A fresh estimate of the deficit showed it coming in at $1.84 trillion -- representing a massive 12.9 percent of gross domestic product -- in the current 2009 fiscal year that ends on September 30. A prior White House forecast released in February projected a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.3 percent of GDP.
Hmm... Who saw that coming?
Don't forget the usual canard:
The higher deficits "are driven in large part by the economic crisis inherited by this administration," White House budget director Peter Orszag wrote in his blog on Monday.
The economy started to contract when it was clear that Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress was a foregone conclusion.
Media bias? Let's see:
After taking office in January, Obama released a bare-bones version of his budget in February that offered a spending plan for 2010 carrying a price tag of $3.55 trillion. The White House revised up the size of the spending plan to $3.59 trillion.
Bare bones, huh? If a trillion dollar increase is bare bones, I'd hate to see what the full-boat version looked like.
It's lies, as usual. It isn't bare bones by comparison to anything existing in reality.
To allay worries about the deficit and fend off Republican attempts to paint him as a big spender, Obama over the past week has rolled out a series of announcements aimed at showing he is working to stem the red ink.
[Emphasis mine.]
Republican attempts? It is political bias to call a spade a spade? Compare the spending increases in this budget to any previous budget increase and it is not only fair to call Obama a "big spender," it is accurate to do so.
Last week, Obama said he could wring $17 billion in savings from his budget by cutting waste in areas from weapons systems and education to the cleanup of abandoned mines.
Yes, repeat the meme over and over in hopes that people will believe the lie. Producing a budget that is a trillion dollars more than the previous one, and then calling for the budget you produced to be reduced by a fraction of a percent is not reducing the budget. Also note that Obama has set DoD in his sights. The public is being readied to accept cuts for DoD, positioning them as a budget saving maneuver, while at the same time they're raising soldier salaries, increasing the number of soldiers, but they're still not calling the DoD budget a cut.
Clinton did the same thing, so much so, that when it came time to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, we had to scurry to produce enough equipment to support the effort, and R&D budget reductions meant that our soldiers didn't have the best equipment. Even a junior in business knows that having to scurry on procurement purchases means you'll pay a premium for development and manufacture. When Bush had to restore our capabilities, the increase in spending was blamed on him. That's what the Democrats always do: trash a house and then blame the person who had to replace the broken furniture for the spending.
Obama also unveiled new details of his plan to toughen tax policies for multinational companies that invest abroad and to close loopholes on overseas tax shelters. Many businesses strongly oppose the proposed changes for multinational firms.
Just the opposite of what will reduce the deficit and increase Federal revenues. The more you scare the chickens, the more they'll run from the hen house.
It would be reasonable to think that Obama is simply an idiot and his naiveté doesn't allow him to understand just how negative-producing his policies are, but the degree and breadth of his proposals, and the spin associated with these announcements, makes it impossible to explain them by anything other than malicious intent.
Clue for Obama and Democrats: Raising tax rates does not translate into raising revenue. In fact the opposite.
Posts
