Community Blogs
Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
From The Wall Street Journal (10/18/11): The table shows the budget trend over the last five years, and it underscores the dramatic negative turn since the Obama Presidency began. The budget deficit increased slightly in fiscal 2011 from a year earlier, to $1.298 trillion. That was down slightly as a share of GDP to 8.6%, but as CBO deadpans, this was still "greater than in any other year since 1945."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned, the chart shown above was featured in a recent Wall Street Journal article ("A New Spending Record" - Washington had its best year ever in fiscal 2011).
The story and chart best illustrate just how out-of-control spending is in Washington, D.C. An important point in the article:
" ...faster economic growth and spending restraint are the keys to reducing deficits. Higher taxes will hurt growth and feed a Washington spending appetite that is as voracious as ever, despite the claims of political sacrifice."
Obama & Co. talk a lot about "sacrifices" and cutting spending. They do not practice what they preach. RIght now, Obama (who recently proposed a $474 billion stimulus jr. plan - known as the "jobs bill") as well as Harry Reid (who just proposed a $35 billion stimulus) are trying to spend even more money the country does not have. Are the Democrats/Socialists in Washington D.C. crazy, or is this a part of the master plan to destroy the United States economy?
The years 2007 and 2008 on the Congressional Budget Office chart show the deficit numbers to be low - including the deficit share of the GDP. During 2007 - the federal budget came very close to being balanced. (Who was president at the time?) Even more revealing: the government was taking in more money - during the years of Bush and tax cuts!
Obama & his fellow Dems/Socialists have been on a reckless spending spree for almost three years now - with no end in sight. The Wall Street article mentioned earlier helps explain how Obama is spending - what he is spending on and why the government is taking in less money than before. (Hint: It's not because of the Bush tax cuts, it's because of a little thing called: interest).
As Obama and his fellow Dems keep on spending billions or trillions, and borrowing money from countries like China to keep their habit going - the United States is finding itself in a deeper financial hole. We do not have a president interested in restoring any sense of fiscal responsibility to the government. In fact, we have a president encouraging people to blame Wall Street for all our financial woes, while he himself continues to propose even MORE billions of dollars of frivolous spending with no regard for the amount of money coming in.
This is just a blueprint to financial ruin. When the country is taking in less money, spending must be curtailed, not promoted or demanded.
Are people as really stupid as Obama seems to think? I don't believe so. At election time, the smart ones won't give Obama yet another four years to continue to decimate the United States.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Rain: "Hold my umbrella" - Benghazi: "Stand Down" (259)
- Does the truth matter anymore? (265)
- "My kind of town, Chicago is" (262)
- Two words we must not utter: radical Islam!!! (314)
- Boston Massacre (279)
- What's missing? (308)
- Just in time for Easter... (232)
- The definition of "fair" according to Obama (127)
- Why I Do Not Like The Obamas (207)
- Just a few observations... (311)
- More It's Hemmer Time posts
94 Comments
yert49 - Oct 18, 2011 5:31 PM
Wisconsin is such a good case in point because the world was going to come to an end if we killed collective bargaining. And yet, our scholls are more efficient, the power is back where it belongs-with the citizens, good teachers will benefit and the dead weight will rot away.
We can and must do the same at the federal level!
BruceSpringsteen - Oct 18, 2011 6:08 PM
Tricky......
ahemmer - Oct 18, 2011 7:33 PM
As a blogger, I can post when I want and what I want. In the past I usually posted a blog 3 times a week or so. That has dwindled since I've been very busy as of late. One or two times a week is about all I can manage.
The Scott Walker post has been up since Saturday, October 15th. More than enough time (3-plus days) for comments - and you can still comment on it whenever you wish. Just go to that blog as listed under "Latest Hemmer Posts" on the upper right hand side of this page and click. Easy, simple, not "tricky."
Now, BS, this is a new post. Try to stay on topic.
BruceSpringsteen - Oct 18, 2011 8:26 PM
Hyatt/yert/geno/tombal/sharpaxe already has the run-down President Obama angle
covered. Please stick to more engaging things like how great you think Walker is
and how much be better off WI schools are now.
Your editor knows those topics attracts the theBOSS' attention, which is good for
LCR advertising revenue as readership triples when theBOSS chimes in.
PS - Obama has been a disappointment, somewhat.
referee33 - Oct 18, 2011 9:48 PM
Carl Hicks - Oct 18, 2011 11:50 PM
Any fool knows that revenues decrease when fewer people pay in. The taxes did not change only the number of people with jobs adding to the revenue flow.
ExToDResident - Oct 19, 2011 12:23 AM
Probably should have checked this “fact” with Haayett first.
In the federal budget according to Hayeatt; presidents only make a suggestion for the budget. It is the democratic controlled congress that is responsible for all the spending that took place since “they took over in 2006”.
So are you saying that the democratic congress came close to balancing the budget?
ahemmer - Oct 19, 2011 7:15 AM
"The Obama years have racked up the three largest deficits, both in absolute amounts and as a share of GDP, since Hitler still terrorized Europe. Some increase in deficits was inevitable given the recession, but to have deficits of nearly $1.3 trillion two years into a purported economic recovery simply hasn't happened in modern U.S. history. Yet President Obama fiercely resisted even the token spending cuts for fiscal 2011 pressed by House Republicans earlier this year.
The table also shows how close the federal budget was to balance as recently as fiscal 2007, with a deficit as low as $161 billion, or 1.2% of GDP. Those are the numbers to point to the next time someone says that the Bush tax rates are the main cause of our current fiscal woes."
Exactly. Yet even Bush wasn't as fiscally conservative as many of us would have liked him to be. Remember how he was accused of "spending like a Democrat?" Yet, when we look back, Bush's spending was very conservative compared to the current occupant of the White House and his cronies.
ExToDResident: I don't think Bush and the Dems were intent on "balancing the budget" like they should have been. They simply spent far less than any year of Obama, even though they could have been even more fiscally conservative in my estimation.
geno53151 - Oct 19, 2011 9:41 AM
Obama Administration could have given almost $200 to every man, woman, and child on earth. Spread the wealth.
SPalin - Oct 19, 2011 11:56 AM
amounts and as a share of GDP, since Hitler still terrorized Europe."
Well, someone had to knock Reagan off his perch. ;-)
Btw, the largest of the deficits on that chart can be accredited to the
administration that created the federal budget for fiscal year 2009. I can assure
you Obama had no hand in that mater.
"when we look back, Bush's spending was very conservative compared to the
current occupant of the White House and his cronies."
You know, you could pull a Walker and have that comment redacted. :-D
WFB resident - Oct 19, 2011 2:46 PM
administration that created the federal budget for fiscal year 2009. I can assure
you Obama had no hand in that mater.
How can you assure us of this ? Your great knowledge ? your surprising Super
Powers ?? lol.......... Yes please assure us . But just above your crony stated that
the President has no hand in this . So Who was in charge of Congress then ????
lol......OOOhHHHH that darn history hurts you every time guys ! lol....
ahemmer - Oct 19, 2011 3:59 PM
Senator Obama voted to approve the 2009 budget, with $3.1 trillion in spending and a projected $400 billion deficit. All Democrats voted for the budget, with only 2 Republicans voting yes. No Republican in the House voted for it. Bush is responsible for signing it.
Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton all voted for TARP ($700 Billion) in October of 2008. Only 3 Republicans voted yes. The Democrats - with Bush - passed TARP. Overwhelmingly, the Democrats with Bush passed the irresponsible spending legislation while Bush was president.
Obama continued the trend (becoming what some term as "Bush on steroids") by continuing to spend at an obscene rate, with no regard for the budget or deficit. Upon becoming president - still with the 2009 budget, Obama signed the $700 billion dollar stimulus plan. A short three weeks later, Obama and the Dems passed an additional $410 billion dollar spending bill. Just 3 Republicans went along with this - ( the usual RINO's).
And what is Obama doing now? Has Obama EVER suggested trying to balance the budget? Senate Democrats have now gone 900 days without passing a budget! The reason being is that they know the public would be aghast at all the red ink. Well, red ink is all we will be seeing with Obama in office. Even now, when the country has NO money to spend - and continues to borrow (and pay interest on) - what is Obama doing? Proposing even more spending under the guise of a "jobs bill!" No folks, this isn't any "jobs bill" - its stimulus jr. to the tune of $474 billion dollars. $474 billion dollars we don't have.
The future, if Obama remains in office, will continue on a path to financial ruin - and we won't be tricked into blaming Wall Street - or Bush.
SPalin - Oct 19, 2011 5:23 PM
of 2008. Only 3 Republicans voted yes. The Democrats - with Bush - passed
TARP. Overwhelmingly, the Democrats with Bush passed the irresponsible
spending legislation while Bush was president." - hemmer
Your facts are ----ed up. TARP is one component of the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008. It passed the Senate Oct 1, 2008. 33 of 48 Republican
Senators voted in favor. It passed the House Oct. 3, 2008. 91 of 199 Republican
House members - including the very, very, very conservative Paul Ryan - voted in
favor.
ahemmer - Oct 19, 2011 5:43 PM
WFB resident - Oct 19, 2011 9:29 PM
and say that it would have been worse if the Bush administration would not have
done this ! Then the o came in and screwed it all up by losing the cow . lol...... Is
that better Pelosi ?
reformed trucker - Oct 19, 2011 11:12 PM
I'm afraid so; they don't seem to know how much a trillion is. Just give me my free stuff, and it's all good.
Sometimes I wonder... does Obama really know how much a trillion is, or is he intentionally trying to dig our grave? He makes me long for a bumbler like Clinton (if we're stuck with a leftie).
WFB resident - Oct 19, 2011 11:25 PM
broke it down . http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/
Tom Bal - Oct 20, 2011 7:35 AM
I’m almost sold on the thought of intentionally, but after watching him do his job I’m not sure he maybe just that ignorant if that’s possible.
My reasoning being after reading your posts all these months it’s easy to see anything’s possible.
sharpaxe - Oct 20, 2011 9:00 AM
Put your glasses on.
Tom Bal - Oct 20, 2011 9:38 AM
cigars?
Well for one it’s gross. He was the Charlie Sheen of his time. He was a total disgrace to our country.
Come to think about it the last 2 Democratic Presidents have been disgraces to our country.
Clinton and now the Anointed one.
Two he was the president of the United States and turned the white House into his dungeon of sex.
And three I’m pretty sure he was married and had a child. He looked the whole country in the eye and lied.
He abused his power and had he been in the private sector would now most likely be in jail or at the very least fired. He was a predator who should be on the National Predator list.
He and his wife got away with the very same things that many people are now in jail for.
As for the 1.4trillion deficit what are we at right now just under 15 Trillion and growing per minute.
What Al said could be used here what was was and what is is.
How can you guys be so blind to the facts of what is going on right now.