The Fiscal Cliff

[All-American]

Bush's highest budget was for fy2009. Not 2008. FYI. And the total outlays have hardly budged since then.

1. Are you willing to go on record as saying that Obama had nothing to do with spending levels in FY 2009?
2. Even if Bush were entirely responsible for 2009 spending, how much credit are we supposed to give Obama for taking the spending of a reckless spender at its emergency-induced peak and making that the new status quo baseline?

[Uncle Ted]

How Obama treats our vets... He defends their rights by arresting them:

[imanihonjin]

How Obama treats our vets... He defends their rights by arresting them:

Vets get arrested, while pro amnesty crowds are allowed to march on the mall. What a country!

[byu71]

I know there are some astute investors on here. Right now are you buying or selling?

[Jacob]

Buying. But I took my money out of the stock market to invest in my own business.

[Jacob]

Bush's highest budget was for fy2009. Not 2008. FYI. And the total outlays have hardly budged since then.

TARP and most of the other stimulus didn't happen until Obama took office. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Omaha 680]

TARP and most of the other stimulus didn't happen until Obama took office. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

You can put TARP on W if you want (wasn't it approved after the election, but before Obama's inaugeration?). But it was clear TARP had Obama's stamp of approval. However, the real driver of the permanent higher levels of spending is the 2009 stimulus, which was all Obama/Reid/Pelosi. I don't get Cali's invoking of the 2009 budget at all.

[Jacob]

You can put TARP on W if you want (wasn't it approved after the election, but before Obama's inaugeration?). But it was clear TARP had Obama's stamp of approval. However, the real driver of the permanent higher levels of spending is the 2009 stimulus, which was all Obama/Reid/Pelosi. I don't get Cali's invoking of the 2009 budget at all.

TARP was delayed and then implemented by Obama/Geitner and changed. It was not even done as originally authorized. In any case, the point was that 2008 spending levels give us a surplus regardless of who passed that budget. Was that back in the days when congress used to pass budgets? The reason I even mentioned Bush was because democrats always complained about his deficits and I agree that his budgets were too high. But, even at his highest (pre-recession) that budget would give us a surplus today. Let's start the roll back.

[calicoug]

Wait, are you putting Obama's 2009 stimulus on Bush?

No- when did I say that?

[calicoug]

1. Are you willing to go on record as saying that Obama had nothing to do with spending levels in FY 2009?
2. Even if Bush were entirely responsible for 2009 spending, how much credit are we supposed to give Obama for taking the spending of a reckless spender at its emergency-induced peak and making that the new status quo baseline?

1. No- when did I say that?
2. Obama didn't make spending at 2009 levels the new status quo.

Both of your questions suggest you need a better understanding of the budget process.

[calicoug]

TARP and most of the other stimulus didn't happen until Obama took office. Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

The earlier point was that Obama was responsible for the FY2009 budget. That's not true. If you think it's irrelevant who is responsible for that budget that's fine- but it also isn't my point so take it up with the person who raised it.

The budget signed by Bush was for $3.1 trillion in spending.

[calicoug]

You can put TARP on W if you want (wasn't it approved after the election, but before Obama's inaugeration?). But it was clear TARP had Obama's stamp of approval. However, the real driver of the permanent higher levels of spending is the 2009 stimulus, which was all Obama/Reid/Pelosi. I don't get Cali's invoking of the 2009 budget at all.

The stimulus was not a "permanent driver" of anything. It was a one time expenditure spread out over several years. It doesn't repeat and the total cost was about $800 billion with about half that cost coming in year one (and about half of the $800 billion cost is actually in the form of tax cuts).

TARP was also signed by Bush.

I raised the 2009 budget in response to this post by Jacob...

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...938&viewfull=1

Because he was wrong. The FY2008 budget he cites was not the last Bush budget. Nor was it his highest.

[calicoug]

No it's not, or at least that's not the biggest reason. We are the reserve currency because we make up around 25% of the world GDP and our economy is relatively strong and stable.

Right... I'm sure our confidence (and the globe's) in our ability to pay all of our bills on time has nothing to do with our strong and stable government, which in turn has nothing to do with GDP. You nailed me.

I truly can't believe that the issue of prioritizing bonds is actually gaining traction. When I first heard it on here, I thought it was just a stupid throw away argument by conservatives desperate to grab onto something as an argument for why we shouldn't think they are being crazy. Then I saw it repeated. And repeated again. And now it appears to actually be a conservative talking point. Are you guys out of your minds?

First, practically speaking it isn't going to work as I already said.

Second, even assuming it could work practically, it's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard suggested. What happened to the days where Republicans were actually tethered to reality? Let's pretend we adopt this moronic scheme and prioritize bonds. What then? Will the ratings agencies have no problem with that scheme, given we aren't paying some liability to someone and can't as a matter of law? The S&P lowered our credit rating for far less last year. Will the ratings agencies just oversee this minor inability to pay our liabilities? If the ratings agencies do downgrade, how far will they go? Will that downgrade in and of itself trigger a default? Have you ever worked on bonds before? Just about every bond out there has a default provision tied to a credit downgrade beyond some pre-established level. There are also cross-default provisions in most bonds (fail to pay some other obligation and you create a default). Even if treasuries don't have those default provisions (does anyone even know where to look? this isn't exactly a daily issue in anyone's life because payment is assumed), will the stock market not get clobbered if the US government as a matter of law can't fund all of its liabilities? And what happens if, in the process of manually paying all of the outstanding bonds a payment is missed? Do the series of bonds have a default provision that failure to make a payment on one bond in the series is a default for each bond in the series? Does that trigger a default for all other bonds?

The uncertainty such a move would create would be chaos. It's insanity. That it is even being discussed- not just on here but now today I have heard it from multiple Congressmen- is ludicrous.

If Republicans from 10 years ago could read what Republicans of today are proposing and saying, they would never believe it to be real.

[Jacob]

1. No- when did I say that?
2. Obama didn't make spending at 2009 levels the new status quo.

Then who did? Or do you dispute that Federal outlays have remained at stimulus levels despite the expiration of stimulus? Here's a handy chart. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200
You can see that spending wend down slightly for 2 years and returned to 2009 levels, but never returned to anything resembling the deficit spending of the Bush years.

Further, TARP accounted for at least $109 billion in FY2009 and Obama added another $203 billion during the same fiscal year even after the Bush signed the budget around the time Obama was elected. Add those 2 items together and you have $312 billion of the $535 billion increase from 08-09. And that doesn't account for the fact that the return of TARP money in later years acted as a reduction of Obama spending. Yet Obama's spending continued the new stimulus level status quo.

Again, this is all pointless. You are the one interested in Bush v. Obama, but I can't let the deception stand. My point, clearly stated, was that if we could only return to the irresponsible 2008 levels, we'd be running a surplus. Yes, Bush spent way too much money, and Obama has bested him in that regard.

The earlier point was that Obama was responsible for the FY2009 budget. That's not true. If you think it's irrelevant who is responsible for that budget that's fine- but it also isn't my point so take it up with the person who raised it.

The budget signed by Bush was for $3.1 trillion in spending.

No, that wasn't the earlier point. We were having a discussion regarding spending levels, you interjected Bush Vs Obama.

[myboynoah]

Vets get arrested, while pro amnesty crowds are allowed to march on the mall. What a country!

That is pretty disgusting.