Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama in weekly address: Congress must act now to stop sequester (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Overblown beyond belief (0+ / 0-)

    Slowing the growth of government is all the sequester does.  There are no cuts, the thinking on this is ridiculous.

    •  WHAT? n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53, ShoshannaD

      Republicans want smaller gov't for the same reason crooks want fewer cops. - James Carville

      by wyckoff on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 07:52:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Slowing the growth ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53, ShoshannaD

      Coded speak for cuts.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 07:52:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Growth is Spending (0+ / 0-)

      From MarketWatch (Wall Street Journal):

      "Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

      • In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

      • In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

      • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

      • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

      • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

      Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%."

      Yes, the number of federal employees has increased (mostly homeland security, justice, veterans and defense), but when including state and local public employees (a large number of which are supported with federal funds), the total number has dropped.

      From the American Enterprise Institute:

      "total government employment — federal plus state and local — has fallen significantly under President Obama after rising significantly under President Bush. Here’s the picture:

      It’s important not to understate the federal government’s role in the size of state and local governments. The stimulus gave tens of billions of federal dollars to the states in order to prevent cutbacks in the number of state and local workers, and many, including Professor Krugman, argue that that wasn’t enough."

      •  Those are misleading facts (0+ / 0-)

        FY 2009 includes the stimulus passed by Congress AFTER President Obama took office.  It essentially puts that -- passed by Democrats without any Republican votes, at the urging of President Obama on President Bush.  

        It is just not factually accurate to attribute all of the spending that occurred during FY 2009 as Bush's spending.  Bush's spending certainly included the FY 2009 spending that was approved on his watch.  But the INCREASES in spending for FY 2009 that happened after President Obama took office -- and at his urging -- certainly must be attributed to President Obama.  

        Your attributing all of FY 2009 spending to President Bush is just false.    

        And, if you look at President Obama's proposed budgets, he would have spent much more, except that Congress did not give him what he wanted.  

        Facts and explanations are here.

        •  The Stimulus was in Response to the Economic Crash (0+ / 0-)

          as a direct result of Bush's policies of deregulation and putting wars and tax cuts on the national credit card.

          But for the disasters under the Bush Administration, the Obama administration wouldn't have had to enact the stimulus.

          Look, everyone wants to allocate blame to Obama starting on January 20, 2009, but that's just bullshit. Obama entered his term in the midst of an economic shitstorm caused by eight years under Bush. Whatever.

          •  You have to allocate 2009 (0+ / 0-)

            spending on who authorized the spending.  Read that link I gave you.  

            Certainly, you can argue that the stimulus was the right thing for President Obama to do.  But he proposed the spending, he urged Congress to pass it, and he signed it into law -- Bush did not.  

            It's just factually wrong to say it was Bush's spending.  If it were up to the Republicans, that spending pushed for by, and signed into law by, President Obama would not have happened.  That may have been bad for the economy, but that doesn't make it President Bush's spending.  President Bush authorized certain spending for FY 2009.  He is responsible for that.  President Obama authorized additional spending for FY 2009. The spending authorized by President Obama is attributable to President Obama -- not President Bush.   You can say it was a good idea to do that spending -- but it was still President Obama's spending.  

            Read that fact check link I gave you.  

      •  American Enterprise Institue = GOP Think Tank (0+ / 0-)

        I think that says enough about the veracity of their claims.

    •  When growth is as low... (0+ / 0-)

      ...as what we currently have, slowing growth is a problem.

      That reduced growth in government may translate into the difference between a slowly growing economy and a slowly shrinking economy.

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 08:44:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site