Obama's Budget: Thicker, Longer and Uncut

[The Rabbi]

From Heritage.org. So it is obviously untrue and biased, right?

President Barack Obama will submit a $3.8 trillion budget proposal for fiscal 2011 to Congress today. One might hope that given last year's $1.4 trillion budget deficit was an all-time high and the President promised a spending "freeze" in last week's State of the Union, this budget might signal a change in direction from the White House. No such luck. President Obama's new budget is full of billions of dollars in new spending for failed government programs, higher taxes on American families and businesses, and deficit spending for as far as the eye can see.

At the very least, the budget document President Obama is submitting today exposes his spending "freeze" promise for the fraud that it is. As outlined last week, the administration would halt spending increases for only a $447 billion sliver of our total budget, with a total of $15 billion to be saved. That is less than half a percent off of last year’s spending. Worse, this isn't even an across-the-board spending freeze; it is an aggregate one. So "spending cuts" in parts of the budget are immediately channeled to others. For example, even though the federal government does not need any money for the Census next year, President Obama counts the $5 billion spent this year as a "spending cut" that can be immediately spent on other government programs, such as a 16% increase in Department of Education funding, a 6.8% increase in Department of Energy funding, and increases for ineffective Health and Human Services programs like Head Start and sex education.

Given the best case scenario, the most the White House hopes to save from this supposed spending "freeze" is $15 billion. And that is easily dwarfed by just the $100 billion President Obama wants for his Economic Stimulus II plan. Then there are the tax hikes, including higher taxes on families earning more than $250,000 and a brand new tax on financial institutions to pay for the failed automobile union bailout.

And what is the end result of all of Obama's new taxes and spending? A record national debt. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the United States will post a $1.556 trillion deficit in fiscal 2010, which the Obama administration claims will be reduced to $1.267 trillion in fiscal 2011, thanks to their budget. Given this administration's budget forecasting record, however, expect that final deficit number to go up. The Obama administration now forecasts $5.08 trillion in debt over the next five years; that is 35% more debt than they forecast just 12 months ago.

more at the source.

 

[Vast LWC]

From Heritage.org. So it is obviously untrue and biased, right?

President Barack Obama will submit a $3.8 trillion budget proposal for fiscal 2011 to Congress today. One might hope that given last year's $1.4 trillion budget deficit was an all-time high and the President promised a spending "freeze" in last week's State of the Union, this budget might signal a change in direction from the White House. No such luck. President Obama's new budget is full of billions of dollars in new spending for failed government programs, higher taxes on American families and businesses, and deficit spending for as far as the eye can see.

At the very least, the budget document President Obama is submitting today exposes his spending "freeze" promise for the fraud that it is. As outlined last week, the administration would halt spending increases for only a $447 billion sliver of our total budget, with a total of $15 billion to be saved. That is less than half a percent off of last year’s spending. Worse, this isn't even an across-the-board spending freeze; it is an aggregate one. So "spending cuts" in parts of the budget are immediately channeled to others. For example, even though the federal government does not need any money for the Census next year, President Obama counts the $5 billion spent this year as a "spending cut" that can be immediately spent on other government programs, such as a 16% increase in Department of Education funding, a 6.8% increase in Department of Energy funding, and increases for ineffective Health and Human Services programs like Head Start and sex education.

Given the best case scenario, the most the White House hopes to save from this supposed spending "freeze" is $15 billion. And that is easily dwarfed by just the $100 billion President Obama wants for his Economic Stimulus II plan. Then there are the tax hikes, including higher taxes on families earning more than $250,000 and a brand new tax on financial institutions to pay for the failed automobile union bailout.

And what is the end result of all of Obama's new taxes and spending? A record national debt. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the United States will post a $1.556 trillion deficit in fiscal 2010, which the Obama administration claims will be reduced to $1.267 trillion in fiscal 2011, thanks to their budget. Given this administration's budget forecasting record, however, expect that final deficit number to go up. The Obama administration now forecasts $5.08 trillion in debt over the next five years; that is 35% more debt than they forecast just 12 months ago.

more at the source.

Why do you bother to post opinion pieces from the Heritage foundation?

Why not just get information yourself, and then make up your own post?

But hey, let's discuss this BS opinion piece, and show everyone why we should not blindly accept opinion as fact, shall we?

1) The author does not mention that the stimulus money is a one time expenditure meant to stimulate the GDP and thus produce more tax revenues, thus lowering the deficit. Which is EXACTLY what happened this year, when the total deficit turned out to be much lower than expected.

2) The author claims Mr Obama's spending cuts are too small, a point that Mr Obama agrees with. He made these cuts to get the obvious cuts out of the way, so EVERYONE can make more politically sensitive cuts together.

This way, when the government is forced to make cuts in the Military, Social Security and Medicare, the Republicans won't be able to say no, claiming that cuts can be made in other places, and blaming the Democrats for cuts to favored programs. Because cuts were ALREADY made in other places.

3) The author doesn't mention the fact that Bush left Obama with a 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit to begin with, as estimated by the CBO on January 7th of 2009, and that any increases are either due to stimulus spending or increases in numbers of elderly people claiming benefits.

But hey, what would one expect from the Heritage foundation?

 

[EriktheRed]

But hey, what would one expect from the Heritage foundation?

Maybe they can ask,"What would Reagan do?"

 

[The Rabbi]

But hey, let's discuss this BS opinion piece, and show everyone why we should not blindly accept opinion as fact, shall we?

1) The author does not mention that the stimulus money is a one time expenditure meant to stimulate the GDP and thus produce more tax revenues, thus lowering the deficit. Which is EXACTLY what happened this year, when the total deficit turned out to be much lower than expected.

Except that isn't what happened. It is not a one time expenditure. Since the money is all borrowed it is the gift that keeps on giving. And since Obama has refused to phase it out, he insists on re-lending repaid stimulus money for "jobs" programs.
Only to a liberal can large deficits coming in less than expected be considered "lowering the deficit." I think I'll estimate my income next year at $5 so if I make $10k for the year I'll consider it a banner year.

 

[Vast LWC]

But hey, let's discuss this BS opinion piece, and show everyone why we should not blindly accept opinion as fact, shall we?

1) The author does not mention that the stimulus money is a one time expenditure meant to stimulate the GDP and thus produce more tax revenues, thus lowering the deficit. Which is EXACTLY what happened this year, when the total deficit turned out to be much lower than expected.

Except that isn't what happened. It is not a one time expenditure. Since the money is all borrowed it is the gift that keeps on giving. And since Obama has refused to phase it out, he insists on re-lending repaid stimulus money for "jobs" programs.
Only to a liberal can large deficits coming in less than expected be considered "lowering the deficit." I think I'll estimate my income next year at $5 so if I make $10k for the year I'll consider it a banner year.

If a deficit is expected to be 1.5 Trillion Dollars, and then the people in charge create a stimulus plan to increase tax revenues, and the deficit decreases to 1.3 Trillion Dollars, then that is, by definition, "Lowering the Deficit".

If a non-liberal like yourself doesn't understand that concept, well, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[The Rabbi]

But hey, let's discuss this BS opinion piece, and show everyone why we should not blindly accept opinion as fact, shall we?

1) The author does not mention that the stimulus money is a one time expenditure meant to stimulate the GDP and thus produce more tax revenues, thus lowering the deficit. Which is EXACTLY what happened this year, when the total deficit turned out to be much lower than expected.

Except that isn't what happened. It is not a one time expenditure. Since the money is all borrowed it is the gift that keeps on giving. And since Obama has refused to phase it out, he insists on re-lending repaid stimulus money for "jobs" programs.
Only to a liberal can large deficits coming in less than expected be considered "lowering the deficit." I think I'll estimate my income next year at $5 so if I make $10k for the year I'll consider it a banner year.

If a deficit is expected to be 1.5 Trillion Dollars, and then the people in charge create a stimulus plan to increase tax revenues, and the deficit decreases to 1.3 Trillion Dollars, then that is, by definition, "Lowering the Deficit".

If a non-liberal like yourself doesn't understand that concept, well, I don't know what to tell you.

You're right. You don't know what to tell me.
When the actual deficit rises, and is expected to rise even further, that is not "Lowering the deficit." That is raising the deficit. If you can't tell the difference between something going up and something going down then there is no hope and you ought to consider suicide.

 

[Xenophon]

Its only money, Barry will print more.