Want to see something really scary?
Stop and think about this picture. Realize that Democrats – who are and have been demagogues in every sense of the word – repeatedly positioned themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility against Bush spending.
And then the moment they get the chance – from the very first nanosecond – they blow up the budget deficit the way terrorists blew up the World Trade Center towers.
And, before anyone object to the comparison to terrorism, let me clarify myself even further. Terrorists can only do so much damage. What Obama did to the federal budget dwarfs anything terrorists could have done to us. The commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation in history has declared total war on fiscal responsibility. It’s actually woefully inadequate to compare what Obama did to the budget to a mere terrorist attack.
The Heritage Foundation introduces the discussion this way:
President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.
Let me put it another way: Suppose I punch you in the mouth 100 times, sending you to the hospital on life support with a face that will never again be the same no matter how many reconstructive plastic surgeries you have. Would it make you feel better if I told you that – next time around – I’d only punch you in the mouth fifty times?
The man who exploded a nation’s debt in a way never before seen in the entire history of the human species is poising himself to take credit for his fiscal responsibility by only exploding it half as much as his initial nuclear blast. And we’re actually supposed to be grateful for it!
It needs to be mentioned that this is just the spending Obama has proposed in the first 6 months of his term along with the forecasted trends that spending will entail. It only stands to reason that the actual future spending will only increase, and these already truly terrifying numbers will only get worse over the next few years. We literally aint seen nothin’ yet.
The generally reliably liberal Washington Post has said this:
President Obama’s ambitious plans to cut middle-class taxes, overhaul health care and expand access to college would require massive borrowing over the next decade, leaving the nation mired far deeper in debt than the White House previously estimated, congressional budget analysts said yesterday.
In the first independent analysis of Obama’s budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obama’s policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after costly programs to ease the recession and stabilize the nation’s financial system have ended.
Tax collections, meanwhile, would lag well behind spending, producing huge annual budget deficits that would force the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade — $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his budget request just one month ago.
Although Obama would come close to meeting his goal of cutting in half the deficit he inherited by the end of his first term, the CBO predicts that deficits under his policies would exceed 4 percent of the overall economy over the next 10 years, a level White House budget director Peter R. Orszag yesterday acknowledged would “not be sustainable.”
The result, according to the CBO, would be an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 — double last year’s level — and threaten the nation’s financial stability.
“This clearly creates a scenario where the country’s going to go bankrupt. It’s almost that simple,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secretary. “One would hope these numbers would wake somebody up,” Gregg said.
Probably not, given that we are a ship of fools captained by the worst fool in American history.
You know what is interesting? Look at what the Democrats said against Bush’s – now in historical context against Obama’s - incredibly tiny deficits (you DO realize that Bush’s deficits virtually amount to a rounding error compared to Obama’s massive ocean of red ink, don’t you?). From the Left Coaster:
After the Congressional Budget Office officially issued the staggering news of $400+ billion deficits for this year and next, the Democratic candidates on the campaign trail in unison hit Bush hard today on his fiscal mismanagement. Several even got in some good lines while doing so. […]
Those figures prompted criticism from Democrats, such as Howard Dean, who has called for a repeal of Bush’s tax cuts. “The president has not only destroyed three million jobs, he is destroying the financial future of our children with these crazy tax cuts for the top 1 percent,” the former Vermont governor said in a telephone interview.
“It’s obvious this administration doesn’t have the slightest clue about how to get this economy back on track, get Americans back to work and get our nation’s finances under control,” said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who added, “it is time to admit what millions of unemployed Americans already know – that the economic policies of George W. Bush are the worst in our nation’s history.”
Said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut: “The tide of red ink is rising higher than ever before. And the best George W. Bush can do is ask the American people to hold their breath. That’s unfair to our kids and unacceptable for our economic health.”
John Edwards, a senator from North Carolina, said the record deficits indicate it’s time to say “enough of the unaffordable tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy … and enough of pretending that deficits just don’t matter.”
Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, cited the deficits as well as job losses as proof that the president’s “tax-cut economic policy is failing, it’s not helping ordinary taxpayers.” […]
But the best line of the day came from Bob Graham.
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, in a variation of a line from John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address, said Bush “is telling the world that Americans shall defer any price, unload any burden on our children, postpone any hardship for ourselves to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.” […]
There are three items from the CBPP analysis that should be in the Democrats’ line of attack next year: […]
In other words, two-thirds of the $10 trillion deterioration is a direct result of actions taken by George W. Bush. […]
If the Democrats cannot win an election on those issues, then frankly the country deserves what it gets. These are George Bush’s deficits, and the voters need to be reminded of that every day between now and next November.
For the record, unemployment was 4.4% in 2006 when Nancy Pelosi and Democrats took over the House and Harry Reid and Democrats took over the Senate. And the Dow was close to 12,000. But, apparently, total Democrat control of the House and the Senate somehow still never translated into any kind of Democrat responsibility for the slide that only began after they took power over Congress.
Democrats – being demagogues – repeatedly blamed the deficits on the Bush tax cuts (because it enrages them that the American people should be allowed to keep more of the money that they earn). But the reality is actually quite straightforward, as the Wall Street Journal evidences:
Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history.
Liberals cannot even allow for the possibility that tax cuts might generate more revenue. So – as the following New York Times article exemplifies – they must be perennially surprised when tax cuts create larger tax revenue by stimulating more investment. It simply astonishes liberals that if government allows me to keep more of what I produce, that I might be inspired to try to produce even more.
“For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.
On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.”
It wasn’t Bush’s tax cuts that created deficits; they clearly RAISED revenues, rather than lowered them. What created the deficits was massive spending (on 9/11, on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on Katrina, on the huge Bush Medicare drug benefit, etc. etc.).
Massive spending. You know, like Obama is doing now – ONLY A HELL OF A LOT WORSE THAN ANYONE IN HUMAN HISTORY HAS EVER EVEN CONTEMPLATED BEFORE.
But let’s put blame where blame belongs: Presidents are responsible for deficits. As Democrats repeatedly pointed out. Which is why any fair-minded Democrat (as though there actually were any) should be screaming in rage at the Obama insanity.
Now we see what massive hypocrites and incompetents Democrats truly are. They didn’t scream at Bush’s deficits because they wanted fiscal responsibility; they only demagogued an issue for rhetorical benefit. They falsely positioned themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility – which was a joke even before Barack Obama came along and demonstrated it for the sickest and most twisted joke ever told.
As a conservative, I DO criticize the huge deficits under George Bush. And I apply that same “fiscal responsibility” lens on Obama and see the worst economic manager in the history of the world.
Tags: $1.85 trillion, $9.3 trillion, bankrupt, borrowing, budget, Bush, CBO, Congressional Budget Office, deficit, Democrats, GDP, Heritage Foundation, historic levels, in billions, Obama, Republicans, revenues, tax collections, unemployment, unsustainable