Obama and the budget

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Mav88, Apr 28, 2010.

  1. Mav88


    It's happening right before our eyes, and if you oppose it you are a racist. Dare say anything about this budget travesty and you are a right wing nut, welcome to the left's hell.

    How come nobody is asking why in a year of supposed 3% GDP growth we are not back to "Bush-like" deficits of $400B instead of the Obama deficits of $1.5T? Why do we need to borrow 10% GDP in order to obtain 3% GDP growth? The media is busy calling Obama a success, so they don't have time. Meanwhile economists and a lot of us are saying stimulus is not to credit:


    of course anybody with half their brain working knew that jacking up medicare was not a recipe for economic growth, but again the people worshipping Obama don't have a normally working brain. Ironically TARP, which belongs to Bush, turned out to be cheaper than thought and is credited with more success. Even though it should be south of $200B when done, which is now insignificant, I'm still not entirely sold. At least it is over, one and done. But that awful stimulus, it will stalk us a long long time. Again, why is it needed this year if things are going so well?

    Obama knows the budget is a problem, and in his typical dishonest fashion he distances himself from his own policy:


    oooo, he's so smart isn't he? Why he will suggest ways to rein in the budget. So let's get this straight, the asshat who suggested the huge new deficits in the first place will now suggest new ways to take care of the problems created by the old suggestions. People of lesser ability like hermit might be awed by such obvious sophistry, but the lack of liberal reaction suggests only one thing. They want much higher taxes but don't want to say it. Even when Obama has promised lower taxes on the middle class, smarter people know that can't happen now. He still won't say it, but almost all of us are gonna have to pay for his crap.

    Why higher taxes? Well you can cut military some (and I guarantee that will happen) but it can no longer solve the problem. Check out what happened between the 2010 budget and the 2008 budgets.


    deficit of $455B in FY2008, which includes the early part of the recession. No TARP until FY2009 but even if you want to chuck in the approximately $500B spent in late 2008, you are still sub $1T, compared to today's deficit of $1.5T. TARP was once, so what the hell is the extra $1T for. Well there are $300B less receipts (estimated), so that leaves $700B. DoD accounts for an increase of $40B, interest on the debt went down $100B I guess due to the nature of the financing and the rates.

    Well you guessed it, the other mandatory programs are up a whopping $500B, accounting for most of the $700B. To repeat, mandatory spending went up $500b in 2 years. Clever eh? Use the crisis, call it stimulus, then increase social welfare to eye poppping levels knowing that you have reined in so many voters that media won't call you out too much. Now it's no longer stimulus, it's simply mandatory social spending and if you try and cut it you will be called a cold hearted racist. Even if you throw in that unemployment costs went up ~100B, it's pretty bleak. I have more good news, another 30 million on the federal medical dole will only increase it along with the new health care bill (which does nothing to contain provider costs). Let's add in a wave of boomer retirements, huge unfunded future shortfalls in entitlements, wage compression from illegals and China, probably higher interest rates, and who knows what else... we just had 3 black swan events in the last 10 years. The ever lying and clueless democrats are projecting us to 90% debt/GDP under their plan assuming average economic conditions. This is true meaning of hope, you had better hope no more black swans show up.

    Watch the demos over the next few years blame banks and wars, obama will call a news conference about how he saved us $12 Billion in some meaningless way. Their hope is that you can't add, I've noticed that a lot of you cannot. Here's an example for you, just the increase in the social welfare budget could fund another military. I'll take Bush over this.
  2. Obama campaigned on "reducing budget deficits" (yet another of many, many lies). He then signs off on $3Trillion* in deficits during this 1st 14 months in office. Soon thereafter, he "appoints a commission" to make recommendations on how to control the deficits. (Couldn't he have done that BEFORE spending an additional $3Trillion?)


    If the Bush administration was a turd (and it was), then Obama's is a STEAMING PILE!

    * After deficits over our first 230 years, Obama comes along and increases the total by about 30% in only 14 months!
  3. Mav88


    The massive social welfare increases not only compound an existing problem, they were sneeked in under the guise of stimulus. Very very deceptive, and paying the nursing home bill has an ROI <1, so it actually degrades long term growth, not stimulates -especially when it is borrowed.

    I wish these fraking democrats would be just as urgent in raising taxes as they were to increase spending, at least people would get a better understanding of just what this means.

    As it stands right now, mandatory spending just about equals tax receipts, and the mandatory is all set to skyrocket more with the libs in charge. What a disaster.
  4. Lucrum


  5. Mav88


    That link is spot on, it perfectly illustrates the stupidity of people, and the cynicism if Obama. Obama jacks entitlements sky high, then tries to portray himself a fiscal conservative by touting some trivial cut.

    Thought experiment- if I were president and I slipped in a manned mission to mars for $30B a year (realistic) into stimulus, can you imagine the howls of outrage? But that's just rounding error in the social budget... yet $500B a year draws no attention at all from people on the left who are 'concerned', and if you really are concerned then you are a right wing wacko.

    Check out how the left characterizes the FY2011 proposal and insults your intelligence. Here's some drooling Obama hack:


    First note the title: President Obama's FY 2011 Federal Budget Lowers Taxes and Deficit

    It could very well have been "deficits still sky high, tax cuts are out of the question" but you know the drill- jack up spending then claim trivial cuts to prove you are responsible. love the serious looking picture of obama.

    an old clinton trick, create a commission to look like you are a serious non partisan deficit hawk. The commission will be ignored anyway but it makes for good politics. Really, why the commission? Because he knows damn well what he is doing and wants to hide it, as Emannuael said, the crisis was an opportunity to do things they had always dreamed of.

    Notice how he touts the cuts, but nobody is asking why in just 3 years time the deficit is triple what it was in 2008. feel better? the 2011 request has a reduced deficit at only $1.267T.

    More of the same drivel, a $20B savings! wow, again a hopelessly small number that is within the error bars of the total budget, but hailed as an achievment. "tough choices" ... these people are sick.

    As if you needed any more evidence of the mind numbing stupidity of Obama worshippers, the guy can't perform simple arithmetic. It's 25.06%, which is historically very high.

    We are screwed, the demos have figured out that their people will pay attention to small crap but can't get their mind around the big picture that really matters. People really believe now they are entitled to unlimited benefits while paying only fraction back in taxes. Those lettuce pickers from mexico are next in line. they will pay little taxes but draw enormous entitlements, but hell they will vote for democrats so who cares.
  6. Bush 2 doubled the national debt and Reagan almost tripled it

    Obama might match Bush but he wont triple the national debt like the King of spending Reagan

    Unlike Bush and Reagen,Obama came into office with massive deficits and 2 wars to pay for

    Obamas budget has to pay 400-500 billion a year in interest payments from the national debt,which was mostly run up by Reagan and Bush 2
  7. Mav88


    Still does not excuse an extra $700B on top of everything else. Bad argument anyway, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Interest_expense

    There is interest actually paid out yearly on the public portion, and there is interest on the intergovernmental debt, which is only an accounting entry for the imaginary trust funds. But in any event cost of servicing public debt went down 2008-2009 and 2008-2010, not up, so any attempts like that by demos to saddle Bush with blame for their huge deficit now is lying. Even if 2008-2010 debt servicing was constant, so what? That means Obama still has to explain away an extra $700B over the 08 deficit which also included debt servicing.

    Why do we need the extra $700B (before the health care bill even) spending in 2010 and 2011 when they are supposed to be years of growth? Why does a banking and debt crisis mean that medicare and medicaid should increase from $595B to $743B (25%) in 2 years? How come this is not really even noticed? Very deceptive and cynical liberal politics.

    As far as reagan tripling the debt, it's like trading- there is a big difference between tripling a $1000 account (reagan) and doubling a $100,000 account (obama). The absolute amounts matter a lot, and the absolute ending point matters a lot. To use that argument is disingenuous games with words like doubling and tripling in order to simply sound better to a dumb electorate. Also it should be noted that it is congress, not the president, that actually creates the spending bill. Reagan had a democratic congress, so does Obama. The last time we had a really conservative republican congress the deficit went down, remember that?

  8. During FY2008, the government also accrued a non-cash interest expense of $212 billion for intra-governmental debt, primarily the Social Security Trust Fund, for a total interest expense of $454 billion""

    Due to inflation Obamas numbers are bigger then Reagan's was in the 80's,but that fact remains that Reagan nearly tripled the national debt and Obama wont

    And again,Reagan didn't have 2 wars to pay for left to him from his predecessor and already massive deficits when he came into office
  9. Mav88


    Although you beautifully illustrate the itelectuall of void of liberals, since I already addressed this, I still would like you to not post in this thread anymore. really dude, if you can't read for understanding at anything beyond the 2nd grade level then just go away.

    I addressed that as well...

    To everyone else out there- I didn't have to wait long did I? This asshat immediately shouts out the slogans he learned at the 1st Pelosi Church of latter Day Leftists.

    it's so stupid... goes like this

    Q: Why do mandatory entitlements have to skyrocket in response to a credit crisis putting us hopelessly in debt?

    Liberal Answer: "BUSH, WARS! WARS! Reagan TRIPLING, BUSH BANKS!!!"

    Response: No, No wait, I'm asking just exactly why did social welfare spending have to explode in response to a credit crisis? We aready know Bush had large deficits, but why did you have to go and triple them by expanding social welfare spending so much?


    I expect nothing more from democratic leaders as well.
  10. I'll make it simple.The biggest presidential spenders in the last 50 years are Reagan and Bush
    #10     Apr 29, 2010