1
   

Why Democrats should not be re-elected to congress and why we can't afford an Obama Presidency.

 
 
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 01:30 pm
Quote:
The Spending Explosion
September 10, 2008; Page A14
Here's a prediction: The media will report today that the federal budget deficit is big and getting bigger. What most of them won't report, alas, is that the cause of these deficits is an explosion in federal spending. The era of big government is back, bigger than ever.

The real news in yesterday's Congressional Budget Office semiannual report is that federal expenditures on everything from roads to homeland security to health care will on present trends reach 21.5% of GDP next year. That's a larger share of national output than at anytime since 1992. If the cost of the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prove to be large and are taken into account, next year federal outlays could be higher as a share of the economy than at anytime since World War II. In this decade alone, federal spending has increased by almost $1.2 trillion, or 57%.

The federal deficit is expected to hit $407 billion for fiscal 2008 (which ends at the end of this month) and $438 billion next year. Still, the deficit is expected to be only 3% of GDP, which is in line with the average of the last 30 years. We hope Congress and the Presidential candidates don't obsess over the deficit per se, because the real fiscal drag from government comes from how much it spends, not how much it borrows.

The Bush tax cuts also aren't the budget problem. Until this year federal tax collections have been surging. In the four years after the 2003 tax cuts become law, tax receipts exploded by $785 billion. This year revenues have declined by 0.8%, but a major reason is the $150 billion bipartisan tax rebate that has hit the Treasury without spurring the economy. Without these nonstimulating rebates, federal tax payments would have climbed another 2.5%, according to CBO. Revenue is expected to be a healthy 18.5% of GDP next year without any tax increase.

Another myth is that the war on terror has busted the budget. While operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are expensive, defense spending is $605 billion this year, or about 4.5% of GDP. That only seems large by comparison to the holiday from history of the 1990s, when defense fell to 3% of GDP. As recently as 1986, defense spending was 6.2% of GDP.

The real runaway train is what CBO calls a "substantial increase in spending" that is "on an unsustainable path." That's for sure. The nearby chart shows how much some federal accounts have expanded since 2001, and in inflation-adjusted dollars. This year alone, federal agencies have lifted their spending by 8.1%, with another 7% raise expected for 2009. There's certainly no recession in Washington. The CBO says that, merely in the two years that Democrats have run Congress, federal expenditures are up $429 billion -- to $3.158 trillion.

The fiscal blowouts have included a record farm bill, notwithstanding record farm income; an aid bill for distressed homeowners, extended unemployment benefits, and more generous veterans benefits. Next up: votes on $50 billion for Detroit auto firms, an $80 billion energy bill, as much as $50 billion for spending masked as a "second stimulus," plus $100 billion or more for the Fannie and Freddie rescue. Rather than sort through priorities, Congress is spending more on just about everything.

Meanwhile, remember that "pay as you go" spending promise that Speaker Nancy Pelosi made in 2006? We called it a ruse at the time, and the last two years have proved it. Senator Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) has tallied up at least $398 billion in "paygo" violations so far. Earmarks were also supposed to be cut in half by this Congress. In 2008 there were some 11,000 at a cost of $17 billion, the second most ever, and far more than half the peak of 14,000 in 2006.

The point to keep in mind is that this big spending blitz is coming even before a new President and Congress arrive next year with far more spending promises in tow. As they contemplate their choice for President, voters might want to consider which of the candidates is likely to be a check on Congressional appetites, rather than a facilitator.


This is what happens when Democrats get in power. They spend, spend, spend because they know it's the only chance they have of getting re-elected. This is why we can not afford an Obama Presidency. McCain will veto earmarked bills and bring congressional spending under control.
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 01:40 pm
@McGentrix,


Nice work!!

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 01:53 pm
@McGentrix,
Spending into oblivion will be one facet of it, there will be a couple of others, like having Rezko in charge of HUD, Ayres as AG, Jeremiah Wright as Minister of Religion, and generally a situation akin to having Tammany Hall running the country.
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 02:21 pm
@gungasnake,
and just for a minute this seemed like a sensible thread, whether i agreed with it or not.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 02:55 pm
@McGentrix,
The Wall Street Journal wrote:
The Bush tax cuts also aren't the budget problem. Until this year federal tax collections have been surging. In the four years after the 2003 tax cuts become law, tax receipts exploded by $785 billion. This year revenues have declined by 0.8%, but a major reason is the $150 billion bipartisan tax rebate that has hit the Treasury without spurring the economy. Without these nonstimulating rebates, federal tax payments would have climbed another 2.5%, according to CBO. Revenue is expected to be a healthy 18.5% of GDP next year without any tax increase.

This is just jaw-droppingly stupid.

Apparently, giving away thousands in tax cuts over five years isn't a big deal, but giving away a comparatively paltry $600 to each taxpayer in 2008 is somehow the real budget-buster. Honestly, one has to wonder what parallel universe the editors of the WSJ are inhabiting.

McGentrix wrote:
This is what happens when Democrats get in power. They spend, spend, spend because they know it's the only chance they have of getting re-elected. This is why we can not afford an Obama Presidency. McCain will veto earmarked bills and bring congressional spending under control.

And another jaw drops.
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 02:59 pm
@joefromchicago,
jaw-droppingly stupid because you didn't understand it or becasue you don't believe it?
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 03:16 pm
@joefromchicago,
The only promised CHANGE Obama plans to deliver on will be the small amount he allows you to keep in your pocket.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 03:25 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

jaw-droppingly stupid because you didn't understand it or becasue you don't believe it?

Jaw-droppingly stupid because it's jaw-droppingly stupid. Try to keep up.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 03:54 pm
@McGentrix,
Once again the WSJ uses selective numbers to make a flimsy case.

Percentage growth of budget from previous year
2001-2002 ... 7.3595226
2002-2003 ... 6.8981481
2003-2004 ... 5.8002617
2004-2005 ... 7.2411003
2005-2006 ... 6.8926554
2006-2007 ... 2.7472527
2007-2008 ... 6.8577277
2008-2009 ... 5.6646283 (estimate)
(based on total outlays in table 1.1 of http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf)
Democrats took control in Jan of 2007 when the 2007 budget had already been passed.
The only budgets you can lay at the feet of the Dems are the 2008 and 2009 ones. Now, anyone can compare the increase from year to year in the budget.

8 years of budgets and the growth each year. It looks like the Democratic budget is NOT the largest increase. It isn't the second or third largest increase. The Democratic congress budget increase is 4th and 7th out of 8 years.

To say the Democrats will cause larger increases in budget is silly based on the actual numbers. The GOP has shown they can grow the budget faster than the Dems did.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 03:56 pm
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AR611_BUDGET_20080728183631.gif
If Democrats are to blame, then why have there been deficits throughout Bush's administration? (I'll head-off the obvious argument about the 2008 deficit, and point out that the 2008 economic stimulus package totaled $152 billion.)

Why would John McCain say, "There is no more striking reminder of the need to reverse the profligate spending that has characterized this administration's fiscal policy"?

You precious president is to blame here, not Democrats.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 04:12 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:


If Democrats are to blame, then why have there been deficits throughout Bush's administration?


We are a country at war fighting a new and evolving challenge.
It takes leadership, money and American heros to adapt and
overcome these ever changing challenges our enemies throw at us.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 07:32 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix quoting the WSJ wrote:

Another myth is that the war on terror has busted the budget. While operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are expensive, defense spending is $605 billion this year, or about 4.5% of GDP. That only seems large by comparison to the holiday from history of the 1990s, when defense fell to 3% of GDP. As recently as 1986, defense spending was 6.2% of GDP.


Dollars to donuts this figure does not include supplemental Iraq spending.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 07:54 am
Excuse me, but did George Bush sign those budgets or did he not? Yet I don't seem to hear you chastisizing him in this loop.

H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 08:00 am
@kuvasz,
Has GW vetoed anything?

Yes, he signed those budgets because it was the only way he could get continued support for the global war on terror.

The Democrats abused Bush and all Americans with their divisive tactics. Re-elect none of them.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 08:22 am
@H2O MAN,
If it takes money and heros, why aren't you stepping up to the plate and offering to pay more in taxes?

Or is it just everyone else that needs to be a hero?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 08:23 am
@H2O MAN,
Really? The democrats are to blame for ONE budget that was LOWER than most of those passed by the GOP?

What part of reality do you ever visit?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 12:55 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Honestly, one has to wonder what parallel universe the editors of the WSJ are inhabiting.


murdoch world. it's located at the bottom of the world's largest rabbit hole.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 12:58 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Yes, he signed those budgets because it was the only way he could get continued support for the global war on terror.


but you were just saying that it's all the democrats fault..

which one is it?
H2O MAN
 
  3  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 01:11 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
GW did what needed to be done despite the divisive democrats.

The combination of the current liberal congress and super radical obama will bankrupt this country.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 01:27 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

GW did what needed to be done ...


excuses, excuses.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why Democrats should not be re-elected to congress and why we can't afford an Obama Presidency.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/15/2019 at 10:01:25