Putting aside who is responsible for it, how do you feel about such incredible debt?
--- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rf...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > Am I the only one totally freaked out by this? > > > > I used to shake my head in disbelief when George Bush racked up $580 > > billion deficits. Now Obama has more than tripled it. > > > That's false. > > == > > Wednesday's New York Times analysis of the CBO budget > projections reveal that Obama's stimulus plan and > other domestic programs account for "only a sliver" of > the deficits, about 10 percent of the projected $1.2 > trillion deficit for 2009. > > = > > ~~ Study Shows Most Red Ink Came From President Bush ~~ > > ...Before leaving office, Bush had transformed what was projected in 2001 to > be a $848 billion surplus for fiscal 2009 into a $1 trillion deficit, nearly > a $2 trillion swing from deep black to bright red, according to Congressional > Budget Office figures. > > But one of the ironies of the early Obama administration is that the > Republicans and their many allies in the U.S. news media have succeeded in > shifting much of the blame for the ocean of red ink onto Barack Obama, > leading the new President to scale back programs and to scramble politically. > A recent Gallup poll found 51 percent disapproving of Obama's handling of > federal spending. > > That GOP success is a reflection of the Right's massive investment in media > over the past several decades and the audacity of Republicans to tick off > talking points regardless of reality. > > A steady propaganda barrage, especially when it's ineffectively countered, > can create perceptions that influence the electorate and thus constrain > political options. > > If Americans think Obama is responsible for the massive deficits, they will > be less willing to support his recommendations for addressing a host of > pressing problems, from the environment to health care to the economy. > > And to the degree they forget or don't know about Bush's role in the deficit > problem, they are more likely to turn back to Republicans, the same people > who enabled Bush with his extravagant tax cuts and open-ended wars to chart > the nation into that red-ink ocean. > > So, it is useful to read Wednesday's New York Times analysis of the CBO > budget projections, which revealed that Obama's stimulus plan and other > domestic programs account for "only a sliver" of the deficits, about 10 > percent of the projected $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009. > > == > NYT article here: http://snipurl.com/jx05h > == > > The Times analysis by David Leonhardt blamed 37 percent of the $2 trillion > swing from surplus to deficit on the business cycle, including the bursting > stock-market bubbles and related recessions. > > The Times traced about 33 percent of the deficit swing to legislation signed > by Bush, including his signature tax cuts and his Medicare prescription drug > plan. > > Though Bush is now out of office, continuation of other of his key > initiatives, such as the Wall Street bailout and the Iraq War, contributed > significantly to the deficit under Obama, the Times found. > > "Mr. Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several > Bush policies, like the Iraq War and tax cuts for households making less than > $250,000," the Times reported. "Such policies together with the Wall Street > bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama account > for 20 percent of the swing." > > Obama's stimulus bill, signed in February, accounted for 7 percent of the > deficit expansion, and his other early programs, including health care, > education and energy, added 3 percent, the Times said. So, the tally would > indicate that Bush's policies contributed to 53 percent of the 2009 deficit > swing compared to 10 percent from Obama's plans. > > Yet the Republicans have scored some important political points by > repositioning themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility and tagging > Obama as a spendthrift... > > Full article: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/061009.html > > > > > > > > > > > It really can be the end of the American Empire, way of life, etc. > > > > Do you have an idea of the enormity of this amount of money? > > > > And there is no indication that he and his Democratic Congress won't repeat > > it next year and every year afterwards. > > > > > > > This changes everything. > > > > Although the current Canadian federal government (with 10% of the > > population of the U.S. in Canada) recently passed a budget with a stimulus > > package resulting in a deficit of $50 billion, socialist Canada has not > > only balanced its budget over the past 10 years but created surpluses to > > PAY DOWN its national debt in many of those years. Ironic, isn't it, that > > Canada can afford a myriad of ridiculous social programs, handle a country > > that is, geographically, second only to Russia in the world, and yet > > balance its budget most years? When I left Canada in '94 it had, per > > capita, a larger deficit than the States and I never imagined they would > > ever get their act together. Well, I was wrong; it was the idiot > > Republicans who more than the Democrats did all the deficit spending > > (except for now with Obama who is breaking ALL records!). And you would > > think it was the socialist Canadians who would be the deficit spenders and > > not the pro-capitalists. > > >
