Looks like Obama is going to reign in the budget. Something republicans were unwilling to do. Even though the spending seems out of control now it is only temporary in my opinion. He will create surpluses just like Clinton did.

Is the gravity lighter or heavier on that tiny world of yours?

Kinda explains that Geinther pick.

Backing it is one thing.

Accomplishing it is another.

yea after he past the largest spending bill ever. what a loser.

more change we can believe in

steady as we go --- dave matthews

I'll walk halfway around the world
Just to sit down by your side
And I would do most anything, girl
To be the apple of your eye
Well troubles, they may come and go
But good times, they're the gold
And if the road gets rocky, girl
Just steady as we go

Smoke and Mirrors. He's going to cut the 2009 deficit in half which has massive spending and is 4 times that of the 2008 deficit. It should be easy to cut the deficit in half but it will still be higher than past deficits.

I'm also going to max out my credit card before I make the statement that I will cut it in half in 4 years.

The only difference is that Obama is creating the massive deficit spending but the tax payer is the one cutting the deficit in half.

Looks like Obama is going to reign in the budget. Something republicans were unwilling to do. Even though the spending seems out of control now it is only temporary in my opinion. He will create surpluses just like Clinton did.

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I don't really care about what he actually does...look at the great things he's SAYING!

#1 | Posted by rastaninja

All he has to do to cut spending in half is quit giving trillions to big business. That is a simple one to figure out.

this would leave Republicans with NO issues.

but it would leave many of our destitute and unemployed, those betrayed by the conspiracy between Government and Corporate America to give everything to a few in the name of Jesus, in soup lines. Every bullet and bomb in Iraq was a waste. Without Wilson, Afghanistanmnay be the same. Obama's redirection of spending to domestic problems is a good thing.

The DR reactions were utterly predictable. : )

I've said it before; I'll say it again: Only time will tell.

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I don't really care about what he actually does...look at the great things he's SAYING!

#8 | Posted by IraqiBukkake
* * * *

Exactly. The Obama Faithful are hysterical. A month ago they were parroting his lines that outrageous deficit spending was responsible. Now he gives another speech, and they flip again.

Retards.

RIR is back with concise, rational, non-personally directed analysis.

But hell, why am I picking on him? Lots of the lefties on this list can't comment without being rude or insulting either. *sigh*

Exactly. The Obama Faithful are hysterical. A month ago they were parroting his lines that outrageous deficit spending was responsible. Now he gives another speech, and they flip again.

Retards.

#12 | Posted by rightisright

Do you really see no difference between the short-term spending for stimulus and the longer-term pay as you go philosophy for govt programs? You righties have such limited attention spans, and you seem to always need to reduce everything to an over-simplified form. They are separate issues, and I'm sorry that your limitations prevent you from understanding what is being proposed.

Do you really see no difference between the short-term spending for stimulus and the longer-term pay as you go philosophy for govt programs?

Posted by midiman

No. We choose not to.

Sincerely,

The Right

I wonder how this will be implemented. In the past, didn't Congress always find some way around the requirements?

If it is implemented in such a way that congress isn't just allowed to dance around it and get their over spending through, Obama may just squeeze a vote out of me in '12. But I have a hard time attributing anything resembling fiscal discipline to Obama.

Do you really see no difference between the short-term spending for stimulus and the longer-term pay as you go philosophy for govt programs? You righties have such limited attention spans, and you seem to always need to reduce everything to an over-simplified form. They are separate issues, and I'm sorry that your limitations prevent you from understanding what is being proposed.

Exactly, it's different spending. Like when the War on Terror was excluded from the budget. It didn't count...it was different spending. When people complain about the cost of the war in Iraq, they are oversimplifying things.

When you have no money, you have no money.

And one place where I got mad at Obama was when he continued the "emergency spending" categorizing for the Iraq War funding. "Next time, we'll make it part of the budget." Oh, come on. Gr.

Do you really see no difference between the short-term spending for stimulus and the longer-term pay as you go philosophy for govt programs?
* * * *

70% of the stimulus spending won't even begin to kick in until the second half of 2010; it won't be fully in the mix until 2012. If that's your definition of short-term, what we have here is a failure to use a common language.

But feel free to keep banging on us small-government knuckle-dragging types. Hedge fund managers in Connecticut are waiting for another round of bailout cash, and need you distracted until it comes.

70% of the stimulus spending won't even begin to kick in until the second half of 2010; it won't be fully in the mix until 2012. If that's your definition of short-term, what we have here is a failure to use a common language.

#19 | Posted by rightisright

Ok, of course you DO know that "statistic" comes from an outdated, and selectively quoted CBO report, right?

That portion of the CBO report ONLY factored in discretionary spending, leaving out the more immediate impact of the tax cuts and jobless benefits in the package. The report was also based on a previous version of the stimulus package, and not the one that ultimately passed.

#19
Keep whining.

Hedge fund managers in Connecticut are waiting for another round of bailout cash, and need you distracted until it comes.

Swine flu, swine flu, LOOK OVER HERE! SWINE FLU, SWINE FLU!!!

Obama is in favor of EVERYTHING, even competing ideas. On the one hand he is spending more money that we don't have than all the rest of the presidents in history and on the other hand he is in favor of pay-as-you-go. He is completely nuts and so are his supporters.

#23 | Posted by fwthom

I think Midiman pretty much covered that back in #14.

"When you have no money, you have no money."

Don't the banks have "Free Checking" where you live?

I am going to say this, knowing full well I could get yelled at by right and left alike:

Too. Fucking. Late.

The Christ image is awful. And it won't work until he dies.

Hey, Reason, I won't yell at you. I'm on the left, and I agree. Well, sort of. He should have started this before. But Congress is to blame, too--probably more so than this president. Maybe if the sides didn't spend all their time posturing, they could fucking talk and get something really good done for the country. The party-line voting on the stimulus shows me that they're all assholes.

I like the idea that he's about short-term spending/long-term accountability. The _idea_. We'll see if it pans out. I would submit to the critics, however, that this is exactly who he said he was all throughout the campaign. It's... bigger... than I expected, but the line about having to invest and yet seek long-term fiscal responsibility is just what I remember him saying. Certainly in the end run.

***"Obama's redirection of spending to domestic problems is a good thing."***

There is no "redirection" of spending, there is creation of funds to be spend on God knows what.

Post #27
I agree whole heartedly

About this short term stimulus/long term fiscal responsibility thing. Where is the cutoff between short and long term? The projections I've seen show Obama's plans will add $9-$10 trillion to the debt over ten years. If there are new figures out that I have missed, please let me know. Is he going to spend like a drunken sailor for eight years and then turn off the money fountain as he leaves? And let me get this straight; cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term? So if in his first year in office he runs a $1.9 trillion deficit, and in his last year he runs a $955 trillion deficit, we should all cheer? It's still nearly a trillion $ per year added to the debt. I just don't see the talk and the #'s adding up.

And once again the right bitches, whines, conveniently omits to take responsibility for the mess and offers no solutions. You guys strike a fine balance between being pathetic and hilarious.

I challenge you all to provide one alternative idea to what obama is doing (to fix the mess you created). Just one...and letting it all fall apart is not an option.

Pay as you Go --- Where have I heard that before?

Oh Yeah, that's right ---- I heard of that that just before Bush and his Rubber Stamps did away with it in favor of "tax cuts" for the wealthiest 1% that turned a 5.6 trillion surplus into a 2 trillion deficit!

And once again the right bitches, whines, conveniently omits to take responsibility for the mess and offers no solutions. You guys strike a fine balance between being pathetic and hilarious.

I challenge you all to provide one alternative idea to what obama is doing (to fix the mess you created). Just one...and letting it all fall apart is not an option.

Why is holding those responsible and forcing them to declare bankruptcy the only solution that is not responsible? Not to mention, that is exactly what is happening to the auto industry AFTER we cut them giant checks for nothing.

Now I pose a question back to you... Why is saving the inept at the expense of the responsible, responsible?

and we just THOUGHT other things this pompous liar has said before were bullshit.
surely he has to practice with his teleprompter to say this with a straight face.

Why is saving the inept at the expense of the responsible, responsible?

#32 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-04-27 02:04 PM | Reply |

When the cost is tanking your economy (and several other countries' economies as well), unfortunately, you really don't have a choice. The value of the greenback would have imploded, with every creditor making a run for their money in a short period of time...you're economy would have been completely annihilated. Change the idiots responsible for the mess (bush is gone, now replace the business leaders responsible or the parameters they are governed with) and support till they can walk again. Then make bloody sure the safeguards are in place to avoid a repeat in 20 years. What you are seeing is the result of ultra liberal capitalist approach, letting businesses regulate themselves...this is a perfect example of extreme capitalism...it can't survive without being on a leash.

I challenge you all to provide one alternative idea to what obama is doing (to fix the mess you created). Just one...and letting it all fall apart is not an option.
* * * *

Umm . . . "letting it all fall apart is not an option"; it's a reality. Forgive me for being too dull to understand how giving the same retards who managed to lose $1 trillion, three trillion more, is a good alternative.

Whatever though. Obama has bought into this too-big-to-fail nonsense, when, by definition, Citigroup was NOT too big to fail. They failed. Could it be, POSSIBLY, that they were actually too big to succeed? And Obamaboy and Tax Dodgin' Timmy trying to bulk them up again is stupid?

Nah. Can't be. He won the election! This is what we all want! LMAO. The libbies are now the party of Wall Street and hedge funds. How amusing. Amazing what a little campaign cash does, eh?

Then make bloody sure the safeguards are in place to avoid a repeat in 20 years. What you are seeing is the result of ultra liberal capitalist approach, letting businesses regulate themselves...this is a perfect example of extreme capitalism...it can't survive without being on a leash.

The bailout was bought and paid for years ago. Our congress is for sale. It was then and it is now.

There are no "safeguards" that will be implemented.

The lobbyists and congress will just appear to "fix" it and then move the goalposts for the next legislation to be paid for.

#35 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-04-27 03:03 PM |

Empty rhetoric, no solution. Just as I thought. Next.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2009-04-27 03:07 PM | Reply |

Sounds like your giving up on the prospect of improving things. Not to sound extreme, but if that's the level of trust you,ve got in your gov't, the next political-social event shouldn't be an election if you get my drift...go for a real tea-bagging session this time.

just look back at the past.
just finished reading bio of fdr and two things are very apparent

obama is trying to do basically the same thing

and we will also go for ten years in this hole.

UNLESS the cavarly gets here in 2010.

Then make bloody sure the safeguards are in place to avoid a repeat in 20 years.

#34 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-04-27 02:51 PM

Blah blah blah. Is all I hear from the right on this. Your elected leader flopped and you would rather have your guy in there even though rightwing Ideas have failed. Obama said things would take time. I knew it would be mid 2010 before the economy showed signs of life and I'm sure most of you all did too. I can't wait until my faith in Obama is proven right. You all will try and deflect like never before but I'll be happy to remind you all of your misgivings.

Blah blah blah.

Posted by rastaninja

#40 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-27 03:14 PM | Reply |

If i understand this correctly one of the biggest safeguards was abolished during the clinton years. Ok, so...Bad. Now fix it.

Sounds like your giving up on the prospect of improving things.

Well to be fair, things have been great for me despite the reality of how our laws get written and implemented. I haven't give up on the prospect of improving things. I just don't look for solutions in the same place most people look.

If i understand this correctly one of the biggest safeguards was abolished during the clinton years. Ok, so...Bad. Now fix it.

#43 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-04-27 03:18 PM

When the cost is tanking your economy (and several other countries' economies as well), unfortunately, you really don't have a choice.

There is no indication that this still won't happen.

The value of the greenback would have imploded, with every creditor making a run for their money in a short period of time...you're economy would have been completely annihilated.

An economy built on a house of cards should be annihilated. That is the only thing that will fix the economy. Preserving that which should have never existed in the first place is the road to ruin.

Change the idiots responsible for the mess (bush is gone, now replace the business leaders responsible or the parameters they are governed with) and support till they can walk again.

Geithner? Bernanke? Meet the new idiots, same as the old idiots.

Then make bloody sure the safeguards are in place to avoid a repeat in 20 years. What you are seeing is the result of ultra liberal capitalist approach, letting businesses regulate themselves...this is a perfect example of extreme capitalism...it can't survive without being on a leash.

There are no bailouts in "extreme capitalism". The only reason these banks reached their breaking point is because they knew they could force the government to cover their bad bets through fearmongering. They have...and that ain't capitalism.

Empty rhetoric, no solution. Just as I thought. Next.

You want a good place to start? Audit the Federal Reserve.

I can't wait until my faith in Obama is proven right. You all will try and deflect like never before but I'll be happy to remind you all of your misgivings.
#41 | Posted by rastaninja

That's what early Christians said, waiting for Jesue to return.

Even the Messiah can't spend his way out of a problem caused by too much spending. The only thing he's stimulating is the growth of government.

The only reason these banks reached their breaking point is because they knew they could force the government to cover their bad bets through fearmongering.

Street crime doesn't begin to approach the $trillions stolen from taxpayers. This is the greatest heist in history.

I just wish you people realize that Ray is more of an economist than John Maynard Keynes ever hoped to be.

"I just wish you people realize that Ray is more of an economist than John Maynard Keynes ever hoped to be."

Not to mention being smarter than every scientist at the Center for Disease Control.

And, the world's greatest living cosmologist.

I just wish you people realize that Ray is more of an economist than John Maynard Keynes ever hoped to be.

A fast food jockey at McDonalds has a more sound grasp of economics than Keynes and Krugman put together.

#46 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

So if I'm reading you correctly, there is no viable solution except the complete destruction of your economic model?

And re the Federal Reserve? That body is an aberration and should be transformed into a federal institution, like the name erroneously suggests.

We wondered what you did for a living.....

-And, the world's greatest living cosmologist

And the world's greatest Bible expert.

Ray and Goat together know what's in every book in every library in the world......

words.

A fast food jockey at McDonalds has a more sound grasp of economics than Keynes and Krugman put together.

#52 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-04-27 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag: Soft brain from reading too much Ayn Rand

"-And, the world's greatest living cosmologist"

Goat does makeovers?

#52 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-04-27 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag: Soft brain from reading too much Ayn Rand

Trolfy raising the level of discourse is kinda like Bird Flu...I keep being told it exists, but never actually witnessed it.

We wondered what you did for a living.....

Grandpa Corky, can you tell us that story about how proud you are of your zip code again?

IF you get that disgusting creme off your face and outta your ears.....

"kinda like Bird Flu...I keep being told it exists, but never actually witnessed it.

#58 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-04-27 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's because it's a socialist hoax!

I just wish you people realize that Ray is more of an economist than John Maynard Keynes ever hoped to be

----

And that's different from the average poster?

The Drudge Retort, where all the world's problems are solved.

"this would leave Republicans with NO issues."

Nutcase, living up to your name again! You crack me the fuck up dog...

The Drudge Retort, where all the world's problems are solved.
#62 | Posted by Pirate

I wouldn't put it that way. I see DR as a microcosm of our insane world.

Not to mention being smarter than every scientist at the Center for Disease Control.
And, the world's greatest living cosmologist.
#51 | Posted by nullifidian

It only seems that way to a self-confessed know-nothing.

I wouldn't put it that way. I see DR as a microcosm of our insane world.

#64 | Posted by Ray at

Well--at least we are in good company. ;o)

From the article--

"The White House has previously endorsed PAYGO, but today's letter marks the first time since he became president that Obama himself has called for passage of a PAYGO law. Such a measure would prohibit tax cuts or new spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid unless the cost of those moves were offset by tax hikes or spending cuts."

How does one do Paygo with the Health Care Bill they are trying to pass in October?

They don't know how to do spending CUTS.

So the only thing left is TAX HIKES.

And with the way these statists go about their business--it will be tax hikes on every single person.

"Looks like Obama is going to reign in the budget. Something republicans were unwilling to do. Even though the spending seems out of control now it is only temporary in my opinion. He will create surpluses just like Clinton did."

you have got to be kidding me! when are you people going to WAKE UP????

"Looks like Obama is going to reign in the budget. Something republicans were unwilling to do. Even though the spending seems out of control now it is only temporary in my opinion. He will create surpluses just like Clinton did."

WTF are you smoking? white is black... black is white. gimme a break

Well, while I am an admitted skeptic, I hope he does manage to balance the budget, and I agree with a pay as you go, to an extent.

Here are the problems that I foresee:

1) The majority of federal spending in unconstitutional.
2) Off-budget spending
3) Cutting the military any time some new welfare program is dreamed up by the egg-heads
4) a continuation of shifting the tax burden to the middle and upper-income earners.
5) No gov't program has ever been eliminated. For Christ's sake, we still have the REA.
6) Spending priorities.

Not a Dem or a Repub here - Independent Conservative...

Regan ran deficits every year and brought us the department of Education. Bush the Department of Homeland Security. Clinton did run a surplus, mostly by gutting the military (I was Air Force at the time).

But increasing something just before cutting it is the same trick jewelry stores use - it is smoke and mirrors. Raise it by 100% and then claim credit for cutting it 10% later...

The fact of the matter is there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats - swapping back and forth is tacking us into the wind and over the falls....

"I hope he does manage to balance the budget"

Hasn't happened since Andy Jackson.

"Regan ran deficits every year and brought us the department of Education."

Who's "Regan"?

Who's "Regan"?

"ED was created in 1980"

Erectile Dysfunction was created in the 1980's?

Then why is ED Schultz on MSLSD now?

#75 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-04-27 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag: Fails reality 101 daily.

#74 | Posted by goatman at 2009-04-27 09:04 PM | Reply | Flag: And I still own that land, too, Goatmam.

Hmm where have I heard this pay-go thing before? lets see, how about:

For Immediate Release
03/27/2007
Pelosi: Democratic Budget Resolution Restores Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability

Washington, D.C. This week the House will vote on H. Con. Res. 99, the Democratic budget resolution to restore fiscal responsibility and accountability, strengthen our national defense, and invest in the next generation and America's prosperity.

Pay-as-you-go budget rules contained in the resolution are critical to establishing fiscal integrity and will begin to reverse the record budget deficits threatening the futures of our children and grandchildren.

How's that workin for us?

President Obama today threw his weight behind a new law to rein in federal spending

Dang, Barry is 2 trillion and 90 days late.

I'm sure he will find a mil or two to cut.

What happened to pay go? Danni use to praise the concept.

Another broken promise by the zero. And another out and out LIE.

He says one thing, then counters it with an complete contradiction IN THE SAME SENTENCE!!!

Clinton did run a surplus, mostly by gutting the military (I was Air Force at the time).

Yep, I was military at the time also. People seem to forget home many bases were closing while clinton was in hmmmm... and dems keep saying how wonderful he was at balancing the budget. Pretty easy if you can just gut the military....

Clinton did run a surplus, mostly by gutting the military (I was Air Force at the time).

Yep, I was military at the time also. People seem to forget home many bases were closing while clinton was in hmmmm... and dems keep saying how wonderful he was at balancing the budget. Pretty easy if you can just gut the military....

Posted by jaybay555 at 2009-04-28 09:08 AM | Reply

Yeah the Downsizing of the Military planned out in the waning days of the REAGAN Presidency. They declared the cold war won so no need for a big robust Military. It was called the Peace Dividend. It was first implimented under Bush 41 with His defence secretary. Dick Cheney. It was continued under Clinton AND Dubya. SO why You pitching a bitch at Clinton?? So much bullshit so little time ehhhhhhh

Larry

"What happened to pay go?"

Bush and the Republicans.

Have the democrats / Obama started increasing regulations yet? The dems weren't too big on it during the Clinton or the Bush years. (see Gramm-Leach-Biley and opposition to increased GSE regulation)

#40 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-04-27

ah but you see there is a major difference and it can be found in a different issue
pat leahy hated the idea of a truth commission
when clinton was concerned and a whole host of other issues talked about by bush were stopped and slowed at every turn just WAITING for the messiah to get here.
NOW THAT THE SMART people are running things, its full speed ahead......yeah sure

YOU GOTTA BE SHITTIN! That is the most outragous statement ever!!! If that were true, we would have a balanced budget.

Hasn't happened since Andy Jackson.

#72 | Posted by Zatoichi

You are wrong!!!! Happened last under JFK.

#88 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-04-28 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag: IQ of lint

Regan ran deficits every year and brought us the department of Education.

#71 | Posted by Spielmannsfluch

Carter established Education. Do you honestly think that a republican such as Reagan would have thought government running education to be a good idea?

Looks like Obama is going to reign in the budget. Something republicans were unwilling to do. Even though the spending seems out of control now it is only temporary in my opinion. He will create surpluses just like Clinton did.

#1 | Posted by rastaninja

LOL!!!!

Yeah the Downsizing of the Military planned out in the waning days of the REAGAN Presidency. They declared the cold war won so no need for a big robust Military. It was called the Peace Dividend. It was first implimented under Bush 41 with His defence secretary. Dick Cheney. It was continued under Clinton AND Dubya. SO why You pitching a bitch at Clinton?? So much bullshit so little time ehhhhhh Larry

I'm not! I did not like reagan or Bush1 either.. But no one goes around saying how great Reagan and bush were at balancing the budget??? Clinton benefited from what they started. then finished gutting the military and took credit for some GREAT thing he did... give me a break... By the way I dont care about the BJ and props either, stressful job and he wanted to bang some interns then so be it... I dont believe he should have been impeached over it...