Subscribe by RSS
For years now, and rightly so, many have criticized the Bush administration for obscene out of control spending at the federal level. Liberal democrats have spent many nights weeping over the deficit and the cost of the Iraq war.
However, the fact of the matter is that it’s now evident that Bush’s spending could fit in a thimble compared to Obama’s unheard of spending plans in the budget.
Here’s a little graph illustrating the absurdity:
USAToday examines the historically massive budget and the ramidications it will have for Americans:
WASHINGTON — This is change, whether you believe in it or not. And not just pocket change.Following through on many of his campaign promises, President Obama wants to spend about $3.6 trillion next year to pull the nation out of recession and begin major new initiatives in health care, energy and education.
All that and more is contained in a 134-page budget request for 2010 and beyond that is unprecedented in size, breathtaking in scope and sure to have a major impact on millions of Americans — if he can get much of it through Congress.
It’s a budget plan that would help the young by increasing their chances of getting a college education and the poor by providing funds for health insurance. It seeks to clean the air and reduce the USA’s dependence on foreign oil. It would cut taxes on low- and middle-income Americans while raising them, starting in 2011, on couples who make at least $250,000 a year.
All this would come at a price to be paid by in the future: annual deficits of at least $500 billion, and a federal debt that would reach $23 trillion in a decade.
Like Ronald Reagan for Republicans 28 years ago, the new Democratic president is staking out his party’s position on spending and taxes. Whereas Reagan sought to limit government, Obama wants to expand its reach. And he’s determined to tackle the nation’s most pressing issues, despite setbacks suffered by fellow Democrats Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter in similar efforts.
“These are extraordinary times,” Obama senior adviser David Axelrod says. “We’re not in a position to think incrementally in terms of recovery, in terms of financial stability.”
The most jarring difference is with the last eight years — a period in which George W. Bush focused on sweeping tax cuts and spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“If anyone disputes the fact that elections can make a difference, all you have to do is look at the budget,” says Thomas Mann, a political scholar at the Brookings Institution. The differences between Obama and Bush, he says, are “day and night.”
I have seen some people scoff at Republican criticism of Obama’s spending by pointing to Bush’s spending in the past 8 years. That might be valid if Obama wasn’t spending off the chart. You may have heard this, but you could have spent a million dollars a day from the birth of Christ and still not spend as much as Obama has spent in the last 20 days. Imagine that.
Visit the You Decide Politics Store »
Loading ...
What this piece says is true if you assume that Obama’s spending since he took office will be his average spending for any given 39 days of his administration’s presidency. That’s clearly the opinion of the author.
Personally I think this bill is simply one of Obama’s highest priorities, not indicative of what his average monthly spending will be. But I guess we’ll see.
If Obama’s spending turns out to be more responsible than Bush’s, will there be anything on this site commending him for it?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahah oh man, something good about a democratic president. That’d be the day, right? Maybe I’d better check on a site that doesn’t live and breath RNC propaganda.
The comical thing is your believing your own lies, “If Obama’s spending turns out to be more responsible than Bush’s”. The man has spent more money in his first month then any other president in history. Your point is not valid and anyone NOT watching MSNBC knows this. Wake up!
“If Obama’s spending turns out to be more responsible than Bush’s, will there be anything on this site commending him for it?”
If that happens I will congratulate Obama. However, when you double the deficit and national debt in the first 20 days, then pledge to cut it in half in 4 years bringing it back to the level it was when you took it over, I think it’s safe to say that day will never come.
Obama’s spending is a socialist dream, it’s unsustainable beyond anything Bush could have imagined. Open your brain for a second and stop buying the Obama propaganda.
Ditto. It will take Obama four years just to undo his explosive spending back to the level of the out of control Bush spending. That’s just boring another hole in the boat, and then trying to bail it out with the same size bucket Bush had.
Let me get this straight… you are upset because when Obama cuts the deficit in half he will have just reduced it to cover his Policies.
So essentially you are saying that he is covering the cost of his program. Also, known as PAY as you Go. But you are upset because it still will not touch what Bush has done. Man, wouldn’t it have been cool if Bush could have done the same thing.
If he does pull off the “pay as you go,” it will be a miracle of economics.
The point is that he is claiming to be doing something amazing like halving the deficit. He’s not telling you truthfully that all he is doing is trying to compensate for his own massive spending. He’s not touching Bush’s deficit, he’s just trying to cover his massive spending bill.
That’s like me taking up smoking for the intent purpose of giving it up next week so I can tell everyone I successfully quit smoking. It’s slight of hand and yet they’re selling it as fiscal responsibility despite factual evidence to the opposite.
If Obama said honestly – I’m about to explode spending in Washington, but I promise not to do it next year, that would be accurate. But it still leaves us in the recession and deficit mess we’re in now. No progress.