VSTBountiful, UTThe number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or
6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of
Management and Budget. That will equate to an additional $10 to $12 billion
dollars per year in salary and benefits.------------------AND (please add) that they are in the homeland security and department of
defense. Veerans_Affairs also MUST add employees since we are gaining thousand
of veterans every year. Republicans will NOT cut the budgets of of defense - no
matter what.Are you beginning to see through the smoke and mirrors
about budget cuts? It will be for things that actually benefits most Americans.
Why don't we just admit that having wars, tax cuts, medicare prescriptions
and a growing number of veterans mean that we need to pay more taxes. We cannot
have the lowest tax rate that we have had in 30 years and continue like this.
We are foolish if we do not see that it will take but cutting spending AND tax
increases. I am willing to pay more. How about the rest of you?
The spending started on the unfunded war in Iraq. The proposed war in Iran would
cost ten trillion. The Bush tax cuts should have been reversed the minute the
useless war in Iraq started. The insanity is the failure to recognize the
reality of the cost of military adventures with no rationale basis.
Something to keep in mind regarding the "mess that Obama inherited"--in
January of 2007 the democrats took control of both houses of congress. If that
does not give you a clue, it should.
Obama can criticize Romney for spending his own money, but doesn't mind
VST..the increase in government employees..primarily in uniformed military, and
temporary census takers in 2010. A little honesty and reality would go a long
"Blaming Bush will not get your man re-elected."Of course it
won't. But who wants a return to the failed policies that got us in this
mess?Mitt Romney's ranting about how crappy the situation is
right now will only get him so far. While his claims about returning to Bush
policies might sound good to the Koch Bros, Wall Street, and the rest of his
superpac, they certainly won't win him any votes from the critical
independent voters that he so desperately needs. While you complain
about our current situation (which is a lot better than what he was left with.
Millions of Americans are better off today than they were a few years ago. So in
that case, Obama has succeeded. He saved America the brink of financial ruin)
Romney's solutions are far worse.
Frank, just wbat was the state of the economy when president obama was sworn in?
Perfect, as it always is when a republican leaves office? And how did we get a
tax break while funding a war that cost up to six thousand dollars a second?
@ VST"Total National Debt as a Percentage of GDP:Last Year of Bush (2008): 74.1%Last Year for Obama (2011):
99.7%Anyone see a huge difference here? Yeah, I do."Nice try. But your fun lil stat doesn't show an increase in government
spending but a decrease in economic prosperity and financial ruin. This was a
direct result of a decade of failed Bush economic policy.So thanks
for sinking your own argument!Thanks for proving why we cannot vote
in Mitt! Why would we want to return to the failed economic policies that
brought us financial and economic ruin?
Please. President Obama is Hercules, cleaning the Stygian stables. The mess
left him by the worst President of the last hundred years was simply too big to
deal with in four years. He's done well with it. Four more years should
see the job done.
Google "Policy Difference Under Two Presidents" and see what you find.
The only problem with Frank and others' comments is that the majority of
economists and "responsible" advisors recommended that cutting back
government spending would probably hasten and worsen the recession. Remember,
most of all credit for lending was gone.
@JoeBlow"We absolutely have a spending problem. And I have yet to see
a plan by anyone that can balance the budget by only cutting spending."Several plans exist. We could argue about their ability to attract
bipartisan support, but they certainly are out there. One is Presidential
candidate Ron Paul's. No tax increases, balances the budget in three
years, decades shorter than the Ryan plan, the President's plan, or even
the Bowles Simpson commission. How does it do it? Cuts five federal agencies.
Drastically scales back U.S. involvement overseas not only in Iraq or
Afghanistan but also bases in Germany or Korea. Releases about 100,000 Federal
employees by attrition. It could be done if we had the stomach.
Spending and revenue.What does Romney plan to do?Still
waiting for Romney's SPECIFICS with regard to goals, objectives and
TIMELINES with regard to the economy, housing, employment, energy, gas prices,
N. Korea, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
immigration, for starters.Conservative Icons Mark Levin and Charles
Krauthhammer, among many, are also waiting.Conservatives constantly
whine that President Obama was not properly vetted prior to his election.Voters should expect the same standard applied to Romney.
Federal budget for FY 2009 (Bush's last budget) 3.5 trillion. Federal
budget for FY 2012 (Obama's current budget) 3.6 trillion. See the huge
difference? Yeah, me neither.
What right do you and the government have to take the money of hard working
citizens and give it to his bundlers like solydra and then put his faves in
front of the American people if any money comes out of the disaster? Can you
run your cars on algie? Boy I can't and probably never in my life time
will be able to. Have you heard what the admin has done to the guitar
company? Now I understand they are going after one of the most successful
companies in the country - Apple. His lust for money knows no bounds. If tax
money was going to pay down the debt, I don't think anyone would object,
but no, it's more for his buddies. Buffett? He owes millions/billions in
taxes and is fighting it in court. Now we find out that if the pipeline
doesn't go through Buffett's interest in the railroad is going to get
billions by transporting the crude.
We have 2 choices:1.More of the same.2.A promise of return to
pre-2008 wealth and prosperity. I vote for 1.More of the same. More
of the same reductions in unemployment. More of the same efforts to insure the
wealthy pay their share. More of the same efforts to improve health care for
all. More of the same military reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan.I
couldn't vote for pre-2008 prosperity, because we were on the verge of
going over the cliff, as we did.
There are several reasons why government spending is out of control. Two of the
most significant are: (1) we have an aging population that lives longer, racking
up huge health-care bills, and (2) the corporate economy we have allowed to
evolve funnels money away from the lower and the middle classes and into the
hands of the already wealthy, which creates more demand for government
intervention to rescue those who fall between the cracks. The
Republican solution to these two problems is to give further tax breaks to the
wealthy, cut services for the poor, and oppose any sort of health-care reform
that isn't market-based. But a market-driven health-care system serves only
those who can afford it, which is a dwindling percentage of Americans. Give Mitt
four years, and we'll have 100 million Americans without health insurance,
unless he pushes Romneycare into law for the entire country. Oh, wait. He
doesn't need to. We already have it. It's called Obamacare.Also, I can't help but wonder why the DesNews prints letters like this
that do nothing educate, inform, or promote reasonable discussion of the issues.
There is a revenue problem (tax cuts, recession caused reduced revenue) and a
spending problem (bloated defense budget/warmaking) those things alone are
responsible for about 60% of the deficit the past 10 years. 11% more is interest
on the debt. 6% is the stimulus. The other spending you think of... is only
responsible for about a quarter, 24% of it.
JoeCapitalist2: "But not only has he done nothing to solve them, but he has
accelerated them along with lots of additional problems."Neither
of those assertions are supported by the facts:Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection ActAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment ActNational Export InitiativeAdvanced Manufacturing PartnershipAmerica Invents ActThose are just a few.And the
results are showing. When Obama took office US manufacturing jobs were in
free-fall, job losses in manufacturing industries were six figures per month.
Today, the trend is back in positive territory, manufacturing jobs are now
consistently _added_ to the economy each month.When Obama took
office the Dow Jones Industrial Average was hovering near 8,000.This
morning, it was above 13,000.This recovery is still fragile, and 8%
unemployment is still a big problem. But it's not nearly as bad as the
mess we were in at the end of the Bush administration. There remains much work
to be done.I've got plenty of bones to pick with Obama, but
he's infinitely better suited for what the country needs now than Mitt will
The economy is Obama's achilles' heel. The ecomomy also happens to be
Romney's strong point. The liberals can put their heads in the sand if it
makes them feel better but it is what is going to take Obama down. That, and
the scandals his administration are plagued with.
The Federal budget in 1936 was $6 billions apparently. In 2010 it was 3.6
trillions, SIX HUNDRED TIMES the 1936 amount. The Republican & Democrat
administrations in between these two dates, 74 years apart, can certainly share
the blame. Population increase? U.S. population in 1936 was about
128 millions; it's two to three times that now certainly. Inflation?
Whose fault is that? Spending? The size and scope of government is ever
increasing. Social Security? Let's talk about that.The
program, as far as monthly retirement payments are concerned, is self-funding.
The surplus of 2.4 trillions came from payroll taxes from people now retired or
about to be. It's held in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds,such as the
federal government historically never repudiated. How would you like it if your
T. bonds were not honored? Solution: return to each state upon
demand the proportionate bonds for that state. Perhaps Utah (population about
1/150 of the nation's total) might receive then $160 billions, with SS
transferred by the Utah State government. Then phase out the system for new
employees. Oh yes, and stop undeclared foreign wars. That should
Blue,Yes, Obama inherited some really big problems. But not only has
he done nothing to solve them, but he has accelerated them along with lots of
additional problems.Spending under Obama is completely out of
control. No amount of taxes can solve that. Until the government starts treating
my tax dollars like a sacred trust instead of an open bar tab, I will fight any
proposed tax increases.
It is a true fact that president Obama has done an atrocious job of
representing the American people. The American people wanted health care reform
and were given a warmed over republican plan that did not meet the main
objective. Further misrepresentation came from the stimulus attempts
when Obama succumbed to the republican lie that giving money to business would
create jobs. Even so, if his actions slowed down the republican
efforts to destroy America and emasculate it’s government, we can be
thankful for that. The threat posed to our world today by the 2012
elections is that we may be thrown to the dogs by the republican Tea Party
group. Obama might be the lesser of two evils.
Absured letter. Obama has cut federal hiring, frozen pay, proposed agency
consolidations and taken other measures to reduce spending. Frank may not like
government or the person elected to lead it, but he should admit that none of
this originated in just the past three years. Even the auto bailouts and TARP
were Republican initiatives. And those who say there is no revenue problem live
in a fantasy world. I hope Frank doesn't manage his own finances like
Congeessional Republicans. If he did, he would cut hs income every time a bill
comes in to be paid. The GOP seems to be deliberately putting the U.S. in
Policy by anecdote. The problem with this country is...either this or that..Here's what it really looks like Frank "Our spending is at an
all time high. Along with that, our taxes are at a 50+ year low." Joe
Blow.In addition the middle class has dramaticly lost their positon
in society over the last thirty years, and the economy is dominated by wealth
production that adds nothing to value. Both of which fall into a big category
of fairness and genrate government spending just to have a functioning society.
America after WWII was structured so that money flowed through the economy
through jobs and work. Now because of the losses of the middle class and the
changes in the economy much of the money needed for the economy to continue to
function flows through government spending simply because the middle class
doesn't make enough, and the economy doesn't produce enough value.None of this will be solved by anecdotes, only serious dedication to the
rejuvination of America, not the dominance of an ideology.
The country was suckered into 8 years of Bush insanity, including but not
limited to two unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare Part D, unfunded subsidies to
big oil and big pharma, and unjustified tax cuts (not just for the wealthy, but
the wealthy benefited disproportionately). I don't recall Mr. Overfelt
complaining about Bush's profligate spending. Besides, his vitriol ought
to be directed toward Congress, which supposedly authorizes all government
We absolutely have a spending problem. And I have yet to see a plan by anyone
that can balance the budget by only cutting spending.If you have,
Frank, please point me to it. Cause it sure isn't Paul Ryans Plan, which
raises the deficit in the name of tax cuts.Our spending is at an all
time high. Along with that, our taxes are at a 50+ year low.A
reasonable approach would be for our legislators to negotiate. You know, to
give and get.How about we significantly cut spending while raising
taxes to Clinton Levels? How can ANYONE not see the wisdom in that?I am all for tax cuts, but not at the expense of deficits. If both
sides draw a hard line in the sand, nothing will get done. This
can be worked out, and we can get a handle on it. But there will be pain
involved on all sides.Simpson bowles is a great start, but was
panned by both sides. Why? Cause they both had to give something.Wake up people. Urge your congressmen to compromise and get something
Frank,Two unfunded wars.Tax cuts.The largest
meltdown of the economy since the Great Depression.Obama created
none of those - they were waiting for him when he was inaugurated.