Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you want to give her a pass then that is your right.

It's not about giving her a pass. It's about recognizing that the Speaker has indeed not continued on the path of new deficit spending; again stimulus measures notwithstanding.

A 20% cut to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the DoD should do the trick.

Good Luck with that. Aside from the disastrous economic effect this would have, you ought to know that there is no way that such proposal has any chance of making it through Congress. Your supposed deficit hawks running for office won't ever even come close to proposing any such thing. Not even close.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Look up Medicare Part D (unfunded), EGTRRA and JGTRRA as well as the cost of two wars for which no funding was ever even proposed. Then you'll understand why the budget trajectory changed from being rather encouraging towards the end of the 1990's to being disastrous by the middle of the first decade of the 21st century.

That is the type of new deficit spending that the Speaker vowed not to undertake. And it would appear that she's kept that promise; stimulus measures to address the largest financial and economic meltdown since the Great Depression notwithstanding.

Both wars were funded by Congress on affirmative votes on supplemental appropriations, as all wars are funded (and hurricanes and other national disasters). With baseline budgeting, to include war costs in the normal appropriation process would make that funding permanent, that is raise the amount spent on defense for future years. To say the wars were, "not funded", is juvenile. If Congress does not appropriate the money, it can't be spent.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Need to watch the video again. After railing against the Neocons deficits she announces no new deficits. She then oversaw even larger and record deficits.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Hardly living within your means is disastrous.

Edited October 26, 2010 by luckytxn

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I have no intentions of voting for the GOP.

So you are going to vote for the people that have made the mess worse. From 2000 until 2006 the debt went up 4 trillion dollars. That is very bad, granted. From 2007 until today it has gone up 5 trillion dollars. So in half the time Pelosi and Reid have increased the deficit more than the reps did. If we let them stay one would assume that that trend would continue. At that rate when the dems have had control for 6 years they will increase the deficit by 10 trillion dollars!!! Do you really think that is good for this country?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

[luckytxn 2,264]

So you are going to vote for the people that have made the mess worse. From 2000 until 2006 the debt went up 4 trillion dollars. That is very bad, granted. From 2007 until today it has gone up 5 trillion dollars. So in half the time Pelosi and Reid have increased the deficit more than the reps did. If we let them stay one would assume that that trend would continue. At that rate when the dems have had control for 6 years they will increase the deficit by 10 trillion dollars!!! Do you really think that is good for this country?

http://www.treasuryd...debt_histo5.htm

If his Socialist buds say it is good then why would he disagree.

Of course we can think for ourselves.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Of course we can think for ourselves.

I think the way my vast right wing conspiracy secret decoder ring tells me how to think.

[mawilson 2,133]

Good Luck with that. Aside from the disastrous economic effect this would have, you ought to know that there is no way that such proposal has any chance of making it through Congress. Your supposed deficit hawks running for office won't ever even come close to proposing any such thing. Not even close.

It will happen. When the debt reaches $20 trillion or $100 trillion, but it will happen.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So you are going to vote for the people that have made the mess worse.

I don't believe they have. Can you really sit there with a straight face and maintain that a GOP controlled Congress would have produced better budgets given the economic collapse we are still trying to overcome? Looking at what happened when the GOP controlled both the legislative and executive branch - 2001 onward - this is not exactly a reasonable argument to make. We were, after all, on a path to fiscal sanity and it was not the Democrats who changed that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Both wars were funded by Congress...

Both wars were financed - i.e. "funded" with loans. To me, that is not the same as funding them - i.e. raising the revenue to match the expense. Medicare Part D was financed the same way - not a penny was raised to pay for it. That's how deficits are made. And that, in a nutshell, is and has been the fiscal policy of the GOP.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Both wars were financed - i.e. "funded" with loans. To me, that is not the same as funding them - i.e. raising the revenue to match the expense. Medicare Part D was financed the same way - not a penny was raised to pay for it. That's how deficits are made. And that, in a nutshell, is and has been the fiscal policy of the GOP.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Both wars were financed - i.e. "funded" with loans. To me, that is not the same as funding them - i.e. raising the revenue to match the expense. Medicare Part D was financed the same way - not a penny was raised to pay for it. That's how deficits are made. And that, in a nutshell, is and has been the fiscal policy of the GOP.

Now you are getting it. So, for the last four years, as Iraq has wound down, and as Obama has spun up Afghanistan, the Democratically controlled Congress passed measures that would fund both wars annually. That's at least four affirmative votes for war spending, half of which Obama didn't veto.

Edited October 26, 2010 by ##########

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Congress Approves Supplemental War-Funding Bill

WASHINGTON, July 28, 2010 – The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday approved passage of the Defense Department’s supplemental war-funding bill, most of which will be used to pay for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

President Barack Obama and Pentagon officials said passage of the nearly $59 billion supplemental was critical for supporting overseas-deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill now awaits the president’s signature.

Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates applauded passage of the bill, which the Senate had passed last week.

"Over the past several weeks, we have had to take extraordinary measures to fund our military operations around the world this late in the fiscal year,” Morrell said in a statement, “but thankfully the money provided in the supplemental ensures that we will be able to continue the drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq while we plus-up forces in Afghanistan as part of our efforts to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida."

Most of the $58.8 billion contained in the supplemental will be used for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The supplemental also includes $13.38 billion for Vietnam veterans’ Agent Orange exposure programs; $5.1 billion for disaster relief to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; $2.9 billion for Haitian earthquake relief; $178 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to respond to natural disasters; and $50 million to improve port facility access in Guam.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=60204

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now you are getting it. So, for the last four years, as Iraq has wound down, and as Obama has spun up Afghanistan, the Democratically controlled Congress passed measures that would fund both wars annually. That's at least four affirmative votes for war spending, half of which Obama didn't veto.

I understand that you'd want the Congressional Dems and Obama to not only step into a political landmine but to actually plant it. And I understand that you're upset that they're not coming your way on that wet dream of yours.

Now, tell me what you think the odds are of the GOP defunding the war in Afghanistan and Iraq while our troops are over there tasked to accomplish their mission - whatever that mission happens to be. The odds of that happening are about the same as those of defunding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when they had an opportunity to do that - year after year after year that both these wars were going on with the GOP running the show. Right, the odds of that happening are virtually nil.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I understand that you'd want the Congressional Dems and Obama to not only step into a political landmine but to actually plant it. And I understand that you're upset that they're not coming your way on that wet dream of yours.

Now, tell me what you think the odds are of the GOP defunding the war in Afghanistan and Iraq while our troops are over there tasked to accomplish their mission - whatever that mission happens to be. The odds of that happening are about the same as those of defunding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when they had an opportunity to do that - year after year after year that both these wars were going on with the GOP running the show. Right, the odds of that happening are virtually nil.

You mistake me for somebody else, evidently. It is not a question of either/or, it's neither/nor. The closest to a responsible Congress was the Class of '94, and most of those lost their seats (or got killed in skiing accidents) when they got sidetracked impeaching Clinton.