We’ve Already Spent $1 Billion an Hour* Obamanomics "A Way to Hell"

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


Yeah, Europe and EU, we know…Here. *Source here.

The solution to the excess spending that ‘got us into this mess’ in Obama’s words is–more excess spending on programs that will cost EVEN MORE in the future! He will DOUBLE the DEBT in the next 10 years that took from our founding to get to $8 trillion dollars. He’ll DOUBLE IT.
Listen, folks, we’ve got to pay debt service on that. That takes a chunk of our GDP. That’s money that could be used by us PRIVATELY. Obama worsens the situation with all the bail outs and then says he wants to take over businesses BEFORE they get into trouble. Do you know what really needs to happen to make sure businesses don’t get to that point? Don’t let the government bail them out. Don’t let the government force them into stupid economics tricks to give mortgages to people who can’t afford them. They weren’t doing that until GOVERNMENT told them to do it!
Heritage has a sobering take on this situation here. Here’s a quick hit:

Obama’s massive spending explosion will do nothing to create economic growth, but it will grow our federal deficit. Again, last night, President Barack Obama 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.

Finishing his opening remarks last night, Obama said: “At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It’s with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest.” There is no saving in Obama’s budget. Only an acceleration of the borrow and spend policies that got us where we are today.

Doubling the debt, quadrupling the deficit. This is fiscal responsibility? Where are those leftist deficit hawks who were squawking during G-4-3’s presidency? They’re now saying this plan is fiscally responsible. Did I miss something? Is crack now being served in the congressional dining hall or something?

As Ronald Reagan said of the recession at his inaugural in 1981, “in the present crisis, government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.” He was right then and he’s right now.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


16 thoughts on “We’ve Already Spent $1 Billion an Hour* Obamanomics "A Way to Hell"

  1. If Regan’s policies were so sound, then why did the debt go up so much during his term?

    Historically, the debt has gone up much more when Republican’s are in office then when Democrat’s are in office.

    The result of the last 8 years is a major clue that we need to change economic policies. Republicans controlled congress for the majority of Bush’s term.

    No, I don’t necessarily think that Obama’s policies are the correct ones, but the one thing he is very correct on, is that we need to try something different then what has been going on for the last 8 years.

    Do not confuse the majority of the non right, with the far left; and I will try not to confuse the majority of the non left with the far right. That way I won’t feel the need to make a statement like this:
    Where was the right when Bush was so significantly raising the national debt

    One thing that was not clear to me, when Reporters were asking questions last night, was how can a plan decrease the deficit in 4 years, and then cause it to suddenly go way up in 10 years?
    Are they planning that far out?
    If they can decrease the deficit, while building our economy, how could this cause the deficit to then go up again?
    What would be going on, in those years, after the debt goes down, to make it go up again?.
    Maybe someone can explain this too me.

    The plan is clearly to lower the deficit in 4 years, is it not?

    I saw we stop the plan at that point, the point after we have lowered the deficit, and then start a brand new plan.

  2. Eileen, during the Reagan years, Democrats controlled Congress while Reagan was a Republican, as you know.

    Along with the tax cuts were promises of spending cuts that never materialized. They got very spend happy when the increased revenue came in, much like Republicans in Congress did when the revenues increased under Bush.

    Cutting taxes to a reasonable rate always generates revenue and are supposed to include decreased spending. It seems our government can’t wait to spend that money when the increases come in.

    Could you explain just how any deficit can be cut in half when our indebtedness is increasing at the fastest rate in our history?

    We cannot borrow our way our way out of debt.

  3. Because Reagan lacked the power to take an axe to federal spending without convincing a pork-addicted Congress to join his crusade. Thus, he advocated sound policies but was unable to apply them to shrinking the debt because such was not a Constitutional power of the president.

    Well, Eileen, it is true that Obama wants to do something different than went on in the last 8 years (with Democrats cheerily lustily). Unfortunately, his approach can be compared to trying a mass charge over open ground with muzzle-loading firearms so he can claim to be doing something different than was done most recently. Yes, he is doing something different but his “something different” is reviving an approach that failed to a collassal degree in the past. Thus, under the heading of “something different”, he is merely trying a discredited approach because he’s convinced that if we do the same thing again, this time it’ll work. Didn’t Albert Einstein propose that doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is one definition of insanity?

    Also, you are correct that the result of the last 8 years is proof that we need to change economic policies–but that is not what’s happening. The economic policy of the last 8 years has been cutting taxes and overspending. The “new” approach is pumping up taxes, imposing economy-harming regulations, and overspending to a mind-numbing extreme. So Obama is trying the same old thing with the name “change” to convince those that didn’t know what the old policy actually was.

    There is a binary system, Eileen. There is the statist approach and the market approach. The Left likes the statist approach and the Right likes the market approach. Anything which is NOT the market approach is the statist approach to one degree or another. Thus, when you add all of the elements together, strictly speaking, the only difference between the “non-right” and the hard left is the degree to which they are statist. Nothing to the “left” of the market approach is anything other than statist.

    The answer to your question is that it sound incoherant because it is impossible to decrease spending while building the economy by using their approach. While it IS possible to accomplish both goals, their approach is not designed to do so. Thus, they will supposedly improve the economy while decreasing the deficit but then will experience increased deficits: they are using the approach that will result in their 10-year prediction for sure and possible result in their 4-year prediction in the sense of the economy enjoying a short uptick–but they have no plans to reduce the deficit, Obama’s speechifying notwithstanding.

    I agree, Eileen. I propose that we demand that the government wield a merciless axe until it has successfully killed any spending which is not constitutionally mandated under the most narrow interpretation of the text. Having gotten to that point, which will result in the government suddenly finding itself rich beyond imagination, the plan to keep it that way can commence.

  4. To the few Liberal Nut Jobs on this Blog, President George W. Bush INHERITEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
    The Dot Com Bubble from Slick Willie IN 2001 Rememberrrrr.

    Plus President George W. Bush had 9/11/01
    REMEMBERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

    He cut taxes and the Economy boomed in 1 year with a Republican Congress and it didn’t take 10 years like FDR or years and years like Nobama wants to do plus string things out for years and jam things through that don’t do anything for the Housing Crisis. Nancy Peloski and Comrades strangled the economy in 2007 when they unfortunately got back in power. No the moral of the Story, President Ronald Reagan was right
    Democrats aren’t the solution, Democrats are the problem.” He was right then and he’s right now.

    2009 2010 2012 looking good
    Restore total Republican rule in the White House, Senate, Congress, plus do the same in Oregon.

    GET THOSE DEMOCRAT PROBLEMS OUT OF THERE.

  5. Republican Congress. Democratic Congress. But wait, Bush did not veto a single bill, spending, or otherwise for the first 5 and 1/2 years of his presidence. Interesting.

  6. President Reagan always wanted the Line Item Veto. It’s a shame he never had it.

    PS: iago, President Bush should have had the Line item veto also. The Economy was fine the first 4 and 1/2 years of his presidency. The problem is when YOU A*********************** took over in 2007. AND YOUR F****************** Community Reinvestment Act and YOUR FANNIE and Freddie screwed the economy up. Liberal Obama Deadbeats in the Chicago and Detroit Area’s are so proud of Nobama (yes America that 8% of deadbeat Liberal homeowners live in the Chicago, Detroit
    Area’s predominantly) voters.

    2009-2010-2012 looking good.

    PPS: April 15th – TEA TIME

  7. President Bush presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation’s thorniest fiscal challenges.

    The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush’s tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans’ incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush 41.

    Bush and his aides are quick to point out that they oversaw 52 straight months of job growth in the middle of this decade, and that the economy expanded at a steady clip from 2003 to 2007. But economists, including some former advisers to Bush, say it increasingly looks as if the nation’s economic expansion was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets. Those booms, which the Bush administration encouraged with the idea of an “ownership society,” have proved unsustainable.

  8. It looks like the Clinton Era, had the best policy related to debt.
    Why is no one arguing that we should go back to those policies?

    Keith,
    You really can not believe that there are only 2 possible economic systems, and no possibility for a solution that merges ideas from both.
    Just look at the existing world, and how many different mixes exist.

    Sorry my question seemed incoherent to you, it was based on my own lack of understanding, related to the questions being asked of the president. What they seemed to be stating, about the budget, seemed completely illogical to me.

    Personally I think we should eliminate all tax deductions, except for one, based on a combination of family size and cost of living.
    Targeted tax deductions just give special interests something to push for.
    I have always considered the mortgage interest deduction unfair (even before my home was paid off).

    The biggest key to economic stimulus is employment, and a feeling that one will have future employment.
    I do believe, there are multiple value added activities, that need to be done, that people can be employed doing.
    There are a lot of such jobs, that are for services, for which it is the job of the government (local or federal) to provide.

    How about more police. We obviously do not have enough, we have neighborhoods that are not safe.
    If we took existing neighborhoods, and made them safe, the houses in these neighborhoods would go up in value, and maybe sell.

    How about more border patrol people?

    What about more medical staff to treat our veterans?

    What about more teachers, so we can have smaller classes in our schools?

    Yea, all of these jobs I mention are tax funded jobs. But at least it is buying stuff that has major benefit to society, instead of just inventing projects that will “supposedly” benefit the economy in some way.

    How about insuring that the money being spent, has some value independent of economic stimulus.
    Then allow the income from these new jobs, to trickle up to the private sector, as these people buy goods and services.

    As long as we are in debt, we should not be spending any money on
    – Art
    – Entertainment complexes (such as sports arenas and race tracks)
    – Charity beyond the basic needs (minimal shelter, food, minimal clothing, health care).
    We certainly should not be giving out charity to be spent on anything else.

    We should not bail out any private companies at all.
    Let them all go down.
    New ones will start up.
    IF these loans have the potential of being paid back, then why are private lenders not stepping up and loaning the money?
    If there is a shortage of money to be loaned, why does that not cause the interest rate on my savings to go up?

  9. It looks like the Clinton Era, had the best policy related to debt.
    Why is no one arguing that we should go back to those policies?

    Recall who was in control of Congress, Eileen, and you answered your own question.

  10. This begs the question: If a Republican Congress is to be given credit when there is a Democratic administration. Then why should it not take the blame for its activities during at least the first 6 years of a Republican administration. After all that was when the train was driven off the tracks.

    Never, ever discount the effect of the elective war and the gyrations outside of the budget to pay for it.

  11. wackie, we have been blaming RINO’s and other GOP members who left their conservative roots and began acting like Dmeocrats.

    When do you all begin blaming Democrats for their part in this mess?

  12. I tend to agree with Lew. We would have been far better off if Gore had been selected president and continued Clinton’s policies with a Republican Congress. With Gore as president, the Republicans would not have been so quick to abandon their conservative principles and go along with Bush’s spending spree.

  13. The neocons talked a good line. But when left to their own devices they quickly abandoned their principles and proceeded to clean out the treasury faster than any liberal could.

  14. Sorry Taylor, but you ignore that is was Republican George W. Bush that tried to impose regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 to ward off this current crisis. He was met with heavy opposition from Democrats who could only laud the “outstandin’ leadership of Mr. Franklin Raines,” who subsequently took millions in bonuses from the failing agencies before their meltdown.

    In case you forget, it was their meltdown and writing of so many Clinton mandated bad mortgages that brought this on.

    And once again, neo-coms refuse to admit any Democrat complicity at all, when their contribution to this mess is so apparent.

    Instead, they embrace Marxism, falsely thinking they will end up getting something for nothing.

    Iago, Gore would have been an even bigger disaster than the current phony puppet sitting holding the office.

    Sad to see how quickly these neo-coms are ready to give up their liberty for false empty promises of security and riches from Marxist Democrats.

    All the examples of the failures of Marxist Socialism in the world, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Viet Nam, North Korea and the failed Soviet Union and they rush headlong in to impose that failed system in the once free America.

    You neo-coms ready to install your “smart meters” so homey’s henchmen in the politburo can curtail your wasteful energy use?

    You can keep the change.

  15. Eileen, I did not say that there was no possibility of mixing the two although I do not believe that any level of statist policy beyond the most miniscule can produce a solution. Yes, I said that there are exactly two economic systems and I would invite you to present an economic system that neither relies on markets nor government control. I guarentee that if a economy is not based wholly on market forces, there is an element of statism (government control) in existance.

    As it does to me, Eileen. You and I, in this instance, agree that the statements on the budget make no sense.

    I agree; eliminate all deductions. Afterwards, impose a flat tax so deductions are not neccessary. A tax system designed to punish increased income requires deductions to balance out the governmental seizure of private assets.

    Again, you and I agree wholly, Eileen. There are certain functions which government is constitutionally obligated to provide and among those are police officers and firefighters.

    Did someone hijack Eileen’s account? You’re talking exactly like a free-market capitalist believer instead of the stanch believer in the wisdom of government regulators and bureaucrats. I think you’ve been temporarily shocked to your senses, m’dear. I’m proud of you. ^_~

Comments are closed.