The Blue Board

Wrong. Usually 60 votes. That was true, for example, even in the Obamacare debate.

Obama had 60 votes for more than a year...until Ted Kennedy died.

nm

I'm young and make decent money so I will have a large role in paying deficits. I would vote paul over anybody.

But the only real expense obama had added is the stimulus. Whereas bush added a ton of crap that will continue to follow future presidents.

It doesn't make sense to look at what was spent if a previous presidents budget follows the next one. I think it's best to point out what each one did to the cash flow. What has obama added other than stimulus? All I can think of is the extra set of tax cuts. While bush had tarp, his own stimulus equal to obama's, medicare part d, wars and the 2 trillion tax cut.

I would love to see anyone compare the two.

derek thompson likely also voted Okie state & Boise 1and 2 in college football this past year .

Obama & fiscally conservative in the same sentence is as ridiculous & the fools that support the ass-puppet.

Because it is simply not true.

Obama has spent more in four years than Bush did in 8...and Bush was TERRIBLE when it came to spending.

The think progress article you posted above has one small problem...it includes Bush's TARP (which was supposed to be a one time thing) as a BASELINE. So great...after expanding the federal government more in 1 year than any period in US history, he has only increased it SLIGHTLY from that ridiculous high level.

Spending right now is 22% of GDP...that is historically EXTREMELY HIGH. Average for the last half century is around 18%. The last time it was this high? Middle of WWII, when we were fighting Japan and Germany on two fronts.

Now, you can agree with the spending...there are plenty of liberals that want even more spending. There are arguments for such high spending. But don't delude yourself into believing Obama is a fiscal conservative. That is a complete and utter delusion.

Furthermore, with that increased spending, if you ended the wars, cut defense spending by 20% and raise taxes on the rich by getting rid of the Bush tax cuts...you would still come no where near balancing the budget deficit. Run the numbers, there are a number of calculators out there. Without entitlement reform, such as the Ryan plan, you wouldn't come close even in 20 or 30 years. Obama's budget, FYI, would add $10 trillion in the next decade...and that takes into account increased taxes (including ridding the Bush tax cuts and adding the Buffett rule), defense cuts, and ending the wars.

So again, run the numbers.

Please tell me you understand the relationship between any statistic per GDP.

I can not increase the real amount of spending in a given period of team,but if GDP recedes, it will record a rise in spending as a percentage of GDP.

If you increase spending at a rate equal to the increase in real GDP,that would mean no increase in spending.

Revenue as a percentage of GDP for the first two years of 44 was ~14.9%. These record lows haven't been seen since 33's second term. The next two years are estimated to be 14.4 and 16.6% respectively.

2009 was the highest federal spending reached at 24.7% (with about 6% of that coming from the stimulus alone).[from tax policy center]

It increases by less than one percentage point until FY 2013 and then dips done to about 22% the year after that,but the big difference is revenues increase to above 18% (whitehouse.gov)

That is with normal estimates with no future changes. Changes like the People's budget I linked in a thread earlier that would do a better job than Ryan's abortion that is worse than the joke Obama's aides sent to Congress.

The Obama budget you reference is also just talk. A base-line nothing put out by the WH to cover their tracks politically in case Repubs claimed where we're his ideas.

GDP receding does not explain the numbers.

The only year GDP receded recently in 2008-9, where it dropped by 250 billion dollars or so, or less than 2%.

In that same time, spending increased by almost 4% in relation to GDP. Spending is increasing faster under Obama than the economy is growing, even today. Under Obama's budgets, spending by GDP will stay over 21% through out his presidency. And Obama does NOT SUPPORT the people's budget. If he did, then your argument makes sense. I admit that freely.

Again, your numbers don't bear out, and the link below shows that. And this is about Obama...if he puts out useless budget proposals, why am I responsible for his irresponsibility?

The problem we face today is Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes and Dems are unwilling to cut spending. IMO it is that simple.

I agree with this as well.

If you take the revenue decrease (which I admit did happen), that is MUCH SMALLER than the overall increase in spending relative to GDP. Even if you use 2008 (before the drop) as the baseline, it doesn't account for almost half of the increased spending.

Look, you can make a strong argument that Obama NEEDS to spend. But to argue that he isn't spending at historically high levels, to me, simply seems delusional. He certainly is. If left to his own devices, he would be even spending more...does anyone not believe that?

Furthermore, long term we need structural tax changes; and the rich will have to pay more. But additionally, we need fundamental structural entitlement changes, as well as restraining or even cutting defense. These don't need to be done in the near term...but I have seen no willingness from Obama and Democrats even to make those changes 10, 20 years out. Republicans, on the other hand, have to be willing to accept some tax increases. It won't happen otherwise.

Obama's biggest failure on this was not to accept Bowles-Simpson, which makes the most sense. Or something like it. Simply put, when he rejected his own commission, he failed the leadership test on this issue.

These problems are solvable, but both sides are unwilling to solve it, and sometimes, won't even agree on what the problem is.

I'll agree to disagree on the opinion of why the need to spend,but on the rest I wholly agree.

FLBuckeye said it best. Spending (including third-rails) has to be cut. Taxes(not just the richt,but everyone) need to raised.

Those two things have to happen to lower the deficit and AT LEAST keep debt stable while GDP rises.

The sad thing is they won't or at least I don't believe they will. I dearly hope so because as a twenty year-old college student with big dreams,this generation and the generations to come are going to be .

i bet they won't be able to take your tinfoil hat away from you though!