Start with a $500b budget deficit.
Add an extra $1t in yearly spending.
Add a $1t healthcare plan
Add a $1t bailout bill.
Add an $800b porkulous bill

And what do you get?
a $250b budget deficit. W00t!

3/24/2009 9:27:33 AM

ibtl first

3/24/2009 9:42:50 AM

wheee balanced budget!

3/24/2009 10:01:50 AM

Actually, as I understand the Obama "cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term" talking point, he is using 2009 as the baseline. And if you compare White House and CBO projections for 2009 and projections for 2012 that actually isn't far off.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/deficit.jpg
(graphic from Washington post, too big to post, click to view)

Of course, even if that is the case (and I'm not sure that it is) Obama will still be spending more than Bush every thought about. And deficit will only GROW after 2012 according to the CBO (remember when Democrats used to believe the CBO estimates over White House estimates too).

[Edited on March 24, 2009 at 10:12 AM. Reason : ``]

3/24/2009 10:07:56 AM

Quote :

"And what do you get? a $250b budget deficit. W00t!"

take your partisan hackness elsewhere

3/24/2009 12:22:15 PM

Oh come on, how can any fair minded person support his spending

3/25/2009 1:40:27 AM

He actually said last night that he is moving us away from a borrow and spend to a invest and save mentality last night.

Seriously? He is doubling the national debt in 10yrs, and thats without healthcare, and he is MOVING us away from borrow and spend? WTF


“moving from an era of borrow-and-spend to one where we save and invest.”

3/25/2009 9:21:31 AM

I get that Obama managed to use a minor bit of deception in regards to cutting the deficit in half (because when I hear that I think "from current levels" as in "what levels were when he took office"), but I still think this is a ricockulously risky gamble to add all this government spending.

Sure, the taxes aren't being raised now, but they certainly will be to account for the frighteningly expanded role the government seems to want to take in our lives. Can't just get this shit for free forever.

3/25/2009 10:09:42 AM

I'm frightened. that's for sure.
I mean, jesus..... can you imagine all these people working $7/hour jobs having access to decent healthcare for their families? Goddamn.... that's a scary thought

3/25/2009 10:40:41 AM

^Was that sarcasm or are you saying that those people will likely go to the ER for the sniffles?

3/25/2009 11:02:25 AM

Quote :

"will likely go to the ER for the sniffles?"

lol

3/25/2009 11:11:02 AM

You guys are the worst fucking trolls.

He signed off on a lot of pork and has not tried to properly find funding for all this massively increased spending he is proposing. That is frightening and the massive increase in debt is going to kick our children in the nuts and the massive increase in unfunded liabilities is going to kick us in the nuts when taxes go up.

Of course, he doesn't want to increase taxes in a recession to pay for his increased government spending, but he doesn't want to wait for a more appropriate time to start a government health program. So now he's going to just print money to allow this plan to take shape and end up nearly doubling the national debt in ten years?

Forgive me for being worried when our government spends money irresponsibly and endangers our stability by maintaining financially insolvent deficit levels.

The conditions for the working poor also haven't changed in decades. Overlooking the real risk of fucking over our currency and economic stability by printing trillions in fiat money for the sake of the working poor is a really goddamn terrible idea. It'd be great if we all had access to the best doctors and could get lifesaving surgery without worrying about how we'll pay for it, but that's not the way the world works right now. If Barack had done the more sensible thing and waited until the recession started to turn around (which so many people seem to think will happen in his first term) and then raised taxes and started up a healthcare plan, then I would be less bothered by the issue.

3/25/2009 11:11:02 AM

I just don't understand why the government spending billions on a war that doesn't effect the average American was ok, but spending it to create affordable healthcare and education for our children is not.

3/25/2009 11:15:07 AM

^I'd guess that the same people that have a problem with health care and education spending had a problem with war and bailout spending.

Either that or it's become the straw that broke the camels back/where does it end issue.

3/25/2009 11:23:55 AM

Quote :

"I just don't understand why the government spending billions on a war that doesn't effect the average American was ok, but spending it to create affordable healthcare and education for our children is not. "

Because we do not get the benefit of putting a friendly gov't regime into the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve nor get to give our buddies in halliburton no-bid contracts for profiting off the war for the later DUH!!

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 11:35 AM. Reason : 1]

3/25/2009 11:35:16 AM

^^Take a look at these "conservative spenders" and think about what they were saying from 2002-2008 about war spending.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 11:42 AM. Reason : sp]

3/25/2009 11:42:29 AM

Quote :

"Oh come on, how can any fair minded person support his spending"

because this is an event that would have transpired no matter which candidate got in office. recall the other guy who suspended his entire campaign to get a bailout passed?

Quote :

"Forgive me for being worried when our government spends money irresponsibly and endangers our stability by maintaining financially insolvent deficit levels."

Were you equally as worried and vociferous in your opinion over the past 8 years when the residing president had an R beside his name?

3/25/2009 12:08:29 PM

bdmazur

Well, there are plenty of reasons a person might have supported war spending but oppose social spending like health care.

For example, the war was initially billed as a response to a dangerous threat. One can easily and consistently agree with using federal funds in self-defense but not in "spreading the wealth". And at the time, even the most liberal Democrats (such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton) supported the invasion. And once we invaded, even more people supported the war. For example, even though Obama opposed going to war to begin with, he supported continuing our presence there in 2004 (he actually didn't start calling for immediate or even phased withdrawals until about 2006). So maybe the consistency problem isn't as big as you think? *

Plus, don't forget that some people actually think that most government health programs will do more harm than good. Believe it or not, opponents of government led health care may not just like seeing poor people be sick. There may actually have legit concerns about how various schemes will impact the quality of health care received by everyone. Even poor people!! OMG! BLEEDING HEART REPUBLICANS!!!

And let's not forget the fact that debt accumulates over time, and as the burden of servicing that debt grows, a person could easily support increased spending in one period but not support increasing spending in another period. If you want to find someone being inconsistant, check out Paul Krugman. In 2003, he worried that the US would accumulate so much debt between tax cuts and the war in Iraq (when forecasts for war spending were actually much lower than they turned out to be) that it would actually threaten US fiscal solvency!
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/031103.html

Yet, now that a new political party is in power, Krugman seems to not worry at all about the debt (or at least not enough to oppose new spending plans). I wonndderrr whhhy.

But you're probably right. Anyone that opposes Obama's rapid spending plans are probably just evil Republicans that would rather spend money on bombing people than helping them. THOSE DAMN REPUBLICANS!!!!

*note: I personally opposed the war in Iraq since 2003 (as could probably be documented on Tee-dubb if posts from back then were available), but I could understand and respect why some people disagreed. I also oppose most of Obama's current spending proposals. Just in case you were wondering.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 12:28 PM. Reason : ``]

3/25/2009 12:23:10 PM

Quote :

"There are actually legit concerns about how various schemes will impact the quality of care."

True, there are some bad things that could happen if socialized health care is put in the wrong hands. However, shouldn't the people with those concerns be working to find a workable solution as opposed to shooting down any thought of it?

No child should have to suffer because their parents don't have money. Free education and health care are a must for the future of our country.

3/25/2009 12:33:51 PM

^^^ Yes, MAKE THIS ABOUT PARTY POLITICS.

I voted libertarian in '04 and would've done the same in '08 were I not getting a project out the door.

Just because a person doesn't agree with a government politician doesn't mean that they instantly agree with the actions and views of the other party. It's great that you fuckers jump to this conclusion immediately, and I hope you all die in a fire because of it.

Now, to answer your question, no, I didn't like it. I thought it was great, we have a republican in office, maybe now there will be a tax break and they'll cut back on the size of the government. But no, that all died once 9/11 hit, and I couldn't figure out for the life of me why the fuck he thought untax and spend was a remotely intelligent thing to do. Barack is still only marginally better on taxation views and much worse as far as his spending habits are going thus far. He's also saying shit like this:

Quote :

"The best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest."

It's great to say that, but his words don't line up with his budget, unless of course he means only for the public to save and invest. I mean, seriously, what is so god damn hard to understand about not spending more than you have? Every time the government seems to enact some sort of expensive legislation or does something in the name of the economy they don't seem to put forward any plan for paying off that debt. There's only mention of cutting the deficits down in the future (with the zero point being well after the main politicians behind the spending will be out of office) and it's painfully obvious that the politicians on both sides are sorry fucks whose promise to cut back on the deficit is bullshit and constantly undermined by the work of still more politicians who enact even more legislation that leads to even more unfunded liabilities.

This is becoming more and more unsustainable. Sure, we can manage to spend as much money as we want as long as other countries will buy up our debt and effectively invest in our economic stability, but even now our future competing superpower friends (read: China) are questioning the dollar's stability and calling for a new "super currency" for nations to be able to invest in. If China manages to pull off a shift in investment like that from the US dollar (which adjusts in value fairly freely in global markets) to the Chinese yuan (which is stabilized in value by the government) we won't be able to spend like this any more.

^ What, you mean like you and me have to come up with ideas or do you mean the republicans in congress (and the one or two democratic detractors if they're out there)? Congress is polarized on certain issues and I think it's safe to say healthcare is one of them. Most republicans would sooner fuck a goat than work to create a compromise healthcare bill that would increase government spending. Another point is that the democrats have so much power that they don't really need to worry about listening to these concerns and can create the plan as they see fit, as long as they can get their side to agree to it.

It's also true that children shouldn't suffer because their parents can't/won't pay for their healthcare/health insurance. The fact that hundreds of billions of dollars are in the budget for a healthcare plan whose details are not readily available worries me. How exactly are they planning to do this free healthcare for all business? What is the cost estimated to be for the government to provide health insurance to each man, woman, and child? How does this compare to market rates? Would it be cheaper to create a voucher program that gives the working poor access to very affordable health insurance instead of creating a government health insurance program for the poor? I'm seeing ideology without a lot of planning or thought here. I understand he's more or less just setting aside the money in his first hundred days because, otherwise, he may never get congress to stomach the idea again, but this may prove to be a woefully inefficient and expensive insurance plan that costs more per person (cost to insure) than a private health insurance plan.

3/25/2009 12:55:43 PM

Quote :

"I just don't understand why the government spending billions on a war that doesn't effect the average American was ok, but spending it to create affordable healthcare and education for our children is not."

Because the first case isn't okay either?

Whee false dichotomies!

3/25/2009 2:23:09 PM

Quote :

"Free education and health care are a must for the future of our country."

ANd there is your problem america. What a profoundly idiotic statement.


Anyway, why not let the states do thier own healthcare plans, see what works and what doesnt instead of a bunch of lawyers and teacher determing what we all will have to live with. The good thing about a free market approach is that it gives people choices and puts pressure on health care providers to provide good service and keep costs low. If you dont like your provider, choose to go elsewhere. Instead it will limit choices and options and bring the quality of care down im afraid. I dont know many people who want VA quality healthcare as the standard. (though most are very happy with the cost)

3/25/2009 3:31:10 PM

by any measure, this is an extraordinary amount of spending. it is cause for concern.

in a Keynesian sense, it is expected to stave off depression. the cost is that of inflation-accompanied growth. inflation hurts when the means of production are impaired. as long as policies don't hurt means of production, we'll be mostly ok. In other words, lets hope the policies don't get too 'anti-supply side'.

3/25/2009 3:34:50 PM

Quote :

" Anyway, why not let the states do thier own healthcare plans, see what works and what doesnt instead of a bunch of lawyers and teacher determing what we all will have to live with. The good thing about a free market approach is that it gives people choices and puts pressure on health care providers to provide good service and keep costs low. If you dont like your provider, choose to go elsewhere. Instead it will limit choices and options and bring the quality of care down im afraid. I dont know many people who want VA quality healthcare as the standard. (though most are very happy with the cost)"

So state-sponsored healthcare plans or free market? If the states are running the show, what choice does a person who lives in NC have? They have to move to a different state? If they're in the situation where they don't have the resources to get health insurance under the current system, how in the hell are they going to afford to move?

The same problem with total free market. There are many people whom have NO health coverage and not by choice. If you let market forces control everything, what motivation do the corporations have to offer any coverage to those that can't afford it? What's the solution? Fuck the poor?

Helping the poor get healthcare and education is an investment in the future of this country. The less poor, uneducated, and sick people we have the more productive and powerful we will become. It is worth it to help our poor people out.

3/25/2009 4:42:08 PM

Quote :

"ANd there is your problem america. What a profoundly idiotic statement"

Educational funding is one of the few areas i do not mind paying taxes and the gov't using tax payer money to fund.

A more educated society is better for everyone. The educational level of the median of our population is a fucking joke right now compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

Quote :

"Helping the poor get healthcare"

You may have your reasons for supporting healthcare for the poor but as an investment of the future this is a very bad one.

With an educated population you will have productive citizens that can afford to provide their own. Not the reverse. Helping the poor does not necssarily make them productive or our society better.

A guy I know received a pretty hefty size estate that he inherited from the passing of his father (i'm guessing near $half million). Did he use this money to finish his degree or transfer to a more accredited school? Did he invest this money for the future as he continued working? Did he decide to spend this money to start his own business or as some other kind of capital investment to provide income?

NO he dropped out of the local community college he was at. Decided that he does not feel like working. Currently wakes up between 12pm and 2pm. Smokes pot and plays World of Warcraft all day; and occasionally leaves the house to eat taco bell or smoke pot at his friends house. What does he have to worry about; much like a person living off the gov't he has money to pay for food, housing, and healthcare. Thus he has no reason to work and can use the rest of his money for vice.

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 5:15 PM. Reason : a]

3/25/2009 5:06:06 PM

what level do you cut education funding that it becomes "fair" but doesn't grow out of control

[Edited on March 25, 2009 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/25/2009 5:13:35 PM

Quote :

"I mean, jesus..... can you imagine all these people working $7/hour jobs having access to decent healthcare for their families? Goddamn.... that's a scary thought"

Look, there is no rational person (republican or otherwise) who thinks that everyone in the country having low-cost/free, quality health care would be a bad thing......the difference between republicans and democrats is simply that one realizes that nothing is free and worries about how we're going to pay for it, and the other doesn't care.

3/25/2009 6:36:32 PM

nothing is free or should be. Everyone should pay something for thier care. Healthcare and education are important but to say they are free makes you seem like an idiot.

I think our healthcare system needs more accountablity... and that goes for patients as well as healthcare providers/insurance comps. If something is "free" its bound to be abused, not appreciated, expected, then devalued. I think that is exactly where we are. People think its vitally important, yet dont want to pay anything out of their own pocket for it. I see it every single day fellas. I didnt used to be so bitter about the population in general, but my first wake up call was working a downtown clinic in memphis.

3/25/2009 6:59:22 PM

Quote :

"Take a look at these "conservative spenders" and think about what they were saying from 2002-2008 about war spending."

give me a fucking break. the war, over 6 years, has still cost less than a trillion dollars. Obama's healthcare plan would cost a trillion EVERY YEAR. the numbers simply aren't the same

3/26/2009 8:54:37 AM

Quote :

"give me a fucking break. the war, over 6 years, has still cost less than a trillion dollars. Obama's healthcare plan would cost a trillion EVERY YEAR. the numbers simply aren't the same"

If you're going to use this logic, then you simply can't be upset by earmarks and pork. Every little slice of pork numbers don't compare to larger pieces of stimulus and budget pie.

At least the trillion spent here will be an attempt to better Americans at home, not money spent blowing up brown people over some WMDs that didn't exist.

3/26/2009 8:57:48 AM

HUR,

I'm sorry an anecdote about one guy has made you a cynic about humanity. For every loser that abuses the system there is bound to be someone who makes something of it.

Additionally, look at your friend. He's buying computer parts, paying subscription fees, supporting his local taco bell franchisee. And it's the government's fault that they're not making money off of his pot consumption. Even though he doesn't have a job, he's spending money, which is exactly what we need people to do to help the market out.

Your yardstick for societal usefulness ("finishing his degree or transfer to a more accredited school" "invest his money" "start his own business" "capital investment") is slightly flawed. Our system needs bottom dwellers, janitors, fry cooks, maids, and even affluent lazy bastards just spending money. What we don't need are people dying or spreading disease because they couldn't afford health coverage.

3/26/2009 9:17:24 AM

Quote :

"Obama's healthcare plan would cost a trillion EVERY YEAR. the numbers simply aren't the same"

Uh, do what now?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031800203.html

Quote :

"Health policy experts say guaranteeing coverage for all Americans may cost about $1.5 trillion over the next decade. "

Even fox says you're wrong by 1000%.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/26/obama-budget/

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 9:18:50 AM

I don't disagree with you on the part about blowing up brown people. I have, surprisingly, had reservations about Iraq from the start, and I would have preferred we not have gone in in the first place.

And yes, earmarks are a drop in the bucket. That's why you won't see me bitch about earmarks alone.

But, it is ABSURD to complain about 12b a month as "wasteful spending" when your candidate is proposing ten times that for something else. Moreover, it's debatable whether or not the proposed healthcare spending will make things better for people at home. Believe it or not, Obama's proposal could actually make things worse.

3/26/2009 9:19:41 AM

I don't believe it.

3/26/2009 9:21:33 AM

that's fine. I have history to back me up

3/26/2009 9:31:52 AM

Haha what history? Reagan spent us out of a recession and so did FDR.

3/26/2009 9:42:21 AM

We spend almost 700B a YEAR on medicare and medicaid. So "poor" people and people over 65.

Do the math. So you somehow feel we are going to inclulde the EVERYONE, including the bulk of the population not on govt insurance, for 150B a year? come on.

3/26/2009 9:44:37 AM

I think DirtyGreek calling Iraq "wasteful spending" is justified even if Obama spends 1T a day on something else. What have we gotten out of Iraq? If they spent 1 dollar on it it would be wasteful IMO.

3/26/2009 9:50:38 AM

Quote :

"that's fine. I have history to back me up"

You have history to back you up on the fact that you're throwing numbers around that are completely off the charts as far as the predictions? I see absolutely nowhere that predicts healthcare reform will cost a trillion a year.

3/26/2009 10:41:19 AM

^^

That would be oil, btw. We've also got a more friendly regime than Saddam's in place.

As to whether or not we'll ever get our money's worth out of the war? Well... I suppose if we have managed to dramatically improve the quality of life of their residents by forcing a regime change to democracy, and there's a lot of studies that manage to lend support to that theory, then maybe we could say that at least it turned out well.

I saw a video the other day that said Iraqis are buying new cars with cash since things have stabilized, so that's something. Haha...

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason : ]

3/26/2009 11:03:05 AM

Quote :

" suppose if we have managed to dramatically improve the quality of life of their residents by forcing a regime change to democracy"

George Dubya and Dich Cheney couldn't have said it better themselves.

Did you take this off the RNC website

3/26/2009 12:13:47 PM

I'm saying when the future looks back on it in 30 years and can see how the full situation panned out.

It's nice to see that you're a troll though.

3/26/2009 1:31:50 PM