The Fiscal Cliff

[calicoug]

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.


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

Oh brother. You need to go back and see how budgets work. The FY2009 budget was passed in 2008. It was signed by Bush. It approved spending of $3.1 trillion. Actual spending was higher but that has nothing to do with the "baseline" of the budget which is what you are discussing. The budget has since been extended with small increases (and sometimes no increase) by CRs because Congress can't pass a budget. The stimulus had nothing to do with the $3.1 trillion in spending approved by Bush. It has nothing to do with the passage of the FY2009 budget. It happened many months AFTER the budget was passed into law. YOU raised the argument that Obama shot up the FY2009 budget well over Bush's highest budget and that's just false. You can argue the current spending is too high but to argue that FY2008 represents Bush's highest spending level is wrong.

[All-American]

Oh brother. You need to go back and see how budgets work. The FY2009 budget was passed in 2008. It was signed by Bush. It approved spending of $3.1 trillion. Actual spending was higher but that has nothing to do with the "baseline" of the budget which is what you are discussing. The budget has since been extended with small increases (and sometimes no increase) by CRs because Congress can't pass a budget. The stimulus had nothing to do with the $3.1 trillion in spending approved by Bush. It has nothing to do with the passage of the FY2009 budget. It happened many months AFTER the budget was passed into law. YOU raised the argument that Obama shot up the FY2009 budget well over Bush's highest budget and that's just false. You can argue the current spending is too high but to argue that FY2008 represents Bush's highest spending level is wrong.

Everybody here sees the elephant in the room you are trying not to acknowledge.

[il Padrino Ute]

Everybody here sees the elephant in the room you are trying not to acknowledge.

The only elephant he sees is the Republican elephant.

[Uncle Ted]

Oh brother. You need to go back and see how budgets work. The FY2009 budget was passed in 2008. It was signed by Bush. It approved spending of $3.1 trillion. Actual spending was higher but that has nothing to do with the "baseline" of the budget which is what you are discussing. The budget has since been extended with small increases (and sometimes no increase) by CRs because Congress can't pass a budget. The stimulus had nothing to do with the $3.1 trillion in spending approved by Bush. It has nothing to do with the passage of the FY2009 budget. It happened many months AFTER the budget was passed into law. YOU raised the argument that Obama shot up the FY2009 budget well over Bush's highest budget and that's just false. You can argue the current spending is too high but to argue that FY2008 represents Bush's highest spending level is wrong.

Has the president submitted a budget to congress that anyone (both dems and republicans) likes? It seems the last one he submitted was voted down in the senate by a vote of 0-97. The republicans in the house have passed budgets but dems in the senate, like the president, apparently "cannot lead". Harry Reid has made it very clear he doesn't like budgets and has blocked it from even being considered on the floor:

“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it’s done, we don’t need to do it,” Majority Leader Harry Reid said of the 2013 federal budget in February.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/29/se...#ixzz2hBpZ08Xi

If anyone it is the dems that can't pass a budget. Clearly there is a lack of leadership in the senate and in the white house.

[il Padrino Ute]

Has the president submitted a budget to congress that anyone (both dems and republicans) likes? It seems the last one he submitted was voted down in the senate by a vote of 0-97. The republicans in the house have passed budgets but dems in the senate, like the president, apparently "cannot lead". Harry Reid has made it very clear he doesn't like budgets and has blocked it from even being considered on the floor:


http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/29/se...#ixzz2hBpZ08Xi

If anyone it is the dems that can't refuse to pass a budget. Clearly there is a lack of leadership in the senate and in the white house.

fify

The Senate hasn't passed a budget since Reid became majority leader. Is that an example of the leadership you're talking about, DDD?

[calicoug]

Has the president submitted a budget to congress that anyone (both dems and republicans) likes? It seems the last one he submitted was voted down in the senate by a vote of 0-97. The republicans in the house have passed budgets but dems in the senate, like the president, apparently "cannot lead". Harry Reid has made it very clear he doesn't like budgets and has blocked it from even being considered on the floor:


http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/29/se...#ixzz2hBpZ08Xi

If anyone it is the dems that can't pass a budget. Clearly there is a lack of leadership in the senate and in the white house.

The budget is a separate issue and there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides for it. The issue which closed the government is a CR, not the budget, and the debt ceiling also isn't the budget. And fault for those two issues lies squarely with Republicans.

[Uncle Ted]

The budget is a separate issue and there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides for it. The issue which closed the government is a CR, not the budget, and the debt ceiling also isn't the budget. And fault for those two issues lies squarely with Republicans.

Really?!?

What happened to the Obama that was concerned about spending?

Back when they raised the debt ceiling to $9T Harry Reid said:

"Any objective analysis of our country's fiscal history would have to conclude this administration and this rubberstamping Republican Congress are the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of our country," Mr. Reid said. "In fact, no other president or Congress even comes close."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/po...end.html?_r=2&

Why isn't Harry saying the same today?

[imanihonjin]

The issue which closed the government is a CR, not the budget, and the debt ceiling also isn't the budget.

Ummmm....correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the only reason that we have a CR is because there is no budget? Why then isn't there a budget?

[Maximus]

The budget has since been extended with small increases (and sometimes no increase) by CRs because Congress the Senate can't pass a budget. .

FIFY

[byu71]

Really?!?

What happened to the Obama that was concerned about spending?

Back when they raised the debt ceiling to $9T Harry Reid said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/po...end.html?_r=2&

Why isn't Harry saying the same today?

I don't know why Boner and the other republicans aren't pounding this over and over again showing the hypocricy of the democrats. I think I heard the Joe Biden voted against raising the debt ceiling numerous times.

[Sleeping in EQ]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...t-viewed-24h10

[imanihonjin]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...t-viewed-24h10

What a bunch of crap. There is one reason and one reason only that Obama and the dems are taking a no negotiating approach to the debt ceiling increase and it has nothing to do with protecting the consititution (what a silly argument that is).

[Pelado]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...t-viewed-24h10

The risk of being taken "hostage" over every debt limit negotiation would be significantly less important if they weren't spending so much that the debt limit has to be increased by so much so often.

[imanihonjin]

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.

I am just going to leave this right here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...b-327c5c814d82

[Uncle Ted]

I am just going to leave this right here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...b-327c5c814d82

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.


The memo offers a starkly different view of the consequences of congressional inaction on the debt limit than is held by the White House, many policymakers and other financial analysts. During a press conference at the White House Tuesday, Obama said missing the Oct. 17 deadline would invite “economic chaos.”


The Moody’s memo goes on to argue that the situation is actually much less serious than in 2011, when the nation last faced a pitched battle over the debt limit.


“The budget deficit was considerably larger in 2011 than it is currently, so the magnitude of the necessary spending cuts needed after 17 October is lower now than it was then,” the memo says.

Well it should be good news to the dems that less spending cuts are needed. Of course, getting any spending cuts is the problem.