Thursday, February 4, 2010

More Party of NO in Action

We have a big development in the world of Republican politics today. The House GOP has released an outline of its budget. Though all of the details are not present (typical), a few highlights have emerged. First and foremost is that according to the budget proposal, we would not reach a budget surplus until after the year 2060. 2060!? Yeah. Weird how President Clinton left the country with budget surpluses a mere 9 years ago, and the GOP can't get back to that position for fifty years.

The big takeaway, according to the Center for American Progress, is that the budget proposes devastating cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits for anyone under the age of 55. It also resurrects President Bush's failed scheme of privatizing both Social Security and Medicare. Since this idea was soundly rejected by the American people in 2005; and even with both houses of Congress and the White House, the Republicans were unable to advance this scheme, it seems unlikely this idea will go anywhere. For now.

This should serve as a warning to American voters that despite Republicans giving lip service to "saving" social security and medicare, their intent is to destroy them. These non-ideas are what passes for thinking in right wing circles, and proves the fact that conservatives have never met a failed idea they wouldn't cling to and try again. How is the party going to run for election in 2010 on a platform of destroying both social security and medicare, and not getting the budget to surplus for another 50 years? Lie, of course.

11 comments:

free0352 said...

Weird how President Clinton left the country with budget surpluses a mere 9 years ago, and the GOP can't get back to that position for fifty years.

Have you seen the difference between the debt of the clinton years and today? It's like 6 trillion dollars difference. Bush was bad, he rant the debt up 3 trillion in eight years. Obama is worse, he ran it up 4 trillion in six months. Futher, Clinton didn't have to contend with all the baby-boomers going on Social Security and Medicare which is going to bust the bank becuase it's total unfunded mandate what with Medicare D Bush signed is something like 53 trillion dollars over 40 years. I certainly hope they intend to destroy those programs, we simply can't afford them or much of anything else. In ten years at this rate we'll be lucky to keep the roads open and pay for Nanci Peloci's botox shots.

I got an idea how to pay this off. Across the board spending cut of about 50% only keeping open constitutionally obligated functions.

Oh wait... niether party is up for that one.

free0352 said...

I mean, do you realize that Gorge Bush's last budget defacit for 2008 (and his largest) was 410 billion dollars? That is a crime. Today, for the 2010 budget the defacit is 1.56 trillion dollars, and whats more the President and the Democrat Congress project even larger defacit spending as time goes on. That is frankly unsustainable for even two or three years. That is economic genocide. So yes, it's going to take 50 or maybe even 150 years to pay that off, and that's if we don't have any more budget defacits which is something we've only been able to do twice in 40 years.

So pack up your health care plan, pack up your social security and medicare. It's gotta go. We gotta cut defense spending which is dangerous but we just don't have the money. Time to wipe out welfare, no more gifts to the state for education or much of anything else. The consequences of not doing that, is one day people will stop loaning us money, and they we have federal meltdown. Then we have no government at all. That is a mathmatical fact.

Dave Splash said...

Using that right wing fuzzy math again, free. Remember, Michelle Malkin is not at economist. She might not even be human.

Don't wars count in the deficit anymore? I mean, until Obama came into office, it wasn't counted. I'm guessing you "forgot" that fact.

Is that where your suspect figures come from - the Bush economic team? They certainly don't come from anyone reputable, and certainly not someone without a conservative bias.

Dave Splash said...

Try introducing some reality to your skewed look at Obama's budget.

T. Paine said...

Free, don't you know the left thinks that the only way to get out of this deficit is to SPEND more of our money?

Does that make ANY sense whatsoever, Dave?

People will get hurt, including all of us and every American with the spending cuts that absolutely must be made. The alternative is to no longer have a country.

By the way, as asinine as the Republican plan is, just how soon does Obama's budget start returning non-deficit spending budgets? And don't give me that mathematically retarded Obama's numbers. Give me an objective outside source's. I guarantee you it will be a lot longer than 50 years from now.

It is because neither party has the balls to do what is necessary that caused the birth of the Tea Party. We the people will have to be the ones to make this happen, and we will!

Dave Splash said...

You owe Sarah Palin and her son an apology for your use of the word "retarded." In fact, maybe you should lose your job.

free0352 said...

Ok Splash, lets do some math shall we?

The National debt the day George Bush took office in 2000 was 5.6 trillion dollars. The day he left office it was about 8.951 trillion dollars. That would be the day Barak Obama was sworn in.

So, 8.951 - 5.628 = 3.323 trillion. That would be the ammount of money Bush put on the national credit card. As of right now the debt is 12.366 trillion and change. So, lets do some more simple math.

12.366 - 8.951 = 3.415 which gives us the ammount Barak Obama has borrowed in 2009, and in reality he borrowed that in the opening 100 days of his presidencey. George Bush took 8 years and as you can clearly see

Obama total to date 3.415
Minus Bush -3.323
equals 0.092

or you know, $900,2000,000.00 dollars more in a few months than Bush borrowed in 8 years. Both are bad records to be sure, Obama's is clearly, clearly worse.

Now lets look at the 2008 budget deficit, which was shockinly high. Here on the front page of USA today no less, you can see that the defacit for FY 08 is 438 billion dollars. Now lets look at Obama's first budget for FY 09 which was which according to our friends at CNN was 482 billion. That my friend is a 44 BILLION dollar difference but we're just getting warmed up. This year is a year for shattering last years record defacit because this year we're in the hole according to our friends at CBS news will be 1.56 TRILLION dollars. Wow, lets see here. 2008 defacit being 438 billion that means that...hmmm carry the 1 you get....hmmmm... a 1.122 TRILLION dollar difference from George Bush's worst year ever.

Those my little mathmatically challenged friends, are the facts.

Schools out.

free0352 said...

And of course, Obama's 900 million dollar borrowing difference doesn't count the 1.56 trillion for this year so the differnce so far is more like 2.35 trillion. Thats 8 years vs 1 year's difference.

game-set-match.

Does you job require math skills, because in that case maybe you should loose your job. If you were working my regester you'd be suspect.

Dave Splash said...

Don't you have a job, free? Seriously. Every time I check my email, there's five more comments from you - on every freakin' post I have. Thanks for doing all your "research" and all, but no matter what you say, no matter what so called statistic you cite, I will never, ever support your cut 50% of all govt spending, privatize everything, remove the entire social safety net, nation destroying ideas. I just won't.

I am not nearly as alarmed by deficits as you are. I'll quote a hero of yours on this one, Richard Cheney, who famously said "deficits don't matter."

Now, I believe that the Obama plan is ultimately better for the country than your libertarian, slash and burn philosophy. It seems to me that you willfully ignore things like the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, the ending of the Iraq War, the ending of tax loopholes that allow many large corporations to avoid paying what they should, the return of the TARP money with interest, and the return of a booming economy (and the revenues it would take in) when factoring in how things will look a few years from now.

To see who's right, let's try Obama's way first. Pressure Republican law makers to stop filibustering every single bill that comes forward, and let the president implement his agenda as he envisioned it. If it's a 10 or 20 year projection, allow it to remain, unaltered, for that time period. Let's see the results. Then, we'll try your way. Sounds dumb? Sure, it's a political impossibility. Just as your ideas are, as well. It's easy to sit on the sidelines being a libertarian and espousing all sorts of theories and whatnot, when you know they will never be implemented because you couldn't get enough people to actually vote for them.

I can't take your constant harping about Obama and debt seriously because you don't have a solution that is politically viable. Life does not exist in an economics text book. People are not in the abstract, they are real.

You're good at pointing out potential consequences of too much debt. Fair enough. Point taken. Pretending there will be no serious consequences from your plans, however, is naive. To rapidly and dramatically alter the way Americans have been living their lives for a century would bring about a massive social upheaval. There will be way more angry people than the 65,000 or so that came to DC for that 9/12 march. You thought your teabagging friends were riled up, wait until you see the reaction when no government services exist anymore. The protests won't be limited to a few thousand Southerners with cheap signs calling the president a Nazi. There will be tens of millions.

free0352 said...

I don't sleep and its night over here.

I will never, ever support your cut 50% of all govt spending, privatize everything, remove the entire social safety net, nation destroying ideas. I just won't.

Your "safety net" is strangeling us. What happens when forign lenders won't loan us any more money and the government shuts down? I'll bet then you will wish you had. As for defacit's, they matter. A lot.

Now, I believe that the Obama plan is ultimately better for the country than your libertarian, slash and burn philosophy

8 failed years of Bush and now you're telling me we should run the same Keynesian plan only bigger and worse and that will work because Barak Obama will just do it better because of his pure awesomeness? Really? That's you're arguement?

Your faith in Obama boarders on religious fundamentalism.

let's try Obama's way first.

We tried that way for nine years, I'm ready for a change. I spent all my faith on Bush's first 2 years, but then I learned that way leads to poverty. And yes dave, its the same way... even the same people are running it- we didn't even get new retards, we're still using the old retards like Bernanke.

Life does not exist in an economics text book.

It seems it does, as we've been predicting this situation now for about whooooo... 12 years. Every day Austrain School Libertarians are proven more and more right.

Pretending there will be no serious consequences from your plans, however, is naive.

Sure there will be consequences, we'll look more like Switzerland and less like Mexico. Stop getting your socialist entitlements confused with economic policy. I could be for all the socialist crap in the world and it wouldn't work if we didn't have any money to pay for it now would it? 12+ trillion in debt dude, pretty soon we won't be able to afford the trucks to deliver the welfare checks. If you want to see protests, wait till that happens and the cops or Army won't come because they didn't get paid either. Then you'll see riots.

Dave Splash said...

To argue that the there is no difference between the Bush presidency and the current administration is so completely idiotic that I wonder how you function as an adult. Just because you put all your eggs in the basket of a retard, don't assume that those who were right about said retard are the same as you.

Bush was an intellectual weakling whose every move was done to pay off his financial backers and appease his base. You fell for it. I did not. Don't assume I'm as dumb as you.

Now we have someone who actually wants to deal with the nation's problems in a more complex way than "tax cuts for millionaires." It takes more than a year to recover from the disaster that Reagan, Bush 41 and 43 have wrought on the country. Tell me they are the same in 2016.