Obama: Planning to Spend Us Into Oblivion and Lie About It
Democrats love to talk about how fiscally irresponsible Bush was — and he was. But riddle me this, Batman: did Democrats seek to spend less or more than Republicans during the Bush years?
And does Obama plan to spend less? Or more? Let’s look at a front-page Washington Post article from this morning’s paper:
[Obama’s] plan would produce annual deficits far larger in dollar terms than any recorded before the recession. As a percentage of the overall economy, the budget gap is projected to settle down to a more manageable 3 percent by the end of Obama’s term. But Washington would continue to borrow heavily, and the national debt would double over the next five years.
Even an anonymous Democrat says we haven’t seen taxing and spending like this for a while:
“Folks are a little skittish. It’s asking a lot,” a senior Democratic aide said. “This is a tax-and-spend budget the likes of which we haven’t seen in years.”
OK, so he’s spending us all into oblivion. We knew that. But this article is at its masterful best when it’s debunking Obama’s recent ridiculous claim that he plans to save us all $2 trillion over 10 years:
In his radio talk, Obama did not address the charge that his plans are simply too expensive. But he reasserted his commitment to fiscal discipline, saying his budget team has “identified $2 trillion worth of deficit reductions over the next decade” by scouring the budget “line by line” for wasteful and inefficient programs.
If your bullshit meter isn’t already slamming the needle into the red zone, read on:
Obama first made that claim in his address to Congress on Tuesday. But administration officials have since acknowledged that his budget plan does not contain $2 trillion in spending cuts. It includes $1.5 trillion in “savings” generated by comparing Obama’s plan to wind down the war in Iraq against a scenario many consider unrealistic — one in which war spending consumes more than $200 billion a year for much of the next decade. Because Obama wouldn’t be borrowing to pay for a war that costly, he also says he would save more than $300 billion in interest on the national debt.
The claim of $2 trillion in savings is “easily blown apart,” said Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group, and one of several deficit hawks briefed on the plan by White House budget director Peter R. Orszag.
Nice job by the WaPo, one of the few Big Media newspapers that I really trust. Too bad most of this stuff is going to end up on the back pages . . .
But administration officials have since acknowledged that his budget plan does not contain $2 trillion in spending cuts. It includes $1.5 trillion in “savings” generated by comparing Obama’s plan to wind down the war in Iraq against a scenario many consider unrealistic — one in which war spending consumes more than $200 billion a year for much of the next decade.
Fantasy accounting for Democrats: Due to Obama’s wise budget cuts, over the next 10 years Obama “saves” $200 trillion compared to as if the USA was still fighting WWII – which it isn’t. But still, the budget savings from not fighting a war that ended decades ago demonstrates Obama’s insightful leadership.
Perfect Sense (0922fa) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:52 amI think it all boils down to this: If most economists agree that spending the amount of money that Obama is spending is unhealthy for the long-term well-being of our nation, then Republicans have a point.
Merely saying, “Obama is spending x trillion” won’t sway Americans into voting Republican. Context is needed.
andrew (96ab30) — 3/1/2009 @ 5:26 amAndrew – what context do you require that Patterico did not provide?
JD (a71690) — 3/1/2009 @ 5:59 amEconomists’ opinions are needed. That’s the context.
andrew (96ab30) — 3/1/2009 @ 6:26 amHere you go, Andrew. Have some context.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/1/2009 @ 6:33 amGod I hope this works, God help us if it doesn’t.
The Obama water carriers scare me more today than they did before Nov 5. It must be nice to see the world as they’d like it to be, not as it is. Ignorance must truly be bliss.
Dan F (3f626c) — 3/1/2009 @ 6:42 am“Of all the strange things that have happened this winter, perhaps the strangest has been the emergence of large-scale Republican Party opposition to the Obama administration’s effort to keep American unemployment from jumping to 10% or higher. There is no doubt that had John McCain won the presidential election last November, a very similar deficit-spending stimulus package to the Obama plan – perhaps with more tax cuts and fewer spending increases would have moved through Congress with unanimous Republican support.
As N. Gregory Mankiw said of a stimulus package back in 2003, when he was President George W. Bush’s chief economic advisor, this is not rocket science. Deficit spending in a recession, he said, ‘help[s] maintain the aggregate demand for goods and services. There is nothing novel about this. It is very conventional short-run stabilization policy: you can find it in all of the leading textbooks…’ ”
Amazing that you can’t tell wasteful spending from investment.
P. Favor (62b020) — 3/1/2009 @ 7:12 amI wouldn’t trust anyone to run a company on your logic.
#7. Dan F:
Were that the case, wouldn’t conservatives as a rule be unhappier than lefties?
Nah, I’m thinking that ignorance leads to insecurity and delusional paranoia, as typified by the Left. And projection. Huge, huge amounts of projection.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 3/1/2009 @ 7:14 amExcept we weren’t in a recession in 2003. The dot-com bubble recession ended in the 3Qtr. 2001.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/
Techie (6b5d8d) — 3/1/2009 @ 7:21 am#8
Were that the case, wouldn’t conservatives as a rule be unhappier than lefties?
Hmm, I cant say that I am unhappy, but I can say I am deeply fucking concerned. I understand YOU, I cant say I understand what goes on inside the head of a liberal, except that a dose of Xanax seems to help them.
Dan F (3f626c) — 3/1/2009 @ 7:28 amI just saw Wallace interviewing the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff this morning, who finally admitted (after much hemming and hawing) that he never submitted a military budget past 2010. Which means he’s directly contradicted Obama’s claim of saving “billions each year” by cutting the military budget “into 2018.” What a brazen liar this guy is.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 8:32 amHe might have had a case if the war had cost as much as $200 billion in a single year so far, but it hasn’t. From an anti-war site, the total cost, to date is about $640 billion, for a war that started in March of 2003, just a shade under six years ago. The Bush Administration’s FY2008 funding request for the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan was $190 billion.
Oh, but wait, perhaps President Obama is planning to
The Dana who knows how to look up things (556f76) — 3/1/2009 @ 8:48 amsurrender inwithdraw from Afghanistan, too.Por favor has swallowed the new Leftist canard that any spending is stimulus.
Baracky’s idea of finding savings is similar to his plan to create “or save” jobs. In honor of same, I was going to fire 10 por favors, but today, I will only fire 1.
Por favor, you are fired.
JD (0d1f38) — 3/1/2009 @ 8:51 amDeficit spending for the war was illegal, unhealthy, and destructive under Bush. All $640,000,000,000 of it. So, to fix it, por favor and Baracky was to spend more one the first stimulus bill than on the entire war to date. But that is not enough, they plan on going even further with $1,750,000,000,000 in deficits going forward, assuming we are to believe any of the numbers presented.
JD (0d1f38) — 3/1/2009 @ 8:58 amOh, but wait, perhaps President Obama is planning to surrender in withdraw from Afghanistan, too.
Don’t laugh – wait until a few body bags come home, then he’ll cut and run faster than Carter. Feckless is the word that comes to mind.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 8:59 amhttp://www.newsday.com/business/ny-vpbud016053537mar01,0,6930525.story
P. Favor (48d752) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:02 amPor favor drank the kool-aid.
Explain the $1,500,000,000,000 in “savings” that he found in the war. The rest of your rant is straight from the straight talking. Axelrod and Gibbs playbook.
Por favor, you are still fired.
JD (0d1f38) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:08 amIt’s Troll Sunday over at Patterico’s!
Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:11 amCan they do anything other than copypasta?
Techie (6b5d8d) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:19 amJeez, can a Troll even offer an original thought without resorting to massive cut – and – paste jobs? Makes them look like a bunch of drones, the host should ask them for payment regarding excessive use of bandwith. Poncey Boy, Angwy Mistreated Petey, and now this ferret – all one and the same.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:20 amSo why then does our elegant, brilliant president forge ahead, when the numbers are so clear?
Either(1) he’s counting on the double digit inflation that will commence in 2011 to reduce his debt with cheaper dollars, or (2) he will nationalize/politicize many more industries than he and W have already, taking a lesson from his buddy Chavez.
Si puedo!
Patricia (419c68) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:25 amHe lies to us ’cause he’s trying to get us killed!
AD - RtR/OS (0ac8fd) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:27 amIt wouldn’t be so bad if he was just a politician,
but we have to deal with the fact that he’s a lying, deceitful, narcissistic, megalomaniac too
(I’m from ACORN, and I’m here to help you!).
Oh, and did I mention that he’s a Socialist?
I really think he cares less where the money goes than that it goes. He’s buying the beggaring of my little country.
Mr. Soros will be pleased.
happyfeet (bf7f5a) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:30 amWell, sometimes a cut and paste is worthwhile; such as when it predicts the future. A future that is almost here.
Structurally, we are endangered because many of the Western democracies are becoming tripartite states in which one-third of all taxpayers are employed by government at some level, one-third of the people are crucially dependent in some way on government support (welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, and a gazillion other untrackable support programs), and one-third produces the income (the tax base) paid out in supports for the first two-thirds. Anyone can see that, as this develops in a mass “democratic” system, the first two-thirds will always gang up on the last.
Unfortunately for the two-thirds that are parasites, the third that creates prosperity can loaf and cut back on expenses. We will begin to see this soon. Latitude 38 has remarked on the great increase in people who have sold everything and are cruising the south Pacific on their yachts. It’s a drop in the bucket, of course, but these are mostly high earners, many with children, who have dropped off the net for a few years and are not working. You can live very well on a sailboat for about $1500 a month. The wind is free.
I know many physicians who are retiring early and doing a little to supplement their pensions, especially since investments have declined in value. The left wing seems to think that greed will keep the prosperous working at full tilt and that incentives do not affect behavior. We will see how this works out over the next three years.
What is criminal, in my opinion, is the failure to face the energy situation. Obama and his supporters are chasing a fantasy of “renewable energy” that will not work. In the meantime, they are not building the electrical grid and adding generation power. Soon, we will see brownouts like those that occurred in California in 2003 and got Gray Davis recalled. Once they begin, it will be very difficult to recover.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:38 amI agree with you about energy, Dr. K.
And the sadly funny part is how the Left just refuses to see the truth that we have known for decades: conservation cannot provide more energy.
At the same time, we are told we can’t use nuclear. We can’t develop and use oil sands. We can’t drill more. Coal is “too dirty.” And anything that burns something generates that dreaded carbon dioxide. So what are we left with? Buying more Middle Eastern oil. And we know how that will work out.
I would love us to have solar power satellites. Pickens used to carry on about wind power. At least either of those two ideas (pie in the sky they are with current development and technology) would be trying something!
I remember a horrific hurricane that hit Kaui years ago. The Navy hooked up a Trident submarine to provide electrical power to the island.
But this is orders of magnitude tougher.
Energy independence, by trying everything to see what works best. That would be Hope and Change that would be….well, hopeful and a change from the status quo.
But it ain’t going to happen. And the decision makers won’t have to worry for at least two election cycles.
Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:45 amMike, nothing wrong with cutting and pasting as long as it doesn’t form the entirety of one’s post and relevant thought processes. It’s not only intellectually lazy – it’s pure Trolldom.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:48 amEnergy independence, by trying everything to see what works best.
I agree, but the problem is when Gov’t gets involved in a command – and – control mode (see the Synfuels debacle under Carter), where it chooses which industries are more favored over others – and much of that is completely dictated by lobbyists and who contributed to which congressionalcritter.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:52 amGee what entitlement programs are included in the debt?
EricPWJohnson (6c96ba) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:54 amDmac, I think that we might consider a “prize” for development of this kind of thing. Sort of like the X Prize, or the “airmail” prizes in the 20s.
Offer the prize, then get out of the way.
But it will never happen. Sadly.
Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:57 amI was/am really intrigued by those solid-state reactors the size of a mini-van that could be buried underground and power something like 50k homes for 10 years.
Remember those?
Techie (6b5d8d) — 3/1/2009 @ 10:27 amLots of good ideas out there. And for folks who are concerned about nuclear waste, I recommend we follow France’s model. What percentage of France’s energy is from fission reactors?
I think it is better than 80%.
Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 3/1/2009 @ 10:30 amRich people and manufacturers stopped producing during FDR’s term (see Shlaes’ book). The left never counts on that type of change. They base their assumptions on all factors remaining the same, which they won’t. Remember when the O’Malleys sold the Dodgers, because the inheritance tax would make continued family ownership too onerous?
Even Nanny Bloomberg gets it.
The question remains, is Obama just dumb or is he power mad?
Patricia (419c68) — 3/1/2009 @ 10:31 amActually, Peter O’Malley sold the Dodgers because the black LA politicians, like Mark Ridley-Thomas, insisted that any NFL team had to be at the Colosseum because of the jobs. The O’Malleys were going to build a football stadium on the same property as Dodger Stadium. The access roads and parking lots were already there and they had the room. O’Malley had a commitment for a team from the NFL but he could not get approval from the city. So, he sold the team and left sports.
Cindy and I were talking this morning about New York City (We’re watching Rear Window) and how nice it was before the liberals ruined it. Dinkins was the mayor when things collapsed. I wonder of Obama will play a similar role with the country. Both empty suits.
A lot of Obama’s personal approval is residual from the electing of a black president. His failure will not be a good example and so the exposure of it will be fought bitterly.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/1/2009 @ 10:53 amOne
Official Internet Data Office (c29d16) — 3/1/2009 @ 11:05 amBig
Ass
Mistake,
America
Dinkins was the mayor when things collapsed
Sure, but the institutional rot was being formed way before that time – you could point to John Lindsay’s disasterous tenure during the 60’s, as well as Ed “How’m I doin’? Koch later on.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 12:56 pmOh, I know it was a long time coming but Dinkins kind of personified the rot. Bush did a lot of things domestically that I opposed and Greenspan should have stopped the bubble. He had done it before and I wonder why he missed the signs this time. Too old, maybe ? Oliphant had a great cartoon in 1987 with Greenspan as the Wizard of Oz having flamed everybody for irrational exuberance. I can’t find it now but what happened to Greenspan ?
Bush tended to leave the experts alone but it was disastrous that time.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:57 pm“…what happened to Greenspan…?”
He married Andrea Mitchell!
AD - RtR/OS (0ac8fd) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:08 pmHe had done it before and I wonder why he missed the signs this time. Too old, maybe ?
I think he grew too enamored of himself, what with the constant accolades and hosannas being constantly thrown at his feet – despite his initial misgivings, he didn’t want to be the skunk at the party. I don’t think that Volcker would’ve succumbed to the same bullsh-t, to be honest. And there he sits in his newly – appointed position as head of absolutely nothing in Obama’s administration, watching his President basically undo almost everything he fought so hard for, yet he’s only there for window dressing.
It’d be quite informative if the suck – ups in the MSM would only ask him what he really thinks about all of this…when a few took a few minutes out of their day to query him about his new responsibilities, he sounded none too pleased. So they immediately stopped calling him for his opinions – but they would be sorely needed right about now.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:38 pmP.Favor is confused about the difference between putting something in the regular budget process and funding via supplemental appropriations. Either way, the government’s yearly deficit is unaffected. The difference is simply one of categorization and which Congressional committees control.
Meanwhile, P.Favor intentionally ignores the fact that even Obama’s economic advisor states that not all spending is equally stimulative – and that the forms Obama has chosen are among the least stimulative.
Accordingly, P.Favor’s characterization of GOP resistance as “opposition to the Obama administration’s effort to keep American unemployment from jumping to 10% or higher” – is simply a lie.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:46 pmWe really need to get on about the business of becoming energy independent. This past year and the record gas prices played a huge part in our economic meltdown and seriously damaged our economy and society.We keep planning to spend BILLIONS on bailouts and stimulus plans.Bail us out of our dependence on foreign oil. Make electric plug in car technology more affordable. It cost the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon to drive an electric plug in car. The electric could be generated from wind or solar. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV’s instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. Get with it! Utilize free sources such as wind and solar. Stop throwing away money on things that don’t work. Invest in America and it’s energy independence. Create cheap clean energy, create millions of badly needed green collar jobs. Put America back to work. It is a win-win situation. We have to become more proactive citizens, educate ourselves and demand our elected officials move this country forward into the era of energy independence. Jeff Wilson’s new book The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW outlines a plan for America to wean itself off oil. We need a plan and we need it now! http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009
Sherry (4e0dda) — 3/1/2009 @ 5:21 pmSherry, while a worthwhile goal, your plans on how to become “energy independant” are silly. There simply is no way that we could replace imported petroleum with wind or solar.
Wind and solar are not “free” sources of energy as they require capital expenditures to create and maintain.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/1/2009 @ 5:23 pmSherry,
Jimmy Carter started the Dept. of Energy to accomplish that. At that time we imported 25% of our oil; now we import 75%.
Get the government out of the energy business, and we will see an immediate improvement. CA could make billions if it opened up oil drilling, for instance.
Patricia (419c68) — 3/1/2009 @ 6:34 pmNotgonnahappen. The Dems are going to destroy this village in order to save it.
And are too diffuse and unreliable.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 3/2/2009 @ 8:14 am