Obama forecasts record $1.75 tril deficit in his 1st budget

The $1.75 trillion deficit projected for this year would represent 12.3% of the gross domestic product, double the previous post-war record of 6% in 1983

ah, change we can believe in! awesome!

Funeral cost of Capitalism, not so expensive.

Heh, we're already Republicans trying to dodge the blame by criticizing the size of the patch needed to cover the gaping head wound in the economy that they were largely responsible for creating.

As one poster said yesterday, whenever things crash, it's never the fault of the Republicans. :-)

since WWII, on average, every dollar increase in tax revenue for the federal government has been met with an increase in spending of a dollar forty, thereabouts. Lots of democrats and republicans in the mix, you can't blame one or the other, as much as you'd like to.

And last time I checked, the alternative to capitalism, be it socialism or communism, hasn't been working out too well in other parts of the world.

There is this thing called the Laffer curve, and the last two administrations have been dangerously pushing the envelope. Diminished returns and all that.

People like to point to the balanced budget under the Clinton administration, but many beleive that was only due to the strong economy which was a result fo the Reagan administration.

Obama's first term should be interesting to watch how things unfold.

At least he's being realistic and not denyings things. The previous president, on the other hand, took a surplus, turned it into the biggest deficit in US history, and continued to pretend things were 'rosy' until he ran them into the ground to the point where you are today -- in NEED of this massive spending to start getting out of it.

Republicans have become more and more like children. Just 'no!' in order to try and make themselves look better by going against the party in power. Once things start improving, however, it won't have paid off and the Republicans will be out of office for a generation or more.

Only 1750 billion deficit and 3660 billion spending in 2009. Only 1910 billion is spending is actual US made products-services generated.

Obama will reduce it slowly via less military spendings and via many ways of democrats.

Obama needs to cuts trllions/billions in spendings and up exports-incomes by more trillions-billions to reduce deficits.

Real reason for falls in US economy is the US deficits and bad looking budget balance sheets with deficits.

As economy gets better globally,exports and domestic spending billions can increase by trillions/billions slowly up.

Spending of trillions should equal income trillions via domestic spendings and exports.

Fiscal discipline need to be encouraged,in all facets of US economy via Obama administration.

Health care needs medical insurance systems for all,which will share prosperity of medical advances. It is all in hands of Obama administration and Obama.

Obama has to fix the balance sheets,like he did with his study loans and pay them off. Obama's 2 books is what paid off his loans. Hope US can sell America products-services better via his wise administration and pay off US loans gradually.

Hope future administrations also be one, that pay off the loans like Obama administration .Mission zero deficit is good for all and for global economy.

These deficits are all Bush's and Cheney's fault. President Obama is officially off the hook, at least during his first term.

sarge: "These deficits are all Bush's and Cheney's fault"

Ahhh... that's right, when you can finally deny it no longer say it sarcastically to make it look like you have the upper hand in a conversation. Sadly, though, what you're getting at (in an attempt to be sarcastic) is very true. Well, okay, not 100% their fault; only CLOSE to that amount.

Obama is not 'off the hook' at all. He'll be safe his first term for sure, especially with opposition like that moron Jindal stepping up and getting blown away with their own gaffes and lies, but he'll be held accountable for whatever he does wrong, same as anybody else.

That said, holding him accountable for the past president's misdeeds when Obama JUST started as president is not only counter-productive and wrong, it's just plain childish.

The only change that Pres. Obama is bringing to America is record budget deficits. It's amazing how Lefty's attacked Bush for running a deficit and making a massive increase in Medicaid spending and are OK with Obama's mind-numbing deficits! It was bad enough under Bush but this amount of yearly budget deficits are more than just a little scary. It appears that Obama's plan is to knock America down to size by burying it in debt - but with nationalized health care to show for it. His very radical Leftist political aspirations and the tremendous deficits that he is racking up will divide the nation between those dependent upon the state and those that the state is dependent upon to fund his socialist vision. Obama plans to strangle capitalism but to what end - I haven't the slightest clue. What does he put in it's place - socialist democracy with it's high unemployment rates and inexorable decline to mediocrity? Capitalism is the only economic system that has proven successful at raising living standards and reducing poverty. Socialism is and always has been a failed ecnonomic idea. Unfortunately, Obama is determined to prove that point again.

The man has only been in office a month and has already far exceeded the rate of deficit spending of any president in American history - no matter what the state of the worlds economy. This guy is like a six year old boy that has been given the keys to a candy store - except that he is done, we will all be sick.

in NEED of this massive spending to start getting out of it.

Proving once again that theres a sucker born every minute!

Say whatever you like. The balanced budget under Clinton was due to Republicans holding firm against him. Then they lost their way under Bush and went Nuts. The one good thing about Dems, is that we all know what their plans are. For them, Government is the solution to every problem, so expect higher taxes, more regulations and limitless spending. I'm not surprised by the new budget. Dems are now firmly in control.

Obama is already proving that he is the biggest idiot since Carter. And considering Bush, thats saying quite a bit. Just as Obama is pushing the "New" New Deal, we can look forward to the "New" Depression.

Wolfpack - "It's amazing how Lefty's attacked Bush for running a deficit and making a massive increase in Medicaid spending and are OK with Obama's mind-numbing deficits!"

No, what's amazing is how week after week, Republicans continue to talk like the U.S' $10 trillion deficit magically appeared on January 20, 2009.

Wolfpack - "His very radical Leftist political aspirations and the tremendous deficits that he is racking up."

So, what do you propose?

Wolfpack - "Obama plans to strangle capitalism but to what end"

The extremely ironic thing is that bush and the GOP preached free market policies that ultimately led to the U.S. government having next to no choice but to behave like Socialists.

And - naturally - according to the Republicans, it all must be President Obama's fault.

Wolfpack - "The man has only been in office a month and has already far exceeded the rate of deficit spending of any president in American history."

Again, I must reiterate - the U.S' $10 trillion deficit did, in fact, magically appear on January 20, 2009.

Wolfpack - "This guy is like a six year old boy..."

Ahem, completely unlike the thinking abilities of your fine self. :-)

Molenir - "The one good thing about Dems, is that we all know what their [Democrat's] plans are. For them, Government is the solution to every problem, so expect higher taxes, more regulations and limitless spending."

lol! Another extremely ironic comment from a Republican.

We all know what the opposite - lower taxes and fewer regulations - coupled with limitless spending leads to --> the George Bush/GOP Recession of 2009 that you are now railing against. Too funny :-)

Molenir, honestly mate, it's thinking like yours that proves without a shadow of doubt why Republicans have completely and utterly lost the plot.

Limbaugh - Palin 2012! lol! :-)

One thing that worries me is Obama’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, who is not mentioned often; but he should be considering his background:

Orszag was an economic adviser for the Russian Ministry of Finance in Moscow from 1992-93, a period of rampant financial criminality during which many Russian mineral assets came under the control of oligarchs who became instant billionaires.

Orszag served six years in the Clinton administration (1993-8) under Rubin, the former treasury secretary who recently resigned from his senior position at the woefully mismanaged and nearly bankrupt Citigroup. Rubin strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives when such regulation was proposed in 1997.

Orzag worked closely with Rahm Emanuel, Clinton’s senior adviser, who was pushing the disastrous NAFTA legislation through Congress in 1993.

Orszag was founder and president of the economic consultancy firm that advised the Central Bank of Iceland before it went bankrupt.

This gives me some idea of what the US will be (is?) going through.

We all know what the opposite - lower taxes and fewer regulations - coupled with limitless spending leads to --> the George Bush/GOP Recession of 2009 that you are now railing against. Too funny :-)

Wow, stupidity is infectious isn't it.

I've been railing against deficit spending for years. Not just against Bush, but before that against Clinton. One of the good things to come out of Clintons term in office was that the Republicans forced him to balance the budget. Of course we all know they then turned around and showed they could deficit spend nearly as well as the Democrats.

Obama claimed this recession as his own, when the Dems forced through the "spendulus" bill. The one good thing about it is, that it will prove once and for all, that you can't spend your way out of recession. Likewise Obamas plan to raise taxes is not going to help the economy, but hurt it. Anyone who thinks differently is simply an idiot.

wolfpack: "The only change that Pres. Obama is bringing to America is record budget deficits."

Sorry, but bush set that record over the last 8 years, thanks. BECAUSE of that fact, the stimulus is necessary. The horse comes before the cart, my friend, not vice-versa.

Molenir: "Wow, stupidity is infectious isn't it"

Your posts continue to prove this, yes; particularly following wolfpack's!

Keep trying though, my friend. It really is no wonder why, backed by people like yourself, the Republicans continue to take such severe beatings.

"The Medicare plan is sure to incite battles with hospitals, health insurance companies and drug manufacturers."

Because these people gladly put profit before people, with no exceptions.

Molenir: "...we can look forward to the "New" Depression."

Ummm... newsflash, but that started some time in the last 8 years, not 5 weeks ago. Tough for you guys to understand that, but no huge surprise.

Wolfpack: "Capitalism is the only economic system that has proven successful at raising living standards and reducing poverty. Socialism is and always has been a failed ecnonomic idea. Unfortunately, Obama is determined to prove that point again."

Betzee made an excellent post yesterday in this regard. Ronald Reagan made a speech along the same lines -- that the US was moving towards 'socialism' like the Red Menace with a system like Medicare (which Palin misunderstood when using it in a speech, the dolt!). Now the Republicans are, true to form and as they were in the election campaign, throwing out 'Communism!', 'Socialism!' and other big words like that they cannot even begin to understand, in an attempt to scare your average Joe. Fortunately, your average Joe is clearly sick of it and hence the Republicans took a serious whipping in the last election.

for those who are so pro this plan, may I ask how much have you invested in the market lately? How much do you plan to invest over the course of the next six months? the already too high capital gains tax is going up another 5%!

Also, when are people going to stop using Bush's failures as the ONLY reason why they support these recent plans...

Lastly, "“Everyone agrees that all Americans deserve access to affordable health care, but is increasing taxes during an economic recession, especially on small businesses, the right way to accomplish that goal?” asked House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio." Well, is there no answer to his question? And of any answers, can they at least be free of little girl groupie remarks?

Ummm... newsflash, but that started some time in the last 8 years, not 5 weeks ago. Tough for you guys to understand that, but no huge surprise.

No, I get you. You're saying that Bush is to blame. I'd even agree with you to a certain extent. However I'm sure 8 years from now you'll be repeating the same tired rhetoric, that Obama and the Dems tried their best to get us out of this, but that its the Republicans fault. What you don't seem to comprehend, is that Obama when he and the Dems chose try the same old tired and failed way of spending their way out, they're merely proving they are incompetent idiots.

Now the Republicans are, true to form and as they were in the election campaign, throwing out 'Communism!', 'Socialism!' and other big words like that they cannot even begin to understand, in an attempt to scare your average Joe. Fortunately, your average Joe is clearly sick of it and hence the Republicans took a serious whipping in the last election.

If you really had a clue about either Communism or Socialism, you wouldn't be trivializing this at all. Running America down the same path that has proven to be such a disaster for other countries is not the solution. But people like yourself just can't see it. You prefer to buy into the feel-good rhetoric rather then look at the facts.

for those who are so pro this plan, may I ask how much have you invested in the market lately? How much do you plan to invest over the course of the next six months? the already too high capital gains tax is going up another 5%!

There is a reason that more and more people are pulling money from the Market. Every time Obama opens his mouth, the Dow Jones takes another hit. Last I read more then 5 trillion has been pulled out since Obama got himself elected, with more people shifting money all the time.

Finally, a flame war I can believe in. You go, SushiSake3!

smithinjapan: "( President ) Obama is not 'off the hook' at all"

Come on, Smith, no one except for the powerless Republicans are going to hold this president accountable for anything bad. He'll take the credit for any good stuff that happens, and any bad stuff, like record deficits, will be Bush and Cheney's fault.

smithinjapan: "that moron Jindal"

SushiSake#3: "Limbaugh-Palin 2012"

How about... Palin-Jindal 2012!

"China, please stop buying U.S. Treasury bills"

But they're such a good investment! And why would the Chinese want to destabilize their best customer?

Sarge at 10:06 AM JST - 27th February

These deficits are all Bush's and Cheney's fault. President Obama is officially off the hook, at least during his first term.

Sarge is absolutely right, maybe for the first time in JT history. Bush totally messed up the economy because he did not regulate the bundling and sales of toxic assets; he lower SEC regulation enforcement significantly. Furthermore he did nothing to install new regulations on credit default swaps which were one of the major reasons the huge financial institutions failed and continue to hold huge liabilities. Credit default swaps have no regulation at the moment; other derivatives need modernization on their regulations for trading. Bush left Obama a huge deficit for years to come. We still have to pay for his tax cuts to the wealthy this year and we have to pay for his war this year. We must also pay for the war in Afghanistan which he did not properly execute and he instead focused hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, which had no al Qaeda operatives. Because of his decision we never got Ossama the perpetrator of the 09.11.2009 massacre of Americans.

"A stitch in time saves nine" is an appropriate saying in this case. Because Bush let our economy go down the crapper we now must spend trillions to ensure that it does not get as close to a full blown depression like it would have had the meltdown of the financial institutions occurred last Autumn. It is truly a shame that many people do not realize how close we came to a financial meltdown. All it would have taken was the same dissolution of Bear Sterns and AIG as occurred with Lehman Brothers. I am very glad Bush did the right thing in saving all but Lehman Brothers. We should have saved Lehman Brothers. Japan Today had an article months ago about how a Japanese firm was more than happy to scoop up many of the assets of Lehman Brothers for a song. Not successfully reviving the economy is not an option for the Democrats. It appears to be an option for many of the conservatives and/or Republicans on this thread. Not one of them can say whether mass spending is truly the best option or not. All the graduate level economists criticizing Obama's spending on this budget please raise your hands! All graduate level business finance majors criticizing Obama's spending on this budget please raise your hands!

Also we must spend billions more than would have been necessary in our war with Afghanistan had we struck a more decisive blow continually. Except for initially not allowing the CIA to vanquish Ossama and his closest team of advisers, Bush did a good job of delivering a decisive blow to our foes in Afghanistan. The proper effort was not continued and now the cost of the conflict will not be a percentage higher but multiples of the bill we could have been making payments on because we did not get the job done years ago. We should already be past the initial rebuilding phase, well into the end game of rebuilding and into the phase of integrating Afghanistan into total trading partners with both its close neighbors and our allies that conquered the Taliban/al Qaeda.

Now they are dug in deep. That will consume a significant portion of the U.S. budget for years to come. The rebuilding of our infrastructure that Bush ignored will be a burden to our budget. Crime has gone up under the Republicans after Clinton lowered it. We will be spending money to get more cops on the streets to reverse that tide. Bush failed to properly fund the research and development of alternative energy sources. That will cost billions of dollars. How could it not occur to the Republicans who were spending billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq, not to spend some money in America to get high speed internet to every American or why not spend some money rebuilding our power grid; it needs it badly.

There is absolutely no use in discussing the need to not let Americans die because they can't afford health care. The conservatives and/or Republicans never even gave it a thought before Hillary began her quest, that they determined was grandiose. Now they only offer plans that will continue to allow Americans to die without health insurance. By the way it will cost a hell of a lot less than we spend on the war in Iraq every year.

Wolfpack said:

I haven't the slightest clue.

Wow, I actually agree with you.

The spending that Barack Obama is doing and proposing are:

Moneys for a universal type health care. It has to be done. The republicans haven't even been talking a good game where it comes to health care, it's been a hands off thing and leaving it all up to the health care industry. This has been a long time coming.

Moneys for projects needed for this country going into the future. New energies, new infrastructures and even new ways to burn fossil fuels.

This country has had tax cuts over cuts in an effort to help the rich and richer but without helping the country.

The moneys spent in the bills that Barack Obama proposes is better to go into the country then giving away $4Trillion to the rich, richer and richest of the country. < :-)

molenir said:

One of the good things to come out of Clintons term in office was that the Republicans forced him to balance the budget.

You just proved that you know nothing of history. There was a showdown between the Clinton Administration and the Republican congress in January of 1996. The government was shut down. The American people supported Clinton and the Republicans caved in. Clinton won his budget plan. Clinton continued to get the budgets he submitted approved for all intents and purposes and we showed a budget surplus in 1998. By the way the CBO estimates at the time submitted by the Republican were never correct as they railed against Clinton's estimates and his estimates were not only closer but eventually we had an even greater surplus then he predicted. The differences between Clinton and the Republican were not based on a level of spending but rather the Republicans desire to withhold social spending and give special breaks to the rich. Please refer to history for the truth and not the conservatives and/or Republicans on these threads.

Another issue: How is it that they claim Reagan cured our financial woes when he had a Democratic congress but when Clinton did even better than Reagan it was because of a Republican congress? Oh, I know the answer - pure deceit. I give Reagan credit for his administration and I give Clinton credit for his great accomplishments.

goodDonkey again exposes the lies of the conservatives.

You just proved that you know nothing of history. There was a showdown between the Clinton Administration and the Republican congress in January of 1996. The government was shut down. The American people supported Clinton and the Republicans caved in. Clinton won his budget plan.

Actually, you just proved you know nothing of history. The details are correct, but Clinton asked for, and wanted a lot more then he got. This was because the House which was strongly conservative refused to pass his spending requests. He was left with a choice, get something, or keep going head to head with Republicans. He wisely chose to ask for less, and as such receives credit for balancing the budget for the first time in 60 years.

Furthermore your little conceit regarding Reagen and the Democratic congress is likewise a fallacy. The Democrats forced Reagen to make a choice. He could fight them and cut spending, or he could spend money on the Military, and fight the Soviets. He chose to focus on the Soviets, allowing the Democrats their plunder. This same policy was to cost Bush 1, when Dem leaders gave him a choice, raise taxes or else. He foolishly chose to raise taxes breaking his pledge, and paid the price for it.

Molenir again exposes the lies of liberals.

Moneys for a universal type health care. It has to be done. The republicans haven't even been talking a good game where it comes to health care, it's been a hands off thing and leaving it all up to the health care industry. This has been a long time coming.

This is of course why the US has the best health care in the world. Why people wanting to be treated by the Best Doctors, come to the US. Despite the litigious system, its still the best health care in the world. Of course people like yourself don't want good health care for most, you want mediocre care for everyone.

Feel free to run to Canada or England instead. You'll have to wait in line for months, for the simplest of procedures, done by the lowest bidder, but hey, at least you won't have to pay for it.

Actually I think you'll find that Cuba is well known as having some of the best health care in the world.

As far as the UK is concerned, the NHS system is overloaded but provides some of the best FREE emergency service that you could wish to encounter. Or you can use your insurance to go private for non-life threatening trestment. At least you have the choice.

The US is okay IF your medical insurance decides to cover you. How many times have we heard where people have been denied live saving attention due to money - or lack of it.

GoodDonkey

Not successfully reviving the economy is not an option for the Democrats.

You're off to a damn good start on that so far. Since the Spendulus bill isn't going to revive a damn thing. And with Obamas massive tax increase, the economy is going further down the crapper.

We must also pay for the war in Afghanistan which he did not properly execute and he instead focused hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, which had no al Qaeda operatives.

Yes, not a single operative in Iraq. All them Americans were killed by innocent Iraqi civilians who just happened to be passing by when the IEDs went off. Not a single al Qaida member has ever been spotted. Despite the similar name, there is no al Qaida in Iraq...

Having said this, I also have to say that personally, I'm glad we're pulling out of Iraq. Despite the democratic criticism, the surge worked, and Iraq is essentially stable. Its definitely time.

Now they are dug in deep. That will consume a significant portion of the U.S. budget for years to come.

After reading all your stuff on economics I thought maybe you might have a clue, then I read this. Do you happen to know how much Iraq cost over the past 6 years? I'll give you a hint. Significantly less then was just spent by Obama in the last 2 weeks. Significant portion of the budget? No, I don't think so. 80 Billion every few months, while its a lot of money, its just a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions of dollars Obama is spending.

Could you refer me to a university that validates your theories. I don't even bother looking at a web site unless there is foundation in the scientific or academic community. The University of Conspiracy Theorists does not count. Sorry, but I can't help you I am well grounded and I use logic and my education to evaluate ideas.

GoodDonkey,

Well theres one thing we agree on at least. lol! I really want to think the guy is joking, cause I can't believe anyone could really be that dumb.

As to Molenir's last rebuttal of my correct reflection of history, I would only be redundant, I said everything I had to say. He gave the expected response. It was very predictable and highly construed. I ask anyone doubting either of us to do the research themselves and find out how Clinton balanced the budget (He had veto power; so did Reagan) but also improved our economy with economic diplomacy that led to the greatest economic boost America has ever seen.

Molenir said:

There is a reason that more and more people are pulling money from the Market. Every time Obama opens his mouth, the Dow Jones takes another hit. Last I read more then 5 trillion has been pulled out since Obama got himself elected, with more people shifting money all the time.

Hello People. Get a clue. Investors gave Bernard Madoff Billions of dollars. The vast majority of investors have no special financial analytical knowledge let alone any economic knowledge. So these conservatives now want you to believe investors are the ones who should dictate our economic policy???? Relying on investors to determine whether national economic policy will be successful is about as ludicrous as depending on a Pharmacist for all your medical diagnoses. When Molenir uses the daily or weekly or even monthly changes in the stock market to tell you of the investors reactions to the economic plans of Obama he is advocating that investors opinions should be the determinant factor as to the success of our national economic policy.

Saying the stock market reaction should dictate our country's economic policy or even be a determinant factor in gauging the success of such policies on a day to day or even week to week basis would imply that investors have advanced knowledge of economics. Those professing that as gospel should learn that investors are very rarely economists or have a graduate level of finance education. First off, I am not saying the opposite, that economists and highly educated finance persons are rarely investors; they are frequently investors. But as far as investors go, the ones with any advanced knowledge of finance beyond reading and analyzing cash flow statements, balance sheets, income statements and statements of shareholders’ equity are extremely rare. But we are actually talking about economics which is quite different then high finance. Anyone who thinks the daily stock market trading is an accurate measurement of the work Obama's economists to successfully revive our economy is completely clueless. Very long term market response has some value in one small area of economics but the opinions of the investors may still have no real relationship to the health of America's corporations or economy during the long term period which the investor's reactions were measured.

I am not saying confidence is not a major factor. However if Obama is able to repair some of the systemic problems and inject capital into the economy the market can't help but respond favorably over time. In other words fix it and they will follow.

People claiming Obama is wasting money don't know what the hell they are talking about. Most of them rely on the notion that during the Reagan years they saw taxes cut and the economy improved. They have not got a clue how, during the Clinton years taxes went up on the upper middle class and the rich and everyone because of the gas taxes, but the economy soared like it never had before. Ever! Not in that short amount of time! So they continue to spout off about how Reagan was a genius and that he understood economics or some tripe like that. It is impossible for an individual to get economics right. It generally takes, not many in a large group, but rather many large groups of very intelligent people to achieve any level of reliability and rarely is any person or group of persons able to predict much concerning the future. Because the world economics are continuously changing it is nearly impossible to discover how the dynamics of economics are effecting the current economic environment in an ongoing basis.

Obama has pledged that he will adjust policy to follow any path that is successful and abandon any path that does not appear to be productive in reviving our economy. That is the absolute best economic position to take right now. We must be willing to try a variety of things to stimulate our economy.

Molenir - "What you don't seem to comprehend, is that Obama when he and the Dems chose try the same old tired and failed way of spending their way out."

Heh, what you clearly don't understand is the huge difference in this spending -

GWB and co. spent the $2-3 trillion in Iraq war costs on the military and a whole bunch of foreigners.

GWB and co. also froze spending on domestic programs.

On the other hand, Obama and co. are spending billions on Amerians, slashing spending on Iraq and increasing spending on domestic programs.

It's black and white.

Molenir said:

He could fight them and cut spending, or he could spend money on the Military, and fight the Soviets. He chose to focus on the Soviets,

Every historian worth his salt knows the Soviet Union was broke and producing rust bucket products and their demise was eminent whether we spent billions on military hardware or not. Reagan built cruise missiles only to destroy them a few years later. Money that was not well spent. Reagan was out of touch. He did not know the true state of the Soviet Union. I want to hear you tell us now that the Soviet Union was not totally falling apart during the years Reagan was wasting money on old "us against them" military hardware instead of preparing us for the future that our military would face.

The Democrats choose to spend money on things America actually needs. Fixing roads, building roads, American workers will be hired to do these vital infrastructure needs, hiring American workers as Teachers, hiring American workers as Cops, hiring American workers to conduct scientific research, hiring American workers to expand high speed internet to make it available to every U.S. citizen, hiring American workers to research new means of energy resources for the U.S., hiring American workers to install energy efficient products currently available in the U.S., hiring American workers to build schools, assisting states to provide much needed services to their respective citizens, assisting states to rebuild infrastructure and continue on new development projects which in turn requires hiring American workers, helping people with disease and injuries to get medical treatment without smoke and mirrors like tax incentives (how are you going to get money back on taxes for health services provided when you never had the money to get the medical treatment in the first place???), hiring American workers to rebuild our electrical grids, getting money to kids and others who want an education but cannot afford one; including asking them to volunteer to trade their efforts for an education that will lead to a degree that will provide jobs and enhance our nation with knowledge. Oh yeah Clinton did that too! He gave both tax breaks and breaks for volunteerism to support higher education (besides his efforts to hire more teacher for K - 12).

Every time Obama opens his mouth, the Dow Jones takes another hit. Last I read more then 5 trillion has been pulled out since Obama got himself elected, with more people shifting money all the time.

You do know the difference between co-relation and causality don't you? I guess not. And people are "shifting" money are they? What a nice euphemism for people losing their shirts and trying to find some idiot "looking for a bottom" to take their place for the ride down.

Republicans are admittedly in a very bad situation.

If they start spouting 'new' ideas, like Jindal did, they end up sounding like the same old lame old GOP that had a bomb put under it last November.

And whenever their faithful but clueless followers start attacking President Obama and the Democrat's policies, it becomes easier than stealing candy off a baby to point the spotlight their eye-watering hypocrisy.

At the moment, the Democrats and the GOP are like a Ferrari and a pile of rust.

There's simply no competition. :-)

When the GOPpers claims the Democrats will "raise taxes", they ignore the fact taxes will come down starting in April.

When the GOPpers claims the Democrats will ussher in socialism, they conveniently ignore that it was their own party's policies that brought this about.

When the GOPpers claims the Democrats will "increase spending", they - yet again - conveniently ignore that for the first time in 8 years, they have a president who is - incredibly - going hard to spend billions of dollars not on foreigners (as GWB did) but on Americans.

This recession, the worst in 70 years, is a fitting testament to just how much of a failed party the GOP has become, and how Republicans/conservative supporters have become the new benchmark in global laughing stocks.

again, all I see he is people supporting Obama's plan because of GWB's screw ups. That is hardly a valid reason.

I personally think there is a lot of sacrificing many of us here must do in order for this work.

skipthesong: "I personally think there is a lot of sacrificing many of us here must do in order for this work."

Precisely what Obama has said, save that he one-upped you and said that ALL must work hard and sacrifice to make this work.

Molenir the best hospitals aren't worth a hill of beans when you can't get in the door because you can't afford them. When you can't afford health care you go to the emergency room and they shuffle you throiugh the door back to the street with 2 $400.00 aspirins that tax payers still pay for through higher health care costs. < :-)

Bump,

One thing that worries me is Obama’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, who is not mentioned often; but he should be considering his background:

Orszag was an economic adviser for the Russian Ministry of Finance in Moscow from 1992-93, a period of rampant financial criminality during which many Russian mineral assets came under the control of oligarchs who became instant billionaires.

Orszag served six years in the Clinton administration (1993-8) under Rubin, the former treasury secretary who recently resigned from his senior position at the woefully mismanaged and nearly bankrupt Citigroup. Rubin strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives when such regulation was proposed in 1997.

Orzag worked closely with Rahm Emanuel, Clinton’s senior adviser, who was pushing the disastrous NAFTA legislation through Congress in 1993.

Orszag was founder and president of the economic consultancy firm that advised the Central Bank of Iceland before it went bankrupt.

This gives me some idea of what the US will be (is?) going through.

Precisely what Obama has said, save that he one-upped you and said that ALL must work hard and sacrifice to make this work."

Well gee, thanks for letting me know everything I thought I was doing in addition to paying taxes really amounts to nothing!

I ask anyone doubting either of us to do the research themselves and find out how Clinton balanced the budget (He had veto power; so did Reagan) but also improved our economy with economic diplomacy that led to the greatest economic boost America has ever seen.

In 1992 the Democrats were thrown out of Congress after about 30 years of being the minority. Clinton then had to deal with a Republican majority led by Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole and the whole "Contract with America" they promised and delivered on, had nothing to do with why Clinton balanced the budget? He didn't improve the economy the Republicans did at that time.

He had to deal with them and accept their program or he would have never been able to pass any other legislation that he himself held dear. The Republicans at that time held him in check and controlled the legislative agenda. Just like the Dems now have the last two years of Bush's term, when he, just the same as Clinton got his butt handed to him in the last mid-terms and threw the Republicans out.

Why do folks always seem to forget that part when talking about Clinton.

Funny part about that though. The Dems have held the purse strings for the last two years and look were we are at now. In Clintons administration the first two years the Republicans held the purse strings the economy was well on it's way to its first surplus.

Republicans need to get back to the basics that they we were in the 90's and not the psuedo-Democrats they became under Bush.

Obama is a a spicy Socialist with a definite sprinkle of Fascism added to the mix. May sound tasty, but it really ain`t (tasty).FDR, his "hero" was a "Progressive". Progressives of that time actually derived much of their agenda from their European cousins of the time. Not good.

President Obama has a plan, which is more than bush had,ha ha ha.Said plan reportedly will cost every taxpayer in America about 27 thousand dollars, which might seem like alot, but the rightists don7t undertand that in special situations, deficits can actually be BENEFICIAL to economies destroyed by republicans.Well,anyways my friends,we all know that Obama cares about America and really wants to help.He has one-upped his critics with his beautiful request that we ALL help and take responsibility.

He has one-upped his critics with his beautiful request that we ALL help and take responsibility."

who the hell is Obama or any politician to tell anyone to take responsibility or help? Many Americans donate to charities that do help with diplomatic issues. Many Americans setup free services organizations, people in the inner cities do massive clean up projects and this list can go on and on..... Now, we have all paid taxes and we are going to pay more so the government can sit back in their nice little offices furnished with some of the most expensive items, fly coast to coast with their families on vacations, pay for their and their kids medical expenses, pay for their housing in DC and many go and fight for them regardless of what position you take on a war and a great many pay the highest price with their lives....

Skip's Demands No, its time for ALL politicians to take responsibility to help. All politicians should only be paid a moderate salary flat, non of that extra money for hair cuts and especially for families (with maids, cooks, and butlers) All politicians should be required to cease all business activities All politicians should pay into their own retirement, instead of only hving to serve one year to get one. All politicians personal finances, once elected, should be out in the open no politician should have amnesty misdemeanors

And lastly, all politician should cease being members of any party, organization, or church.

How the hell can a politician come out and say such a stupid thing! When was the last time an elected official went off to fight in a war? When was a the last time any one of them sent their sons to war? When was the last time any of them ever had to wait or even sleep out in the rain? When was the last time any of them got arrested for fraud when bouncing a check (Diane Fienstine)

If we are going to hve such a big government, why should we make a move in addition to paying taxes?

I can't believe Bush is spending so much money.

sailwind said:

In 1992 the Democrats were thrown out of Congress after about 30 years of being the minority.

Obviously oblivious to history - it was 1994 that the Republicans assumed the majority in Congress. Some people just can't get anything right.

Furthermore Bill Clinton vetoed the budget that the Republican Congress submitted in 1996 exactly like I said and that is why contrary to those who state "had nothing to do with why Clinton balanced the budget" Clinton pushed his budget through and it was Clinton that gets the credit for balancing the budget. The American people shunned the Republicans during the government shutdown and Clinton won. Just because people continue to post b.s. and can't get their story straight it does not make it true.

Also just because the Republicans/Conservatives are so dumb they do not understand the value of economic diplomacy and the fact that the Clinton Administration negotiated NAFTA and other agreements that increased trade, does not mean that Clinton did not orchestrate the greatest boon in America's economic history. The world loved Clinton then. The world loved America then. The world bought American products (huge increases) and services because they felt good about them again. Yes, the Clinton years were great economic years; shame on the Republicans for ruining our great advances economically. They said it was all just a bubble. I got a newsflash for them. Japan's success with transistor radios was just a bubble but then American began buying Japanese high fi stereos and that bubble not only continued but solidified into a huge electronics sector. We had a great software/web-ware/e-ware/I-tech bubble that would have continued after the temporary recession in that sector if Bush had not screwed it up by redirecting our economy.

Can you imagine what these idiots would be saying if we tried to claim that any success during the Reagan years was due to the Democratic Congress? We have the proof in President Clinton's vetoes to prove that the Republicans did not get their way in January 1996. It was Clinton budgets that provided the budget surplus in 1998 and continued until Bush arrived.

Historical revisionists and liars those conservatives are. Don't stand for it. Just like Clinton is responsible for the surplus budget years and the greatest economic expansion in U.S. history those conservative bums will try to rob Obama of the credit for saving our country's economy after the Bush administration destroyed it.

skipthesong

We won and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. But make sure you keep demanding that everyone supports a third part next time too.

Obama's speech was great. The majority of Americans wanted him and he is delivering for me. Thank you Obama. 72% of Americans are supporting his decisions so far. I guess now all you can do is pay your taxes and leave the budget decisions to us; hell leave all the decisions to us. It feels so good to be on the winning side instead of the whining side.

Obama's cap and trade plans are going to undo all the growth his supporters imagine his b.s. Keynesian stimulus is going to achieve.

The PDF is available, but don't expect to hear about it or the damage it will do from any of Obama's cheerleaders in the drive - by media.

skip says: "I personally think there is a lot of sacrificing many of us here must do in order for this work."

He then says: "who the hell is Obama or any politician to tell anyone to take responsibility or help?"

Not to pick at fine points here, but a minute ago YOU were one of the people saying who has to do what, and you did even moreso in your rant that I copied the latter comment from. Granted, 'making sacrifices' and 'taking responsibility' are not exactly that same thing, but in this case BOTH are methods by which things can be helped to move forward a little faster.

" Now, we have all paid taxes and we are going to pay more so the government can sit back in their nice little offices furnished with some of the most expensive items, fly coast to coast with their families on vacations, pay for their and their kids medical expenses, pay for their housing in DC and many go and fight for them regardless of what position you take on a war and a great many pay the highest price with their lives...."

A page directly from bush's playbook... minus the crayon, and I think a lot of this is exactly the kind of thing Sarah Palin was constantly getting in trouble for, save the war part, of course. Speaking of which NO ONE has to go fight in a war for anyone else. The belief that they do is utter folly.

"Skip's Demands No, its time for ALL politicians to take responsibility to help."

Agreed.

"All politicians should only be paid a moderate salary flat, non of that extra money for hair cuts and especially for families (with maids, cooks, and butlers)"

I agree with the first part, but not completely with the second. They should receive little or no more than people in any kind of job for the same thing. In the case of the first family, like it or not there are a lot of costs involved with protection, moving, schooling (again, it has to be private and protected), etc. that is necessary. For others, I think it depends on what it is the family is doing in order to assist the politicians. I don't agree with Palin taking the kids shopping on the citizens' dime, but I can see some expenses being paid if a family is expected to go along the campaign trail. Suggesting they get LESS than anyone else is too much.

All politicians should be required to cease all business activities"

Not sure about this one either, particularly if their business is their job. I realize that you mean business interests outside of their job, of course, but again I'm not sure that that's the best thing. They should most certainly not be able to use their position to ASSIST in their personal businesses or stocks, like Cheney has done for some time with Haliburton, etc., but in many cases a lot of that is already illegal -- it just needs to be better enforced. What's more, if you had no politicians investing in companies or what have you, you'd wind up with a bunch of middle-class politicians who have zero economical clout. This might SEEM ideal, but given that rich people and companies outside of government would then be pulling the strings even more than they are now, it would probably be worse, in the end.

"All politicians should pay into their own retirement, instead of only hving to serve one year to get one."

They should pay like anyone else does, agreed. Pay more? only if they are amongst the very rich, yes. Otherwise, no more than anyone else.

"All politicians personal finances, once elected, should be out in the open"

Disagree. Or else, if they are, EVERYONE'S personal finances should be open to all. If the state is paying, then fine. If they are paying themselves, I don't see why they have to undergo scrutiny by the public for private purchases.

"no politician should have amnesty misdemeanors"

Agree 100%.

"And lastly, all politician should cease being members of any party, organization, or church."

An extremely unrealistic demand, as it not only infringes on people's rights to believe in what they choose, but you would also effectively create a 'party' of non-party people. So long as they are not pushing their religion on others, as bush has, there is no reason why they cannot choose their own faiths/beliefs. I agree it would be nice if a person were elected or voted for based not on their religion, but that's not about to change any time soon. Not in a political party? Who are you kidding, skip? Again, even if you were somehow to ban all parties, like-minded people would sniff each other out and form groups. Even if not allowed to have a name, they would pit themselves against other groups who did NOT share their interest, and look for people of the same thoughts to stand behind them (voters).

In other words, your demands are extremely unrealistic, and in some cases hypocritical. What's more, you sometimes come on here and argue that Obama is moving towards Socialism, or at the very least have said you are against Socialism and what not, and yet so many of your 'demands' are exactly that -- socialist!

It would be awesome if people were more alike in terms of earnings, political beliefs, religion (even if that religion is the religion of NO religion), etc., but it's not going to happen. The best we can do is ask for people like Obama, who are making transactions more see-through, explaining things matter of factly, and trying to find common ground in politics, sacrifice, and more.

rollanarte: "Obama's cap and trade plans are going to undo all the growth his supporters imagine his b.s. Keynesian stimulus is going to achieve."

Your newest handle has already taken a massive beating in the last few days, don't you think, my 'cheerleading' friend (surprised you didn't throw 'socialist' in there!)?

Try to actually argue the thread and make some meaningful contributions, since no one is buying what you're trying to sell. You sound like the same kind of people who stood up in the crowd during McCain's run for president who said, "I don't trust Obama! He's an A-rab!"

President Obama thinks government is the answer to all our problems. He has proposed the biggest government spending program since LBJ ( Lyndon Baines Johnson, for the young'uns here ). He doesn't know how he's going to pay for it, but obviously he doesn't care - if he was worried about how he would pay for it, he wouldn't have proposed it.

Who is this Obama fellow that everyone keeps talking about? And why aren't more people angry about Bush's $1.75 trillion deficit?

"Who is this Obama fellow that everyone keeps talking about?"

He's the current U.S. president, if you can believe that.

"And why aren't more people angry about Bush's $1.75 trillion deficit?"

That's President Obama's deficit.

Yeah, that is Obama's deficit.

george bush is the guy who gave the rich, richer and richest of Americans $4Trillion. Don't get these guys confused.

george bush is the guy who have away America's treasures. he's the guy who paid to send American jobs overseas.

Barack Obama is the guy who has to figure out how to get jobs for Americans. < :-)

"Barack Obama is the guy who has to figure out how to get jobs for Americans"

Barack Obama, the guy who has never had a job in which he had to help make a profit for his company or organization? That Barack Obama?

It just bust the chops of republicans that America elected Barack Obama and rejected the republican candidate John McCain.

The American people have more confidence in Barack Obama then they did John McCain. < :-)

Sarge said:

President Obama thinks government is the answer to all our problems.

Actually someone who thinks government is the answer hires military troops with all of its money left over from building military hardware that is now gone - poof - just like the money to hire the troops.

Obama will be using the money to hire American workers as cops, as teachers, as scientists, as energy product engineers and as construction workers and we will end up with tangible rebuilt roads and bridges, energy solutions, and less crime than we had after it rose after Clinton's efforts reduced crime in America after years of increase.

Can you imagine what these idiots would be saying if we tried to claim that any success during the Reagan years was due to the Democratic Congress?

Umm... If it wasn't for Reagan and his ability to work with the Democrats in the first place as they were the majority in Congress during his entire term , you wouldn't have any 'success' for this 'Idiot' to talk about in the first place.

Also.....I've always wondered about this on J.T. When someone takes a different position from the progressive types here, why always the insults?

I'm an idiot now gooddonkey?

It just busts the chops of the suckers who voted for President Obama that he is going to make the previous administration's deficits look like a surplus.

Doesn't bust my chops at all. I'm happy as a lark Sarge that the republicans are out of office. < :-)

It just busts the chops of the suckers who voted for President Obama that he is going to make the previous administration's deficits look like a surplus.

The majority of Americans are suckers then? A 6 trillion deficit is going to be hard, especially considering that the prvious adminstration inherited a suplus.

When someone takes a different position from the progressive types here, why always the insults?

Both the far left and far right here resort quickly to insulting each other, it is a key part of partisan politics and I don't think they know any better.

Obama claimed this recession as his own, when the Dems forced through the "spendulus" bill. The one good thing about it is, that it will prove once and for all, that you can't spend your way out of recession. Likewise Obamas plan to raise taxes is not going to help the economy, but hurt it. Anyone who thinks differently is simply an idiot.

Well, let's see. If in the next three to five years, the economy gets worse, then you would be deemed correct. But if the economy gets better, be prepared to eat your words.

Sarge will never understand how government money spent now can save billions or trillions later on. He was fine with diverting our precious resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. Now we have to pay for the costs of Iraq and the job in Afghanistan was done so poorly that it has spread again throughout Afghanistan and now it is pervasive in Pakistan. It will cost far more now to make progress in Afghanistan than it would have cost to continue to do the job right in 2004 and beyond when we began dwindling our troops lives and time and dwindling our military hardware and our nation's tax money on a location that had no al-Qaeda. Spend the money right in the first place.

I remember Sarge was glad Lehman Brothers went down. He did not have the foresight to see that the money we spend rescuing banks and other financial institutions now prevented the biggest financial meltdown in U.S. history and would have sent us spiraling into a depression as numerous assets would have quickly hit zero. Bear Sterns and AIG were destined to follow without intervention. That would have created a domino effect on Wall Street; it did anyway. But because of the way financial institutions were intertwined on Wall street there would have been dissolution after dissolution of financial institutions. Bear Sterns and AIG would have been dissolved without government intervention - that is a fact. The crash of 1929 was with America's financial structure but it had a profound effect on the workers in America. Decades of disaster followed the loss of capital from the rich. It was devastating on the middle class and lower. There is no doubt that America would have faced the same dilemma dragging much of the rest of the world down with it had we not spent a few trillion dollars to spare us from a total financial meltdown.

Now Sarge does not have the vision to see that we are not out of the woods. We will continue to lose jobs. Housing prices will continue to fall. He asks the question "how he's going to pay for it[.]" Well let me tell you folks something, we were not going to be paying for anything if we had not survived the financial collapse of Wall Street. Now he is willing to risk our future because Obama's plans are expensive? There is no doubt in my mind that Sarge would have been voting for Hoover and not Roosevelt in the 1932 election.

Sarge supported those who were part of the problem and now he wants to criticize Obama who is part of the solution. It would be great if 200 billion dollars solved all our financial woes. But Bush did not decimate our economy to the tune of a few hundred billion dollars he screwed our country into a multi-trillion dollar disaster for this country and trillions upon trillions of lost assets for the world. The nature of the problem requires that we spend more than it takes to solve the problem because if we spend less than it takes to solve the problem that equals a continued retraction of our GNP.

goodDonkey: "Sarge supported those who were part of the problem and now he wants to criticize Obama who is part of the solution."

Bang on. The saddest part of it is that sarge really has ZERO idea of what he's talking about, and seems to think that Clinton was a scoundrel who did nothing good and the economy's downfall started with him and it's his fault, while not bush's fault at all (after all, bush had an airplane disaster, Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, Katrina, and a whole load of other things that really had nothing to do with him), and then the debt somehow skipped 8 years and appeared again 5 weeks ago! Sorry, that part of sarge's denial isn't the saddest... the saddest is this: that he will blame bush's failures on Obama, and give credit to bush for Obama's success. He's decrying everything Obama does now because he's simply upset he's been wrong for the past 8 years and the proof was in the last election (and in congress before that!), and when Obama's choices now start paying off in a year or so bush will say it's somehow thanks to Republican policies.

Republicans, good. Democrats ba-a-a-a-a-aaaaad.

For those of you who truly have the vision to see that some improvements would increase our job base and thus our revenue base I would like to thank for not choosing the direction of building military hardware to increase our nation's economy.

Money spent on universal health care is money well spent. We have these people who keep saying that America has the best health care in the world. This is not true for the vast majority of Americans it is only true for the very wealthy. The Republicans continuation of a broken health care system not only means that many people do not have health care insurance. It also means that most people do not have any choice, completely contrary to the line of b.s. that the conservatives are trying to sell you. The vast majority of Americans must go to a doctor from a very small pool their employer pays a provider to assemble. The majority of Americans are not satisfied with their limited pool of doctors they have to choose from. Sure the rich can afford to go to any doctor but not the average American or even the average high income American. Universal health care frees up corporations and small businesses to focus on other business decisions and it certainly reduces the burden on small businesses who could not afford the costs of health care for their employees. With universal health care people can seek employment at these small businesses and not reject them because they do not offer any health care insurance. Many small businesses are relieved by that. I read it in The Economist quite a while ago that it is not just small businesses but larger corporations are also finding this prospect attractive. But that truly takes vision to understand.

A country better educated because we hire more K-12 teachers {come on, we have known for decades that smaller classroom size leads to better educated students - some conservatives want you to believe that more testing would have lead to better educated students), and better educated because we make it more affordable for people to get degrees, advanced degrees and technical/trade education will make our country more competitive in the world job market. Is that really so difficult to see?

If we go on to improve, rebuild or initially construct roads, bridges and other needed infrastructure, if we expand our communication capabilities (including high speed internet capabilities for every American), if we find energy replacements for current oil based energy needs, if we make our country more energy efficient then we will be in a much better position to be a productive country with more jobs.

Clinton proved that it was the increased jobs that brought in the revenue to pay for his budget surplus and not cuts that the Republicans proposed to balance the budget. They said it was not possible at the time to increase revenue to a level that would balance the budget. Clinton had vision to see that the cuts in social spending that the Republicans proposed would not be as effective as bringing more jobs to America and thus increasing our GDP, which in turn provided revenue to turn our country's deficit into a surplus. How could those who want to revise history possibly have the vision to understand that rebuilding America in a time of crisis can first stabilize our economy and then provide the growth that will lead to revenues that will pay for the programs Obama proposes.

Those of us with vision can easily see that a rebuilt America will lead to a revived America. And those of us who do not deny history remember that during the Clinton years a revived America could pay for the programs offered in the budgets proposed.

Obama is a disaster.

Yeah but the Yankees lost quite a few World Series under bush's watch.

Wow, go away for a couple hours and the thread explodes. I'll start with GoodDonkey.

Every historian worth his salt knows the Soviet Union was broke and producing rust bucket products and their demise was eminent whether we spent billions on military hardware or not. Reagan built cruise missiles only to destroy them a few years later. Money that was not well spent. Reagan was out of touch. He did not know the true state of the Soviet Union.

This is truly a sad statement. You are obviously too young to remember, and to blind to history, else you wouldn't have made it. Every Historian? Every Historian should know that the Iron Curtain was something you didn't see past. No one knew that state of the Soviet economy. Thats right. The biggest clue should be that when the wall fell in 89, everyone was shocked. No one saw it coming. Its only in hindsight, that Reagen who was blasted at the time as being confrontational, was proven right. By building up the military, he forced the Soviets to try to keep up, to spend their money on the military, rather then their economy. After a few years, the Soviet economy simply couldn't maintain it, and collapsed.

I won't bother to quote you on your Clinton rebuttal. Essentially you are saying that Clinton wanted to cut the budget rather then raise it. Perhaps you should look at the real world rather then the one your glasses show you. Clinton wanted to spend a hell of a lot more then the congress would allow. He shut down the government repeatedly rather then sign spending bills. What happened next is what you seem to have missed. Congress sat down with Clinton and negotiated. Clinton would get some of what he wanted. And lose some of what he wanted. Republicans were willing to bend, Clinton eventually saw he had to as well. The result, Clinton gets credit for something he didn't want to do. Balance the budget and cutting spending. As you yourself said, he shut down the government twice to avoid doing just that. Regrettably once they had been in power about 4 years, Republicans lost their way. They became the entrenched party, the ones controlling the purse strings, and started acting like the Democrats had for years. I think we all saw in the last 2 elections where that got them.

The vast majority of Americans must go to a doctor from a very small pool their employer pays a provider to assemble. The majority of Americans are not satisfied with their limited pool of doctors they have to choose from. Sure the rich can afford to go to any doctor but not the average American or even the average high income American. Universal health care frees up corporations and small businesses to focus on other business decisions and it certainly reduces the burden on small businesses who could not afford the costs of health care for their employees. With universal health care people can seek employment at these small businesses and not reject them because they do not offer any health care insurance.

Oh man. Its hard to know where to start here. GoodDonkey has such horrible and twisted ideas... Businesses and companies want universal health care? Who the hell do you think is paying for this? Guess what, your old class warfare soak the rich scheme is failing. How much can the so-called rich pay before they lose the incentive to work? Thats what happens under class warfare. Everyone who wants to excel sees that those who do are penalized for it. The rich who are already rich stay that way, the poor who could have become rich never do, and there is stratification.

The limited pool of doctors argument is stupid. Its also nonsense. Yes some HMOs have a group of Doctors that sign on with them, and they try to force you to use them. However legally they can't.

What it really comes down to is this. You want to make it so everyone has health care. What this means in the real world is, that the US which has the best health care in the world will join England and Canada in providing mediocre health care to all. That means, that like Canada if you need to have a surgery when the condition is non life threatening, you will have to wait 6 months to a year or more to get it. You won't have to pay for it, but you'll have to wait. The only thing universal health care is good for, is Emergency Care. Everything else, you're better off going to the US for treatment, rather then waiting in line and hoping they get around to you.

Doesn't bust my chops at all. I'm happy as a lark Sarge that the republicans are out of office. < :-)

And excited to see Obama go off on a spending spree that makes the Republicans look like cheap hookers.

The republicans lost the elections and the democrats won.

The republicans didn't lose because they were doing such a great job. Just the opposite.

Now we try what the democrats want to try. The democrats received their mandate and marching orders from the voters. < :-)

Molenir, when Barack Obama starts spending above the $4Trillion mark, then the republicans might have something to complain about, but...

Hell the republicans were crying as soon as the elections results were announced. Before he'd spent a dime. Obama couldn't have made the republicans happy any way you look at it.

Even if he'd have put all the republicans in a room and said you get us out of this...

Oops, that reminds me. The republicans got us here. Scratch that idea. < :-)

"Pledging “a new era of responsibility,” U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled a multi-trillion-dollar spending plan Thursday that would boost taxes on the wealthy, curtail Medicare, lay the groundwork for universal health care and leave a string of deficits dwarfing any in the nation’s history."

So terribly wrong its tragic, one more step towards socialism.

So terribly wrong its tragic, one more step towards socialism.

The US already turned socialist when GW essentially socialized the heart of the capitalism (Banks). Obama it would seem is just socializing more of the US.

TheQuestion, that's what the majority of the population voted for. It wasn't something hidden in his agenda, Obama stated all the way through his campaign that he would cut the tax breaks for the rich, socialize health care and help those on medicare and medicaid. No surprises.

That string of deficits you speak of wouldn't have to be done if george bush had not given $4Trillion to the rich, richer and richest of the population. If he had not given tax breaks to the rich to send million jobs overseas.

Barack Obama is only doing what is required after george bush sank the country into a jobless abyss.

But I bet more tax cuts would just whip this country back into shape, right? < :-)

The US already turned socialist when GW essentially socialized the heart of the capitalism (Banks). Obama it would seem is just socializing more of the US.

Regrettably, I can't argue with you on this. Much as it pains me to admit it, I blame Bush and the congressional Republicans for a lot of things. In fact you Dems who want to blame Bush for everything, pretty much have to get in line, cause the Conservatives got dibs. The man betrayed the very people who elected him. This said however, he is no longer in power. Its Obamas turn, and as a man who seems determined to push the country into socialism, rolling it back and fixing it after his 4 years are done is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible.

Personally I think socialism or more so nationalization would have been a useful tool to help both the Banks and Auto industry. The TARP money would have been useful, if the Banks had been temporarily "nationalized" by the government(by paying all the shareholders fairmarket value for thier share). Then government would assume the highest risk debt and the healthy operations/assets of the bank would be sold to marketplace. The government offsets the losses it takes from the high risk debt from the resale of the banks and any high risk debt that collected is just that much extra of an offset. The banks get revitalized and hopefully at least some new management, money doesn't dissappear and if enough of the debt is collected the government could turn a profit.

What this means in the real world is, that the US which has the best health care in the world will join England and Canada in providing mediocre health care to all.

The U.S. may have the best medical facilities in the world and doctors there can do some amazing things. However, very few people can afford them. Yes, there are many around the world who fly to the U.S. to have specialized medical procedures and organ transplants done. But, these people are either wealthy, or need to collect donations from people to do so. Affordable health care for Americans should not be a priviledge; it should be a right.

Affordable health care for Americans should not be a priviledge; it should be a right.

Not according to the Bill of Rights or any of the existing amendments.

Why stop there? Give everybody the right to a free home, free food, free transportation, free gas, life time employment etc....oh yeah and a George Foreman grill.

Who cares who pays for it, just as long as people who are contributing to society are paying for the comfort and well being of those who don't.

However, very few people can afford them" very few?

I think something like 80%+ of Americans are covered by insurance so "affording it" really isn't the issue. We need to keep the high tech machines and increase coverage to 100%....that's the goal, in my opinion.

Why stop there? Give everybody the right to a free home, free food, free transportation, free gas, life time employment etc....oh yeah and a George Foreman grill.

VOR, I never said anything about "free". I did mention "affordable" however. There is a big difference there.

Who makes the budget? Congress, not the President. The Executive branch can ask for a certain budget, but it is the Legislative branch that really determines the budget. So, before anyone gives any President credit or blame for a surplus or deficit, I would suggest that they give more of the credit/blame to Congress. I write this not to excuse any POTUS for signing a bad budget into law or asking for a bad budget, but to interject the reality of how the U.S. government (mal)functions.

Molenir:

" And excited to see Obama go off on a spending spree that makes the Republicans look like cheap hookers. "

It is a stroke of genius! Every democrat pork and pet entitlement program is not considered a "stimulus" and therefore a great thing! Doesn´t matter that the money isn´t there; they just print it up more govnmt bonds and ask the Chinese to buy them.

I wonder why the Reps couldn´t think of it. Bush could have sold the entire Iraq war as a massive "stimulus bill" which would lead to wealth.

The pure simplicity and audacity of this scam is astonishing.

Democrats own the deficit.

Democrats own the Republicans' sorry derrieres.

Who makes the budget? Congress, not the President.

WRONG!!

The Office of Management and Budget puts the initial budget together, and OMB reports to the executive branch.

You are incorrect. The initial budget is just a proposal. Congress has its own budget office, the CBO, and creates its own budget proposals to be voted upon.

Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Meanwhile, the Executive branch reports its recommendations to Congress, which has no obligation to follow.

Article II, Section 3: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

That 1.75 trillion deficit will of course be vastly exceeded once the true costs of the democrat spending programs kick in and tax revenue declines.

Lets just hope the Chinese will continue to buy those empty promises aka government bonds that this house of cards is based on.

That string of deficits you speak of wouldn't have to be done if george bush had not given $4Trillion to the rich, richer and richest of the population. If he had not given tax breaks to the rich to send million jobs overseas.

Yes, and I would go even farther and blame 90% of this mess we're in because of Bush.

If any of you Republican's can remember back when Clinton left office and turned it over to George Dubya, the U.S. had a budget surplus, AND we were starting to pay down the Nat'l Debt....

Along comes George Dubya, who just happened to be on watch when 9/11 happened, sees that as an opportunity to carry out his PENAC agenda... (Project For A New American Century)

And after 8 years of dumbing down the american citizen, with unbelievable BS.... I think only idiots and republican's can believe that BS... And I know republican's that still think GW can do no wrong.... Total idiots...

What a sad state of affairs that dubya guy put the U.S. in...

Yes, and I would go even farther and blame 90% of this mess we're in because of Bush.

Because the Executive branch makes the laws. Oh, wait! It doesn't! It still signs them, which makes the President partly responsible if he signs them, but not 90%.

If any of you Republican's can remember back when Clinton left office and turned it over to George Dubya, the U.S. had a budget surplus, AND we were starting to pay down the Nat'l Debt...."

Congress makes the budgets. Congress was principally Republican and killed many of President William J. Clinton's favorite programs. Nevertheless, the national debt increased during his term in office, even with budget surpluses. Why? The government was still borrowing more than it was paying back. It's like saying that you're not spending more than you make because there's still money in your wallet, when that money is borrowed.

President George W. Bush made plenty of mistakes, but I find the partisanship of the Bush-haters to be just as idiotic as the "Bush-bots".

OldGeezer:The government was still borrowing more than it was paying back. It's like saying that you're not spending more than you make because there's still money in your wallet, when that money is borrowed.

Thank you for that. I was messing that up.

But I have say, budget surpluses are still a very good thing.

Nevertheless, the national debt increased during his term in office

Yes, but it was actually heading down from his second term. And the rate of increase was NOTHING like with Reagan, Bush I or Bush II. In fact, unlike those presidents, the national debt did go down in relation to GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Thank you for that. I was messing that up.

But I have say, budget surpluses are still a very good thing.

Budget surpluses are better than budget deficits, but the real measure has to be debt. You and I can't go to the bank and say, "See here, my debt is growing, but I occasionally balance my checkbook by borrowing money. So, why don't you lend me more money?" That's in fact what the U.S. government has been doing.

Yes, but it was actually heading down from his second term. And the rate of increase was NOTHING like with Reagan, Bush I or Bush II. In fact, unlike those presidents, the national debt did go down in relation to GDP.

Who makes the budget? The POTUS can propose a budget, but it is Congress that actually sets it, often irrespective of the President's wishes. In the case of President Clinton, the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995 and throughout the remainder of his Presidency. It was a Republican Congress that created that 1997 budget that ended his first term with a reduction of debt/GDP. You wouldn't know that by reading that wikipedia article.

Nevertheless, GDP is not an indicator of economic health, but an indicator of economic activity. One can hardly argue that the dotcom bubble or the recent real estate bubble were healthy, yet they were significantly responsible for inflated GDP values. The same applies to government spending. Debt-driven spending is not healthy, but GDP includes government spending so as the government increases spending, GDP increases. As a percentage of the annual GDP, government spending has gone from 3.4% in 1930 to 20.0% in 2007. Yet, the government is a cost-center and its funds are derived from taxing producers (people who actually pay taxes) and debt.

It makes no real sense to be excited that we incurred less debt as a measurement of GDP. If anything, it's a testament to how much of how deceived the public is by politicians and bureaucrats.

He's already being called 'Broke Obama'.