jmog;1617582 wrote:The reason that they say they haven't really done any deficit reduction is due to the fact that MOST of the reduction is just NOT continuing to spend the short term bail outs like TARP.
If you set up a 2 or 3 year deal that spends $400 billion a year in the TARP, when that 4th year comes and that $400 billion isn't spent again, that doesn't count as deficit reduction because it WASN'T IN THE PLAN TO BEGIN WITH!
If they had continued the $400 billion/yr then it would have been ADDITIONAL spending/deficit.
You don't get credit for doing nothing (basically letting something expire that was supposed to expire).
You don't get credit for the sequester (even though it was your plan originally) when you blame it on the 'other side'.
Seriously, name a single budget plan that cut actual spending, that Obama put forth and is now in the accounting.
I mean seriously, look at the deficits under Bush vs Obama...Look at the deficits under Obama from when he had 100% control of the government (HoR and Senate) vs now when the Rs have the HoR.
I know you hate people that reduce the deficit, you'd like to see trillions in deficits every year until the end of time, but in the same sentence you can't call Obama a deficit hawk when the facts don't back up your statements.
Look at the deficits the 2 years he had Ds in both houses-$1.4 trillion and $1.3 trillion.
Look at the deficits since the Rs took the HoR-$1.3 trillion, $1.1 trillion, $680 billion, and $649 billion.
What were the deficits the few years before Obama? From 2005-2008 it ranged from $161 billion to $458 billion.
Yeah, he is a real deficit hawk...
Based on your logic the democratic party is the party of smaller deficits because there were lower deficits when they controlled Congress than when the Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress. But we should just reject your logic in its entirety because it doesn't even take into account that most of the budget deficit is non-discretionary nor do you consider the size of the deficit as a percentage of the economy.
So your whole post is off base. Here is the bottom line. You fail to take your position on the federal budget in comparison to the Washington Consensus. You probably think the Federal Government should run a balanced budget basically every year yes? Or close to it? Well the Federal Government has only run a balanced budget or surplus in essentially 7 periods in its entire history. The Middle of the Budget debate is basically where Obama is....who is slightly to the left of the Washington Consensus. You and everyone on this board are well to the right of that consensus.....I am very far off to the left if I can even be considered on the deficit spectrum at all because I am not a deficit hawk in any way shape or form. I am a full employment hawk. The federal budget should target a deficit that generates full employment with the market deciding how large the deficit should be in that case.
