Gay Patriot Header Image

Tell me again, what is Obama’s plan to deal with the debt?

Memeorandum didn’t give this story as much attention as they did to the “$1.6 million and $1.8 million” Republican New Gingrich received “in consulting fees” from Freddie Mac, one of the government-sponsored enterprise’s at the heart of the nation’s financial meltdown in 2008, so you might have missed the news that today, the federal debt topped $15 trillion:

Don’t look now, members of the “supercommittee” battling the national debt, but the amount the U.S. owes topped the $15 trillion mark Wednesday afternoon.

That’s a lot of George Washingtons, as you can see here live atUSdebtclock.org.

With a week until the committee’s deadline to reach agreement on cutting $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit over the next 10 years, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction still has no agreement to stem automatic cuts to the budget.

Interesting how the article’s writer writer, Bill McGuire, spins this story, quoting at length only one supercommittee member, “Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland”, a partisan who offers the standard Democratic boilerplate about the Republicans’ “hard line.”  McGuire quotes the panel’s top GOP member as saying that Republicans had “’gone as far as we feel we can go’ on tax hikes”, but failed to put that remark in context (you know, like mentioning the “new revenues” Republicans offered, but which Democrats rejected).

Seems our friends in the mainstream media want to pin the debt on Republicans.*  And yes, they do share some of the blame.  But, no word in the article on the amount federal spending has increased under the watch of Barack Obama, a Democrat who, in his campaign for the White House, promised a “net spending cut.”   For the record, the national debt increased by 41% since that Democrat took office (sharing power with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress (both houses)) when it stood at $10.6 trillion.

And that Democrat still hasn’t put forward a plan to reduce the national debt.  He hasn’t even offered a detailed budget to match his budget speech on April. The only budget he has submitted for the current fiscal year couldn’t garner even one vote in the Democratic Senate.

One person who has wonders “when, exactly, this is going to become a priority for the White House.”   Wonderwhy ABC News chose to quote Democrat Van Hollen and not reference Republican Paul Ryan in their article on this unhappy milestone.

Ryan has put forward a plan to balance the budget and hold the line on spending.  Has Van Hollen?  Did Mr. McGuire ask?

—-

*Why is that so many in the media seem to think that the only problem is deficit reduction is the failure to raise revenues while barely noticing how much Democrats increased spending when Obama took office in January 2009, increasing spending at rates far above those in the Bush era?

 

Share

11 Comments

  1. I am pretty sure that Obama’s plan for managing the debt is to pile it on until the whole system collapses and then install some kind of dictatorship. Of course he could also just want the whole thing to collapse like a kid stomping on an anthill.

    Comment by Peter — November 17, 2011 @ 3:00 am - November 17, 2011

  2. I am pretty sure that Obama’s plan for managing the debt is to pile it on until the whole system collapses and then install some kind of dictatorship. Of course he could also just want the whole thing to collapse like a kid stomping on an anthill.

    If this is a joke, then that was pretty funny. Otherwise, please take off the tin foil hat. Or make a bet with me over whether Obama will install a dictatorship or not. After all, you probably think the US dollar is going to be worthless in a few years anyway, so what have you got to lose?

    you know, like mentioning the “new revenues” Republicans offered, but which Democrats rejected

    From what I can see, the plan includes $300 billion in “limits on itemized tax deductions” but also a cut in the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 28%, which is not factored into the sums as it’s assumed to be revenue-neutral.

    I know exactly where I’d tell the Republicans to shove that plan if I was on the super-committee. Make some noise about a “significant concession” while at the same time proposing another top rate tax cut and making the Bush tax cuts permanent? Doesn’t sound serious to me. I’d rather just let the automatic cuts hit.

    Comment by Serenity — November 17, 2011 @ 5:20 am - November 17, 2011

  3. Obama’s entire plan for reducing the deficit and restoring the economy can be summed up in five simple words, “And then, a miracle happened.”

    Comment by V the K — November 17, 2011 @ 6:33 am - November 17, 2011

  4. It has been mathematically demonstrated that it impossible to pay for Obamacrat spending levels solely by increasing taxes on upper income levels. To pay for Obamacrat spending levels would require an 80-90% tax increase at all income levels.

    This has been explained and demonstrated repeatedly, but some people are either too dim or to blinded by their greed for the earnings of others, to get it.

    Comment by V the K — November 17, 2011 @ 6:40 am - November 17, 2011

  5. From what I can see, the plan includes $300 billion in “limits on itemized tax deductions” but also a cut in the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 28%, which is not factored into the sums as it’s assumed to be revenue-neutral.

    Hi Amy…

    How much of that “$300 billion” would be in Euros or quid?

    Just wondering…

    Comment by Eric Olsen — November 17, 2011 @ 8:27 am - November 17, 2011

  6. His plan? Vote “present” and hope for a miracle. The man’s a genius, I tell you…

    Comment by alanstorm — November 17, 2011 @ 10:04 am - November 17, 2011

  7. To pay for Obamacrat spending levels would require an 80-90% tax increase at all income levels.

    What is your source on this claim? I’ve heard wildly conflicting claims on this whole taxation/spending thing and it seems to me that the figures can be made to say whatever the hell you want them to.

    Comment by Serenity — November 17, 2011 @ 8:33 pm - November 17, 2011

  8. Sorry Pomposity; math in the real world actually has rules.

    So here’s one to start.

    The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America’s billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. It does indeed sound like a “ton of cash” until one considers that the 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America’s billionaires, we’d still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit.

    And:

    The Total Taxable Income for millionaires was $626,464,479,000 in 2009. So, if the Federal government taxed millionaires at a 100% tax rate, it would pay for 53.5% of the 2009 deficit.

    And let’s see; the projected deficits for the next ten years are $9.5 trillion.

    Which means that, if you confiscated the wealth of every single millionaire and billionaire in the United States, you would be $7.6 trillion dollars short of covering just your deficit amounts, much less your spending.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 17, 2011 @ 10:40 pm - November 17, 2011

  9. As has been explained to Serenity on previous occasions; apparently to no effect. I guess girls just suck at math.

    Comment by V the K — November 17, 2011 @ 10:59 pm - November 17, 2011

  10. Sorry Pomposity; math in the real world actually has rules.

    Even as I was looking at “figures can be made to say whatever the hell you want them to” in this very comment form, I knew what you were going to say in response. I knew it, and yet I still left the message at that. Why do I do this to myself?

    Anyway, I’m going to ignore the rest of your post because I don’t like what it says. I could probably find counterpoints to refute all of what you just said, but you wouldn’t believe a word of it and finding primary sources isn’t fun so screw it.

    Comment by Serenity — November 18, 2011 @ 3:44 am - November 18, 2011

  11. [...] few days ago, I asked, “what is Obama’s plan to deal with the debt? The following day I asked a similar question:  ”$15 trillion in debt — and still no Obama [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama absent from debt reduction talks — November 21, 2011 @ 12:25 pm - November 21, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.