Washington's Attention Deficit Disorder

My guess is he'll scotch the tax cuts as part of being fiscally responsible then go ahead and increase spending and the CBO's forecast will still fall far short of the debt Obama will rack up.

I found it a little odd that WaPo and Elmendorff didn't say "increased federal spending will account for 2/3rds of the debt increase," and instead focused on the smaller tax cut part of the debt, but that's what the Democrat-leaners do. They can't see the forest for the trees.

And I'm certain that Obama and company are furiously looking for ways to increase government revenue. That's just how they roll. Any spending cuts will be trivial. The Dems couldn't even cut $10 billion for the unemployment extension, as required by Pay-Go. I could have found that money to cut in about two minutes and nobody would have ever noticed it (as in cutting $10 billion of the $500 billion left in the stimulus package).

"Combined with interest payments on that shortfall, the tax cuts account for the entire increase in deficits that would result from Obama's proposals."

He's just giving American workers….who make less than $250,000 per year….their money back….isn't it their money?

Running up deficits by handing bags of money to already rich people, running up deficits by never paying for any legislation passed, because "deficits don't matter"….running up deficits though imperialistic crime-wars of choice…..are all good, proper and Serious.

It's only when WORKING Americans have their taxes cut at the same time rich Americans have to pay more….it's only then….that there is a problem. Standard conservative rhetoric.

Is debt a problem in America? Of course. Just like debt is a problem in quite a few world countries today. Conservatives and Republicans, who represent, whether they know it or not, only the richest of rich America, are wired tight to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Big Deficit Fear stories, after sleeping for 8 years, is all that corporate-whore media will spin out of their rotted industry……because corporate-whore media honchos don't want their millionaire tax rates to rise.

Casting aside the hyperbole, Rev., I"d say you are picking at part of our problem. I never could see a flat rate tax. Maybe we need a law that says in effect that nobody can make more than – what 100? 200? – say 250 times what the lowest fulltime working wage earner makes. Having spent some time teaching, I'm convinced that we are NOT created equal. And even if we were the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune would soon separate us drastically. A tax I'd reinstate would be the estate tax.; at least on large estates; certainly not in such a way asn to force famiy survuvors to sell the family homestead, but if the family homestead is Biltmore then they should sell it.

It always seemed to me that a strength of this country was the fact that everybody and his brotherconsidered themseles middle class . I'll bet the folks in Haiti don't feel like that.

Score that one Rev 1 king 0.

Actually, the strength of this country has been the fact that everybody and his brother has felt he can move up in class.

Come on ..if Bush had a third term right now the deficit and budget would be looking just about the same maybe worse.
We would have had a stimulus bill (since we all know actually Bush proposed one too ) -
we would have bailed out the banks same ones most likely -
we would have sent probably even more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and expanded our military budget-
the only difference is if the democrats had proposed some legislation for health care reform to protect many Americans from future bankruptcy from health care costs he would have made sure the plain got killed and the insurance companies remained in power
the only difference would have been he would have made sure his tax cuts for the rich were extended so the deficit actually would have been growing higher right now than is under Obama
BUT the big difference woudl have been all you guys would have been remarkably silent right now .
So what are you complaining about ?

You're right about most of that Andrea. About the only nits I can pick are:

(1) ". . . and the insurance companies remained in power." You seem to be implying that they have been or are being disempowered. Really?

(2)" . . . all you guys would have been remarkably silent right now ." Come on Andrea, you don't really believe that, do you?

Andrea is saying Obama is the same as Bush. That is change you can believe in.

Rev says, "It's only when WORKING Americans have their taxes cut at the same time rich Americans have to pay more….it's only then….that there is a problem. Standard conservative rhetoric."

How did you become so confused, Rev ? First of all, the Bush tax cuts were for working people too. Second, I was quoting the CBO's and WaPo's opinion of what is causing the Obama deficits, not my own. My opinion is that it's primarily the spending increases that are causing the deficits, which is pretty obvious if you look at the numbers. Third, I'm all for tax cuts, as long as they are PAID FOR (via spending cuts). It's the deficits I'm against. Fourth, you can't complain incessantly about the Bush deficits and then excuse the Obama deficits when they are twice the size of Bush's.

Give up the partisan propaganda and go soak your head. Maybe it will help.

Frye,
Both Andrea and the Reverend know I have railed and railed against Bush's deficits and debt increases. They are just playing dishonest games. The facts don't matter.

[...] Washington's Attention Deficit Disorder [...]

Here's where we differ…

"My opinion is that it's primarily the spending increases that are causing the deficits, which is pretty obvious if you look at the numbers."

Strictly from a cash flow perspective…..loss of revenue (huge tax cuts affecting the richest disproportionately)…….LOWERS government revenue, which automatically and predictably creates a BIGGER deficit. We're talking trillions in lost revenue. How that translates into 'spending is the primary cause of rising deficits'……is beyond me. Spending is part of the issue, yes, but with significantly lower cash flows built in by the deep tax cuts for the affluent, it becomes a bigger uphill fight.

If it's beyond you, then allow me explain it to you, without the partisan spin.

Look at the years 2000-2008, before the recession hit full force and killed federal revenue. During those years, federal revenue went from $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion. Federal revenue INCREASED by 25% during those years. During the same period, federal spending went from $1.789 trillion to $2.982 trillion. That's a spending increase of 66%, far beyond the rate of inflation. This reveals the main culprit to be SPENDING, as I said.

Now, of course, federal revenue has fallen even further with the recession, and we'd have to nearly double revenue (taxes) to pay for all the federal spending, which Obama is taking even further into the stratosphere than Bush did. There's no way we can afford that without destroying our economy.

This is actually simple stuff, once you take all the partisan nonsense out of it.