Oh good grief please don't tell me this guy is some snotty barrista typing leftist vomit into a laptop during his break. What has happened to our country?
During his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama promised the American people a "net spending cut."1 Instead, he signed a "stimulus" bill that spends $800 billion, and he has proposed a budget that would: Increase spending by $1 trillion over the next decade; Include an additional $250 billion placeholder for another financial bailout; Likely lead to a 12 percent increase in discretionary spending; Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over pre-recession levels; Raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade; Raise taxes for 3.2 million taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade; Call for a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) law despite offering a budget that would violate it by $3.4 trillion; Assume a rosy economic scenario that few economists anticipate; Leave permanent deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers; and Double the publicly held national debt to over $15 trillion ($12.5 trillion after inflation).2 Before the recession, federal spending totaled $24,000 per U.S. household. President Obama would hike it to $32,000 per household by 2019- an inflation-adjusted $8,000-per-household expansion of government. Even the steep tax increases planned for all taxpayers would not finance all of this spending: The President's budget would add trillions of dollars in new debt.[1][2] Yet, the President's budget may even understate future spending and deficits. It assumes that the temporary stimulus spending provisions will be allowed to expire and that the $634 billion down payment on universal health care will not be expanded. It proposes destructive income tax increases and a new cap-and-trade energy tax that could devastate the manufacturing sector. Yet, somehow, the budget assumes much faster economic growth than forecast by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Blue Chip Consensus. Overall, the President's budget represents a sharp break from the policies that created the most prosperous 25-year period in American economic history. Instead, it puts politicians in charge of an increasing portion of the economy. Congress should discard this tax-and-spend budget and start from scratch. Doubling Down on President Bush's Economic Policies President Obama has framed his budget as a break from the "failed policies" of the Bush Administration. Actually, his budget doubles down on President George W. Bush's borrow, spend, and bailout policies. For example: President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.[3] President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.[4] President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund. President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.[5] President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.[6] President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.[7] President Bush ran budget deficits averaging $300 billion annually. After harshly criticizing Bush's budget deficits, President Obama proposed a budget that would run deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers and the troops return home from Iraq. The President's tax policy is the only sharp break in economic policy. President Bush reduced taxes by approximately $2 trillion; President Obama has proposed raising taxes by $1.4 trillion. In doing so, President Obama has rejected the most successful Bush fiscal policy. In the 18 months following the 2003 tax rate cuts, economic growth rates doubled, the stock market surged 32 percent, and the economy created 1.8 million jobs, followed by 5.2 million more jobs in the next 27 months.[8] Not until the housing bubble burst several years later did the economy finally lose steam. Pro-growth lawmakers should embrace tax relief policies that have proven successful, while rejecting the runaway spending that has been business as usual in Washington. The Mythical "$2 Trillion in Savings" During his recent address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama previewed his budget by asserting that the Administration has "already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."[9] This is simply not true. His budget increases spending by $1 trillion over the next decade, which he attempts to offset by reclassifying as "savings" $1.4 trillion in tax increases and $1.5 trillion in reduced spending in Iraq. However, government savings have always referred to spending cuts that save taxpayer dollars, not tax increases that feed the government. Furthermore, the Iraq "savings" are measured against an implausible spending baseline that assumes a permanent $180 billion budget for the global war on terrorism, without any troop withdrawals through 2019. This is the equivalent of a family deciding to "save" $10,000 by first assuming an expensive vacation and then not taking it. Without these false savings, only the $1 trillion spending hike remains, and that does not account for the extra $250 billion proposed for another round of financial bailouts in the current fiscal year. Despite the claimed savings, this budget undeniably expands government. Before the recession, revenues were 18 percent of GDP and spending was 20 percent. After the recession, President Obama would maintain revenues slightly above 19 percent of GDP and spending at over 22 percent.[10] Thus, new tax revenues would finance new spending, rather than deficit reduction. President Obama's structural budget deficit would exceed President Bush's. The President also calls for bringing back the PAYGO statute, which existed from 1991 through 2002. Under this law, if the sum of a given year's entitlement or tax legislation expanded the budget deficit, an automatic across-the-board cut ("sequestration") in entitlement spending would be triggered at the end of the year. The President's PAYGO proposal lacks credibility because his own budget blueprint would violate PAYGO by $3.4 trillion over 10 years.[11] This disconnect between PAYGO rhetoric and reality is nothing new: Congress violated the 1991- 2002 PAYGO law by more than $700 billion and then enacted legislation cancelling every single sequestration that would have enforced the law.[12] Although Congress created its own PAYGO rule in 2007, it has waived it several times at a cost of $600 billion. Consequently, the President's PAYGO proposal should be considered a hollow gimmick that will be bypassed any time it proves inconvenient. Doubling the National Debt President Obama's pledge to halve the budget deficit by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The budget deficit will quadruple in 2009 to $1.75 trillion, and cutting that level in half would still leave deficits twice as high as under President Bush. Furthermore, three expected developments-the end of the recession, withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and phaseout of temporary stimulus spending- would halve the budget deficit by 2013. The President's budget shows deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers and the troops return home from Iraq.[13] That is not good enough. President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama's budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016- nearly double the amount accumulated under President Bush over the same number of years. Overall, the public debt level would double over the next decade to $15.4 trillion ($12.5 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars). (See Chart 1.) At 67 percent of GDP, this would constitute America's largest debt burden since immediately following World War II.[14] http://www.heritage.org/research/re...spending-taxes-and-doubling-the-national-debt
In terms of TARP, i am not a supporter by any means of any government bailouts, infact i would have preferred it never happened, because these shithead corporations have gotten a taste of welfare now and nothing will change. However even though i opposed it, it does not change the fact that TARP was a success, TARP paid for itself in the long run, it will cost us less then 100 billion, and the corporations involved, and their employess easily make that up on a yearly basis in terms of the taxes they pay.
Stimulus??? that alone was worth twice as much as any Bush era deficit. And lest you claim i am a hypocrite again, i think Bush was as big of a shithead as you are.
republicans got women the right to vote. Republicans got blacks the right to vote. And even so, a classical liberal defended freedom and insisted upon small government and big freedom. Your are confusing socialists and progressives with true liberalism. True conservatives wish to conserve the environment and understand that business has to pay for the environment they use up in order properly price goods and hence allocate resources efficiently. Todays liberals are big government fascists trying to take choices, liberty, freedom and money away from the people. If you really cared about liberalism you would be in favor of dismantling most of the federal government and sending choices back to the people and local govt. The feds should be protecting constitutional rights and providing for our defense and safety. They should not be telling us to pay for medical insurance and trying to run and interfere with every aspect of our lives.
Bullshit. No longer does anyone believe figures you cite. Nothing. You are completely full of shit. For now on you'll be treated as a spammer, nothing more.
No need to believe me, you can check for yourself. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009