Haletown said:
Let's see . . . just off the top
300 - 400% increase in the US deficit, 3 budgets in a row . . . just for comparison purposes the Parliamentary Budget Officer in Canada figures Canada will have a deficit this fiscal of about $35 billion. Using the standard 10:1 conversion ratio, the US deficit, to be equivalent, would be $350 Billion. Obama just released a budget that calls for a deficit of $1.57 Trillion, that's trillion with a "T".
A direct comparison of Canadian and US budgets isn't really apt, though. Canada doesn't channel anywhere near as much money to defence as the US does, for example. Defence spending is a massive, massive contributor to the US deficit, and it is a very difficult political animal to tackle. Obama's budget did include some cuts to program spending, but without tackling the might military budget and trying to figure out further reforms to entitlement programs, which is a substantial undertaking, there's little room for him to move.
Remember, part of what forced up the US deficit was the Democratic Congress elected in 2006 forcing the Iraq War to be included in the budget instead of keeping it "off the books". Many on the right seem to like to claim that this means that the Dems caused the deficit. They didn't. They just forced it to be recognized.
Haletown said:
Obamacare . . . massive cost increases, massive paperwork burden on businesses, massive over regulation of health delivery services. Let there be Death Panels.
The CBO (which is non-partisan) disagrees with you on the cost increases, if you have a source countering them I'd be interested to see it. The paperwork burden on businesses, again, I think that's an inflated claim as well. Of course, my solution to that would be a single-payer system of some sort. Massive over-regulation? In what specific ways? And death panels? Are you serious? The closest thing to a death panel one faces in the US is the prospect of your private insurer rescinding your healthcare because their post-claim underwriters find some way to declare your condition "pre-existing". Incidentally, this happens primarily to people not in group plans - ie entrepreneurs, the engine that drives the economy. In the US there are some 119 million people who have such "pre-exisitng conditions" who would find themselves at risk of this. Since ACA ("Obamacare") passed, that's no longer going to be a risk.
Haletown said:
Unemployment - officially north of 9% but when you factor in the folks who have quite looking, probably in the 20% range
Well, that's how unemployment numbers are measured. That is the way it is - to be classified as unemployed you need to be actively seeking a job. We use the same methodology (basically) in Canada. The US job market is terrible, that's beyond question. The fact is that in order to get going, the US economy is going to have to fundamentally change, that's simply reality. The "green economy" concept, knowledge based industries, these are the things that will HAVE to lead the US economy forward, because the days of manufacturing in the US are gone. Those jobs have been exported overseas and they are not coming back. This is a challenge anyone in office would face, regardless of their party.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jan/21/judging-job-killing/ - interesting notes on some of the sillier GOP claims on "job killing"
Haletown said:
Real Estate market collapse - Obama refuses to reform Fanny & Freddy and the egregious race based laws requiring mortgage lenders to make loans to unqualified people.
Er, this is false. Obama's much-vilified financial reform bill actually deals with this, to an extent. "Race based laws" is a not-so-slight exaggeration of the "Equal Housing Lender" program, which was itself established to deal with egregious discrimination in the mortgage market. Both sides of the spectrum bear responsibility for the mess in the US mortgage markets, and more reforms are needed. One thing I'd like to see proposed to deal with the deficit is the end to mortgage interest deductibility in the US - but it, like the military, is political kryptonite. Not so long ago I read an interesting article, I think in The Economist, about all the policy efforts in the US to encourage home ownership - it contrasted them with Canada, which hasn't got things like deductibility and noted that home ownership rates in Canada are about the same.
Interestingly, as a Senator, Obama saw the problem on the horizon and sent a letter to the Treasury about it. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/08/barack-obama/obama-sounded-the-alarm-on-subprimes/
Haletown said:
Card Check legislation . . . so Unions can intimidate when they organize - really a pro business action that will make employers want to hire. Not.
I'm not a fan of Card Check (or unions, generally), but I think the impact of business of it is dramatically exaggerated. If you have some facts that suggest otherwise, let's see them.
Haletown said:
Unknown tens or hundreds billions wasted on boondoggle projects like High Speed Rail and useless Greenie Climate change projects.
Well, a lot of that money hasn't even been spent. As far as stimulus type projects go, infrastructure is generally where you want to spend the money, assuming that the projects are beneficial. A shining example exists in Halifax where under the grand "Economic Action Plan", Halifax spent inordinate amounts of money to build a highway underpass to nowhere that went way over budget and really makes no sense. Some of the rail projects seem to be that way and not all of them will go forward. That being said, there are examples (like Amtrak's Acela service on the Northeast Corridor) of rail service being profitable, more fuel/energy efficient etc. One would have to look at the projects on a case-by-case basis, but there certainly seems to be an argument for some of the projects anyhow. As for your comment about climate change, I will simply say that amongst the scientific community there is about as much dissent about the realities of climate change being an issue as there is about the theory of evolution: pretty much none. Therefore, I am fine with investing in technologies that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (especially petroleum, but also coal - moreso coal in some ways because it's such an environmental nightmare even ignoring CO2). I'll further tie this back to the point above that development of such technologies will probably be vital for the US economy to adapt to the changing world. There's big market for them, after all.
Haletown said:
The only good news for Americans is he doesn't control the American purse strings anymore . . . the Republicans do and they can and appear to be slowing down the Democrats/Obama's spendthrift ways.
Really? Again I ask, in what tangible ways have they done anything meaningful about spending so far? Or about job creation? Or about the economy in general?
Haletown said:
Look, I get you like the guy and his policies. I don't dislike him - I think he is a very slick sales guy for what he believes in. But his policies aren't working and they'll never work, just like they didn't work in Greece.
Actually, I'm fairly ambivalent about the guy. I think his policies are better than the ruinous policies of the last administration. But they don't go nearly far enough, the USA has to accept some very, very tough realities that both parties seem content to ignore. I don't get the comparison to Greece, because, well, Greece is nothing like the USA - the problems it faced, and the roots thereof, have little similarity.
Haletown said:
Borrowing your way to prosperity?
Un huh.
Well, that's been the Republicans' plan as much as anyone else's - and look what they blew the money they borrowed on.