Bill Clinton understood federal spending 100x better than Obama

[n2doc]

He understood that you have to 1, raise taxes, 2, cut military spending. He also chose to cut entitlements (IMHO, a mistake) with "welfare reform" but the first 2 items are what did the job. That and spending on research and education (IE. Nat'l Inst' of Health went up a lot during his years).

Obama is setting himself up as a failure on this front. He is proposing freezing a small part of the budget (17%) to tackle a deficit that would not be eliminated if he cut this part in half instead of a freeze.

To put this in perspective, Obama is planning to "save" 250 billion over 10 years with his freeze. That , folks, is a rounding error on a deficit currently running at over 1 trillion dollars a year (10 trillion+ over 10 years) into the foreseeable future.

So, in 2012, we will still have a ginormous deficit in spite of Obama's "deficit cutting" efforts. That, is not going to make for a successful record to run on.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Bubba was a master, but different times. nt

[n2doc]

3. accounting is still accounting

You have to bring in serious money and you have to cut serious money to solve a big deficit. Obama is doing neither.

Leadership is what is required, not empty posturing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. Why not just take that $1 trillion to Wall Street back and use that?

Could Ronald Reagan have done this? Would Ronald Reagan have done this?

[HughMoran]

4. So the difference is you want Obama to cut military spending then

Because when Bush's tax cuts expire, that will be the equivalent of raising taxes and you say the discretionary cuts are meaningless (so, essentially less harsh than welfare reform). So your post says "cut military spending" and not much more.

[malaise]

Sorry but Bill Clinton's concessions to the

neo-liberals are one of the reasons Democrats are so confused philosophically.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Yes, I agree with that. Like Obama seems to..Clinton would find a middle ground between

any two points no matter how unbalanced or disparate those two points.

They both want everyone to like them. I hope that the president looks at Clinton's experience and thinks it's a no-go.

President Obama has the advantage of having a more progressive populace and congress than Clinton had, but that doesn't seem to be enough of a factor. It's hard to say.

[malaise]

18. Sadly so called liberal parties have all veered right

since the collapse of the Soviet Union and more than a few spinless members who do not have a clue about the philosophical underpinnings of their parties are more than willing to settle for cash and the 'good life'.

It's way too sad.

[n2doc]

13. Again, you are confusing his other flaws with this particular strength

Look, I disliked a lot of what Clinton did, and I do think he laid the groundwork for a lot of the crap we saw in W's term. But on this one issue, he did good. If only the US had been mature enough to continue this course, we would have tons of funds to spend right now, instead of tossing them down the interest payment hole and the war hole.

[malaise]

17. No you cannot give comfort to ideologues who are against government

and then receive praise for understanding government spending.

[democracy1st]

5. Obama is looking more like a corp plant everyday!

[HughMoran]

6. I hope you're being sarcastic

[n2doc]

12. Nope. Who was the last person to balance the budget?

You are confusing the other flaws of Clinton with this topic. He had many flaws, but deficit reduction wasn't one of them. And yes, we have a recession/depression right now, so we probably don't have a hope in hell of fixing this problem. I am arguing that if one wanted to fix it, one would proceed in a very different way. And so far the economists out there are agreeing with me that this plan is BS.

[democracy1st]

19. No I'm serious I don't call this the Goldman Sachs admin for nothing.

[depakid]

7. Could have raised almost 200 billion a year with a financial transactions tax

while at the same time discouraging excessive speculation and market manipulation.

[OHdem10]

9. Bill Clinton did have a recession but nothing compared to this 'depression

Obama faces. The GOP has become much more rabidly radical right,
even more so than in the 90s.

It is not fair to compare Clinton and Obama. They operate in different
times.

[Statistical]

10. Well if 2.5% is a rounding error you need a better accountant.

:) I do get what you are saying though.

My thoughts:
I don't know why Obama is getting ahead of himself. The only thing that will reduce the deficit by meaningful amounts is RAISING TAXES and CUTTING DEFENSE SPENDING after the ECONOMY RECOVERS.

When economy recovers the total receipts grow. Even raising taxes now is unlikely to substantially improve the deficit situation.

Jobs + Economy is DIRECTLY LINKED to deficit.

Higher jobs, higher wages, higher profits = larger base on which to tax. As the same time raising taxes is a compounding effect (bigger pie + bigger slice).

If Obama REALLLY REALLY wants to cut the deficit he should put 100% into improving the job situation. Now just unemployed but meaningful wage increases (for first time in over a decade).

That combine with a future tax increase and modest (10%) reduction in military spending could easily cut deficit by 2/3rds.
Without revenue growth raising taxes and cutting spending will be both painful and ineffective.

[seabeyond]

11. and send the jobs overseas? nt

[tritsofme]

14. In the 90s we had "peace dividends"

No such luck this time.

[Yupster]

15. And a tech boom

Those unexpected capital gains taxes coming into the federal treasury sure helped back then too.

[kentuck]

16. Clinton may be the person advising him on this "freeze"..?

since it worked so well during his Administration? He was able to balance the budget and win a second term, even as his Party bit the dust.