BARACK OBAMA,"PAY AS YOU GO," MEANS,"PAY AS I GO"
Barack Obama the President who in a short six months, (seems like years), has spent more than any other President, even those who have had two terms, created larger deficits than all President's combined had the hypocritical gall to tell the Congress that we cannot spend more than we have so it is time to return to the, "pay as you go," policy.
"Pay as you go," should mean that the government works like every family in the Nation tries to work and that is paying for what is spent ONLY with money that we have or cut something out of the budget to counter expense. Obama told the Congress that for every dollar spent that EITHER an equal dollar should be cut from the budget OR an equal amount of tax increased.
We are talking about Democrats so we all know which option will be chosen. Obama, the lying hypocrite who claimed that he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans has just given the Congress the green light to raise taxes for every dollar of additional spending the he and the liberal Congress decide they want to spend.
Not once in this joke of a speech did Obama mention that he was planning on cutting back on his trillion dollar deficit spending agenda. Not once did he mention in this joke of a speech the he planned on holding off on his planned government take over of the health care industry and the billions of dollars that it will entail. Not once did he mention in this joke of a speech that he would stop expanding government creating more massive entitlements.
So his true instruction to Congress was increase taxes so I can continue my ,"pay as I go," spending agenda. Obama realizes that China who owns most of our debt is beginning to balk at continuing to purchase treasury bonds based on an every increasing inflationary American dollar created by massive deficit spending and money printing.
Obama also is seeing the polls that are showing a backlash with the American people who are growing weary of trillion dollar deficits which have been created since Obama took office. So he steps in front of the cameras and tries to look like a fiscal conservative demanding a ,"pay as you go," discipline in spending while not once considering any real budget cuts but only increased spending matched with increased taxation.
Taxation that cannot come from the upper 2% of wage earners who have been demonized as wealthy robber barons by Obama, creating a class warfare claiming that this 2% must be punished with increased taxation because they have had the unfair practice of being successful and making very good incomes which is unfair in Obamaland to the lower percentage who do not work or make lower incomes by choice or lack of drive because they have been raised thinking the world owes them a living.
The problem is with Obama's spending plan, massive government expansion and unsustainable deficits, the top 2% if taxed at 100% would not even begin to pay for a tenth of what Obama demands in his,"pay as you go," scheme. So where will the taxation go ? To every American wage earner and every American business across the board with massive tax increases to match the massive spending in Obama's agenda.
This is precisely what conservatives warned about during the election cycle last year. We knew that Obama would NEVER be able to pay for what he was planning. We knew he would not be able to print enough money or borrow enough from China in order to cover the bill for his spending. The only way he could possibly pay for all that he campaigned on and since elected made policy was to raise taxes across the board in a massive way.
Now he has instructed the Congress to make that a reality demanding ,"pay as you go," by either budget cutting which Democrats NEVER do or increasing taxes which Democrats have ALWAYS loved to do. The tyrannical reign of Barack Obama is now in full stride as hypocrisy, spending, deficits and government take over and control of business and our money is showing its socialist/Marxist face. If you don't believe me then just ask the Russian news agency Pravda who covered Obama's march to American Marxism last week. And who better to recognize Marxism than a Russian ?
Ken Taylor
"Pay as you go," should mean that the government works like every family in the Nation tries to work and that is paying for what is spent ONLY with money that we have or cut something out of the budget to counter expense. Obama told the Congress that for every dollar spent that EITHER an equal dollar should be cut from the budget OR an equal amount of tax increased.
We are talking about Democrats so we all know which option will be chosen. Obama, the lying hypocrite who claimed that he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans has just given the Congress the green light to raise taxes for every dollar of additional spending the he and the liberal Congress decide they want to spend.
Not once in this joke of a speech did Obama mention that he was planning on cutting back on his trillion dollar deficit spending agenda. Not once did he mention in this joke of a speech the he planned on holding off on his planned government take over of the health care industry and the billions of dollars that it will entail. Not once did he mention in this joke of a speech that he would stop expanding government creating more massive entitlements.
So his true instruction to Congress was increase taxes so I can continue my ,"pay as I go," spending agenda. Obama realizes that China who owns most of our debt is beginning to balk at continuing to purchase treasury bonds based on an every increasing inflationary American dollar created by massive deficit spending and money printing.
Obama also is seeing the polls that are showing a backlash with the American people who are growing weary of trillion dollar deficits which have been created since Obama took office. So he steps in front of the cameras and tries to look like a fiscal conservative demanding a ,"pay as you go," discipline in spending while not once considering any real budget cuts but only increased spending matched with increased taxation.
Taxation that cannot come from the upper 2% of wage earners who have been demonized as wealthy robber barons by Obama, creating a class warfare claiming that this 2% must be punished with increased taxation because they have had the unfair practice of being successful and making very good incomes which is unfair in Obamaland to the lower percentage who do not work or make lower incomes by choice or lack of drive because they have been raised thinking the world owes them a living.
The problem is with Obama's spending plan, massive government expansion and unsustainable deficits, the top 2% if taxed at 100% would not even begin to pay for a tenth of what Obama demands in his,"pay as you go," scheme. So where will the taxation go ? To every American wage earner and every American business across the board with massive tax increases to match the massive spending in Obama's agenda.
This is precisely what conservatives warned about during the election cycle last year. We knew that Obama would NEVER be able to pay for what he was planning. We knew he would not be able to print enough money or borrow enough from China in order to cover the bill for his spending. The only way he could possibly pay for all that he campaigned on and since elected made policy was to raise taxes across the board in a massive way.
Now he has instructed the Congress to make that a reality demanding ,"pay as you go," by either budget cutting which Democrats NEVER do or increasing taxes which Democrats have ALWAYS loved to do. The tyrannical reign of Barack Obama is now in full stride as hypocrisy, spending, deficits and government take over and control of business and our money is showing its socialist/Marxist face. If you don't believe me then just ask the Russian news agency Pravda who covered Obama's march to American Marxism last week. And who better to recognize Marxism than a Russian ?
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 12:04 AM
27 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
And still no open cries for revolt. No call to arms to take back our nation. We wimper and cry and moan about what is being taken and no one says what needs saying.
The states have two powers that they have long forgotten how to use... the lesser power being Nullification (the right of the state to set aside any federal law they see as unconstitutional or unacceptable until it's made a constitutional amendment) and Secession. Read the 10th Amendment and then show me where the states are prohibited from doing so in the constitution.
And if we do not use these tools, what then is the recourse for free men? Hunker down with like minded folk and wait for the ATF?
Ken, you first sentence is just flat out wrong. I've pointed this out a few times but somehow you don't really know the numbers.
If you are so far off on your numbers, you cannot possibly understand what the Obama plan is.
FYI, Tom Delay and the Republican Congress under Bush removed the pay-go rules that the Democratic Congress had put in when they were in power. That is how we had the exploding deficits throughout the Bush years.
For anyone who is serious about the budget issues, you have to recognize that the baseline deficit that Obama came to office with was somewhere between $1.2 and $1.8 trillion (there are different numbers from different sources - but I just use $1.5T). U.S. GDP was falling at -6.3% in Q4 and the banking system was in free fall. Things are moderating which is critical. We need to stabilize the economy before we can see recovery.
You might get a kick out of the national debt clock....
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Rob says Ken cannot possibly understand what the real Obama plan is. I believe both Ken and I understand his real plan really well, and it isn't anything we are ever going to approve of. Obama can take his "real plan" and put it in a very dark place.
Rob: Your "numbers" are consistenly off by hundreds of billions.
You are the last person to lecture Ken or anyone else on accuracy.
It's well proven that Obama's economic forecasts, the "numbers" as you say, upon which his entire plan is based are FALSE.
Get a clue Rob!
The truth is that none of you are professional accountants, monetary experts, nor financial experts. In reality there is no set way to express a boon in a economic purposes and explore every want and need of human society. Being expressively democratic nor republican allows incredible insight into the financial district. However, with the current state of the financial district I'd say having an advanced degree doesn't mean jack either.
Never the less, grabbing headlines and reading news articles does not give pompous windbags such as yourselves the right to demonize anyone. If you truly believe in your own ideas don't support someone who hasn't a clue the slightest clue about economic growth. McCain didn't have expert training, he would have hired a team of financial experts to do his bidding. Obama does not have expert insight to the economic world, he has a team of financial experts at his beck and call.
You all need to get some sense knocked into you. No one man truly has the power to destroy lives. If things get bad enough the people will take care of it. Organized government is just a guise to hide the lazy people who chat on blog sites about topics they don't know anything about
I posted some basic facts about the baseline Obama inherited from Bush and came to office with.
Bush's FY 2009 budget - the one he proposed back in February and that is in effect for this year (the government's 2009 FY is from October 2008 until September 30, 2009) - was for $3.1 trillion in spending and showed a $400 billion budget deficit. This was from February 2008. We know the economy worsened and we had a flurry of spending in Q4 before Bush left (the $700 billion TARP was passed, the Fed poured taxpayer money into the financial sector, AIG was seized, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were seized, etc.)
The first budget Obama is proposing is for FY 2010 that starts on October 1, 2009. About $150 billion of the stimulus money will hit this year. But the most of the $200 billion+ in tax relief for middle class folks and small businesses comes next fiscal year.
If anyone wants to have an intellectually honest discussion then let's discuss facts. But, if you don't understand the baseline for where Obama came to office and just want to go with what Rush says then don't bother.
Greywolfe - While I agree with your two thoughts , nullification falls on deaf ears because of the liberlisation of the courts. My Governor Mark sanford was forced by the courts to take simulus money that he had vetoed out of the budget because he believes that it is wrong and that taking it would do more damage to the state than accepting it. He was taken to court by the legislature and lost then his counter suite was lost and the SC Supreme Court ordered him to ask for the money.
Secession is not as simple as it was in 1861 because the Sate and Federal governments are so intertwined now that States cannopt exist without the fed. which in itself is unconstitutional. But voter rebellion is still alive and fighting through making our voice heard in large numbers is also. Problem is that people though angerd are not angry enough to fight en mass yet.
Rob - for Obama to now cry pay as you go after forcing through the largest spedning bill in history is total hypocrisy. Adding to it is the fact that he in whining about spending is not ONCE suggesting that his massive deficit busting agenda will be cut nor any of his entitlement programs will suffer as a result.
Mark my word, since he has given the green light for tax increases we will now see the true intent that has always been behind his scheme. Spend us into oblivian, expand government beyond any thing before in our history and raise taxes across the board to pay for what he is doing.
BTW, if printing money is not a key factor to inflation then explain why Zimbabwe has inflation above 90% BECAUSE they have donw nothing but print money to pay for the spending of their dictatorial government.
Rob: You can post all the Dem talking points you want.
I am going strickly on Obama's numbers.
I already posted the chart of unemployment Obama estimated if we passed his stimulus plan.
He got his plan. He got everything he asked for when he asked for it and unemployment is already substantially higher than his projection if we had done nothing at all.
You keep playing your games Rob. It's become so abundantly clear you don't know what you are talking about.
You're what we call a "shill."
Ken, are you serious about comparing the dollar to Zimbabwe's currency? Please, you have to do better than that.
The U.S. dollar is used and therefore propped up by every other country in the world. Zimbabwe's currency is not used to trade commodities around the world.
Mike, you are the only idiot I have ever come across who posted links that supported my argument and then claimed to be refuting me.
When I pointed out your mistake, you hemmed and hawed, and then, in a stunning admission of how dumb you truly are, you claimed I was deceiving people with the links you posted.
I am more than happy to discuss the financial situation with anyone who is serious about the financial situation and wants to actually understand it. Mike I've already come to the conclusion that you are not intellectually capable of understanding basic financial facts. So I am talking to anyone other than Mike.
Ken, do you understand that Obama's first budget is for FY 2010? (FY 2010 starts on October 1, 2009).
You do recognize that Bush's final proposed budget was $3.1 trillion? This does not include the $700 billion TARP.
Have you actually read Obama's budget? For FY 2010 we will spend less than FY 2009.
On top of that, you do recognize that the stimulus package that was passed includes about $250 billion in tax cuts for the middle class?
From your posts, it is not clear to me whether you have a realistic understanding of what the Obama plan is.
Rob: You haven't made an argument. All you've done is repeat Dem talking points.
Your claim regarding the Bush portion of the 2009 Fiscal Year deficit is as specious as the claim that Obama saved or created 4 million jobs.
That's why I call you a "shill." Though I am sure there are probably some folks out there who would substitute a "t" for the last "l" in that word.
In short, you don't know what you are talking about. You're merely an Obama parrot who barfs up the daily dirt without any further thought to the matter.
I know you consider yourself an intelligentk thoughtful individual, but that's just an insult to those of us who ARE.
Mike, your problem is you are just too stupid to even know you are stupid.
I've put up a link to Bush's FY 2009 budget above. Anyone can look up the Obama budget for FY 2010 and see that I am right. Jeez Mike, your own link to the CBO numbers that you posted up a few weeks ago backs me up.
What a freaking dork you are. Keep it coming Mike, I love the laughs.
For anyone else who actually wants to have a discussion feel free. Mike doesn't actually have any facts or actual numbers to offer. When he has in the past, they back me up. So in the end, all he has is empty name-calling. Nothing new for Mike - just same old same old.
You worked for Republicans? No wonder they are out. If they hired dummies like you it is no wonder.
Hey numnut, the FY 2009 budget is in effect. It is obvious you don't understand how the government budget works.
Yet again I'll say it, your own links that you posted up show that the baseline deficit was over $1 trillion.
Bush's FY 2009 budget was for $3.1 trillion. If you add in TARP - which you seem to agree is his responsibility you come to $3.8 trillion. There were other expenses in Q4, but let's just stop there.
Let me ask you since you are so smart, what is Obama proposing for FY 2010?
There's increasing concern about high inflation resulting from Obama's massive spending. I predict that the CBO deficit projections will increase since the CBO's current projections assume 4% average annual GDP growth over the next 10 years which is overly optimistic. Bernanke is deeply concerned about the deficits also. The only constructive way to balance the budget is to reverse government growth. Since Liberals have shown no inclination to do this, our only hope is the election of true Conservatives to Congress in 2010 and the election of a truly Conservative president in 2012. I agree that Bush's spending on domestic programs was excessive and I feel that Obama's even greater spending is reckless and will cause long term damage to the economy.
Dennis, my friend, you have a gift for understatements.
However, I am not sure how much America there will be left by the next election cycle.
The CBO figures will most certainly change - the 10 year projections change every year as the economy changes. When Bush took office we had large surpluses and the 10 year projections showed massive surpluses. When he left it was just the opposite.
10-year projections are a useful tool, but they are limited in their value because they change so much from year to year. That said, Dennis, I think you may be misreading the GDP growth projections. You must be looking at the nominal GDP changes year over year (7 of the 10 years from 2010-2019 show 4% or higher growth). However, you should look at the Real GDP growth figures - those fix the value of the dollar so that you can compare apples with apples. Only 3 of the next 10 years show 4% growth.
If you use nominal growth figures, you end up with skewed figures as a result of the changing value of the dollar from year to year. For example, because of inflation, nominal GDP growth throughout the 1970s was 10.3% per year on average, but real GDP growth was 3.4%.
You may still think that the projected GDP growth is optimistic - that is for you to decide - but I just wanted to point out that the CBO figures do not project 4% or higher growth for the next 10 years.
Here are the CBO projections.
One other point, the 2010-2013 budgets that Obama has laid out all spend less than the FY 2009 budget that Bush is responsible for. Let me say this again - Bush proposed a $3.1 trillion budget (the link is above on this thread to Bush's budget). When you add in just the $700 billion TARP that was passed in October 2008 we are at $3.8 trillion.
Obama's proposed spending is lower than this in each of the next three years and it is at $3.8 trillion in 2013.
The bottom line is this, if the deficit shrinks (both in dollars and as a percentage of GDP) as Obama has projected things will greatly improve. If not, then there will be need to change course. We will have a better idea of how things are going in a year - but for now, things are greatly improving.
And now you are just SPUTTERING.
All your insults won't cover up the fact that Obama is the biggest spender of ALL TIME.
I could spend another 20 minutes debunking your distortions and half truths above but it's clear it won't make the slightest impact on you.
You're nothing but a braid dead Obamaton who can't think for himself.
What a tool!
Mike, you are just embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.
You posted up a link that showed Obama's baseline deficit for FY 2009 when he took over was $1.2 trillion - THAT IS WHAT YOU POSTED UP.
Up above in this thread, you (rightfully) agreed that the $700 billion TARP was Bush's responsibility. I posted a link to Bush's FY 2009 budget - it shows $3.1 trillion in spending. That means YOU WOULD HAVE TO AGREE THAT AT A MINIMUM BUSH'S SPENDING WAS $3.8 TRILLION (it was higher because of the government takeovers of AIG, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae that he orchestrated, and his war supplementals, but let's just stick with $3.8 trillion).
I asked you above, what Obama's proposed FY 2010 spending is (that is his first budget) - but true to form you won't actually answer the question.
Stop being a dork and look it up for yourself. As I just said in my last post above, Obama's 2010-2013 annual budgets are each lower than the $3.8 trillion you have to agree Bush pushed through in 2009. That is an easily verifiable cold hard fact that anyone can look up. Wait let me correct that, anyone can verify this fact except for you - you apparently lack to the intelligence to do so.
We mustn't forget the Omnibus spending bill and the "stimulus" bill. These two bundles of joy account for a total of $ 1.2 trillion and make Obama the all time spending champ. Rob, your point about the CBO estimates and GDP growth is well taken but two things about their projections are striking. They estimate a ridiculously low rate of inflation and very rosy unemployment figures. With the onerous tax increases to come and huge deficits, both of these numbers are going to be far higher than the projections. This will mean lower tax revenues and higher deficits. I feel the CBO is underestimating the deficits and that is very scary indeed.
Obama's budget includes the stimulus and is inclusive of all spending.
There aren't onerous tax increases on the horizon - the stimulus included $250 billion in tax cuts.
You may be right that the deficits will be higher. I disagree. I think they will shrink over time both in dollars and as a percentage of GDP. The reason I feel that way is that I understand how Obama's plan is supposed to work and I agree with it. So far everything is working to plan, so until things fall apart I'll stick with my belief.
I will still stand by my comment that over the next 4 years, Obama's proposed budget numbers (including the stimulus and everything else) are lower than Bush's FY 2009 spending.
If you compare the spending for Bush's 2nd term, FY 2006 through FY 2009, total outlays are $ 12.36 trillion, an average of about $ 3.1 trillion/yr. For Obama's 1st term FY 2010 through FY 2013 outlays are projected to total $ 14.66 trillion, an average of about $ 3.7 trillion/yr. That's an increase of 19% over Bush's second term, clearly giving Obama the all time spending crown. With this massive growth in government, Obama will raise taxes in an attempt to reduce the deficit. That will only cool the economy, causing tax revenues to decline leading to greater deficits and higher inflation. Inflation is already becoming a long term concern. Our only hope is the election of conservatives who will have to roll back government growth and slash taxes to return us to prosperity and freedom. A second Obama term will be very bad news indeed.
Every President has rising budgets - no surprise there. The rate of increase is the critical thing to look at.
Did you decry the 27 percent increase in spending Bush had in his first term (4 year average $2.23 trillion) over Clinton's second term ($1.75 trillion)?
How about the the 39 percent increase from Bush's first term to his second term?
Total FY 2001 spending came to $1.86 trillion. For FY 2009 it will be around $3.9 trillion. That means it doubled under Bush in just 8 years. Obama is not doubling spending over his eight years - not even close.
Dennis, the fact is that the rate of government spending is slowing rapidly under Obama.
What we need to see is rising GDP at a rate that is faster than spending. Then, tax revenues would increase without any change in tax rates. This would help the deficit. But, Obama has implemented middle class tax cuts ($250 billion as a part of the stimulus) and is going to allow the Bush tax cuts on those making $250K a year to expire. Some of the banks are starting to pay back the TARP money. War spending in Iraq will drop dramatically next year. All of these things will help the deficit situation.
You may not like the Obama plan - but you will have to agree with me that Bush increased government spending at a far FAR greater pace.
Just for comparison, FY 1981 spending was &678 billion, by the time Reagan left office spending had risen to $1.14 trillion (FY 1989). This was a 68 percent increase in annual spending over Reagan's eight years.
Under Bush Sr., spending increased to $1.41 trillion. So over that four years spending increased 24 percent.
Over Clinton's 8 year term, spending increased to $1.86 trillion - 32 percent.
Bush's 8 year term will result in an increase of 104 percent increase in annual spending.
The numbers are what they are and they are clear. Spending increased at a far faster pace under Reagan, and the Bushes, than under Clinton or under the proposed budgets of Obama.
Post a Comment
<< Home