Obama budget would boost U.S. tax revenue, cut deficits: CBO

Comments (58)
Crash866 wrote:

Yeah more taxes!!

Apr 17, 2014 10:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

No spending cuts!!!

Apr 17, 2014 10:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

Only things Obama knows how to do..is talk in front of the cameras and raise our taxes….then, he will somehow get his puppets, to declare, he only raised our taxes soo much..as if, that is a new victory, he can proclaim…

Apr 17, 2014 10:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
PopUp wrote:

Grover Norquist pledge signers would never approve of getting rid of the deficit by increased taxes. Because then they would have nothing to harp on day and night.

Apr 17, 2014 10:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

When we voted for President Obama the first time, his plan for fixing the mess he inherited from the bush/GOP decade was a sensible plan of raising revenue and cutting waste and tax loopholes. The Republicans solidly blocked that plan. vote anti-R!

Apr 17, 2014 10:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash866 wrote:

SunnyDaySam wrote:

When we voted for President Obama the first time, his plan for fixing the mess he inherited from the bush/GOP decade was a sensible plan of raising revenue and cutting waste and tax loopholes. The Republicans solidly blocked that plan. vote anti-R!

Decade??? And wasn’t the promise to JOBS…guess if that doesn’t work we will just raise taxes…again…

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/7-times-in-2008-obama-promised-to-create-7-million

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/05/22/what-did-obama-promise/

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/020813-643803-obama-recycles-same-jobs-promise-same-policies.htm

Apr 17, 2014 11:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Sonny

1. It was not inherited from Bush?GOP – it was the DNC controlled house and Senate that created the disaster.
2. There is nothing sensible about raising revenue(taxes) when it is simply designed to give my money to people who have not earned it.
3. obama has never had a plan to cut waste. His whole agenda is built on taking from the producers and using his ill-gotten gains to buy influence and power from those who can be bought
4. For 2 years after being in the WH, Republicans could not block obama, he had free reign of the country, so please tell us how you think the GOP blocked anything that obama wanted to do.

Sonny, you are so ill-informed and/or blind that it is sad to know that you, and others like you in such willful ignorance, are responsible for the absolute disaster that is obama, the current state of the nation, and the divisivness we have. Get rid of your blind loyalty, realize that obama and the DNC in general have ZERO concern for your well being or the well being of any AMerican other than themselves and that you are nothing but a tool for them to use. Oh, and things don’t look a whole lot better when looking at many of the RINO GOPers like McCain.

Apr 17, 2014 11:10am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Anything that would WORK is out of the question for congressional republicans. They want failure and they’ve been pursuing it for 6 years now. So that they can make some point about how not having a guy like GW Bush in office…..will result in failure? Who knows. But it’s no wonder young people favor the Democratic party 2:1 over the republican party now.

Apr 17, 2014 11:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Speakerbliss wrote:

@crash866, guys like you mostly likely pay in very little anyway, so why care if the top 2% pay more? The reason the deficit grew so much in the first place was due to Bush economics, start two unfunded wars, cut taxes, while raising spending, or did you forget the Bush years?

Apr 17, 2014 11:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

More campaigning and vote buying attempts by the president in an election year. You have to chuckle at how the savings are always out there 10 to 15 years down the road. The savings never happen because like sequestration, the Democrats will hope you forget and change the law at the last minute in order to spend more.

A huge problem this country has is the bloated oversized government. It has grown exponentially over the last few years and is sucking our tax dollars. Below are some stats on federal employees. Staggering when you think about it.:

MORE THAN 15,000 FEDS MADE OVER $200,000 LAST YEAR
National Journal: “Most of the discussion of pay for federal employees in recent months and years has been about insufficient or non-existent raises, pay gaps and budget shortfalls. Not all feds are making out so poorly, however. A new database compiled by FedSmith.com, using data from the Office of Personnel Management and other agencies, shows more than 15,000 federal employees earned at least $200,000 in 2013. That’s roughly 1 percent of all federal workers on the list; some employees in national security positions were not included in the database.”

Apr 17, 2014 11:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@sunnydaysam wrote: “When we voted for President Obama the first time, his plan for fixing the mess he inherited from the bush/GOP decade was a sensible plan of raising revenue and cutting waste and tax loopholes. The Republicans solidly blocked that plan.”

Once again sunny you warp and twist the truth. The Republicans were in the minority in the House and Senate for the first part of Obama’s administration and were unable to block anything. The democrats had the ability to do anything they pleased during this majority. We have seen you proven wrong so many times of late. If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to post facts instead of a bunch of liberal half-truths.

Apr 17, 2014 11:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Whipsplash wrote:

@ Alkaline State, Well said.

Apr 17, 2014 12:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Citizens need to know the truth about government budgets — national, state and municipal.
Federal plus state plus municipality is $6.03 trillion. The sum total of all personal income is $12.98 trillion. Thus, the governments are operating at 50% percent of total personal income.
It gets tougher…
The US dollar is the worlds transaction and main reserve currency. The world’s international debt securities is at $39Trillion US dollars. With a federal debt approaching 75% of U.S. gross domestic product, stability of the Green Back is a concern, will the USA government inflate out of the deficit?Now, fully 85% of foreign-exchange transactions do not use the Greenback (Wall Street Journal). The dollar reign as the standard for international debt securities is under assault as foreign interests flock to a currency exchange formula for ‘virtual’ stability.
The House of Representatives has the sole authority of taxation and can look no where else to shed it’s purpose of meeting obligations. The House failure requires a solution mandated by the people, we must throw off the Grey Oligarchic Partisans (GOP) Corporate America gambit.

The Democrats and Independents must jointly:
1) Open a tax initiative that reinstates the Tax Act of 1913 principle of combining all income and using a universal graduated income tax system with no exemptions. We can do this by margin of our tax floor at $30k-yr single, $60K-yr joint. With this we can national the Nation Revenue to income only, and disperse by 1/3rds to Federal, State and Local governments.
2) Address our Gerrymander using the above gerrymander antidote. Anything to stop the minority ultra right from again closing our government by threats of default. And returning to power through vote manipulation.
morbas(i)

Apr 17, 2014 12:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:


Gerrymander Antidote
World Democracies have used partial proportioned electoral systems to minimize gerrymandering. Simply, the percentage of ballots cast for a party restricts the number of seats it may occupy. An unintended consequence is the individual perspective balloting loses traceability, this is unacceptable to the American voter. The following system maintains traceability by involving the balloted elective in the dispersion/sequester of ballots for seat allotment. Since any elected Representative is entrusted by our direct ballot, that person is entrusted to re-allocate ballots per that balloted persons determination. Thus bartering from and to other perspective Representative candidates to achieve a seat or in exchanged of ballots for political favor. In these two ways the minority gains representation. This represents a positive ‘for something’ rather than negative ‘preventive against’ voting strategy.
Implementation:
The People vote for any one statewide legislative Representative candidate in the same manner as in voting for two State wide Senate seats. After the balloting period, each perspective Representative candidate tallies his/her vote, and if equal to or larger than the minimum he/she fills one of the States Federal Congressional House Representative seat (minimum equals total ballots cast divided by number of allotted seats to be filled). If a ballot tally is less than the minimum he/she can politically compromise for the necessary additional ballots with other candidates having excess or insufficient free ballots to re-allocate. After a set period barter time, free ballots are re-allotted by the residing State governor.

This can be grass roots, starting in Local Government levels, by combining all wards into virtual popular vote. If all local governments incorporate this approach then the State will follow as the most popular local representative will migrate to the state government levels, having employed democratic compromise by practice of these arts. Experience develops leadership skills.

morbas(i)

Apr 17, 2014 1:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RainColle wrote:

Nope, I don’t like this budget. I just do not like what I am seeing here. It’s politically toxic, at a time when people don’t want what the GOP is cooking up in the Ryan Budget, but at the same time people are not seeing real restraint and sacrifices to sacred cows under Obama’s budget proposals. Heck, a high schooler could come up with a better budget than Obama and Ryan put together. Both budgets are a laughable joke. I haven’t seen a budget I could get behind in almost forever from Obama or the GOP. Now Democrats better not be dumb enough to rally around this Obama budget. I fear however that many of them are dumb enough, just like the House GOP were dumb enough to pass the Ryan budget recently as a politically symbolic vote. They say it themselves, it’ as symbolic as 40+ votes to repeal Obamacare was, and a terrible waste of tax payer dollars for that political grandstand. Both sides are just awful, selfish, and dumb on budgets. There is no budget that both sides could cheer about together because it’s a my way or the high election year, and nothing common sense and bi-partisan can come out of Congress or the White House when things are so tense.

Apr 17, 2014 1:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Dr_Steve wrote:

Increase taxes, increase spending. Same old, same old. How’s that been working for you?

Apr 17, 2014 1:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@Morbas- Nowhere in your solution do you address the real threat to the country. Spending. All you want to do is tax those that make more than you do? The federal government takes in over one trillion dollars a year in taxes and all you can come up with is to tax more? You seem to see the see the symptoms of the disease (high budget deficits) but your proposed cure will kill the patient.

Apr 17, 2014 2:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TeaBagYou wrote:

Jesus Christ, the government is pulling in record revenues and the retard wants to increase taxes?

Apr 17, 2014 2:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

I don’t believe anything the CBO says. It is like a computer: garbage in, garbage out.

Apr 17, 2014 2:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
willich6 wrote:

Why doesn’t obama propose a budget that can actually be implemented and then commit to working with congress – like all other presidents have done – to shape it and get it passed. What he proposed is a political campaign tool; nothing more..
This is a Joke – just like his administration has been a complete failure……..

Apr 17, 2014 2:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TeaBagYou wrote:

Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. Has this fool ever saved earned or saved a single dollar in his life?

Apr 17, 2014 2:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Not a fan of the increased spending, but I do think increasing the revenues is completely needed. How about we reverse those Bush tax cuts until we get the budget balanced and pay the debt off.

Apr 17, 2014 2:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@AlkalineState

“Anything that would WORK is out of the question for congressional republicans. They want failure and they’ve been pursuing it for 6 years now. So that they can make some point about how not having a guy like GW Bush in office…..will result in failure? Who knows. But it’s no wonder young people favor the Democratic party 2:1 over the republican party now.”

The young people are also the ones needed to pay for the ACA, and they are the ones with the highest levels of unemployment, underemployment, and most likely to be working at Walmart with their fresh new $120,000 college degree. You got to love the irony. Personally I think it is time for a third party. This demographic will more than likely be the ones that makes it happen.

Apr 17, 2014 2:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Obsilutely wrote:

I love these comments.

According the the right, spending is “tyranny” and increasing revenues is also, “tyranny”…this makes “sense” only to a republican.

Do you see why their party is dying?

Apr 17, 2014 3:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Dr_Steve wrote:

@TheNewWorld

Not a fan of the increased spending, but I do think increasing the revenues is completely needed. How about we reverse those Bush tax cuts until we get the budget balanced and pay the debt off.

I can agree with that. Cut the deficit already. Every time government increases spending along with revenue, spending inevitably exceeds revenue; then we just end up deeper in the hole. This is pure insanity.

Apr 17, 2014 3:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bromeando wrote:

Wars aren’t cheap…got to pay off the debt.

Apr 17, 2014 3:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Speakerbliss wrote:

gcf1965 wrote: 1. It was not inherited from Bush?GOP – it was the DNC controlled house and Senate that created the disaster.

What Twilight Zone are you living in? Lets see two unfunded wars, costing us over a trillion dollars, factor in future healthcare for returning soldiers, another trillion dollars. Massive tax cuts with big spending programs, Homeland Security as an example and increased military spending. Oh, didn’t Cheney say DEFICITS DON’T MATTER?

Coupled with business policies in banking and real estate that caused the near collapse of the entire US economy, requiring additional expenditures, increasing the deficit even more.

Apr 17, 2014 3:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

@NewWorld: Or no parties. The whole concept is kind of goofy. It was a carry-over from the British, but we intentionally left parties out of the constitution. They are not necessary.

Apr 17, 2014 4:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ExDemocrat wrote:

Here is more proof that Obama wants to tax more and spend more. Yes, that is his way of addressing the federal fiscal deficit. It is no wonder the U.S. has had sluggish growth following the Great Recession, given his terrible fiscal policies and hyper over-regulation of the economy.

Apr 17, 2014 6:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@TheNewWorld- How about for every dollar increase in taxes we cut government spending an equal amount and the extra dollar taken in tax goes to reduce the national debt. That will allow a reduction in the federal deficit by reduced spending and some pay down of the national debt with the increase in tax. The Dems will of course hate this approach because it forces cuts in spending and any extra tax dollars raised go only towards national debt reduction. The main problem is there is not enough “rich folk” to get very much increase in tax dollars so the definition of “rich” will end up being the “middle class” if the Democrats have anything to do with it.

Apr 17, 2014 7:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Art16 wrote:

I will believe it when I see it. This has all the odor of election time dumpster refuse. When have we been treated to a budget that does not keep us in hock up to our eyebrows? These maniac spenders need to be shown the door,

Apr 17, 2014 10:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

Why do right-wingers lie so much? There was no two year supermajority for Obama.

He had an ordinary majority after he was elected, a theoretical supermajority for around one month just before Ted Kennedy died, and that was it. This is not hard to find out, but we all know that right-wingers watch Fox and ignore facts.

As for those economic illiterates who keep howling for spending cuts: show us a country were that has worked.

Apr 17, 2014 12:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

willich6 wrote:
“Why doesn’t obama propose a budget that can actually be implemented and then commit to working with congress – like all other presidents have done – to shape it and get it passed.”

Because he wants a budget that actually work economically, in contrast to you and the GOP who think a budget should be built on ideology, and it is not his role to pander to Republicans.

Of course he knows that it won’t get passed, but he doesn’t care. I know that any budget that was passed would be an economic disaster, so it is almost a certainty that Obama does too, so he probably isn’t too worried about that. He has proposed a budget that makes economic sense so he has done his job. It is not Obama’s fault if it is rejected for not following right-wing ideology. When the right start whining about deficits for example, he can say “I showed you the solution and you rejected it”.

Why would any budget passed be a disaster? Because it would have to basically Republican budget as they won’t compromise, and right-wing ideology is economic stupidity and self-contradictory. The right-wing want to cut deficits (or so they say… actions say they don’t) but refuse to raise taxes to pay for it. Instead, they want to cut spending (or so they say… actions say they don’t) which will kill economic growth – proven by looking at the EU.

In short, until Republicans change their ideology to something more realistic, in other words stop being Republicans, they will never have a realistic economic policy.

Apr 18, 2014 2:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Boring

Apr 18, 2014 9:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

It’s funny how the cons try to blame Democrats for the bush/GOP ‘lost decade’ when they had fulll control for 6 of the 8 years, like the last two years made all the difference. btw; why didn’t the GOP pass a balanced budget amendment when they had BOTH houses AND the Presidency? The same people (Boehner, Ryan, Cantor, etc.) were in office the whole decade! Not only that, They passed a tax cut heavily favoring the wealthy and put two trillion $ unfunded wars on the credit card. It’s the most irresponsible thing ever done in the USA. ‘fiscal conservative’ is a myth – always has been. Vote anti-R

Apr 18, 2014 9:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

@4825 We have shown you on previous posts that Democrats spend less than Republicans. And Bill Clinton had a surplus in his two terms.

Apr 18, 2014 10:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@morbas- See if you can wrap your brain around this one.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9

Apr 18, 2014 2:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

4825@ interesting article, thanks. I like these quotes from it:
‘When the government is running a surplus, it no longer has to issue much debt. But risk-free government bonds are a crucial component of portfolios for all kinds of financial institutions, and for mom & pop investors who like the safety of regularly Treasury payouts. The yield on the 10-year bond was over 5% back in those days… nothing to sneeze at for people planning for a retirement.’
‘And that brings up a broader question that people who advocate balanced budgets must answer. What’s the point of it?’

That last question is a good one for the cons who are hellbent on balancing our budget on Obama’s watch (and not before)

btw; Democrats controlled Congress for the first two years of Clinton’s Presidency, the Republicans for the last 6 years.

Apr 18, 2014 3:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

btw; will some GOP apologist please answer my question?: Why didn’t the Republicans even vote on a balanced budget amendment when they controlled BOTH houses and the Presidency during the bush/GOP decade? I’ve only gotten *crickets* so far. thanks.

Apr 18, 2014 3:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

The “boost in tax revenue” is such a nice way to put it when you are increasing the amount of tax that the Feds charge the American public. The democrats love to call it “revenue” instead of what it really is. It is taking more money out of your pocket. Over a trillion more dollars out of your pocket with Obama’s budget plan. They think you are stupid though so they call it tax revenue hoping you will not notice. The liberal democrats are sly as a wolf. That is why they use ambiguous terms like “tax the rich”. They know that you believe you are not rich And therefore you think they do not mean you. Well they do mean you but don’t want you to know that they mean you. Vote against these money hungry vultures when you get an opportunity to.

Apr 18, 2014 4:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

4825@ maybe you can answer my question above.

Apr 18, 2014 4:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

4825 wrote: ‘The “boost in tax revenue” is such a nice way to put it when you are increasing the amount of tax that the Feds charge the American public.’

Gotta pay for the 2 bush/GOP trillion dollar wars they put on the credit card when the GOP controlled BOTH houses. Remember that?

Apr 18, 2014 4:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SaveRMiddle wrote:

Obama’s budget is DOA. We know it but also……he knew it before he disclosed it. For that reason, it was/is nothing more than a campaign tool.

There’s no need to debate it’s content.

Apr 18, 2014 6:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@SunnyDaySam- A little of a good thing is great. Too much of anything is bad. We are beyond good. There’s your answer. If we were to take your advice and not worry about deficits or the national debt then why can we not stop collecting taxes from anyone? Just add to the debt and do not collect tax. Can you answer that?

Apr 18, 2014 7:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

4825 wrote:
“The democrats love to call it “revenue” instead of what it really is. It is taking more money out of your pocket.”

It might be taking money out of your pocket for you, because you either despise your country so much that don’t want to do anything to support it, or you have such an entitlement mentality that you expect to live in a first-world country free of charge.

Most people don’t see it as their government taking money from them. They are responsible people who understand that countries cost a lot to run, and they willingly pay their contribution as they care about their country enough to support it.

Apr 18, 2014 11:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@Bakhtin(the European)- You are not qualified to discuss anything regarding paying taxes in the US since you have never paid a penny of tax to the US IRS.

Apr 18, 2014 12:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

4825… a completely irrelevant response because you have no answer to the point I raise.

I pay taxes to my governmet, willingly, because I am a responsible citizen fulfilling my social duty to help support my country; willing to pay my way.

I do no whine about taxes 24/7 like US Republican, accusing the government of stealing my money, expecting to freeload and be a burden on my country burden, and expecting to live in a first-world free of charge.

If you despise the USA so much you are not willing to pay your share to stay there and whine about being expected to support your country – move somewher else. Nobody with that attitude to their country deserves the privilege of living there.

I really do not like whining freeloaders…

Apr 19, 2014 6:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

Bakhtin- When you pay some tax in the US then come back and we can discuss it. By the way, you err by assuming that I despise my country. I have not seen one that I think is better and most are much worse, with far fewer liberties. That is the reason for the fight to keep the crazies from trying to emulate some other country. I suspect with you and all your posts it is a case of misery loves company so you want everyone to join you. Well, most folks here do not care to join you.

Apr 19, 2014 9:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

Tax and spend. Democratic formula for getting elected…so what is new??????????????????

Apr 19, 2014 10:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

@4825…

Spare us the empty fake patriot rhetoric. It doesn’t work. You whine about your elected president and support any attempt to bring him down. You whine about his success with the economy and with unemployment. You go into a anti-America rant after every bit of good news about your country. You whine endlessly about supporting your country through taxes, support policies that would destroy your country, and cheer for anybody who opposes it.

We can all see what you are, and it is not a patriotic American.

If you were, you would support Obama. You would be glad that he has fixed the Republican recession and returned the US economy to growth, be glad that he has reduced unemployment, and oppose any who oppose him. But you don’t do any of that, do you?

Apr 19, 2014 10:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

4825…

Now that I think about it – I support your country more than you do. How does that feel?

Apr 19, 2014 10:45am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

I guess with your special, protected, paid-poster account, you can get away with insults instead of reason, but it doesn’t work.

You cannot address any of my reasoning for you being anti-American, and your failure to do that proves my point. If you cared about your country, instead of your political party, you would back Obama.

Apr 19, 2014 2:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
1DukeZ wrote:

Does anyone know where I can find the nearest bread line when the crash comes??

Apr 19, 2014 6:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
desertares wrote:

Amazing how none of the usual Administration lackeys have taken to the air to complain about the CBO’s disagreement with the cumlative deficit. Even the usual cheerleaders for the President in the media are silent, ignoring the issue altogether. Thanks Reuters for putting the information online.

Apr 19, 2014 6:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

With reference to @4825 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9, the charts show a huge collapse under GWBush. Gee 4825, I lived through teh huge decline in infrastructure under GWBush, at a time of blue colar labor recession…in support of WAR oh lets see that is a conservative idealogue is it not.

Failing apprehension of the 911 perpetrators through Afghanistan military occupation, and Guantanamo egregious torture, Bush perpetrated by false WMD fabrications, a larger act of terrorism on the IRAQ populace inflicting a casualty loss of 110,000+ soles self inflicting USA troop loss of 3,700+ with 31,000+ wounded solders.

We demand justice, send G.W.Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to The Hague for a long long stay….

morbas(i)

Apr 20, 2014 8:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@Morbas- I am against huge spending under either party. But your indictment of GWB is unfounded because the Democrats backed Bush on all the spending for 911 and the Iraq war. So you have a lot of Democrats to put on the bus heading to the Hague when you go. Wise up and think for yourself instead of letting those liberal entertainment news channels tell you how to think. You are much smarter that that.

Apr 20, 2014 9:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@4825

The three Presidents with the worst deficit spending are Obama, Bush Jr., and Reagan.

For Reagan the Democrats held the House his complete 8 years, and the Senate for the last two years. The House controls the purse, however Reagan is given credit for his tax cuts, his defensive spending that helped push the USSR over the edge, and the economic recovery.

For Bush Jr. the Democrats held the Senate for 3.5 years of his Presidency and the House for 2 years of his Presidency. For the first 6 years the Republicans controlled the house deficit spending ammounted to 3.2 trillion. In the 2 years that the Democrats controlled both chambers they added 2.649 trillion. Most of the deficit spending is due to the GOP policies though. The untouchable defense budgtet and Iraq/Afghanistan wars make up more than half of that spending.

Obama has a bunch of deficit spending but again the majority of it is still defense/war related. The GOP needs to understand that we can’t afford being the world’s police force, we need to close the vast majority of our foreign bases, bring our soldiers home, and cut defense spending in half now when we can choose to do so, whether than in the future when it will be done for us due to interest payments on our debt costing us trillions.

Apr 20, 2014 5:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

@4825 When were you born?

Apr 22, 2014 6:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.