You betcha!!!

I'm sure you're right about that.

This illustrates an important point that people need to remember as everyone seeks to demagogue the budget. During recessions government revenue craters rapidly because tax collections crash. Once the economy begins to improve government revenue rebounds because people have jobs and pay taxes on income.

$223 BILLION. That's the debt created just last month by the current spending, i.e. the amount by which the spending outstripped income.

So I guess we are all just supposed to be ok with that?

Uh, I don't think so. Or is that not the "improvement" of which you speak? Cause anything else just seems a little less important.

GOP: "Tails I win, heads you lose."

GOP didn't want Obama to blame Bush for the mess that Obama came into office with, yet they won't want to give credit to Obama for the improvements he made in his first two years in office.

Just remember Republicans the CBO figures are always inaccurate when you don't like them, and are accurate when you do.....

So a tax credit enacted by Obama expires, while Obama and democrats control all three lawmaking branches, and taxes on the working class go up and people are supposed to cheer. I think Obama and the democrats can keep the credit on this one.

Incredibly, Obama has managed to set a world record in deficit spending in February. $223 billion, for one month! It marks the 29th straight month the government has run in the red — a modern record. Mr. Obama has been in office for 25 of those months.

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/7/government-posts-biggest-monthly-deficit-ever/

That exceeds the deficit spending by President George Bush in 2007, for all 12 months of 2007. Bush deficit spenting was $161 billion for all of 2007.

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/10/05/deficit-for-fiscal-2007-slides/

So the economy isn't built on any sound economic philosophy, it's built on mega-deficit spending. It's spending money the county does not have on things the government leaders in Washington DC think are appropriate. That's not a market based economy, that's an economy built on favoritism and patronage.

And the kicker in all this is that he Republicans want to trim $61 billion from the remaining 2011 budget, 8 months remaining, and the Democrats are howling over those minor cuts. So at the current rate Obama is spending, those cuts would be from the $1.85 trillion Obama intends to spend, or about 3% of the deficit spending.

JoAnna, Does that $161 Billon defict in 2007 include war spending? Lets make sure we are compareing apples to apples.

JoAnna, Does that $161 Billon defict in 2007 include war spending? Lets make sure we are compareing apples to apples.

I'll answer this one (because she won't)...

No, the Bushies never put Afghanistan or Iraq in the budget.

Does that $161 Billon defict in 2007 include war spending?

War spending is currently around $120 billion a year. So just for laughs, lets throw that on top of Bush's 2007 budget and call his deficit for the year $281 billion. Obama just spent $233 billion in a MONTH!

So is this making Obama's spending spree a little more palatable to you?

For more laughs, lets double Bush's spending number for the wars from $120 billion to $240 billion for 2007. That brings us to $500 billion for Bush's deficit spending for 2007. Now it would take well less than 3 months of Obama's deficit spending to match that of Bush's, again, for the entire year.

Are you starting to see that this spending addiction of Obama's is begining to be a problem?

danoid: No, the Bushies never put Afghanistan or Iraq in the budget.

Just did. Maybe it's time for you to sit down, and shut up.

JoAnnaSmith1:

Incredibly, Obama has managed to set a world record in deficit spending in February. $223 billion, for one month! It marks the 29th straight month the government has run in the red — a modern record. Mr. Obama has been in office for 25 of those months.

Since the end of the stimulus, nearly ALL of the deficit is due to the shortfall in revenue caused by Bush's Great Recession, Bush's tax cuts, Bush's unfunded giveaway to the Big Pharmaceuticals, and to the two unfunded wars that Bush started but couldn't finish. I know I've written that several times before, but it bears repeating every time JAS1 or another right winger misrepresents what the reasons for the deficit are. Unfortunately, there's not enough time in the day to correct the repeated misrepresentations they make.

I'm pretty sure it was around $170B for 2007, but I can't find a good source.

I think the largest problem is that tax receipts, as a percentage of GDP, are the lowest they've been since 1950.

This website says they have "fallen slightly" due to the recession, but when I look at that graph it doesn't look slight to me. It looks like a 60 year low. I don't know how that is considered slight.

I don't think you can just blame Obama for the spending side of the equation either. GOP house leadership was against cutting wasteful spending on duplicate engines because they would effect jobs in their districts. It just goes to show how every dollar of spending is represented by entrenched special interests.

My link keeps disappearing. I was referring to a heritage dot org page. If you search google for the following terms it will be the first on the list: federal tax receipts as a percentage of gdp

Charles,

Your status must have reverted back to “new user”. New people cannot post links. I have seen this problem before.

You need to contact Newsvine (report a bug) and ask them to fix the problem.

$223 Billion in one month. Insane. And good golly, but last I checked Febuary was a short month. Who wants to guess the damage for March?

Bush spent a lot. He sucked. And Charles, whatever the number is it was for the WHOLE year. You get the importance of that little nugget, right. This was 28 days. Say it with me: 28 really expensive days.

Are tax receipts down? Of course. Do all those big brained gov. folks know that? You bet. Yet $223 in one month.

Sorry guys, you just cannot defend that. Pure fiscal insanity. Cause see somewhere, over the rainbow are some Chinese. And unless we pay then back they are gonna get pissed off. And that's not good. Anybody figure what happens when it becomes clear we aint ever going to pay them back?

So, anyone calculate the debt service for Febuary's little deficit? And just what does the remainder of the year have in store?

Maybe it's just me that is scared. This cannot end well.

But hey the dems have proposed cutting $6 billion off next YEAR's budget, so we are totally in great shape. THis must be the "change" we all can believe in?

Thanks Dennis.

I'm not saying the deficit is good. It just isn't accurate to say it is all due to Obama's spending. A huge part of it is that tax receipts are down, and another problem is that proposed cuts are becoming political and wasteful spending is being defended by both parties.

Spanky: But hey the dems have proposed cutting $6 billion off next YEAR's budget, so we are totally in great shape. THis must be the "change" we all can believe in?

$6 billion? Amazing. The Republicans could only manage to come up with $60 billion, and that in itself is pretty pathetic. But the Democrats managed to scrounge through the budget (Budget? What budget?) and they found $6 billion in cuts. Again, amazing.

Or, to be even more accurate, and using standard accounting principles, the 2007 deficit was more like $4 TRILLION dollars, next to which Obama's deficits don't look so bad.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45430

Williams explained that the difference between the official budget deficit and his number is that the official figure is calculated on a cash basis, where all tax receipts, including Social Securityreceipts, are used to pay government liabilities as they occur.

Williams bases his figure on the Treasury Department's "2007 Financial Report of the United States Government," released Dec. 15.

The calculations in theannual reportare calculated on a GAAP basis – Generally Accepted Accounting Practices – that includes year-for-year changes in the net present value of unfunded liabilities in social insurance programs such asSocial Securityand Medicare.

Under cash accounting, the government makes no provision for futureSocial Securityand Medicare benefits in the year in which those benefits accrue.

"Truthfully, there is noSocial Security'lock-box.' There are no funds held in reserve today forSocial Securityand Medicare obligations that are earned each year," Williams pointed out.

"It's only a matter of time until the public realizes that the government is truly bankrupt and no taxes are being held in reserve to pay in the future theSocial Securityand Medicare benefits taxpayers are earning today."

Calculations from the 2007 report also show that the GAAP negative net worth of the federal government has increased to $54.3 trillion, while the total federal obligations under GAAP accounting now total $59.8 trillion.

"Social Securityand Medicare must be shown as liabilities on the federalbalance sheetin the year they accrue," Williams argued. "To do otherwise is irresponsible, nothing more than an attempt to hide the painful truth from the American public.

"The public has a right to know just how bad off the federal government budget deficit situation really is, especially since the situation is rapidly spinning out of control," he said.

Williams explained to WND the federal government is "bankrupt."

Read more:Real budget deficit: $4 trillionhttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45430#ixzz1FxR0c5Fj

Hmmmm .... who knew? When you tell the truth, it looks like the problem pre-dates President Obama by some, doesn't it?

Hmmmm .... who knew? When you tell the truth, it looks like the problem pre-dates President Obama by some, doesn't it?

And in late January/2013, it will post-date Mr. Obama too.

Yeah Anna M., that doesn't help.

You do realize that Obama deficit spent $233 billion in 28 days! That's $8.3 billion of red ink each day.

Now, the Democrats, they come out and say they found $6 billion in cuts for the remaining 8 months of fiscal 2011. $6 billion. Those cuts would fund Obama's spending, for just over 17 hours. And the Republicans aren't much better, their $60 billion in cuts would be consumed by Obama in just over a week.

You do realize that Obama deficit spent $233 billion in 28 days! That's $8.3 billion of red ink each day.

Okay, I admit it. I voted for the guy. BUT I am neither spending all this money every day, nor am I in favor of spending all this money every day -- at least not on the things we're spending it on. So don't try to hang that on me any more than you like it when we try to hang Bush's various sins on you.

All ANY of this says to me is that no one has a handle on the real numbers, and certainly no one is talking about the real causes. But I'm not late to that party. I've been saying this for years. And both parties are to blame. No argument there.

So FR libbers think the republicans should take credit for increasing tax revenues and smaller government growth. Why? It appears that the "making work pay" had a part to play as well, not to mention business increases in productivity and overtime pay.

The real story here is in the interest payments servicing debt...

So if interest payments are a growing burden for the federal government when interest rates are historically low, what happens if they go up?

Anna molly - since when does the politician or government use "standard accounting practises" As for williams comment regarding the SS lock box I knew this ever since LBJ put the SS trust fund into the general fund in the 60's.

Houston - you need to review you reading comprehension skills and stop living in the past.

You Progressive/Socialist Democrats left libbies still took us into $14TRILLION worth of debt! And that's okay with you?

Actually RN, it wasn't Bush alone, it's been the entire Conservative Movement and their ongoing, 30+ year program to give more and more tax relief to the rich. annirich's comment is related and also wrong. We'd be in very manageable budgetary shape without the Supply Side hoax;

This graph shows what happened since Oct. 1, 1981, the day Reagan started his first budget. First Reagan increased the debt by $1.9 Trillion (see for yourself). Then Bush brought that to $3.4 Trillion. Then all that started collected interest for the next 17 years, and with compounding that grew to $8.2 Trillion by Sept. 30, 2010. Clinton, Bush II and Obama are not to blame for that interest, and without it, Clinton would have paid off most of the $1 Trillion WWII debt that Reagan scared us with to get elected. And Bush II (and his supply siders) would have run up only $3.8 Trillion — not $6.1T, which is what actually happened under Bush II. (A clear proof of this with document links.)
Before the supply siders, Dems and Repubs brought the debt down relative to our income in 27 out of 35 years. The supply siders (with Reagan and the Bushes) raised it 20 out of 20 years. That's no accident.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

There are some righties here who suffer from amnesia. If you recollect, McCain had to suspend his campaign to go to Washington to solve the crisis, which was getting worse by the day. Obama entered the Oval Office with an economy that was in free-fall. Before he could anything to make the economy grow, he had to stop it from hitting bottom and then stabalize it.

Actually, I don't know why I bother to even explain anything to some people. They come with their own facts and predisposed opinions. I think trying to explain anything to some Republicans is a losing battle.

They don't want to know - anything - except what their FOX friends tell them incessantlty.

(sigh) Allow me to post a quote for the republicans that come to this site. "A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."

Considering the value of the dollar, the rate at which this county earns money, and the ratio of debt to income. This debt is not excessive, and might I add that if a country is indebted to economical countries such as oh I don't know CHINA, JAPAN, and GERMANY, then that country will be encouraged to succeed as the benefits of success are much greater to those that have invested in the national debt of that country than are the detriments. Think positive people.

"This heavier debt load comes at a time when interest rates are historically low and the government is able to borrow cheaply: rates on the 10-year Treasury bond are about 3.6 percent, compared to their 50-year average of about 6.6 percent....So if interest payments are a growing burden for the federal government when interest rates are historically low, what happens if they go up?"

Indeed. Here is some interesting information;

The average interest on the National Debt under Clinton was about $220 Billion per year.

The average interest on the National Debt under Bush was about $200 Billion per year (Yes, it was lower).

Obama's own budget projections call for the National Debt to increase to over $25 Trillion within 9 years. If interest rates return to 6.6% per year, that's interest of $1.65 TRILLION per year, an increase of $1.45 Trillion per year over Bush's average. Since about 47% of American families pay NO federal income taxes, that leaves about 40 million average families of 4 that will have to pay an EXTRA $1.45 Trillion per year in interest alone, which means an increase in taxes to pay that interest of about $36,000 per year, or about $3,000 PER MONTH - just for interest. Congratulations on that "Change we can Believe in" that you voted for.

I'm sure our children and grandchildren will 'appreciate' your mortgaging their future for that "Hope and Change" thing you were foolish enough to believe.

PS - That 47% of American families that pay no federal income tax could care less about the National Debt, since "someone else" has to pay it off, so they will continue to vote for whoever promises them more 'freebies' - The Democrats.

John B, Des Moines, IA

How nice of you to "Blame Bush" for the $862 Billion 'stimulus' bill that was passed in February 2009, 4 weeks after Obama took office, but I could have sworn that it was Obama's bill.

Nice try at a 'spin' on history. The Democratic Congress (Pelosi and Reid) ignored Bush's proposed Budget for 2009 that called for a $407 Billion Deficit, and used 'continuing resolutions' to fund the government until Obama took office, then they passed the huge 'stimulus' bill, and then, in Mid-March of 2009, they finally passed a 2009 Budget (6 months late) calling for a HUGE increase in spending and a $1.3 Trillion Deficit. Your biased link conveniently ignores these facts.

I never mentioned the stimulus. I blamed the entire 30 year arc that began with what George HW Bush rightly referred to as "Voodoo Economics." The Laffer Curve was a laugh, repeatedly cutting taxes on the wealthy and big companies has done nothing but explode the debt, and if not for the resulting decline in the middle class and lack of effective regulation the stimulus might not have even been necessary.

But if it had been we'd be in much better position to deal with.

Thanks for attempting to deflect the conversation to something entirely different. It gave me an opportunity to expand on my original point.

John B, Des Moines, IA

If you're so concerned about the the 'exploding debt', then can I assume that you are in favor of ending the "Bush Tax Cuts'" for everyone, since rescinding the cuts for the middle and low income families would generate about $3.1 Trillion in additional income tax revenues (versus only about $700 Billion from the 'rich')?

Or are you one of the people who believe in 'shared sacrifice', so long as you don't have a share?

As for taxes on big companies, let's take a look;

Corporations have a top tax rate of about 35% (a few are higher), and any remaining income after corporate taxes gets distributed to the stockholders as dividends, which can also be subject to another 35% income tax. And, of course, if they happen to live in a high tax state like California, they have another corporate tax rate of about 10%, and another dividend tax rate of 10%. And then, any money they have left and spend is subject to another 10% sales tax rate. And if they are fortunate enough to save any money and invest it, any interest income they get has to pay another 35% federal tax rate and 10% state tax rate. And then, when they die, the government collects another 35% of any remaining assets they might have accumulated. Of course, they also had to pay property taxes and other taxes and fees imposed on them throughout the years.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Those greedy 'rich' people just don't pay their 'fair share' of taxes, do they?

Here is another 'novel' thought;

Companies don't pay taxes - people do. When we impose higher taxes on businesses, they have to add those extra costs to their products and services. If that means they cannot compete with foreign companies with lower tax rates, the American company goes out of business, and the jobs go to a foreign company. This has been going on for generations, so why should we, with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the World, be surprised.

Explain again to me how we need to increase taxes on those 'greedy' big businesses.

Wow, another deflection. Well Roy, since you asked;

Virtually ALL the new wealth generated over the last 30 years has gone to the very top of the economic pyramid.

The majority of ALL tax breaks in that time have gone to the top 2%, with the vast majority of that going to the top 1%.

The top 5% has 85% of all wealth but pays only 70% of taxes.

Cry me a river for the Kochs and Trumps. It's way past time for them to resume paying their fair share.

John B, Des Moines, IA "The top 5% has 85% of all wealth but pays only 70% of taxes."

You do realize, don't you, that taxes are paid based on INCOME, not wealth? That's why they call them INCOME TAXES. So let's compare apples and apples;

The top 5% pays 'only' 70% of the taxes, but they make only about 30% of the income, which means that the other 95% of the people earn 70% of the income but pay only about 30% of the income taxes.

Personally, I think that's fair, and I would actually agree with the 10% increase in the top tax rate when the 'temporary' Bush Tax Cut extension expires in 22 months. In fact, I would actually be OK with letting ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts expire at that time, which would 'supposedly' generate extra income taxes from the 'rich' of about $700 Billion over 10 years, and about $3.1 Trillion from the 'middle class'. That $3.8 Trillion would go a long ways towards slowing down the huge increase in the National Debt.

What do YOU think is 'fair'?

Roy, the 30% number is deceptive. The truly wealthy earn most of their income through capital gains that are taxed at a much LOWER rate than average Americans. It certainly isn't fair for those who can most afford to pay taxes to get a deal unavailable to most That should be changed. Their low tax rates give them the ability accumulate virtually all newly created wealth...stealing the chance for average Americans to be lifted up by a rising economy.

I'd tax capital gains as regular income...an approach even Ronald Reagan approved. I'd let income taxes on the top 2% rise to Clinton levels..a mere 3 percentage point rise. Because $250,000 makes one well off but not extremely wealthy I'd create another tax bracket for those making $500,000 or more. That one might be a 45% tax rate...HALF what it was when JFK became president and still sufficient to allow the millionaires and billionaires to live very, very well.

John B, Des Moines, IA

I understand your philosophy - Tax the 'rich' as much as possible, and leave the middle class alone. I love how everybody's 'solution' is for everyone but ME to pay the cost of solving the financial crisis. I have no problem with a graduated scale for high income earners, but I do take issue with treating capital gains at the regular rate, for the following reason.

Let's say an 'investor' puts $1 Million into a long term (10 year) investment, which increases in value after 10 years to $1.5 Million, but inflation for that 10 years ended up being 50% (4% per year, compounded). By your way of thinking, he has taxable income of $500,000 and should pay up to $175,000 in income taxes, but the reality is that he has made NOTHING on his investment, after taking into account the lower purchasing power of his investment after inflation. In fact, under your scheme, he will have LOST $175,000 by making a long term investment because of the income taxes he had to pay on those 'phantom' profits.

In such a situation, nobody in their right mind would make risky long term investments, and the long term economic consequences would devastate the economy, because who's going to invest for the future if they lose money while doing it.

PS - Even if the 'rich' do pay a lower tax rate on their capital gains (the above explains why it is lower), it's still counted as part of their 'income' in coming up with the significantly higher 70% of taxes paid.

Jody, Jody, Jody,

that spending cuts aren't what will reduce the deficit

If we cut 1.65 trillion - wouldn't that eliminate this year's deficit? How does cutting not reduce it?

Revenues obviously help too. But do broke companies create new jobs and grow their revenues anymore than broke countries?

Ask Greece how that works.

OK bob, which $1.65T shall we cut this year?

ALL OF IT.

Or are you totally cool with the $223 billion blown last month?

You are good with it, right John? No downside to that number right? No need to cut anything.

Say john what's $223 times 12?

Can you calculate the added debt service, or shall we ignore it?

John B.: OK bob, which $1.65T shall we cut this year?

Spanky: ALL OF IT!

Exactly. Anyone, any politician that isn't doing the work to achieve this mandate needs to check out of Washington DC, leave, and let someone else do the job. What is wrong with people that think this year-after-year of extreme and wasteful spending is helping the country in any way?

Spanky: Say john what's $223 times 12?

If that doesn't get people's attention, nothing ever will. Totalled out, that's $2.8 trillion in additional debt for the year. Does that even register with you Liberals? Does it move a neuron around in your heads? Can you not comprehend the damage this kind of debt creates for the country? How can Bernanke and Geithner sit in front of Congress and defend that number?

Jody, the CBO changes their numbers faster than you can cash that welfare check you receive.

Or are you totally cool with the $223 billion blown last month?

Absolutely not. Not one penny of that was blown on me. But that assumes that all $223 billion were "blown," and that depends on your definition. For example, how much of that represents dollars spent on the war? You like the war, don't you? And how much on defense in general? And how much on the CIA, which seems to keep failing to connect the dots? And how much for subsidies for oil companies? And how much for that Chamber of Commerce subsidy? Well, you get the general idea ....

If we were all honest with each other, we could all think of a lot of spending that we would NOT cut, and as to which we would be willing to incur some deficits. The problem is not that; the problem is that both sides are totally intractable about the other side's untouchables.

How can Bernanke and Geithner sit in front of Congress and defend that number?

Go back and ask George W. Bush why he appointed Bernanke to head the Federal Reserve, why don't you? These guys in Washington seem to think there are only 5 people in the United States who can possibly understand this, and the problem is that those 5 people don't understand this, either. You might laugh at me and suggest I don't understand it, either, and you'd be right, but I couldn't possibly do any worse than is being done by all these experts, who are experts on nothing at all, and instead of admitting that, continue to milk it for all it's worth. Which is about $223 billion a month.

Jody, the CBO changes their numbers faster than you can cash that welfare check you receive.

And there you go again, Tony. You didn't learn a thing from preaching to me about insurance and benefits, did you? Still making unfounded assumptions and snarky insulting personal attacks to poison the well because you haven't got a good argument. Be proud.

Jody and johnb - One aspect of my work experience was in justifying major cash outlays for new equipment acquisitions at a major manufacturer located in Iowa. It wasn't enough to just show an expected ROI or safety benefits for such an acquisition. A variety of economic scenarios also had to be presented. A "what if" scenario if you will. Part of any successful plan is to consider alternative actions that can be taken.

Tou may think that when your "rosy" plan goes south that you can just stand up and proclaim the fault always lies with the republicans, however that response is not one of ignorance but rather one of stupidity. Be a part of the solution or get the heII out of the way.

Well Spanky, aren't you clever. Which parts of the budget are you going to get $1.65T out of? That's how you get to "all of it." You think it's a great idea, what's your plan? What's the Republican plan? They ran on a balanced budget platform, I don't see how they're going to get there.

John B, Des Moines, IA

Well Spanky, aren't you clever. Which parts of the budget are you going to get $1.65T out of? That's how you get to "all of it." You think it's a great idea, what's your plan? What's the Republican plan? They ran on a balanced budget platform, I don't see how they're going to get there.

John don't hold your breath Spankster loves to stir up the pot and talk bullsh!t. He'll ask you a question and when you answer him he'll ignore it....Spank I answered your question last Friday and asked you a question and haven't heard back ........crickets

Right rc...but it gave me an opportunity to make my point.

Ah, Spanky and JoAnn, you worry too much about a little debt. You sound like a bunch of worry-warts.

Who the heck are all these republicans suddenly worrying about debt? They sure didn't worry about it for the past 30 years, dating back to Ronnie "Where're My Jellybeans" Reagan.

Don't worry, be happy.

Careful with the Churchill quotes when applying them to Obama, June.

Does an optimist blame everything on his predecessor, his failures on the opposition?

Does an optimist go around the world apologizing for everything, or would that, by definition, be an apologist?

Actually Bob,

Churchill's predecessor was the one kissing rears and appeasing everyone? Is there a Churchill running in 2010?

Bob,

The President did in fact inherit the biggest mess since the great depression. So yes his predecessor is to blame for a lot. As far as apologizing for everything. Don't rewrite history. He had a lot of damage to repair for our actions around the world. I for one am glad he did.

bob-1805084

Careful with the Churchill quotes when applying them to Obama, June.

Does an optimist blame everything on his predecessor, his failures on the opposition?

So, you think that Churchill didn't blame HIS predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, for getting his country into the worst war in history?

Houston,

You don't know much about it, do you.

Baldwin got a lot of blame and probably deserved much that was put on Chamberlain. Chamerlain was Chamberlain, really got suckered at the end, but it was pretty much a done deal by then.

FYI - Chamberlain was very instrumental in Churchill becoming PM. At the time, the Battle of Britain was kinda needing some attention. Churchill was far more worried about how many Spitfires and pilots he had than playing politics. Sink or swim time. He was swimmer, not a novice half term senator / former community organizer that had no clue.

So June $223 bill. in one month. Are you optimistic we can sustain that?

bob-1805084

Sink or swim time. He was swimmer, not a novice half term senator / former community organizer that had no clue.

The "half term" Senator has pulled the economy out of the ditch that Bush put it in. If Churchill had been of the "wrong" party for you, you would have blamed Churchill for the route that forced the Dunkirk evacuation.

trbnatl,

Obama and the Dems were every bit as much, if not more to blame, as Bush. Obama was a Senator and also the number 2 recipient of Fannie and Freddie money (pretty remarkable for new senator, huh?).

Clueless Houston,

8.9% unemployment, 1.65 trillion deficit, skyrocketing energy cost ($4 gas), skyrocketing food prices ($2 for a damn green pepper), etc .........ain't of the ditch!

How come Obama never mentioned the brewing crisis before it hit. What legislation did he offer to correct Freddie and Fannie? None you say? At least Bush saw something coming and tried to do something. Dems blocked it.

As for repairing damage done (the apology tour) - how'd that work out?

How come Janet was saying this morning that our threats are "more wide spread", " more diffuse"and "difficult to deal with" than ever before. I thought the world loved us after Bush was gone and Obama corrected and apologized for everything. Heck - he even dedicated NASA to Muslim outreach. Why the problems still?

You may happy with Obama, our enemies may be happy to have Obama, but our allies are certainly not. The Mid East is spinning out of control and Obama doesn't have a clue.

bob-1805084

Careful with the Churchill quotes when applying them to Obama, June.

Does an optimist blame everything on his predecessor, his failures on the opposition?

Bob here's a qoute for you and your Repub friend's

" Against logic there is no armour like ignorance" and you Repubs display it every day in every way.

Houston,

Unemployment at 8.9% after 2 years and a trillion, $1.65 trillion deficit this year alone, energy prices skyrocketing ($4.00 gas), skyrocketing food prices ($2.00 for a damn green pepper), etc., etc. .......... ain't out of the ditch.

re,

Who has logically refuted anything?

bob-1805084

Clueless Houston,

8.9% unemployment, 1.65 trillion deficit, skyrocketing energy cost ($4 gas), skyrocketing food prices ($2 for a damn green pepper), etc .........ain't of the ditch!

Moron Bob,

It amazes me that worshipers of capitalism like yourself don't seem to have any stock market investments. If you did, you would have seen the value of their investments steadily rising over the past two years (unless you made really stupid investments). As economists projected back at the beginning of 2009 just after the stock market crashed, the unemployment rate lags behind the market but is now decreasing.

You also seem too stupid to understand that the sudden rise in oil prices was caused by speculators exploiting fears about the Libyan crisis, and that high food prices that you stupidly blame on Obama have been "skyrocketing" worldwide and were a major factor in sparking the uprisings in the Arab world. But your stupidity is your problem, not mine.

Sorry about the edit and follow-up getting messed up - got interupted.

Probably doesn't make any difference, anyway - you libs are all ready so confused with reality that you wouldn't get it anyway.

Houston,

The economy in the ditch. I didn't say anything about the stock market / Wall Street being in the ditch. Sheez, with Obama's bailouts, the elimination of competition for Wall Street - of course they're doing great. Now the QE2 - where do you think that $600 billion going, genius?

Unemployment is a lagging indicator - duh, but don't be sure with Obama. You don't think the economy is on the brink with energy prices where they are and where they are going?

And you are a full blown idiot if you don't realize that Obama's wanton destruction of the energy industry is a big, big part of it. Food prices, same thing - Obama is subsidizing the ethanol industry, pushing the production to corn which goes to gas, causing supply problems there.

Understand supply at all? Have any idea what has happens to price? Moron?

And yea, the food games Obama has played here, combined with weather problems around the world (who ever heard of that?) and you have big problems like in the Mid East. Kudlow called it perfectly.

Now you have governments falling in the Mid East and guess what - speculators get spooked and prices soar. All could have been prevented or at least minimized by a competent President instead of clueless community organizer / half term senate novice.

And yea, looks like I was right with the previous post - you guys are incapable of grasping reality.

Houston - I read churchills "the second world war" a six volume set. Had a lot of dates, facts and statistics covering all aspects of the war as relating to british involvement. I don't recall any rants that he blamed chamberlain or anyone else for the mess he inherited from the previous parliament.

He gathered up his advisors and made a plan of action. A plan that had to be modified many times over the course of the war and don't think that his detractors were always wrong.

So you keep on blaming republicans for our countries problems. Obama and company are in the hot seat now and his economic policies, good or bad, will come home to roost. After all, hindsight is 20/20.

It's been 19 months of GDP growth and jobs improvement, RN. That would be 3/4 of President Obama's term. When does it become a trend?

Lordy, lordy, Bag Boy, I liked it SO much better when we all talked about Iraq.

All these numbers and anything just give this little liberal loon a great big headache.

But it seems to me that the "upside" of the numbers is infinity. And we're working on it.

If those numbers hurt your head, Anna Molly, given where your head is at...I'll consider that progress.

And...the debt numbers will stop far short of infinity. They'll crawl to a stop when worldwide investors will no longer buy more U.S. debt at any interest rate.

Hopefully, someone will act before that occurs.

President Obama, maybe...?

Just kidding...

LoL Bag Boy, and I'll take it as a compliment.

But I know enough to figure out that when that happens, then everything will crawl to a stop.

And I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you, on anyone acting anytime soon.

Not while there's still one political point to be gained somewhere, somehow.

Well, you have heard it here first. According to the article by First Read, tax REVENUES ARE UP. That means the Government is actually MAKING MONEY.

Maybe in some alternate universe they are.

The federal government just posted a $233 billion deficit for ONE month. Last month. Doesn't sound like the government is making much money to anyone that can add or subtract.

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/7/government-posts-biggest-monthly-deficit-ever/#

So if the government is taking in more in revenue, they're also spending more.

The fact of the matter is this - The United States is NOT BROKE.

Keep chanting that. Less and less people are believing it.

Pietro-

The deficit for FY 2011 is still projected at north of $1.5 trillion.

The CBO says that $13 trillion in new debt will be added in the next 10 years...resulting in debt interest payments of $844 billion annually.

Nearly $1 trillion a year in revenue devoted exclusively to debt service...what programs will be cut to ensure that those payments are made, Pietro?

Better yet...what programs WON'T be cut to ensure that those payments are made?

Pietro,

Glad you are happy, but that is an increase of 2010 fiscal numbers--when our country had about 10% unemployment instead of the 8.9% we have today. Of course I agree, the more people working the higher the revenues will be. Only problem is, if we continue to spend more than we have, it doesn't matter how much revenue we have--we will go broke.

Now do republicans make it sound worse than it is, yes. But do Democrats make it rosier than it is, yes. Somewhere in the middle is the truth. And truth is, more people working, more revenue. But we still have to cut spending.

Hope all is well in Ohio. Watch out for the next round of storms. I hear they are gonna be bad. (local news).

Pietro, Columbus, Ohio

Well, you have heard it here first. According to the article by First Read, tax REVENUES ARE UP. That means the Government is actually MAKING MONEY.

Pietro fine post. Some one had to spend money and if consumers were getting laid off and business stopped spending where in the world do you think money was going to come from to gets us on firm footing..Government. I don't know how many times this has been stated on this an other vines but the Gov had to spend to get us out of the ditch. They did the same at first during the Great depression but then the Repubs started screaming and Roosevelt cut back and it caused the Depression to go on for a lot more years.

rc, better check history. There was a big double dip in the later 30's after all that gov. spending. What got us out of the depression was World War 2.

Thanks for saying that goliph, let's explore;

What changed with WWII? Full employment brought about by millions of people suddenly employed by the government and a massive infrastructure project to supply their needs.

How did we pay for it? Deficit spending and tax increases.

So I'm very appreciative of your admission that deficit spending on government programs can get us out of a recession and that tax increases during recession don't automatically crash the economy. Nice to see that Liberals and Conservatives can come to common ground on that.

Nearly $1 trillion a year in revenue devoted exclusively to debt service...what programs will be cut to ensure that those payments are made, Pietro?

Better yet...what programs WON'T be cut to ensure that those payments are made?

Actually, Mixed bag, we should be asking a DIFFERENT question - how can we RAISE MORE REVENUE to ensure that those interest payments are made? It is very interesting - and telling - how you seem to ALWAYS omit that part of the equation.

But NO, you ask the same tired question that supports your twisted ideaology instead of the ones that will actually SOLVE this problem once and for all.

You CANNOT just CUT your spending; you have to simultaneously RAISE your REVENUES to balance this budget and to reduce the deficit.

It seems that the REVENUES are being raised (according to the First Read Article). That is a good start to solving this problem.

I'm not going to bash the Dems here, but it's pretty obvious what Boehner means when he says the US is broke. The spreadsheet shows that we are in the red, not the black. No matter your party, that is simply the math. Any attempt to discount that is farcical.

RN in Philly - is it REALLY obvious what Speaker Boehner is saying?

Even HE couldn't believe he said what we did.

The facts do NOT support the Speaker in this case. If we were BROKE, there would be NO SPENDING ON ANYTHING. We seem to find enough money to pay the Speaker and the members of Congress, don't we?

So how are we 'broke'?

Yes, the spreadsheets show that we are in the red with a DEFICIT. We are STILL making money. There is STILL cash flow. The Bills are STILL being paid. We are STILL paynig the 535 members of Congress, The President and the Supreme Court Justices.

We are dealing with DEBT SERVICE here, and that is the figure that Mixed bag and JAS1 keep wanting to throw in our faces. The United States has NEVER defaulted on any of its obligations.

So what does that mean?

That means that we find the money to cover our obligations for the MOMENT. We do not have enough to cover ALL of the deficit. It is akin to having a 14 TRILLION Dollar Mortgage that you have to pay, but the payment is only $500 BILLION.

So does that mean we are BROKE because we owe $14 TRILLION, or does that mean we are making enough to SERVICE that DEBT?

Speaker Boehner is wrong.

Again.

Glad you are happy, but that is an increase of 2010 fiscal numbers--when our country had about 10% unemployment instead of the 8.9% we have today. Of course I agree, the more people working the higher the revenues will be. Only problem is, if we continue to spend more than we have, it doesn't matter how much revenue we have--we will go broke.

Big Bear, good to see you again. You have stated in the snippet I posted above the real situation. You state, and I quote, "if we continue to spend more than we have, it doesn't matter how much revenue we have--we will go broke."

Note that you said 'We WILL go broke' and NOT 'we ARE broke', like the Speaker Boehner said.

Big Bear, with me, you have more credibility than the Speaker of the House. I will agree with you 100% that we WILL go Broke if we do not spend wisely and continue to raise our revenues.

I find it interesting that Mixed bag and JAS1 cant - or won't - grasp the concept of debt service.

Maybe you can enlighten them, Big bear.

goliph

rc, better check history. There was a big double dip in the later 30's after all that gov. spending. What got us out of the depression was World War 2.

I do know my history and as I explained it was when the Repubs screamed and Roosevelt relented and stopped spending that the double dip occurred and WWII bailed us out....and why DEFICIT SPENDING... now go on and look it up in Google.

Rick You are the one who does not seem to get it, most people agree with what the 18 brave Wisconsinites did.

I suspect that Rick is one of those who will complain loudest when government services get cut due to budget cuts - you know, things like roads not plowed, or longer waits at under-staffed government offices, or delays in obtaining permits, or potholes left unrepaired, or under-staffed police not investigating minor crimes, or an under-educated work force due to underfunded public schools...

Bev. Like most conservative, he will deny reality.

Come on Bev. calculate the interest cost alone of $223 billion. And don't forget old girl - that's compounded daily.

I bet Paul Ryan could do it. Can you?

Didn't think so.

Hey Pat - is $223 billion a month reality? I think not.

You're awfully concerned about that $223B, Spanky. What will we cut to make the budget balance? Tell you what, it'll only cust $70B/year to compensate for the big tax Republicans filibustered for in December. What needs to be cut to offset that?

Still no answers on which programs will be cut by a total of $1.65T. Not even an answer on which programs will be cut to compensate for a $70B/yr tax cut to the top 2% payers.

I'm beginning to think that Conservatives don't want to answer those questions.

Yes. MSNBC is so liberal, especially the "Morning Joe Show" hosted by a conservative congressman.

Patrick try watching Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz or try seeing who their contributing writers are Howard Fineman etc....and then get back to us. Be realistic. I know whatever Obama does is a grand success for yoou liberals but for us realists we understand you can't spend like him without bankrupting the country. Wake up.

Ummm...

Patrick...

What about Chris Matthews, Cenk Uygur, Larry O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz?

That's six CONSECUTIVE hours of MSNBC programming, including ALL of the prime-time programming, Patrick...did you spot any liberals in that lineup?

"Morning Joe"?

Are you serious?

Mixed Bag, I guess Patrick is proof that at least ONE person still watches Morning Joe.

The MSNBC six hours you mention is conducted by all socialist and in some cases declared communists. Their so called news reporting is a joke and their rating show it.

Well Tony, now that you've proven you have know idea what a Socialist or Communist is your work here is done.

You deny, what they admit?

Your claim Tony, sources required.



CM: Tax increases on the working class and poor are ignored. You mean the 50% that don't currently pay ANY income tax??!!

How much less than zero do you want to pay? There is truth in the saying; What people get for nothing is worth nothing to them. This free-ride stuff is out of control when you have 46% paying zero federal income tax and receiving a tax credit. The result is an unfair expectation on their part that we owe them a living. We have created an entitlement mentality that is growing and will sink the ship so to speak.

By the way CM I didn't get the Making Work Pay rebate. I make too much for it, so I do know about paying taxes.

But of course don't mention the billions and billion in payoffs, paybacks, and tax exemptions given to the unions.

They're "good", right?

You should see a problem. The country is broke and borrowing money as fast as we can get someone to lend to us. Given the shell game the Fed is playing with our debt, we are on a dangerous path.

Exactly how is 1.65 TRILLION dollars in deficit spending, DESPITE collecting more taxes this year, "bad news" for people that don't like the current spending policies of this President and a Democratically controlled Congress that decided that they wanted record deficits each year for the past three years?

This is NOT about "I hate Obama", this is about we can't AFFORD this crap, or haven't you been paying attention?

That's true, I don't hate Obama I just can't afford him. Big, big difference.

Tony C-2383666

I can't wait for Obama to speak about the current oil crisis. Here are his notes:

1. Blame Bush ---The liberals will love this

The oil "crisis" is the result of speculators exploiting the uprising in Libya, a country that only supplies 1 or 2% of the world's oil, and mostly to Europe where it's more suitable for diesel-powered vehicles more common there than in the US. Nobody has blamed Bush for it. Bush made a mess of the US economy, but he had nothing to do with the Libyan uprising.

Don't be such an idiot.

I take it you didn't like his notes. Name calling. Either you are a liberal or the pollution in Houston has gotten to you. Probably both.

He didn't include the speculators because he is trying to be more friendly to those "types"

Part of the increase in oil, food prices around the world are due to the weakness in the dollar. The Fed is buying all the new debt now, so we are exporting inflation to the rest of the world too. Europe pays 8-9 dollars a gallon, mostly due to taxes. Green energy is not possable until our prices are the same. Now, who is that going to hurt more. The more we continue down the path of Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal with gov't. largess, the more we will follow.

goliph

Part of the increase in oil, food prices around the world are due to the weakness in the dollar. The Fed is buying all the new debt now, so we are exporting inflation to the rest of the world too. Europe pays 8-9 dollars a gallon, mostly due to taxes. Green energy is not possable until our prices are the same. Now, who is that going to hurt more. The more we continue down the path of Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal with gov't. largess, the more we will follow.

It is mostly due to speculation but either you can't fathom that or you don't want to hear. Also Green IS possible if we stop the tax breaks to big and use that to invest in Green and not an old technology like oil. You know like Spanky says get of the Gov tit ....well that's what needs to be done with Corps and the very rich.

Interesting point about speculation, rc. A few months ago I had a very intense discussion with someone over the likelihood of renewed speculation in the fuel market. He insisted quite vehemently that speculation isn't possible...the market is infallible and corrects so quickly that speculation is a myth.

Talk about ignoring ALL the evidence...

John B, Des Moines, IA

Interesting point about speculation, rc. A few months ago I had a very intense discussion with someone over the likelihood of renewed speculation in the fuel market. He insisted quite vehemently that speculation isn't possible...the market is infallible and corrects so quickly that speculation is a myth

John the only way to control speculation is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). It can regulate the amount of speculation taking place. It was started by Roosevelt and consists of 5 on the commission. Unfortunately at the moment it is 3 to 2 and the swing vote to stop the madness is a Republican and he is blocking anything that will prevent stopping the speculators. The good news is he is out on June the 1st and the President gets to replace him. I hope he makes a real good choice or gas and food etc will continue to go sky high.

Thanks for pointing that out. Much of the bureaucracy remains filled with disciples of the Church of Deregulation.

If she is right? It is in the law, no way to dispute that fact.

common sense- actually it was John Kasich who forced the balanced budget. Clinton was brought kicking and screaming to it. "Can't balance the budget in 10,9,7,6 years (choose your number, he used all of them) will destroy the economy. Wrong. He took the credit for it though.

goliph

common sense- actually it was John Kasich who forced the balanced budget. Clinton was brought kicking and screaming to it. "Can't balance the budget in 10,9,7,6 years (choose your number, he used all of them) will destroy the economy. Wrong. He took the credit for it though.

Yes after he raised taxes which enabled the budget cuts that were made to work. Simple plan but you repubs conveniently leave that part out...you know revisionist history like everything else you bring up.

And "Both" is correct. In testimony by another witness, Paul Van DeWater of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities;

First, critics have claimed that CBO’s cost estimate double-counts the Medicare savings. This assertion is readily disproved. Let’s be very clear. CBO counts everything once and only once. It counts the Medicare savings once. CBO doesn’t count anything twice. Just read the cost estimate.

The effect of health reform on the financial status of the Medicare trust funds is distinct from the law’s effect on the federal budget. The Medicare actuary has affirmed more than once, most recently just last week, that health reform will extend the solvency of the Hospital Insurance trust fund by about 12 years.

There’s no double-counting involved in

recognizing that Medicare savings improve the status of both the federal budget and the Medicare trust funds. In the same way, when a baseball player hits a homer, it both adds one run to his team’s score and also improves his batting average. Neither situation involves double-counting.

By the way, CBO accounted for deficit reduction in exactly this way in previous Congresses, under both political parties. For example, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (both of which were passed by Republican Congresses) included Medicare savings that were counted as both reducing the deficit and also improving the outlook for the Hospital Insurance trust fund. No one raised claims of double-counting when these bills were enacted.

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/vandewater012611.pdf

In other words not only is this a valid methodology, it's been used in the past by Republicans with other bills.

Thanks for letting us know that CPB execs are a fantastic bargain compared to the $9.25M average of an S&P 500 CEO. I'm glad to hear CPB is such a good steward of public funds. http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/

It is also fairly clear that you believe socialism is better than capitalism as well. Chances are you have failed in life and are looking for someone else to carry you. Your attitude that someone owes you a living just because they have more than you just means you do not accept freedom and the responsibility that comes with the concept. Take care of yourself. You need to study what has happened in Cuba for 40 years. Better yet, go there to live what you preach.

Dude, I'm in management at a privately held company. I worked a full shift at the office then went home and worked till nearly 10pm last night. Save your paranoid delusions that everyone who disagrees with you is a Communist or get back on the plane to Beckistan.

John B, Des Moines, IA

Dude, I'm in management at a privately held company. I worked a full shift at the office then went home and worked till nearly 10pm last night. Save your paranoid delusions that everyone who disagrees with you is a Communist or get back on the plane to Beckistan.

John isn't that the truth. I own my own business and break my fanny and we have to hear from losers like this because they are so deluded

The last thing anyone would recognize in you is common sense. The socialist is in the mirror in your case.

Exactly. We should also completely end the Iraq war, and try to get out of Afghanistan this year. The wars are what take up most of the budget, and ending them will really solve most of our problems.

I agree that we should take away all tax credits to oil companies; they represent the largest businesses in the world, and would do fine without government money.

Dec 10, 2010 ... Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration spend the most money each year.
www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/12/10/top-spending-federal-agencies

Jake J

Dec 10, 2010 ... Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration spend the most money each year.
www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/12/10/top-spending-federal-agencies

Nice try....That's totally misleading as it is the Defense department:

For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.^[1][2]

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.^[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.^[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $319 billion and $654 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[