Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Obama's world (sequestration)

206 posts in this topic

Posted

We are working into a roughly 14 year stretch of 0 leadership from either party in Washington.

Poorly planned wars, poorly planned policies, just garbage all around

I agree with you 100%.

GWB was an idiot and we are still paying for many of his bad decisions.

Obama is doing nothing to improve the situation and is just wanting to add more and more spending to the equation.

Difference between most Republicans and Democrats is....

Most Republicans know and admit that GWB was a huge mistake and an idiot.

Most Democrats refuse to see the damage that Obama is causing and continue to make excuses for him.

i swear the guy could go on a crime spree (killing thousands) and his supporters woudl find someway to spin it as a positive for him....and that it was somehow GWB's fault.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Who here is defending GWB? Strawman. If you want to look at it another way....the vast majority of defense spending on wars was still in full swing in 2007 and we still only had a deficit of what you see in the charts. If you're concerned with % of what's entitlements vs. other...anyone can get them. The graphic is simply putting into perspective the chicken little speech Obama gave regarding the budget/sequester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If you're concerned with % of what's entitlements vs. other...anyone can get them. The graphic is simply putting into perspective the chicken little speech Obama gave regarding the budget/sequester.

What would the graphic look like without medicare, SS, and military spending? Those crumbs would look like a pretty big slice I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Now all I can think about is pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You do realize that half of the sequestration is FROM defense spending and the other from other parts of the budget? Taking it out would defeat the purpose of the point being made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

733977_10151885524519657_1415758053_n.jpg

It is almost like something cataclysmic happened in 2008 that resulted in major government expenditures to avoid a economic collapse that resulted in a recession that also required additional government money like unemployment benefits.

Here is a list of new spending that Obama is "responsible" for:

Children's Health Insurance

The Economic Stimulus (result of recession)

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act (result of mortgage crisis)

Auto Bailout (result of recession)

Obamacare increases the budget and spending but it is actually a deficit reducer according to the CBO.

Now in addition to those things that ballooned the budget there was also the Omnibus the Republicans tried to hold hostage because it had some increases in it due to the recession, there was war spending that had some discretionary spending in it, and there was a HUGE increase to cost of living adjustment of 5.8% for entitlement spending.

So outside of the Children's Health Insurance almost all of the spending that Obama did when he came into office was a result of the economic meltdown and the 2 wars.

Also, Obama's first year in office, actual spending increased a whopping 17.9 percent to 3.5 trillion. Of that 3.5 trillion Obama was "responsible" for about 5% of total spending and nearly all of that new spending that wasn't paid for was in response to the economic collapse. The vast majority of the reason for the whopping 17.9 percent increase in spending was because of policies that were in place before Obama took office (i.e. previous administration).

So basically pie charts are for the simple minded. I know Republicans hate it when people say this is a result of GWB (who I voted for twice mind you), but just because Republicans hate hearing it doesn't make it less true.

And people keep saying Obama can't find cuts. He wants tax increases but no cuts. Obama has presented a specific plan that has a roughly 2:1 cuts to revenue ratio. So he has a plan out now that has twice as many cuts as there are tax revenue.

Republicans like those cuts and has offered these cuts in the past. They just can't bring themselves to raise taxes on the rich people who fill their campaign coffers; plus the Tea Party is holding the speaker hostage, if he breaks on taxes they will take away his speakership.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I tried to do drive-by posting Delhommey-style for a bit, but it just isn't my style:

By Presidency:

Annual federal spending under Obama increased by ~8% ($1.1 trillion dollars annually) in a span of a single presidential term.

Annual federal spending under GW increased by ~75% during his two terms.

Annual federal spending under Clinton increased by ~28% during his two terms.

Annual federal spending under Bush 1 increased by ~24% during his single term.

Annual federal spending under Reagan increased by ~111% during his two terms.

By House Control:

Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~157% between 1980 and 1995.

Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~80% between 1995 and 2007.

Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~32% between 2007 and 2011.

Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~5.5% between 2011 and 2013.

By Senate Control:

Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~70% between 1980 and 1987.

Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~51% between 1987 and 1995.

Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~23% between 1995 and 2001.

Annual federal spending under Neutral control increased by ~16% between 2001 and 2003.

Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~21% between 2003 and 2007.

Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~39% between 2007 and 2013.

When House and Senate controlled by a single party:

Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~51% between 1987 and 1995.

Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~23% between 1995 and 2001.

Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~21% between 2003 and 2007.

Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~32% between 2007 and 2011.

When a single party controls Congress and Presidency:

Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~7.5% between 1993 and 1995.

Annual federal spending under Republican control increased by ~21% between 2003 and 2007.

Annual federal spending under Democratic control increased by ~32% between 2007 and 2011.

Annual federal spending as a percentage of GDP has ranged from 18% to 25% during said time.

Annual federal spending for Health Care has gone from 9% to 24%.

Annual federal spending for Defense has gone from 28% to 24%.

Annual federal spending for Pensions has gone from 22% to 23%.

Annual federal spending for Welfare has gone from 10% to 11%.

Annual federal spending for Education has gone from 6% to 4%.

Annual federal spending for Interest has gone from 9% to 7%.

Take those numbers and do with them what you will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Obamacare will not be deficit neutral.

http://www.scribd.co...-Protection-act

You are right it isn't neutral. It reduces the deficit.

According to that very report, if the Affordable Health Care Act is implemented as is it will reduce the deficit significantly over the next 75 years as the CBO has projected.

If at a later date they remove or phase out the cost cutting measures that are already in place in the legislation it will balloon the deficit over 75 years.

So basically, leave it the fug alone and encourage Republican Governors to stop playing politics and expand medicaid coverage and permit the private insurance exchanges to happen and it will actually reduce the deficit, cut health care costs, and more people will be covered.

Just deal with the fact that a good (but not perfect) piece of legislation got passed by a President you don't like, and was originally introduced by a Senator most Republicans did like at the time (he won a Republican presidential primary after all) and the same Senator and Republican nominee for President that endorsed Obamacare.

Obamacare is a Republican idea. I am surprised that Republicans haven't embraced it. They should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Obamacare will no more deficit neutral than Social Security is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The thing that pisses me off most about this is that no party will be responsible. They will point to the other guy and blame them. They both want it. Just don't want the blame. Biger problem is their followers will believe them when they point to the other party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The same day Governor Christie of NJ realizes that the Medicaid expansion and private insurance exchange is a good thing for the stat of NJ, NC lawmakers are sending a bill blocking it. If Governor McCrory signs it as he is expected to, he will be yet another Republican who has lost my vote for the foreseeable future. It is a shame too because I voted for him. You would think I would just learn my lesson and quit voting for Republicans all together.

It is my fault for thinking there are still conservatives that follow the example and leadership of Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Won't make that mistake again.

By passing it they have left 500,000 more people in NC with no insurance, forfeited 23,000 new jobs, and has refused 500 million dollars in new revenues.

Not to mention making insurance less affordable and decided to not bring health care costs down for the citizens.

But hey! At least they stuck it to Obama!! Amrite? Amrite?

http://www.wral.com/...-desk/12154530/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites