Editor's notes: In 2008, H Obama promised to cut the Bush annual deficit by half. In the meanwhile, Obama tripled the annual debt outlay to 1.4 trillion dollars. Because of the highest tax rates in modern times, Obama's 2014 spending is at a six year low. It is this deficit number that Obama is now claiming as a promise kept.
Let's not forget that Obama's campaign promise was about cutting Bush's annual deficits in half, not his own inflated spending !!! 200 billion dollars (half of Bush's last year spending) would be a promised kept, not $486 billion.
I have complained about this shell game over the past several months. Finally, in the WaTimes article referenced below, its editor's note the decline in annual spending, $486 billion, down from a 1.4 trillion dollar average, while making this observation:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that this is a temporary lull and that the deficit storm will return in full fury next year, reaching $600 billion under the most realistic assumptions. The deficit will keep going up because the politicians won’t do anything about the entitlements that drive the deficit wider.
More and more spending is proceeding as though on autopilot. Obligations to programs like Social Security and various health insurance programs continue to rise, consuming an ever greater share of the available budget. Mandatory spending will grow four times as fast as discretionary spending . . . . . At some point, there must be a consensus decision by grown-ups that the government tries to do too much. The accountants at the Congressional Budget Office express this with the warning that America is on an “unsustainable fiscal path.” . . . . . Mr. Obama can’t crow about “deficit reduction” until he actually starts reducing the debt. You will want to finish this informative article, at the Washington Times, here.
While the Democrats have the audacity to complain about Bush's spending, Obama's spending, when charted on a comparative graph, makes Bush look like a J.V. player as to spending.
Under Bush, annual spending was 61 % of our annual GDP. Under Obama, we spend more than we produce, the comparison to the Bush era being 101% of GDP with no indication that Obama even understands what is happening in the world of finance. The Utopian theory that "all government spending is stimulus," and is always good, for that reason, is about to go up in smoke, and the recovery period will be the most painful in American history.
Systemic/fixed spending will be the death of this once great nation. Beginning next year, the annual deficits will begin increasing, once again. Only this time, the driving force will not be recession, but fixed spending obligations complicated by the passage of ObamaCare. Understand that Social Security owes itself 17 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, and, Medicare, 43 trillion. As a third federal program on the scale of SS and Medicare, ObamaCare promises unfunded liabilities of more than 30 trillion dollars within the next 20 years. That is why it is such a disaster.
The Obama/Pelosi claim that ObamaCare would reduce the national debt and add thousands of jobs to a growing and vibrant economy, was and is nothing short of political crap. Academia's Center of Financial Scatology is the heart and soul of the Utopian Movement that is the Modern Day Progressive Party, aka "Democratic Party." Out of touch and with no plan when we are all out of money . . . . that is the present day reality.
Time for a change of leadership and party influence. It is already too late to avoid the pain, but it might not be too late to avoid a national collapse.
Paul Krugman is, perhaps, the most partisan financial hack in American history. His support of macro-economics is a proven failure and his lack of support for American ideals and founding principles makes him part of the cabal I call "the enemy within." Still, his opinion is allowed in our comment line (only). Krugman's fantasy as to the leadership triumphs of H Obama has been substantively defeated on this blog.
ReplyDeleteI must counter the opening claim of Anonymous: there is not one lie presented in the above post. Obama's spending is well documented by his own government principles and his promises have been quantified in a 2008 book of campaign promises by H Obama and in my possession. While my prediction as to the accumulated cost of ObamaCare in the coming 20 years is just that, a prediction, that projection is based on the immoral costs/debt of SS and Medicare, two programs that are dwarfed in size, by ObamaCare. It is simply impossible for the SS and Medicare programs to have over-spent their combined obligations by a total of 60 trillion dollars, thus far, and run a balanced budget when it comes to ObamaCare. "Stupid silly" does not begin to catch this absurdity, yet, the anti-American Leftist community persists to make the case for this very scenario.
Krugman was not a fan of Obama. Smithson thinks he knows more about the US economy than a Nobel Laureate in Economics.
ReplyDeleteLet's have some more 'news' from WND.
Whats with "WND." Not a bad source, certainly better than that commie outlet we know as MSNBC. You do know that when you began your rant against WND, it was mentioned in the "discussion" of the an article, not as a source?
ReplyDeleteObama got a Nobel Prize for doing absolutely nothing, why not Krugman? As far as what I know, well, I know how to balance my budget, and, more importantly, I know that I HAVE to balance my budget. The former, Krugman could care less, the later he thinks is a silly, unnecessary function. at no level of life, does macro economics work. But with the Utopian crowd, it works when governments spend the money.
Referencing the Daily Beast article cited in the comments, above:
ReplyDeleteThe reader should know that it is as Left as anything used on this blog is Right.
Here is what I know about ObamaCare: First, is it a program that promises to be larger in scope and population than Medicare or Social Security and neither of those programs are solvent. The government has a proven record of malfeasance when it comes to the world of finance management. ObamaCare has not had time to go deeply in debt. It was set up to collect taxes for 4 full years before it began to spend money on payouts. More than this, the employer mandate has been postponed, which means ObamaCare will not be functioning at full throttle for another two to four years. Of course it will show a fairly stable circumstance. By 2030, we will see just how bad this program will be on the economy.
Every single major promise used to sell ObamaCare was and is a lie. No need to lie about a vibrant program.
The Daily Beast quotes "10 million" enrollees. The fact is the number is 8 million, with 4 million of these people enrolled into Medicare, which is NOT ObamaCare. In a NBC reports, approximately 700,000 folks are either illegals, have lied about their incomes, have been paid subsidies they must now pay back or have given bogus information as to their addresses and etc. In fact, the New York Times reported in April of 2014, " “The administration did not release two other crucial statistics that would help determine the success of the law: the number of people among the eight million who bought insurance for the first time and the number who paid for their premiums.”
Obama has postponed the employer mandate for two years now. And that involves 140 to 160 million policy holders. If ObamaCare was working as wonderfully as you claim, why haven't these people been forced into ObamaCare, as of this date? I mean it is working, right?
The promise was for a reduction of insurance premiums, a reduction of $2500 for a family of four. Did not happen. Why, if it is working as well as it should? My wife and I spent 10,000 dollars on health insurance, last year. No help from the government, here. None. At any rate - ObamaCare has signed up 4 million into the insurance program, another 4 million into Medicare and its total "private market" is just 16 million. The remaining 140/160 million are all on employer sponsored and doomed programs. Try to keep up, will you.
The posted article, above, was not sourced from World Net Daily. I doubt that I have used WND more than half a dozen times in the past year, but, it remains a far more reliable source of information than Media Matters, MSNBC or Raw Story. to each his own.
ReplyDeleteWhat is humorous about Anonymous' response is the use of "national wiki.org," as partisan a publication as anything it criticizes from the Right. The publication plagiarizes Wikipedia as a format for its own publication, pushes "guilt by association," and practices "ends over means." It is hardly an authoritative source. In fact, its use by Anonymous, above, is the frist time I have ever reviewed the publication.
ReplyDeleteUnderstand that nothing I publish in a main post goes unvetted. WND is further Right, than I am, but the few times I have named it as a source, the points published have been important considerations. Maybe Anonymous could review the articles I have posted for inaccurate information coming from WND. I would be interested to know his results. In the meantime, I will count his comments as sheer blow, and nothing more.