Why does Obama talk about "balance" when he does not believe "spending is a problem ?"

During the recent "negotiations" with Boehner,  B Hussein told the Speaker "there is no spending problem."  

Understand that he believes that wealth is a national treasure,  that it does not belong to any one individual,  unless that individual happens to be in leadership positions within the government,  or lives in Hollywood,  or expresses a hatred for America (when was the last time you heard Obama defend this country against the likes of Michael Moore,  or Al Gore,  or Dick Durban,  or any number of Hollywood types,  or members of the Congressional Black Caucus or Putin,  for that matter?).  

The chart is typical of our day,  with no one admitting to the TARP expenditure.  It is not on this chart, either in year 2008 or in 2009.  

Understand that somewhere between 7 trillion dollars and 24 trillion were funneled through the TARP legislation and there are plenty of articles on this subject,  confirming this charge.  Officially,  TARP was a 700 billion dollar bill.  It was passed into law to save the stock market,  which had lost nearly 800 points in a single 24 hour period of time in September of 2008.  The problem with the TARP rescue was this:  three months after TARP had been implemented,  the Market had fallen another 4,000 points  . . . .  so,  TARP did not do what we were told it would do,  and that was "stop the bleeding on Wall Street."  (This Midknight Review article will help you get started on your research concerning my "24 trillion" claim). 

At any rate,  back to the chart.  Without that pesky TARP thingy,  Bush's deficits averaged around 440 billion dollars per year.  The notion that he "spent money like a drunken sailor," could not be more misleading.  Obama,  by contrast,  has carried an average deficit of 1.3 trillion per year,  three times that of George Bush. Today,  under Obama,  we borrow 46 cents on every dollar budgeted.  Under Bush,  we borrowed around 15 cents per dollar spent. 

There are three economic functions that come into play when dealing with our national budget.  1) taxes or "revenues, 2) spending cuts,  3) and economic growth  (GDP).  Of the three,  economic growth may be the most important. If we had a GDP of 5% per month,  we could easily balance our books with modest tax increases and realistic spending cuts.  But our GPD has averaged less than 2% for most of the time Obama has been in office,  and ,  worse yet,  he could not care less as to the importance of this marker   . . . . . .   that is how untrained he is in the field of finance. 

While he brags about the Clinton economy,  his economy bears no similarity to those good times.  Why this was not an issue in the last presidential campaign,  I will never know.  But it is going to eat us alive,  if some in the Democrat Party will not help bring reality to the Oval Office.  

One thing for certain,  it is time for the GOP to stand firm.  They backed down on spending cuts and gave Obama what he wanted in tax revenues  (1.4 trillion dollars worth).  It is now time to deal with spending.