The debate is raging in Washington. Can the government spending excess be reigned in. On the one had we have an Obama administration that wants to spend and spend and spend. There can be no doubt as to their desired policy – more government spending is better government spending.
And then you have the Tea Party. Facing opposition not only from the democrats but also from the republican establishment.
And what have they accomplished in their short existence? Look at the graph above.
They stopped the spending in its tracks.
Rage on little T, rage on!
I don’t think you can credit the tea party with ending the spending binge. Both sides want to spend less. Also, you’re wrong to call it the Obama spending binge. The President only signs bills into law that authorize spending. They have to come through Congress – Congress authorizes all spending. True, the President can veto it, but he just signs off.
Both sides want to spend less.
Oh Scott, not true. Perhaps, *perhaps* both sides want to balance the budget. However, the democrats would like to increase revenue. The Tea Party wants to reduce spending.
Also, you’re wrong to call it the Obama spending binge. The President only signs bills into law that authorize spending.
There is a reason it is called Obamacare.
Oh Scott, not true. Perhaps, *perhaps* both sides want to balance the budget. However, the democrats would like to increase revenue. The Tea Party wants to reduce spending.
Plenty of Democrats want to decrease spending on, for example, the Defense Department. I’m guessing that if you polled americans you’d find that every political branch wants to decrease spending. In fact, that polling has been done. Scott’s point is that the President can only propose a budget, but Congress has to hammer out the actual numbers. If your kid asks you for $100 to go buy candy, would you call it “Little Cindy’s Reckless Spending” or would you call it “Pino’s out-of-control child allowance policy”? Oh, and the President’s budget for last year called for less, not more, federal expenditures in terms of GDP. While 2013 was $7b higher than 2012, the deficit is cut from 8.5% of GDP to 5.5% of GDP. While “entitlement” programs increased as federal outlays, the discretionary spending proposed by the White House dropped by $54b.
The Congress gave his $200b less than he asked for, $3.685 trillion. This year the President asked for $3.778 trillion, which:
1) Represents a drop of about $229b in the budget deficit from 2013
2) Represents a drop of a half point in the budgeted outlays as % of GDP
So….tell me again about how Democrats don’t care about reducing spending.
There is a reason it is called Obamacare.
Yes, because the right wing wanted to tag the President with death panels and mandatory abortions for religious families or some such nonsense. Is this really your argument? That it’s called Obamacare (which it isn’t, technically) and thus the President is responsible for a spending binge?
In your world, all government spending, though approved by Congress, is Obama’s fault. But all government restraint, even if proposed by Obama, is credited to the tea party. Meanwhile, we see essentially level government spending from the very beginning of Obama’s term and throughout. How, again, is Obama spending recklessly and the tea party, which is a minority, reining him in?
I’m guessing that if you polled americans you’d find that every political branch wants to decrease spending.
Of that I’m sure. It’s why I defend the *concept* of the Tea Party; Fiscal Responsibility and all.
So….tell me again about how Democrats don’t care about reducing spending.
This is indeed good news.
because the right wing wanted to tag the President with death panels
Every good is rationed. Either by time, by quality, by random drawing, by money or by political fiat. And I *think* that these approval boards were in the original bill.
That it’s called Obamacare (which it isn’t, technically) and thus the President is responsible for a spending binge?
This is true of all such signature legislation. Reagonomics, Hillarycare etc.
In your world, all government spending, though approved by Congress, is Obama’s fault. But all government restraint, even if proposed by Obama, is credited to the tea party.
No, not all spending. Sadly, republicans spend too much too. But in general, I buy into the scheme that democrats would like to increase the government spend while raising taxes. Republicans, more so when a democrat is in the White House, are the opposite.
Scott,
With all due respect, the current government shutdown and all of the debt ceiling crisis’ during the Obama Presidency, disprove everything you are saying. Whenever the Republican House of Representatives tries to cut spending, President Obama and Senator Harry Reid cause either a default crisis or a government shutdown to force the Republicans to give them almost all of the spending they want.
The only spending cuts a Democrat likes are military. In reality the only real spending cuts that would solve anything are entitlement cuts. And we all know that Obama and Reid will bankrupt this country long before they ever allow those cuts.
Scott, the president isn’t a passive observer in the bill generation process. Presidents can author legislation with a sponsor from congress. In the case of the ACA, it goes without saying the Obama administration had a close hand in the writing of this law.