Another shrill GNoP talking point laid to rest?

Pinche will still use it.

The story of today's deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012.

Clinton's fault!
~Party of Alternate Reality

9/11!

Al Queda!

Sincerely,

Right Wing Moonbats

This article couldn't be more contrived and trumped-up if it tried.

Obama inherited some budgetary issues?

No shit.

ALL presidents inherit budgetary issues.

How easy would it be to balance the budget if our government simply eliminated Social Security and Medicare? Every president since Truman has inherited those monstrosities.

I particularly love this gem:

How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don't cost the government any money.

Yeah - strangle the economy with 'cap and trade' and funnel the proceeds to Obama's buddies - "green" (sic) energy producers. Yep, it's great for the economy [ / sarcasm ]. And we all know that economic strenght has no impact whatsoever on federal tax revenues.

JeffJ,

Eliminate Social Security and Medicade.

Right. That is EXACTLY the kind of plan we expect from the Party of Fail.

I didn't suggest elminating them, Axe.

My point was that these 2 programs have been around for a long time and are roughly half of the budget. Bush didn't create these programs nor did Obama - yet both have had to account for them in their proposed budgets. Both inherited these programs.

"Obama inherited some budgetary issues? No shit. ALL presidents inherit budgetary issues."

Not like Obama's, you have to admit.

And which economy would you rather inherit: the one Clinton left Dubya, or the one Dubya left Obama?

Not like Obama's, you have to admit.

I do admit it, to a point.

Bush bascically inherited a recession AND 9-11.

Yes, Obama has inherited a lot of shit, but it's not unprecedented.

Yet, for 2009 he is projected to have a $2 trillion deficit.

In 1 year!!!!

Jesus.

"Bush bascically inherited a recession AND 9-11."

First, no recession. The only recession in Bush's terms was at the end.

Second, inherited 9/11? Richard Clarke might disagree.

CBO: Obama policies/programs only 10% of deficit.

False.

The Democrats control the House, Senate, and White House.

Every single bill that won't be vetoed will be drafted by the controlling party: Democrats.

Every single federal law can be negated by the controlling party: Democrats.

Every single dollar spent by the government can be stopped by the controlling party: Democrats.

Every dollar that can be saved can be done by the controlling party: Democrats.

The Democrats are responsible for 100% of what is going on today.

Anything they don't like, within the bounds of the Constitution, is in their hands to keep or remove.

Wars - can be ended.
Spending -can be ended.
Warrantless taps - can be ended.
Federal marriage act - can be ended.
Don't ask don't tell - can be ended.

By whom? Who has this power right now?

100%. Not 10%. Any policy not reversed is continuing the policy - its accepted by the controlling party as THEIR policy. If it ain't their policy - why haven't they ended it? They have the power.

Or, is the issue not power that they lack?

6 years of total control and look at the prior mess.
1st year - no difference. Total control, but refusal to end that which they can.

Petrous,

While I agree with your overall theme, the statement was only regarding Obama's proposals, not all Dems.

ALL presidents inherit budgetary issues.

Yeah Bush struggled over what to do with all those projected surpluses.

Yet, for 2009 he is projected to have a $2 trillion deficit.

Wasn't the 2009 spending plan put in place in 2008?

In my 2009 Budget, I have set clear priorities that will help us meet our Nation's most pressing
needs while addressing the long-term challenges ahead. With pro-growth policies and spending
discipline, we will balance the budget in 2012, keep the tax burden low, and provide for our national
security. And that will help make our country safer and more prosperous.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 4, 2008.

Why yes it was.

14 | Posted by 726

Bush failed.

Big time.

The GOP has been swept-out (good riddance).

Yet you will ferociously deflect and defend the Dems and Obama for taking Bush/GOP crimes and magnifying them 5-fold; like the good little party-hack that you are.

ONLY 10% more deficit? That's 10% more than we had, right? What deflection!

"Obama's Spending Only 10% of Deficit"

They must be talking about Obama's personal spending like campaign trips, photo ops, dates around the world, Wednesday night parties, burger runs, tennis shoes, swing set, smokes after the tax increase, etc. etc. etc.

I'm just glad that we increased military spending.
I'm so scared all the time.

GOBAMA!!!!!!

ALL presidents inherit budgetary issues.

Yeah, but you gotta admire how quickly Bush got rid of that stupid surplus thingie!

and still Rethuglicans babble on, lying and stealing as fast as they can.

Only 10% : In Just FIVE MONTHS!

For U.S., a sea of red ink, years in the making

This headline is total crap!

The story of today's deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

Yeah, today, because Obama's budget had 1.5 Trillion!

So put that first 300 Billion on Bush, he deserved it.

But place that other $1.2 trillion on Obama where it properly should be.

The second is that Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.

What a POS article that lacks any merit. The NYT study, as reported by MSNBC and blown up the ass of the ignorant dr left.
Enjoy 'pay-go' shit heads....

"Time after time this year, Democrats have ignored calls for fiscal responsibility," said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio. "We don't need more rhetoric and gimmicks. We need action to tackle the tremendous fiscal challenges facing this nation."

The zero has been in office 3 months, and already he HAS become the most tax and spend dem in history. Just watch what budg projections are. Funny (not) how the article can ignore that...

bailouts, buyout, bailout, etc. housing interest rates are up because of it, bankruptcy even after bailouts. stimulus money that isnt reaching state and local "shovel ready" projects. temporary jobs instead of long term growth in small business, summer jobs to clean the park etc. geez, unemployment higher than they projected because they projected it before they had all the info that would influence said projection, hmmm? pay as you go, but only after polls show him slipping. another rasmussen poll showing 45% want the porkulus spending to stop. he has solved the iranian nuke issue by simply saying they are entitled to it. so what is the simple solution to NK? as for the israelis and palestine, well israel you just give them everything they want and all is well, because then they will not want to destroy you. simple, just give into everything everyone wants and all is peace love and the greatful dead. hmm, who would have thought it would have been so simple`

"ALL presidents inherit budgetary issues."

But not all presidents push tax cuts while conducting two wars, one of which was completely by choice. Sometimes I wonder how much Jeff charges for each of his posts. Who pays him and if he ever has pangs of guilt about posting comments that even he knows are utter nonsense.

Outsourcing manufacturing, regulatory changes critical to carrying out fraud legally, failure to enforce SEC & FERC rules, unnecessary war and occupation, robbing the SOcial Security Trust Fund, monetization of debt, election rigging, privitization programs, health care costs, delivered 90% of this disaster up to Clinton and Shrub. After promising change, Obama has nevertheless embarked on a stay the course plan for our economy.

Paulson took $885 billion before he even asked Congress for $700 billion, Then he personally inserted a tax break sentence for financial isntitutions that will provide them hundreds of billions in windfall profits for decades. You can't judge Obama on projections and then Judge his predecessors on a cash basis. That's bullshit.

The 90/10 split makes perfect sense and those who suggest otherwise fail simple math. Obviously that blame ratio is going to change over time. If Obama doesn't wise up and get rid of the creators of the mess we're in, he will be a one term President. I think he has about one year to change course in order to have time to turn our economy around.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2009-06-11 08:32 AM

I already acknowledged that Bush and the GOP fucked up. I have on countless occasions pointed to $400 billion annual deficits as the primary source of angst.

Obama and the Dems are poised to increase that crime five-fold and you stand on the sidelines with pom poms screaming "MORE!! MORE!!"

You are one of the biggest party hacks on this site.

We are being robbed blind but as long as it's the Democrats doing the stealing you are happy as a lark.

"election rigging"?

what does that have to do with deficit spending?

"You are one of the biggest party hacks on this site."

I am a proud Democratic Party member, contributor, supporter and make absolutely not apologies for participating in the American political process.
Sorry, I don't but the bull shit that our two party system is the problem with this country, it is the corporate personhood which allows them to have undue influence that is the problem. That was not done by Congress but by a CROOKED AS HELL SC.
Fix the SC and fix America. The conservative corporate lackeys need to retire and let some fair minded Americans serve.

The corporate lackeys you so despise are quite clearly every bit as much in the pocket of the Democratic party as they are the Republican party.

That was not done by Congress but by a CROOKED AS HELL SC.

Please elaborate.

it is the corporate personhood which allows them to have undue influence that is the problem. That was not done by Congress but by a CROOKED AS HELL SC.

so, let me get this straight, corporations are buying influence on the supreme court......not congress?

I hope I have misunderstood you.

Here is a link to the Federal Government tables on the Debt

President Obama has not finished his term in office so any talk of the Debt in terms of Obama is just speculation.

President Obama has not finished his term in office so any talk of the Debt in terms of Obama is just speculation.

#37 | Posted by 90c2cab

He proposed a budget. Actuaries are VERY good at speculative projections. Those projections include a $2 tillion deficit in his first year alone. The CBO has stated unequivicably that his budget is a fiscal impossiblity. That means he can either considerably slash spending (he probably won't) or he can raise taxes ACCROSS THE BOARD - yes, that means even you will have more of your hard-earned money taken by the feds.

"I hope I have misunderstood you."

You have, I mean that the SC established corporate personhood which enable corporations which are not citizens to employ lobbyists who "buy" Congress. The principle of corporate personhood is virtually unique to the US and is nowhere in the Constitution which makes a mockery of Scalia's dishonest claim of "originalism."

the SC established corporate personhood

An alternative to the English system of venture capital. (East India Company and all that rot) The idea was to encourage business development while protecting or limiting individual liability. The rationale comes out of the right to contract and the Commerce clause and gives corporations standing in our Courts.

The so called "corporate veil" is a serious problem just like sovereign immunity.

The only alternative is publicly funded campaigns, and complete transparency for lobbying.

Danni,

Did the SC establish corporate personhood or did congress establish it, a lawsuit ensued, made its way to the SC and the court ruled that the disputed law did not violate the constitution?

I am asking because I do not know.

The principle of corporate personhood is virtually unique to the US and is nowhere in the Constitution - Danni

The so called "corporate veil" is a serious problem just like sovereign immunity.

The only alternative is publicly funded campaigns, and complete transparency for lobbying.

#40 | Posted by OzarkAggie

'Perzactly!

/>

"Opponents of "corporate personhood" believe that large corporations as juristic persons have enjoyed certain constitutional rights intended for natural humans as the result of a misinterpretation of an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Opponents claim that certain rights of natural persons, such as the right to political and other non-commercial free speech, are now exercised by corporations to the detriment of the American democratic process as provided under the Constitution. Some opponents point to the recent discovery of correspondence [1] between then Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, and court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis as proof of a conspiracy among the railroad corporations to intentionally create a misrepresentation of that decision for the benefit of the railroads.

Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as representatives of their shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as natural persons, for example, the right against self-incrimination, right to privacy and the right to lobby the government."

BTW, does anyone really believe it is an accident that this issue is barely touched in High School or even college American history classes????
Fact is...they do not want Americans to even think about it.

And which economy would you rather inherit: the one Clinton left Dubya, or the one Dubya left Obama?

#8 | Posted by Danforth

Please read a little. The economy was going into the shitter back in early 1999.

I guess 9-11-01 didn't have any effect on the economy either. The country was closed down for 2 weeks. Hell, that didn't hurt anything.

Don't forget that the last 2 years of Bush, the spending was controled by nancy and company. They increased Bush's budget.

Bush did not have any fiscal responsibility but the man in control now is even worse. He has been in office for less than 6 months and he has already spent more than all other presidents put together. Wait until we get government health care. Wait untill we have a carbon tax. You ain't seen nothing yet.

The completely ridiculous claim made by proponents ignores the founding fathers limitations on corporations at the time. There is no way in hell they felt the way proponents try to pretend they did. It's just a big lie and they know it.

Again, did the Founder's place those limitations as a manner of written law, or was it "assumed" to be evident within the Constitution.

People can disagree about the merits and pitfalls of corporate personhood. However, you seem to be arguing that it's a constitutional issue, but have yet to prove so.

The 1st Ammendment was targeted primarily with political freedom of speech in mind. That is precisely why I feel that McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional. That is why I have such a problem with the "Fairness Doctrine" - we need MORE political expression, not less.

Clinton's total debt as % of GDP for his 8 years in office was roughly around 44% of total GDP

Bush's total debt as a % of GDP for his 8 years in office was roughly around 35% of total GDP

Clintons total contribution to the debt as just a number was smaller than Bush's total contribution to the debt for their 8 years in office, but Clintons total Debt as % of GDP was higher.

#36 | Posted by 90c2cab at 2009-06-11 09:50 AM

LIVE_OR_DIE wrote: Interesting.
-------

Look at the Federal Government tables that I supplied a link to and look at tables 1.2 and 7.1.

"The 1st Ammendment was targeted primarily with political freedom of speech in mind."

They definitely did not intend "freedom of speech" to be the ability of corporations to use their wealth to influence political debate or to lobby (bribe) Congress.

Here are some of the limitations placed upon corporations when we began as a nation. Read them and then tell me that our founding fathers intended for this country to be virtually ruled by wealthy corporation. When we say "it is time to take our country back" the first step is to understand who we need to take it back from.

""During the 18th century, Enlightenment ideals began to challenge the power of monarchies and corporations, and the power of the queen's corporation began to fade. The Boston Tea Party of 1773 signaled not only a victory over the economic tyranny of the East India Company, it also helped pave the way for the political uprising known as the American Revolution. Also around this time, Adam Smith published the Wealth of Nations, arguing for free market economics, but against the concept of large corporations, claiming that they limit fair competition among smaller-sized merchants and artisans.

When the United States gained its independence in 1776, there were 336 corporations in the United States, but most had been chartered by state governments for specific public works projects. The Founding Fathers, still mindful of the crushing power once wielded by the East India Company, severly limited the power of corporations and never would have dreamed of nor allowed the trans-national behemoths we see today. In fact, the original limitations seem laughable when we consider our modern corporations:

1) Corporate charters were granted for fixed periods of time, usually between 10 and 40 years.

2) Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm.

3) Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

4) Corporations could not own property that was not essential to the fulfilling of their chartered purpose.

5) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations. I'm beginning to see a trend here.

6) The personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corpoate behavior.

Were they around today, the Founding Fathers would look at our corporate climate and our economic situation, and they would say, "We tried to warn you!" But Amercia has not heeded their wisdom. Almost as soon as the country was born, big business interests began to chip away at these constraints on corporate power.".

I edited this to get it under 4,000 characters.

Danni's #43 post is spot on. Corporations were originally designed to be dissolved (by States) when they broke laws or otherwise got out of control. But that provision was only invoked once in NY. History rewriting includes "we are a Christian Nation". The majority of our founding Fathers certainly were not.

Eberly,

Rigging elections has a huge impact on policy. Especially in Presidential Elections, small vote changes can completely reverse policy. It effects deficits in this indirect, but important way. Under Shrub, money has been shoveled to private Contractors and corrupt Iraqi politicians. I expected change but haven't seen much yet, if that's your point.

Danni,

As a free market capitalist I totally agree with your point, I like the idea, it creates more competition, and succesion.

Also while we are going back in history for "change", lets not be selective, what was the tax rate for those corporations, individuals? What was the size of government?

Ben Franklin can say "I tried to warn you!" too

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

#49 Newsworthy Flag

Most folks don't seem to even be cognizant of this history.

ALL presidents inherit budgetary issues.

Yeah Bush struggled over what to do with all those projected surpluses.

#13 | Posted by 726

"The Democrats control the Legislative and Executive branches. Within the Constitution, they can have laws passed that can change the Supreme Courts decision. Unless it is a matter of Unconstitutional laws, the Democrats are in control to fix the issue you are complaining about.

It's a SC decision, or rather a misinterpretation of one and would take the SC or an amendment to change it even though the Constitution ovbiously did not grant personhood to corporations and no one claimed it did til the SC pretended it did to help their buddies the railroads during the Robber Baron era.

PETROUS wrote: Surplus?
------------

Excellent article THANKS

Yeah Bush struggled over what to do with all those projected surpluses.

#13 | Posted by 726

Key word bding PROJECTED. Anybody can project anything they want. Remember the projection of 9% unemployment if the stimilus wasn't passed? It was passed and the number was way short as we are finding out now.

Pay-go is another one. Pay as you go, my ass.

"Unless it is a matter of Unconstitutional laws, the Democrats are in control to fix the issue you are complaining about."

I have no illusions about that. It's a catch 22, the corporate donors have the power and the Congress won't do anything to take away that power because they fear that power.

I have no illusions about that. It's a catch 22, the corporate donors have the power and the Congress won't do anything to take away that power because they fear that power.

#57 | Posted by danni

A few years ago you were blaming the reps. now it's the companies.

"A few years ago you were blaming the reps. now it's the companies."

er...who has always the been the party of big business??? Which side of that argument do you think Fox News would be on?? If we ever do reform corporate personhood it will be Democrats that do it in response to enough demand from the population. It would take a huge push from below so that legislators would feel they could overcome huge amounts of money opposing them.

#59 | Posted by danni

More Republicans than Democrats opposed TARP.

More Republicans than Democrats opposed the auto bailouts.

You may want to re-think your premises.

Very interesting stuff Petrous and 90C2CAB.

I'd be interested to see a counter viewpoint to what you have posted, since the Clinton "surplus" thing is thrown around here quite often.

You may want to re-think your premises.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ

Dan's premises are simple. Dems good, reps bad, organized labor good, business bad. She drank the kool-aid a long time ago.

Live, I've heard enough about the surplus of Preisdent Clinton.

I don't know the truth- -only that opposing points do exist about whether it was really a surplus depending on the way the numbers are figured.

In the end, I don't care if you accept the surplus numbers presented for President Clinton. If you apply the surplus as payment towards the National Debt, the ND still increased during that era.

So, telling your spouse that you paid $150 towards that credit card bill is supposed to bring accolades - only to find out the interest is $250.

Sure, you paid the bill down, but the balance still is more with the accruals.

Nice gesture, but still a failure in regards to seriously paying off debt. You can't pay off your debts if your payments are below the accruals.

Our nation's accruing debt is so great, I'm not even sure they know how to create such a surplus without a massive tax increase, against everyone, on everything.

Neither party wants to do it because a great tax increase and/or large spending decreases may result in election changes - but what do you really care about as a politician and would the people listen to you if you cared about the balance than entitlements for rich and poor.

"Live, I've heard enough about the surplus of Preisdent Clinton."

I suggest you look it up on factcheck.org. They say that yes indeed he did create a surplus.

"More Republicans than Democrats opposed TARP.

More Republicans than Democrats opposed the auto bailouts."

They'll probably also oppose health care. What's your point, the Republicans are ideologues opposed to anything that the president tries to do. It isn't as if they have somehow been vindicated, the President's policies seem to be working, so I would think you would be the one to reevaluate.

the President's policies seem to be working, so I would think you would be the one to reevaluate.

#65 | Posted by danni

The policies seem to be working!?! Since Obama's wonderful stimulus bill we have seen a car company go bankrupt after receiving billions in aide, another car company taken over by the government, job losses for three consecutive months, and the economy continues to shrink. And you call this working?

I suggest you look it up on factcheck.org. They say that yes indeed he did create a surplus.

#64 | Posted by danni

If that is the case, the ND should have gone down. It wasn't real. It was only a projection.

All he created was a lower standard for the morals of a president. He will always be known for his sexual acts while in public office.

JeffJ says Obama inherited 9/11. He actually wrote that in this thread. This is a total right wing talking point, of course, and is total bullshit as a simple matter of fact.

Lol. Bye, Jeffie...

Credibility. What a sad thing to lose, assuming one had it in the first place.

DO keep posting, though, although try to clean up a bit - this next one was pretty close to babble, wouldn't you say?

"Yeah - strangle the economy with 'cap and trade' and funnel the proceeds to Obama's buddies - "green" (sic) energy producers. Yep, it's great for the economy [ / sarcasm ]. And we all know that economic strenght has no impact whatsoever on federal tax revenues.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ"

I suggest you look it up on factcheck.org. They say that yes indeed he did create a surplus.

#64 | Posted by danni

--------
It's surplus, based on how the Feds record their budgets, but by any other standard it's not.

So factcheck is correct, but misleading.

If it was your hosehold you would be running a debt.

When a household barrows 200 dollars to pay off a 100 dollar debt they are still in the hole, but when the Feds do it it's another story because they can move the cost of the loan.

The Gross Debt has everything in it.

"Since Obama's wonderful stimulus bill we have seen a car company go bankrupt after receiving billions in aide, another car company taken over by the government, job losses for three consecutive months, and the economy continues to shrink. And you call this working?"

And in another thread Dick Cheney admits that the GM bankruptcy was already anticipated but that they pushed in over into Obama's term because Bush didn't want to deal with it. Most economists have been predicting an uptick later this year and consumer spending already rose 1/2% last month.
The policies do seem to be working, like it or not.

Most economists have been predicting an uptick later this year and consumer spending already rose 1/2% last month.
The policies do seem to be working, like it or not.

Unemployment increasing 500,000+ each month and 'consumer' spending increasing 1/2% last month? Is there no whopper too big for Danni to believe?

Unemployment in May was half of what it was the 4 previous months. Do try and keep up.

#72 | Posted by Corky

You are far too paranoid. Try to stick with the same figures everyone else uses.

Unemployment increasing 500,000+ each month and 'consumer' spending increasing 1/2% last month? Is there no whopper too big for Danni to believe?

#71 | Posted by Ray

Actually, this is quite believable.

If you are unemployed, but you need something, you'll buy it - on credit.

But, while lounging around home, you've got more time to use your credit card than when you did while working.

So, I can see spending being up during unemployment.

I just suspect to see more bankruptcies and foreclosures with the unemployment numbers. Consumer spending won't stop those if its on credit.