Saturday, March 27, 2010

ObamaLegacy in Picture!

Deeeeeeeep River, our budget's under water,
Deeeeeeeep River Lord!
We're goin' to insolvency forever.....

HT: Gateway


J. Strupp said...

The 2009 projections were already bleak in Jan. of 2009. The revision is based off of a more optimistic view of tax receipts, which turned out to be much worse than expected (as was the unemployment rate).

The unfortunate thing about this blog post is that you know full well that the '09 deficits were, for the most part, going to occur whether we elected Obama or McCain or Mickey Mouse. The 2009 budget deficit was, by and large, an inherited number. You know it and I know it.

Dad29 said...

Yah, so?

That doesnt' explain Obamamamamama's NEXT budget, does it?

neomom said...

Umm... In case one has to remind some people. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives and be also passed by the Senate before being sent to the President for signature.

That would mean that Madame Pelosi's and Prince Harry's fingerprints are ALL over fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Actually, they never even passed a 2008 budget because they made GWB irrelavent his final year. It was all continuing spending measures until Obama could submit his wish list.

J. Strupp said...

Oh boy. Neomom. It wasn't a magical runaway spending spree by Congress or the President or anyone that created the spike in our deficit in 2009. It was a massive collapse in tax RECEIPTS from a collapse in employment and corporate profits as a result of the global financial crisis. This is just basic stuff here.

You have to read the data.

neomom said...

Yeah - that spike in spending from the last Bush budget of $2.9T to the current Obama budget of $3.8 doesn't have anything to do with it either, right?

I was born at night Strupp, but not last night.

Dad29 said...

What she said.

No question receipts were down.

But ObamaSpend is beyond all imagination.

J. Strupp said...

Nope sorry. The intention of this blog post and the chart attached is clear, which is that President Obama almost solely responsible for tripling the Federal budget deficit which is a simplistic argument. As I said before. This is misleading.

If you want argue that the Obama administration has carried over spending practices by the previous administrations in 2009, there's no question that this is the case. That is not the intent of this blog post, which is skewing actual data to fit a political agenda. Dadster knows this is true. Of course, the most I'm going to get out of him is acknowledging my point. I'll take it.

And it doesn't much matter anyway. Both of you have openly agreed that deficit spending in times of severe recession is just fine with you (albeit a different form of spending and on a much larger scale in the case of nuclear energy). If you're arguing against the TYPE of gov. spending here, then you're consistant. If you're complaining about deficits in general in 2009, then you're not.

Dad29 said...

Actually, my real concern is the projected deficits going through 2020 or so based on Obama's NEW budget submission.

And if you're trying to claim that "obama inherited this", you're also being disingenuous.

There's that "stimulus" plot (which has yet to do anything other than bail out the asses of our overlords.)

J. Strupp said...

I'm agree with you regarding long term deficits.

If you're referring to ARRA, most of the money spent thus far has been in the form of unemployment benefit extensions and tax cuts/credits.

If you're referring to TARP, it appears more and more likely the taxpayer will make a profit on the program.

Not sure who the bailed out group you refer to is.