On Reagan and Obama
By D.J. McGuire | Friday, July 29th, 2011 | History, Policy, PoliticsThe president likes to invoke Ronald Reagan as often as he can. This is somewhat understandable, as Reagan is both the most recent iconic president and one more likely to warm the hearts of those outside his normal coalition (it’s why Reagan himself referred to Kennedy and FDR repeatedly).
This can, however, lead to certain embarrassing information, such as the following:
Smallest Obama deficit: $1.29 trillion (FY10)
Largest Reagan budget: $1.14 trillion (FY89)
That’s right. Obama’s smallest budget deficit is larger than Reagan’s entire budget.
Ouch.
Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Former candidate for Board of Supervisors in Spotsylvania, current blogger, economics teacher, and long-rumored windbag. There are two causes closest to the heart: steering the country away from the social democratic nonsense that is sinking Europe, and convincing the rest of the "rightosphere" that the NBA really is a joy to watch.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
18 Responses to "On Reagan and Obama"
Good point, DJ, but you’re not using real dollars. So, it’s not as bad as it looks, but it’s still bad!
Yes, keeping changing the subject. How embarrassed you must be. Afterall, Boehner walks away from the President willing to make a $4,000,000,000,000 deal with $3,000,000,000,000 in reduced expenditures and $1,000,000,000,000 in increased revenue, and you guys have the audacity, after the chaos in the House, to suggest this is Obama’s problem? These anarchist’s can’t even come up with a trillion in cuts, two trillion less than the President. So, who is in charge?
Mike- The Republicans have laid out their specific cuts. What are Obama’s?
Mike,
Do you ever get tired of lying? Let’s see: there’s been the Ryan budget, “Cut, Cap, and Balance”, now there will be a Boehner budget.
Reid has a proposal from the Democrats, sort of. He’s relying on cost savings already accounted for from the war drawdown as his “cuts”. But that’s it. Even Senate Democrats couldn’t stomach the president’s budget – rejected outright 97-0.
Ken, once again, just like Tim J, you misunderstand who is responsible. Raising the debt ceiling is the responsibility of the Congress; it is they who have authorized the expenditures and appropriated the funds. If they fail to act, it will be a repudiation of their oath of office, a repudiation of those who served before them, and an abrogation of their responsibility to authorize and appropriate funds to meet our nation’s obligations.
RBM = 3. Mike getting a little emotional on this one and repeating himself again, and again, and again….
Well JR, I will admit that for quite some time, the republican attempt to link approval of raising the debt with their policy objectives has been incredibly effective, and of course, it may be still. Afterall, the President does not want the nation to suffer default, recession, and more misery, and neither do many conservative but responsible republicans. However, in the end, agreeing to play their game has been a terrible mistake. These zealots will have their way, no matter what, and if they have to destroy our nation’s economy in order to save it, as Jim Webb has stated, then in my view, the onus will be on them.
Mike’s RBM = 2… better. Harry Reid just had a meltdown and his ranting and temper tantrum sounds suspiciously familiar. Harry Reid: “Right now the extremists have locked down this Congress,” Reid continued. “We’re doing nothing. The extremists have locked down the White House. They’re not able to do their work. The country is in an economic malaise and they want to keep this up.”
That’s good for an RBM of about 4 and they are acting and squealing like heroin addicts who are going through withdrawal.
So I guess we learn this evening if Speaker Boehner still has a job; perhaps his addition of amendments will win a few more votes in the House, but of course, he knows it is DOA in the Senate. But at least it will be a straw man, and with improvement in the Senate, perhaps a reconstituted bill can pass both chambers and be signed by the President. But, first things first. Will Boehner’s bill actually get a vote this evening? Will it pass? How fast will it be defeated in the Senate. We’ll see.
Mike, we’ve passed 2 and potentially now 3 different plans that have all been tabled by the senate. The house is doing its job. The senate and president are blocking the bills the house produces and offering no real solutions on paper. Obama’s deal has not been shown to us, and I believe he intentionally moved the goalpost for the expressed reason as to make boehner back out. So that he can come up later and try to ram the compromise down everyones throats thinking that he can get the votes and will be looked at as some sort of savior at the end. It doesn’t make sense any other way for him to keep that from being voted on or seen by the public.
Well Joshua, I commend you for your attempt to change the process, but last time I checked, this action to raise the debt ceiling has to pass both chambers and be signed by the President. Boehner’s Bill has yet to even pass the House, and if it does, it will have simply been an exercise in futility as it has no democratic support whatsoever. Point is, negotiation and compromise are required, not political theater. The House republicans have simply talked among themselves, and still have not yet passed a bill, and time is almost over. Talk about disintegration.
Mike B,
***The House republicans have simply talked among themselves, and still have not yet passed a bill***
Did you actually type that with a straight face? They’re about to pass the THIRD plan. And while it may suck, it’s a plan. Unlike the non-existant plan from the White House or the Reid plan that even he knows he can’t get the votes for. At least the House is working on it.
All the Democrats have done is throw gasoline on the fire, and they’re making us buy that from Brazil, ’cause we can’t drill here.
Mike, I get it now… the President has other things on his mind…
https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bombshell-white-house-new-about-atf-gunrunning-scandal_577666.html
So guys, did you really enjoy it? The Speaker squeaks through a Bill in the House, having made it worse to get more votes, and now it faces a certain indignity as it held on the table in the Senate. Now the serious negotiation can actually begin. Of course, as of this writing, Speaker Boehner had no democratic votes for his bill, indicating the degree of political theater that this involved. If the House had one iota of integrity, it would have produced a bi-partisan bill that had a chance of passage in the Senate, but instead, they preferred to hold the sword of damocles over the head of every citizen of the United States who wonders how much their 401k will be worth on Tuesday morning.
D.J.
The US spent $37 million during the Revolutions War; the states spent $114 million.
The US has spent $800 billion so far on the war in Iraq and $430 billion so far in Afghanistan.
Why did we spend so much more in Iraq and Afghanistan than we did on our own Revolutionary War?
Oh, and D.J., do you think you could publish a list of debt from um, lets say, 1980 to 2011, and maybe put the president’s name next to each budget year.
Another terrible post at Bering Drift.
Another terrible comment at Bearing Drift.
ToR,
That Revolutions War took more money because we kept going around in circles.
And it’s “Bearing” not “Bering” Drift. See if you can get that Straight.
“Matrix Revolutions” took even more money and Neo negotiated and eventually compromised with the machines.
Leave your response