Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Obama spending binge never happened

From the looks of that the Prez couldn't possibly know what revenues would be prior to submitting his proposed budget to the Congress. Help us out here, Ma_R...

Apparently, my previous post has not made it here. When discussing the federal budget process, it is important to understand the distinctions between budget, debt, deficit, authorization and appropriation. As well as receipts and revenues - unless, of course, that is not relevant to your political bias/point. Then, of course, things like facts and logic need not apply.

I keep forgetting that you are very probably a public school teacher and that your loyalty is first toward your union, then toward the democratic Party, then toward handouts and then toward the country's well being.

I will tell you in as simple terms as I can think of, just so you can actually understand what happens in the real world:

There is a big pile of money on the table, that is all you have to work with. It is less than it was last year because that money was given to somebody else. So, in the real world world, you choice is to live within your means or, uh, live within your means. Instead, you tell us that because your neighbor has more than what is on the table, you are going to outspend what you had last year and if that doen't work you will blame your neighbor for having more than you.

That sums up the whole Bush Tax Cuts issue and the effect that they had on the budget. It is insanity to keep doing something that doesn't work because you are sure that someday the lie will be proven true. As I said, it is an adiction shared by all liberals, jelousy of what they cannot have and an insistence on believing that it is always somebody elses fault.

See my post above, it referrs to the attitude your ilk has shown since GW was first elected, a sense of superiority and entitlement that far exceeds your actual status on the food chain.

So he just decided to send what he could, to hell with the economy and the debt he is passing on to the next generation? He has proven himself to the worst type of liberal, one with a credit card and an unlimited credit limit.

The reason I posted the budget process was so that we could all be on the same page about the process:
1) The budget does not specifically address deficits.
2) The President proposes, but only Congress can Appropriate.
3) Budgets are not actually required for Congress to Appropriate, it is merely a method of process.
4) Deficit is the difference between revenues and expenses.
5) Debt is a method of covering the difference between revenues and expenses.

Wikipedia - Appropriation Bill

Uhhh? So, you think that Obama can spend whatever he wants to without prior approval from Congress (whether that be in the form of a passed and signed budget or a continuing resolution)?

I don't think so...

Perhaps you would enlighten us with some examples?

I suspect that the numbers are exactly correct and government spending seems to be running out of control and the debt continues to climb. I also suspect that folks are not really taking a good look. Since 2008 our entire economy has been in the dumper and unemployment is very high. This means that millions not working are also not contributing taxes to gov. It also means that depressed businesses are also not paying in what they would normally be paying in. I have seen estimates of the economy alone being responsible for a loss of 50% of our tax revenues. Now, consider, we are also being told that our actual tax basis resembles that which we had in place 60 years ago (1950)! In 1950 we had a population of 152 million people, in 2012 we have 313 million people. So, gov is trying to deal with a population increase of almost 50% with the tax income we had in 1050. But, wait, it gets better! between 2008 and now we have also had to fight no fewer than 2 wars, one of which continues to this day (the cost of Afghanistan is, I think 1 billion dollars a week)! I know, some want to simply shut down gov but that's not gonna happen, it just keeps chugging along. In the last two years the Republicans have been in charge of the purse strings. They have made runs at their favorites; NPR, Family Planning, etc. but this is discretionary spending which is a minor part of the budget in spite of what they infer. The simple fact is that the Obama administration, colluding with the Republicans, have rolled back taxes so far that there is simply no way taxes can pay the bills. Not only that but the Republicans have refused any tax increases, any fixing of the tax code that might improve gov income, etc.

So, when we hear that Obama is a spendthrift, spending beyond our means, increasing the debt, etc. its simply not true. Not because of a finessing of numbers but because our government has too much to do and nothing to do it with. Even if the military stuff was stopped we are still not taking in enough to pay the bills. I consider our problems not to be those of Obama but of the congress. They seem to think they can shrink gov enough to do the job and that is plain silly. They think that government income we had in 1950 to not only be adequate but more than we need to deal with an almost 50% increase in population! I keep waiting for somebody to ask a question. Why are the Republicans determined to bankrupt the nation? I am not saying that Obama is not partially responsible. He did continue the Bush tax cuts and then he added a few more of those on his own (jeopardizing Social Security along the way) but, basically, we are living under a Republican plan and, as far as I can tell, that plan is to bankrupt the nation!

What I find even more stunning is that it would seem that a good share of the electorate agree that the Republicans SHOULD bankrupt the nation as that is exactly what they seem to want based on what they have said. As usual - I don't get it.

I am a public school teacher, and that prioritized list of loyalties does not describe me at all. But I continued reading, trying to follow your analogy.

Then you said this:
You're talking about your team there, right?

And finally this:
That's where you really lost credibility ... that absolute "all" and your claim to know exactly what we all think and what is in all our hearts.

Why go there?

i have been listening to right wing radio talk show hosts for some time hoping to get a different perspective but its like a .290 batter taking batting lessons from a batter with a .121 average ... now they do read what is written and repeat it so listeners can be informed that they, the radio host, is dealing strictly with the facts in great specificity and then they misinterpret what they read and present that as a factual conclusion

in their delusional world they can never be wrong ... but then i sometimes think, perhaps i am the delusional one ... perhaps i have assigned political affiliations to the numbers ... the natural number 3, is it conservative or liberal, or maybe libertarian ... no ... numbers are numbers and that is all they are ... but statistics lie ... well not really ... it is kinda like guns ... that's right people kill people ... thus people lie using statistics as their weapon ...

this thread is a prime example of the difference in perspectives of reasonable thinking people and conservatives. wha???? stop it now!!! ... no i am not presupposing that i am infallible but rather i think i represent a reasonable interpretation of what it means to say the Obama spending binge never happened.

to me that means we are comparing budget requests and the correlated spending. Thus if the president requests $X dollars and spends $(X+2) dollars he is obviously overspending. But that is not how conservatives see the issue. For them it doesn't matter what the budget is, if the president spends more than the revenues he is overspending.

So the question is, is the conservative view reasonable? If we take the shortfall of 32% and apply it to the budget and make some minor assumptions about how to spend the remaining money, we would be faced with reductions in spending of from 32%-40% depending on how we allocate monies. And if we make further assumptions about reducing taxes it is even worse. So for SS recipients we have to ask if they are willing to reduce their benefits by anywhere from 32% to maybe over 40%. I view that as unreasonable and therefore the conservative is unreasonable.

We also are in the midst of an additional conundrum. Our economic condition is tenuous at best and variably dependent on the global economy. If we recklessly begin drastic reductions in spending we could face the easy slide into another recession and this one would be of our own volition. How scary is that. But the conservative response is, not to worry, it will be worse for a while and then be much better.

The historical record suggests that economies expand and contract in a manner unbeknownst to humans as if they were an organic entity. So yes, we could do nothing and eventually the economy would expand, or at least the historical records suggests it. But why would any thinking president subject his citizenry to the whip?

On this issue the most reasonable view, based on the factual evidence, is this administration has not been on the spending binge as described by conservatives.