Obama on the defensive over spending, debt

romney is having a little fun here. 'praire fire' is a sly dig; this is the title of a book by failed domestic terrorist bill ayers, who obama infamously palled around with, eventually launching his political career from the guy's house. ayers' book takes its title from a well-known line by red china's chairman mao. just do a search.

Government programs exist; for many, their spending levels fluctuate depending on demand. When times are good, demand - and thus spending - for programs such as supplementary nutrition and unemployment insurance is low; when, bad, their spending is high.

This is not a particularly difficult point to understand. Some either cannot or will not understand this.

"Expanding" government means intstituting new programs that will require further spending in future. Under that rubric, Obama has actually shrunk government. Again, some either cannot or will not understand this.

Romney is on record recently as stating that a dramatic cut in government expenditure would have a deleterious effect on the American economy. He maintains that spending should be cut slowly over a period of years. This puts him in the center of the Obama camp. We will see how Republicans understand this; I expect a rather rapid retraction.

The GOP has a dire record on economic management over the last few decades; they are now doubling down. I would hope that Americans will take this into consideration in November.

Everytime Obama uses the word "inherited", an independent voter gets his Conservative wings...

The math is real simple. Under Obama, the debt has grown more in 3 years than in the previous 8 years under Bush. And there is no end in sight to the deficits if the Democrats have their way.

You would think that by now the Democrats would come up with a more timely strategy than "blame bush"...

Obama uses the word "inherited"...

The math is real simple.

Please - name a program - any program - that Obama has instituted which has increased government debt.

And while we're at it, name a strategy - any strategy - which will eliminate the deficit without reverting to historical (read: pre-Bush) levels of taxation and without fundamentally altering American society.

The math is simple. It is also on Obama's side.

Laguna, you say:

Obama has actually shrunk government.

Please specify where the shrinkage you're referring to is.

Budgets are moving targets, but when temporary spending measures ("stimulus") expire and as Obama's reaping the fiscal windfall of Bush's (unfunded, let us not forget) wars is realized, federal spending will have decreased from what it was under the last years of Bush.

The Wall Street Journal - if you'd believe such a left-wing rag - has more here:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1

Obama continues to call for heavy discretion in new spending and increased consolidation in existing government programs which should allow the same level of services to be provided at lower cost.

"romney is having a little fun here. 'praire fire' is a sly dig; this is the title of a book by failed domestic terrorist bill ayers"

Sounds more like your desperation to use a coincidence to bring up that dead horse, Old Buddy.

It became an embarassment for team McCain when Palin went loose cannon and wouldn't stop parroting that nonesense, but then...

...those that prefer to ignore history and all...

"the debt now stands at $15.7 trillion, compared to $10.6 trillion on his inauguration day"

Hey, President Obama inherited a financial mess from that cowboy Bush, it's not his fault!

Fools do not realize that the reason the United States is not in the situation that the EU is is precisely because of federal spending. States are generally required by their constitutions to balance their budgets, but the federal government is not - so while, say, Mississippi and Florida slashed their their state budgets, much of the slack was taken up by increased federal spending.

Austrian economists would prefer that we were all Greeks.

Laguna, I read that "piece" that you linked. You do realize it was rather clearly refuted, right?

Double-speak doesn't answer my question, however. Allow me to reiterate; In what way has Obama shrunk the government? Which agencies? Which programs? Reductions that MAY materialize several years down the road are hypotheticals.

Herve Nmn L'Eisa - as I had asked before, tell me: in what ways has Obama expanded the government? Also, the reductions realized through the winding down of the Bush wars are real; they are reflected in the current budget. Google how military providers are retrenching.

The midst of a recession - the most severe forced upon the US since the Great Depression - is not the time to scale down government. That is mainstream economic thought - even Romney has conceded that as of late.

If Ron Paul supporters are looking for a kindred candidate, they would find it in Obama, not in Romney and the failed GOP policies he represents.

Oh - and, Herve Nmn L'Eisa, you did notice the graph accompanying the article titled "annualized growth of federal spending," which is divided into eight four-year blocks coinciding with presidential terms. You also might have noted that, of those eight blocks, the three lowest growth periods were under Democratic presidents. You might have further noted that, of those eight, that with the lowest growth rate is the most recent.

You were discussing "refuted"?

@Laguna:

The WSJ article is an excellent one. Thanks for posting the link.

I consider many supporters of Ron Paul to have similar qualities to the devotees of Lyndon LaRouche. Extremely simple math and common sense often conflict with their knee-jerk ideological reactions.

it's not obama on defense, it is the lapdog media that serves him.

You were discussing "refuted"?

Its got graphics.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/24/how-to-make-obamas-spending-look-small-marketwatch-rebuttal-infographic/

it is the lapdog media that serves him

Perhaps an intelligent majority in the "media" serve a higher principle about America than the trolls who call them "lapdogs" can comprehend.

Perhaps an intelligent majority in the "media" serve a higher principle about America than the trolls who call them "lapdogs" can comprehend.

I'd sorta wouldn't mention dogs in discussion yabits as you posted prior to all to read a dining experience you had in the past.

Ah, the "intelligent-media/minions" ruse. Of course any opposition must be by simpletons. How original.

Look at the unemployment numbers for example. Official numbers indicate a slight improvement, but what the numbers actually represent is a very incomplete picture. A more accurate number would be the employment participation rate, which shows decreasing participation. Even that is incomplete as underemployment is not represented.

Was watching the usual run of political talk-shows that are the staple of Sunday morning TV here in the States today. The clips they're all running of Obama out on the campaign trail clearly show Obama has become vindictive, bitter, and mean-spirited. Commentators have long noted that's the mode he slips into when he's desperate. He knows his re-election is in deep trouble.

RR

Obama called Romney’s claims a “cowpie of distortion”

Stay classy, Barack.

RR

@RomeoR

What's not "classy" about "cowpie"? I think you're confusing it with another, similar, cow-related product.

LB

Sailwind, thanks for that link. Of course, the Kool-Aid Kids will cry foul that the actual numbers don't support Obamas claims.

obama and his buffoonish vp both promised millions of jobs would be created in a new 'green' economy. since it was a whole new sector and brought to us exclusively by far -sighted progressives it was supposed to be, by its very nature, immune from the after-effects that the 08 meltdown has had on other sectors and of course clear of any influence from the evil republicans and 'big oil.'

but the jobs haven't materialized.

billions have been wasted.

only the politically-connected have prospered.

Please - name a program - any program - that Obama has instituted which has increased government debt.

Ok, start with the Porkulus Bill. Increased debt by a trillion dollars. Continue on with Odumbocare, which is gutting the almost 1/5th of the US economy, and putting the government into the roll of caregiver. It is also, widely, and justifiably reviled by nearly everyone who knows anything about it. One of the few decent things he has done, was cut some taxes. Oddly though, Dems refer to tax cuts, as increases in cost. (As in extending the Bush tax cuts will cost the government...) So that fits the bill as well.

Now that I've met your request, please be so kind as to explain Obamas math. How has this idiot we elected President managed to cut the deficit, despite increasing it, more then any other president in history.

@Molenir

putting the government into the roll of caregiver.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I'd rather live in a country where the government gives a stuff about the people it governs that in some right-wing libertarian loony country where the people are seen as there to provide a labour force for the bloated capitalist minority and their private healthcare programmes, their private security guards and their utter lack of concern for anybody less fortunate than themselves, despite bleated claims to be "servants of the Lord and Jesus Christ">

Lucabrasi, then you would be completely content in Cuba.

More Americans than ever are now relying on the state to support their families. Newt Gingrich's nickname for Obama rings true: He really is the "food stamp president."

RR

I'd rather live in a country where the government gives a stuff about the people it governs that in some right-wing libertarian loony country where the people are seen as there to provide a labour force for the bloated capitalist minority

the bloated minority? that would be federal employees, who nowadays take home as much as 112 000 dollars a year, more than double what the average private sector employee makes. 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in America today are located within driving distance to the nation's capital, washington d.c.

@Herve

I doubt very much that I'd be completely content in Cuba, but I'd be a damn sight happier there than in the US, believe me.

Oh, Molenir! - normally, I would not respond to posts peppered with fringe phrases du jour, but as you'd specifically asked:

Ok, start with the Porkulus Bill. Increased debt by a trillion dollars.

Reduce that by about 20%, then subtract the catastrophe that would have occurred without it, and it can only be found to be a very, very good deal. Think about it this way: Obama saved America from the fate facing Europe for half the cost that Bush spent freeing Iraq. Priorities, man - priorities.

Continue on with Odumbocare, which is gutting the almost 1/5th of the US economy, and putting the government into the roll of caregiver.

Wait - the federal government is not only offering insurance - it's providing healthcare?! No, my friend, the "public option" was sadly left on the cutting room floor, and government involvement in healthcare provision has never, ever been discussed; what we have is a requirement that all buy PRIVATE insurance from PRIVATE companies, at rates which INDIVIDUALS and their INDIVIDUAL companies agree to. This insurance will be used at PRIVATE hospitals and clinics, which will provide medical services at MARKET rates.

The only place you'd find your "hell" is with the Veterans Administration, where the government both provides insurance and medical services. Perhaps you should take your complaints to the VA.

Oddly though, Dems refer to tax cuts, as increases in cost.

That is not accurate; Dems refer to tax cuts as negative offsets on the balance sheet. This is only true if you believe in math, which many conservatives do not. You are free to believe that cutting taxes without offsetting them with spending cuts will not affect the deficit if you would like - it has, after all, been the rage since Reagan. True, Rand Paul and his ilk pretend to do so (to the extent that they refuse to indicate which cuts will be required to cover their extravagant cuts what the more fortunate contribute to our society) - you may not be in "good" company here, but you certainly won't be lonely.

How has this idiot we elected President managed to cut the deficit, despite increasing it....

Perhaps a review of "cause and effect" might be of use. Laws are on the books; these laws are designed to protect vulnerable members of our society in case of economic catastrophe; this happened, and the laws functioned as intended: the unemployed were sustained, the hungry were fed, those who fell unable to afford basic provisions such as health care were looked after. None of this was due to any move by Obama; it was a result of two generations of law which created our social safety net. The "cause" was the recession; the "effect" was automatic spending increases and revenue decreases.

If you would like, you may imagine how Obama may have cut the deficit: he may have refused to extend unemployment benefits to save the equivalent of six months in Afghanistan; he may have urged Congress to alter law to deny food stamps to those who under current law are eligible. This would fit you squarely in the middle of the Republican party as it sadly stands today.

You are, however, entirely incorrect when you state that Obama is responsible for "increasing it, more then any other president in history."

Reduce that by about 20%, then subtract the catastrophe that would have occurred without it, and it can only be found to be a very, very good deal. Think about it this way: Obama saved America from the fate facing Europe for half the cost that Bush spent freeing Iraq. Priorities, man - priorities.

How many jobs were created by the Porkulus bill, and how much did they cost, per job. Wanna do the math again? More then a million dollars per job. Yeah, that was a smokin deal.

Wait - the federal government is not only offering insurance - it's providing healthcare?! No, my friend, the "public option" was sadly left on the cutting room floor, and government involvement in healthcare provision has never, ever been discussed; what we have is a requirement that all buy PRIVATE insurance from PRIVATE companies, at rates which INDIVIDUALS and their INDIVIDUAL companies agree to. This insurance will be used at PRIVATE hospitals and clinics, which will provide medical services at MARKET rates.

Laguna, you are naive at best. The bill is designed to, and will have the effect, of having everyone drop their private insurance. Because it will be cheaper for companies not to insure individuals who work for them. So where do you think those individuals will have to go for insurance... As I said, naive at best. It has the same effect of putting in the 'public option' without specifically including it.

You are, however, entirely incorrect when you state that Obama is responsible for "increasing it, more then any other president in history."

Sad how deluded some people on the left can be. Apparently they actually believe its not Obamas fault we have the largest increase in deficit spending, ever. Guess we actually elected Biden President. Or are they still blaming Bush. Truly pathetic.

Molenir,

Have you got any figures on the government salaries of the BHO devotees trolling here? Those might be some of the jobs that have been created during this administration.

Nobody in Congress or President Obama is listening to the USA taxpayers. Spend more? No, cut all foreign aid and start over with sound budgeting. Bring the Yanks home.