Obama: I’ll Cut $4 Trillion

April 13th, 2011 at 1:14 pm | 110 Comments |

| Print

Full speech transcript here.


This didn’t feel like a policy speech, even though it was sprinkled with policy ideas. The main focus and the meat of the speech came from Obama’s attack on the Ryan plan and the Ryan budget.

This felt like a rehearsal for 2012. The assumption is that whoever the GOP nominee is, that they will have to run on defending the Ryan budget, and that what the GOP wants to do is sacrifice old people in a draconian way to balance the budget.

Many on the both the right and the left have been hoping for these sorts of explicit comparisons to be made, both believe they can win on these issues.

There were hints of triangulation language, but Obama is not going to make running against his own party a key part of his campaign message.


Obama lays out his timeline, Biden will start meeting with congressional leaders and aim to get a proposal of out by June.

That might be optimistic.

Obama closes off arguing that even those who disagree with him at least want to do the right thing for the country. Pointed and strong critiques of the Ryan plan stills stand.


Liberals can be happy with his line on tax cuts: “I don’t need another tax cut, Warren Buffet doesn’t need another tax cut.”

But Obama does some triangulation, notes that some in his party don’t wan’t to cut spending at all in. Obama doesn’t really critique this wing of the party beyond saying [paraphrasing] “we have to do something about this problem.”

So there goes the Krugman endorsement.

Here is the comment from the speech itself:

But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option.  Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don’t begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.


In the tax section, Obama states that he like some tax exemptions, such as the ones that let you own a house, but he doesn’t like the ones that millionaires and billionaires use.

This is not ideal policy. Not good for a President to come out and say “I am for subsidizing home ownership”.


Obama wants to have a Defense Department “review” of “America’s role in the world”. Coming after what has happened in Libya, this seems like this should lead to a much larger geo-strategic policy discussion. What are the reasons that the US will intervene in a foreign country? This is a question that wants a coherent answer.

On healthcare, Obama runs through a series of proposals for “reducing wasteful subsidies”, and also talks about “changing the way we pay for healthcare”. He also announces a new independent commission to look at ways to increase efficiencies.

Despite some of these policy proposals, much of Obama’s speech focuses on contrasting his efforts with Ryan and the GOP.


Obama: “There is nothing serious” about the Ryan tax cuts.

Says the Ryan plan is “not courageous” for making cuts to those who don’t have representation on capitol hill.

If the GOP wanted to compare and contrast their approach with Obama’s, then they got it. DNC operatives are probably very happy with this.


Obama begins laying into the Ryan plan, he is not mincing words. His focus is on medicare, describes the Ryan plan as a voucher program and argues that the GOP is essentially leaving old people without care in order to balance the deficit.

Again, more rhetorical ammo for liberals, but will they actually like his proposals?

As a side note, there are some odd rhetorical choices being made in the speech. Obama credits Brazil for having cars that run on ethanol, but that is not an entitlement problem, thats an agricultural policy problem. (One that Tom Coburn is trying to fix.)


Here are the lines that pundits will like: Obama says that foreign aid “takes up only 1% of the budget”. Obama goes on to state how entitlements and interest on the debt takes up most of the budget.

This is a section that liberal commentators are calling an “adult conversation” from the President.

Conservatives would likely point out that Ryan began tackling those sacred cows first, and more forthrightly.


Obama gives his speech a historical framing. Briefly summarized, the view is:

-In the 80′s we started to go into debt.

-So in the 90′s we got serious about it.

-But then in the 2000′s, we lost our way.

-And when I came into office, I had to spend to deal with the financial emergency.

It is a critique of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush but Obama avoids calling them out by name, even though that is who he is referring to.

Obama gives a short explanation of why the problem should be solved, cites how in 2025, interest on the debt and entitlements crowd out all other spending. A similar point has been made by Paul Ryan.


Obama begins his speech by making the case for government as a means to deal with unforeseen externalities. Says Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, etc. all are meant to deal with the unforeseen in people’s lives.

He says “We’re a better country because of these commitments.”

So that must be the necessary rhetorical bone to the left before he has to say how he plans to keep those programs financed.


Obama begins by citing the “outstanding” members of the fiscal commission who are in the audience. (Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson)

An endorsement of their work? To prepare for endorsing some of their proposals?

(Update: Bowles-Simpson does not get cited by name in the speech.)


Sam Stein tweets at 1:43pm that “the presidential motorcade is making its way down penns. avenue right now.”


We will be liveblogging the President’s debt reduction speech from the FrumForum offices. The speech is expected to lay out a plan for entitlement reform coupled with tax increases. The speech starts at 1:30pm.

We will be watching to see how Obama will contrast his proposals with the GOP budget presented by Paul Ryan.

Details will be presented as they are made, but we already know that the President aims to cut $4 trillion from the deficit over 12 years.

Recent Posts by Noah Kristula-Green

110 Comments so far ↓

  • Smargalicious

    Tax increases are not acceptable.

    With many millions of Obama voters, illegals, and their anchor babies paying NO taxes and collecting free entitlements, in effect a tax increase is actually wealth re-distribution.

    BHO’s reparations agenda was stopped last November. Didn’t he get the message?

    • armstp


      It is a tax revenue problem and not a spending problem. Spending per GDP at about 22% is close to the average it has been for the last 60 years. Tax revenue per GDP at 14.8% is the lowest it has been since 1950.

      • Smargalicious

        Perhaps in your opinion, but the Big Three entitlement programs beg to differ.

        • Brian P. Rabbit

          Uh, Smargalicious, what armstp said was a fact; not an opinion: “Spending per GDP at about 22% is close to the average it has been for the last 60 years. Tax revenue per GDP at 14.8% is the lowest it has been since 1950.” These measurements are easily seen by looking up data from the U.S. Treasury.

        • armstp


          No doubt Smarg does not believe the U.S. Treasury! It is all a conspiracy by communists anchor babies from Kenya.

        • Smargalicious

          Okay, so back on topic…

          The Kenyan wants to raise taxes only on people who pay them.

          This is called wealth re-distribution and hidden reparations.


        • medinnus

          So typical.

          Facts you don’t like are “opinions”

          Opinions you hold automagically become “fact”

          Being a tea-bagger means just having a set of knee pads and a wide stance.

    • politicalfan


      They are coming to take your tax cuts!

      1 trillion dollars!!! Why do I have an image that smarg is sitting on his safe. :)

    • _will_

      hmmm. the GOP got their tax cuts. twice (against the protestations of W’s first Treasury Secretary conservative Republican Paul O’Neil) . please explain to me what the economic benefit was? where are the jobs?

  • armstp

    “Obama Joins The Debt Debate”

    Actually, Obama has been front in center in the debt debate for more than one year. Lets not forget that he set-up the deficit commission more than one year ago and it was the Republicans that did not want to have anything to do with it, even though they were invited to participate. Lets not forget that Obama passed a healthcare bill that will do more to reduce actual healthcare costs (according to the CBO $1 trillion over 20 years) than what Ryan is proposing (he just wants to shift medical inflation over to seniors). And lets not forget that Obama has said since the beginning that he would prudently focus on the deficit and debt after the economy was significantly recovered and in the second half of his first term.

    After the fiscal performance of the Republicans that got us here and their slogans “deficits don’t matter” I think it has been the Republicans who are just joining the debt debate. Although, the Ryan plan does not really attempt to reduce the deficit and debt. His tax cuts offset any spending cuts.

  • ottovbvs

    What’s going to be interesting to me is how he plays this.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    armstp, you are wrong, according to the CBO’s own scoring the ACA will decrease the deficit by 143 billion the first 10 years and 1.2 trillion the next 10 years, for 1.343 trillion in deficit reduction.
    And this is a Conservative estimate, we have no idea how much the cost savings might turn out to be. (something tells me you won’t mind being corrected on the numbers)


    Thank Mr. President! The Rich are the bloodsucking poor of this nation.

  • WillyP

    Hey, wouldn’t it be really great if we could liquidate all the rich in one fell swoop?

  • politicalfan

    Score for the President. Sounding fair will serve him well. As an Indep, he hit some notes that will make for a strong counter argument to Ryan’s proposal.

    I just wish he would ditch, “Winning the Future” to start. How about, “Protecting your Future!” Or any other adjective that would describe having a future. Time for another poll.

    • armstp

      Ryan wishes he could look and sound so eloqant with his bullshit unicorn magic asterisk plan.

  • WillyP

    Spending is 25% of GDP, not 22%. This is significantly elevated. We have not been spending like this since WWII.


    Chew on that, and don’t choke. If you do choke though, we’ll probably move on.

    • TerryF98

      Wrong again, do you just pull figures out of your ass?

      CBO says not, not even till 2050 if we do nothing.


      2010 17.2&
      2020 17.9%
      2030 20.8%
      2040 23.8%
      2050 26.9%

    • armstp


      Page 15 from most recently CBO report using their baseline forecast.


      A total 2011 GDP of $15,043 billion.
      Total government spending or outlays of $3,629 billion.

      That equals 24.1% of GDP.

      If you factor out emergency spending or temporary spending related to the economic downturn; ie. rest of stimulus, elevated unemployment and welfare spending, anything left of bail-outs, etc. or a couple of hundred billion, you get to a number of total spending that is about 22% of GDP. The long-term 60 year average of government spending is 21-22%.

      We are spending no more than we have on average for the last 60 years. There is no spending problem. There is not elevated spending.

      However, there is a massive tax revenue problem. Looking at the analysis of very conservative Heritage Foundation. They say that total tax revenues as a percentage of GDP is 14.8%. The last time it was that low was in 1950. Historically, tax revenue is about 18.3% of GDP.

      See this chart from Heritage:


      Do the math yourself, if you are capable. If you continue to say this is just a spending problem, you will never solve the deficit and debt problem. Or if you want to do what Ryan wants to do, which is to inact further tax cuts, that will just increase the tax revenue problem.

  • Reactionary

    The tax increases he just proposed will never happen.

    • ottovbvs

      I haven’t read his speech so I’m not sure what tax increases he proposes but the expiry of all the Bush tax cuts alone take you 75% of the way to the tax hikes we require. And their expiry (all of them) is inevitable regardless of who wins the election because of timing. They expire on December 31, 2012. Win or lose he’s not going to sign off on their extension. Unless the Republicans have a super majority in the senate and control of the house and presidency there’s no mechanism for reinstating them.

  • talkradiosucks.com

    “Hey, wouldn’t it be really great if we could liquidate all the rich in one fell swoop?”

    There’s lots of happy medium between this straw man and letting them own and run the entire country, which is what you and your cohorts seem to prefer.

  • _will_

    sooo… it sounds like he’s finally paying attention to the bi-partisan deficit commission’s proposals. good for him. i will be looking forward to more specifics.

    meanwhile, why is the GOP trying to give tax cuts to millionaire Barack Hussein Obama?? sheesh.

  • SteveThompson

    So far, the proposed cuts are a tiny fraction of what is needed to reach balance over the coming decades as unfunded entitlement program expenses rise to the $100 trillion level.

    Here’s an article that examines what might trigger a debt crisis in the United States and when that could occur:


  • Frumplestiltskin

    armstp, here is this from Chait at TNR:
    If you generally liked Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” but feared it knuckled under too much to Big Poor, fear not. Apparently due to amateurish work, Ryan overestimated the savings he’d get, which would require even deeper cuts to Medicaid to reach his target figure:

    House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan calls for cutting Medicaid by $771 billion (over 22 percent) over the next decade by converting it into a block grant. Ryan’s plan and a CBO analysis outline some of the basics of the block grant proposal. Based on this information, however, we find that the Ryan block grant would produce “only” about $500 billion in cuts over the next ten years. This means that states’ block grant amounts each year would have to be even more inadequate than described, in order to produce the required drastic cuts. …

    Based on these specifications, we find that the Ryan block grant would cut Medicaid by about $500 billion between 2012 and 2021, or roughly $270 billion short of Ryan’s $771 billion target. We can think of two potential ways (or some combination of the two) that the block grant would produce the additional required cuts:

    * Set the initial block grant amount well below the prior year’s spending. To generate the extra $270 billion in cuts while still adjusting funding each year by inflation and population growth, the 2013 block grant would have to be based not on states’ actual 2012 spending but on their 2012 spending cut by 9.3 percent. In other words, states would face much larger reductions in federal funding in the block grant’s first years.
    * Make the annual adjustment much smaller than the adjustment for inflation and population growth that Ryan and CBO describe. To generate the extra $270 billion while still basing the initial block grant amount on actual 2012 spending levels, states’ block grants would have to remain practically frozen, with an annual adjustment of well under 1 percent per year.

    Limiting annual growth in Medicaid to inflation and population growth would produce deeper and deeper cuts to federal Medicaid funding over time, significantly shifting costs to states, beneficiaries, and providers. But Ryan’s block grant would likely prove even worse than advertised, because even such an inadequate annual adjustment could not produce the magnitude of cuts that his plan requires.

    • armstp

      I worked with a guy like Ryan once. A total bullshiter. Just keep faking it. Keep pumping out the bullshit. The gullable will believe you. A total car salesman. Selling a real lemon.

      The CBO analysis of Ryan’s plan is just brutal. It totally trashes the plan as a complete fraud. Even if you believe in Ryan’s principals, that is not the problem with the plan. The problem with the plan is that it is just full of factual lies.

  • Primrose

    What precisely will the rich be unable to buy because of a small, tax increase? For those above 400k, nothing of consequence, thus not re-distributing standard of living, only deducting points from a status game. And until, the rich are actually denied something meaningful (a child’s education, a new roof, a down payment on an essential vehicle) they are not making the same sacrifices.

  • rockinrobbie

    Home run for Obama.

    We have a fiscal crisis and political reality means we need to compromise. The Republicans have got to get serious and jettison the dogmatic rhetoric that prevents any increase on the revenue side. If Obama pushes for decreasing the deficit with major cuts and modest revenue increases, there has got to be some adults in the GOP who will step up and play ball.

  • Iamm

    What stops the millionaire liberals from donating their money to the national debt, or whatever? They seem so eager to be taxed but won’t voluntarily give up their cash…. Hmmm. Two-Faced hypocrite scum suckers.

    • ottovbvs

      They seem so eager to be taxed but won’t voluntarily give up their cash….

      Er…this is volunteering to give up some of their cash

      • Iamm

        Right voluntary… Forced by gunpoint or threat of prison or seizure of property. Right voluntary…

        • ottovbvs

          Unfortunately you’re another one of these folks who is so clever they don’t even understand when they’re contradicting themselves in the same sentence. No I’m not going to bother explaining it. You’ll never get it.

        • Iamm

          Oh, boohoo, did i point out the elephant in the room.

          Otter – The state cheerleader mascot.

  • Smargalicious

    Home run for Obama.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

  • ottovbvs

    [i]This felt like a rehearsal for 2012. The assumption is that whoever the GOP nominee is, that they will have to run on defending the Ryan budget, and that what the GOP wants to do is sacrifice old people in a draconian way to balance the budget.

    Many on the both the right and the left have been hoping for these sorts of explicit comparisons to be made, both believe they can win on these issues.[/i]

    I’m sure the Democrats think they can win on these issues. If the Republicans think they can win on a platform of scrapping Medicare/Medicaid and using the savings to hand out huge tax cuts to the rich go for it guys.

  • JimBob

    You have to be a blithering idiot if you think the Chicago Street Hustler is serious about the budget deficit.

    • ottovbvs

      Still enjoying that VA healthcare are we Jimbo?

      • JimBob

        Have excellent private insurance. Low premiums. Have a 12 thousand deductible. I negotiate with Doctors over fees. They love me. I pay in cash.

        • ottovbvs

          Yeah right.

        • JimBob

          As I said, Doctors love me. No paper work. I go in talk turkey with them. Bargain. Had a colonoscopy recently for 950.00. My once a year physical is 400-500.

    • sparty

      You have to be a racist hick c&#sucker to refer to any ivy-educated black man as a “Street Hustler.”

      • WillyP

        you’re right – he’s a “community organizer.”

        Doesn’t Tom Sowell call him a street hustler? He was raised in Harlem. Maybe I’m wrong.

      • JimBob

        You have to be a dumbass to not know that a community organizer is a street hustler. Hell he was up to his eyeballs with ACORN. Barry Hussein is the epitome of a street hustler.

      • medinnus

        Its well known that both WillHe Pee and Smeggy are both closet, wide-stance cock-obsessed bigots.

        “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

  • busboy33

    Was extremely impressed with the speech in terms of policy and vision, but the budget itself fell flat. “We’ll form a commission and figure this out” isn’t a budget plan. If you can’t give me details, then you’re just blowing alot of good intentions and wishful thinking while you kick the can farther down the road. Put out an actual “what to do” proposal, and I’ll read it with an open mind . . . but this isn’t it.

    Loved the policy though. And especially loved ‘voting for tax cuts for the rich means this black man is gonna get your grandma’s money”. I’m sure somewhere a Winger’s head exploded when they realized to hurt Obama, they’ll have to give him what he wants.

    • Traveler

      ROTFLMAO Busboy! Did he ever hit it out with that one. The image of 33 red state seniors paying 6 grand each year to the Kenyan muslim will blow a lot of minds. That alone was worth the price of admission.

      But as to substance, check out that NYT chart. There are so many options that it makes sense to be flexible. But I agree, put up so we can start the discussion. However, negotiating with pit vipers requires that they be identified as such to begin with. Its like that comment about negotiating for dinner with a spouse who starts from “tire rims and anthrax”. Describes Ryan’s budget to a tee. Fact is, maybe this is where the rope a dope finally starts to land jabs. Before you can negotiate, you have to start from realistic positions. Hasn’t happened from the refugs yet.

      • busboy33

        Given that this is the rollout, I’m not too concerned about the lack of detail . . . yet. But I’m not going to wait too long without hearing something more specific.

        I agree there are alot of potential plans that could deal with the problem. The problem isn’t options — the problem is nobody wants to pick them up and put them in the spotlight. I think Ryan’s plan is laughable . . . but still he’s being more specific than the blues so far.

        Personally I’d love to see Simpson-Bowles brought back into the spotlight. I might personally tinker with some of the precise details, but it still sounds like a good place to start (as opposed to Ryan or the alternative, “something”). If we’re gonna do this, then lets roll up our sleeves and get in the god-damn mud. If we’re just gonna keep looking into the pit going “yup . . . we really oughta do something about this”, then I’m going back to bed.

  • WillyP

    Marching orders from “the caucus” -

    “Talk about a ‘revenue problem.’”

    Humans of the psittacine order….

    • Nanotek

      “ah yes, can’t forget the class warfare now.”

      we can’t forget the Republican’s class war against working American families … it’s in our faces every day

  • TerryF98

    This is a part of the problem WillyP. Defend this please if you can.

    “EXXON MOBIL: The oil giant that was the world’s most profitable corporation in 2008 has spent $5.7 million in campaign contributions over the last ten years and $138 million in lobbying expenditures. Its federal corporate income tax liabilities for 2009? Absolutely nothing. Not only did it pay nothing, but it also received a tax rebate the same year of $156 million.
    CHEVRON: Chevron spent $4.4 million in campaign contributions and $91 million in lobbying expenditures over the last decade. It received a tax refund of $19 million in 2009 while making $10 billion in profits and $324 million in government contracts in 2008.

    CONOCOPHILLIPS: The Texas-based gasoline giant spent $2.5 million in campaign contributions and $63 million in lobbying expenditures over the last decade. It received “$451 million through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction,” a special tax break, between 2007 and 2009, despite $16 billion in profits over the same period of time”

  • WillyP

    ah yes, can’t forget the class warfare now.

  • WillyP

    so get rid of it. get rid of nearly all welfare. i don’t care. obama is king of corporate welfare now. but ignore that, whatever.

    • TerryF98

      Shit! you really do have Obama derangement syndrome. Go see a shrink.

      • Brian P. Rabbit

        WillyP seems to be of the opinion the PResident is the 1st PErson to signed into law any tax expenditures for business. Perhaps, instead of a Shrink, WillyP needs to see a Historian?

  • TerryF98

    The racist birthers here can call him Kenyan, whatever. It just shows they have a retarded mind.

  • WillyP

    terry, honestly i can’t remember anything intelligent you’ve ever recorded in these sordid forums.

    stop writing so much and read a book.

    • TerryF98

      Well WillyP

      The consensus here from pretty near everyone is that you have never uttered a thought with any basis in fact. In other words you are a consummate liar. I know it’s hard for you to understand that is the case but it really is.

      Please in future don’t lie at every turn, you have zero credibility because of it. I will take this latest outburst as one more of your lies.

      Have a nice day.

  • Deep South Populist

    Having seen the highlights, I will stick with what I said this morning.

    This is all Kabuki theater. Obama and Ryan can each propose whatever they want, but all historical evidence suggests that ultimately nothing will happen beyond marginal changes that will not solve any fundamental problems.

    We are a realpolitik world. Debating what should be, what ought to be done, or what theoretically can be done is pointless other than for fun because it won’t happen.

    • Traveler


      I think you may be wrong this time. There is just too much talk going around on the issue, and I will have to give the refugs credit for that. Why it never crossed their minds till now confounds me, but I learned long ago to never underestimate their venality.

      It’s about time it got addressed, but by adults with a sane view of whats involved. Even the Koch brothers have a stake in a sustainable economy. So let’s see what happens. Check out that NYT site. I hope they publish the ranking of the final choices.

      • busboy33


        I can’t blame your skepticism. The government has certainly lived down to your expectations more than once. I’m not going to get too excited, but I will admit to having a glimmer of hope that even if this is all intended to be smoke-n-mirrors, these idiots might accidentally end up accomplishing something. For once. Its not outside the realm of possibility yet.

    • Watusie

      DSP, I hear this sort of pretend realism all the time – and it always comes from someone who votes Republican who has finally realized that supply side economics has failed.

      I take it as code language for “I give up, but I’m incapable of admitting that it is time to try something else.”

      And, BTW, the historical evidence suggests that our debt problems are entirely due to Republicans cutting taxes for the rich and spending too much.

    • ottovbvs

      Well wearing your other identity you’re claiming the tax hikes will never happen and as I demonstrated it’s inevitable they are going happen. Of course you never responded.

      • Deep South Populist


        I wasn’t ducking your post. I missed your explanation on the tax increases. Don’t always have time to look for responses. It’s also easy to miss a response with the way FF threads comments.

        • ottovbvs

          TheBush tax cuts are history. They expire December 31, 2012. Win or lose Obama is not going to sign off on their continuation. To reinstate them in 2013 Republicans would require a) the presidency b)super majority in senate c)c0ntrol of house….does this seem likely?

        • Deep South Populist

          OK, I see your point now.

    • armstp


      That is not true. During the Clinton adminstration they got a lot done to balance the budget. It can very much be done again. It will likely come down to whether the GOP really wants to do something or not. However, it may be hard to image anything getting done until after the 2012 election. The GOP will never want to do a deal with Obama because any compromise will ultimately look like a victory for Obama and the GOP will never give Obama a victory. Everything is black and white and about politics for the GOP and not what is best for the country.

  • Deep South Populist

    I just noticed Obama called for a debt-fail safe mechanism that will trigger automatic tax increases.

    He is a lunatic.

    • WillyP

      Yes, we knew that before he was elected.

      • TerryF98

        “Deficits don’t matter” GOP.

        • TerryF98

          Time to see where the Debt came from again I guess.

          The last 3 Republican administrations are responsible for 75% of the debt!

        • WillyP

          3 branches:

          1) Executive
          2) Legislature
          3) Judicial

          The Legislature passes spending bills. The above graph is misleading and quite besides the point.

    • ottovbvs

      Why is he a lunatic? It depends whether you regard this as a real goal or a rhetorical device. In fact if you read the speech as I now have you’ll see he also proposed a series of mechanisms. I haven’t seen the real thing so can’t get an idea of its impact but on paper it looks rather clever.

    • LFC

      Since one party has proven itself pathological in it’s lust to cut taxes regardless of math, I think it’s an unfortunate requirement. If we have two sides that wanted to help our country it would be ridiculous, but that’s not the situation we find ourselves in today.

    • JimBob

      Barry Husein is a Marxist.

  • Nanotek

    Like we’re going to trust you Republicans again …

    “Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.” George Bush, State of the Union 2001 (thinkprogress.org)

    it’s first a revenue problem, obviously

    “And, BTW, the historical evidence suggests that our debt problems are entirely due to Republicans cutting taxes for the rich and spending too much.”

    Watusie + 1

    • JimBob

      Watusie is a buffoon. Even honest Democrats admit that entitlements are driving the deficit.

  • LFC

    It bears repeating here, but the Bush Tax Cuts make up the policy change with the largest lasting impact on the huge deficit. Add in the two wars that Bush and the GOP refused to put a dime towards, the economic collapse by the moronic belief that the financial industry would police itself, and the half trillion per decade deficit from the 100% completely unpaid for Medicare D, and you can explain virtually the entire budget deficit simply by adding up Republican policy.

    Dear GOP: You failed. Miserably. Spectacularly. Moronically and predictably. We don’t want more of the same stupid policies, we want a sane balance of tax increases and spending cuts. And by “we”, I mean people who understand addition and subtraction.

    • JimBob

      Gawd when were you born. The Deficit exploded when the housing market crashed and took the banks with them. TARP. Then Barry Hussein and his pathetic stimulus and the results are obvious.

      • LFC

        Current and future deficit, JimBob. The Bush deficit wasn’t vast because it was masked by the fake money generated by the real estate boom and financial industry insanity. Once the recession hit under Bush, everything fell to s***. Now we’re paying for all those hidden sins.

  • Non-Contributor

    Just how long with it take people to realize that the US government is not and cannot become insolvent, default or go bankrupt. How long is it going to take people to realize the problem is unemployment and not entitlements or the deficit/debt?

    Unfortunately after 70 years they still don’t get it.

    Sept 26, 1940, New York Times: Deficit Financing is Hit by Hanes: ” . . . unless an end is put to deficit financing, to profligate spending and to indifference as to the nature and extent of governmental borrowing, the nation will surely take the road to dictatorship, Robert M. Hanes, president of the American Bankers Association asserted today. He said, “insolvency is the time-bomb which can eventually destroy the American system . . . the Federal debt . . . threatens the solvency of the entire economy.”

    Feb 11, 1960, New York Times: Mueller Assails Rise in Spending: The enormous cost of various Federal programs is a time bomb, threatening the country’s fiscal future, Secretary of Commerce, Frederick H. Mueller warned here today “. . . the accrued liability is a ticking time bomb. Some day someone will have to pay.”

    Oct 4, 1983 Evening Independent – The United States and the developed world face a “ticking time bomb” because of the huge foreign debt involving loans to Third World nations

    Oct 26, 1983, David Ibata: “ . . . home-building officials called for a commission to propose ways to trim the $200 billion federal deficit. The deficit is a ‘ticking time bomb‘ that probably will explode in the third quarter of 1984,’ said Fred Napolitano, former president of the National Association of Home Builders.

    Feb 21, 1984, James Warren: “‘We now hear from them (the Reagan administration) that deficits don’t cause high interest rates and inflation,’ AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland said. ‘If that’s the case, we’ve suddenly discovered the horn of plenty and should stop worrying and keep borrowing and spending. But I don’t believe it. It’s a time bomb ticking away.”

    January 12, 1985, Lexington Herald-Leader (KY):The federal deficit is “a ticking time bomb, and it’s about to blow up,” U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Louisville Republican, said yesterday.

    Feb 17, 1985, Los Angeles Times: We labeled the deficit a `ticking time bomb‘ that threatens to permanently undermine the strength and vitality of the American economy.”

    Jan 5, 1987, Richmond Times – Dispatch – Richmond, VA: 100TH CONGRESS FACING U.S. DEFICIT ‘TIME BOMB‘

    November 28, 1987, The Dallas Morning News: THE TICKING TIME BOMB OF LONG-TERM HEALTH CARE COSTS A fiscal time bomb is slowly ticking that, if not defused, could explode into a financial crisis within the next few years for the federal government and our nation’s elderly. The ticking bomb is the growing cost of long-term care.

    October 23, 1989, FORTUNE Magazine: A TIME BOMB FOR U.S. TAXPAYERS The government guarantees millions of mortgages, bonds, deposits, and student loans. These liabilities, now twice the national debt, are growing fast.

    May 1, 1992, The Pantagraph – Bloomington, Illinois: I have seen where politicians in Washington have expressed little or no concern about this ticking time bomb they have helped to create, that being the enormous federal budget deficit, approaching $4 trillion and growing now at an annual rate of $400 billion per year.

    October 28, 1992:
    Ross Perot: “Our great nation is sitting right on top of a ticking time bomb. We have a national debt of $4 trillion. Seventy-five percent of this debt is due and payable in the next five years. This is a bomb that’s set to go off and devastate our economy and destroy thousands of jobs.

    Dec 3, 1995, Kansas City Star: Deficit is sapping America’s strength. Concerned citizens. . . regard the national debt as a ticking time bomb poised to explode with devastating consequences at some future date.

    April 14, 2003: Porter Stansberry, for the Daily Reckoning: The baby boomers are heading into retirement with no savings and no productive companies to support them in old age. Generation debt is a ticking time bomb…with about ten years left on the clock.

    October 1, 2004, Bradenton Herald: A NATION AT RISK: TWIN DEFICIT A TICKING TIME BOMB: Lawmakers approved Bush’s request without cutting federal spending by a penny, thereby fattening the country’s projected record deficit of $422 billion by another $145 billion next year.

    May 31, 2005, Providence Journal, Defusing the Medicare time bomb, Some lawmakers see the Medicare drug benefit for what it is: a ticking time bomb, set to wreak havoc on the budget and shoot future tax rates sky-high.

    April 5, 2006, NewsMax.com, “We have to worry about the deficit . . . when we combine it with the trade deficit we have a real ticking time bomb in our economy,” said Mrs. Clinton.

    Dec 3, 2007, USA Today: US debt: $30,000 per American. WASHINGTON (AP): Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen.

    September 24, 2010, Email from the Reason Alert: ” . . . the time bomb that’s ticking under the federal budget like a Guy Fawkes’ powder keg.that’s ticking under the federal budget like a Guy Fawkes’ powder keg.”

    Courtesy of Roger Mitchell: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/federal-debt-a-ticking-time-bomb/

    • LFC

      To be fair, all your quotes from 1983-1995 were taken care of due to a sane tax structure and lack of runaway spending under Clinton.

      And before the GOPers out there try to take credit, the tax hikes were used by the GOP to take power, and the annual spending increases were reduced in Clinton’s first two years when the Dems controlled Congress. If Newt had gotten his way, we would have had the Bush Tax Cuts earlier, and would have driven ourselves into deficit more quickly.

    • Brian P. Rabbit

      Thank You, Non-Contributor, for all Your references. I find too many People just want to ‘shout into the ether’ without providing a basis for Their assertions. Then, when shouting does not work, They just ‘turn it up to 11′. While I have not fully examined the quotes involved, You do seem to have at least done Your homework and have been willing to show Your work, even if I eventually find error with them. *applause*

  • politicalfan

    Why do Senators use rhetoric to rebut the President while complaining about his over-usage of rhetoric? Sigh.

  • LFC

    This sums up the GOP stance nicely:

  • ottovbvs

    Deep South Populist // Apr 13, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    OK, I see your point now.

    Yes kinda significant isn’t it. Now how is it that those tax hikes are never going to happen? And they get you 75% of the way to the total hikes that must be made.

    • JimBob

      Taxes aren’t the problem. They never have been.

      Taxes as a percentage of GDP under Obama are the lowest they’ve been in 60 years. Not because tax rates are too low, but the economy is in such bad shape. Pelosi, Reid, and the Chicago Street Hustler have strangled the private sector. The productive sector of the economy. Under Barry Hussein only government has prospered.

      • TerryF98

        I guess that is why Corporate profits are at an all time high then!

        • LFC

          JimBob’s memory tain’t so good. He doesn’t seem to grasp that the recession hit under Bush, and that it was a result of an unregulated derivatives market, a moronic change of 30:1 leverage for select huge firms (all now gone except for G-S), and refusal by the administration to uphold the regulations that did exist in the mortgage market. Nope. It t’all happened due to the policies of those damn commies.

          Denial of reality has become a right-wing requirement.

        • JimBob

          Corporate profits are indeed high, but the economy still sucks. Profits are high because the private sector has been shedding workers due to productivity gains. They are producing the same number of widgets with fewer and fewer workers. In a strong economy new jobs would be created and they would hire those displaced widget producers.

        • LFC

          Sorry that Obama can’t clean up Boy George’s mess as fast as you’d like. GW’s policies and refusal to uphold regulations were largely to blame for the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Obama is doing his best with a virulently hostile opposition who have no real ideas.

      • ottovbvs

        Guess that’s why the dow is up over 90% from the bottom Jimbo

  • Frumplestiltskin

    otto, you gotta give credit to DSP, he is not reflexively partisan and pays attention to what people post. It is a shame more conservative posters were not of his kind.

    • ottovbvs

      you gotta give credit to DSP

      Couldn’t agree more. He has two monikers DSP and Reactionary which can be confusing but absolutely he’s the most intelligent conservative commentator here. Most of them are on the far right of the spectrum with a few (no names please) disappearing into the ether.

    • WillyP

      ah yes, the libs praising the muddle-headed among us. classic.

      you know, once in a while i like what juan williams has to say. i appreciate democrats when they break free from their PC mold and speak the truth.

      honestly, i find the phony bipartisanship sickening. “bipartisan” is political marketing term, like “comprehensive” and “green.” means absolutely nothing, but the libs’ and pseudo-conservative ears perk up, knowing that they should get in line.

      truly pathetic; a classic sign of people who have outsourced their thinking to peddlers of feel good platitudes. country’s going to hell, but at least we’re not rumpling any feathers, right?

  • Noah Kristula-Green

    You all need to meet up in person at a convention. I want to video tape all the fists that will fly.

    • Traveler

      I was thinking about that myself last night. We should get together with no name tags, and everyone has to figure who is who by conversation. Amazing how collegial it might be. We would likely be much less nasty, and maybe a little less snarky. Frankly, I would find most posters here great people to know, whether I agreed with them or not. Carney and DSP are great examples on the right. Kind of miss CD-Host.

  • WillyP

    What sort of convention are you thinking? I don’t attend those Vegas conventions, thank you.

  • Brian P. Rabbit

    [quote]Smargalicious // Apr 13, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Okay, so back on topic…

    The Kenyan wants to raise taxes only on people who pay them.

    This is called wealth re-distribution and hidden reparations.


    We got off topic?

    The President is Kenyan in the same way Martin Sheen if Spanish: His Dad is from a different country.

    “Only on people who pay them”? So, You want to tax People too poor to pay taxes?

    “This is called wealth re-distribution” Odd, I didn’t hear the President say anything which would have had the money raised by the tax increase on the Wealthy being spent on the Poor. Can You point to the time index where He said that?

    “and hidden reparations.” So, You are against correcting the effects of institutionalized racism; centuries of slavery and ‘Jim Crow’? Or is it just the fact a President Who is black is making a proposal You just don’t like? Or maybe Your apparent hatred goes beyond race and looks solely at party name? I’m just trying to get an accurate mental image of how You view the world.