Obama didn’t inherit these sobering deficits – he created them


From American Thinker:

Every single proposal from this President makes the budget outlook worse. Much worse. Unprecedented in peacetime worse. Third World basket case, debtor-nation, worse. Can we get anything from this man that is not a 1,000 page piece of legislation that costs $1 trillion and needs a new czar?
Let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that Obama was handed a terrible situation. He was made captain of a ship that was leaking and close to sinking. But instead of patching the leaks, he is taking an ax to everything. He says we can’t live with the status quo.
Can we please not save this country by destroying it?

Randall Hoven at American Thinker has boiled down the CBO budget estimates for Obama deficits for about the next 10 years. What Hoven tells us is that the deficit spending Obama and the Democrats are piling upon us is unprecedented….much worse than anything Reagan or Bush could have comprehended.

Do you get the size and endurance differences? Obama’s average will be worse than Reagan’s worst single year. Obama’s best will be worse than Bush’s worst single year. Obama’s average will, in fact, be worse than any year since 1930 except for World War II. That means unprecedented in peacetime.

Explain, you say? Let’s look at Obama:

Note a few things. First, Obama’s budget would more than double the long-term deficit, from $4.4 T to about $9.2 T, when estimated apples-to-apples. Secondly, the baseline estimate has gone up $2.7 T, or 61% just between June and August. Third, we do not have such an updated estimate for Obama’s budget.
If CBO would re-do its estimate for Obama’s budget like it did for the baseline case, we could expect the 2010-2019 cumulative deficit to be $12 T to $15 T if Obama gets his way — before Obamacare or Cap & Trade or anything else new.
Let’s be clear here. If Congress from here out does nothing but maintain the dreaded status quo, we are on an unsustainable budget path. A path of structural deficits never going below $500 B or 3% of GDP in any year from now on. A path that leaves us with a public debt of about 67% of GDP from 2011 on, or a level not seen since Truman was paying off World War II.
That’s the good news. The bad news is if Obama gets his way. If he does, essentially double everything: annual deficits more like $1 trillion or 6% of GDP every year. Debt held by the public will reach at least 80% of GDP, if not 90% or more.

Now to Reagan and Bush, both of whom are regularly impugned by the left… Both are accused of ballooning the deficit., when in reality the facts are that 8 months into his Presidency Obama is leaving them in the dust. How do they really compare?

In Reagan’s eight years, 1981-88, the deficit averaged 4.2% of GDP, with the worst year being 6.0%. Under George W. Bush, 2001-2008, the deficit averaged 2.0% of GDP, with the worst year being 3.6%.
Now let’s look at CBO’s forecast of Obama’s deficits for 2009-2016. The average deficit will be 6.3% of GDP, with a worst case of 13% and a best case of 3.9%. And these are the rosy predictions, the June predictions — before being updated in August as the baseline scenario was.

And it only gets worse under Obama:

What’s more, the numbers under Obama never get better. The picture doesn’t clear up with the end of this recession. The deficit will be 5.6% of GDP, and the public debt 82% of GDP (unprecedented in peacetime), in 2019. But again, those are the rosy numbers.
Obama’s budget is now being considered by Nancy Pelosi’s House and Harry Reid’s Senate. Do you think the tweaks they make to Obama’s budget will increase or decrease the deficit? Obama’s budget did not include health care reform. The health care bill currently being considered (H.R. 3200) was estimated to add $1 trillion to the 2010-2019 cumulative deficit, per the CBO.
Things were bad in 2008. What Obama did early ($787 B stimulus, $410 B reconciliation, $350 B TARP part II) made them worse. What he put in his February budget would make them even worse. What he proposed after that budget (health care reform with a public option, cap and trade emissions legislation) would make them yet worse again.

We are in an unsustainable territory and at this level our kids and grandkids have had the American Dream stolen from them before they’ve had the chance to take their stab at it.

These deficits, among other Obama-inducing catastrophes, are destroying our country…..doesn’t Obama know that? Or does he just not care? Or, perhaps it was part of the “hopenchange” plan along? Because, after all, “never let a crisis go to waste”!

Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. (This comment has been edited by Sharp Right Turn for bad language – SRT)

    While I didn’t really read much of this post, I find this sort of s&*t offensive. Obama is turning out to be a horrible president, but who can you blame for that? Bush.

    I didn’t vote for him, tho. I voted third party, as I have for some time. I dislike both of the ‘major’ parties, tho I was really hoping Ron Paul would get the nomination. Paul would have actually had a chance at winning the election. McCain wasn’t that bad, but his VP choice killed him in the election. People mock Edwards – rightly – but Palin was just as bad and said just as much idiotic s*&t as Edwards.

    But all that aside, if you’re bitching about how unconservative Obama is, well guess what: Obama isn’t a conservative. I find it illogical that anyone would elect a democrat and then get pissed off when he doesn’t practice fiscally conservative policy. Obviosuly you didn’t vote for him, but do you honestly think McCain would have been any better? McCain wanted to start a f^&king war with Russia not too long ago, and spent most of his campaign promising that we’d go after Iran. War isn’t cheap last time I checked.

    It IS odd that you don’t mention Clinton, who did a better job of balancing the budget than any of the last three “conservatives” who had the job, but that was a fluke, really.

    In all, I just wanted to point out what a moron you are for focusing on the two parties and contributing to that whole culture. There are more than two parties. If people like you would stop drinking the kool-aid and think for yourselves the country wouldn’t be going down the tubes right now.

    How about you write some articles about what positive things your party is doing, rather than focusing your “right wing” blog on the faults of the left wing. Focus on your own problems before you start bitching about the other guys, cause if you want to get any of your people elected you’ll have to do more than whine like a 5 year old that dropped his ice-cream.

    Not like I get anywhere convincing some third-rate blog author to open his eyes.

  2. Squiggly,
    For someone who is so easily offended, you don’t seem to have learned the art of inoffensive language. And for someone accusing everyone else of “whining”, that’s just about all you’ve done here.

    If you want a third party fine, but you haven’t refuted any of the facts about Obama’s deficits…and that is the point of this post.

    If you are upset because I’ve mentioned Bush and Reagan, well, Bush is the person that the Left is currently trying to blame Obama’s woes on….and they have consistently impugned Reagan since he was in office. Of course, I suppose, if you, Mr. Offensive Third Party Man, would rather have forgone the defense buildup of Reagan and lost the Cold War, that is certainly your choice, but most people America-loving people would not agree.

    Sure, Bush overspent and I wrote about it when I opposed the first bailout palooza last fall. Not happy about that track record at all. But even with 9-11, Katrina and two wars, Bush’s deficits didn’t come close to the one’s we currently are facing with Obama.

    I don’t intend to stop pointing out the failures of this President who falls on the opposite side of American interests and American people in almost every thing he does. Currently, there is a lot wrong with the “political class” at many levels, but whether you like it or not, the Democrat party has a stranglehold on all of us right now. And they are strangling our freedom and Constitution along with us.

    I suppose if I’m a third-rate blogger….then I must attract third-rate (or is that third-grade) readers….you certainly fit that bill.

  3. Squiggly –
    BTW – Clinton had a Republican Congress that set him straight on the budget from 1995-2000.

    Funny how YOU didn’t mention that.

  4. *sigh* Folks like Squiggly sure are proficient at keeping the ongoing partisan debates rooted in absurdity.

    Amidst all the antagonism and four-letter words, though, are some good points: if either of our current BS parties – as another blogger eloquently put, the mutant, retarded, Republican hyenas, and the spineless, ball-less Democratic slugs – are to ever enact real reform, there needs to be a legitimate third party in this country. It’s a sort of “political free market”: with the addition of a third party, the Dems and Reps will have to actually follow through on their campaign promises or risk losing power. As it is, victory goes to the party with the fewest mistakes every two years.

    And Palin is a scarily awful choice for the oval office.

    would rather have forgone the defense buildup of Reagan and lost the Cold War, that is certainly your choice, but most people America-loving people would not agree.

    This is completely wrong. Even overlooking the simple and irrefutable fact that it is inherently impossible to prove a negative (see: “the reason we haven’t had another terrorist attack against the US is because of the policies Bush put in place post-Sept 11”; see: “correlation is not causation”; see: “post hoc ergo propter hoc”), the USSR was riding an economy that was simply unsustainable. Given that – by the very name of the struggle – there was little in the way of “hot” combat that occurred between the two nation, our “win” was little more than our “still standing following the USSR’s self-destruction.”

    And what I then gather, is that anyone who disagrees with that point is, therefore, America-hating.

    the Democrat party has a stranglehold on all of us right now. And they are strangling our freedom and Constitution along with us.

    One thing I give the Republicans credit for that I many times wish the Democrats would emulate: they have an agenda, however appalling and anti-Constitutional it may be, and they ram it through what might otherwise be an uncooperative Congress. I certainly don’t agree with the policies of many of the Republican presidents, but they certainly got their policies pushed through. The Democrats, on the other hand, try to get everyone to like them and what they’re doing, and will practically sell their souls to this end, allowing their legislation to become diluted through compromise to the point of being utterly ineffective.

    The Republicans know how to play hardball. The Democrats still haven’t figured this out for themselves. The fact that health care still qualifies as a “debate” is proof in that regard; Republicans would have had legislation passed in early August.

  5. magsol,
    you said, ” And Palin is a scarily awful choice for the oval office.”

    As compared to Obama? that’s funny coming from the Left who supported:
    – an inexperienced “community organizer” with Marxist friends at every turn,
    – a man with an America-hating pastor,
    – a man with a record of infanticide,
    – a man who believe the Consititution has “negative” rights..meaning they interfere with his agenda,
    – a man with longitme ties and flush with campaign cash from the criminal organization ACORN, the SEIU, and other union thugs,
    – a man with NO executive experience.

    (Not to mention that Obama’s Marxist, Far Left, Terrorist-Coddling, Constitution thwarting power grabs have now been proven in action.)

    Especially compared to those traits, I can’t imagine what is so frightening about Palin unless it is her unapologetic love of America, her view of life, her self-made career, and her effect on the American people.

    you said,
    “irrefutable fact that it is inherently impossible to prove a negative”

    Funny how saying Reagan won the Cold War with a defense buildup is “trying to prove a negative” but your comment that “we were still standing following the USSR’s self-destruction” is just a fact in your mind. You can’t prove that negative.

    In addition, there was no “hot” combat (which really should have been a real positive for the Democrats – they hate military combat and all) largely because of Reagan’s strategy.

    But you have swallowed up the revisionist history of Reagan and the Cold War. For one thing, those in opposition to Reagan’s plan early on never stated that we should leave the USSR alone “because they will self destruct on their own”. No one believed that, or believed it would happen that quickly. That was a notion generated after the fact by those who couldn’t stand to give Reagan credit where deserved.

    In addition, the USSR did have economic woes, but many countries throughout history have had desperate economic woes, but they did not forgo their political basis because of it. Ronald Reagan wiped out the Communists and their empire without a single shot. While no one on the left will give Reagan the credit he deserves for his strategy, he knew, among other reasons, that a defense buildup would put a huge strain on the Soviets.
    —Not to mention that Reagan’s philosophy was to use the resources of a capitalist free society to bring a centralized Communist one to its knees. And it worked. A great example of Freedom trumps suppression.

    you said, “And what I then gather, is that anyone who disagrees with that point is, therefore, America-hating.”

    You are pretty sensitive when I mention America-loving citizens. But no person who loves this country would have wanted to lose the Cold War…nor would they have liked to see a President sit by and watch a Communist regime maybe or maybe not destroy itself ecomonically (but not politically), especially when that regime had a mighty military including nuclear weapons pointed in our direction.

    To wish that Reagan had not ended the Cold War and Communist threat as quickly as he did is simply incomprehensible and un-American. What lover of American freedom, democracy, liberty, capitalism and a free society would have wished otherwise?

    Of course, I know there are those on the Left, including the late Ted Kennedy, who wanted nothing more than to undermine Reagan’s efforts in the USSR. Kennedy actively tried to do so. It was unAmerican, Communist-coddling, self-advancing…all wrapped up in a likely case of treason.

    you said, “One thing I give the Republicans credit for that I many times wish the Democrats would emulate: they have an agenda”

    I agree wholeheartedly with your last two paragraphs except for one thing. Change Republicans to Democrats and vice versa and your words make sense.

    you said,” The fact that health care still qualifies as a “debate” is proof in that regard; Republicans would have had legislation passed in early August.”

    Healthcare is still a “debate” because the bill that a Democratic Congress and President tried to sneak through in a matter of a few weeks without reading or debate (just as they did with the Stimulus bill) was found out and the American people DO NOT LIKE IT. Republicans and Democratic citizens alike are loudly protesting the socialist government takeover of healthcare.

    I don’t have pity for a party (Dems) that hires their “protesters”, brings them in on buses flush with Obamacare advertising, and then hire union thugs to “police” the meetings.
    It’s happening and it’s appalling (your word).
    All of the thug tactics on healthcare are being used by the Democratic party, not the Republicans.

  6. As compared to Obama?

    Not in the least. She’s a scary choice, period. She and Mike Huckabee and folks along those lines honestly frighten me. Compare them to Obama, or Reagan, or Eisenhower, or Clinton, or just about anyone else – yes, even Bush – and they are more frightening to me than everyone else who has ever held office.

    her unapologetic love of America, her view of life, her self-made career, and her effect on the American people.

    I don’t doubt her love for America, nor her self-made career, or the effect she has on her supporters (hardly numerous enough to qualify as the American people at large). It’s her perspective and decision-making process that really frightens me. She perfectly emulates my previous two paragraphs above – where you suggested flipping Democrat with Republican and vice versa. She doesn’t wait for the opposition to pipe up with its opinion; she goes with what she believes is right, and damn the torpedoes. Which is also what Bush did, but she takes it to a whole new level. Hence her Barracuda nickname.

    Of course, not a single one of those items you mentioned are viable qualifications for the Presidency.

    Funny how saying Reagan won the Cold War with a defense buildup is “trying to prove a negative” but your comment that “we were still standing following the USSR’s self-destruction” is just a fact in your mind. You can’t prove that negative.

    This doesn’t make any sense at all. The negative you’re trying to prove is “without Reagan’s defense buildup, we would have lost the Cold War.” And the US was, in fact, still standing following the USSR’s implosion, hence why we “won” the war. I think the fact that we’re still here and the USSR isn’t is proof enough of my point, which wasn’t a negative.

    Furthermore, your assumption that my disapproval of Reagan’s buildup equates to a belief that we should have simply left the USSR alone is also incorrect (easy on the black-and-white interpretations). I think Reagan could have still won the war with a significantly reduced defense budget (a belief I still echo today, with our almost $700 billion defense bill, when the next closest department gets $70 billion…priorities?).

    Obviously, by my very same logic, I can’t prove that it would have worked. But given the USSR’s woes, and as you mentioned, our capitalistic strength, there’s a very good chance that putting a decent portion of that defense bill to improving the internal infrastructure would have yielded a much smaller (if not nonexistent) budget deficit in tandem with the same conclusion to the Cold War.

    You are pretty sensitive when I mention America-loving citizens.

    I’m sensitive because it seems whenever I disagree with a conservative, I’m labeled as anti-American, which to me seems entirely contradictory to the very principles upon which this country was founded. Of course I wouldn’t have wanted to lose the Cold War. Of course I didn’t want Reagan to simply ignore the USSR. And I sincerely doubt Sen. Kennedy was trying to “undermine” Reagan’s efforts so much as – maybe! – take a different approach to accomplish the same end.

    Healthcare is still a “debate” because the bill that a Democratic Congress and President tried to sneak through in a matter of a few weeks without reading or debate

    Everyone knew from Obama’s campaign that health care reform was at the top of his list; no mystery there. What has been mysterious are the changes the bill has undergone since hitting committee. Meanwhile, Republicans have been able to ram through appalling legislation like the Patriot Act (warrantless wiretapping? in America? really?) with nary a feeble objection.

    If the Democrats are somehow involved in hiring “protesters,” you can bet your bottom dollar the Republicans are right there beside them with their own mercenaries.

  7. magsol,
    “She doesn’t wait for the opposition to pipe up with its opinion; she goes with what she believes is right, and damn the torpedoes”

    So is Sarah Palin only supposed to act in “defense” mode only when a Democrat makes a speech? or someone opposes something? Or will you Lefties actually grant her the right to speak and believe what SHE believes is right, based on American principles?

    Besides, what you stated about “damn the torpedoes” is exactly the modus operandi of Obama and the Dems….
    Can you say budget reconciliation on the healthcare bill? Despite overwhelming public opposition to a government takeover of healthcare, the Dems are loudly touting a rare BUDGET process in order to defy “opposition”?

    “I think the fact that we’re still here and the USSR isn’t is proof enough of my point, which wasn’t a negative.”

    So we can’t make the assumption that the Cold War would not have ended as it did without Reagan’s efforts, but you can say that Reagan’s efforts made no difference? Interesting “objective” viewpoint.

    “Furthermore, your assumption that my disapproval of Reagan’s buildup equates to a belief that we should have simply left the USSR alone is also incorrect.”

    you said this in your earlier comments, “our “win” was little more than our “still standing following the USSR’s self-destruction.”

    If they were self-destructing and we “won” because of it in your view, I’m not seeing where you supported anything other than “let them self-destruct”.

    “I’m sensitive because it seems whenever I disagree with a conservative, I’m labeled as anti-American, which to me seems entirely contradictory to the very principles upon which this country was founded.”

    I don’t believe I called you anti-American. I do know that You can certainly disagree and no one wants to take that right away (except Obama if you disagree with him)
    But conservatives are the ones hugging the principles of our founders right now and holding on for dear life: freedom, liberty, life, small government, religious expression, free speech, etc.

    Liberals today are for:
    more government (healthcare, buying banks, education, etc.),
    abortion (no right to life),
    infanticide (death and no right to life after birth),
    gun control (2nd Amendment rights),
    Socialism (taking from one to give to another – liberty suppression),
    government making decisions for the individual (healthcare),
    freedom to produce and thrive (salary ceilings, massive taxation at every turn), and
    business over-regulation and takeovers (banks, car companies, energy production through “Cap and Tax”)

    —just to name a few.
    You’d be hard pressed to find a founder that would have stood for those big government, freedom-removing initiatives.

    What I think you find today is a lot of liberals who want to reshape America “in their own image”, not that of the founders….

    “Everyone knew from Obama’s campaign that health care reform was at the top of his list; no mystery there. What has been mysterious are the changes the bill has undergone since hitting committee.”

    Healthcare was well-known to be at the top of Obama’s agenda. But much of what Obama touted in the campaign, and even now, is not what is included in the plans under consideration.

    Yes, Obama talked about healthcare and declared we would get the same care that he and Congress do. (they are on private coverage with extensive benefits) Of course, Congress has voted NOT To partake of the debacle they wish to put over on us and Obama stated he wouldn’t include his family in it either.

    Obama said in the campaign, and boldy lying now, that you can keep your provider:
    The plans under consideration, as the non-partisan CBO has projected, will likely see large numbers of companies drop their plans for the less-expensive (to the company) government option. In addition, after 2013, there is no grandfathering or choice of another option but government option. If you don’t have it or lose your coverage, you MUST choose the government plan.
    Where is the “choice” in that?

    Did Obama tell everyone in the campaign that abortion would be tax-payer funded and that illegal immigrants would be included in the healthcare plan?
    Well, they are.

    Obama and Dems plan is not reform, but complete control of the system in the name of insuring about 10 million currently uninsured.
    Further, Republicans have a plan and many have touted other less disruptive solutions, but none of them have been considered by Obama or Dems.
    This is about control, not about health or care.

    “Patriot Act (warrantless wiretapping?”

    It is every lefties talking point to say that the mean “Bushie spied on Americans”. The facts are that, after 9-11, the Patriot Act was put in place to protect Americans. Suspected terrorists were wiretapped overseas. The American people were not subjected to secret wiretapping under the Patriot Act.
    Besides, is the intervention into our lives propose by Obama the result of a catastrophic attack on our country or just an effort at control of the American people? There is no comparison.

    “If the Democrats are somehow involved in hiring “protesters,” you can bet your bottom dollar the Republicans are right there beside them with their own mercenaries.”

    Now whose making assumptions? Where’s your proof?
    Conservatives and others against healthcare and over-taxation may use the internet and other tools for informing like-minded parties, but I challenge you to find anything that resembles the astroturfing of the Democrats.
    I’ve been to town halls and tea parties….the protesters were by all accounts citizens of this area, with self-made signs and no busses in sight.

    Democrats and union thugs are bussing people into towns where they don’t even live, they are instructing them on how to disrupt the events and not allow protesters to speak, sometimes becoming violent against those there to protest healthcare, and more. I’ve seen pictures and stories and videos of these very tactics. They are widespread on the internet.

  8. “Obama’s average will, in fact, be worse than any year since 1930 except for World War II. That means unprecedented in peacetime.”

    My question is, “Why is everyone calling this peace time?” Did everyone forget the 130,000 troops currently serving in Iraq AND the 4,300+ troops that were killed serving our country? Or better yet, how about I speak conservative language so you understand. Please don’t forget to read this VERY SLOWLY so you understand: How about the $800 billion dollars of US taxpayers money spent during the first half of 2009? And you call this “peacetime”? What a joke!

  9. […] to mention our disgust at the new power czar structure Obama has put in place; massive deficits, spending, and debt; Obama’s hypocritical flip-flop/credit-taking on the Iraq War success; Congress’ […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: