Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’

[Chip]

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner for Economics, columnist for the New York Times, and a Bush Administration critic said of the Bush's economics policies before the 2004 election that "those tax cuts, rather than the spending binge, are the primary cause of the (federal) deficit.” He also said that tax cuts, deficit spending and two wars are unsustainable.
While Republicans like to talk about tax cuts, actually favoring the rich. And Republicans like to accuse the Democrats of wanting to raise taxes. The best way to reduce the deficit, begun in the Bush Administration, is by increased taxes. The theory that reduced revenues through tax cuts will reduce the size of government, had been proven to be untrue. In recent history under Reagen, Bush H.W., Clinton, and Bush W., government has grown and continues to grow.

So what Obama said is true. How quickly we forget when and how all this mess started. We love to blame it on someone we dislike.

There were quite a few things I didn't care for with Bush, and the thing I dislike most is that now the left can say "oh, all this spending was OK with you when Bush did it, but now that it's a Democrat you are unhappy". That's - what's the word politicians like so much? - disingenuous. I think most conservatives were probably unhappy with the growth in federal spending under Bush, but the current administration has really gone overboard with this nonsense. History shows that tax cuts implemented correctly are hugely beneficial to the overall economy. Look at the growth in wealth during and soon after the Reagan years - he inherited an economic situation much worse than the one we're in now by many measurements, and managed to get it turned around.

First sensible statement the guy has ever made as President. How long did it take him to catch on?

Unfortunately, he hasn't. He gave that talk in support of nationalizing health care. He's trying some sleight-of-hand with this. According to His Eminence, the reason that the deficit is so huge is that we have private health care costs, and if we nationalized health care the deficit would magically disappear. Or something, I couldn't follow his "logic". This approach makes so little sense that it will be interesting to see how MSNBC can rationalize it for him. I'm surprised his teleprompter didn't blow a fuse during that speech.

He's lying, he knows he's lying, and he's relying on the mainstream media and all the 'yes-we-can' Obamadroids to ignore common sense and push for nationalized health care. And if you think that's a good idea, call someone in Canada and ask them what they think about health care rationing. It's a really, really bad system.

[tesla]

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner for Economics, columnist for the New York Times, and a Bush Administration critic said of the Bush's economics policies before the 2004 election that "those tax cuts, rather than the spending binge, are the primary cause of the (federal) deficit.” He also said that tax cuts, deficit spending and two wars are unsustainable.
While Republicans like to talk about tax cuts, actually favoring the rich. And Republicans like to accuse the Democrats of wanting to raise taxes. The best way to reduce the deficit, begun in the Bush Administration, is by increased taxes. The theory that reduced revenues through tax cuts will reduce the size of government, had been proven to be untrue. In recent history under Reagen, Bush H.W., Clinton, and Bush W., government has grown and continues to grow.

So what Obama said is true. How quickly we forget when and how all this mess started. We love to blame it on someone we dislike.

This is a nice video that illustrates the national debt in terms of a road trip, starting back in 1900. The distance traveled is the debt, and the speed of the car is the rate of spending (rate of debt increase) at various times throughout the last 109 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

The problem of outrageous governmental overspending (not under taxation as stated above) has a long history. It dates back to the New Deal, drawing upon Karl Marx for its ideological underpinnings. It has continued as a progressive (pun intended) abandonment of American founding principals. We have abandoned small government in favor of enormous entrenched bureaucracies dominating large sectors of the economy. We are in the process of abandoning the traditional American ideal of equality of opportunity in favor of the Marxist/socialist ideal of equality of outcome. The scales of justice that were once called "blind" because they applied equally and impartially to all, now must be "empathetic", a code word for legal favoritism of politically or socially connected groups or individuals.

This sea change in philosophical underpinnings has led to ever increasing spending through more and more programs, entitlements, government regulations, and bureaucracies. The end result? Loss of the over-riding founding principle of liberty through government intrusion into the private sector and enslavement to a crushing national debt.

Both democrats and republicans have been to blame, although I would argue that it has been by design on the left but by weakness, expediency, and stupidity on the right. Unfortunately, Obama plans to take the problem to a whole new level, and the fact that his predecessors in both parties have helped drive us closer to the cliff does not excuse him for flooring the accelerator as we sail right off.

This is not about petty partisan bickering. The US and its founding principles represent the culmination of 2000 years of western political thinking. If the American people do not relearn and defend the reasons our founding fathers constructed the union as they did, we will preside over the slow demise of the greatest nation (in terms of freedom, productivity, and self determination) in human history.

[casingpoint]

I liquidated a sizable investment once. By the time I was through paying capital gains taxes, there was no money to start a business. The startup money had gone to the federal treasury. God know what they did with it. I, and several people who had previously worked for me, were left unemployed. I'm OK now, but they aren't. Karl Marx forever? Nah. Only as long as the tax base lasts.

[SlowDave]

lauser:
I was much more sick over the Bush administration's support of socialism (aka the bailout) than I am of Obama's. The Bush admin was supposedly Republican, which at some point in history stood for (at least) fiscal conservatism and smaller government. For him to support the bailout was a gut-wrenching knife in the back. I voted for him and other Republicans to represent my desire for less government in my life and they do THAT!!!???

I voted for McCain in the '08 election, although it was pretty clear Obama had the upper hand and was the likely victor. He won, and he is doing what Democrats do: increasing spending, which will be followed by increasing taxes, generally with both at exponential growth rates. But how can I really be mad at him? He is what he advertised, or at least what Democrats are known to be, even if they play middle-of-the-roader during campaigns a bit (as do repubs).

I am confident that socialism is a failed approach, and do not wish to see our country follow it. It makes me sick to see what's going on now, but I can't be surprised or anything about Obama. My side lost and now we'll spend at least a few years tasting the edges of socialism and then we'll see if Americans want to continue down that path or reverse direction. I'm hoping for the latter.

But DO NOT say that I was fine with the Bush administrations veer towards socialist policy at the end of his tenure. That is so very NOT TRUE. Thanks for your time.

[SlowDave]

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner for Economics, columnist for the New York Times, and a Bush Administration critic said of the Bush's economics policies before the 2004 election that "those tax cuts, rather than the spending binge, are the primary cause of the (federal) deficit.” He also said that tax cuts, deficit spending and two wars are unsustainable.
While Republicans like to talk about tax cuts, actually favoring the rich. And Republicans like to accuse the Democrats of wanting to raise taxes. The best way to reduce the deficit, begun in the Bush Administration, is by increased taxes. The theory that reduced revenues through tax cuts will reduce the size of government, had been proven to be untrue. In recent history under Reagen, Bush H.W., Clinton, and Bush W., government has grown and continues to grow.

So what Obama said is true. How quickly we forget when and how all this mess started. We love to blame it on someone we dislike.

p.s. So, if my wages (income) are cut and I increase my spending, this Krugman fellow will be able to tell me which of those is the primary cause of my personal deficit? Hmmm...

p.p.s. Didn't Al Gore win a Nobel Prize also? Or was that some other prize?

[bryang]

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

This has got to be the funniest thing I have ever heard!
I just wonder if he really thinks that we are really that dumb.

-geo

[LaUser]

[Or he has an active interest in crippling the free market and your ability to produce what you need without government aid.

Bingo.



LaUser, I know you're an Obama lover and all, but his drunken spending spree has in a mere 100 days outspent all of his predecessors going back to George Washington combined. You really need to lay off that kool-aid. It's bad for you.

Not really. All things considered at the time, I thought him the better choice because the Republicans scared me. In 2000, I had very good opinion of Bush. But his actions changed my opinion. If our current Prez messes up as badly as Bush did, I will hold him accountable just like I did Bush.

Many of the forums, like this, have been bashing Obama since November. I don't see the point in doing that.

FACT: And the deficit was pretty bad before Obama. FACT: The idea of giving tax payer money away to corporate America, such as AIG and others, started under Bush. FACT: During the Bush administration over $350 Billion was distributed to corporations with no accountability and no regulation and NOBODY knows how those guys spent it. And that is shameful and it makes me angry.

Now if anyone can show me how to get us out of this financial mess, not just an idea that is a worthless as snake oil, I would like to hear it. Cause we ain't outta the woods yet. Hint: Bashing the Prez and complaining about spending ain't such an idea. As Theodore Roosevelt said, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,..." So unless someone is willin to climb into the arena, he might as well start another talk show and join the crowd of big mouthed, know nothings. Rant Off.

[solaritx]

Ok, you got me to jump in.

Sure, both parties have done things wrong. I also did not like what the Bush administration did over the last several years.....but oh yea....the Dems had control of Congress. ONLY Congress can make laws, set budgets, etc....not the Pres. All the while Bush had an approval rating of 24% or so, the Dem controled congress that set the laws, set the budget, bailed out the banks, etc were controled by the Dems and the approval rating of Congress was below 10%

What you are saying (putting it in family terms) is that it's ok for the Daddy to spend not only his money but the money of his children and grandchildren because the Dad's father was irresponsible with money? Bull.

The amount of money spent already is greater than all the money spent from Washington to Bush, and they can't account for over half of it already by their own admission. Last week, Obama said that 35,000 jobs were saved or created, yet he can't say which job specifically were saved or created.....it's a formula. Then he pays off the Unions and ACORN with 11 billion to acorn alone....even when they are up on voter fraud in several states.

While others have done a poor job, this man is driving this country over a cliff. It's nothing more than corrupt Chicago politics, now at a National level. If you are fine with this......well I am not.

[bdickens]

So if one guy starts pushing a bunch of people off a cliff and then someone else comes along to replace him and pushes even more people off a cliff that's okay because someone else did it first?

[74novaman]

Now if anyone can show me how to get us out of this financial mess, not just an idea that is a worthless as snake oil, I would like to hear it. Cause we ain't outta the woods yet. Hint: Bashing the Prez and complaining about spending ain't such an idea. As Theodore Roosevelt said, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,..." So unless someone is willin to climb into the arena, he might as well start another talk show and join the crowd of big mouthed, know nothings. Rant Off.

I'll jump in here.

1) Tax cuts across the board. Yes, even for those mean rich people. Take a look at how the Reagan tax cuts turned around a Carter inspired recession.
2) Quit taxing money corporations make overseas when they try to bring it back to the states. We're losing BILLIONS that could be reinvested in the US...if only the corporation had an incentive to spend it in the US.
3) No more bailouts. Period. For anyone. If a company cannot stand on its own in the free market, someone else who's more capable will move in and take over their market segment. But you can't build a sustainable and strong economy by propping up corpses.