RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
PEBO Talks Trillions for Deficit, Purely Positive Words for Panetta
January 06, 2009 3:20 PM
ABC News' Jake Tapper and Jennifer Duck Report: President-elect Barack Obama forecasted close to a trillion-dollar deficit and potentially more trillion-dollar deficits "for years to come" after meeting for the second day with his economic team in D.C.
"Peter Orszag now forecasts that, at the current course and speed, a trillion-dollar deficit will be here before we even start the next budget," Obama said at his transition headquarters. "... We're already looking at a trillion-dollar budget deficit or close to a trillion-dollar budget deficit, and that potentially we've got trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, even with the economic recovery that we are working on at this point."
Orzag was head of the Congressional Budget Office for the past two years and will serve as OMB director in the Obama administration.
The President-elect wouldn't give a dollar amount but explained "an extraordinary amount of money" will be invested in an economic package that will "jump-start our economy, save or create three million new jobs, mostly in the private sector, and lay a solid foundation for future growth."
He added, "I'm going to be willing to make some very difficult choices in how we get a handle on this deficit. That's what the American people are looking for."
"We are going to bring a long-overdue sense of responsibility and accountability to Washington," Obama vowed while promising to ban all earmarks in a recovery package. "We are going to stop talking about government reform, and we're actually going to start executing."
On the international front, Obama wouldn't confirm if former Congressman and Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta was his pick to head the CIA, but he gave a personal ringing endorsement of Panetta.
"I have the utmost respect for Leon Panetta. I think that he is one of the finest public servants that we have. He brings extraordinary management skills, great political savvy, an impeccable record of integrity," Obama said touting Panetta's resume and past experience of being "fully versed in international affairs, crisis management, and had to evaluate intelligence consistently on a day-to-day basis."
When asked about the violence in the Middle East, Obama reiterated there is one president at a time but he is "deeply concerned" about the conflict.
"In domestic policy, Democrats, Republicans, we can have arguments back and forth about what tax policies are going to be," he explained. "When it comes to international affairs, other countries are looking to see who speaks for America. Right now, President George Bush, as president of the United States, speaks on behalf of the U.S. government and the American people when it comes to international affairs."
The President-elect vowed to "engage effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflicts that exist in the Middle East" but not until after inauguration.
"On January 20th, you will be hearing directly from me and my opinions on this issue. Until then, my job is to monitor the situation and put together the best possible national security team so that we hit the ground running once we are responsible for national security issues."
-- Jake Tapper and Jennifer Duck
January 6, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (189)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Give the new guy a break. 'Right wing' Republican types on here try to demonize him - and it's complete hypocrisy given the Republican record.
America should have more intelligence.
Posted by: pefros | Jan 7, 2009 1:00:54 AM
DEFINITELY NO SURPRISE (read the post regarding Burris and Blagojevich)....
First Obama increases the deficit, then he'll promise to reduce it while running for another term...
Priceless ;).
Posted by: KeepDChange | Jan 7, 2009 12:59:22 AM
On the other hand, when George W. Bush took power in 2001 with a Republican majority in the House, the deficits immediately began to skyrocket and did not stop.
Posted by: pefros | Jan 7, 2009 12:57:58 AM
No, what I said is true. Clinton and a Democratic majority in both the house and the senate began reducing the size of the deficits reached by George HW Bush.
That is true. And that was clearly Clinton's stated goal. And he continued that with Republicans in the House.
Posted by: pefros | Jan 7, 2009 12:55:04 AM
See this is where you are blinded.
If you are apportioning credit that way then you would credit 103 with 87.1B in Surplus and the subsequent Republican Congress with 493.4B in deficit reduction.
Posted by: BertieW | Jan 7, 2009 12:46:24 AM
Give the new guy a break. 'Right wing' Republican types on here try to demonize him - and it's complete hypocrisy given the Republican record.
America should have more intelligence.
Posted by: pefros | Jan 7, 2009 12:39:10 AM
Bert I think it's worthwhile pointing out the during all of the George W. Bush gross overspending I list below . .. Republicans held the majority in the House and the Senate for most of that time, with a split of Senate in first term . ..
Here's how the Republicans ran the government then . ..
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
$421 Billion OVER BUDGET (2002)
$555 Billion OVER BUDGET (2003)
$596 Billion OVER BUDGET (2004)
$554 Billion OVER BUDGET (2005)
$574 Billion OVER BUDGET (2006)
This of course is RECORD overspending.
Posted by: pefros | Jan 7, 2009 12:35:39 AM
When Clinton began reducing the deficits after George HW Bush . ...
103 Congress
Democratic majority House and Senate
Posted by: pefros | Jan 7, 2009 12:27:29 AM
Start with why its now a good idea to have deficit spending many multiple times what you apparently deplore with a rubber stamp Congress funneling slush funds to their pay for play brethern.
Because you know that what is going to happen. On an unprecedented scale. We see with Blago, Rezko, Richardson, Longstreet etc. that as soon as these politicians has money funneling through their hands they find a way to get remunerated.
Posted by: BertieW | Jan 7, 2009 12:24:26 AM
When Jimmy Carter was reducing the deficits after Gerald Ford
95th congress
Democratic majority in Senate and the House
Posted by: pefros | Jan 7, 2009 12:24:03 AM
Okay, let's start with the lies -
109th Congress (George Bush deficits):
REPUBLICANS held a consistent majority in congress
(Jan 2005 - December 2006)
Posted by: pefros | Jan 7, 2009 12:14:24 AM
I fixed the table for you.
Deficit under Dem House and Senate
$77 Billion (1976)
Deficit under Dem House and Senate
$56 Billion (1979)
Deficit Dem House Rep Senate
$283 Billion (1985)
Deficit under Dem House and Senate
$432 Billion (1991)
Deficit under Rep House and Senate
$118 Billion (2000)
Deficit under Dem House Split Senate
$477 Billion (2006)
Posted by: BertieW | Jan 7, 2009 12:05:16 AM
Yeah, the Republicans have set the standard for overspending and they have no reason or right to be criticising Obama or the Democrats.
It's the Democrats turn. At least some of this money might make it into the health care, education of ordinary americans and improve the environmental industrial approach instead of lining the pockets of the friends of the Bush and Cheney crowd - big oil, bankers, military/industrial complex . ..
Posted by: pefros | Jan 6, 2009 11:57:21 PM
That doesnt make sense- Obama gets to blow money with no oversight because its fair?
Either you are endorsing all the past Republican actions or you are repudiating them, in which case since Obama is the ne plus ultra, you must disagree with him most of all.
Posted by: BertieW | Jan 6, 2009 11:51:47 PM
And having been so consistently greedy with their overspending of the public's money, the Republicans can now shut their mouths about Democratic spending in tough times.
Posted by: pefros | Jan 6, 2009 11:48:15 PM
Simply stating the facts about Republican and Democratic spending.
All the Republicans have ever done (if you review the figures) is grossly overspend.
Now it is the Democrats turn. Fair is fair. The Republicans cannot have all the greed.
Posted by: pefros | Jan 6, 2009 11:46:03 PM
But presumably you disagreed with it when the Republicans did it, so now you must super disagree when Obama is going to run multi-trillion dollar deficits.
That's what I took away from your table.
Posted by: BertieW | Jan 6, 2009 11:43:04 PM
"In every one of their governments the Republicans grossly increased the Government deficit. In every one of their governments, the Democrats reduced the level of the deficit.
And yet the Republicans repeatedly campaign on 'smaller government'.
Seems like it would only be fair for it now to be the Democrats turn, and the Republicans oughta hush up about it."
I'm saying this time the Democrats can (and will have to) do exactly what the Republicans consistently did previously. So no hypocrisy from the right wing Republican crowd.
Posted by: pefros | Jan 6, 2009 11:38:13 PM
"In every one of their governments, the Democrats reduced the level of the deficit."
Which policy you are disagreeing with? Is that what you are saying.
Posted by: BertieW | Jan 6, 2009 11:31:17 PM
bush destroyed this country well atleast teh poor and working class have been destroyed and that will cost trillions to rebuild. i hate it but obama is right after all teh money bush ahs wasted that should have went to we the people we will have to spend now double to bring us back. thats what you get with republicans running things.
Posted by: T | Jan 6, 2009 11:17:19 PM
Post a comment
