Most of today’s news has been obliterated by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy. May he rest in peace.
I’ve had a busy, busy day and meant to get to this earlier. I almost forgot about it, but for a conversation with a friend.
Many trolls come around here to leave comments about Bush and his spending. Many of my liberal friends tell me Obama can do whatever he wants because Bush spent a lot of our money. Yes, there were plenty of spending bills President George W. Bush should have vetoed. But Bush’s spending was small potatoes compared to Obama and Company. And let’s not forget which party controlled congress after 2006.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Earlier this year when President Obama was selling his first budget blueprint, he promised to end years of “borrow and spend” budgeting. Yesterday, reality struck.
Mr. Obama’s White House and the Congressional Budget Office told us that current U.S. fiscal policy is “borrow and spend” on a hyperlink. The good news is the deficit for 2009 will be “only” $1.58 trillion, about $250 billion lower than expected thanks to less need for TARP funds. But the Obama fiscal plan envisions $9 trillion in new borrowing over the next decade, which is $2 trillion more debt than the White House predicted earlier this year. The 2010 deficit also rises by about as much as the 2009 deficit falls from January, so even the TARP windfall gets spent.
We’ve never fretted over budget deficits, at least if they finance tax cuts to promote growth or spending to win a war. But these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases. CBO predicts that debt held by the public as a share of GDP, which was 40.8% in 2008, will rise to 67.8% in 2019—and then keep climbing after that. CBO says this is “unsustainable,” but even this forecast may be optimistic. ….
Please, I beg you, read the entire article. This is dangerous. Inform yourselves because the main stream media is not going to do it for you. How long do you think we can sustain this?
Right on! I fail to see why the poor decisions of one in the past somehow absolves even worse decisions in the present. It’s like Obama is to be lauded for the good intentions of his policies and Bush is responsible for the price tag of Obama’s policies. I’ve also noticed that they aren’t blaming FDR for social security’s role in the budget or LBJ for welfare’s role in the budget…ect.
I simply can’t follow the logic. It’s one of many examples of how the left is still stuck in the Bush years. They’ve fail to realize they have a different President and yes, people are going to blame the new administration for the things they do wrong. If they wanted to keep up the same old arguments, they should have voted McCain
Like or Dislike:
0 
0