National Debt Panel Among Obama's Attempts to Reduce Debt

Chase · 27th January 2010 01:44 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us.../27budget.html

WASHINGTON — Advocates of more aggressive steps to address the national debt failed Tuesday in their effort to create a bipartisan commission to press for tax increases and spending cuts, but President Obama now plans to establish a similar panel by executive order in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.

The proposal for a commission died when its supporters could not muster enough votes in the Senate to push it ahead, reflecting unwillingness among many Republicans to back any move toward tax increases and objections among Democrats to the prospect of deep spending cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. While 53 senators voted for the plan and 46 against, it needed 60 votes to be approved under Senate rules.

The alternative panel to be established by Mr. Obama will also come up with recommendations by December to reduce annual budget deficits and slow or reverse the growth of the national debt. But unlike the commission proposal killed by the Senate, Mr. Obama’s executive order could not force Congress to vote on a commission’s suggestions.

Continued...

It's good to see efforts being put forth to curb the national debt and deficit, but I don't think Obama's proposals are meaningful enough to have any noticeable impact.

Initially the question was whether or not these proposals will do anything to actually cut budgets and curtail the spending trend we've been on for the past three decades. Many, including myself, are beginning to believe that these measures are simply meant to bolster support among financially-strapped Americans, rather than get us out of the red. But these questions won't even be relevant if Congress can't pass simple, budget-cutting legislation like this. It looks as if partisan bickering and special interests will once again obstruct efforts to enact real "change."

Ironically, many Republicans stood in opposition to the bill as well. It makes you wonder if there's any strong proponents for fiscal conservatism in Washington.

**Sinopec** · 27th January 2010 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Chase

It's good to see efforts being put forth to curb the national debt and deficit, but I don't think Obama's proposals are meaningful enough to have any noticeable impact.

Ironically, many Republicans stood in opposition to the bill as well. It makes you wonder if there's any strong proponents for fiscal conservatism in Washington.

I don't think there will be any near-future changes to the rate of deficit growth over the next few decades; there just isn't the initiative or the popular sentiment to cut programs, end the wars, or to increase taxes. Japan's government is still okay with spending more; and their people have just no elected the opposition party— to no avail. Perhaps I'm pessimistic, though.

Administrizzle? rofl. nice title.

Chase · 27th January 2010 06:39 PM

True - I suppose we'll just wait until things get out of control, like always. But that's a good point regarding Japan. Their national debt exceeds 100% of GDP and they're still doing relatively well (economically).

**Sinopec** · 27th January 2010 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Chase

True - I suppose we'll just wait until things get out of control, like always. But that's a good point regarding Japan. Their national debt exceeds 100% of GDP and they're still doing relatively well (economically).

That and they're still expanding their deficit while balancing population and deflation problems, but I don't think that's a good example to follow...

**Dittohead not!** · 13th July 2010 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Chase

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us.../27budget.html
It's good to see efforts being put forth to curb the national debt and deficit, but I don't think Obama's proposals are meaningful enough to have any noticeable impact.

Initially the question was whether or not these proposals will do anything to actually cut budgets and curtail the spending trend we've been on for the past three decades. Many, including myself, are beginning to believe that these measures are simply meant to bolster support among financially-strapped Americans, rather than get us out of the red.

Bingo! Like so many things Congress and the president talk about, it is simply being said to make people think that something is being done. Talk is cheap.

Originally Posted by Chase

But these questions won't even be relevant if Congress can't pass simple, budget-cutting legislation like this. It looks as if partisan bickering and special interests will once again obstruct efforts to enact real "change."

Sure does.

Originally Posted by Chase

Ironically, many Republicans stood in opposition to the bill as well. It makes you wonder if there's any strong proponents for fiscal conservatism in Washington.

If there are, they aren't in the Republican or the Democratic parties. It used to be that the Democrats were for tax and spend, while the Republicans were for borrow and spend. Obama has done the Republicans one better by borrowing and printing more money, and spending and spending and spending some more. To think that anyone in Washington is seriously going to address this issue is pollyanaish.

If "pollyanaish" is even a word. Firefox underlined it in red for me.

**angryamerican** · 13th July 2010 04:54 PM

A big problem I have is..A good portion of the so called Obama debt is what he inherited from the former Admin. The former Admin also kept certain spending out of the budget to make his yearly deficit look smaller, oops forgot to include a large portion of the cost of the war, my bad. Maybe noone will notice...

**USA-1** · 13th July 2010 09:19 PM

Federal Deficit Tops $1 Trillion Through June

Just to show you the actual skyrocket deficit added to the debt Obama is supposedly working on reducing. Thanks.

**Ferris** · 13th July 2010 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Oldschool

Federal Deficit Tops $1 Trillion Through June

Just to show you the actual skyrocket deficit added to the debt Obama is supposedly working on reducing. Thanks.

400 billion of that is one time ARRA spending for FY2010. Letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire would save over 300 billion a year. Economic recovery will also result in another few hundred billion a year in revenues. Just those issues right there close the gap to where, in a conversation about fixing the debt problem, talking about the FY2010 budget seems pretty irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with the projected baseline.

**USA-1** · 13th July 2010 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Ferris

400 billion of that is one time ARRA spending for FY2010

And?

**Ferris** · 13th July 2010 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Oldschool

And?

And it therefore doesn't have to be reduced in the future.

There's a big difference between over a trillion dollar deficit, and the 2-3% of GDP deficit (300-400+ billion) that stabilizes or even reduces our debt (because of GDP growth).