USA Elections

[Chesehead]

It looks like Palin is going to run, and so far she's playing a pretty good game. She's sitting it, slightly attacking Backman, and focusing the attention on her for everyone to see how crazy she is. The media will destroy her and Palin should be more favored compared to backman if possible.

My guess now is that it's either going to be Perry or Palin. Both are sitting out the debt fight, so niether has to comment and potentiall alienate people.

[LiKaapstad]

It looks like Palin is going to run, and so far she's playing a pretty good game. She's sitting it, slightly attacking Backman, and focusing the attention on her for everyone to see how crazy she is. The media will destroy her and Palin should be more favored compared to backman if possible.

My guess now is that it's either going to be Perry or Palin. Both are sitting out the debt fight, so niether has to comment and potentiall alienate people.

Im not very enthusiastic [at all] for republican nominees...

[italianguard135]

Is Rick Perry running? i haven't really had time to pay attention?

[Lightbringer]

@Khan,

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_205465.asp

The measure includes a mandate to cut spending, a federal cap on spending as a percentage of GDP, and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

The Repubs have already passed a plan.

@Hullu, from your article...

He (Obama) said the proposal was broadly consistent with his approach on reducing debt and deficits. Obama urged congressional leaders of both parties to start discussing it.

"My hope ... is that they tomorrow are prepared to start talking turkey and actually getting down to the hard business of crafting a plan that can move this forward in time for the August 2 deadline," Obama said at a press conference.

(emphasis mine)
First off, this is a plan to have a plan, (as opposed to an already written and Congress passed piece of legislation). Secondly, it is the usual Democrat plan to tax now and promise illusory cuts later. Thirdly, this is Obama's "approach on debt and deficits"...



That being said, it will probably go through in some form, and we'll have to go back and fix it all again later. I don't mind closing the loopholes, which is a big part of it, but without setting concrete spending limits, the "Gang of Six" is just blowing more smoke up our butts.

@italianguard, not officially, but it sure looks like he is going to.

-Light

[Chesehead]

There's no reason why he should declare now. He has some networks and doesn't need to officially campain. Plus he can say he's created jobs as well. Look at how well texas is doing.

@debt stuff- Nothing new there. Obama is using it to energize his base after he passed the bush tax cuts.

[Hullu Hevonen]

Well, they plan to save 3.75tr $, ain't that gona well cover the deficit Obama made? So give him credit for fixing his own mess?

[Snowpig]

It is still not Obama who made the deficit (guess who it was...)

That's why this deficit-graph is confusing and its annotations have only one purpose: mindless Obama-bashing.

[Lightbringer]

@Snowpig,

Look again at the freaking chart. Notice what was happening right up until Pelosi/Reid took over Congress? Yeah... the deficit was shrinking again. 1.3 trillion minus the 700 billion TARP?(Edit: Almost forgot to mention... the TARP loans have been almost entirely paid back, and interest on the loans actually caused it to make a profit... and Obama is running up 1.6 Trillion ON TOP of hundreds of billions coming back into the treasury from these repayments.) 600 billion. Obama has added a Trillion + onto that number with no sign of shrinking the 1.5+ trillion deficits for the foreseeable future. Obama has been in office for most of three years. Get over your BDS, or will you still be making the same excuses 5 years from now if Obama is reelected?

Anyway, this thread isn't centered around what happened years ago. It is supposed to be about the upcoming election. I suppose if y'all have no better strategy than to run against the previous president 4 years removed then that says a lot about the accomplishments during the current term.

@Hullu,

3.75 Trillion over 10 years. 1.6 trillion - 375 billion still equals 1.2 Trillion in annual deficits. And that is IF (and I mean a big, huge, gigantic IF...) any of the spending cuts ever actually become implemented. Repeated examples of such a spending reduction plan from history indicate that they will not.

"I'll gladly cut spending Tuesday, for a Tax increase today!"



-Light

[Snowpig]

Get over your BDS...

Maybe you start with your ODS first. From that link, you missed/ignored:

"The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion," Axelrod wrote. "When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade."

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the CBO reported the deficit was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion.

lets read further on the difference of those projections (Axelrod: 8 trillion, vs. CBO: 3.1 trillion)

Why the $5 trillion difference between the White House and the CBO's projections?

Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition, said it has to do with fundamental approaches in how the two offices estimate the future. The CBO based its projections on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire in 2010 and that a patch to fix the alternative minimum tax would expire, among other things. The White House does not; instead, it assumes that nothing changes in current law.

or in short: because of some tax cuts during the Bush administration, which were not taken back after 2010 (guess because of whom...) the deficit is higher - as expected by the White House.

and just in case you don't believe that:

Tax cuts championed by congressional Republicans and that were adopted during the presidency of George W. Bush were extended in December 2010 for two years under President Barack Obama. While some economists say the tax cuts were needed to give the economy a kick, the Congressional Research Service said that the Bush tax cuts, with a 10-year price tag of $1 trillion, played a substantial role in the nation’s annual deficits.

Then there’s the recent economic downturn, which also played a role. And the nation is still engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with billions of dollars flowing out to pay for them. These began during the tenure of Bush, a Republican, and continue under Obama, a Democrat.

[Lightbringer]

@Snowpig,

I didn't miss any of that. Perhaps you would care to explain a few things. Scroll up to that chart I posted. Now take Axelrod's 8 Trillion estimate. We all know David Axelrod is the preeminent Economic Genius of our age, but we'll take his guesstimate at face value. Divide it by 10. 800 Billion you say? My! You are pretty good at this math stuff! Now... What is the average Obama deficit? Less than 800 Billion? or Double it?

The Surplus? Maybe you are 17 years old and don't remember a little thing called the Dot Com bubble? Stock market crash... recession... big fun. Oh yeah, little thing happened in New York that September too. I wonder if 9/11 would have caused the economy to boom under Gore?

As for the Bush Tax cuts... Why exactly was the deficit shrinking until Pelosi took over? Who controlled both Houses of Congress with unstoppable majorities for the first two years of Obama's term? ...and they didn't repeal the Tax cuts... Why? Even the Lame Duck session... They still had their majority, they did not repeal them. You can not have 60% majorities in both houses of Congress AND the Presidency and then blame the minority party for things you failed to do. Well, I mean I guess you CAN... but it would point to such a total lack of any logic that some might suggest being locked up in a mental ward was appropriate.

When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit

We just discussed this in above posts. 1.3 Trillion, minus the 700 Billion Tarp, equals 600 Billion. Tarp has been repaid for the most part. So We have (I'll be "conservative"), let's say, 600 Billion being pumped into the Treasury... and the Deficit is still averaging 1.5 TRILLION.

Maybe you aren't so good at this math stuff after all...

-Light

P.S. The Difference between BDS and criticizing Obama? BDS means you are blaming someone who has been out of office for most of 3 years, for the failures of someone who has been in office all that time with filibuster/veto proof majorities in both houses of congress. Criticizing Obama just means you actually look at what the current President is doing and use your brain.

[Hullu Hevonen]

Seems the Republicans and democrats are not that willing for compromises. last I heard Republicans refused tax compromising. Now it's time for 'crisis talks'. USA might default if the parties can't make compromises towards each other. A US Default could be destructive towards the world economy. So there is more at stake then just a Democrat-Republican having to show humility by making sufficient compromises.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ameri ... 24688.html

[Balthagor]

... and use your brain.

That's borderline rude, careful please.

[bergsjaeger]

I would like to be critical of Obama, just watching him on tv is entertaining. He clearly has no clue what to do. Matter fact, our great leader in the US has not even shared HIS plan that could fix the debt problem. Why hasn't he? Cause he doesn't have one and doesn't know what to do. He and his underlings can blame the GOP for being diffcult and not wanting to compromise.

But if I'm not mistaken the GOP controlled House of Reps did pass a bill to solve the debt problem, but when it got in the other house, it was voted down. Why? That house is Democrate controlled. Obama and the demos are just whining over not getting their way. They want to raise taxes and raise the debt ceiling just to keep their spending spree.

That's not the answer, I'm all for raising the ceiling, but long as there are cuts and no tax increases. And maybe next year US will get a president that can think and solve problems.

[Hullu Hevonen]

didn't Obama have his own plan, a 1-2tr cuts? I think the democrats have done the same. Republicans and Democrats don't get along in the sandbox. Finland was ca 2 months without a gov because of our 3 main parties, no one could get along and find common ground. Then someone started talking about a responsibility to the people, after that the 2 largest + a munch of smaller parties made significant compromises and went into a coalition(lets see if it holds, I it will though). Our greatest economic problems are our own dept problem and the euro crisis in which they managed rather easily to compromise in when they where motivated to want to compromise.

Maybe one or two of your depts should default, or something serious should happine so that your gov will get the gravity of the situation and make the necessary things to try to fix this, right now both parties play the blame game instead of fixing problems. Your inability to fix your own problem could effect me hard, since I am an employe in a that is tied to a western economy largely run by US and the US economy is tide to the rest of the world, so a US crisis could render me unemployed and unable to get reemployed. The responsibility to the people that I was talking about is that the US gov have a responibility to it's people to see to that they don't intentionally harm or put their own people in danger. This would happine if this leads to something bad.

[bergsjaeger]

It's a game of who will blink first. But no, Obama DIDN'T share a plan nor has one. He's clueless. The GOP plan would work, though the demos want to be seen as the heros(because of the presidental election next year and Congress elections.) Although the demos are dim wits.