E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRep. Steny Hoyer, the House Democratic Whip, says he's confident Republicans and Democrats will ultimately reach an agreement to raise the debt limit.
Speaking to reporters following the Democrats' meeting at the White House, Hoyer said, "The markets ought to know we're going to get it done. I've told Speaker Boehner and leader [Eric] Cantor that I will work with them the leader will work with them in making sure that we get this done."
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, another Maryland Democrat, acknowledged, however, that tough negotiations remain. "We have made progress on some important issues," Van Hollen told reporters. "Have we engaged on some huge, what I would refer to as politically nuclear issues? No. But the reality is you have to begin to walk with the first step."
According to Rep. Xavier Beccera (D-CA), the president told the Democrats that "failure is not an option," and he vowed that the middle class and seniors won't get "stiff-armed" in the budget negotiations.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said, "We cannot default. We all agree on that." But she added that Democrats believe it's important to continue investments to help the economy recover and create jobs.
The meeting today follows yesterday's session between the president and House Republicans. The next bipartisan negotiation session headed by Vice President Biden is scheduled for next Thursday
Leave a Comment:
x
Music to my ears! *sigh*
I remember a while back the President said he was willing to take off the gloves when it became necessary!
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
I remember a while back the President said he was willing to take off the gloves when it became necessary!
I remember the President told us not to give the keys back to the Republicans. Now more than ever we can not get caught in right and the media clinging to and reading meaning into one or two words the President says.
I have a difficult time believing a man who came up poor and fought so hard for common people would let it all go down Grover Norquist's drain.
We have to let the President know we are behind him and do not want another ludicrous compromise. Take medicare off the table and stand up to these lying crooks. We don't need them They are selfish, manipulative, greedy, betraying liars.
Hillary, should smack Bill Clinton upside his head. Slick Willy loves being in the limelight. She should not let this man destroy the relationship she forged with our President to get away from the Republican smears, lies, and fraud
But leave it to a totally liberal demagogue to enlighten us:
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said, "We cannot default. We all agree on that." But she added that Democrats believe it's important to continue investments to help the economy recover and create jobs.
Notice the "BUT" in the middle of the statement. This statement says it all about liberal/democrats. The code word for "investments" is "spending." The democrats don't want to stop spending and they will be dragged to the mat fighting and kicking. The ONLY way to reel in spending is to attach it to a debt ceiling bill. The democrats will have their lemmings believe that the debt ceiling bill should be stand alone without any strings. This way they won't ever have to agree to spending cuts.
What is it about the democrats? Don't they see the peril in unbridled spending? Do they think the money well is a magic well where the money won't run out? Do they think they can tax the people without any ramifications to the economy? Lunacy, sheer lunacy!
Ah Bev. but he ain't poor no' mo'.
But please advise - you say reducing entitlements would be ludicrous. So shall we just leave it be and hope for the best?
All is great, right Bev.?
Modest spending cuts in the short run will go a long way to convince the employers, bond holders and even most voters that the federal government is capable of slowing down on the spending. This simple act, in and of itself would be stimulative, as it would encourage some of the cash sitting on the sidelines to come back into the economy. Once the populace gets comfortable with a slate of well reasoned cuts, a dialog on additional revenues can become meaningful, but not until then.
Beverly in Chicago said:
I have a difficult time believing a man who came up poor and fought so hard for common people would let it all go down Grover Norquist's drain.
We have to let the President know we are behind him and do not want another ludicrous compromise. Take medicare off the table and stand up to these lying crooks. We don't need them They are selfish, manipulative, greedy, betraying liars.
Hillary, should smack Bill Clinton upside his head. Slick Willy loves being in the limelight. She should not let this man destroy the relationship she forged with our President to get away from the Republican smears, lies, and fraud
Let me ask you Beverly - are you always this bombastic? Where is your head? What medications are you on? The reason I ask... Do you really think because a person is a republican, they are selfish, manipulative, greedy liars? Or, is this just showmanship on your part - the boasting, ignorant, selfserving attempt to boost your ego among your liberal friends? Either way, this type of arrogant message only shows real people, your narrowminded hatred towards anyone that doesn't think like you. You have a lot in common with Hugo Chavez.
Even as GOP ran on job creation last November, Republican Congressionals and Governors have demonstrated every kind of cunning and deceit to prevent the economic recovery of this country.
Republicans Senators have been faffing around from day one, toying with Congress and the American public. Two days ago, GOP voted in treacherous violation of their country's national interests by voting against raising the US debt ceiling. Equals = zero zero patriotism on their parts.
GOP hopes that Dems will partner their 'Kill Medicare" plan. They hope that Dems will share the burden and consequences of their cold moneybags-for-brains calculations to cut seniors, children and the poor and to shift that $money directly into the hands of Corporations.
Backhouse - you can't be serious. How many democrats voted with the republicans? It's only the republicans that are at fault? Tell me you aren't just another troll.
Obama and the Dems want unfettered spending, spend whatever they want. As Pelosi said ....
Investments of course is code for spending. You may note that she made no mention of holding spending.
So the libs are oblivious, that is obvious. I also realize that you have no capability of understanding tax rate vs. tax revenue, spending and revenue relative to GDP, interest on debt, it's OK, my yellow lab doesn't either .......
But I was wondering and maybe you could help ..... If liberals think there is no problem, there is no need to cut spending, if all you have to do is print another $600 billion everytime you get low and everything will be fine .......Why do you guys scream about the tax rates on the rich and how it costs money? Why not just print more money? Heck, print money for the poor while you are at it.
Why not Bev?
I thought Clinton was the liberal genuis who balanced the budget produced the surplus.
You sure she shouldn't smack Obama upside the head.
Nevermind, just kidding.
Obama will never get it anymore than you or my yellow lab will.
Maybe he should have herded the lemmings before the vote on H R 1954 this past Tuesday. 82 of his faithful, including Pelosi, voted Nay on the bill to implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt, and another 7 voted "Obama" (Sorry I meant "Present"). Although in all honesty, I heard those 7 voted "Present" to commemorate his 2006 stand against raising the debt limit.
Hey Bob - did you ever notice whenever the liberals are confronted with their words, or words of their elite politicians, they all skulk away? Seems they only have one operation in mind... slamming the opposition. When they can't, they retreat. The liberals all want answers from the republicans, but never offer their ideas because if they did, they would be laughed off the Vine.
Liberals think that increasing taxes, especially on the rich will solve the problem. I guess they don't mind giving their money to the government so said government can spend it on Egypt, or another country. The government is unwilling to pay down the debt so our economy will improve. Makes one wonder what this administrations real motives are.
No, no Brianb and bob - both Feisty and Bev. will respond to your post.
I'm just sure the will. They have important and insightful points.
Come on ladies, let's prove Brianb wrong. You can do it. I know you can.
So whenever you are ready. Go ahead. We'll just wait over here. :)
The failure has been Obama.... taking the country in a direction he thinks is good, but boy he is wrong, very wrong! Our only concern now is can we reverse this course before it is too late? I hope not!
The World is getting smaller and so is our influence. China's (and Russia?) chomping at the bit to take the reins from our hands and they are getting closer because of our tremendous debt and our failed leadership!
Obama's statements are made from panic.... he too sees the writting on the wall! He knows....!
Oh please BrianB - the Republicans on this site do the same thing - slamming the opposition. That is why this site has become ludicrous. Years ago it really was a site to share ideas but now it is being taken over by the hatred of both sides. It is so easy because no one really knows who you are - perfect opportunity to spout hatred. You all feel better now??
You all feel better now??
No I feel worse, is that what you wanted, are you happy now Elise, now that you made feel bad. I am totally kidding you Elise HAHA You make a good point.
That GM "investment" sure paid off. Only lost $14 billion on that one.
See, that's what's lost on Liberals trying to exist in a capitalistic society. They don't understand that the goal of investments is that they are supposed make money for the investor.
JoAnna Smith1: Democrats / "Liberals" not adept at investing? Really?
Soros
Buffet, W.
Kennedy
Kerry
Clinton(s)
Ring any bells? At all?
If only you Connies knew how you sounded, and what a load of doofus crap comes out of you daily. I know you are not trying to be intentionally funny, but,....Hoo Boy,...."the torrential flood of illogic is most entertaining".
JS1 GM investment
It saved millions of jobs, those people will pay taxes and buy goods, instead of needing social program benefits, (that's like doublemint doublemint gum, twice the flavor!). This help others do the same, business does not survive if it does not have customers. GM is profitable, hopefully they will pay taxes, isn't saving a business a good thing, how would companies like GM and Chrysler failing help us here or aboard. More of that 14 billion will be coming back indirectly if not directly. Your right about me not caring so much about that kind of spending, and I'll tell you why, because we spend that much in only a month and a half in Iraq. I say to myself 6 more weeks of war in Iraq, or a great American company, and jobs for Americans, it is an easy choice to me. 10 billion a month to win hearts and minds in Iraq is breaking hearts and blowing minds in the USA. You think we could do ourselves any good if we threw 10 billion a month around the US. It is not that I have no conscience about spending, but it is not like we have to defend ourselves from Iraq. So as long as we are spending 10 billion a month in Iraq I'd rather spend 14 billion on GM, hell I would rather hand out big fat unemployment checks to desperate families, give government workers a raise in wages and benefits, or hand out $1000 dollar bills to children at the mall (here kid buy yourself some candy). You just can't convince me that we have no alternative but to drastically tighten the screws on the middle class, the elderly, the poor, and education while we continue to find a way to spend that kind of money in Iraq or anywhere else.
Well then, why don't we "invest" in other areas that are losing jobs and lower our unemployment? And lets not be shy about it, everyone that wants a job shall have a job! We really shouldn't pick favorites, like just GM, so lets be fair and invest in all businesses that are losing jobs. And that debt of ours? It's just a number, who cares.
1. The Republican Party wants to dismantle Medicare and privatize it.
2. The Democratic Party wants to strengthen and protect the Medicare guarantee for all our seniors.
3. President George Bush raised the debt limit 5 times and also doubled it.
4. Brian, If 'trolls' have real hearts, they're OK with me.
Yes it is strange that with so much that needs to be done there is no work. Ten billion a month can fix a lot of roads bridges, dams, schools and hospitals in Joplin and Alabama, lots of fancy air conditioned border control lookout stations from Texas to California, there is so much to do. Then those people will be earning and not taking, they will pay taxes, instead of collecting welfare, and most importantly they will spend their money which helps keep the ball rolling and once you get the ball rolling along well enough and we have a lot of the public infrastructure rebuilt, the government could back off the spending and go into a savings and debt pay-down mode. At this point who else can do, the private sector builds profit centers but nobody has any money to spend, so they aren't building anything, they are just sitting on huge piles of cash. They don't build bridges, roads, or schools they build shopping malls, we don't need malls people are broke. But the government could spend money on things we need, for all of us, and that seed money can start the ball rolling. I believe at this point we really do need that, God knows there are plenty of worthwhile things that certainly need to be done. 10 billion dollars could hire 200000 people at $50000 a year for one year. Check the math it is correct. Every month in Iraq could be a $50,000 check in the pocket of 200000 Americans. I really would like to try it. In one year if we spent that money here we could hand a 50,000 check to 2.4 million people or $12,500 medicare voucher to 9.6 million people. This is why I say this Ryan plan is a crock, and cutting peoples pay and benefits is a crock, it's chicken feed in comparison. I want out of Iraq, I don't want the government to take over everything you can't sustain what I describe indefinitely I know that. But we are spending the money anyway, and the private sector has no reason to hire because people have no money to spend (except Spanky). It is the old chicken or the egg thing, you say Obama laid an egg, I say he needs to lay some eggs.
You still want to spend what we don't have;i.e.,print money.That doesn't,never has,and won't work!What we need to do as a nation is bring back the economy that got shipped to China.Don't blame the corporations,for Congress can reverse the downward trend of this nations failing economy.Nowhere in the world should we be subject to letting imports come in with just 2.6% tarriffs while we pay 26% to the same trading tyrants! You do this math and see what it adds up to.(It's about 100 billion every 90 days,and that's in the red!)We have to produce and sell that product to consumers to have an economy.The government can't be a business partner,in can only take what it's people recieve,and that's only in fractions.The problem is,the fractions have dwindled to smaller portions as we become less productive as a trade partner,and we consume more than we produce,plus we import more and more junk we don't need!Protectionism ,no,but even trade,yes!
Brianb, Bob, et al, WTF?
Do you really think Democrats are shop-aholics or a kid you can't trust with your credit card or a $20 bill or something? Look up "deficit spending" on Wikipedia and you'll see it is the Republicans who spend, and it's the Dems who balance the budget.
Do you have any concept of moderation? If so, it might occur to you that a more balanced approach would be best for our nation, such as ending loopholes, and creating jobs to generate revenues, instead of the extreme black-and-white "starve the beast" ideology of the wingnuts in the GOP/TP.
Are you incapable of seeing the craziness of privatizing Medicare in order to give additional tax breaks to the rich? Medicare IS the answer to rising health care costs, because it could and should be used to negotiate lower costs including pharmaceuticals.
Do you really think it's a good idea not to raise the debt ceiling and to allow the US to default? Heck, referencing Hugo Chavez, seriously? Why not just go straight for Hitler. It's no use, we can't get any facts through your "cone of silence."
Not to mention........many businesses owned by Republicans have come straight out and said: "We will NOT hire as long as Obama is in Office!" So there, if you can't see that businesses are holding jobs hostage the same way those in the house and senate won't work with President Obama, and hold bills hostage, then you will never see it and there is not a lot of hope. (you being generic for repubs)
Oh I could not agree with you more I was not saying that was a total solution, but more about if your going to spend huge amounts of money in Iraq you might as well spend it here on things governments are responsible for anyway. As I stated is not sustainable long term. If we don"t bring back manufacturing, if we continue to let corporations use cheap foreign labor, skirt US taxes and bring goods back here tariff free to sell cheap crap cheap at walmart we are all screwed. No American can compete with the slave wages paid aboard, no American can survive on the 200 dollars a month the Chinese are paid to assemble I-Phones. Companies that operate like that should have the goods heavily taxed when brought in the US. A lot of republicans hate communist, just hate them, unless they are making big bucks by partnering with communist China to use their people as slaves in US companie's factories. Bush used to say there are people who hate us for our freedom, my guess is that they hate us because their child walks out of a Nike plant barefoot. I do disagree that the government can't be a business partner, the government will be, and has to be a partner, or at least a customer in certain ventures. If not you will only have what is profitable and you will only have it while it is profitable and there are a good number of things we would like that the private sector would never produce because there is no profit in it. By the way the white collar jobs are now leaving the country at a breakneck pace, the accounting dept, engineering, software, ect are now being moved offshore for the same reasons, cheap labor and to cheat the US out of the taxes. There are a lot of college graduates working part time stocking shelves.
True Patriot Really you bring out the Hitler reference. Wasn't it just recently a guy named Demyanyuk was convicted of Nazi war crimes for somewhere between 63,000 to 83,000 deaths at Nazi death camps. Wasn't he also a democrat and a union member for the auto workers. Guess the unions reminded him of his former occupation. Don't throw hitler out anymore. Both parties are whacked when it comes to spending. As far as balancing the budget it was a democratic president and a republican congress. Even a wingnut from think progressive says both parties are responsible for corporation tax loopholes that give corporations huge advantages. The dems were in charge of Congress since 2006 yet did nothing to change those tax loopholes, maybe because they would lose their cushy campaign contributions.
Nancy says "Investment" but the TRUTH is "I want to borrow more money and spend it on stuff I think is important and no one is going to tell me different". You don't borrow money when you are being warned of your irresponsibility and have the largest annual deficits in history, you trim the sails.
This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Can you just imagine your broke brother in law coming to you every year for 45 years telling you "If you'll just loan me another million, this time I promise my idea will work"..... This is our Congress and our President.
We have 60 years of anecdotal proof that these liberal programs spawn only more people who figure out ways to game the system and not work. By 1930 standards our real unemployment rate is nearing the Great Depression, and our housing value losses are now higher as a % than they were during the Great Depression.
The only people I trust less than CEO's are federal elected officials. And we have 50 years of proof to back up this belief. They've taken all of our tax money PLUS $14 Trillion PLUS all the money they stole from SSI, and they want us to ok MORE LOANS?
THIS IS COMPLETE INSANITY, AND ANYONE NOT SEEING THIS IS OFF THEIR ROCKER.
True Patriot - Wikipedia? You gotta be kidding me... You actually cited something from Wikipedia? You must not know about Wikipedia's inaccuracy rate.
The problem with your statement that the republicans spend and the democrats balance is completely wrong. I will NOT listen to this type of claim because the problem isn't one party over the other. There's enough blame to go all around that neither side has any oneupsmanship over the other. This is the major problem with the regular liberals on FR. They think the democrats do NO wrong while everyone else is to blame. They post such incredibly blind thoughts, it's reached the point of rediculous. They never see the wrong Obama does, but always criticize any republican or conservative for breathing. I don't care what the history has been. There is no civil discourse but in fact, the broader the hate speech, the more they applaud each other. They have become Goliaths in their own minds. We all know what happened to Goliath.
How many times has the Ryan plan been thrown under the bus by these same liberals? Do they even know what the Ryan plan is? Have they taken the time to actually go through it to see if there is any merit to any of it? I dare say not. Because Ryan is a republican, it's immediately tossed aside and ridiculed. A couple of points in it are stretched to the limits in order to prove their points. Do you realize how utterly crazy that is? The Ryan plan is simply that, a plan. Plans can be altered, changed, made to accomodate, bargain over, restructured, redrawn, talked about, or even accepted. Do you think every house plan that's ever been drawn hasn't gone through a revision process in order to accomodate the needs of the builders and the future owners? Not to the liberals. Ryan came up with the plan so the liberals have to immediately toss it out and destroy it. They might lose face if the plan actually could work. There's nothing more important to a liberal than to not lose face.
We are facing a VERY serious problem in this country. We have reached the end of the road on spending and borrowing. Moody's announced today that they will change the credit rating of this country from AAA to something far worse if the government doesn't act quickly to get us on the road to fiscal sanity. We already lost Standard and Poors best rating. What else is it going to take before we reach insolvency? Everytime we lose credit ratings, the interest on the loans go up. When will it end? It doesn't matter how we got here, the blame game is over. We are here and we need to fix it.
We should look at every plan, democrat and republican to see the validity of it, not just throw the opposition under the bus because they are the opposition. We are one country with many sides. No side is better than the other and that was the major reason for calling Bev out on her rant.
Brian B,
The amount of misinformation/disinformation is incomparable you choose to ignore what you don't like provide no sources or bad sources. For example Wikepedia which I only use for general information and avoid for specific or time adjusted data has almost the same errror rate as the encyclopedia Brittanica as per the Dec 2005 edition of Nature a well respected scientific weekly. Per article reviewed Brittanica 2.92 Wikepedia 3.86 in the articles reviewed each had a total of 8 major errors the rest were minor. Because I know you won't do the work yourself nor look up the citations here is the easiest to understand spending deficit and debt information I have found. All of this information is available using multiple sources but then you need to find what years dollars were used for comparison, the cost of living index, the rate at which funds are borrowed ect. The author of this information has done this and provided it in an easy to understand format. I am not sure you will be able to due to your apparent inability in the past to interpret data reliably.
U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress
Stephen Bloch
Last update: figures from 9/30/2010
Also shifted tables around, adding new tables 1 and 2, April 2011
I ran across a Web site maintained by the Department of the Treasury, listing the U.S. National Debt year by year since 1791. The numbers by themselves are too big to be meaningful, so I put them into a spreadsheet to see if I could extract any interesting trends. Here's what I did:
Tabulated the national debt by year, back to 1911. (I originally went only back to my birth, in 1964, but then expanded the chart to 1911, stopping there because I ran out of CPI data.)
Subtracted each year's debt from the next year's, as a measure of one-year federal deficit (including interest paid).
In 1976, the reporting date shifted by 3 months, so that "year" was actually 15 months long; I multiplied the deficit in this year by 4/5 to give an annualized figure.
Adjusted this annualized deficit by the annual Consumer Price Index to give one-year federal deficits in constant (1983) dollars.
Annotated each year by the party of the President and the party controlling each house of Congress. Since Congressional terms start in early January, Presidential terms in late January, and fiscal years in October (since 1977) or July (before then), many years show a transition from one party to another.
Also annotated each year with the top-bracket individual marginal Federal income tax rate for returns filed that year (i.e. on the previous year's income), drawn from The Tax Foundation. This is an oversimplification, of course, since it doesn't say where that top tax bracket starts: for example, in 1992 the top tax bracket was 31% on income above $86,500, and in 1993 it was 39.6% on income above $250,000, but somebody who earned $125,000 in each of those two years would have seen almost no change. More dramatically, in 1941 it was 81% on income above $5 million, and in 1942 it was 88% on income above $200,000; somebody earning $250,000 in both years would have seen a marginal tax rate rise not from 81% to 88% but rather from 71% to 88%.
Note that it's hard to ascribe cause and effect here: for example, when a war starts, tax rates and deficits usually both go up, but it would be hard to claim that one is because of the other; in fact, both are because of the cost of the war.
For several years, visitors to this Web page have been asking me about Congress, and I've finally put some of that information into Table 1. I haven't done much analysis of the Congressional data yet: I'd like to see whether party control of the Senate makes a consistent difference, whether party control of the House makes a consistent difference, whether the margin of control (e.g. 51% as opposed to 69%) makes a consistent difference, whether having the House and Senate controlled by the same party makes a consistent difference, whether having one or both houses of Congress controlled by the same party as the President makes a consistent difference, etc. But the data are there: perhaps somebody else will do that analysis for me :-)
Table 1: Deficit by year, corrected for inflation
These are the data from which all of the following tables are drawn, organized by year so you can draw your own conclusions about Presidents, Congresses, tax rates, etc.
The "Deficit" (seventh) column is computed, in most cases, by subtracting one year's public debt from the next's. (Fiscal 1976-1977 was fifteen months long, so that figure has been adjusted to be comparable.) This number is then adjusted by the Consumer Price Index to produce a figure in 1983 dollars, which appears both textually and graphically in the last column.
Fiscal yearPresident's partySenate majority partyHouse majority partyTop-bracket marginal income tax rateFinal Public debt
(millions)Deficit
(millions)Deficit in millions of 1983 dollars ($=10 billion)
10/2009-9/2010
D
D
D
35%
$13,561,623
$1,651,794
$757,703
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/2008-9/2009
R
D
D
D
35%
$11,909,829
$1,885,104
$878,684
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/2007-9/2008
R
D
D
35%
$10,024,724
$1,017,071
$472,390
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/2006-9/2007
R
R
D
R
D
35%
$9,007,653
$500,679
$241,475
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/2005-9/2006
R
R
R
35%
$8,506,973
$574,264
$284,853
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/2004-9/2005
R
R
R
35%
$7,932,709
$553,656
$283,490
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/2003-9/2004
R
R
R
35%
$7,379,052
$595,821
$315,416
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/2002-9/2003
R
D
R
R
38.6%
$6,783,231
$554,995
$301,627
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/2001-9/2002
R
D
R
39.1%
$6,228,235
$420,772
$233,892
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/2000-9/2001
D
R
R
D
R
39.6%
$5,807,463
$133,285
$75,259
$$$$$$$
10/1999-9/2000
D
R
R
39.6%
$5,674,178
$17,907
$10,399
$
10/1998-9/1999
D
R
R
39.6%
$5,656,270
$130,077
$78,077
$$$$$$$$
10/1997-9/1998
D
R
R
39.6%
$5,526,193
$113,046
$69,353
$$$$$$$
10/1996-9/1997
D
R
R
39.6%
$5,413,146
$188,335
$117,342
$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1995-9/1996
D
R
R
39.6%
$5,224,810
$250,828
$159,864
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1994-9/1995
D
D
R
D
R
39.6%
$4,973,982
$281,232
$184,536
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1993-9/1994
D
D
D
39.6%
$4,692,749
$281,261
$189,784
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1992-9/1993
R
D
D
D
31%
$4,411,488
$346,868
$240,047
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1991-9/1992
R
D
D
31%
$4,064,620
$399,317
$284,616
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1990-9/1991
R
D
D
28%
$3,665,303
$431,989
$317,173
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1989-9/1990
R
D
D
28%
$3,233,313
$375,882
$287,591
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1988-9/1989
R
D
D
28%
$2,857,430
$255,093
$205,720
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1987-9/1988
R
D
D
38.5%
$2,602,337
$252,060
$213,069
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1986-9/1987
R
R
D
D
50%
$2,350,276
$224,974
$198,040
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1985-9/1986
R
R
D
50%
$2,125,302
$302,199
$283,489
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1984-9/1985
R
R
R
D
50%
$1,823,103
$250,837
$233,119
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1983-9/1984
R
R
R
50%
$1,572,266
$195,056
$187,734
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1982-9/1983
R
R
D
R
50%
$1,377,210
$235,176
$236,120
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1981-9/1982
R
R
D
70%
$1,142,034
$144,179
$149,408
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
10/1980-9/1981
D
R
D
R
D
70%
$997,855
$90,154
$99,179
$$$$$$$$$$
10/1979-9/1980
D
D
D
70%
$907,701
$81,182
$98,521
$$$$$$$$$$
10/1978-9/1979
D
D
D
70%
$826,519
$54,975
$75,723
$$$$$$$$
10/1977-9/1978
D
D
D
70%
$771,544
$72,704
$111,509
$$$$$$$$$$$
7/1976-9/1977
R
D
D
D
70%
$698,840
$62,725
$103,507
$$$$$$$$$$
7/1975-6/1976
R
D
D
70%
$620,433
$87,244
$153,328
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
7/1974-6/1975
R
D
D
70%
$533,189
$58,129
$108,046
$$$$$$$$$$$
7/1973-6/1974
R
D
D
70%
$475,059
$16,918
$34,316
$$$
7/1972-6/1973
R
D
D
70%
$458,141
$30,881
$69,552
$$$$$$$
7/1971-6/1972
R
D
D
70%
$427,260
$29,130
$69,690
$$$$$$$
7/1970-6/1971
R
D
D
70%
$398,129
$27,211
$67,187
$$$$$$$
7/1969-6/1970
R
D
D
70%
$370,918
$17,198
$44,325
$$$$
7/1968-6/1969
D
R
D
D
70%
$353,720
$6,141
$16,735
$$
7/1967-6/1968
D
D
D
70%
$347,578
$21,357
$61,372
$$$$$$
7/1966-6/1967
D
D
D
70%
$326,220
$6,313
$18,903
$$
7/1965-6/1966
D
D
D
70%
$319,907
$2,633
$8,127
$
7/1964-6/1965
D
D
D
77%
$317,273
$5,560
$17,653
$$
7/1963-6/1964
D
D
D
91%
$311,712
$5,853
$18,881
$$
7/1962-6/1963
D
D
D
91%
$305,859
$7,658
$25,028
$$$
7/1961-6/1962
D
D
D
91%
$298,200
$9,229
$30,562
$$$
7/1960-6/1961
R
D
D
D
91%
$288,970
$2,640
$8,830
$
7/1959-6/1960
R
D
D
91%
$286,330
$1,624
$5,489
$
7/1958-6/1959
R
D
D
91%
$284,705
$8,362
$28,737
$$$
7/1957-6/1958
R
D
D
91%
$276,343
$5,816
$20,124
$$
7/1956-6/1957
R
D
D
91%
$270,527
-$2,223
-$7,913
$
7/1955-6/1956
R
D
D
91%
$272,750
-$1,623
-$5,968
$
7/1954-6/1955
R
R
D
R
D
91%
$274,374
$3,114
$11,621
$
7/1953-6/1954
R
R
R
92%
$271,259
$5,188
$19,288
$$
7/1952-6/1953
D
R
D
R
D
R
92%
$266,071
$6,965
$26,089
$$$
7/1951-6/1952
D
D
D
91%
$259,105
$3,883
$14,653
$
7/1950-6/1951
D
D
D
91%
$255,221
-$2,135
-$8,212
$
7/1949-6/1950
D
D
D
91%
$257,357
$4,586
$19,033
$$
7/1948-6/1949
D
R
D
R
D
91%
$252,770
$478
$2,008
7/1947-6/1948
D
R
R
91%
$252,292
-$5,994
-$24,871
$$
7/1946-6/1947
D
D
R
D
R
91%
$258,286
-$11,135
-$49,935
$$$$$
7/1945-6/1946
D
D
D
94%
$269,422
$10,739
$55,076
$$$$$$
7/1944-6/1945
D
D
D
94%
$258,682
$57,678
$320,437
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
7/1943-6/1944
D
D
D
88%
$201,003
$64,307
$365,382
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
7/1942-6/1943
D
D
D
88%
$136,696
$64,273
$371,523
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
7/1941-6/1942
D
D
D
81%
$72,422
$23,461
$143,932
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
7/1940-6/1941
D
D
D
79%
$48,961
$5,993
$40,774
$$$$
7/1939-6/1940
D
D
D
79%
$42,967
$2,527
$18,057
$$
7/1938-6/1939
D
D
D
79%
$40,439
$3,274
$23,559
$$
7/1937-6/1938
D
D
D
79%
$37,164
$740
$5,249
$
7/1936-6/1937
D
D
D
79%
$36,424
$2,646
$18,375
$$
7/1935-6/1936
D
D
D
63%
$33,778
$5,077
$36,529
$$$$
7/1934-6/1935
D
D
D
63%
$28,700
$1,647
$12,027
$
7/1933-6/1934
D
D
D
63%
$27,053
$4,514
$33,690
$$$
7/1932-6/1933
R
D
R
D
D
63%
$22,538
$3,051
$23,474
$$
7/1931-6/1932
R
R
D
25%
$19,487
$2,685
$19,603
$$
7/1930-6/1931
R
R
R
D
25%
$16,801
$615
$4,052
7/1929-6/1930
R
R
R
25%
$16,185
-$745
-$4,465
7/1928-6/1929
R
R
R
25%
$16,931
-$673
-$3,936
7/1927-6/1928
R
R
R
25%
$17,604
-$907
-$5,307
$
7/1926-6/1927
R
R
R
25%
$18,511
-$1,131
-$6,501
$
7/1925-6/1926
R
R
R
25%
$19,643
-$872
-$4,932
7/1924-6/1925
R
R
R
46%
$20,516
-$734
-$4,197
7/1923-6/1924
R
R
R
58%
$21,250
-$1,098
-$6,426
$
7/1922-6/1923
R
R
R
58%
$22,349
-$613
-$3,588
7/1921-6/1922
R
R
R
73%
$22,963
-$1,014
-$6,036
$
7/1920-6/1921
D
R
R
R
73%
$23,977
-$1,975
-$11,033
$
7/1919-6/1920
D
R
R
73%
$25,952
-$1,438
-$7,192
$
7/1918-6/1919
D
D
R
D
R
77%
$27,390
$12,798
$73,981
$$$$$$$
7/1917-6/1918
D
D
D
67%
$14,592
$8,874
$58,770
$$$$$$
7/1916-6/1917
D
D
D
15%
$5,717
$2,108
$16,472
$$
7/1915-6/1916
D
D
D
7%
$3,609
$551
$5,056
$
7/1914-6/1915
D
D
D
7%
$3,058
$145
$1,441
7/1913-6/1914
D
D
D
7%
$2,912
-$3
-$37
7/1912-6/1913
D
D
D
no data
$2,916
$47
$483
7/1911-6/1912
D
D
D
no data
$2,868
$102
$1,048
7/1910-6/1911
D
D
D
no data
$2,765
no data
no data
Comments on Table 1:
I was somewhat surprised to notice that the 1930's, the era of the New Deal, were a period of fairly small deficits relative to the cost of living; not until the U.S. joined World War II did the deficits explode. On the other hand, these "fairly small deficits" followed a decade of budget surpluses in the roaring 1920's.
The single best predictor of deficits for most of the century has been war. There's a bulge in the graph for World War I, another for World War II, then a long low-grade deficit corresponding to the Korean and Vietnam wars, and of course the expense of G. H. W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, and G. W. Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. But starting in the 1970's, it becomes harder to see a connection between war and deficits: permanent budget deficits became a way of life, regardless of whether there was a war going on.
Table 2: The Top Ten Years
I have in my hand a copy of tonight's Top Ten list....
Analyses by President
I then grouped the data by Presidential administration. I wasn't certain how to count those years in which there's a change of administration, but it seemed to me that the budget in the fiscal year that spans a Presidential election and inauguration is mostly under the control of the previous President and Congress, so I count that fiscal year as the last year of the previous administration. This is usually a fair assumption, because most government programs take a while to start, and last for multiple years. Fiscal 2008-2009 is perhaps an exception: both the outgoing and incoming Presidents enacted expensive economic-stimulus programs that were written to take effect immediately. Accordingly, in the following tables, I've given George W. Bush two rows in the table: one consistent with my treatment of all other Presidents, and one counting only his first seven years, ending with the figures of September 2008, by which time a recession had started but the government measures to deal with it hadn't been enacted yet.
After deciding on those conventions, there were still several different reasonable ways to look at the data.
How much did the annual deficit shrink or grow?
I subtract the deficit in a President's first year from the deficit in the year after that President stepped down (or, in the case of the current President, from the most recent deficit figures I have). This change in deficit is then divided by the number of years it took to achieve it.
Table 3: Average change in annual deficit
Presidentpolitical partychange in deficityears in officeavg. change in deficitavg. change in deficit ($ = 2billion)
B.H.Obama
Democrat
-$120,981,163,033
1
-$120,981,163,033
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
G.W.Bush
Republican
$803,424,990,821
8
$100,428,123,853
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
G.W.Bush first 7 years
(see comment above)
Republican
$397,130,927,169
7
$56,732,989,596
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
W.J.Clinton
Democrat
-$164,787,361,848
8
-$20,598,420,231
$$$$$$$$$$
G.H.W.Bush
Republican
$34,326,854,936
4
$8,581,713,734
$$$$
R.Reagan
Republican
$106,541,043,476
8
$13,317,630,435
$$$$$$$
J.Carter
Democrat
-$4,328,272,827
4
-$1,082,068,207
$
G.Ford
Republican
$69,190,733,924
3
$34,595,366,962
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
R.M.Nixon
Republican
$17,581,577,773
5
$2,930,262,962
$
L.B.Johnson
Democrat
-$2,146,225,006
5
-$429,245,001
J.F.Kennedy
Democrat
$10,051,478,109
3
$3,350,492,703
$$
D.D.Eisenhower
Republican
-$17,259,422,929
8
-$2,157,427,866
$
H.S.Truman
Democrat
-$294,348,329,939
8
-$36,793,541,242
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
F.D.Roosevelt
Democrat
$296,963,393,318
12
$24,746,949,443
$$$$$$$$$$$$
H.Hoover
Republican
$27,411,255,199
4
$6,852,813,799
$$$
C.Coolidge
Republican
-$348,130,844
6
-$58,021,807
W.G.Harding
Republican
$7,444,813,407
2
$3,722,406,703
$$
W.Wilson
Democrat
-$11,516,694,067
8
-$1,439,586,758
$
Comments on Table 3:
The first seven years of the G.W. Bush presidency increased the deficit by almost twice as much as the 32 years from JFK through G.H.W.Bush combined, and somewhat more than the 24 years from Harding through FDR combined (in inflation-adjusted dollars).
If one includes fiscal year 2008-2009 as part of the G.W. Bush administration (consistent with my treatment of all other administrations), that administration oversaw 3.5 times as much increase in Federal budget deficits as Presidents Kennedy through G.H.W.Bush put together.
Obviously, many of the reasons a deficit grows or shrinks are beyond the President's control: Congress, the economy, the beginning or ending of a war, the beginning or ending of a recession, etc. For example, the beginning of World War II can be blamed for much of FDR's increase in the deficit, just as the end of World War II and the start of the post-war economic boom can be credited for much of Truman's matching decrease. I'm not sure what happened to Ford: he faced an economic recession, but so have many Presidents.
At least in my lifetime, Republican Presidents have placed high priority on cutting taxes, and placed lower priority on (or had less success at) cutting spending. Democratic Presidents have perhaps had equal success at cutting spending (I haven't researched those numbers), but have not been bound by any promises to cut taxes.
There may be other factors at work, e.g. the American people tend to elect a Democrat when things are at their worst and about to improve anyway, or something like that. Read into the numbers what you will.
How much debt was accumulated over a President's term(s)?
The previous approach, looking only at starting and ending deficits, doesn't distinguish between a President who oversees initially increasing deficits, then decreasing at the end (like Reagan) and a President who oversees initially decreasing deficits, then increasing at the end (like Carter), even though the former racks up more of a debt. So I computed the average annual deficit over a President's term(s). (Note: I computed this as an average of CPI-adjusted annual deficits, rather than as the increase in national debt divided by the number of years.)
Table 4: Average annual deficit
Presidentpolitical partytotal accumulated debtyears in officeaverage annual deficitavg. deficit ($ = 10billion)
B.H.Obama
Democrat
$757,703,682,284
1
$757,703,682,284
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
G.W.Bush
Republican
$3,011,831,280,329
8
$376,478,910,041
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
G.W.Bush first 7 years
(see comment above)
Republican
$2,133,146,435,012
7
$304,735,205,002
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
W.J.Clinton
Democrat
$884,619,423,570
8
$110,577,427,946
$$$$$$$$$$$
G.H.W.Bush
Republican
$1,129,428,976,886
4
$282,357,244,222
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
R.Reagan
Republican
$1,706,702,601,850
8
$213,337,825,231
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
J.Carter
Democrat
$384,933,505,542
4
$96,233,376,385
$$$$$$$$$$
G.Ford
Republican
$364,883,048,416
3
$121,627,682,805
$$$$$$$$$$$$
R.M.Nixon
Republican
$285,073,350,093
6
$57,014,670,019
$$$$$$
L.B.Johnson
Democrat
$122,792,151,218
5
$24,558,430,244
$$
J.F.Kennedy
Democrat
$74,472,825,986
3
$24,824,275,329
$$
D.D.Eisenhower
Republican
$106,299,577,577
8
$11,811,064,175
$
H.S.Truman
Democrat
$352,278,468,719
8
$39,364,274,302
$$$$
F.D.Roosevelt
Democrat
$1,389,540,258,709
12
$115,795,021,559
$$$$$$$$$$$$
H.Hoover
Republican
$42,664,892,779
4
$10,666,223,195
$
C.Coolidge
Republican
-$31,302,513,411
6
-$5,217,085,568
$
W.G.Harding
Republican
-$9,624,862,920
2
-$4,812,431,460
W.Wilson
Democrat
$137,460,025,232
8
$17,182,503,154
$$
Comments on Table 4:
Again, Republican Presidents seem to rack up the big debts, at least in my lifetime. Democratic Presidents tend to be "troughs" in the above graph, relative to their Republican successors and predecessors. On the other hand, the only two Presidents in this table to actually run an average surplus (in the Roaring Twenties) were both Republicans, and the Obama administration, in its first full fiscal year, was still running enormous deficits (albeit smaller than the previous fiscal year; see table 1).
The first seven years of G.W. Bush accrued more total debt than eight years of Reagan, and half again as much as twelve years of FDR. If you include 2008-2009, the 8-year G.W. Bush administration accrued almost as much total debt as the 8-year Reagan administration and the 12-year FDR administration combined. The biggest accrued-debt-per-year figures are associated with B.H. Obama, G.W. Bush, G.H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, FDR, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, in that order.
How does the accumulated debt compare with what it would have been with no change?
Since many of the items in the budget are multi-year commitments with considerable inertia (most obviously, interest on the national debt!), I recomputed the previous numbers, subtracting the annual deficit in each President's first year. In other words, this table compares how much debt was actually accumulated with how much would have been accumulated if deficits had continued as they were when the President took office.
Table 5: Average deficit minus first-year deficit
Presidentpolitical partyaverage deficit
(from prev. table)deficit in first yearcorrected average deficitcorrected avg. deficit ($ = 10billion)
B.H.Obama
Democrat
$757,703,682,284
$878,684,845,318
-$120,981,163,033
$$$$$$$$$$$$
G.W.Bush
Republican
$376,478,910,041
$75,259,854,496
$301,219,055,545
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
G.W.Bush first 7 years
(see comment above)
Republican
$304,735,205,002
$75,259,854,496
$229,475,350,505
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
W.J.Clinton
Democrat
$110,577,427,946
$240,047,216,344
-$129,469,788,398
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
G.H.W.Bush
Republican
$282,357,244,222
$205,720,361,408
$76,636,882,813
$$$$$$$$
R.Reagan
Republican
$213,337,825,231
$99,179,317,932
$114,158,507,300
$$$$$$$$$$$
J.Carter
Democrat
$96,233,376,385
$103,507,590,759
-$7,274,214,374
$
G.Ford
Republican
$121,627,682,805
$34,316,856,835
$87,310,825,971
$$$$$$$$$
R.M.Nixon
Republican
$57,014,670,019
$16,735,279,061
$40,279,390,957
$$$$
L.B.Johnson
Democrat
$24,558,430,244
$18,881,504,067
$5,676,926,176
$
J.F.Kennedy
Democrat
$24,824,275,329
$14,653,592,342
$15,994,249,370
$$
D.D.Eisenhower
Republican
$11,811,064,175
$14,653,592,342
-$2,842,528,166
H.S.Truman
Democrat
$39,364,274,302
$365,382,368,700
-$326,018,094,398
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
F.D.Roosevelt
Democrat
$115,795,021,559
$23,474,385,508
$92,320,636,051
$$$$$$$$$
H.Hoover
Republican
$10,666,223,195
-$3,936,869,692
$14,603,092,887
$
C.Coolidge
Republican
-$5,217,085,568
-$3,588,738,848
-$1,628,346,721
W.G.Harding
Republican
-$4,812,431,460
-$11,033,552,255
$6,221,120,795
$
W.Wilson
Democrat
$17,182,503,154
$483,141,813
$16,699,361,341
$$
Comments on Table 5:
Again, Truman is an outlier: he took office in the middle of World War II, which immediately followed the Great Depression. The Federal government was running an enormous annual deficit in his first year, so it would have been remarkable if it hadn't decreased during his term. FDR presided over most of the Great Depression, initiated many expensive government programs to fight it, and presided over the beginning of World War II.
Last modified: Tue Apr 12 11:13:00 EDT 2011
Stephen Bloch / sbloch@adelphi.edu jkh SORRY ABOUT GRAPH FORMAT IT DID NOT TRANSLATE IN THE FORMAT INTENDED GO TO THE SITE FOR A BETTER FORMAT.
Wow you did some homework, a for effort looks to me to confirm what we already knew GW spent more than anybody ever and republicans never made a peep. Remember Cheney deficits don't matter, yeah Dick, not until you leave office.
Now folks, in 2012 Obama will get a long needed vacation from Washington, one where he dose not need to return to the white house. Now you liberals may think that it will be a sad day, but we know that Obama has failed to be the man he promised to be, so for this great country, we will have hope and change in a new president! Lets just hope that Obama dose not go on another spending spree for his liberal and union friends. Our children should not have to pay for the Obamas free for all. Hey, lets raise taxes to pay for it!! 50% on all union dues!! And to help the unions pay for it, lets make themhave to run on all volunteers, no one on the pay roles!! I bet the union presidents would love to give up their paychecks for their union! Who wants to give up being a millionaire? Here come the love from the over extreme far left. Well, you libs hate rich folks, so start with your own house!!
Jim, Good research on your part. However, it's doesn't appear that many folks like oldog understand facts.
Forrest - President Obama looks like he is a real competitor. I suspect he will not settle for being second in anything including deficit spending. He is presently on track to spend more in 4 years than Bush did in eight. Saying the spending spree in 2008 and 2009 is completely Bush's fault is exactly the same as saying the spending in 2010 and 2011 is completely Obama's fault. The housing bubble and the sub prime scandal was started long before either one of those presidents. You can quote Cheney all you want but to use it to justify continuing the spending orgy we are in now is foolish. Remember, when Cheney said "Deficits don't matter," and I'm not sure he did, the national debt was not anywhere near 14.3 trillion. If we have a country full of blind followers like you then we are in big trouble.
Rich, we still have a nation of blind followers. Most people dont know that in 1981, the debt was less than $1T and by the end of bush's last budget, it was $11.9T. Bush also left Pres. Obama with a $1.3T deficit even before Obama was sworon in!! If you take out that $1.3T deficit, you ghet what Prews. Obama is REALLY spending cuz most of the budget is locked in! And most of the reagan/bush/bush budgets were passed using "reconciliation" (remeember that?) because reagan had a GOP senate for 6 years, and bush had a gop congress for 6 years and the GOP FILIBUSTERED any changes to bush's budget submissions!
The only time the deficits went down was under Clinton. Republicans, using their plan called "starve the beast", adopted under Reagan, DELIBERATELY set a course to mortgage the government to the hilt so they could privatize SS, Medicare etc! So, the debt crisis we have is a creation of the GOP who cynically and rtecklessly endangered this country's national security just so they could funnel currrent entitlement spending to private business entities! The gop's action now prove what their goal is--- so let's NOT forget it!
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc//Natl_Debt_Chart.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10054/1037783-109.stm
http://www.dlc.org/print.cfm?contentid=251788
Brian et al.
It is impossible that you read the Moodys report and recommendations or you are once again providing misleading information. Moodys cal
Search
Contact GIC
Home
Sitemap
Newsletter
Subscribe
Videos
Hanover - the green city with a royal history
................................
Virtual fashion worlds
................................
More Videos
Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum 2011
Resources
................................
................................
................................
The international magazine of the Federal Republic of Germany
................................
Germany's international media organisation
................................
Information and insights on modern life in Germany
................................
The virtual international calling card for the Federal Republic of Germany
................................
Online site of the Land of Ideas initiative
................................
News from European Union and South Asia
................................
Media in Germany
Media - Deutschland Portal
European Journalism Centre
Indo-German Chamber of Commerce
German Foreign Minister on EU's proposed economic recovery plan
November 28, 2008
On Wednesday, 26th November the EU Commission presented its proposals for coordinated action by the member states with the aim of reviving the economy. Germany's Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier welcomed the proposals as a good foundation for his initiative for a European Pact for the Future of Employment.
"In view of the difficult economic situation, we must do all we can to save or create jobs – at national level and also within Europe. That is why I proposed the European Pact for the Future of Employment. Many of the proposals presented today by the Commission go in the right direction.
One thing is clear – action is needed. We need a strong impetus to come from Europe. Only if we do the right thing now will Europe emerge strengthened from the crisis."
At the forthcoming consultations in Brussels we will urge that due regard be paid to the "jobs first" principle. We must furthermore speed up investment for the future in areas such as energy and broadband infrastructure.
The Commission's proposals contain a combination of coordinated national and European measures. The action taken should be swift and well-targeted. Its aim is to both boost demand in the short term and promote investment to safeguard jobs and Europe's competitiveness.
More specifically, the Commission has proposed:
A coordinated fiscal stimulus
The EU states should pledge to introduce national budgetary stimulus packages. Together with measures at European level, the total package would amount to around 200 billion euro (approximately 1.5% of the EU's GDP) for the years 2009 and 2010.
Protecting employment
A European employment initiative should be launched. In order to support employment, more money should be made available from the European Social Fund for training and reintegrating workers into the labour market; these resources should be better targeted. The Globalisation Adjustment Fund should also be broadened in order to cushion the impact of closures caused by globalisation.
Supporting small businesses
The loan facilities of the European Investment Bank (EIB) for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) should be extended by some 15 billion euro in 2009 and 2010, and administrative burdens on small businesses reduced.
Investment in the future
Increased use should be made of the European structural funds for trans-European energy and telecommunications projects (in particular broadband internet access), the EIB's activities in the fields of climate change, energy security and infrastructure should be enhanced by up to 10 billion euro per year, and a "2020 fund for energy, climate change and infrastructure" launched.
Research and development for a sustainable economy
A "European green cars" initiative should be launched to promote energy-efficient engines, a "European energy-efficient buildings" initiative should be started and a "factories of the future initiative" produced to increase the use of the enabling technologies of the future in manufacturing.
Also read:
ls for us to follow the German and French recovery models. (you know those rat bastard socialists) The most recent update by Moodys states unequvicably that if the debt ceiling is not raised they will immediately lower the US bond rating. What follows is the German recovery outline recommended by Moodys.
Search
Contact GIC
Home
Sitemap
Newsletter
Subscribe
Videos
Hanover - the green city with a royal history
................................
Virtual fashion worlds
................................
More Videos
Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum 2011
Resources
................................
................................
................................
The international magazine of the Federal Republic of Germany
................................
Germany's international media organisation
................................
Information and insights on modern life in Germany
................................
The virtual international calling card for the Federal Republic of Germany
................................
Online site of the Land of Ideas initiative
................................
News from European Union and South Asia
................................
Media in Germany
Media - Deutschland Portal
European Journalism Centre
Indo-German Chamber of Commerce
German Foreign Minister on EU's proposed economic recovery plan
November 28, 2008
On Wednesday, 26th November the EU Commission presented its proposals for coordinated action by the member states with the aim of reviving the economy. Germany's Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier welcomed the proposals as a good foundation for his initiative for a European Pact for the Future of Employment.
"In view of the difficult economic situation, we must do all we can to save or create jobs – at national level and also within Europe. That is why I proposed the European Pact for the Future of Employment. Many of the proposals presented today by the Commission go in the right direction.
One thing is clear – action is needed. We need a strong impetus to come from Europe. Only if we do the right thing now will Europe emerge strengthened from the crisis."
At the forthcoming consultations in Brussels we will urge that due regard be paid to the "jobs first" principle. We must furthermore speed up investment for the future in areas such as energy and broadband infrastructure.
The Commission's proposals contain a combination of coordinated national and European measures. The action taken should be swift and well-targeted. Its aim is to both boost demand in the short term and promote investment to safeguard jobs and Europe's competitiveness.
More specifically, the Commission has proposed:
A coordinated fiscal stimulus
The EU states should pledge to introduce national budgetary stimulus packages. Together with measures at European level, the total package would amount to around 200 billion euro (approximately 1.5% of the EU's GDP) for the years 2009 and 2010.
Protecting employment
A European employment initiative should be launched. In order to support employment, more money should be made available from the European Social Fund for training and reintegrating workers into the labour market; these resources should be better targeted. The Globalisation Adjustment Fund should also be broadened in order to cushion the impact of closures caused by globalisation.
Supporting small businesses
The loan facilities of the European Investment Bank (EIB) for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) should be extended by some 15 billion euro in 2009 and 2010, and administrative burdens on small businesses reduced.
Investment in the future
Increased use should be made of the European structural funds for trans-European energy and telecommunications projects (in particular broadband internet access), the EIB's activities in the fields of climate change, energy security and infrastructure should be enhanced by up to 10 billion euro per year, and a "2020 fund for energy, climate change and infrastructure" launched.
Research and development for a sustainable economy
A "European green cars" initiative should be launched to promote energy-efficient engines, a "European energy-efficient buildings" initiative should be started and a "factories of the future initiative" produced to increase the use of the enabling technologies of the future in manufacturing.
Also read:
Jim, A++ for all your work.
Yes, Europe and Canada demonstrate a practical long-view outlook of 'people first' and they come together around that goal. The Republican Party in this country is focused on creating uncertainty and creating opportunities to undercut ordinary people and leave them without legal recourse. Of course, with the goal of putting Corporations in control of us. ("Freedoms" lol)
Every few weeks GOP has to get their fix of:
"So sorry! No time to continue discussions! First we will say that there have been no discussions. Then we have no choice but to hold a gun to your heads and cut/rush through/get around the rules immediately. And remember Democrats, if you don't comply we will create another domestic-global fiscal disaster or shut the government down and it will be all your fault".
To Late.
We care what the House Democrats think why?
Jo. That is a childish question, almost Palin like. But just on the off chance that you really are that nieve. The President is a democrat, the Senate is democratic. and close to half of the congress are democrats. And yes, most Americans care about what they say.
Great point Pat. So where's their budget?
I know Obama's got shellacked and all, but what about Reid? Why no budget? And O - he commissioned a debt commission then ignored it. Leading Form Behind? Not good enough.
Sorry bro, they will not do anything, so they have rendered themselves irrelevant.
Spanky. Try to keep up, The President has not ignored the commissions proposals, but since the republican house members on the committee, which include the chairman of the house budget committee, rejected the recommendations, Mr Obama's hands are tied, until we boot the republicans out of office in 2012.
We know what the House Democrats think. 82 voted Nay on HR 1954 on Tuesday, and 7 more had the intestinal fortitude to vote a decisive Present
I can just picture the discussion between Obama and Pelosi after the vote. Picture Obama playing his best Ricky Ricado imitation and to Pelosi's Lucy.
Obama: "Nancy, you got some 'splaining to do!"
Pelosi: "But Barry.........."
Ok yeah, sure Pat. Obama's hands are tied. There just isn't anything he could possibly do.
Got it: "leading from behind."
So what about Reid. He said he will not produce a budget. And I know you are familiar with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, right Pat. That's the law that says the senate has to produce a budget every year.
Pat?
That's why they got that auto-signing-pen machine for him.
Republicans in Congress know their extreme budget ~ that dismantles our American Medicare guarantee ~ has been roundly rejected across the nation. Mmm, what to do?
**Idea** Hold our economy to ransom and threaten to default on our national debt. Throw in the $8.8 Trillion additional cost to the debt over the next ten years while we're at it. It will cut seniors (but who cares?), and the American public (who?).
R Goal: Create lots of crises and chaos, allowing us to bypass and avoid Democracy. Then we can more easily dismantle regulation, eliminate taxation for the wealthy, and strip working people of their rights.
White Collar:
The correct spelling is "too" .
FYI
Thanks fr pinting ut my typ Greg. Guess I missed th "o"
Unless your Sarah Palin then it's "also too".
Hey Greg, what's a "Connie" and what's the meaning of a "Hoo Boy"? Is it a Michigan thing? A Hamtramck thing? Just wondering?
Patrick said,
The President has not ignored the commissions proposals, but since the republican house members on the committee, which include the chairman of the house budget committee, rejected the recommendations
Spanky is right, the president did ignore the recommendations but if you look at the republican house budget (instead of following DNC talking points) you will see some of those recommendations included in the budget proposal. One of them is dealing with entitlements... wait for it ... tata dada... "medicare "
Sooooo try and keep up!!
You're right Spanky that was toooo easy!!!
OK I give, what are democrats?? Did you say that they talk? Are they house broken? Do they make big messes? LOL.
I have read some particularly disturbing posts about Medicare. You people need to get it set in your heads that Medicare will change and soon. The only question is how. We could raise the qualifying age to 79.5, remove the cap and increase payroll deductions by 75% or we could try Ryan's plan or some version of it. IMHO, the government needs to look at EMTALA and consider making some big changes. I suspect it was originally meant to provide emergency services in a life threatening situation, not to become a "free clinic" for every Tom, Dick and Jose who happened to walk in. Some estimates put unrecovered emergency room charges at 50%. I wonder if we could change that figure if hospital and medical costs in general would come down.
"Failure is not an option."
Unfortunately, all Obama promises come with an expiration date.
Kinda like the promise to the world of the American Constitution had an expiration date under Bush/Cheney.
HA, here we go..............must had stocked up on aluminum foil at Costco. So Paul any good news from Alex Jones this week?
Why didn't we pass a budget when we had the house,senate and the Pres.? We had plenty of time. Did we get so arrogan,t that we thought we couldn't lose in 2010? I hope like hell we learned out lesson or we will be on the outside looking in, after 2012.
Time for truth,
It should have been done but the president felt that health insurance, the auto industry and the financial sector demanded more attention. Republicans had announced that they would use all parliamentary gambits to impede the budget process. What they have done is unconsciable no president in the history of the Republic has had to fight for a budget and debt ceiling relief like this one has. It is purely political grandstanding by the GOP. It has been historic precedent in the US that the election of a president is a mandate on his economic policies and that they deserve a chance. The only time this has not held true was in Clintons 1st term and Obamas when the GOP attempted to destroy the full faith and credit of the Federal government.
jkh
Failure is not an option. But, the Republicans want to fail. So much for loyalty to country.
The repubs idea of success vs failure is different han the dems. That doesn't mean they are disloyal, anymore than the dems success means they are disloyal. That is just worn out old rhetoric than adds nothing.
When the Republicans want to put the country in the crapper, purely out of their hatred for this President, disloyalty is the KINDEST term that one can use.
Kirby, the Tea Party was willing to see the American automobile go bankrupt, rather than allow the federal government to bail them out. Experts say recovery from a recession is largely psychological, but the Republicans have preached doom and gloom since President Obama took office, just to win votes in 2010. Sounds like Republicans want the country to fail, to me.
You never hear them complain about Reagan bailing out Chrysler. Never hear a peep about that rotten socialist Reagan.
The Republican leadership has stated many times that their focus is to cause the failure of the government.
They have in fact. That used to be considered treasonous, not a campaign plank.
Post the link fielden, that they want the failure of the government.
You know there are WAAAAY too many to start posting! That has been the bottom line since President Obama was elected! Almost every single TP member used it as a mantra. No reality here..................
Amy, doom and gloom and I guess you are going to tell me that the democrats never practice doom and gloom
You need a link here is a link Fox news. You had it all the time.
It's amazing how when the GOP/TB spout their lies they never have a link to back up their lies. But when the Democrats say anything about one of them or their teabagging buddies they start screaming for a link to back it up.
OK Forrest try out this link to Fox News for government failures.
The markets already know that a negotiated settlement will be reached or you'd see a sell-off that would bring the Dow to it's knees.
You think? The number being bantered about is a trillion dollars in deficit reduction. That's done in two ways - 1) Reduction of government spending. That means the government pumps less money into its programs, and less money into the economy. 2) Higher taxes. That taxes money out of the economy and all it does is reduce that deficit number the government is running. There is a 3) Growth. But it's apparent that's not happening with ObamaNomics.
So do you think the market has priced in a trillion less dollars going into the economy?
I think the market knows the US is NOT going to default on its obligations. Period.
JoAnnaSmith1,
Why not option 4. Both spending cuts and higher taxes. Most independent economists agree that one or the other alone will not solve the problem. Simply cutting spending would shift a very heavy burden to already desperate states and communities. Sure, there are some things that should be addressed but there are more legitimate needs that will continue to require support.
I'm guessing vwterry does not live in beautiful California.
See, we are a progressive paradise. Need more revenue? No problem, taxes were "temporarily" raised three years ago - you know so they could fix stuff. 'cept guess what, they took in more revenue, but somehow managed to spend more money.
See if you can guess what they want to do now? [PSSST: raise taxes some more].
Yep libbies we are your failedghost of Christmas future. So when you all gonna bail us on?
Evidently, reading comprehension is not your strong suite. I said that there is a need to do both spending cuts and tax adjustments. To say that there is a serious debt reduction plan coming from the right when they say they are going to fix things by cutting spending and cut taxes equally is an indication that math is over some peoples head too.
Tax "adjustments"? Oh, you mean increased taxes.
Problem with that is the government has shown itself real capable of spending that additional tax "adjustment" they get rather than putting it towards deficit reduction. It seems that there's always something they just have to spend it on.
What kind of suite do you wear?
Oh but I got it. That's what they promised here as well. In fact they said there would be cuts to correspond to tax increases.
But guess what - they did cut some, but dog gone it they still managed to spend way more.
But you are right about the math. Me and math, not so much. How about you vwterry?
So why will the feds do us any differently than Cali? Of course they won't. Which is why raising taxes won't fly.
Now might be a good time to remind the Libs all about Nancy Pelosi's PayGo scheme. PayGo of course meant that any new spending had to paid for, either with tax increases or with spending cuts in other areas. That little program of hers held the line on deficit spending to just over $5 trillion dollars in 4 years. Lord knows what it would have been if we didn't have PayGo.
"Adjustments" because it's not just increases. It's also closing of tax loop holes, elimination of tax incentives in addition to tax rates returning to levels that were in place prior to the deficit funded tax rates put into effect during the prior administration.
"In fact they said there would be cuts to correspond to tax increases." This is not what the republicans are saying. They are suggesting that the debt can be decreased by utilizing both spending cuts and equal tax DECREASES. That's lowering both cash in the system and revenue at the same time. How will that have a positive effect on lowering the debt?
Off subject, but
...Great t-shirt President Obama!....President Made in the USA!...T-Shirt made in the USA!
Mine arrived today! YAY!
We must of ordered them at the same time! ;o)
IL to TX....mail service delivers on the same day...We probably did order on the same day!
So, you all know that the post office is toast, right?
Another shiny example of the government not being able to get anything right.
Spanky the price of a stamp has risen 33% in eleven years, in less then eight my health insurance tripled. So much for your anti government rant.
Pat, even for you that was stupid.
So my doctor just got a super laser MRI/CT scan. Know how much it cost? A lot.
So, how about the post office? Spending a lot on new jeeps?
But hey, you don't like the post office, how about social security? Kinda a big ponzi scheme at this point, no? How about all that fraud and abuse in medicare?
Yep, the government is just great at running things. Hey the Dept. of Defense just called - they need a new toilet seat. That'll run us only $1,200. Yay!
Spanky. Now your being irational.
When has he EVER been rational? lol
Quit reading Skanky's drivel months ago - I don't particularly care for leftovers & if you've read one of his posts you've read then ALL!
There my gal Feisty. She says she ignores, yet here she is again.
Feisty loves her some Spanky. It's ok dear, I love you too.
Now be a dear and respond to brianb in comment #1 above. Come old gal, I know you can do it. I have faith in you. Don't let me down.
They probably sent the XXXLs out first.
Hey the Dept. of Defense just called - they need a new toilet seat. That'll run us only $1,200. Yay!
Spanky I told you a thousand million times don't exaggerate.
SO that's why you're pissier than usual this evening honey- yours is on back order!
Now secure that tea bagger 'feed bag' of yours firmly around your neck and do carry on!
Excellent!!
Feisty, you're on a roll today. lol
...as for JAS1 and her comment, some folks live in negative land, no matter what. SAD!
Why thank you JS1, we got to keep a sense of humor.
Absolutely.
As much as the President irritates me for not pounding the snot of these mean-spirited, lying Republicans, I can't avoid the fact that he has generally followed a path that I like. I'm pleased that he has opened the door for single-payer health insurance. I'm glad he got Osama bin Laden. Other posters have listed a rather impressive list of accomplishments.
I am upset that he hasn't taken down the bankers. I am upset that Guantanamo is still open. I am not happy that we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't like this Libya nonsense. I wish he'd tell Holder to back off on the marijuana threats. Did I mention that I want to see some bankers taken down, and taken down hard for almost destroying the world.
That said, he has watched as Republicans took over the house. The G.O.P. took that opportunity NOT to create jobs, but rather to advertise that they were outright liars. They have attacked women's rights with the zeal of misogynists. They are trying to kill Medicare. They fight every attempt to regulate the very thugs who damned near killed America.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Obama is in this for the long game. If Republicans continue to try to blow up America, to shred medical care for those who have planned to retire with a Medicare safety net, and to completely subjugate women - Well, the Democrats can win.
As one who has a generally liberal mindset, I KNOW that liberals can be very, very determined. We can be very, very angry when our rights are attacked. For whatever reason, there are people who think liberal types can't fight. That's a terrible mistake to make. We can and we will.
Put the Dems in power, give Obama a second term, and we'll see if hope and change isn't the real deal. I'm betting on it, and I'm voting on it. All I ask is this. I am a true independent. I don't much care for the Democratic ways, but I am sickened by Republicans. Dems, you do know how to govern and balance a budget, don't you? Do it!
Dave - did you get your t-shirt?
David Walker: Extremely well written post. I will be voting for President Obama again. I am an ex-Republican. Felt like the party left me in Reagan's days. Miss the days that the Republicans were fiscally conservative, but figured that people could mind their own personal business.
Just curious. How can you call a position independent and you have decided your vote when you do not even know who the GOP nominee will be?
David, great post. Thanks. I'm right there with you.
Assuming the nominee will come out of the present republican field it is easy to make a decision, it is early and maybe they will produce somebody new, but the present choices are rehashed losers. If you did not like them before what would change your mind now.
Perhaps a debate or two. History has shown that what happens the year before the election will be mostly forgotten by the time the pre-election debates actually take place. I for one am looking forward to them. The incumbent will present their record and plans for the next four years and the challenger will offer a differing set of proposals. That's one of the good parts of our political system. And the viewers can judge for themselves.
The Independent:
You ask, "How can you call a position independent and you have decided your vote when you do not even know who the GOP nominee will be?"
That's an easy question to answer. The G.O.P. is in the hands of outright crazies. I have told folks again and again, if you want to see where the G.O.P. is headed, look at California. The crazies control the Republican party in California, and they've infected the party at the national level.
The crazies will not tolerate anyone who does not pass a political purity test. The Pro-lifers are a single-issue group. The Teabangelicals? The chicken hawks? The bigots who cannot tolerate dark colors? The misogynists?
Please! These guys are jumping through their asses for Trumps, allowing themselves to be ruled by their little heads for Palin, and worshiping ignorance - Palin AND Bachmann. I've never been bothered by politicians who can change their position. No one gets it right the first time, every time. But based on Romney, it looks like he gets it wrong the first time, every time. That's pandering and flip-flopping. Nope. The Republicans have nothing but mean, meaner, and outright stupid.
Good post, David. This president is an intelligent, long game thinker so consider this:
Historically, the party of a newly elected president loses in the next mid-term elections. This president understood this and has taken this into account for his long term plan. It would not surprise me to find out that he knew that the Republican/TP Inc. would shoot themselves in the foot with their radical social agenda and economic attacks on the poor, elderly, disabled, sick and basically everyone who isn't wealthy.
As poll, after poll, after poll is showing, the Republican/TP Inc. agenda is quickly losing favor with Americans as more details are revealed about their true agenda. The more they propose tax cuts for the wealthy and their corporate sponsors while raising taxes on the middle class and taking away vitally needed programs from the very people that need them the most, the more they expose themselves as the party of greed and avarice.
What this means is that it is a set up for a Democratic take back of the House and a Democratic increase in the Senate in 2012. We will then have a Democratic president who does not have to worry about re-election with a Democratic controlled House and Senate and a solid record of the failure of the Republican/TP Inc. agenda to contrast against what he wants to do to fix this economy. This allows him to get the necessary reforms passed that it is currently impossible to get done.
Look at what he has accomplished even with the opposition he faces today. Think about what he did during the lame duck session of the last Congress. Don't count this man out, he is a long game thinker and that is something US politics has not seen in a long time.
Yo Matt - what does history say about re-election in times of unemployment n excess of 7%?
And we have seen it - 1976-1980, a dude called Carter.
Come on back tomorrow after the jobs numbers come in and we'll chat.
k?
Spanky-
FDR got a pass...the Great Depression
Obama gets a pass....George W and the current republican House.
When you get a new job and the work is screwed always blame it on the guy who had the job before you.
Management 101.
Read some of your posts. You need to live on a private island and be king. Even then you'd bitch.
Have a good night.
Obama does have one single important friend on the republican side, Paul Ryan has his back, right Spanky.
No way I'd be in charge - Ms. Spanky would kick my ass.
Electorate has too short of an attention span now Simpleon.
Obama's out, plain and simple.
Thats a bold statement with the current lineup, plenty early for some new face, but who at this point do think can beat him?
David Walker:
From your fingertips to God's ears.
I think when Obama gets a second term you will see him take an extremely HARD left turn.
He will be beholden to no one, not even his own party. Nothing to do but write Progressive legislation and pick the site for the Obama Library.
Hey Greg and Dave, did you hear something, did you hear that, I heard something, listen their it goes again, I think a couple of republican heads just popped off.
This news just coming across the wires: The Executive Branch doesn't write legislation.
HAHAHA, Do you really think Greg knows that? He's a "Give me" kind of guy like most Detroiters. Hey Greg remember the WJR interview of the two woman? "Obama will give me money"
JoAnna Smith1:
If you are naive enough to believe that, then I'll let you punch me the same number of vetoes George Bush made during his first term.
3Wolves: Spoken like a true "taker". A free-loading Socialist living on the government dole.
OBAMA LEADERSHIP will take this country into a future in which ALL of US can be healthy, well-employed and proud to take care of our seniors and children. Where education remains an achievable goal for all America. Where we don't spend ourselves into the poor house warring unecessarily. And finally, where everyone pays their fair share to run this country. (This includes wealthy and corporate 'individuals') Consequently, we'll have a healthier country in 2016 when Obama leaves office than when he came to DC in 2009.
Yes, at that point he will have changed the way DC works. Another campaign promise he will fulfill.
One can only hope. Don't all politicians promise these kind of things during their campaigns?
Yes they do. But honestly In my lifetime I never seen the minority leader of the senate announce publicly, that his main goal was to see the president fail and be a one term president. It is downright treasonous. I never liked Bush I did not vote for him, but I never wished the president would be a failure. If the POTUS fails does that not mean the country suffers in some way? How can an elected US senator say he wants the POTUS to fail. Matter of fact he said it was the number one priority, and he is not alone in public statements of this sort by elected officials. This at a time when we have young people dying for their country. I never liked Bush from the git go and by the end of his 8 years I personally thought, well it went down from there, but I never wished him to be failure. I hoped he would do well because this is my country and he is the president. These very same people imply they are more patriotic than most, I'm wondering what the hell patriotic means anymore.
David Walker
I am upset that he hasn't taken down the bankers.
Republicans have a choke hold on the appointment of Elizabeth Warren. They know she'll get'em.
Brianb-999431
Do you really think because a person is a republican, they are selfish, manipulative, greedy liars?
Let me clear, yes I do. I think your leaders are. For those of you who are rich I think are fools.
Cite me one example one thing since Bush did to help the middle and working class.
Bush lose jobs. President OBAMA saved and created jobs.
correction: For those of you who are Not rich I think are fools; especially if your wages are stagnant.
Even for you - too retarded to merit a response.
Bev. at least try to use English.
We finally have a very intelligent President who has integrity and is willing to fight for the middle class and seniors! The drum rolls to see how the GOP will continue to fight and block President Obama's agenda in helping us. "Failure is not an option" indeed. SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT AS HE IS TRYING TO SUPPORT THE MIDDLE CLASS AND OUR SENIORS!!!!
Dear K2mn:
Yes, Obama has a sharp mind. But no, he won't fight for the working (middle) class and seniors. The difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is more of appearance than reality.
If you truly want middle (working) class and senior stability, you should go here. I have. So should you. Check out the agenda. See what you think.
it's important to continue investments to help the economy recover and create jobs.
We obviously need some more of Pelosi's and Osama Obama's shovel ready programs that have been so successful. What a brain trust that we are so lucky to have leading (from behind) our country.
Shut up
Any average leader can take you where you already want to go, only a great leader can take you where you need to go.
And Obama has taken us to where no one wants to be.
Are you an actual doctor Bob, or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
JS1 we were worse off before Bush left office, The wall street financial crisis almost brought down the whole house remember all that, I lost $450,000 of my personal retirement fund in a matter of months, we had already been in Iraq for at least 6 years and blown 2 trillion dollars, no I'm not going to blame everything on Bush but at least let's acknowledge where the man had to start from. He went to Washington before he was even elected and got the ball rolling on what they (both sides Bush was still president) said was necessary action to prevent that. Remember McCain said the economy is fundamentally sound then a week later ran after Obama and made himself look silly because now we were in crisis. Bush was still president but it was like he was in shock and hiding or just cashed in his sick days and left a month early or something. But the young man who you ridicule was able to ORGANIZE the people in place, and got done what needed to be done. Anyway you said he took us where nobody wanted to go. In two years I got my $450000 back and a lot more, the stock market rebounded quite nicely, and everybody needed that.
So Socialize Ownership ...
Once workers and community residents begin shaping the budgets and making the decisions about the allocation of funds, I'm sure that things will start moving again.
GO Socialist Party USA!
Forest: I am actually a proctologist who specializes in large ass holes like you and the other Osama Obama great unwashed. Business is great as unfortunately, there are so many of you.
Nice to meet you Bob I'm a neurosurgeon so I guess you won't ever be needing my services, darn I thought maybe we could try some of those great republican ideas and barter some healthcare for ourselves, oh well. I already guessed that you were a proctologist because you gave me a pain in my ass. good luck doc
Dr. Bob, to be a true leader you must learn to follow sometime too. If the job is getting done the leader doesnt have to be out front.
JoAnna, the repugs are changing the signs on you.
The Most Interesting Comment I find here is voiced by the Village Idiot , a stated Socialist .. which reminds me ,, and I hope Beverly or Feisty or Forrest Gump can clear this up for me ,, okay ?
How come over 100 American Based Communist Organizations rallied with the Unions , the NAACP and other Democratic groups in Washington DC last October ? Is there a direct tie in between the Democratic Party and Communism ?
I may be wrong but " Redistribution of Wealth " is a basic Communist theme and goal.
I also know for a fact that Obama's parents were both Communists, and his brother is a Communist .
Could the Messiah , The Annointed One , Mr. Obama possibly have Communist Orientation ?
Seriously,, I love the Libs talking about how Obama is going to Save Medicare - lol.
Correct me if I am misguided, but doesn't Obama Care reduce Medicare Budgets by $500 Billion when 10,000 seniors per day are now enrolling in Medicare ? Is that how saving Medicare works ? As the Medicare Enrollees grow at the fastest pace in history ,, Obama cuts Medicare Funding ? Does that lead to Rationing ?
It is a proven fact that we cannot effectively reduce Government spending enough to get the Deficit under control without addressing Entitlements. While Social Security is easily fixed and made solvent over the long run,, Medicare is going broke faster than expected.... Paul Ryan's plan does not threaten Medicare- it preserves Medicare ,, even though you refuse to admit it ,, it is so much easier to follow the Democratic lies and slurs than actually read the bill. Ryan's plan is far from perfect, but at least the gentleman has the integrity to put a plan on the table.
Harry Reid won't put a budget on the table and he can't get a spending plan passed in the Senate. Obama's budget was rejected by the Senate --- 97 Nos and 3 no votes.
Exactly what is the Democratic plan to address the Deficit ? Raise taxes ? FDR tried that time after time in the 30s and it flopped. It failed.
What Obama and the Democrats lack is substance,, they have no plan except to keep on spending and raise taxes.. someone show me something different ,, you can't because there is nothing on the table from the Democrats,, NOTHING !
Obama is playing a political game to get re elected. He may win that bet ,, and if he does,, there is zero hope for America ,, and you Libs can sit around in your Obama T Shirts,, as America Craters.
Just saying :-)
I had to laugh at the foolish Lib who suggested Obama knew he would lose ground in the Nov 2010 elections.. I wonder why the Right clobbered the Democrats at the State Level ? 2010 was an ass kicking but 2012 will be a Knock Out Blow. You really think Obama is going to be re- elected with Unemployment over 9 % and the economy slowing down now ?
Dream on my stalwart Liberals :-)
All I can tell you Alan is that all kinds of people are gathering, Unions, Democrats, communists, socialist, marxists, avon ladies, little old grannys, immigrants, people of every race color and creed. I can't tell you all about communists or marxists doctrines I don't know all that, the only thing we ever talk about is you. Just like you asked me about all of them, the only thing they ever say to me is whats up with Alan. It is like they are all obsessed with Alan, and I can't tell them any more about you than I told you about them. So I tell them the truth I tell them I don't know what makes Alan tick.
Alan President Obama cut $500 billion in Medicare to help fund Obamacare but had to put that $500 billion back into medicare before he could start trashing Ryans plan. Jay Carney says Obama has presented a plan yet has anyone actually seen it in writing. I don't think so because he would then be on record and could not bail on his plan when it gets torn apart. Good post. I am sure some of your stalwart liberals won't respond because they can't spin it their way.
this is the biggest bunch of bull. No lie, we cant afford to default, but how many of you think that we can afford to keep borrowing money to pay for failed social safety nets and services? the hard reality of it is that we need to salvage as much as possible, and cut the rest loose. Both sides will lose votes. Both sides will make enemies, but it is the right thing to do. Decrease expendatures, increase revenues, and get ourselves out of this hole as quickly as possible.
Cut your granparents loose your the tough guy.
Obama told the Democrats that failure is not an option.
Did I read that right? He should have thought of that the day he took office. Since then he has failed at everything. Maybe if he could get out of 2008 and realize we are in 2011 and the campaign ended three years ago he just may be shocked enough to do the right thing and resign. Our country has been without leadership for three years while Obama has been nothing but a parasite sucking the life out of our country.
Hey don't sugar coat it tell us what you really think.
Rangewolf...maybe you should get your head out of the sand.
Resign?.................. Why would you want Biden to be in charge? Because even though he is every bit as much a "socialist" as Obama, at least he's white? You didn't think past your bigotry did you..........
Every American knows that a person stands a better chance of progressing when the banks do not put low limits on how much he/she is allowed to borrow. The moment the bank raises your credit or debt limit and allows you to borrow all that you need when you need it, you are very likely to become very wealthy. Every single American strives to have unlimited amount that he/she can borrow from the bank whenever he/she needs it.
Is there any right thinking American who will come up and say that he/she will be happy and will be in a better position when the bank reduces the amount he/she is allowed to borrow? Corporations too will never favor the idea of the banks limiting the amount they can borrow.
United States of America is not a little school boy who still has to be controlled on how much he can borrow. United States in not like the backward developing countries which still have to be controlled or limited on how much they can borrow. United States is a supper power in everything and will always be. When Republicans open their mouths, they need to watch their words because foreign countries which envy America are listening to the things that they say. United States' strength and ability to make negotiations or dealings with foreign countries is not something that any person in his right mind should put limits on. There must be flexibility when it comes to USA's dealings with foreign powers that is dictated by prevailing circumstances.
I think we can all agree that no succesful business man is going to make a significant investment in the expansion of equipment or people until Obama is out of the White House. His war on the banks, insurance companies, private sector employers making more than $250k has taken a huge toll on this country. I beleive if he concedes that he won't run for re-election in 2012 a far better candidate will appear for the Democrats and the country as a whole. We as a country have a better chance of solving the debt/medicare budget debate with a better leader in the White House. It is imparitive that happens in 2012!
Taxes have never been lower for them! They are below 1960 levels, but just say anything that makes you you feel better about having Newt, Bachmann or the other joke candidates out front for you guys.
Gump, Raising taxes in a recesion is always a bad idea. But the real impact on business is the uncertainty of what that ridiculous health care bill is going to cost. No life time limit, How much more to insure derilict kids to the age of 26, No pre-existing conditions, etc, etc, etc??? A business could bankrupt them selves based off of who they hire healthwise. Banks are also gun shy on who and how much to lend to. They don't know what the Czar of that ridiculous Frank/Dood bill is going to do. Like I said we need a better leader for this country. I hope everyone agrees with that.....
There are two basic ways to stimulate the economy:
1. Keynesian Economics - preferred by the democrats - the government pumps up the economy by stimulus - one economist states the economy would need about 2 trillion dollars, can we afford that?
2. Trickle down Economics - preferred by republicans - the government stimulates the economy by providing incentives like tax reduction and subsidies to prospective employers. Many claim that these incentives do not go back to the US.
So which one do you think will work.
What war?
He and the GOV bailed them all out of bankruptcy???????????
I often wonder at the wisdom of gaining more credit when one cannot afford the debt one already has on the books. So how do we justify allowing an increase in the available credit when we do not have the income to pay it back, and are unlikely to be able to justify enough increase in income to fund an eventual payback without changing our spending habits? What bank do you bank at that allows an increase in credit when you are increasing debt with no income sufficient to pay it back? The banks are being sensible to refuse to allow credit without a chance to receive payments on the debt. Credit risk is a calculated assessment of credit worthiness - in other words you aint gonna get a loan without an income! Do you loan out money without desiring a plausible chance to get paid back? Our deficit has increased for twenty years our Government is like a hungry bum asking for a loan when we are too broke to buy our own groceries.... And you liberals have touched on an important theme here. Real money has real value - credit does not, see if you want something (notice; want not need) money makes the purchase. Why do we as Americans think that we can pay for something tomorrow when we can't afford to pay for it today? Spend some time using your superior intellect to reason that one out!
repost:
I have read some particularly disturbing posts about Medicare. You people need to get it set in your heads that Medicare will change and soon. The only question is how. We could raise the qualifying age to 79.5, remove the cap and increase payroll deductions by 75% or we could try Ryan's plan or some version of it. IMHO, the government needs to look at EMTALA and consider making some big changes. I suspect it was originally meant to provide emergency services in a life threatening situation, not to become a "free clinic" for every Tom, Dick and Jose who happened to walk in. Some estimates put unrecovered emergency room charges at 50%. I wonder if we could change that figure if hospital and medical costs in general would come down.
Rick, both Medicare and SS are solid for at least 2 decades!! And neither of them contribute to the deficit or debt. So why cut them?? Because the GOP, since reagan, adopted a plan called "starve the beast" wherein the gop would run up the debT so high taht it would cause a debt crisis !! ( DING!!!) THEN the could present to the people that privatizing them is the ONLY solution (DING!!). This isnt about saving the country; this is about funneling all the entitlement spending into the hands of business interests. It's about taking guaranteed benefits away from the less fortunate and handing over that money to the MOST fortunate with NO GUARANTEE! The entitlement programs are NOT the problem; reckless endangering of the country's national security for the sake of enriching the already rich is the problem!
None of this is going to change unless and untill this version of the GOP is destroyed!
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc//Natl_Debt_Chart.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10054/1037783-109.stm
http://www.dlc.org/print.cfm?contentid=251788
tom your posts are garbage; you are paid to lie
Tom - I'm sorry but you are wrong on both counts. The projections I have seen have Medicare going into deficit spending by 2017. And SSI won't last much longer. And yes they do contribute to the debt. Any surplus either fund realizes is required by law to be purchased by the Treasury department. Any funds a government trust (like Medicare) holds is in the form of Treasury Securities (national debt).
rob.. but you cant refute ONE WORD of what I posted.
Rich---- So post the trustworthy sites you got your info from! And please tell me, but you DO agree that this debt crisis was a creation of the GOP correct??
(4/1/11)- The latest estimates are that the Social Security fund can survive
intact through about 2040 and Medicare through 2029. The Social Security
Disability Insurance program (SSDI) will go under in 4 to 7 years unless the
federal government intervenes to save it.
http://www.therubins.com/socsec/solvency.htm
There are a LOT of lies being told about SS, Medicare etc. And MOST of them are coming from the GOP, who has a vested interest inlying, given their 30 year old plan to "starve the beast" and privatize them!
tom; you get paid to lie
rob gets paid to tell people i get paid to lie <giggle> where's the lie?
LMAO; failure is the ONLY Democrat option!
Tom - the problem is that you and many others don't really understand what the SSI trust fund consists of. We have been talking apples and oranges. You are correct on the estimated time the SSI trust fund will be depleted. The problem is that the trust fund consists of intragovernmental debt. The trust fund is required to purchase treasury securities with any surplus it has. It will draw on those securities when SSI outlays exceed revenues like it did in 2010. The problem comes in when you realize that the SSI and Medicare trust funds consist of government IOUs and a great many are upset already about the size of the debt As it stands now, we can not pay the benefits without increasing the national debr. BTW, the lfn link you posted is biased and can be a little misleading. The treasury direct links you have are good but to come to any type of conclusion you have to understand the data and come to your own conclusions.
when a left-wingut paid to pst says SS and Medicare will be "solid" for decades he is actually using the dates they will be totally EXHAUSTED of funds; they will have troubles and be putting out more money then they take in long before that. so if the drop-dead date is your idea of "solid" then Tom is correct
Re-post:
What war?
He and the GOV bailed them all out of bankruptcy!