Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bill Clinton understood federal spending 100x better than Obama

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:50 AM
Original message
Bill Clinton understood federal spending 100x better than Obama
He understood that you have to 1, raise taxes, 2, cut military spending. He also chose to cut entitlements (IMHO, a mistake) with "welfare reform" but the first 2 items are what did the job. That and spending on research and education (IE. Nat'l Inst' of Health went up a lot during his years).

Obama is setting himself up as a failure on this front. He is proposing freezing a small part of the budget (17%) to tackle a deficit that would not be eliminated if he cut this part in half instead of a freeze.

To put this in perspective, Obama is planning to "save" 250 billion over 10 years with his freeze. That , folks, is a rounding error on a deficit currently running at over 1 trillion dollars a year (10 trillion+ over 10 years) into the foreseeable future.

So, in 2012, we will still have a ginormous deficit in spite of Obama's "deficit cutting" efforts. That, is not going to make for a successful record to run on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Bubba was a master, but different times. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. accounting is still accounting
You have to bring in serious money and you have to cut serious money to solve a big deficit. Obama is doing neither.

Leadership is what is required, not empty posturing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. Why not just take that $1 trillion to Wall Street back and use that?
Could Ronald Reagan have done this? Would Ronald Reagan have done this?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
4. So the difference is you want Obama to cut military spending then
Because when Bush's tax cuts expire, that will be the equivalent of raising taxes and you say the discretionary cuts are meaningless (so, essentially less harsh than welfare reform). So your post says "cut military spending" and not much more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:55 AM
Original message
Sorry but Bill Clinton's concessions to the
neo-liberals are one of the reasons Democrats are so confused philosophically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
8. Yes, I agree with that. Like Obama seems to..Clinton would find a middle ground between
any two points no matter how unbalanced or disparate those two points.

They both want everyone to like them. I hope that the president looks at Clinton's experience and thinks it's a no-go.

President Obama has the advantage of having a more progressive populace and congress than Clinton had, but that doesn't seem to be enough of a factor. It's hard to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. Sadly so called liberal parties have all veered right
since the collapse of the Soviet Union and more than a few spinless members who do not have a clue about the philosophical underpinnings of their parties are more than willing to settle for cash and the 'good life'.

It's way too sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
13. Again, you are confusing his other flaws with this particular strength
Look, I disliked a lot of what Clinton did, and I do think he laid the groundwork for a lot of the crap we saw in W's term. But on this one issue, he did good. If only the US had been mature enough to continue this course, we would have tons of funds to spend right now, instead of tossing them down the interest payment hole and the war hole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. No you cannot give comfort to ideologues who are against government
and then receive praise for understanding government spending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. Obama is looking more like a corp plant everyday!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I hope you're being sarcastic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Nope. Who was the last person to balance the budget?
You are confusing the other flaws of Clinton with this topic. He had many flaws, but deficit reduction wasn't one of them. And yes, we have a recession/depression right now, so we probably don't have a hope in hell of fixing this problem. I am arguing that if one wanted to fix it, one would proceed in a very different way. And so far the economists out there are agreeing with me that this plan is BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-27-10 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. No I'm serious I don't call this the Goldman Sachs admin for nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
7. Could have raised almost 200 billion a year with a financial transactions tax
while at the same time discouraging excessive speculation and market manipulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
9. Bill Clinton did have a recession but nothing compared to this 'depression
Obama faces. The GOP has become much more rabidly radical right,
even more so than in the 90s.

It is not fair to compare Clinton and Obama. They operate in different
times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
10. Well if 2.5% is a rounding error you need a better accountant.
Edited on Tue Jan-26-10 10:00 AM by Statistical
:) I do get what you are saying though.

My thoughts:
I don't know why Obama is getting ahead of himself. The only thing that will reduce the deficit by meaningful amounts is RAISING TAXES and CUTTING DEFENSE SPENDING after the ECONOMY RECOVERS.

When economy recovers the total receipts grow. Even raising taxes now is unlikely to substantially improve the deficit situation.

Jobs + Economy is DIRECTLY LINKED to deficit.

Higher jobs, higher wages, higher profits = larger base on which to tax. As the same time raising taxes is a compounding effect (bigger pie + bigger slice).

If Obama REALLLY REALLY wants to cut the deficit he should put 100% into improving the job situation. Now just unemployed but meaningful wage increases (for first time in over a decade).

That combine with a future tax increase and modest (10%) reduction in military spending could easily cut deficit by 2/3rds.
Without revenue growth raising taxes and cutting spending will be both painful and ineffective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
11. and send the jobs overseas? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
14. In the 90s we had "peace dividends"
No such luck this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. And a tech boom
Those unexpected capital gains taxes coming into the federal treasury sure helped back then too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
16. Clinton may be the person advising him on this "freeze"..?
since it worked so well during his Administration? He was able to balance the budget and win a second term, even as his Party bit the dust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 19th 2019, 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC