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.

(Reason Magazine)   Let's reason out Obama's "we don't have a spending problem" comment shall we?   (reason.com) divider line 154
    More: Obvious, President Obama, Jonathan Chait, Steve Benen, pragmatists, Robert Reich, Boehner, Rachel Maddow  
•       •       •

1533 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jan 2013 at 2:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 10:52:05 AM  
2002: The Iraq war will pay for itself

2002: "Deficits don't matter"

2003: Medicare part D

2007: Wait, the Iraq war didn't pay for itself?

2013: Obama has a spending problem.
 
2013-01-09 10:57:17 AM  
The truth irritates his majesty.
 
2013-01-09 10:57:22 AM  
If Washington had pegged federal government growth since 2000 to the rates of inflation and population growth, we would be spending well under $3 trillion today, and talking about what to do with the surplus.

$3 trillion. Hmm, where have I seen that number before...

i.imgur.com

Link
 
2013-01-09 11:02:32 AM  
Yes, a Republican president can start two unfunded wars and then cook the books so that the actual spending doesn't show on his budgets, but a Democrat president must be held to inflation plus growth.

F*ck yourselves.
 
2013-01-09 11:03:08 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If Washington had pegged federal government growth since 2000 to the rates of inflation and population growth, we would be spending well under $3 trillion today, and talking about what to do with the surplus.

$3 trillion. Hmm, where have I seen that number before...

[i.imgur.com image 750x536]

Link


Another look:

www.tc.umn.edu

We may trust you again, Republicans, after you've given some indication that you've learned your lesson.  Pretending Bush didn't exist (and that you didn't vote for his policies) doesn't count.
 
2013-01-09 11:05:19 AM  
Reason.com = no
 
2013-01-09 11:09:42 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: The truth irritates his majesty.


are you high?
 
2013-01-09 11:17:20 AM  
"Let's reason out Obama's..."

I prefer to study it out, thank you very much.
 
2013-01-09 11:26:27 AM  
I love that the chart included with TFA shows the spending changes since 2001.  That's remarkably disingenuous.  Try showing a chart from 2009, you assclowns.
 
2013-01-09 11:30:43 AM  
Or New York magazine's Jonathan Chait: "There really isn't money to be cut everywhere....The spending cuts aren't there because they can't be found."

this is what democrats actually believe.
 
2013-01-09 11:32:10 AM  

SlothB77: Or New York magazine's Jonathan Chait: "There really isn't money to be cut everywhere....The spending cuts aren't there because they can't be found."

this is what democrats actually believe.


What spending cuts are the republicans in congress proposing?
 
2013-01-09 11:33:05 AM  
So...more tax cuts, then?
 
2013-01-09 11:38:59 AM  

ManateeGag: jehovahs witness protection: The truth irritates his majesty.

are you high?


Never attribute to drugs that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
 
2013-01-09 11:50:09 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: ManateeGag: jehovahs witness protection: The truth irritates his majesty.

are you high?

Never attribute to drugs that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.


Personally, I don't see why it has to be an either/or situation. I see "both" as an adequate answer.

I will agree that we, as a nation, spend too much. But the difference between liberals and conservatives is onion on what it is spent on. I, and most liberals, want to see money spent on research into green tech, further expansion of high speed internet, education programs from grade school on up to collegiate level, work training programs in the trade arts (a country is only as good and clean as it's best plumbers' ability), social safety nets, universal health care...

And conservatives want the capability to blow up the world, especially the brown parts, six times over. Oh, and tax cuts for people who aren't exactly starving.

So, it's a simple disagreement of onion, I guess.
 
2013-01-09 11:51:18 AM  
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

It's pretty clear from actually looking at the data that we have a massive income problem.  Tax receipts peaked in 2007, and that was only 4.5% above the previous peak in 2000.  Last year's revenue was only 86% of the government's revenue in 2000.  We have lost 14% of the total revenue to our government in 12 years.  During the same period, our GDP has grown almost 50%.  In other words, since the data also shows that before 2000, income was a fairly steady 18-20% of GDP, the problem is almost entirely revenue.  If receipts were still 20% of GDP, Federal revenue last year would have been approximately $3T, giving us a deficit of around $100B, or 9% of the actual deficit last year.

I am perfectly willing to accept spending cuts of $100B in exchange for restoring revenue to historical levels, which would erase the deficit.

Only a moron would look at the actual data and claim we have a spending problem.  We have a tax problem.
 
2013-01-09 11:51:53 AM  
I should have previewed and saw that my tablet auto corrected every time I used the word "opinion" to the word "onion." I am as yet unsure if that is my tablet making fun of me.
 
2013-01-09 11:53:07 AM  

James!: What spending cuts are the republicans in congress proposing?


They're pretty sure cutting spending on gay marriage, abortions, and "illegals" will save $14.4 kazillion dollars in the first year alone.
 
2013-01-09 11:55:08 AM  

BunkoSquad: James!: What spending cuts are the republicans in congress proposing?

They're pretty sure cutting spending on gay marriage, abortions, and "illegals" will save $14.4 kazillion dollars in the first year alone.


Let's also remember that Romney's budget would have doubled defense spending over the next 10 years, while cutting taxes, which would magically close the deficit.
 
2013-01-09 11:56:01 AM  
Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.
 
2013-01-09 11:57:20 AM  

GAT_00: Only a moron would look at the actual data and claim we have a spending problem.


Well, it's Republicans saying it so...I guess that sums it up.
 
2013-01-09 11:58:58 AM  

Rev.K: Yes, a Republican president can start two unfunded wars and then cook the books so that the actual spending doesn't show on his budgets, but a Democrat president must be held to inflation plus growth.

F*ck yourselves.


I know we haven't spent anything since 2007, but really, can't we at least pay down the balance owed for those wars?
 
2013-01-09 12:04:28 PM  

I_C_Weener: Rev.K: Yes, a Republican president can start two unfunded wars and then cook the books so that the actual spending doesn't show on his budgets, but a Democrat president must be held to inflation plus growth.

F*ck yourselves.

I know we haven't spent anything since 2007, but really, can't we at least pay down the balance owed for those wars?


yeah i'm all for rah-rah obama, but i don't see how the source of financial commitments has anything to do with the discussions of how to address those commitments going forward.
 
2013-01-09 12:04:43 PM  
It's not a spending problem, it's a future obligations problem.  There are remedies for this.  Raise retirement age, chained-CPI, increase means-testing, reduce medicare payments to doctors, increase taxes.

None of these are going to happen.  We're just going to stumble on yammering about welfare queens and cutting the fat.  You know how many people in Georgia get welfare?  4,000.
 
2013-01-09 12:12:50 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.


Bravo! Well played, sir.
 
2013-01-09 12:15:47 PM  

thomps: yeah i'm all for rah-rah obama, but i don't see how the source of financial commitments has anything to do with the discussions of how to address those commitments going forward.


I agree. I'm merely pointing out Reason's partisan hackery and Republican knob-slobbing.

It's because Democrats are in denial about the true cost of their (yes) ideological commitments.

That takes some kind of balls to spew that bullsh*t when America is drowning in the debt of a war that was supposed to "pay for itself".
 
2013-01-09 12:17:01 PM  

thomps: yeah i'm all for rah-rah obama, but i don't see how the source of financial commitments has anything to do with the discussions of how to address those commitments going forward.


I agree. I'm merely pointing out Reason's partisan hackery and Republican knob-slobbing.

It's because Democrats are in denial about the true cost of their (yes) ideological commitments.

It takes some kind of balls or monumental cognitive dissonance to say bullsh*t like that when the US is drowning in the debt of a war that was supposed to "pay for itself".
 
2013-01-09 12:17:57 PM  
We do have a spending problem...and it's a bipartisan problem.  Everything should be cut....including defense.
 
2013-01-09 12:20:25 PM  

Rev.K: thomps: yeah i'm all for rah-rah obama, but i don't see how the source of financial commitments has anything to do with the discussions of how to address those commitments going forward.

I agree. I'm merely pointing out Reason's partisan hackery and Republican knob-slobbing.

It's because Democrats are in denial about the true cost of their (yes) ideological commitments.

That takes some kind of balls to spew that bullsh*t when America is drowning in the debt of a war that was supposed to "pay for itself".


oh i think we can all agree that Reason and the republican debate-framing are a f*cking joke, but posting charts about outrageous spending commitments over the previous decade doesn't do much to counter the assertion that we have a spending problem.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:56 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.

Bravo! Well played, sir.


Did anyone else find themselves humming "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" right then?  No, just me?
 
2013-01-09 12:27:22 PM  

ITGreen: Doctor Funkenstein: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.

Bravo! Well played, sir.

Did anyone else find themselves humming "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" right then?  No, just me?


i read it in the voice of that affleck insurance duck
 
2013-01-09 12:29:23 PM  

thomps: oh i think we can all agree that Reason and the republican debate-framing are a f*cking joke, but posting charts about outrageous spending commitments over the previous decade doesn't do much to counter the assertion that we have a spending problem.


There is also a very, very considerable revenue problem.

By Reason's own charts, expenditures are increasing and all Republicans want to do is lower taxes, i.e. the means to pay for those expenses.
 
2013-01-09 12:39:42 PM  

thomps: i read it in the voice of that affleck insurance duck


That is the best way to read it.
 
2013-01-09 02:21:54 PM  
The president's insistence that Washington doesn't have a spending problem, Mr. Boehner says, is predicated on the belief that massive federal deficits stem from what Mr. Obama called "a health-care problem."

This is basically 100% correct. Maybe someone can disagree with it, but the idea that you'd be "shocked" by it is amazing. Do people not pay attention to reality?
 
2013-01-09 02:26:15 PM  
Study Reason it out!
 
2013-01-09 02:26:17 PM  
If you're going to use the verb "reason" the way Reason uses it for its name, then I think I'll pass, thanks.
 
2013-01-09 02:26:54 PM  
Let's reason study out Obama's "we don't have a spending problem" comment shall we?

/"you idiot, Pfom!!, the site's not called study.com"
 
2013-01-09 02:27:10 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: If you're going to use the verb "reason" the way Reason uses it for its name, then I think I'll pass, thanks.


chickens everywhere thank you for your decision.
 
2013-01-09 02:27:13 PM  

Rev.K: Yes, a Republican president can start two unfunded wars and then cook the books so that the actual spending doesn't show on his budgets, but a Democrat president must be held to inflation plus growth.

F*ck yourselves.


Butthurt by the truth?
 
2013-01-09 02:27:49 PM  
If Washington had pegged federal government growth since 2000 to the rates of inflation and population growth, we...

...obviously wouldn't have been able to afford massive increases in defense spending, Medicare Part D, or DHS.
 
2013-01-09 02:28:03 PM  
Thanks, W.

You might not understand all the death and destruction but surely you and your chimp brain can understand the trillions of debt you ran up.

Wait, of course you understand. That's why you ran up all that debt in the first place. For you and your friends to profit on.

Thanks, W. A real patriot.
 
2013-01-09 02:29:44 PM  

DeltaPunch: "Let's reason out Obama's..."

I prefer to study it out, thank you very much.


Dammit - I knew I couldn't have been the first one to go there.
 
2013-01-09 02:31:08 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Obama needs to do his job.What, is he in it for, the paycheck? Is he even back from Hawaii, being the man about town in photo ops all around the town?I'd like to be on vacation too (actually rather be out chasing Amy Adams or some other hot babe,) but I have work to do.I thought about this when I was changing lanes on the freeway this morning.Congress got fat raises while the rest of us were trying to extract every cent out our bank accounts and wondering whether we would be surviving Christmas this past year!Would our checks bounce while the pols play their little reindeer games? Maybe the election season left Washington dazed and bewildered, the phantoms of superpacs and other donors in their heads.They need to get back to work!I won't be satisfied until they are going all the way to fix this deficit problem.I'm tired of the political dogma they spout, obviously cooked up in some boiler room where they act all powerful and mighty like forces of nature instead of the crooked little men they are.Obama and Boehner need to stop with the empty talk, stop smoking 200 cigarettes a day and solve this issue before it turns into an economic armageddon.


I think I got em all. Though I'm guessing "dazed and bewildered" was supposed to be "dazed and confused."
 
2013-01-09 02:31:41 PM  

Phony_Soldier: Butthurt by the truth?


What truth?

That the imbeciles at Reason are totally fine with trillions of unfunded Republican debt and then clutch their pearls when Obama raises the lowest tax rates in history?
 
2013-01-09 02:32:45 PM  

Teufelaffe: I think I got em all. Though I'm guessing "dazed and bewildered" was supposed to be "dazed and confused."


you missed at least "extract" and "are go[ing]"
 
2013-01-09 02:33:46 PM  
I'd say we have a very different sort of problem that is very difficult to discuss.
An Elephant in the room, if you will.
 
2013-01-09 02:34:53 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com


but lets keep blaming fartbama
 
2013-01-09 02:36:07 PM  
Good thing we aren't fighting 2 wars any more so we can finally make drastic cuts to the military budget right GOP?
 
2013-01-09 02:36:41 PM  

ManateeGag: jehovahs witness protection: The truth irritates his majesty.

are you high?


Yes, check his history. He's a longstanding anti-Obama wingnut.
 
2013-01-09 02:38:05 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If Washington had pegged federal government growth since 2000 to the rates of inflation and population growth, we would be spending well under $3 trillion today, and talking about what to do with the surplus.

$3 trillion. Hmm, where have I seen that number before...

[i.imgur.com image 750x536]

Link


To be fair, reducing the yellow part just makes the grey part bigger, if not in exact proportion.

It's more a matter of how the yellow part is allocated than actually reducing it, which is why you won't see the deficit going down under EITHER party, just a change in allocation for policies one party or the other supports.
 
2013-01-09 02:38:13 PM  

thomps: Teufelaffe: I think I got em all. Though I'm guessing "dazed and bewildered" was supposed to be "dazed and confused."

you missed at least "extract" and "are go[ing]"


Whoa...
(also, Election)
 
Displayed 50 of 154 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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