Obama: The Time for Austerity is Over, the Time to Spend is Now!

The Washington Post reports that President Barack Obama' budget for 2015 - due out March 4 - will

will seek tens of billions of dollars in fresh spending for domestic priorities while abandoning a compromise proposal to tame the national debt in part by trimming Social Security benefits.

With the 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency and to his efforts to find common ground with Republicans. Instead, the president will focus on pumping new cash into job training, early-childhood education and other programs aimed at bolstering the middle class, providing Democrats with a policy blueprint heading into the midterm elections.

But wait, there's more (spending):

Obama would fully pay for proposed new spending in his budget request, administration officials said, including $56 billion for what they called “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative.” The package, which would be split between domestic programs and defense, will include fresh cash for 45 new manufacturing institutes; a “Race to the Top” for states that promote energy efficiency; new job training programs and apprenticeships; and expanded educational programs for pre­schoolers.

White House officials declined to say Thursday how they would fund the initiative.

More here.

The president's budget proposal will not include any mention of using a "chained" consumer price index (CPI) to restrain increases in Social Security and other entitlement spending. In his plan for 2014, the president proposed spending $3.8 trillion (against receipts totaling $3 trillion).

Expect the GOP "leadership" to bitch and moan about Obama's budget-busting ways while offering up no significant cuts of its own. In the House's 2014 plan, Republicans wanted to spend $3.5 trillon (they antiicipated $3 trillion in receipts as well). Senate Democrats called for $3.7 trillion in spending.

Recall that late last year, both parties agreed to effectively end sequestration and increase federal spending in the near term by about $45 billion this fiscal year and another $20 billion on top of that in 2015.

The Democratic logic behind increasing spending runs something like this: Because we no longer regularly post $1 trillion deficits, we've got no reason not to spend more and more every year. Don't you know that deficit spending helps expand the GDP (which registers virtually all government spending as adding to GDP)? If the government will spend enough, we'll lick this recession/slow-growth phase, just wait and see once slack demand gets taut again. Then we'll slow down spending...and everything will be fine. Just like we did, er, don't look at the chart about spending...

The Republican logic for steadily increasing spending is a bit different. "Fiscal conservatives" (as if) argue that we need to shrink the size, scope, and spending of government while increasing the same. They argue that we always need more defense spending (because CONSTITUTION) and it's morally wrong to make well-off seniors ever pay full price for anything. Besides RONALD REAGAN.

As the Post explains it:

The lack of conflict [over debt limits and ending sequestration] is due in part to the collapse of the deficit as a political issue. While annual budget deficits remain high by historical standards, they have shrunken rapidly over the past few years as the economy recovered and Congress acted to cut spending.

The latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office show the deficit falling to$514 billion this year and to $478 billion in fiscal 2015 — well below the trillion-dollar deficits the nation racked up during the recession and immediately afterward. But the CBO warned that deficits would start to grow again in a few years.

It is deeply disturbing (to say the least) that the second deficits shrink, everyone in Washington is ready to declare "the collapse of the deficit as a political issue." Persistent deficits lead to increasing levels of debt, which everyone - even free-spending folks such as Paul Krugman - acknowledge is a long term issue.

But hey, if you live in the here and now, the long term never seems to arrive. Like tomorrow in Annie, it's always a day away. Here's the CBO's latest take on the shape of deficits, expressed as a percentage of GDP:

That's not a pretty sight and it doesn't get lovelier when expressed in terms of dollars. The figures will change when the new budget plans are released, but the general trend will continue in the same direction. Below, read left to right across the "Total Deficit" line and you'll see deficits getting bigger again...in the fiscal 2016.

But for now? The deficit - a function of the perennial mismatch between government spending and revenue - is no longer a "political issue." It remains a mathematical one, alas. And one that is going unaddressed by both the GOP and the Democrats, who join together only, it seems, when it comes to spending money that they - we! - don't have.

Fear of persistent deficits and increasing national debt isn't an accounting fetish. It's rooted in the universally accepted notion that once debt gets too big, it can swallow whole economies and often does. Everyone knows that current entitlement spending - especially on Medicare - is unsustainable and a mortal threat to the federal budget (you can toss in Social Security and Obamacare, too, neither of which is paying its own way). With notable individual exceptions, nobody in either party is seriously engaging this problem, which is frustrating as hell.

It may always be today in Washington, but tomorrow is definitely coming - and it doesn't look so good.

Take it away, Candidate Obama, who used this stump speech way back when (2008):

We've lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save....

Once we get past the present emergency, which requires immediate new investments, we have to break that cycle of debt.

Present emergency averted! Commencing "immediate new investments"!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • MJGreen||

    Obama would fully pay for proposed new spending in his budget request

    Wow, Obama's a multibillionaire? What a guy!

  • WTF||

    Well, he does have a pen, a phone, and the wealth of the entire nation at his disposal.

  • Banjos||

    It's good to be the King.

  • Almanian!||

    We've had so much austerity that the debt is up to - what - $17Trill or so? Sheet.

    Time to loosen the purse strings for SURE! Do some REAL spending! Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmmm, mmmmmmm!

    What a dickhead.

  • Otisjay||

    I prefer the name TwatWaffle

  • waffles||

    Don't lump me in with that guy.

  • Almanian!||

    Two waffles - On Cup

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Obama got reelected in part though the magic of free shit. Why end for the midterms?

  • C. Anacreon||

    Well, his entire presidency has been an "era of austerity." Now he can finally feel relaxed enough to hand out some serious coin.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Obama's presidency has set new highs for spending and debt. The only austerity being experienced, is that of the taxpayers.

    If you look at the historical record of government burden in the US http://www.usgovernmentspendin.....g_History, you will see the Federal government spent less than 3% of GDP until 1917 (with an exception for the Civil War where it got up to only 13%). Total government spending (local+stat+federal) was typically less than 3% also.

    Today government is spending 40% of what we produce. We are now 40% slaves, where our contributions to government should only be about 3%. We're being screwed.

  • DrTacoPancake||

    "shit" being the operative word

  • Mike M.||

    Hat tip to Mike M.

  • Almanian!||

    This is kind of an HyR selfie...

  • Mike M.||

    If I don't do it, no one will.

  • Almanian!||

    Oh, also

    ERMAHGERD! SERKWERSTER!!!!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Ahem [drinks a sip of water distilled from ice from Saturn's rings]. "No, fuck you, cut spending."

  • Andrew S.||

    Yeah, like police stories, I've become numb to this stuff to. Fuck it, we're in a downward spiral. There's no getting out of it. The only joy I'm going to have from here on out are the number of people who think the consequences of all this will never happen, and seeing what they say/do when it does happen.

  • Andrew S.||

    Too, not to. Dammit. I need an edit button; I'm two stupid too post otherwise.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    They will simply blame the small government types for not letting them spend enough.

    And the vast majority of the population is just stupid enough to believe it.

  • Almanian!||

    MARKET FAYLYOOR!!11!

  • Doctor Whom||

    What's that thing called when you keep doing the same thing and expect a different result each time? Oh, yeah, politics.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Is he out of his fucking mind?

    No, really? Can he possibly believe doubling down of a $17T debt is going to work, or is he simply evil, promising free shit for the sake of politics?

    Which?

  • ||

    Why can't it be both?

  • ||

    Also: What difference at this point, does it make?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    This. The only question is for how long our currency will be the best looking turd in the punchbowl.

  • Andrew S.||

    It's the latter. I know Hanlon's Razor and all, but I'm convinced it doesn't apply here; he's smart enough to know the consequences of everything he does, he just doesn't give a shit, so long as the "Free Stuff" crowd gets him and his cronies elected.

  • ||

    Foreseeable consequences aren't unintended or something like that

  • WTF||

    Can he possibly believe doubling down of a $17T debt is going to work, or is he simply evil, promising free shit for the sake of politics?

    I'm gonna have to go with the latter.

  • Brett L||

    Listen, at this point, its not like we're going to fucking pay any of this back. We're keeping the entire world economy depressed so we can make our debt service payments now. Once everyone knows we're going to repudiate our debt, or pay it in NewBucks, the whole scam falls down. Obama might as well throw in as much free shit as he can in these final years.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Bingo. It's like if you know you have 24 hours to live, are you going to be frugal? Any disaster as a result of this will be blamed on one of his successors, and Obama's ascension to Mount Rushmore shouldn't be deterred.

  • CE||

    Will they remove Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln or Roosevelt? Somehow I have the feeling it will be Jefferson.

    Or is LeBron taking that spot already?

  • Thomas O.||

    I thought the US getting downgraded was gonna be the start of the fiscal meltdown, but I guess the government goons got to S&P. What's to stop the overseas bond-rating folks from sending Treasury bills plummeting to junk-bond ratings? What's to stop them from abandoning the U.S. dollar as the international trade standard? I hear China and India are stocking up on gold bars.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's all for show, anyway. No way the House will go along.

  • Loki||

    No way the House will go along.

    TEATHUGLIKKKAN OBSTRUKSHUNIZM!!!!1111!!!!11!!!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Sure, they'll say that and much, much more, but I think it's safe to say that the House is not in a giving vein.

  • Thomas O.||

    At this point I view the GOP House contingent like that Robin Williams bit about cops in the UK... "STOP! Or I'll say STOP again!"

  • JW||

    Is he out of his fucking mind?

    What's the downside for him?

    It's not his money, so he doesn't give one fuck. He'll be out of office when it all comes crashing down, so there's another fuck not given. And when it does come crashing down, he can blame the evil Teathuglicans, so, that's 3 fucks not given.

    And he gets to puff up to his slobbering sycophant support base that he's "doing something." Applause.

    It's all upside to him.

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Take everything that Sowell and Friedman taught about the uselessness (and even outright danger) of well-intentioned aggression against markets and voluntary interaction. Then toss it all out the window, mix in a life spent in campus echo chambers and community organizer positions, and there you have Obama. Were you to ask BHO his thoughts on Hayek, he'd tell you that Frida is one of his favorite feminist films. He's an economic illiterate, and not just in the Krugman sense of rejecting mainline economic intuition and theory for politically motivated meta-analysis; Obama is the sort of person who believes that jobs are created by state fiat.

    If that doesn't tell you what sort of president we're dealing with, nothing will.

  • plusafdotcom||

    +10

  • steedamike||

    Just got your name.

  • DrTacoPancake||

    Neither. His only incentive is to make today look good at the expense of any time horizon past January 20, 2017.

    Once you realize that, it all makes sense.

  • Brett L||

    Winter Keynesians.

    "Things are getting better, we must spend more!"

    Honestly, Keynesian policies might work if they adhered to the cut spending side as well. (I don't think so, but I'd be willing to see it tried.)

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Quit your nagging, I got my spending under control...I just need a little pre-K education spending to calm my nerves, and some job training to wash it down with, and a little defense spending just to show the other countries that I'm one of the guys, then a few shots of entitlements to take the edge off. Then tomorrow I'll quit, I promise."

  • Hugh Akston||

    With the 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency and to his efforts to find common ground with Republicans.

    So is this sentence supposed to be saying that Obama is going to stop trying to compromise with Team Red? Because I'm pretty sure you have to start something before you can be said to stop.

  • CE||

    "Era of austerity"???? When did that start?

  • ||

    That's some fucking Austerity we've had, whew boy. I eagerly await our partisan cheerleaders showing up and defending that idea.

    (I really don't, but know its too much to hope that this didnt light the fucktard signal.)

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    When we spend under 10 trillion a year, that is austerity.

  • WTF||

    "Obama cut the deficit in half! Just like he said he would! And 2009 spending is solely the responsibility of BOOOSH!!11!!!!!"
    /shreek

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    GODDAMN CHARTS MAKE BUSH LOOK BAD! STOP IT NICK! AND THERE WAS NO CLINTON SURPLUS!

    /Peanut Gallery

  • Doctor Whom||

    This is a Bushbot site, as everyone except those who can read knows.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Posters here prefer Team Red even when presented with evidence that Clinton erased the deficit and Bush jacked up back up to trillion dollar levels.

    Instead of an honest view like I have (that a D POTUS and R House poses the best political scenario) they want ALL TEAM RED again.

    OH NO! TEAM RED WON'T LET ME DOWN AGAIN!

  • ||

    Even if you accept that half of the Clinton presidency produced surpluses at the same time that the government retained no money and paid no debt principle, Bush's record-highest deficit prior to FY 2009 (during which he left half a trillion dollars in unallocated money to his successor), was 450 billion dollars and took place with a Democratic congress.

    Furthermore, just because you spend 1 trillion more dollars than you have one year doesn't mean you have to continue doing so in perpetuity. Obama was not obligated by Bush's spending. Even in his first year he could have returned the unallocated money from Bush to the treasury.

    Also, the D POTUS and R house that we've had since 2011 didn't produce any movement on the deficit until this year, and it still significantly exceeds what was the highest recorded deficit in US history up until 2009. The ocean's may have receded and the earth may have began to heal, but history did not begin when Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. Your ostensibly preferred scenario involved the US debt growing by 5 trillion dollars, or 41%, in 5 years - not in magical surpluses, even if we grant you the fiction that such a thing actually existed in the 1990's. You can't even keep your own disingenuous bullshit straight.

  • ||

    You know the charts don't make Obama look any better than him right demfag?

    And there WAS NO Clinton surplus. As has been pointed out to you multiple times, the governments own fucking websites prove this.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And there WAS NO Clinton surplus.

    That is a fucking lie. Your TEAM RED hardheadedness won't let the truth in.

    Tell Nick to stop with the Clinton surplus charts then!

  • fish_remote||

    That is a fucking lie.

    Yeah shreeky.....take it all the way...work your nose into that TEAM BLUE bush!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    That is a fucking lie. Your TEAM RED hardheadedness won't let the truth in.

    09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
    09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
    09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
    09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
    09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
    09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
    09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
    09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You still don't understand double entry accounting.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You still don't understand basic math.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    National debt on October 1: $16.747 trillion

    National debt on February 19: $17.385 trillion

    Total debt increase for FY14 so far: $638 billion.

  • KDN||

    Look, it went down for a few months in between before coming back up. There's no reason why we need to respect the bourgeois concept of the fiscal year.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    GODDAMN WEBSITES OF THE GOVERNMENT I WORSHIP MAKING ME LOOK BAD!! STOP IT GUYS! AND CLINTON DID TOO CUT SPENDING MORE THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT!!

    /dumbass shriek who gets fucked by basic math and easily verified facts on a repeated basis.

  • Loki||

    WHO WANTS CAKE!

  • Doctor Whom||

    My Obot Facebook friends keep talking about the Kennedy-Johnson era as some sort of golden age of big government. Fine, then let's reset federal spending to what it was back then.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Also suggest that we restore defense spending percentages back to that time period as well and watch their ears really steam.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    White House officials declined to say Thursday how they would fund the initiative.

    We still have checks. What are you worried about?

  • Aloysious||

    Nick, I truly hate that picture. It makes me hate soup, and I really used to like soup.

  • Mike M.||

    The president's budget proposal will not include any mention of using a "chained" consumer price index (CPI) to restrain increases in Social Security and other entitlement spending.

    So that particular pro-Obama talking point that Dave Weigel, aka "Palin's Buttplug" has been pushing around here for months now was just another lie? Knock me over with a feather!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Why should he try to compromise again?

    Boehner can't control his weird flank. All it does is stir the emoprogs up.

  • Mike M.||

    Fuck off and die Weigel. That was just another lie, like every word that comes out of your cretinous piehole.

  • Sevo||

    ..."Congress acted to cut spending."...
    And here I thought I kept up with things!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I cannot help wondering if this is in any way related to the recent total capitulation of the Republican "leadership" on the debt ceiling.

    Couldn't be.

  • Major Johnson||

    Recent? When did the R's ever meet a debt ceiling they didn't raise? Sure, they whine and cry about spending when it's the D's raising the ceiling, but in the background they're salivating at all the new money they can spend. When they have majority they skip right past the whine and cry and go straight to salivation.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Recent? When did the R's ever meet a debt ceiling they didn't raise?

    Never.

    Of course Democrats are a lousy opposition party and couldn't slow down the Reagan/Bush spending either.

  • CE||

    They talked about not raising it for a few weeks twice, before they caved.

  • ||

    Of course Democrats are a lousy opposition party and couldn't slow down the Reagan/Bush spending either.

    Despite their best efforts, of course. Remember when the Democrats stubbornly shut down the government to draw attention to the uninhibited free spending of those dastardly Republicans?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "In the long run, we're all out of office."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Speaking of defense spending, apparently the F35 program has had another minor setback. Don't worry, though, another hundred billion or so should set things right.

  • ||

    Hey, at least they caught the problem early, which was easy to do since the plane was in the air way ahead of schedule. Oh wait...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Once we get past the present emergency, which requires immediate new investments, we have to break that cycle of debt.

    "We have always been at war with Austeria."

  • Major Johnson||

    I can't figure out if R's are just D's with bibles or if D's are just R's without the bibles.

  • Doctor Whom||

    R's and D's just harp on different sections of the Bible. I know plenty of D's who shamelessly alternate between "No establishment of religion!" and "We must follow [my interpretation of] the Gospels on social welfare!"

  • Doctor Whom||

    To put it another way, Team Red and Team Blue both have large "God and government" contingents.

  • General Butt Naked||

    It's amazing how the deity can align with everybody's politics all at once. Must be one of the perks of omnipotence.

  • CE||

    He's helping everyone's football team at once too. Except Cleveland's.

  • ||

    +1 Last time

  • Rich||

    Fuck, yeah!

    /Marylin Manson

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    R's and D's just harp on different sections of the Bible.

    The latter seem to be quite fond of the first half of the "render unto Caesar" quote.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Posters here prefer Team Red even when presented with evidence that Clinton erased the deficit and Bush jacked up back up to trillion dollar levels.

    Yeah, okay, whatever.

  • CE||

    B. Clinton spent a lot less than GW Bush, and a lot less than B. Obama. If H. Clinton wants to go back to B. Clinton level spending, I'll even vote for her.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "We must follow [my interpretation of] the Gospels on social welfare!"

    MAGICAL LOAVES AND FISHES, FTW!

  • General Butt Naked||

    To be fair, and a bit bo-ish, the claim of jesus as some tough guy in love with american defense spending is equally, if not more, ridiculous.

  • ||

    MAGICAL LOAVES AND FISHES, FTW!

    The govt. ought to hand out amphetamines. It would end hunger and obesity at the same time.

  • Sevo||

    And I know just the Jung-Un to do so!

  • Loki||

    With the 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency

    Huh? What fucking austerity? You mean he considers ~$1 trillion deficits to be austerity?

    He keeps using that word, I do not think what he thinks it means.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Words don't mean anything anymore. They're simply props used for propaganda and semantic sophism.

  • wareagle||

    ...while abandoning a compromise proposal...

    whoa, whoa, whoa. The progtards keep telling me it's the Repubs who won't compromise. They wouldn't lie, would they?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    the claim of jesus as some tough guy in love with american defense spending is equally, if not more, ridiculous.

    KILL A COMMIE FOR CHRIST!

    That's right there in the Bible, you know.

  • Tooy22||

    Well we're heading off the cliff anyway. Why not put the pedal to the metal and go down in a blaze of reckless glory

  • Sevo||

    For the time required for a double-take, I thought this was Tony come to his senses.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    To spend at Obama levels requires manageable debt service.

    We'll have to see if the Chinese cooperate if and when they have a liquidity crisis. The Chinese purchased the complete production of new gold last year and reduced their purchase of Treasurys by 20%YOY. They might have plans.

  • ||

    Look, people, the deficit is all the way down to the level it was during the Bush years of the Iraq War, so what are we worried about?
    Time to go party!

  • ||

    Because we no longer regularly post $1 trillion deficits, we've got no reason not to spend more and more every year.

    The sad thing is the Dems are actually better then Shrike on this. At least the dems saw spending $1 trillion in deficits as a bad thing.

  • Will4Freedom||

    Was Clinton really that much of a fiscal conservative... or did he really raid the S.S. lockbox... or was there some other trick to the apparent surplus?

  • CE||

    Spending 2 trillion less per year than Obama helped.

  • iEagleHammer||

    Shhhhhhhhhh, don't ask questions.

  • Tony||

    Looks like Republican stubbornness on never ever raising taxes ever might end up saving Social Security. Nice job guys, thanks!

  • Mike M.||

    The republicans just compromised with Obama about a year ago and raised the top marginal tax rate back to where it was under Clinton, you scumbag.

  • Tony||

    But the explicit reason Obama is taking SS cuts "off the table" as a part of a fiscal deal is because Republicans won't offer tax hikes in exchange.

    Dogmatism tends to get you nowhere.

  • Mike M.||

    Again, the republicans just raised taxes a year ago, you lowlife gutter vermin.

  • Tony||

    Will they admit to that? Spending was also cut. That was another deal. This is the explicit trade that was on the table, I'm not making it up.

    If you ask me, even having a discussion about reducing the deficit is the Republicans winning. By refusing to address half of the balance sheet, they get nothing.

  • ||

    By refusing to address half of the balance sheet, they get nothing.

    Because, like magic, raising tax rates = MOAR REVENUE!

    Just like in business. You want MOAR PROFITS? Raise prices. Simple!

  • Tony||

    It's not magic, it's arithmetic. Taxes, unlike profits, are compulsory, as you well know.

  • KPres||

    Yeah, I'm sure SS cuts were ever on the table.

  • Brian||

    Maybe they should agree to this compromise:
    Raise the percentage of SS benefits which are taxable.

    It both raises taxes and cuts SS benefits.

    Win-win.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    $3 trillion in revenue is still able to cover social security. By a long shot.

  • OneOut||

    Tony
    "
    Looks like Republican stubbornness on never ever raising taxes ever might end up saving Social Security. Nice job guys, thanks!"

    I love listening to college students without a job or a family to support opine wise upon the need to raise taxes .

  • Winston||

    Nick Gillespie's predictive abilities:
    Obama's election will end centuries' worth of odious racial discourse in America

    So how's that libertarian moment going?

  • Mike M.||

    Reason will never admit in a million years just how utterly absurd that notion was.

    The saddest part is that if they had bothered to do even some cursory research into his background they would have known better.

  • DarrenM||

    No time for research. Deadlines to meet.

  • CE||

    Nothing left to cut.

  • DarrenM||

    Any institution that builds up too much debt will die. Sure, the U.S. can always print more money, but that will eventually end, too. I despise these people (not just politicians), regardless of political affiliation, who care only for themselves and are so busy rationalizing their own selfishness and short-sightedness. Many even believe with a childlike faith in the holiness of debt, ever more debt. Future generations will pay for our own failures in (at best) the form of a lower standard of living than they would otherwise have had.

  • ||

    Future generations will pay for our own failures in (at best) the form of a lower standard of living than they would otherwise have had.

    Not true: Obama, Kerry, Biden & Gore will save the planet for them.

  • DarrenM||

    If the U.S. prints money, we end up with inflation. Who gains in this environment? If it doesn't, we end up with unsustainable debt. Who will own this debt? Who will be able to leave the country more easily if they choose?

  • GW||

    Are we ever going to get past the myth of the Clinton surplus?

    IT. NEVER. FUCKING. HAPPENED.

  • ||

    Sure it did. You just have to remove 1/4 of federal outlays from the federal budget. Just because it was spent doesn't mean it was part of the budget!

    Gingrich also likes to fluff himself over the 90's "surpluses". It's worth mentioning for the sake of shreeek and Bo (but I repeat myself) that they aren't the "Gingrich surpluses" either - nobody gets credit for historical fiction.

  • ER Jones, Author||

    It's just like raising the minimum wage - employees will have more to spend and as a result, everyone gets richer. It's just magic! It doesn't matter where the money comes from - it grows on trees!

  • DrTacoPancake||

    Net interest as a percent of revenues escalates from 8% to 18% - Ouch!

    The feds are projected to spend $880 billion in 2024 servicing the national debt- F me in the A!

  • Will Nonya||

    So where was I during this period of austerity?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement