Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Obama Revolution: Paid for by the people.


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,206 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 28 February 2009 - 03:21 PM

In the closing weeks of last year's election campaign, we wrote that Democrats had in mind the most sweeping expansion of government in decades. Liberals clucked, but it turns out even we've been outbid. With yesterday's fiscal 2010 budget proposal, President Obama is attempting not merely to expand the role of the federal government but to put it in such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back.


The first point to understand is the sheer magnitude of federal spending built into this proposal. As the nearby chart shows, federal outlays will soar in fiscal 2009 to $4 trillion, or 27.7% of GDP, from $3 trillion or 21% of GDP in 2008, and 20% in 2007. This is higher as a share of the economy than any year since 1945, when the country was still mobilized for World War II. It is more spending by far than during the Vietnam War, or during the recessions of 1974-75 or 1981-82.


But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Obama is right that this spending is needed now to "jump-start" an economic recovery. Though the budget predicts that the economy will recover in 2010, spending will still be 24.1% of GDP that year, and the budget proposes that spending will remain higher than 22% for the entire next decade even as the defense budget steadily declines. All Presidential budgets predict spending will decline in the "out years," if only to give the illusion of spending restraint. Mr. Obama tries the same trick, but he is proposing so many new and expanded nondefense programs that his budgeteers can't get anywhere close even to Jimmy Carter spending levels.


These columns focus on spending, rather than deficits, because Milton Friedman taught us that spending represents the real future burden on taxpayers. Nonetheless, the 2009 budget deficit is estimated to be an eye-popping 12.7% of GDP, which once again dwarfs anything we've seen in the postwar era. The White House blueprint predicts that this will fall back down to 3.5% as soon as 2012, but this is based on assumptions about Washington that aren't going to happen.

Posted Image


For example, Mr. Obama's budget assumes that nearly all of the new stimulus spending will be temporary -- a fantasy. He also proposes to eliminate farm subsidies for those with annual sales of more than $500,000. This is a great idea, and long overdue. But has the President checked with Senators Kent Conrad (North Dakota) or Chuck Grassley (Iowa)? We hope we're wrong, but a White House that showed no interest in restraining Congress during the recent stimulus bacchanal isn't likely to stand athwart history to stop the agribusiness lobby.

The falling deficit also assumes the largest tax increase in U.S. history, starting in 2011 with the repeal of the Bush tax rates on incomes higher than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The White House says this will yield upwards of $1 trillion, if you choose to believe that tax rates don't affect taxpayer behavior.

In the real world, two of every three tax filers who fall into this income category are small business owners or investors, who are certainly capable of finding ways to invest that allow them to declare less taxable income. The real impact of this looming tax increase will be to cast further uncertainty over economic decisions and either slow or postpone the recovery. Ditto for the estimated $646 billion from a new cap-and-trade tax, which no one wants to call a tax but would give the political class vast new leverage over the private economy. (See here.)

Then there is Mr. Obama's plan for national health care. The White House has put a $634 billion place holder in the budget to pay for covering tens of millions of uninsured Americans with government subsidized coverage. But even advocates of this government plan say the cost will be closer to $1 trillion over 10 years, and probably much more. Meanwhile, the President is promising to reform entitlements, but his budget proposes a net increase of about $1 trillion in Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements.

The biggest illusion in this budget may be its optimistic economic forecast. The White House assumes that the economy will decline by only 1.2% this year, before growing by 3.2% next year. This assumes the recovery will begin later this year and gather steam quickly to return to normal levels of growth. By 2010 to 2013, the budget adds, the economy will be cooking by an average of 4% a year -- which is also how it conjures up magical deficit reduction.

This growth is a lovely thought, but how? The only impetus for growth in this budget comes from the government spending more money that it is taking out of the job-producing private economy. With $1 trillion of new entitlements, $1.4 trillion in new taxes, and $5 trillion in new debt, America's entrepreneurs aren't getting any help soon from Washington.

Democrats will want to rush all of this into law this year while Mr. Obama retains his honeymoon aura and they can blame the recession on George W. Bush. But Americans are only beginning to understand the magnitude of Mr. Obama's ambitions, and how much of their own income will be required to fulfill them. Republicans have an obligation to insist on a long and considerable debate on all of this, lest Americans discover in a year or two that they live in a very different country.



wall street journal


Obama is on his way to becoming the worst president this country has ever had...by far (if he hasnt already accomplished it), not to mention, he is definitely the most dangerous. he is single handedly detroying this country in every possible way.

Edited by venom, 28 February 2009 - 03:36 PM.


#2 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,779 posts

Posted 28 February 2009 - 08:56 PM

wall street journal


Obama is on his way to becoming the worst president this country has ever had...by far (if he hasnt already accomplished it), not to mention, he is definitely the most dangerous. he is single handedly detroying this country in every possible way.



That's funny so many people we're saying the exact same thing about someone else a couple months ago.

They'll start blaming Obama for the deficit in....3,2,1...

#3 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,206 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 01 March 2009 - 03:30 AM

That's funny so many people we're saying the exact same thing about someone else a couple months ago.

They'll start blaming Obama for the deficit in....3,2,1...


more like blaming obama for tripling the deficit...

#4 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 19,716 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 08:48 AM

lol


Don't know whats been funnier, watching morons defend BUsh for 8 years, or watching morons attack obama for trying to clean up the shit left on the rug by bush.

#5 MyDrunkardNC

MyDrunkardNC

    Nervous Farter

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 09:11 AM

Obama is on his way to becoming the worst president this country has ever had...by far (if he hasnt already accomplished it), not to mention, he is definitely the most dangerous. he is single handedly detroying this country in every possible way.


In its own way, it is quite an accomplishment to become the worst president in U.S. history in only about a month's time. I mean, just in December, the economy was in great shape and jobs were plentiful. Property values were skyrocketing and the other industrialized nations envied our health care system. It was absolute bliss. Damn you Obama! :shocked:

#6 Speed

Speed

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 09:26 AM

lol


, watching morons defend BUsh for 8 years, or watching morons .


WOW! "Morons". That's a pretty persuasive word. I am sure that will spark a lot of debate. Is that one of those college words. My complements on your brilliant comment.



mo⋅ron   /ˈmɔrɒn, ˈmoʊr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mawr-on, mohr-] Show IPA
–noun 1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
2. Psychology. a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.

#7 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,206 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 01 March 2009 - 12:16 PM

lol


Don't know whats been funnier, watching morons defend BUsh for 8 years, or watching morons attack obama for trying to clean up the sh*t left on the rug by bush.


the biggest negative aspect during bush's years is all the spending. The first 6 years of his presidency was spectacular. Bush accumulated double the revenue clinton did, and business' were able to thrive. It wasnt until 2006, where Bush became the "lame duck," due to the democrats taking over congress. Once this happened, the economic collapse began, lead by barney frank, and co.

"clean up poo?" zod, in all reality, you know nothing of politics and economics; you really havent a clue. if you did, your arguments wouldnt be so typical, and wouldnt be lacking substance.

the last time was we faced a recession to this magnitude was in 1982, and all it took was reagan cutting taxes to get us out of it...which then led to the most thriving 8 years in the nations history.

#8 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,206 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 01 March 2009 - 12:22 PM

In its own way, it is quite an accomplishment to become the worst president in U.S. history in only about a month's time. I mean, just in December, the economy was in great shape and jobs were plentiful. Property values were skyrocketing and the other industrialized nations envied our health care system. It was absolute bliss. Damn you Obama! :shocked:


it really is. in just 5 weeks Obama has successfully flipped this country upside, and obviously not in a good way. as for the rest of your statement...you're so out of touch with reality its embarassing. why dont you try being a little bit more typical?

#9 LiQuiD

LiQuiD

    Plumb Crazy

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 03:12 PM

lol
Don't know whats been funnier, watching morons defend BUsh for 8 years, or watching morons attack obama for trying to clean up the sh*t left on the rug by bush.


I would have to agree. It's easy to clean up 8 years of sh*t in 5 weeks. Right venom?

#10 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 15,676 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 02 March 2009 - 04:04 PM

What if obama is trying to clean up 8 years of sh*t with a sponge made of more sh*t?

#11 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,998 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 05:38 PM

The first 6 years of his presidency was spectacular.



Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home:

The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight

Gonna
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor:Tonight

Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone
Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night

While they:
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor:Tonight


-DK

#12 CarolinaSock

CarolinaSock

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 621 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 05:57 PM

the biggest negative aspect during bush's years is all the spending. The first 6 years of his presidency was spectacular. Bush accumulated double the revenue clinton did, and business' were able to thrive. It wasnt until 2006, where Bush became the "lame duck," due to the democrats taking over congress. Once this happened, the economic collapse began, lead by barney frank, and co.

"clean up sh*t?" zod, in all reality, you know nothing of politics and economics; you really havent a clue. if you did, your arguments wouldnt be so typical, and wouldnt be lacking substance.

the last time was we faced a recession to this magnitude was in 1982, and all it took was reagan cutting taxes to get us out of it...which then led to the most thriving 8 years in the nations history.


The national debt increased 133, 421, 555, 596, 554, and 574 billion in Bush's first 6 years. In what world is that spectacular?

#13 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,781 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 08:20 PM

Barney Frank must have blown a lot of guys to somehow singlehandedly bring down the nations banking system.

#14 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,206 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 02 March 2009 - 10:06 PM

The national debt increased 133, 421, 555, 596, 554, and 574 billion in Bush's first 6 years. In what world is that spectacular?


I have agreed that Bush's spending was out of control. However, under the Bush Tax Cuts business' were able to thrive and the economy had generated twice as much revenue as Clinton had during his tenure. Due to Bush's foreign policy and the passing of the Patriot Act, the CIA and FBI were able to prevent thousands of terrorist acts on US soil from happening, thus saving thousands of lives. And let's not forget about the liberation of the Iraqi people, freeing them from their own dictator who had killed thousands of his own people. I would say these are all good things, in light of Bush's bad spending habbit.

If anyone was irritated by Bush's spending habits, there is absolutely no reason for you to not be furious about Obama's spending frenzy. He is spending money that doesnt even exist yet. We dont have the money to pay for any of this. He's bankrupting the future for generations to come. Why can nobody see this.

#15 Panthro

Panthro

    Bunned

  • Moderators
  • 22,297 posts

Posted 02 March 2009 - 10:18 PM

I have agreed that Bush's spending was out of control. However, under the Bush Tax Cuts business' were able to thrive and the economy had generated twice as much revenue as Clinton had during his tenure. Due to Bush's foreign policy and the passing of the Patriot Act, the CIA and FBI were able to prevent thousands of terrorist acts on US soil from happening, thus saving thousands of lives. And let's not forget about the liberation of the Iraqi people, freeing them from their own dictator who had killed thousands of his own people. I would say these are all good things, in light of Bush's bad spending habbit.


I wonder how the "inventors of democracy" our founding fathers would have reacted to this...


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.