Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   The coming deficit disaster: why President Obama hates you personally and wants to destroy America   (online.wsj.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3443 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2009 at 11:56 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



256 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-11-22 10:21:16 AM  
Our fiscal situation has deteriorated rapidly in just the past few years. The federal government ran a 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion-the highest since World War II-as spending reached nearly 25% of GDP and total revenues fell below 15% of GDP. Shortfalls like these have not been seen in more than 50 years.

it took us a while to get to this point - Obama is just the guy who's left holding the bag after decades of mismanagement and bad (or no) leadership from D.C. insiders.

so yes - we're f*cked. But no, it's not Obama's fault. I blame both parties equally. Although I could be easily talked into placing heavier blame on the Republicans since, as fiscal conservatives, they SHOULD have known better.
 
2009-11-22 10:22:53 AM  
No way, man. The budget for 2009 was all Obama's. Nobody else had anything to do with that.
 
2009-11-22 10:47:48 AM  
Hey, it's McCain's chief economist on the campaign! He never said stupid things.
 
2009-11-22 10:53:25 AM  
graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2009-11-22 10:57:42 AM  
It's going to be called "The Entitlement Crash".
 
2009-11-22 11:04:28 AM  
$ 1 trillion+ in Iraq for no reason? *shrug*

$ 1 trillion for affordable healthcare for Americans? ZOMG!!!1
 
2009-11-22 11:06:36 AM  

vernonFL: $ 1 trillion+ in Iraq for no reason? *shrug*

$ 1 trillion for affordable healthcare for Americans? ZOMG!!!1


I think we'd be better off about both boondoggles, but this is FARK where one must reject on of those and defend the other with total disregard to any other possibilities.
 
2009-11-22 11:09:03 AM  
The deficit disaster has been looming for the last Gottverdammt 20 some odd years. Reagan took us into deficit territory--not debt, just the matter of cash we will have to borrow--a long while ago, and to wild cheers. As did Bush. And Clinton worked to reverse that trend. Then GW got into office, and he threw that right out of the window, and again, to wild cheers from the gallery.

Where have you supposed fiscal Conservatives been while some of us have been ringing this particular bell for so damn long? No vitriol for the record breaking deficits under Bush, but NOW you're upset? Eight years of record breakers, and NOW folks are up in arms?

Yes, we need to trim fat, and trim spending, and live within our means. But that hasn't changed since 1980, and oddly enough, Saint Reagan is lauded for continuing to deficit spend when the economic crisis was over. And Bush was castigated for then having to deal with the mess he'd inherited.

It doesn't matter the letter appended to the end of a politicians' name, but the policies they support or oppose, and a great many of the folks who say that they are for fiscal restraint have been anything but, but NOW they want to point fingers?

WTF people.

What

Thefark
 
2009-11-22 11:20:40 AM  

Nabb1: vernonFL: $ 1 trillion+ in Iraq for no reason? *shrug*

$ 1 trillion for affordable healthcare for Americans? ZOMG!!!1

I think we'd be better off about both boondoggles, but this is FARK where one must reject on of those and defend the other with total disregard to any other possibilities.



Stop making false equivalencies on this.

I reject one and defend the other because one makes the world a worse place, and the other makes this country a better place.
 
2009-11-22 11:21:30 AM  

Nabb1: I think we'd be better off about both boondoggles, but this is FARK where one must reject on of those and defend the other with total disregard to any other possibilities.


I was just trying to point out that for 6 years, the right either stood silently by or even actively supported all kinds of bad spending ideas - from Iraq to Medicare drugs. Bush ran up the deficit for years without a peep from them.

Now? Obama is ruining us with his reckless spending! They have been more "concerned" in the last 10 months with Obama's spending then they were about Bush's for 6 years.
 
2009-11-22 11:24:06 AM  

Nabb1: I think we'd be better off about both boondoggles, but this is FARK where one must reject on of those and defend the other with total disregard to any other possibilities.


Do you think it seems reasonable for the American government to continue throwing $1t+ in healthcare expenditures down a dark hole never to be seen again without attempting to reform the system in some way? You know, given the fact that it seems the healthcare legislation is deficit neutral and looks to save money over the next 20 years.

Well, I've gotta say, it is an odd stance for a fiscal conservative person to take.
 
2009-11-22 11:25:03 AM  
sorry, $1t+ a year

We are going to spend 10 times as much as any healthcare bill over the same period (the next decade) and we won't even be attempting to fix the problem.
 
2009-11-22 11:25:23 AM  

vernonFL: I was just trying to point out that for 6 years, the right either stood silently by or even actively supported all kinds of bad spending ideas - from Iraq to Medicare drugs. Bush ran up the deficit for years without a peep from them.

Now? Obama is ruining us with his reckless spending! They have been more "concerned" in the last 10 months with Obama's spending then they were about Bush's for 6 years.


There were complaints from fiscal conservatives, but they were too few, and I think one of the reasons - along with the mounting unpopularity of the Iraq war and as string of scandals - that led to massive GOP losses in 2006. I know I was one, and it was why I voted third party in '04. But, Bush is gone, and Obama is now President, so I blame him for continuing us down the path of irresponsible fiscal policies. Blame Bush and the GOP for what they did when they had their chance. Lord knows they deserve it and deserve what happened to them. I just don't know that the rest of us deserve what happened.
 
2009-11-22 11:26:29 AM  

Nabb1: But, Bush is gone, and Obama is now President, so I blame him for continuing us down the path of irresponsible fiscal policies.


That's a little weird. Obama's just one guy, and he doesn't write the budget.
 
2009-11-22 11:29:05 AM  

bulldg4life: Nabb1: I think we'd be better off about both boondoggles, but this is FARK where one must reject on of those and defend the other with total disregard to any other possibilities.

Do you think it seems reasonable for the American government to continue throwing $1t+ in healthcare expenditures down a dark hole never to be seen again without attempting to reform the system in some way? You know, given the fact that it seems the healthcare legislation is deficit neutral and looks to save money over the next 20 years.

Well, I've gotta say, it is an odd stance for a fiscal conservative person to take.


Try to think of the bigger picture once in a while. Besides, when you add in the $200 billion Medicare reimbursement fix that the Democrats dangled in front of the AMA to get their support, which was kept in separate legislation precisely to keep the price down, the realities are a bit different than the talking points.
 
2009-11-22 11:29:47 AM  

DamnYankees: Nabb1: But, Bush is gone, and Obama is now President, so I blame him for continuing us down the path of irresponsible fiscal policies.

That's a little weird. Obama's just one guy, and he doesn't write the budget.


Fine. Then I blame Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Happy?
 
2009-11-22 11:30:30 AM  
as long as politics is another team sport here, Americans deserve even worse than what we currently get.
 
2009-11-22 11:30:42 AM  
By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN

Who?

In 2007, Holtz-Eakin was hired as chief economic policy adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. Through the campaign and coincident 2008 economic crisis, he remained in the media spotlight on the candidate's proposals for the economy and health care. Holtz-Eakin drew particular attention when he claimed that, as a U.S. Senator on the Commerce Committee, McCain "helped create" the BlackBerry wireless device.

Oh.
 
2009-11-22 11:31:09 AM  

Mordant: as long as politics is another team sport here, Americans deserve even worse than what we currently get.


YANKEES SUCK!
 
2009-11-22 11:36:32 AM  

Weaver95: Our fiscal situation has deteriorated rapidly in just the past few years. The federal government ran a 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion-the highest since World War II-as spending reached nearly 25% of GDP and total revenues fell below 15% of GDP. Shortfalls like these have not been seen in more than 50 years.

it took us a while to get to this point - Obama is just the guy who's left holding the bag after decades of mismanagement and bad (or no) leadership from D.C. insiders.

so yes - we're f*cked. But no, it's not Obama's fault. I blame both parties equally. Although I could be easily talked into placing heavier blame on the Republicans since, as fiscal conservatives, they SHOULD have known better.


Obama is at fault as much as any of his predecessors...so while it's not his fault, the current budget isn't helping matters.

And yes, both parties are to blame in a big way. Of course, that's what we get with a 2-party system.
 
2009-11-22 11:43:51 AM  
I would rake the Democrats over the coals for this, just the same as Republicans, as they were active and willing participants for a lot of this... but the sheer hypocrisy of the Republican party, becoming suddenly concerned about this out of control spending, is just completely... sorry. I've got no words for it.

Yeah, people like MuadDib and Nabb1 and such claim they were totally against things like Medicare-D, NCLB, the Bush Stimuluses circa 2001 and 2008, etc, etc... and maybe it's true (though I think it's damn convenient), but by and large, Republicans let- and cheered!- the Republican "leaders" on when they created an unprecedented budget deficit, led us into two unwinnable wars in the Middle East, and helped to hyper-partisanize the country to a level I've never seen in my life.
 
2009-11-22 11:45:23 AM  

Nabb1: Try to think of the bigger picture once in a while. Besides, when you add in the $200 billion Medicare reimbursement fix that the Democrats dangled in front of the AMA to get their support, which was kept in separate legislation precisely to keep the price down, the realities are a bit different than the talking points.


If we can cover more Americans with healthcare insurance while providing a relatively negligible cost to the American debt while also reforming the health care industry as a whole, don't you think that is money well spent?

Or, do you feel that the United States (public and private) throwing $2.25t a year down a dark hole never to be seen again makes sense?

I mean, I know your answer, but it seems weird coming from someone that trumpets fiscal conservative values all the time.

Of course, I'm going to be really lame and leave the rest of the thread cause it is time to deliver thanksgiving turkeys! I'll take my young liberal "me me me" attitude and be gone.

Nabb1: But, Bush is gone, and Obama is now President, so I blame him for continuing us down the path of irresponsible fiscal policies.


Well, he's attempting to enact legislation that will, ultimately, save the American people money and provide health care insurance for more Americans.

And, considering the 2009 budget isn't exactly his...well ok doke.

Damn that stimulus!
 
2009-11-22 11:48:43 AM  
ragekage: Yeah, people like MuadDib and Nabb1 and such claim they were totally against things like Medicare-D, NCLB, the Bush Stimuluses circa 2001 and 2008, etc, etc... and maybe it's true (though I think it's damn convenient), but by and large, Republicans let- and cheered!- the Republican "leaders" on when they created an unprecedented budget deficit, led us into two unwinnable wars in the Middle East, and helped to hyper-partisanize the country to a level I've never seen in my life.

and now whine like babies when someone tries to give the poor and middle classes a break.
 
2009-11-22 11:51:57 AM  
It's amazing how quickly the deficit hawks came out of the woodwork when Obama was sworn in and how quiet they were when we spent $3T in Iraq. You partisan asshats are just trying another method of stopping the President from executing the agenda he was elected on because you're a bunch of sore losers. Not to mention how the bill farking reduces the deficit, something Bush didn't do for a day of his Presidency.
 
2009-11-22 11:53:24 AM  

ragekage: but the sheer hypocrisy of the Republican party, becoming suddenly concerned about this out of control spending, is just completely... sorry. I've got no words for it.


Link (new window)
 
2009-11-22 11:53:36 AM  

SilentStrider: ragekage: Yeah, people like MuadDib and Nabb1 and such claim they were totally against things like Medicare-D, NCLB, the Bush Stimuluses circa 2001 and 2008, etc, etc... and maybe it's true (though I think it's damn convenient), but by and large, Republicans let- and cheered!- the Republican "leaders" on when they created an unprecedented budget deficit, led us into two unwinnable wars in the Middle East, and helped to hyper-partisanize the country to a level I've never seen in my life.

and now whine like babies when someone tries to give the poor and middle classes a break.


As we all know, it is the investor class that creates all the jobs. And the consumers only exist to give the investor class cash...

If the consumers would just open up their wallets, and give the investor class ALL their cash, then everything would be hunky-dory. After all, what do the consumers really do all the time? Just waste it on frivolous expenditures, like support the film industry, support the beer industry, buy cars, and all the crap that the investor class keeps selli...

Oops.

Forgot that little part of the equation, O Kings of New England? Without the consumer, you're just another out of work salesman. You don't have an economy without ALL of it, and when you favor only one or two sectors, the apple cart tends to tip precipitously...
 
2009-11-22 11:58:04 AM  
I grew up paying off GIANT SPACE LAZ0RS that never even got built and I turned out fine. WSJ needs to quit whining.
 
2009-11-22 11:58:17 AM  

ragekage: Yeah, people like MuadDib and Nabb1 and such claim they were totally against things like Medicare-D, NCLB, the Bush Stimuluses circa 2001 and 2008, etc, etc... and maybe it's true (though I think it's damn convenient), but by and large, Republicans let- and cheered!- the Republican "leaders" on when they created an unprecedented budget deficit, led us into two unwinnable wars in the Middle East, and helped to hyper-partisanize the country to a level I've never seen in my life.


I said this in another thread, and it seems to be a common thing nowadays, but I was quite critical of Bush's spending policies on a number of occasions, and if you want to support your argument, feel free to mine the FARKives to rebut me with my own posts, but I'm certainly not inclined to do that work for you.

bulldg4life: I mean, I know your answer, but it seems weird coming from someone that trumpets fiscal conservative values all the time.

Of course, I'm going to be really lame and leave the rest of the thread cause it is time to deliver thanksgiving turkeys! I'll take my young liberal "me me me" attitude and be gone.


bulldg, you are a patently disrespectful little prig sometimes.
 
2009-11-22 11:59:24 AM  

GAT_00: It's amazing how quickly the deficit hawks came out of the woodwork when Obama was sworn in and how quiet they were when we spent $3T in Iraq. You partisan asshats are just trying another method of stopping the President from executing the agenda he was elected on because you're a bunch of sore losers. Not to mention how the bill farking reduces the deficit, something Bush didn't do for a day of his Presidency.


These discussions go nowhere. I'll be in the football threads.
 
2009-11-22 11:59:27 AM  
Guys, didn't the GAO say that the healthcare bill will net deficit positive (as in it will reduce government debt overall)? Is the GAO now a partisan tool? I wasn't aware of this!

Somebody please explain where these numbers being posted by the WSJ are coming from. This is all very confusing.
 
2009-11-22 12:00:27 PM  

Nabb1: These discussions go nowhere. I'll be in the football threads.


I WISH I COULD QUIT YOU
 
2009-11-22 12:02:20 PM  
The right should start bottling this hypocrisy and selling it.
 
2009-11-22 12:04:02 PM  
I KNEW IT!
 
2009-11-22 12:05:19 PM  
I'm so glad the born-again deficit virgins are here to lecture us on our crippling debt.
 
2009-11-22 12:05:37 PM  
i226.photobucket.com
 
2009-11-22 12:07:32 PM  

Mentat: I'm so glad the born-again deficit virgins are here to lecture us on our crippling debt.


If only Reagan were here.
 
2009-11-22 12:07:52 PM  
Cut the defense budget by half or more.
 
2009-11-22 12:10:07 PM  

Bored Horde: Somebody please explain where these numbers being posted by the WSJ are coming from. This is all very confusing.


Regarding the CBO estimates, the GOP has basically adopted the Monty Python Argument Sketch strategy.
 
2009-11-22 12:12:27 PM  

Curse of the Goth Kids: Mentat: I'm so glad the born-again deficit virgins are here to lecture us on our crippling debt.

If only Reagan were here.


He's with us in spirit.

img687.imageshack.us
 
2009-11-22 12:12:55 PM  

Mentat: Bored Horde: Somebody please explain where these numbers being posted by the WSJ are coming from. This is all very confusing.

Regarding the CBO estimates, the GOP has basically adopted the Monty Python Argument Sketch strategy.


No they haven't.
 
2009-11-22 12:14:39 PM  

Weaver95: Although I could be easily talked into placing heavier blame on the Republicans since, as fiscal conservatives


Sticking feathers up your ass does not make you a chicken.
 
2009-11-22 12:16:06 PM  

NuclearPenguins: Cut the defense budget by half or more.


Withdrawing from Iraq is a good start to that.
 
2009-11-22 12:16:41 PM  
sweasel.com

punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com

farm3.static.flickr.com

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2009-11-22 12:17:22 PM  

Biological Ali: Mentat: Bored Horde: Somebody please explain where these numbers being posted by the WSJ are coming from. This is all very confusing.

Regarding the CBO estimates, the GOP has basically adopted the Monty Python Argument Sketch strategy.

No they haven't.


THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT
 
2009-11-22 12:18:26 PM  
I'll leave this here again for all you deficit hawks. I'm sure you all took to the streets with your teabags when this went down.

Link (new window)
 
2009-11-22 12:19:06 PM  
Weaver95: so yes - we're f*cked. But no, it's not Obama's fault. I blame both parties equally. Although I could be easily talked into placing heavier blame on the Republicans since, as fiscal conservatives, they SHOULD have known better.
=================================================

You can blame Obama, sure. But Clinton had the only 4 years of surplus since the 20s (except for one super tiny surplus in 1960)

Going back 100 years, blame both parties. Going back 30, blame Republicans :)
 
2009-11-22 12:19:21 PM  

vernonFL: Nabb1: I think we'd be better off about both boondoggles, but this is FARK where one must reject on of those and defend the other with total disregard to any other possibilities.

I was just trying to point out that for 6 years, the right either stood silently by or even actively supported all kinds of bad spending ideas - from Iraq to Medicare drugs. Bush ran up the deficit for years without a peep from them.


And now at long last your ideological brethren are in charge. Can you honestly say that they're doing a better job or even have a plan that will do a better job at some as-yet-unseen point in the future?
 
2009-11-22 12:19:44 PM  
If only we had known about this, and voted for McCain!
 
2009-11-22 12:22:32 PM  

jake3988: You can blame Obama, sure. But Clinton had the only 4 years of surplus since the 20s (except for one super tiny surplus in 1960)

Going back 100 years, blame both parties. Going back 30, blame Republicans :)


Did you notice what party was in charge of the Senate and House (where the budget actually gets put together) during the Clinton budget surplus years?
 
2009-11-22 12:22:59 PM  

hubiestubert: The deficit disaster has been looming for the last Gottverdammt 20 some odd years. Reagan took us into deficit territory--not debt, just the matter of cash we will have to borrow--a long while ago, and to wild cheers. As did Bush. And Clinton worked to reverse that trend. Then GW got into office, and he threw that right out of the window, and again, to wild cheers from the gallery.

Where have you supposed fiscal Conservatives been while some of us have been ringing this particular bell for so damn long? No vitriol for the record breaking deficits under Bush, but NOW you're upset? Eight years of record breakers, and NOW folks are up in arms?

Yes, we need to trim fat, and trim spending, and live within our means. But that hasn't changed since 1980, and oddly enough, Saint Reagan is lauded for continuing to deficit spend when the economic crisis was over. And Bush was castigated for then having to deal with the mess he'd inherited.

It doesn't matter the letter appended to the end of a politicians' name, but the policies they support or oppose, and a great many of the folks who say that they are for fiscal restraint have been anything but, but NOW they want to point fingers?

WTF people.

What

Thefark


They did just what they promised to do.

They "starved the beast," which led to immense deficits, immsense debt, and economic collapse. Just as they wanted.

Then they waited for a Democrat to take office so they could shift the blame and begin demanding some form of fiscal responsibility. (Lucky for us, Obama actually IS pushing for fiscal responsibility.)

I have no idea how the party whose mantra translates to "spend money like it's water to make government look incompetent" ever got away with calling themselves "fiscally conservative."

I've grown up thinking "fiscal conservatism" is spending tons of money on useless military adventures and nation-building that includes paying for single-payer in other countries, while simultaneously making sure programs in the U.S. are underfunded, and thus look incomptetent, and railing against any sort of improvements for Americans themselves.
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report