Thread: Gregg: U.S. could be on path to a 'banana republic' situation

This is the same man who President Obama had chosen to lead the Commerce Department. Gregg ultimately turned the appointment down over differences on policy. I wonder why.....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...lic-situation/

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A leading fiscal mind on Capitol Hill and a one-time Obama Cabinet pick sounded the alarm Sunday over the projected long-term financial challenges the country faces.

“This deficit is driven by us,” New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg candidly said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union when asked about the federal government’s projected $1.42 trillion operating deficit for the 2009 fiscal year.

“You talk about systemic risk. The systemic risk today is the Congress of the United States,“ the Ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, “that we’re creating these massive debts which we’re passing on to our children. We’re going to undermine fundamentally the quality of life for our children by doing this.”

“Now you can’t blame that on [former President] George [W.] Bush,” Greg said, noting that using the Obama administration’s projections the budget deficit for the next ten years is $1 trillion per year. And Gregg said that during the same ten-year period, public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product would increase from 40 percent - which Gregg called “tolerable but still too high” - up to 80 percent.

The figures, Gregg told King, “mean we’re basically on the path to a banana-republic-type of financial situation in this country. And you just can’t do that. You can’t keep running these [federal] programs out [into the future] and not paying for them. And you can’t keep throwing debt on top of debt.”

“Standards of living will drop if we keep this up,” Gregg also said.

After repeated promises from the White House that the final health care reform bill will be deficit neutral, Gregg said a Democratic plan to avoid otherwise automatic Medicare cuts without having a funding source for the projected expense of $250 billion over the next decade was “gamesmanship.”

Asked about criticism leveled Sunday by former Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania that Republicans were being obstructionist in the health care reform debate, Gregg replied, “Well, I suppose he has to call us something now that he’s left the party.”

Responding to the Democratic charge that the GOP is “the party of ‘no,’” Gregg pointed to Republican health care reform proposals including his own and another co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Tom Coburn and Sen. Richard Burr, as well as a bipartisan proposal put forward by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Robert Bennett (R-UT).”

Gregg said the versions of health care reform voted out of the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would amount to “a huge expansion of government.”

“You’re talking about taking the government and increasing it by $1-$2 trillion over the next ten years,” Gregg said. He added that he thought growing government at that rate would have a “very debilitating effect” on the overall economy and the ability of Americans to get health care in the future.

At one point earlier this year, Gregg, who is not seeking re-election to his Senate seat in 2010, was President Obama’s choice to head the Commerce Department. But the fiscal hawk removed himself from consideration because of differences with the new administration on several policy issues.

So we all get to dress like this? http://bananarepublic.gap.com/browse...on.do?cid=5343

Of course, once the Democratic President gets in office, the Republicans are up in arms about spending. When Bush was in office and spending like a drunken sailor, you never heard a peep from those nutjobs. Bush turned a 1999 CBO-projected $800 billion surplus this year into this $1.4 trillion deficit, only a fraction of which is a result of Obama's policies.

Originally Posted by [SWC

Erik Thorsen ]I'm deeply concerned with the current administrations lack of fiscal restraint. As a young person, I'm worried for my future in America. This is why we need to stop voting in these big government expansionist retards. We need to vote Libertarian and drop all this unnecessary bullshit from the federal level.

I disagree that they don't have fiscal restraint. For example, the Baucus version of the health care reform would cut the deficit by $81 billion over ten years. You're free to vote Libertarian, but I don't think "we" need to. I, for one, will never vote Libertarian.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Of course, once the Democratic President gets in office, the Republicans are up in arms about spending. When Bush was in office and spending like a drunken sailor, you never heard a peep from those nutjobs.

I am a registered Independent but am very conservative in my outlook and opinions. And for the record, there are many people that share the same ideas and ideals as I do who were just as pissed off about the spending during the previous administration. Sadly, this new administration is simply more of the same in terms of spending. It is just a different agenda that the dollars are going to. Ultimately, until the government (and by extension the people that vote the representatives into office) realizes that you cannot run a "household" forever when you spend more than you make this problem will never get better or go away. It will wind up costing the country dearly (more so than it already has). When individuals and businesses run under a loss or a deficit for too long, they generally end up losing their home and/or business. Why that seems like such a difficult concept to understand is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Alundil

I am a registered Independent but am very conservative in my outlook and opinions. And for the record, there are many people that share the same ideas and ideals as I do who were just as pissed off about the spending during the previous administration. Sadly, this new administration is simply more of the same in terms of spending. It is just a different agenda that the dollars are going to. Ultimately, until the government (and by extension the people that vote the representatives into office) realizes that you cannot run a "household" forever when you spend more than you make this problem will never get better or go away. It will wind up costing the country dearly (more so than it already has). When individuals and businesses run under a loss or a deficit for too long, they generally end up losing their home and/or business. Why that seems like such a difficult concept to understand is beyond me.

My post wasn't directed towards you personally, and I apologize if that wasn't clear. I was referring to Republican congress members, whether in the House or Senate. They were the one's silent during Bush and now are trying to raise a fuss, even though we are in the position we are now because of Bush.

Honestly, I say we reduce the roll of the federal government, regardless of which party "is in control". I'm not a fan of mass dependence on government, which is exactly where we are headed. Obama feels it's government's role to do everything for the people. If the people don't like it....then tough shit, they don't know what's best for them....

Whether it be a republican or democratic administration, anytime someone simply decides that if the American people disagree, they are racists, ignorant, or standing in the way of progress, I have a problem.

We are headed in a bad direction and lot of you don't say anything because CNN tells you it's ok. And you can talk about Bush all you want, Obama is president now, and you can't give him a "bail out" because you didn't like the previous administration.

Originally Posted by Consultant

The point is, if it was wrong under Bush (the waste and excessive spending, which it was - entirely and completely wrong), then it is wrong under Obama.

Enough of this chicken-shit finger pointing.

Well, I don't think Obama is spending excessively, and my problem with Bush's spending was he was increasing spending while at the same time giving out tax cuts to the wealthy. That is irresponsible beyond belief. And it's not fair to level criticism at Obama when the deficit is this high when it is the DIRECT RESULT of Bush's policies as to why we are in this mess. It's his fault, he deserves the finger-pointing and the blame. What you want Obama to do is the equivalent of trying to pull a U-turn with a semi while going 70mph.

Originally Posted by Consultant

As for your claims of an $81B deficit cut, I would contest that claim...and so would people who have read the bill and analyzed its language.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...an-2-trillion/

The CBO disagrees with you. I will trust the CBO over the Cato Institute and their wild speculation any day of the week.