Gingrich's Intrade Odds and Gallup Lead Collapse
Related from Gallup: "After enjoying 14- to 15-percentage-point leads over Mitt Romney in early December, Newt Gingrich is now statistically tied with Romney in national Republican preferences for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination: 26% for Gingrich vs. 24% for Romney. This follows a steady decline in support for Gingrich in the past 10 days."
62 Comments:
Fascinating. Just on Friday the pundits were saying Newt could win in Iowa, and that New Hampshire and S. Carolina could go for Newt too.
The GOP Gong Show must have a few acts left. I wonder who will be next on the R-Party Love Boat? Ron Paul? Or does the godless Paul have no chance (he worships gold, not a deity) with the religious right? Can a Mormon, decried as a cult by many on the religious right, lead the GOP?
Could we see a deadlocked GOP convention, instead of a TV show-coronation? A dark horse candidate win?
This is the most feeble GOP field in many generations, perhaps ever, in a long history of GOP dominance by weaklings. I mean, Spiro Agnew could take on these guys.
Can Marv Throneberry (Obama) beat The Three Stooges (the GOP field)?
Stay tuned--the best theater in the world, unfolding right in front of us.
Obama is still the rock star to the occupy crowd.
I'm not sure this is just about Gingrich.
there is something more profound going on here.. and Gingrich is a symptom.
Larry G-
Newt (and Trump, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Palin, etc. etc.) are symptoms of a GOP that has eradicated its thinking wing.
The GOP straightjacket has forced out of the party all but the lunatics willing to don the cuffs.
So we get Ted Danson (Romney) vs. Donald Trump.
Sad to see---the great R-Party stalwarts, the Eisenhowers, the Dirksens, the William Buckleys disappeared years ago.
Now you have dopers and adulterers like Newt and Rush braying about hypocrisy of others.
The last GOP president to oversee a balanced budget was Eisenhower. Extremely little credibility is left.
Maybe Ron Paul is the answer, but he thinks UFOs control the Federal Reserve Board.
May you live in interesting times.
I could not have said it better myself.
;-)
Even the great ROnnie would be run out of town on a rail now days.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I would vote for a sandwich if it were the (R) nominee against the shady attorney from chi-town.
@ Benjamin
When you said that Ron Paul is "godless" and that "he worships gold, not a deity," perhaps you were making a feeble attempt at humor, but Swift (or swift) you are not.
In fact, Paul attends church at First Baptist Church in Lake Jackson, Texas.
"So we get Ted Danson (Romney) vs. Donald Trump."
It was a mere 3-4 months ago when Benji was championing Donald Trump, referring to him as his "hero."
"Newt (and Trump, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Palin, etc. etc.) are symptoms of a GOP that has eradicated its thinking wing."
Ah yes, as opposed to the intellectual vanguard who jumped head first into the banana republic style, cult-of-personality 2008 campaign of "hope and change." What a lesson in highbrow politicking!
And though they(excepting Gingrich) may not be first tier intellects, it's a sure bet none of the above named politicians are under the impression that ATM's and the internet are the causes of unemployment...but unemployment checks are sure fire job creators.
This is the most feeble GOP field in many generations, perhaps ever, in a long history of GOP dominance by weaklings. I mean, Spiro Agnew could take on these guys. Do best, no regret!moncler jackets good topic, I will concern on.
PeakTrader, my read from the occupiers is that they will boycott the voting process...obama's support of indefinte detention of citizens (NDAA 2012) seems aimed at them...
& my old anti-war liberal friends lean towards ron paul...
Quote from Benjamin: "... (he worships gold, not a deity) ..."
"Maybe Ron Paul is the answer, but he thinks UFOs control the Federal Reserve Board."
You are full of such reasoned and indepth political analysis. I can't understand why democracy doesn't produce better results.
Quote from Benjamin: "... (he worships gold, not a deity) ..."
"Maybe Ron Paul is the answer, but he thinks UFOs control the Federal Reserve Board."
You are full of such reasoned and indepth political analysis. I can't understand why democracy doesn't produce better results.
"The last GOP president to oversee a balanced budget was Eisenhower. Extremely little credibility is left"...
Hmmm, as usual pseudo benny grip on history is as tenuous as his grip on reality...
Did you forget that Eisenhower didn't have the costs of the Great Pandering to Parasites programs to deal with courtesy of pseudo benny's Democrats...
bunny-
""The last GOP president to oversee a balanced budget was Eisenhower. Extremely little credibility is left"..."
eisenhower was the last president to have a balanced budget at all.
using any kind of actual accounting standard (say GAAP) no one has even come close since E.
even using the meaningless cash standards of the CBO, no one has reached surplus in ages. clinton? nope.
never happened.
he may have come close, but there was never a surplus, it was literally just a story he made up.
the numbers don't lie.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/855368/the-clinton-budget-surplus-fact-or-fiction-
also note, that budget was passed by newt and co, the congress was deeply R and clinton was forced to change tack mightily 2 years in as a result.
i have severe doubts you would have seen anything like that sort of fiscal behavior under a D congress.
more important than a technical distinction of "balanced" or not... if how badly in deficit it is and if that deficit is a structural one that without serious intervention will only get worse.
So while we can quibble about whether Clinton had a true surplus or not.. he did not leave the country with a structural deficit that was do deep that trying to unwind it is very, very difficult even with a good economy... much less a melt down economy.
Clinton left with a 5 trillion debt and arguably a surplus or deficit but it was not a heavy structural deficit that would take at least a decade to work out of.
for that, we can thank folks who claimed to be fiscal conservatives but saw no problem with fighting wars that were not paid for and tax cuts that doubled the debt and left a structural deficit.
We now have an annual deficit that is as large as what we take in in income taxes.
we take in 1.3 trillion and our deficit is 1.3 trillion ( roughly).
We have a National Defense budget that is about 1.3 trillion.
and if anyone says that we have to include national defense as well as entitlements.. the folks who call themselves fiscal conservatives go bananas.
Here's what I don't hear from Gingrich or Romney or the others with the EXCEPTION of ROn Paul and that is how they would balance the budget.
Paul is the only one who has the fiscal backbone to tell it like it is.
"for that, we can thank folks who claimed to be fiscal conservatives but saw no problem with fighting wars that were not paid for and tax cuts that doubled the debt and left a structural deficit." -- Larry
This is just complete nonsense.
"After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus in 2001, the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007. That 2007 deficit, with the tax cuts in effect, was one-tenth of today’s $1.6 trillion deficit." -- Washington Examiner
"A “discourse” on the left blames it all on the right. The Toronto Star’s Heather Mallick just blamed this year’s $1.4 trillion deficit on “George W. Bush’s tax cuts and by Barack Obama’s continuing to wage two unwinnable, unaffordable wars and starting a third in Libya”. But it just ain’t so."
"Tax cuts cannot be the culprit because the United States does not have a revenue problem. For six decades federal taxes took an average of just under 18% of GDP and, after a sharp recessionary dip, are heading back that way."
"The U.S. has a spending problem. From an average of just over 18% of GDP from 1950 to 1974, federal spending rose to an average of 20.8% from 1975 to 2007 then shot up to over 25%. And not on wars: at $666.7 billion in 2010 (about 4.5% of GDP) the military budget is less than half the deficit. Moreover, defence’s share of GDP fell from nearly 15% in the early 1950s to under 10% by 1970 to under 5% by 2000 yet the budget was not on fire in the 1950s or even 1970s." -- Tronoto Sun
"... look what happened to federal revenue after the much-maligned Bush tax cuts took full effect in 2003. Economic activity expanded rapidly — and so did federal revenues. In fact, the economy during that period boomed, and receipts from both personal and corporate taxes peaked as a result. The Bush tax rates, as they are properly called today, did not create a revenue vacuum; they helped produce an expansion that enhanced rather than lost revenue. ... The economic expansion of the 1990s (including the dot-com bubble) temporarily raised revenue above the spending trendline, but the slope on spending increased in the early 2000s, and practically launched spaceward in 2007 when Democrats took control of Congress. Had spending increased at a rate of inflation from 2001 forward, we would probably not been in deficit at all." -- HotAir
Revenues did not fall of substanially following the Bush tax rate adjustments. In fact, they increased. The deficit, following the tax cuts, continued to decrease until the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, when spending skyrocketed.
I notice that you make no mention of Obama's failed "stimulus" plan which cost more than the Iraq War and yielded absolutely no benefit to anyone except the Democrats cronies in the labor movement and may have actually hurt the economy in the long run.
"..for that, we can thank folks who claimed to be fiscal conservatives but saw no problem with fighting wars that were not paid for and tax cuts that doubled the debt and left a structural deficit."
So tired is this inaccurate nonsense from larry. The deficit in 2007, the last fiscal year before Pelosi/Reid's budgets, was only $170 billion. Looks tantalizing now. In fact, Bush's eight fiscal years annual federal spending averaged 20.43 percent of GDP. Obama's 3 yrs are estimated to be around 24 percent of GDP.
I point this out not to defend Bush's reckless spending on failed liberal programs. But it demonstrates how Larry isn't interested in an accurate portrayal, he's looking to get this moron he voted for off the hook for the most reckless spending since FDR.
"We have a National Defense budget that is about 1.3 trillion." -- Larry
This is a lie.
Che,
"I notice that you make no mention of Obama's failed "stimulus" plan.."
This is how liberals play their dishonest game. They list the couple things they don't like in the bloated federal budget, and then blame all our fiscal woes on those items. Notice Obama, the all time fiscal train wreck champion, hasn't "paid" for the wars either, just like he doesn't want to pay for this stupid payroll tax cut he's trying to pass. Somehow, this doesn't get mentioned by Larry.
" Revenues did not fall of substanially following the Bush tax rate adjustments. In fact, they increased. The deficit, following the tax cuts, continued to decrease until the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, when spending skyrocketed."
what was the debt at the end of 2000?
what was the debt at the end of 2008?
what I see is 10 trillion at the end of 2008.
where did that debt come from?
did it not come from spending more than we had revenues?
re: "it's a lie"
nope.. it's the truth:
Nation Defense spending:
" Budget Breakdown for 2012
Defense-related expenditure 2012 Budget request & Mandatory spending[18][19]
DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0
billion At minimum, foreign arms sales.
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest
Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
^ "Federal Government Outlays by Function and Subfunction: 1962–2015 Fiscal Year 2011 (Table 3.2)".
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist03z2.xls
^ Table 8.5—Outlays for Mandatory and Related Programs: 1962–2014
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
" "I notice that you make no mention of Obama's failed "stimulus" plan.."
because it did not create a STRUCTURAL deficit... it's a one shot deal
AND - many economists say that it DID WORK but it was not enough to make up for the depth of the recession.
"This is how liberals play their dishonest game. They list the couple things they don't like in the bloated federal budget, and then blame all our fiscal woes on those items."
I give Obama credit for 5 trillion also but not the structural deficit that Bush gave us by recklessly fighting two wars ...and cutting taxes..and a 1.5 annual structural deficit.
"Notice Obama, the all time fiscal train wreck champion, hasn't "paid" for the wars either, just like he doesn't want to pay for this stupid payroll tax cut he's trying to pass. Somehow, this doesn't get mentioned by Larry."
It's in his lap.. but he did not create the problem.
my complaint here is about people who CLAIM to be FISCAL CONSERVATIVES but who are nothing of the kind.
we KNOW that the Dems and Obama are more tax & spend types but they never claimed to be fiscal conservatives like the GOP claims.
but look at what the GOP has done...
they doubled DOD spending.. we now spend everything we take in - in income taxes on national defense.. and they say we have a "spending" problem but they refuse to acknowledge how we got here and what we have to do to get back...
they doubled the DOD budget and now they say we can balance the budget with cuts to entitlements - and that's simply not true.
there is no way to balance the budget unless you ALSO cut DOD.
as I said before
the ONLY Republican with a scintilla of moral turpitude with respect to real fiscal conservatism is Ron Paul.
the rest of them are war mongering FRAUDS!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry,
"..because it did not create a STRUCTURAL deficit... it's a one shot deal."
Nonsense. Obama borrowed the money, so at least the interest will be built into the budget in perpetuity. Besides, we are talking about almost a trillion dollars, the biggest "one shot" deal in the history of civilization. You can't just shrug that off like it was some incidental budget item.
"I give Obama credit for 5 trillion also but not the structural deficit that Bush gave us by recklessly fighting two wars ...and cutting taxes.."
Once again, you are picking out 2 items you dislike out of the thousands of items in the budget. I could just as easily blame it on Medicare, ag subsidies, food stamps, etc.
"AND - many economists say that it DID WORK but it was not enough to make up for the depth of the recession."
And many economists say the Bush tax cuts worked, but not enough to cover the fiscal deficits. See how that games works from the other side, Larry?
But this...
"we KNOW that the Dems and Obama are more tax & spend types but they never claimed to be fiscal conservatives like the GOP claims."
First, bullshit. Obama routinely condescendingly lectures us about getting our fiscal house in order, as if we were the ones pissing away trillions on his cronies and other parasites. Same with Pelosi and Reid and the other spendthrift Democrats.
Second, you seem to be saying you actually vote for these nimrods because even though they are the absolute worst, at least in your mind they aren't hypocrites. I find that astounding and idiotic.
You are defending the imbecile who is still touting yet another stimulus plan, this one to the tune of about a half trillion dollars, even though the last one he rammed through was an epic failure. The GOP has kept his ruinous spending at least somewhat in check since they won Congress in 2010. That alone should tell you who is more to blame for the situation we find ourselves in.
"..because it did not create a STRUCTURAL deficit... it's a one shot deal."
Nonsense. Obama borrowed the money, so at least the interest will be built into the budget in perpetuity."
well I agree that the interest will be built in... true.
"I give Obama credit for 5 trillion also but not the structural deficit that Bush gave us by recklessly fighting two wars ...and cutting taxes.."
Once again, you are picking out 2 items you dislike out of the thousands of items in the budget. I could just as easily blame it on Medicare, ag subsidies, food stamps, etc."
you could but it was DOD spending that DOUBLED.
"AND - many economists say that it DID WORK but it was not enough to make up for the depth of the recession."
And many economists say the Bush tax cuts worked, but not enough to cover the fiscal deficits. See how that games works from the other side, Larry?"
they also AGREE that it did not work enough and that at the end of the Bush term the debt DOUBLED.
right?
"First, bullshit. Obama routinely condescendingly lectures us about getting our fiscal house in order, as if we were the ones pissing away trillions on his cronies and other parasites. Same with Pelosi and Reid and the other spendthrift Democrats."
he does... but he also does not claim to be in a party that is defined as fiscal conservatives as the GOP does.
:Second, you seem to be saying you actually vote for these nimrods because even though they are the absolute worst, at least in your mind they aren't hypocrites. I find that astounding and idiotic."
I have voted Republican.. God has forgiven me...
"You are defending the imbecile who is still touting yet another stimulus plan, this one to the tune of about a half trillion dollars, even though the last one he rammed through was an epic failure. The GOP has kept his ruinous spending at least somewhat in check since they won Congress in 2010. That alone should tell you who is more to blame for the situation we find ourselves in."
Obama started out deep in the hole thanks to the GOP goobers.... that's the truth.
come on Paul.. if I can AGREE as to what Obama's role is can you not AGREE as to what Bush and the GOP did?
Do you really think if the GOP continued in control instead of Obama that they would have done anything differently that they did in the prior 8 years?
what would make you think that?
McCain was not going to cut DOD...we know that...
Remember also.. the TARP..auto bailout.. etc was BUSH's idea.. that Obama carried forward.
don't you think the TARP was just as bad as the stimulus?
"Do you really think if the GOP continued in control instead of Obama that they would have done anything differently that they did in the prior 8 years?"...
You mean gasoline being cheaper and unemplyment being of of what it is since the Kenyan Kommie Klown started defiling the Oval Office larry g?
larry g whines: "nope.. it's the truth"...
Then he sites wikipedia has his source...
ROFLMAO...
Now that's just to funny for words...
Do some homework...
Larry,
"they also AGREE that it did not work enough and that at the end of the Bush term the debt DOUBLED.
right?"
Yep, so? That doesn't prove the tax-cuts are to blame like you repeatedly assert. However, I will grant you the millions of voters at the lower levels Bush took off the income tax roles was ill-advised and probably a net loser. I'm all for rescinding that portion of the tax cuts. The upper income cuts resulted in revenue gains.
"..but he also does not claim to be in a party that is defined as fiscal conservatives as the GOP does."
I don't know what that's supposed to mean other than he doesn't claim to be a Republican. It took me about 5 seconds to find one of the idiot's repeated claims of fiscal responsibility: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuRadAd_Lww
So what's your bullshit claim again, Larry?
"Obama started out deep in the hole thanks to the GOP goobers.... that's the truth."
And he's done nothing but bury us deeper. If he had spent the past 3 years blaming Bush while actually working in a constructive manner towards digging us out, I'd be behind him because Bush was pretty irresponsible with spending. But he looks like Scrooge McDuck compared to Obama, the all-time debt king.
"if I can AGREE as to what Obama's role is can you not AGREE as to what Bush and the GOP did?"
But you DON'T agree, in spite of all the evidence. And I've repeatedly said Bush spent too much money. But the FACT is that spending under Bush averaged around 20% of GDP counting the Pelosi/Reid years. Under Obama, around 24% of GDP. There's no question who is worse.
"Do you really think if the GOP continued in control instead of Obama that they would have done anything differently that they did in the prior 8 years?"
The GOP rule from 2001-2007 wasn't great, but yeah, it was better than Pelosi/Reid. No question. And there never would have been a stimulus, Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank.
"McCain was not going to cut DOD...we know that..."
McCain is an asshole, but he has long fought to root out waste and fraud in the Pentagon. He has never taken an earmark. His lifetime score on any fiscal conservative watch dog group scorecard like ACU, CAGW, and NTU is usually around the equivalent of a "B." Obama and his half-wit sidekick always receive the equivalent of "F." During his 3 years as a part-time Senator, Obama appropriated nearly a billion dollars in pork back to his home state. These things matter when you are trying to decide who should lead. Go and look if you don't believe me. In short, yes, things would have been different.
"Remember also.. the TARP..auto bailout.. etc was BUSH's idea.. that Obama carried forward."
Obama perverted the auto bailout into a present for his union buddies. But it was bad policy from Bush as well.
"..don't you think the TARP was just as bad as the stimulus?"
No, TARP was mostly, if not completely, paid back. And TARP was a panic move implemented to stave off a fiscal nightmare. The stimulus was a trillion dollar homage to Rahm Emmanuel's famous statement to "never let a crisis go to waste."
"Remember also.. the TARP..auto bailout.. etc was BUSH's idea.. that Obama carried forward"...
Ahhh yes the TARP bill that both Senators Biden and Obama voted for...
Hmmm, come to think of it both Senators Biden and Obama voted for the auto bailout too...
Imagine that...
Larry,
You claim that the Bush tax cuts resulted in "structural deficits". This is demonstrably false.
Tax revenue in 2000 was $2.02 trillion, falling to $1.78 trillion by 2003 following the dot.com crash and the attacks on 9/11. Economic activity and revenue began to recover substantially following the Bush tax cuts to $2.52 trillion by 2008. Revenue INCREASED.
And while revenue has fallen off as a result of the recession, it is expected to be approximately $2.62 trillion in 2012.
Revenue was not and is not the problem.
Back to your Ouija board.
"Obama started out deep in the hole thanks to the GOP goobers.... that's the truth." -- Larry
As juandos points out, Obama voted for every but of spending that created the "hole" your referring to. In fact, in almost every case the Obama and the Democrats were advocating that the government spend more than it ultimately did.
Bush inherited his own set of problems, the dot.com crash and the 9/11 attacks, to name a few. What is important is to look at where Obama is taking us, and it is not pretty:
"Obama is responsible for $4.4 trillion in actual or projected deficit spending in just three years in office ... At the end of 2008, just before President Obama took office, the national debt was $9.986 trillion and 69 percent of GDP. Under his projections, eight years later it will be $20.825 trillion and 104 percent of GDP. That’s right: Our debt will soon exceed our national economic output for an entire year. And that’s even if you believe the president’s rosy projections of 4 percent real GDP growth over the next four years, considerably higher than the 2.7 percent achieved over the past quarter-century and the 3.2 percent over the past half-century …
... interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually. Under his projections for 2018, interest payments on the debt will exceed all defense spending, including wartime spending. Think about that: In the first budgetary year after the next presidential term, our creditors are projected to get more money than our military. -- Weekly Standard
Obama voted for as Senator or signed into law as President every single penny of the deficit he now says he inherited; his own voting record:
Obama voted "yea" March 18, 2008 on the $3.1 trillion in fiscal outlays with a projected $400 billion budget deficit (only 2 Republicans voted "yea", and not one Republican in the House voted for it after the conference committee). Biden, Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton voted "yea" as well. He voted "yea" October 1, 2008 for the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) along with Biden and Clinton. He pushed through and signed into law the $787 billion stimulus bill boondoggle in February 2009. And he signed into law $410 billion of additional spending in the 2009 budget in March 2009.
so if Bush had a 3rd term.. we'd be fine now?
;-)
re: " You claim that the Bush tax cuts resulted in "structural deficits". This is demonstrably false.
Tax revenue in 2000 was $2.02 trillion, falling to $1.78 trillion by 2003 following the dot.com crash and the attacks on 9/11. Economic activity and revenue began to recover substantially following the Bush tax cuts to $2.52 trillion by 2008. Revenue INCREASED.
And while revenue has fallen off as a result of the recession, it is expected to be approximately $2.62 trillion in 2012.
Revenue was not and is not the problem."
but they spent MORE....
double the DOD budget...
that's what a STRUCTURAL deficit is.
it grew to about 1.5 trillion PER YEAR .. ADD to the longer term debt... which went from 5 trillion to 10 trillion under Bush and continued under Obama because neither Obama nor the GOP wanted to cut DOD back to 2000 levels.
we have to deal with entitlements also but the national defense budget which is more than just DOD is about 1.3 trillion while Medicare Part B is around 210 and MedicAid is about 500 billion.
remember.. I DO give credit to ONE Republican who has fiscal backbone.. Ron Paul.
Paul is a fellow who claims fiscal conservative credentials and actually does what he says he is.
the rest of them are total frauds.
one of the reasons that Obama can go amok is that there is no counter-balance any more.
If they passed Ron Pauls budget - for instance.. if they voted it down in the Senate or Obama vetoed it.. then we'd know who they are frauds.
but when they won't even pass a balanced budget.. all the while claiming they are fiscal conservatives... well.. they're frauds..
right?
don't focus on Obama... I'll grant you up front - he is no fiscal conservative....
but how about you admitting that the guys who claim they are fiscal conservatives ARE REALLY Frauds.
Deal?
the numbers don't lie.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/855368/the-clinton-budget-surplus-fact-or-fiction-
also note, that budget was passed by newt and co, the congress was deeply R and clinton was forced to change tack mightily 2 years in as a result.
i have severe doubts you would have seen anything like that sort of fiscal behavior under a D congress.
You are right. Ike was the last president with a balanced budget and surplus. But if a GOP controlled Congress were the reason why Clinton came close I don't see why Bush was so much worse than Clinton when it came to spending.
Clearly there is very little difference between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to favouring big government. The only candidate who has proposed a real cut is Ron Paul and he has little chance of election.
Larry,
"don't focus on Obama... I'll grant you up front - he is no fiscal conservative...."
And yet he repeatedly claims he is. But somehow he's not a fraud in your world. Neither are the Democrats who claim the same. And why shouldn't we focus on him? HE's the frickin' President of the United States.
"..but how about you admitting that the guys who claim they are fiscal conservatives ARE REALLY Frauds.
Deal?"
Some of them are, including Ron Paul. There are lots of bad Republicans. But there are no good Democrats.
" "Obama is responsible for $4.4 trillion in actual or projected deficit spending in just three years in office "
what has Obama added to STRUCTURAL deficit?
what increases in the budget that stay in the budget and become part of the structural deficit.
The current structural deficit - 1.4/1.5 trillion is what came from the Bush years and is carrying forward to result in the 20 trillion in 8 years if no cuts are made to it.
but as far as I know.. Obama has not added much if anything to the structural deficit - it was the doubling of the DOD budget.. the 911, etc that we spent and did not pay for that continues...
so my question is what has Obama added to the structural deficit?
" The only candidate who has proposed a real cut is Ron Paul and he has little chance of election. "
if the Republican Congress would pass Ron Pauls budget and drop it in the Senate/Obama's lap.. Ron Paul would not have to be elected to cause real change.
"..but how about you admitting that the guys who claim they are fiscal conservatives ARE REALLY Frauds.
Deal?"
Some of them are, including Ron Paul. There are lots of bad Republicans. But there are no good Democrats.
Ron Paul is not fiscal conservative? Than who is?
"we have to deal with entitlements also but the national defense budget which is more than just DOD is about 1.3 trillion" -- Larry
The national defense budget is not $1.3 - $1.5 trillion a year. You, like most lefties, are just making shit up.
"During the past twenty fiscal years, defense budgets have been somewhat smaller than the current one. But even so, the claim made by the SF Chronicle and others that "core defense spending" has doubled since FY2001 is not true. The FY2001 DOD budget amounted to $291.1 billion in 2000 dollars, i.e. $368.82 billion in 2010's money using the DOL's inflation calculator. To double in nominal dollars, it would have to reach $582.2 billion; to double in real dollars, it would have to grow to $737.64 billion. But it hasn't reached either level -- it amounts to only $534 billion, and for FY2011, the president has proposed only $549 billion. Even total military spending has not reached $737.64 billion. So the claim that defense spending has doubled since FY2001 is factually incorrect."
"The WaPo claims that defense is the largest discretionary item in the federal budget, while the SF Chronicle says it's the largest single part of the entire federal budget. Both of these claims are demonstrably false. Defense spending ($534 billion) is much smaller than federal welfare spending ($888 billion in FY2010, including the Medicaid program, or $638 billion without Medicaid), health care spending ($859 billion, again including Medicaid), and the Social Security program ($696 billion). But even if you count discretionary items, you will see that federal welfare spending (even excluding Medicaid) is much bigger than defense spending.
"The defense budget is a small proportion of the total federal budget -- 14.87% out of $3.591 trillion. Even total military spending constitutes only 18.49% of federal spending. And 81.51% is purely civilian spending." -- American Thinker
"Last year, the panoply of welfare programs spent about $20,000 for every man, woman and child in poverty ... payments to individuals were 66% of the federal budget, up from 28% in 1965. (See the second chart.) We now spend $2.1 trillion a year on these redistribution programs, and the 75 million baby boomers are only starting to retire ... Mr. Obama blamed President George W. Bush's "two wars" for the debt buildup. But national defense spending was 7.4% of GDP and 42.8% of outlays in 1965, and only 4.8% of GDP and 20.1% of federal outlays in 2010. Defense has not caused the debt crisis." -- Wall Street Journal
Welfare, or national defense? Remind me again, which one is mandated by the U.S. Constitution?
"Ron Paul is not fiscal conservative? Than who is?" -- Vange
"Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members. These earmark requests include:
•$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
•$2.5 million from taxpayers for "new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting."
•$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an "Economically Disadvantaged" area.
•$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a "Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center."
•$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to "encourage parents to read aloud to their children."
•$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
•$4 million from federal taxpayers for the "Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative."
•$11 million from federal taxpayers for a "Community-Based Job Training Program."
•$2 million from federal taxpayers for a "Clean Energy" pilot project.
•$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
•$1.2 million for a "Low-income working families Day Care Program"
•$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.
All of the above earmarks can be found on Paul's own congressional website. While Paul does not digitize the requests prior to FY 2011, they're still available as PDFs. Paul typically will make the earmark request, but then votes against or abstains from voting on final passage, so he can maintain his claim to have "never voted for an earmark", even the earmark requests he himself made."
-- Ricochet
"But if a GOP controlled Congress were the reason why Clinton came close I don't see why Bush was so much worse than Clinton when it came to spending. "
One need only look at the 1995 government shutdown to validate the claim about the GOP VS. Clinton. Clinton savaged the GOP for their "extremist" budget cuts they wanted to impose.
As for Bush's term, lots of reasons:
A) The GOP Congress lost its way after being in power for awhile, and especially after Clinton beat them in the propaganda campaign over the 1995 budget showdown.
B)Most of the Clinton spending reductions came by the way of gutting national defense.
C)The dot com and Y2K bubbles artificially inflated revenues. Those bubbles burst in 2001, just as Clinton was heading out the door.
D)Bush was not a real conservative, he was a "compassionate conservative."
"Clearly there is very little difference between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to favouring big government."
That's just utter nonsense. There are lots of small government conservatives in the current House and Senate actually doing the hard work of trying to roll back government. Note, that doesn't include Congressional layabout and earmark extraordinaire Ron Paul.
Also, look across the states. Governors like Kasich, Christie, Walker, and McDonnell are cleaning up the mess left by their Democrat predecessors. McDonnell, for example, balanced the last 2 budgets in Virgina by cutting $6 billion in spending, not raising taxes. Kasich is taking major heat for his deep spending cuts in Ohio. Christie, is there any doubt he is better than John Corzine?
"White men criticize black men over pagers, and Mexicans will take shoes ..." -- Ron Paul
"The current structural deficit - 1.4/1.5 trillion is what came from the Bush years and is carrying forward to result in the 20 trillion in 8 years if no cuts are made to it."
That's too stupid to even bother with, Larry. I'm not going to waste any more time with you on this.
"but as far as I know.. Obama has not added much if anything to the structural deficit -"
Then you are an ignoramus. We're going backwards. I'm done.
"The current structural deficit - 1.4/1.5 trillion is what came from the Bush years and is carrying forward to result in the 20 trillion in 8 years if no cuts are made to it"...
Geez! Given the numbers of examples and links to information and you can still make these incredibly dumb comments larry g speaks to your 'structural' sanity...
Geez! they can even figure it out at NPR...
Also, look across the states. Governors like Kasich, Christie, Walker, and McDonnell are cleaning up the mess left by their Democrat predecessors.
Only if you dont account for created-just-in-time budget shortfalls to favor these people.
Kasich is taking major heat for his deep spending cuts in Ohio.
He's taking heat because people are calling him out on his pump-and-dump of Ohio, along with the failure of his programs(the opaquely structured JobsOhio) to create jobs for Ohioans.
Strickland kept the state solvent, even with the hard choices he made with education. He just wasn't extreme enough to loot the state and baselessly attack targets as Kasich. One can only hope that such extremism on the part of Kasich is rejected, made illegal and/or unconstitutional in the state of Ohio (with respect to JobsOhio's opaqueness).
Strickland was his own man with his own decisions. He was not a man of pattern legislation like Kasich or his 2010-era peers in WI, NJ, IN, PA, VA, and other states similarly taken over.
That, and it doesn't help keep the state solvent when Kasich pays his own people more than Strickland's administration ever was paid.
nope.
if you want to claim that we'e added to the structural deficit - you need to show it.
ya'll are hand waving here.
name the specific things that have increased the structural deficit.
put up or go fish
Juandos are you too ignorant to know the difference between a deficit and a structural deficit or are you just weaseling here?
is that why you say: " l make these incredibly dumb comments larry g speaks to your 'structural' sanity..."
if you want to sling insults have at it but they're coming right back at you - fool.
my responses are keyed to you.
if you are polite - I'll return the favor.
if you want to insult - I'll give it back.
you choose.
NPR? how about Weekly Standard??
and WHERE did they talk about the STRUCTURAL deficit INCREASE?
what specific items besides the stimulus actually increased the deficit ?
no weaseling ... deliver the goods or admit you are lying.
re: " Defense spending ($534 billion) is much smaller than federal "
DOD 2000 = 294.4
DOD 2010 = 693.6 (that's DOUBLE)
http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011.07.16-FY-2012-Defense-Budget.pdf
the above does not include the following "National Defense" spending:
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion
Between 23% and 91% of total interest
Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion
as far an inflation is concerned... if you wanted to compare entitlements to DOD/National Defense - you'd have to compare apples to apples.
Can you provide an itemized list of the entitlement programs that you cite total costs for?
I'd like to see what else besides Medicare Part B and MedicAid...
also.. social security / Part A is financed from FICA and although contributes to the deficit - it's about 50-60 billion.. not the number you were citing which is paid for from FICA except for the slight deficit.
The current structural deficit - 1.4/1.5 trillion is what came from the Bush years and is carrying forward to result in the 20 trillion in 8 years if no cuts are made to it.
It is clear that Bush was not a fiscal conservative and that his big spending ways made the deficit worse.
but as far as I know.. Obama has not added much if anything to the structural deficit - it was the doubling of the DOD budget.. the 911, etc that we spent and did not pay for that continues...
But Obama got elected because he promised to reduce much of the spending on war and to bring back the troops. He certainly did not run as a socialist and was not expected to bail out Wall Street gamblers, the GSEs, or the automobile companies. He promised to be a prudent steward of taxpayer dollars but with the green energy boondoggle wound up destroying both jobs and capital.
so my question is what has Obama added to the structural deficit?
His healthcare plan is clearly new. His Afghan troop addition was clearly a drain. His new adventures across the globe will clearly cost the US taxpayer. And his massive increase in the regulatory burden cannot be discounted. On that front he is even worse than Bush.
if the Republican Congress would pass Ron Pauls budget and drop it in the Senate/Obama's lap.. Ron Paul would not have to be elected to cause real change.
Why wouldn't Americans want the best man elected to the job of President? After all, Dr. Paul called the housing bubble when the analysts and politicians were talking up a booming economy. He called the GSE problem and proposed that the implicit grantees were removed almost a decade ago. He warned Americans that the meddling in foreign land would make them less safe. He warned them about the lies of WMDs in Iraq being the basis of an invasion. He warned about the growth of government and the dangers that the burden of a growing debt and unfunded liabilities posed to the American taxpayers and to future generations.
Why not elect him instead of Obama or the other dwarfs running for the office?
Welfare, or national defense? Remind me again, which one is mandated by the U.S. Constitution?
Since when is the stationing of troops in hundreds of countries and paying for military bases to defend Germany, Japan, or Korea considered national defense?
Shouldn't every single expenditure be earmarked by Congress instead of left to the executive? Dr Paul has not voted in favour of a single budget that had a planned deficit. But if others in Congress were willing to have deficits what is wrong with making sure that the taxpayers who you represent got some of their money back?
This, "Ron Paul is not a fiscal conservative," deception is clearly failing. The war party is going to have a tough sell on that front.
Nonsense. Bush could veto any budget that was too high and keep his departments from spending all the money that they were given.
B)Most of the Clinton spending reductions came by the way of gutting national defense.
Really? The way I remember it the USSR collapsed and there was no need for the huge amount of spending to fight the last war. The US was still spending more on its military than the next twenty countries combined.
C)The dot com and Y2K bubbles artificially inflated revenues. Those bubbles burst in 2001, just as Clinton was heading out the door.
That is true. But it still does not get Bush off the hook because he chose to increase spending as revenues declined.
D)Bush was not a real conservative, he was a "compassionate conservative."
Like Clinton, Bush was a statist. When it came to the growth of government there was little difference between them just as there is little difference between Bush and Obama.
That's just utter nonsense. There are lots of small government conservatives in the current House and Senate actually doing the hard work of trying to roll back government. Note, that doesn't include Congressional layabout and earmark extraordinaire Ron Paul.
Nonsense. They are working hard to roll back the amount of increase in the spending. Not a single one of the idiots running against Dr. Paul has proposed a real cut in spending. Even the much hyped Paul would see the public debt increase by around 60% by 2021. While his increase is slower than what is projected in President Barack Obama’s budget the increase in the debt is still a significant.
Also, look across the states. Governors like Kasich, Christie, Walker, and McDonnell are cleaning up the mess left by their Democrat predecessors. McDonnell, for example, balanced the last 2 budgets in Virgina by cutting $6 billion in spending, not raising taxes. Kasich is taking major heat for his deep spending cuts in Ohio. Christie, is there any doubt he is better than John Corzine?
Of course Christie is better than John Corzine. But he is still a big government statist who calls for lots of foreign adventures and has no plan for an actual budget cut. He is still spending far too much in New Jersey and if tax collections continue as they have been going will find it very difficult to pull of the myth that he is a fiscal conservative.
Obamas unrequited love. That's gotta hurt.
" But Obama got elected because he promised to reduce much of the spending on war and to bring back the troops. He certainly did not run as a socialist and was not expected to bail out Wall Street gamblers, the GSEs, or the automobile companies. He promised to be a prudent steward of taxpayer dollars but with the green energy boondoggle wound up destroying both jobs and capital."
nice rant but off the subject.
he did not promise to get rid of the structural deficit and he did not predict that the economy would go belly up either.
but he has not increased the structural deficit either - most all of the added spending was already in the budget and already 1.5 trillion more than revenues when he took office.
Even the deficit commissions have said that trying to reduce the structural deficit should wait until the economy gets better but that should not keep those who call themselves fiscal conservatives from putting together their own proposal like the two deficit commissions have and Ron Paul has - and SUPPORTING THEM.
so my question is what has Obama added to the structural deficit?
His healthcare plan is clearly new.
so has it added to the structural deficit?
the answer is no.
"His Afghan troop addition was clearly a drain. His new adventures across the globe will clearly cost the US taxpayer."
has it added to the structural deficit?
"And his massive increase in the regulatory burden cannot be discounted. On that front he is even worse than Bush."
that's the claim but I have yet to see it backed up with facts.
regulation actually CREATES jobs... you know.. just like wars do..... or Obamacare might.
people get to spend their money on regulators, soldiers and health care rather than lottery tickets, big screen TVs and big Macs.
he did not promise to get rid of the structural deficit and he did not predict that the economy would go belly up either.
No, he did not predict that the economy would go belly up. Only one of the candidates actually did that, and that was on the GOP side. And everyone thought that he was absolutely nuts. Now that his prediction came true more people are paying attention.
but he has not increased the structural deficit either - most all of the added spending was already in the budget and already 1.5 trillion more than revenues when he took office.
Sure he did. Just look at the Fannie and Freddie guarantees and his health care bill.
Even the deficit commissions have said that trying to reduce the structural deficit should wait until the economy gets better but that should not keep those who call themselves fiscal conservatives from putting together their own proposal like the two deficit commissions have and Ron Paul has - and SUPPORTING THEM.
I assume that by 'deficit commissions' you mean Simpson/Bowles. Well, they are idiots who have no idea about economic history or theory. At best they will kick the can down the road for another few months before the crisis needs another 'solution.' But you can't solve a problem by doing the same thing that created it.
so my question is what has Obama added to the structural deficit?
His healthcare plan is clearly new.
so has it added to the structural deficit?
the answer is no.
Of course it hasn't added to the deficit today because it does not take effect until AFTER the next election. But it certainly has had a umber of unintended consequences. For example, it did cause the annual health insurance premiums to increase at a rate that was three times higher than in 2010. It did cause companies to drop to 'children only' health plans. The CBO' evaluation of the plan's cost was increased from $800 billion to $2 trillion. That number will get much higher unless the plan is legislated out of existence.
"His Afghan troop addition was clearly a drain. His new adventures across the globe will clearly cost the US taxpayer."
has it added to the structural deficit?
Possibly. If things go for the US the way they went for the USSR you could find yourself paying a huge amount to finance the debt.
"And his massive increase in the regulatory burden cannot be discounted. On that front he is even worse than Bush."
that's the claim but I have yet to see it backed up with facts.
You don't see anything because you are ignorant of reality.
1, 2, 3, 4....
"he did not promise to get rid of the structural deficit and he did not predict that the economy would go belly up either.
No, he did not predict that the economy would go belly up. Only one of the candidates actually did that, and that was on the GOP side. And everyone thought that he was absolutely nuts. Now that his prediction came true more people are paying attention."
I'm glad you understand the facts.
"but he has not increased the structural deficit either - most all of the added spending was already in the budget and already 1.5 trillion more than revenues when he took office.
Sure he did. Just look at the Fannie and Freddie guarantees and his health care bill."
neither one of them has increased the structural deficit...
"I assume that by 'deficit commissions' you mean Simpson/Bowles. Well, they are idiots who have no idea about economic history or theory. At best they will kick the can down the road for another few months before the crisis needs another 'solution.' But you can't solve a problem by doing the same thing that created it."
your opinion about the deficit commission(s) does not mesh with the opinion of many economists...
Of course it (healthcare) hasn't added to the deficit today because it does not take effect until AFTER the next election. But it certainly has had a umber of unintended consequences.
but I asked you to name the things he has done that HAVE added to the structural deficit and you go off on a tangent each time..evading the truth.
Possibly. If things go for the US the way they went for the USSR you could find yourself paying a huge amount to finance the debt.
did he INCREASE the commitment beyond what we were already committed to when he took office?
"And his massive increase in the regulatory burden cannot be discounted. On that front he is even worse than Bush."
that's the claim but I have yet to see it backed up with facts.
You don't see anything because you are ignorant of reality.
as opposed to you who is just plain wretchedly ignorant and blinded by ideology..
so we agree.. Obama has not added much if anything to the structural deficit that Bush left the country and if not dealt with - will end up at 20 trillion and up in the future.
That graph looks like a Blue man talking down to a red one.
Any reason Romney is the Blue one?
"Since when is the stationing of troops in hundreds of countries and paying for military bases to defend Germany, Japan, or Korea considered national defense?"...
Apparently you haven't grasp the tactical and strategic properties of super sonic jets and intercontinental missiles vangIV...
Apparently you haven't grasp the tactical and strategic properties of super sonic jets and intercontinental missiles vangIV..
Of course I have. Whic country do you propose to attack with these jets and missiles? And why?
Post a Comment
<< Home