nine
Break my little bottle of Obama Potion Number Nine
MB4 on February 1, 2010 at 7:04 PM
I think the Anointed One is schizophrenic. I heard him today bloviate about
the American taxpayer is not an endless source of revenue and the government must go on a budget blah blah blah, while at the same time submitting a budget over 3 trillion dollars.
And it’s all Bush’s fault!
Dhuka on February 1, 2010 at 7:04 PM
We’re good to go here in the Heartland…
OmahaConservative on February 1, 2010 at 7:07 PM
Ok, let’s look at the hard numbers, excluding the last 2 years of the Bush years.
Here are the budgets submitted when the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. The federal budget increased by 30% over the short span of 6 years. The Bush administration preferred to leave spending on the wars in Iran and Afghanistan out of the budget, so these numbers are actually on the low side.
Increase spending by 30% and lower taxes = $4 trillion in federal debut plus a massive structural federal deficit.
2007 United States federal budget – $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget – $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget – $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget – $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget – $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget – $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
bayam on February 1, 2010 at 7:08 PM
I don’t really understand the reasoning involved in blaming Bush.
If Bush did it, it’s bad.
If Obama does even more, it’s good.
Surely there is a contradiction inherent in this reasoning.
Dhuka on February 1, 2010 at 7:08 PM
Great link. Thank you so much, I really needed that information in one easy place to look for some “stuff” I’m trying to work on.
You. Are. My. Hero!
Knucklehead on February 1, 2010 at 7:09 PM
He is modeling himself after one of the characters in Blazing Saddles.
Blazing Saddles II, or Blazing Schizophrenia.
MB4 on February 1, 2010 at 7:09 PM
That’s what I can’t understand about the trolls. They excoriate Bush, but then use him as the standard of behavior. I guess you’d have to be a progressive/liberal to get it. War is peace and all that.
mr.blacksheep on February 1, 2010 at 7:11 PM
If a Conservative purity test had been in place before the last election, Obama the radical would not be President and would not be in a position to do immense harm to this nation.
This is all equatable to the failure of the GOP to field and nominate the best candidate.
Letting the media and sentiment choose anything should obviously be a grave mistake by now.
Speakup on February 1, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Depends on what the meaning of deficit is. For example, saying they have a stupidity deficit can mean there’s more stupidity in D.C. than we actually see, just like they spend more money than they actually have.
Of course all normal people would say it’s a surplus of stupidity, but I’m just trying to use the logic of our political leadership. To put it another way, words are meaningless. Truth has to be figured out in the context of what’s best for speaker of such words at any given moment in time.
ClanDerson on February 1, 2010 at 7:14 PM
No.
Blacksmith8 on February 1, 2010 at 7:15 PM
Blazing Schizophrenia (2010), directed by George Soros with Barack Obama, Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke.
MB4 on February 1, 2010 at 7:16 PM
I’d like to thank you for your insightful dream analysis. Do you have newsletter?
Blacksmith8 on February 1, 2010 at 7:19 PM
If any President spends wrecklessly, it’s bad. In a protracted recession, the problem is determining what level of spending is necessary. When Japan suffered a similar collapse in asset prices a few decades ago, triggering a ‘balance sheet recession’, cuts in government spending tended to prolong and intensify their recession. Historically, US Presidents from both parties have tried to balance the budget in good times, and then go into deficit spending when the economy falters. Problem is, this time around we did massive deficit spending when the economy was good and never saved up for a rainy day, arrogantly assuming that a hurricane would never come. Well, it came and now we’re pretty much screwed.
bayam on February 1, 2010 at 7:20 PM
I think the structural deficit that we face is *huge* problem in the long term. The problem is, it requires cutting entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and none of the Republicans have the fortitude to do that (maybe past elections have something to do with that becoming a “third rail” problem). So: who is going to ask this question to the American people? If conservative politicians cannot get themselves to ask this question, who will?
peter_griffin on February 1, 2010 at 7:24 PM
We shouldn’t be arguing about what was and wasn’t “inherited.” We want somebody to do something about it – now. If that’s not the current president and congress, then we need new ones. I’m not interested in a polite discussion about who created what portion of this mess. I’m interested in fixing it!
jdp629 on February 1, 2010 at 7:25 PM
So you’re saying ObowMao inherited some deficit spending problems that were magnified by the recession, BUT BillyJeff was doing a bang up job and the ’93 through 2000 dot com BOOM had no effect what so ever on IRS collections.
It seems to me, your calculator only works in ‘Won’ direction.
Blacksmith8 on February 1, 2010 at 7:25 PM
One, a surplus ISN’T good. Neutrality is. A surplus is more of OUR money the government is KEEPING to spend on something else.
Two, 9/11 happened, and we had to invest BILLIONS into a underfunded military.
blatantblue on February 1, 2010 at 7:27 PM
Hey everybody, I have a GREAT idea!
Let’s elect Barack Hussien Obama as President of the United States…!!!
Seven Percent Solution on February 1, 2010 at 7:28 PM
Why don’t we just have the government take over Craigslist and have a commission set up that will decide what to charge for various items and make sure that every transaction is “fair”.
Pretty hard to believe that the guy that set up a free market site for regular people is actually a closet socialist.
Must be that white guilt AGAIN.
Hummer53 on February 1, 2010 at 7:29 PM
Thanks, Karl…
lovingmyUSA on February 1, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Variation on a theme: ObaMao has Deficit Attention Disorder. (It’s obvious that he is still searching for the validation of a father figure.)
onlineanalyst on February 1, 2010 at 7:32 PM
What you said makes sense. And this might actually be a silver lining – because it may be forcing us to ask the tough questions like what we need to do long term to cut the deficit. Healthcare, unfortunately, should also be a part of these discussions – instead of kicking the can further down the road. Again, someone needs to tell people that we cannot insure more people without incurring significant deficit. We can’t eat the cake and keep it too.
peter_griffin on February 1, 2010 at 7:33 PM
I knew it. You’re either a troll or you study at the Karl Rove institute of political dirty tricks. Thinking the dhimmicraps would be stupid enough to even try to reelect the ‘Won’ after everything he has failed to do. I mean . . . wait a minute. . .
Nevermind. carry on.
Blacksmith8 on February 1, 2010 at 7:34 PM
More spending went to the military, but don’t blame the military for adding $4 tril to the national debt or for the massive structural deficit. Increases in military spending were less than the tax cuts passed by Bush.
bayam on February 1, 2010 at 7:34 PM
When Craigslist isn’t pimpin ho’s it’s pimpin Obooba.
Akzed on February 1, 2010 at 7:37 PM
That is crap. It really is. I can remember Bush getting hell for vetoing a farm bill, or for vetoing the expansion of S-CHIP. Oh, he was a bad man because he did not want to help people blah blah blah.
And then here comes Obama who voted for all the spending and then signed the same budget he voted on…the Democrats just bypassed Bush altogether, and who gets the blame for that spending? Why Bush does of course. So, if that is so, why didn’t Obama veto budget last March instead of signing it?
No, they want to run everything, spend all the money they want to spend and then blame Bush. It is untrue and it is cowardly. Bush never spent money on the scale that these people, never. And while Reagan may have run deficits, he never ran the kind of deficits that can destroy the currency.
When George W became President, the surplus was gone because of the dot com bust that lead to recession, and a loss of revenue for the Feds. So, I am sure that any kind of downturn in the economy could lead to some deficit spending, but this is just ridiculous.
Terrye on February 1, 2010 at 7:37 PM
im not
but lets not pretend events in 2001 didn’t contribute to things, domestically and internationally.
yea he ended up spending too much after, and it was wrong.
blatantblue on February 1, 2010 at 7:37 PM
Bush had a lot to deal with. He could have blamed Clinton for repealing rules on lending, he could have blamed him for his mistakes about Saddam and AlQaida. He could have blamed him for a lot of things, but Bush is a man. Obama is a whiner.
And the Democrats have a super majority in the Congress and a Democrat in the White House. Bush never had that kind of power. In fact when he became President the Democrats had taken control of the Senate and the last two years of his tenure they had control of both chambers. At what point in time do they get the blame for their own stupidity?
Terrye on February 1, 2010 at 7:42 PM
ClanDerson on February 1, 2010 at 6:11 PM
There are a number of deficits which the progressive liberals will pay for in the coming elections:
-Budget deficit
-Truth deficit
-Corruption deficit
-Lobbyist deficit
-Transparency deficit
-Employment deficit
-Tax deficit
-Hearing deficit
-Socialism/marxism/communism deficit
-Stupidity deficit
……………………
lest we forget that pariah of neglect: their attention deficit
talking stick on February 1, 2010 at 7:43 PM
That was the stunt that ObaMao played with the “stimulus” funds. Money was diverted to states to meet their deficit payrolls for teachers, police, and fire companies–as well as to service retirement shortfalls for these public service sectors. That is the shell game ObaMao was playing when he claimed to “save” jobs. The states are not exercising their own fiscal restraint because of these bailouts. I guess that they also are too big to fail.
onlineanalyst on February 1, 2010 at 7:44 PM
The mistakes in the past that have contributed to this current structural deficit can probably all be summed in one line : creating new entitlement programs without actually paying for them (or having overly optimistic scenarios for paying for them). What has been missing consistently is the appetite among politicians (both on the right and the left), to tackle this directly without pandering to the voters. Which requires us to *not* have career politicians, and have strict term limits.
peter_griffin on February 1, 2010 at 7:44 PM
And Craig, don’t forget Obama was in the Senate and voted for those budgets- they belong to him as much as anyone.
LASue on February 1, 2010 at 7:45 PM
And Obama’s sits at $3.8 TRILLION…
Lets see…. 2.77 to 3.8…
Yes, Bush spent way to much, but now Obama continues to INCREASE spending even with decreasing Tax revenues.
Doubling down on dumb…
Romeo13 on February 1, 2010 at 7:45 PM
I don’t know about this. The drug prescription plan he signed onto was part of a plan to get Medicare Advantage and Health Savings Accounts and all of those policies were a lot cheaper than the Democratic alternative. And Bush did try to reform social security, with no help from the Democrats and liberals who swore there was nothing to fix. And the deficit in 2006 was more than 250 billion less than it had been a couple of years before. So there was an effort made by Republicans to balance the budget.
Even at the end, the TARP was supposed to be paid back and anything that was not spent, was to returned. Now, a lot of that money to the banks has been paid back with interest and it is the Obama people who refuse to return the remainder of TARP to the Treasury.
Terrye on February 1, 2010 at 7:48 PM
Isn’t the need to play a “blame game” precisely the reason why we are in this rat hole? We can blame each other however much we want, but we should definitely pay more emphasis in solving the problem and ensuring it does not happen again. Maybe it is the engineer in me, but the back-and-forth squabble is really what is killing us slowly, specially as this recession continues.
peter_griffin on February 1, 2010 at 7:49 PM
its truly the root of all our problems
blatantblue on February 1, 2010 at 7:51 PM
Well yeah, but maybe you should tell that to Barack Obama and not me. I know that people make mistakes, and in fact the American people themselves are largely responsible for wanting more and more over the years, I guess we could blame them.
But since the folks like bayam here do not seem to be interested in solutions like entitlement reform and in fact only seem to care about blaming Bush it only seems to fair to point out that their team has not exactly been helpful to the process.
Terrye on February 1, 2010 at 7:55 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »