Published: Monday, Feb. 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Actually the projection is 900 billion..you say what's the difference. The
difference is Bushs last budget was 1.4 trillion, 2010 was 1.3 trillion. So 900
billion is a reduction in deficit spending of 500 billion dollars in 4
years...not quite the story you all are telling. Projected budget for 2014, 668
billion. Less than half of Bushs 2009 budget. What is going on here, Fox told
Yes, it sure is long past time for politicians to begin telling the truth.But don't hold your breath.As long as all those dollars
are floating around out there for politicians to grab, nothing will change.
pragmatistferlife: Yes, we all know that the extra $6 trillion or so added to
the debt in the last four years was all Bush's fault. We have heard that so
many times from the liberal press that all the gullible people believe it now.
Just look at the last election.And yes, if we jack up taxes by
another $trillion or so, maybe we can get our annual deficits down below $500
billion under this tax-and-spend far-left liberal president, but I wouldn't
count on it. He will find another 50 or so new programs to eat it all up and
more.I'm sure that makes you feel good, but I certainly
Thank you Joe for insightful analysis of my commment...really? And, just where
did I claim that it was Bushs fault? Bush reacted to two unfunded wars and a
crashing economy with a 1.4 trillion dollar budget. Next Obama reacted with a
1.3 trillion budget...and now we're down to a 900 billion dollar budget.
That's a reduction of 500 billion dollars. Next year is projected to be
688 billion half of 2009 budget (there no Bush name, does that make you feel
better), end of point. Couldn't care less if you hold your breath or
not..But I'll be money it's less than 900 billion.
Obama "executed" payments of $6,000,000,000 in excess of revenues during
his first term in office. He can't blame Bush. Bush was not sitting in
the Oval Office. Bush had no authority to make any kind of payment or to issue
any kind of "promise to pay" on behalf of the federal government. Only
Obama had that authority.Either Obama is the most incompetent or the
most corrupt President in history if he thinks that he can blame another
President for his own failure to lead this country. No one forced the office on
him. He wanted it. He also suggested sequestration as a solution for a
Congress that couldn't agree on how to reduce spending.Was he
lying then, when he suggested sequestration, or is he lying now as he
1-Raise taxes. Anyone who says taxes don't need to be raised is lying to
themselves.2- Cut spending, starting with the military. The US does not
need 700 bases worldwide. Bring the military home, for a true national defense.
The last thing we need are bases dotting the globe.
As usual, when amounts are too large to be comprehended, I got mixed up and left
off three zeros. Six trillion is $6,000,000,000,000. Six trillion is $18,181
for every man, woman and child in America. Obama spent $18,181 for each of us
in excess of the taxes that we paid to meet America's obligations. Obama wants to blame Bush for that spending. What's even more
amazing is that he wants us to believe his lies. For someone who purportedly is
above average in intelligence, Obama seems to have no ability to tell fact from
@pragmatistforlife2009 is indeed a Bush year, but it would not have been
1.4 trillion dollars under Bush since that didn't include some things like
the stimulus. If I recall correctly 2009 would've been around 1.0 trillion
if the Bush plan were followed.
pragmatistforlife: The ONLY reason that deficits are coming down from their
record highs during the first Obama term is because taxes are being raised even
faster than spending grows. The federal government continues to spend more and
more every single year. Just like the national debt, federal spending goes up
and up and up each and every year (in spite of any "cuts" they tell you
about).Ernest T. Bass: Since I don't want to lie to
myself....of course taxes need to be raised yet even further. After all, there
is still some money being spent in this country that doesn't go through
Washington D.C. first!Last year the check I wrote to Uncle Sam did
not equal my income so there is still a lot of work for liberals to do.
"The ONLY reason that deficits are coming down from their record highs
during the first Obama term is because taxes are being raised even faster than
spending grows."Actually indexed for inflation the past 3 years
have seen the slowest gov't spending growth in half a century. If
you're middle class your taxes have not gone up at all since Obama got into
alt134 did a little checking and what I found was that CBO scored Bush proposal
at 1.2 trillion, By the time Obama took office. Small changes to exsisting
proposals put it at 1.3 and it wound up at 1.4 by years end.
Okay, let's stop the blame game. Who is responsible for the deficit
spending? We are. The voters. Let's accept full responsibility. We elected
Reagan, who started us down the silly supply-side-tax-cut fantasy path to
prosperity. We elected Cheney, who, along with his hand puppet, marched us into
two unnecessary wars and talked us into paying for them with big tax cuts. Are
we stupid or what? I admit, I voted for Cheney-Bush the first time around. How
does the saying go? Fool me once . . . Well, I didn't vote for the C-B team
in 2004.Also, we voted in a bunch of Congressmen and -women who are
doing exactly what we want them to. They are giving us all the things we want
and telling us we don't have to pay for them. No, we can reduce taxes and
somehow that supply-side gimmick will magically produce increased government
revenue through, get this, a booming economy, which has grown at an average
annual rate of only 3.23 percent between 1947 and 2012. Economic growth will not
reverse our debt accumulation. Only taxing more than we spend will. So
let's stop lying to ourselves.
@Ernest T. Bass:"Raise taxes. Anyone who says taxes don't need to
be raised is lying to themselves."I think you're right. I
didn't send all my income into the government with my last 1040."Cut spending, starting with the military."GAO put out a
report awhile back identifying fraud, wast, and abuse that, if fixed, could save
the government $billions. The current occupant of the White House must have his
head in the sand if he hasn't read the report and taken action. And he
hasn't. @Mike Richards:"Six trillion is $18,181 for
every man, woman and child in America."Yeah, and the $17.3
trillion national debt is about $50,000 for every man women and child in
America. And about $150,000 for every household (if my calculations are
correct). If you have any money laying around, send it in to Obama. If you
don't, Obama will, of necessity, have to close down kindergartens or the
whole government will shut down (except for the White House, of course).
Re: ". . . let's stop lying to ourselves."Yeah,
let's.Liberals insists there's only one side to your
"taxing more than we spend" strategy -- the taxing side.They
appear physically incapable of upholding their side of any compromise --
refusing to even admit cuts may exist that can and should be made -- though
Republicans fully implemented their portion of the compromise by giving in on
the President's soak-the-rich tax hikes.While it may well be
true that we'll be forced to raise taxes again -- liberals need too many
vote-buying "sacred cows," -- why can't we all agree we should cut
first, THEN, once we've figured what the deficit will actually be, we can
figure out how much we need to raise taxes?Knowingly. Intelligently.
Instead of just feeding the beast all we have, then more.
People really need to check their figures before they comment. The national
budget has several trillion in front of whatever the billion figure is . Just
get the figures correct please.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments