Wednesday, February 1, 2012

A Growing Economic and Budgetary Crises

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nat6ion USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


The Two Worst Presidents ... Economically Speaking

President Obama has been in office for what, three years and change? During this time he admittedly had to deal with the mess started under the Bush administration, as well as handling other pesky issues.

Or course the Obamaites, those who support the President irrespective of whether it makes sense, would have everyone believe every economic problem facing us is the fault of Bush and the republicans in Congress. I will give them this, Bush and his advisers DO bear some responsibility. However, after three years, with marginal improvement, and a less than rosy projection for the next several years, when does the the President start to bear full responsibility?

The CBO projection's are pretty dismal.

THE HILL - The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday predicted the deficit will rise to $1.08 trillion in 2012.

The office also projected the jobless rate would rise to 8.9 percent by the end of 2012, and to 9.2 percent in 2013.

These are much dimmer forecasts than in CBO's last report in August, when the office projected a $973 billion deficit. The report reflects weaker corporate tax revenue and the extension for two months of the payroll tax holiday.

A rising deficit and unemployment rate would hamper President Obama's reelection effort, which in recent weeks has seemed to be on stronger footing.

If the CBO estimate is correct, it would mean that the United States recorded a deficit of more than $1 trillion for every year of Obama’s first term.

The deficit was $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011. The largest deficit recorded before that was $458 billion in 2008.

Skip

“Clearly the deficit will not be brought under control without changes in either revenues or Social Security and federal healthcare programs,” he said. “The gap that has opened between what we are used to getting from the government and the revenue that we are used paying into the government has widened and will only get wider in the coming decade.”

Skip

"With four straight years of trillion-dollar deficits, no credible plan to lift the crushing burden of debt, and a Senate majority that has failed to pass a budget for over 1,000 days, the president and his party’s leaders have fallen short in their duty to tackle our generation’s most pressing fiscal and economic challenges," Ryan said in reaction to the CBO report. {Read Full Article Here}

Given the very weak field of republican presidential hopefuls (Ron Paul excluded), it is possible that the President wins reelection. I wonder whose fault it will be if he is reelected and the four years of a second term gives us more debt and a economy still in the doldrums. I'm sure the Obamaites will come up with something.

Via: Memeorandum

21 comments:

  1. Bush went out in a terrible way (destroying capitalism in order to save it), and he was a statist, but much of his economic policy early on was solid, so I wouldn't lump him in with Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is that "Obamamaniacs"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Les, did you simply ignore the dozens of prominent economists who've been saying of this recession, since the beginning, that it would take at least five years to turn the corner on GDP and job growth? Where were you?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  4. SF wrote: "...he [Bush] was a statist, but much of his economic policy early on was solid..."

    Pretzel much?


    Bush's economic policies: Tax cuts for the rich, which contributed enormously to the deficit, and then not financing two wars, which added gazillions more to the deficit, and a prescription drug policy not paid for, but Bush was okay and not as horrible as Mr. Obama who inherited his statist and atrocious economic policies?

    Yeah, I'd call that pretzel logic, the kind you choke on and then fall to the floor.


    What do you think a Mitt Rmoney presidency will do to improve things?

    "When Mitt Romney suggested this week that he pays a lower tax rate than most wealthy Americans do, he refocused attention on his tax proposals — which, like those of his major Republican rivals, would largely cut taxes for the rich while driving down tax collections and widening the nation’s deficit.

    Mr. Romney’s tax plan — which calls for permanently extending the Bush administration’s tax cuts, reducing the corporate income tax rate and eliminating the estate tax — would cut the taxes of people earning more than a million dollars a year by an average of $295,874, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group.

    Some of Mr. Romney’s rivals for the Republican presidential nomination are proposing tax cuts that would widen the deficit even more — which was the point that Mr. Romney was trying to make on Tuesday in South Carolina when he renewed attention to his personal wealth by noting that his effective tax rate is “probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything.”

    SOURCE: NYTimes, 1/18/2012, Matt Cooper


    Apparently, the other GOP candidates plan on adding to the deficit as well, and then when they blame Obama for more debt, will you criticize them for doing so.

    Ron Paul will eliminate all of this by firing the entire federal government and putting himself out of the job he's campaigning for. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  5. JMJ - A more cogent question is... Where are you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Right here on Earth, Les. Right where I've been all these years watching laizzez faire capitalism run amok ruin this country.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  7. JMJ - Run amok, on this we can agree. It has indeed run amok. How and why is where we would likely part ways. Someday, if ever the statist big "R" and big "D" imbeciles become extinct we can resolve the issues that caused it to run amok.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Statism is not the particular problem here, Les. What causes things to run amok is no one minding the store. Sometimes we need government, ya' know.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  9. JMJ - Spoken like a hopeless partisan statist. Continue to tread water as long as you wish, willingly accepting flawed misleading statements from the cocktail circuit that all big " D and R " statist front capitalist drink at.

    You have a good day now ya hear?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well Les, as for when Obama gets the blame, perhaps it comes when we have had a chance to see his full economic picture move forward.

    The GOP has opposed everyone of his economic initiatives from day 1. Given that reality, how is a president supposed to change things, or move forward?

    In 2010, after the GOP won big in the elections, there calling said that their big win showed that the American people wanted their solutions to our problems and that Obama had better get on board the GOP Economic Express. It was the will of the people after all and elections had consequences.

    Why did they not follow that logic in 2008 and allow the Dems and Obama to move forward?

    Can you answer me that? The country spoke loud and clear that year and the GOP ignored the people.

    When Obama took office the economy was in the toilet and the GOP kept it there refusing to even offer a plunger to Obama to help fix it.

    Now we can disagree about what solutions might work best, but i would sure like to see you, or anyone else give refuting what I've stated a try...

    I'll await the links from your more reasonable liberty seeking readers...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Les, I fear that as long as we have schmos like Paul Krugman and politicians from BOTH parties burning incense at the statue of John Maynard Keynes, we're probably going to have more of these types of "lost decades". Thankfully, the American economy is a powerful engine and has, throughout its history, been able to overcome bad economic Presidents; Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Nixon, Bush 2, and hopefully Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dave, your point is well-taken. The Republicans HAVE been obstructionists. But it's also fair to say that Mr. Obama in fact DID get a fair amount of what he wanted (he certainly brags about it enough); stimulus, omnibus, financial reform, the health-care bill, a confirmation of the majority of his czars, etc. during those first 2 years and the recovery has still been anemic. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that there's more than enough blame to go around.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well said Will. Partisan Dems conveniently overlook those minor details. Having said this O do agree there is modicum of truth to what you said Dave.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Les, if only we had more sane people like you on the right and like Dave on the left.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Obama chose to deal with the problems Bush left him by making things much worse.

    The national debt increased a whopping 50% over what Bush left him.

    The already-high unemployment Bush left him..... increased 20%.

    That's a sorry sorry record.

    --------------

    Shaw said: "Bush's economic policies: Tax cuts for the rich"

    That is misleading. Is it intentionally so? Let's set the record straight. The Bush tax cuts, which were for all taxpayers, in fact mostly for the middle class.

    "...which contributed enormously to the deficit"

    For the next few yeara after the Bush tax cuts, federal revenues soared. Do the math: a tax policy which results in more money coming in reduces the deficit and debt, and does not increase it.

    "....and then not financing two wars"

    The wars were paid for. National defense is a PRIMARY function of the Federal government. It's not an afterthought. During these years that $120 billion were spent fighting back against the terrorists, 10 times that much came in in Federal revenues. Much more than enough to cover the wars.

    "which added gazillions more to the deficit"

    Actually, the cost of the wars is about $1.2 trillion. Which is only a fraction of the debt added during these years. And hat TOTAL amount of the wars is LESS than the amount of debt Obama has chosen to add to the debt in each year he is in office so far.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Good point, dmarks. Only 70 of 370 billion per year went to the top 2%. Granted, there are a hell of a lot less of them but, still, that's a rock solid 81% that DIDN'T go to them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Your post is really interesting, you have your own ideas, i love reading it. Thanks for such a cool blog.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The information you shared is very interesting.This site is excellent,I am impress with your ideas. Thank you for sharing the happiness formula. To be happier, I need to boost my good feelings, put a stop to my bad feelings, and pursue my right feelings. |

    ReplyDelete
  19. Women became outgoing. ==>> To see more articles about curvy beautiful women -- the latest celebrity news -- and download
    free ebooks of critical interest -- and to copy more free articles with popular content for your website or blog, go to.
    I thought I would give him a chance, although he lacked some
    of the important qualities I was looking for, because of
    what appeared to be his kindness and sincerity.
    Feel free to surf my web blog dating

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.