Both the Senate and House passed versions of the Obama masssive $3.5 trillion budget. Votes were on party lines. The two versions are not signigicantly different and now need to go to a conference to work out differences. Meanwhile over the past few weeks the GOP was challenged to develop an alternative budget. Last week they developed a "blueprint". They promised hard numbers, in fact suggesting they might have them by Tuesday, 3/31 of this week. No numbers from the GOP have been forthcoming. It would be both enlightening and helpful if an alternative plan was presented. My suspiceons are that in trying to attach numbers to this "bluepirnt" the GOP is seeing that their own plan is similarly red ink oriented with massive amounts of debt. I believe if the GOP wants any credibility at all they need to present a concrete plan. Without it they are simply whining and crying....and haven't the slightest bit of answers going forward.
Well, honestly, I prefer this mess to be fixed with as little Republican input as possible. Who needs their numbers? The budget can be passed without their commentary. We all know what the differences would be. More time would be wasted debating what amounts to a fait accompli. I would like to see a Libertarian budget, a Socialist budget, even a Constitutionalist budget, but I have had quite enough of Republican budgets. The Dems swept the elections, let's see what they can pull off.
Not at all. I was very vocal in opposition to the Bush policies, including the Iraq war, which has brought us to the necessity of such debt spending. Now that we're here, there is little other choice.
Since the GOP lost it's spine you won't be hearing them say what they should be saying... for government to get the f*ck out of the way, they created this mess, perpetuated it, and for some reason I don't trust them fixing it appropriately.
Hmmmm.... Bush's 2009 budget was $3.1 trillion. Bush spent $10 billion / month in Iraq. That would be $120 billion or $0.12 trillion which was less than 3% of the 2009 budget, correct? 1) How does any of this justify Obama's $3.6 Trillion budget OR his $1.2 trillion dollar deficit? 2) How much will Obama be spending in Afganistan? 3) Maybe deficit spending is just more easily tolerated if the deficit spending comes from a democrat?
Does anyone know if these new budget plans address Obama's Cap and Trade idea? I for one have been concerned about that particular point. It sounds like more taxes that will basically hurt the middle class and poor more than anyone. Why is he taking all these measures to "help" the middle class out of this financial crisis when he's just going to turn around and tax them to death in other ways? He preached and preached about not raising our taxes, but it sure seems to me that he's finding all these ways to sneak his had up the skirt of the middle class and take money from them unsuspectingly. Am I the only one worried about this Cap and Trade bs?
1) A total of $600 B has been spent in the Iraq conflict, and more will continue to be spent until the drawdown is complete. Had Mr. Obama been President at the time, we would now have these funds available for the economic stimulus, which is also necessitated by the failures of the Bush Administration. 2) I oppose the surge into Afghanistan. 3) Better uses, in general. I don't favor all of the Democrats' policies and expenditures. I do trust in the Keynesian economics at work, and am confident we will be seeing a slow recovery this year. There has been massive, unbelievable national debt for decades. Am I happy to see it piled on? Of course not. Given the situation, it seems unavoidable, and the policies of the previous Administration are largely to blame. This year's budget has the burden of reversing the past eight.
You've said nothing to justify Obama's budget. You utter some vague statement that this is Bush's fault and state that you like Obama's econimics better than Bush's If Obama had been in charge 8 years ago we would not have had the extra $800 billion that you suggest. We would have started the slide to socialism eight years ago, that's all. You state that the debt is unavoidable? I understand that Bush ran up a huge debt. I do not support that in any way, nor will I try to minimize it's significance. Beieve me, I kick myself for voting for him, then I remember that his opponents were even worse. What I do not agree with is your acceptance that because we currently have $X in debt, that requires us to go even deeper in debt. We cannot justify going deeper into debt. Obama campaigned on this for 2 years and now that he is in office it is somehow different. Not so. Trim the fat. No new programs. Balance to books.
that is bs, bogart. If you want to have credibility come out with something substitive rather than just whining away. If they were capable of putting something together w/ dramatically different deficit numbers it would be meaningful. OTOH, being unable to do so, strongly suggests, in light of their initial "blueprint" document....that the GOP doesn't have an idea or a shot in the dark at putting together a budget that would alternatively dramatically reduce the deficit as projected under Obama. All hot air...no substance.
Well, I think you are both right. Yes, currently the Republicans are clueless. They seem to spend their days wandering aimlessly around Washington. But, Bogart's point is valid as well. The Democrats are in charge. What purpose would it serve for the Republicans to offer a budget that slashes spending? Obama is offering free health care, lower taxes, more welfare, and tax refunds (aka wealth redistribution). 18 million illegals think they will gain citizenship. Consequences be damned!!! So what if we can't pay for it!!! The Republicans would be roasted alive if they tried to do away with all that. All they can do is vote against it, and quietly lobby with the more fiscally minded democrats. This doesn't stand a chance either. Queen Nancy rules with an iron fist. The one point that is continually ignored is that we cannot afford Obama's wish list. We are mortgaging our children's standard of living. Yes, I know, Bush is responsible for the majority of the deficit up to this point. That does not justify the 1.2 TRILLION deficit in Obama's budget.
A debate of substance would be possible if the GOP supplied an alternative budget. It would open the door for debates on merit rather than on BS/ fear phrases etc. W/out such an alternative budget, debate ends up being all rhetoric and no substance. its too bad IMHO
With the budget they want voted on, the deficit will be doubled in 5 years, and tripled in 10 years. But heck, he's going to give everyone free health care and pretty much play Robin Hood, steal from the rich and give to the worthless.
There wasn't debate on the $878 billion Obama stimilus bill that was rushed through Congress with most members of Congress not even reading the bill. We are spending way to much money. The alternative is to spend less money and prioritize the spending so that we maximize the benefits.
Bogart: I would like to see an a debate on the budget that is relatively free of political bs but focused on real numbers supporting real projects. That would ultimately mean that parties would debate where to cut and where to spread the money. If the GOP doesn't put up real numbers it shows a fear of debating on that perspective. We are in a deficit status no matter how you look at it. The questions come down to cutting or raising taxes or both. The tough issues are the ones that the pols are scared of debating. That is pols on both sides. When the pols start talking about cuts it raises the ire of large subsets of Americans. It would end up raising the ire of different subsets. Older people want health care. Defense hawks want defense spending etc etc. Nobody in congress wants to severely cut in reality (except RP). His claims are so extreme tho they don't get political resonance. If they did there would be outcries. In Virginia the no tax guys on the far right stopped badly needed road improvements in both Northern VA and the Norfolk/Hampton Roads region for about 6 years. They did it every which way blocking expenditures, fees/taxes/specific local tax options--you name it. Virtually most in the state understand the need for road improvements in those two most populous and income producing/revenue generating parts of the state. Over 6 years while the hard right in the VA 2 bodies of the legislature blocked effective spending no matter how you tried it.....(here is the catch).....there were no concomitant realistic bills or suggestions to make serious cuts that would offset the road construction costs. In other words, the anti tax guys wouldn't come up w/ cutting solutions. In the political world....no matter how much you whine.....pols are scared about being specific on cuts....wherein the population would scream. None of them want to accept accountability. OTOH...most pols are scared of being labeled as tax increasers. It has been shown to be a political death bed. Meanwhile there are NO solutions. Some things get worse. Road/commuting problems in those 2 parts of Virginia are amongst the worst in the Nation. Its horrendous. I live in one of those two areas. Its just brutal. Its not only bad for commuting its bad for commerce and trucking. Its a block on economic development. Its not just the far right who is blocking this stuff its the No roads Greenies and the no building in my neck of the woods locals. Anyways, I say put out real numbers and let em go at it. As to the stimulus bill you referenced. It did move fast, no doubt. Do you realize the extent of the credit problem last Autumn? Look if you owned a business that sold stuff to consumers who used credit.....forget it. They didn't have it. The banking system wasn't working. Yeah it did go way fast. Some of it won't be tremendously effective. I think some of it will work. I hope on future stuff the legistlators have more time to debate things. But do it w/ facts.....not political bs. That is why I think the GOP should come up w/ real numbers. In fact speaking of time frames....they have now had plenty of time to come up w/hard numbers. Where are those numbers? My guess is that if they ran thru some scenarios they were showing huge deficits. So they don't want to show em. All I can say.....is chick....chick...chick...chicken!!!!
My guess is they know the bills won't get approved. If you cut out all the little pet projects they ahve we may have a balanced budget. And the stimulus bill was a monumental waste of money. It does absolutley nothing for the economy. What is 13 extra dollars a moth going to get you? A half a tank of gas?
Hostlonestar: It isn't the pet projects: Take a look at this; The big spending comes from 3 areas; social security, medicare/medicaid, and defense. The 4th area that is growing like a weed is interest on debt. You could take all the pet projects...triple them and they don't mean squat to the aforementioned big 3. Look. I think pork pet projects mostly s*ck. IMHO they are little payoffs for getting votes. No more no less. They are basic political coruption. OTOH, I'll say this for pork. When the Iraqi terrorists were frying our butts w/ IED's the thing that got the MRAP's and other better defenses against those suckers were political pork projects rolling by 3 or 4 members of congress (both Reps and Dems) that sped up the process of protecting our troops. The Pentagon and the administration were sittin on their fat butts while those IED's were frying our guys. So if there is a way to get pork out there for the public to see....and if there is a way to get "good projects" out there...okay by me. Most of it tho, IMHO is a bunch of cr@p. Still take all pork...triple it....and it doesn't amt to much. But the big stuff is medicare/medicaid, defense and Social security. That is the real meat of the problem. Get the meat out there. Let people see it and let the debates go on in truth rather than political bs. D My $0.02)