Obama creates bipartisan fiscal commission on national debt

[MasterComposter]

The President has issued an executive order to create a bipartisan fiscal commission to come up with recommendations for reducing the national budget deficit and the national debt. Recently a bipartisan bill to create such a commission with the force of law was blocked by Republicans in the senate (even though those Republicans had CO-SPONSORED the bill) , so the president has created the commission by executive order. It seems to me the President and Democratic congress are more serious about defict reduction than the Republicans in the senate --- at least more willing to vote for it, as oppoased to just TALK about it. Unfortunately, because the president had to create the commission by executive order, the house and senate will not be required to put the commission's recommendations to an up-or-down vote with no amendments, no filibuster, the way they would have with the bill killed by the Republicans.

Consideringt EVERYTHING is on the table, including spending cuts and tax increases, even changes to entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, it'll be interesting to see what comes out of this bipartisan commission. Will the congress have the balls to vote on the recommendations?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/18/news/ec ... ommission/

President orders debt panel, names chairmen
By Jeanne Sahadi, senior writer February 18, 2010: 12:22 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama issued an executive order on Thursday that formally creates a bipartisan fiscal commission, a first step to forcing painful decisions needed to get the U.S. debt load under control.

Raising taxes, cutting spending and reforming Medicare and Social Security are all fair game, and thought to be impossible without the backing of both Republicans and Democrats.

"Everything's on the table. That's how this thing is going to work," the president said immediately after signing the order.

The commission must deliver a report to the president by Dec. 1 that makes recommendations for bringing annual deficits to no more than 3% of the size of the economy, as measured by gross domestic product, or GDP. Currently annual deficits for the next decade are on track to be well above that level.

The commission will also be expected to suggest ways to permanently lower the country's total debt - currently expected to hit 77% of GDP in 2020, according to the White House Budget Office.

...

 

[baulten]

Hopefully something good will come of this.

However, Obama has made it clear he doesn't really care about the national debt. Maybe it's just bad luck with timing and that he has really thought the Healthcare bill and stimulus bill were absolute necessities, but he hasn't really seemed any more about debt reduction than Bush.

But, hey, it's a step forward.

 

[MasterComposter]

Hopefully something good will come of this.

However, Obama has made it clear he doesn't really care about the national debt. Maybe it's just bad luck with timing and that he has really thought the Healthcare bill and stimulus bill were absolute necessities, but he hasn't really seemed any more about debt reduction than Bush.

But, hey, it's a step forward.

I think the stimulus bill was necessary, even though it adds diredtly to the debt. There is a big difference between your long-term fiscal policies and short-term, but costly emergencies. I wouldn't take the stimuls as an indication of policy related to the budget or the debt. If the economy had comletelty tanked, the deficit would just be that much bigger.

And the Healthcare bill is supposed to be deficit neutral. You can argue whether it really is or isn't, but its costs are supposed to be offset by savings elsewhere, and apparently the CBO backs up that conclusion.

I hope something does come of this.

 

[docm]

If you still believe that Obamacare will be deficit neutral I have these bridges in NYC up for sale....

Presidential commissions come about when a president and/or Congress want to deflect responsibility for controversial decisions to a third party: the old "the Devil made me do it!" defense Flip Wilson used in his comedy act. Last major one was the 90's base closings.

WARNING WILL ROBINSON!: incoming tax increases to the middle and lower classes they promised not to do.

 

[dragon04]

That's hilarious. Like having an arsonist form a committee on Fire Prevention. :lol:

 

[bearack]

That's hilarious. Like having an arsonist form a committee on Fire Prevention. :lol:

Ooooh so true!

 

[MannyPim]

It's like having a serial rapist create an abstinence advocacy organization...

Like having the tobacco companies mount an anti-smoking campaign....

 

[R1]

[by MasterComposter » Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:39 am: ]
Recently a bipartisan bill to create such a commission with the force of law was blocked by Republicans in the senate (even though those Republicans had CO-SPONSORED the bill)

The thread readers understand that republicans blocked it, Manny !

It's like republicans becoming hyprocrit ! ...As usual.

 

[docm]

Sorry guys; but most people really do understand that blocking "presidential commissions" is a virtue, not a vice. Doesn't matter if the intent is good or not, they share a lot in common with "special prosecutors" - they more often than not exceed their focus and lead to bad policy. As noted above, all they are is a way to deflect, or evade, responsibility.

 

[bearack]

[by MasterComposter » Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:39 am: ]
Recently a bipartisan bill to create such a commission with the force of law was blocked by Republicans in the senate (even though those Republicans had CO-SPONSORED the bill)

The thread readers understand that republicans blocked it, Manny !

It's like republicans becoming hyprocrit ! ...As usual.

How in heavens name did the republicans block the bill when they did not need 1 single republican vote to pass it???

Shouldn't your comment be "some democrats blocked the vote"?

 

[MasterComposter]

Presidential commissions come about when a president and/or Congress want to deflect responsibility for controversial decisions to a third party: the old "the Devil made me do it!" defense Flip Wilson used in his comedy act.

That's one way to characterize them. The other way is that these kinds of commissions provide political cover for unpopular compromises. Th fact is that no single party will be able to push through the changes required to deal with the deficit and debt without the cooperation of the other party. A bipartisan commission provides that cover. It guarantees that both parties have a seat at the table, and that no recommendations can be issued without bipartisan support in the commission. Once the recommendations are issued, both sides can point to it and say, "that's the best compromise deal we will get --- i'll vote for the package in order to get what I want, even though there are parts I dislike"

 

[MasterComposter]

It's like having a serial rapist create an abstinence advocacy organization...

Like having the tobacco companies mount an anti-smoking campaign....

Are you talking about Republican co-chairman Alan Simpson? Or are you talking about the 6 Republicans to be appointed by Boner and McConnel? Don't worry, there will also be 6 Dems appointed by the Democratic house and seante leadrship to keep them in line!

 

[MasterComposter]

That's hilarious. Like having an arsonist form a committee on Fire Prevention. :lol:

It would be interesting to hear some Republican ideas on how to deal with the deficit and debt. Oh, yeah --- a bipartisan congressional commission WAS the Republican idea! Too bad they voted against their own idea. Well now the president has GUARANTEED them a seat at the table on this bipartisan commission, so now we can be treated to more Republican ideas that they themselves can later vote against if they want to.

 

[dragon04]

It would be interesting to hear some Republican ideas on how to deal with the deficit and debt. Oh, yeah --- a bipartisan congressional commission WAS the Republican idea! Too bad they voted against their own idea. Well now the president has GUARANTEED them a seat at the table on this bipartisan commission, so now we can be treated to more Republican ideas that they themselves can later vote against if they want to.

My comments were not about the Republicans. My comments were in response to the (hilarious) title to the thread. The Great Spender Creates Commission On How To Save Money!

Perhaps the notion would have more credibility and less laughability had the Administration formed such a commission prior to and instead of spending TRILLIONS of Taxpayer Dollars.

That's always your response though. Rather than defend the President on the merits of....oh. wait. Mr Spendy preaching how to not spend money and reduce debt..... nevermind. Resume trying to shift this to a Republican bash.

And FWIW, the Republicans did only a slightly less abysmal job of being prudent with Taxpayer money.

 

[baulten]

Okay, wow. I think it's a political maneuver to try and make himself appear better, but it's clear a lot of people have not considered the fact that Obama might actually be trying to cut back spending. Yeah, there was a lot last year. But that was what a lot of financial experts said was needed. Can't lay all of the blame on Obama for that one.

Obama can't do anything right, can he?

 

[Kerberos]

Then, just...cut spending. It's not politically risky, the mood of the public is to lower deficits. So, just stop spending so much. Instead, the Administration is talking about another stimulus package and an expensive health care deal.

 

[MannyPim]

It's like having a serial rapist create an abstinence advocacy organization...

Like having the tobacco companies mount an anti-smoking campaign....

Are you talking about Republican co-chairman Alan Simpson? Or are you talking about the 6 Republicans to be appointed by Boner and McConnel? Don't worry, there will also be 6 Dems appointed by the Democratic house and seante leadrship to keep them in line!

I am talking about all of the above, plus obama.

It is the responsibility of Congress and the President to be the custodians of the National treasury and to make sure they act responsibly , with the long term interests of our Nation first and foremost. The abdication of their responsibility is reprehensible and shameful. The NEED for this commission should NEVER have arisen in the first place. They are already guilty of creating a dangerous fiscal disaster in the making and that is bad enough.... but to now dump the resolution of this crisis on someone else's shoulders and walk away rather than take full responsibility borders on criminal behavior.

Besides which, we are going to end up spending months and millions of dollars on this commission to figure out how to bring the budget under control. I can obviate the need for the commission and for spending all that money.
Here it is: Hey barry, do you REALLY want to know how to being the US back to fiscal solvency ? ROLL BACK ALL OF YOUR INSANE AND IRRESPONSIBLE BUDGETS AND FREEZE THE FEDERAL BUDGET WHILE YOU ARE IN OFFICE.

Of course, the commission is going to come out with a recommendation that taxes should be raised. That is neither a real solution nor is it a fair or just approach. The American taxpayers DID NOT create this disaster. It was created by CONGRESS, by all past adminsitrations and severly and critically exacerbated by the current occupant of the WHite House. We are not at the "precipice" of economic collapse because Americans are taxed too little. We find ourselves here because the Governement has been grossly IRRESPONSIBLE and negligent with our Treasury. If they implement higher taxes, I guarantee you that our deficits will remain high and our National Debt will CONTINUE climbing.

 

[R1]

[by MasterComposter » Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:39 am: ]
Recently a bipartisan bill to create such a commission with the force of law was blocked by Republicans in the senate (even though those Republicans had CO-SPONSORED the bill)

The thread readers understand that republicans blocked it, Manny !

It's like republicans becoming hyprocrit ! ...As usual.

How in heavens name did the republicans block the bill when they did not need 1 single republican vote to pass it???
...

Exactly. The republicans chose not to cooperate on their own bill, and so now Obama is having to order it done.
Had the republicans cooperated on their own bill, Obama by himself would not have to order it to be done.

 

[bearack]

Exactly. The republicans chose not to cooperate on their own bill, and so now Obama is having to order it done.
Had the republicans cooperated on their own bill, Obama by himself would not have to order it to be done.

But again, you're blaming republicans. It was also the democrats that didn't vote on the bill which Obama then went outside and placed an executive order. In short, if the dem's would have voted for it, it would have passed!

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Remember the old saying “The President proposes and the Congress disposes”? It’s probably from Kempis’s (The Imitation of Christ)

The resolution of the righteous dependeth more upon the grace of God than upon their own wisdom; for in Him they always put their trust, whatsoever they take in hand. For man proposeth, but God disposeth; and the way of man is not in himself. Latin Nam homo poponit, sed dues disponit.

So in Washingtonism “Man” has been replaced by “The President” and “God” by “Congress”, the meaning is clear: The President is the handmaiden of Congress and Subject to its will, not the other way around.

Under our system the president has primary responsibility for the military, conduct of foreign policy, and the administration of the department of government, and enforcing the law. The Congress has primary responsibility for the creation, passage, and promulgation of laws and raising and apportioning of revenue. So the bulk of the responsibility particularly in the area of domestic policy devolves upon the Congress; we expect leadership and courage from our Congress; when you have cowardice and venality and a willingness to wait for the president to act and then snipe you get, well, what we have now. But that’s not our system it’s a perversion of our system. God I hate the Congress (Democrats and Republicans) with all my being.

I think the Senators of both parties did NOT fulfill their responsibilities when they authorized President Bush to go to war with insufficient debate. They did this with one eye on midterm elections and one eye on the Presidential primaries. So the Democrats got what they wanted, the Congress and the presidency and two black eyes to go with that, and the Republicans got what they wanted the ability to sit on the side lines and cry that the Democrats are the great evil. I also acknowledge the greatest incompetency of the Bush administration in a total lack of communication and truthfulness to the American people, with the Iraqi people, and with the world.

So now here we are with a huge deficit due to two never ending wars, a broken economy and all faults apparently on good old Obama for trying to get healthcare for Americans. So maybe somebody will pipe in here with a way to cut this countries MASSIVE spending on our wars and the military (54% of federal funds) or, perhaps this countries MASSIVE spending on Social Security and Medicare (35% of federal funds)? So you can either screw our brave men and women in uniforms, or the elderly, let me see you try O’ intelligent ones. :lol:

 

[phaze]

Once again...




If you don't agree with Obama's spending - please list what elements you don't agree with:


Cut spending in half. Tell me which taxes you will raise and which services you will cut.




Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[bearack]

So now here we are with a huge deficit due to two never ending wars, a broken economy and all faults apparently on good old Obama for trying to get healthcare for Americans. So maybe somebody will pipe in here with a way to cut this countries MASSIVE spending on our wars and the military (54% of federal funds) or, perhaps this countries MASSIVE spending on Social Security and Medicare (35% of federal funds)? So you can either screw our brave men and women in uniforms, or the elderly, let me see you try O’ intelligent ones. :lol:

Not defending Bush here because he was a liberal spender but to once again blame Bush for Obama's debt is just getting stupid now. Bush left Obama with approximately 700 billion in debt. Way to much mind you, but nothing in comparisons of what Obama has ALREADY spent. The other 700 billion dollar debt that Obama is claiming to be left by the Bush administration was SIGNED by Obama in the original tarp.... and yes, it counts against Bush's deficit. The returns (which also should be counted against the deficit) are however not.

 

[bearack]

Once again...




If you don't agree with Obama's spending - please list what elements you don't agree with:


Cut spending in half. Tell me which taxes you will raise and which services you will cut.




Put your money where your mouth is.

Lets see here:

Government jobs have grown by nearly 2 million
Government salaries have grown by nearly 30% in the last 5 years
Average government salary is 46% greater than avg private sector salary
Continual bail outs
Pork spending on stuff such as tunnels for turtels
The non-stop White house parties that are costing taxpayers millions
Cap n Trade
Military spending
Farm subsidies
Acorn subsidies
FIXING medicare and eliminating the corruption

And many, MANY others that could be listed!

 

[phaze]

No. It's not stupid.

What IS stupid, is to toss out throwaway lines indicating that Obama's spending is somehow unrelated to previous policies....

Evalute what he is spending the money. Bring out actual numbers.

Man up.

Evalute his spending and tell us what is a waste. What doesn't return value for the $. If things are so outrageous, you should be able to knock 30... 40... 50% off of his budget with little to no consequence.

I bet you won't.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

So now here we are with a huge deficit due to two never ending wars, a broken economy and all faults apparently on good old Obama for trying to get healthcare for Americans. So maybe somebody will pipe in here with a way to cut this countries MASSIVE spending on our wars and the military (54% of federal funds) or, perhaps this countries MASSIVE spending on Social Security and Medicare (35% of federal funds)? So you can either screw our brave men and women in uniforms, or the elderly, let me see you try O’ intelligent ones. :lol:

Not defending Bush here because he was a liberal spender but to once again blame Bush for Obama's debt is just getting stupid now. Bush left Obama with approximately 700 billion in debt. Way to much mind you, but nothing in comparisons of what Obama has ALREADY spent. The other 700 billion dollar debt that Obama is claiming to be left by the Bush administration was SIGNED by Obama in the original tarp.... and yes, it counts against Bush's deficit. The returns (which also should be counted against the deficit) are however not.

bear can you site where you get that 700 Billion number from?

Here is what I found; http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLog ... ication=np


When President Bush took over national office (1/20/2001) the debt was 5.73 Trillion dollars, when he left (1/20/2009) the debt was 10.7 Trillion dollars.

When President Obama took over national office (1/20/2009) the debt was 10.7 Trillion dollars, Right now (2/22/2010) the debt is 12.4 Trillion dollars.

By the way most of the new national debt is due to the bail out of the government due to a total melt down of the economy due mostly to the 2 wars that are going on, and greed on Wall Street.