Obama’s Budget – George Washington to George W. Bush $10T in Debt. Obama in 6 years $7T in NEW DEBT
Government budgeting over 10 years is a joke. No current Congress can bind a future Congress to any spending. That said, adding as much to the base line does in fact ‘commit’ a future Congress so far as that future Congress is as short sighted and spineless as the current one. The REAL numbers you should be concerned with are the current years. 2013 and 2014. Let’s take a look shall we.
|Total Deficits (2008-2014)||-7,098,170|
Obama took office in 2008. I don’t want to hear the liberals blame Bush or the economy. Obama has blown $7T of our Childrens’ money and we have nothing to show for it. He is the President. We elected him to fix the mess. He has arguably made things worse.
The “one time stimulus’ obviously wasn’t one time. Annual spending is $1T higher than it was when he took office. $1T. Take a look at the taxes. Taxes will go up by $600B 2012-2014. He is going to tax the hell out of you. PUT it on paper and somehow is being lauded in the press for his courageous budget because he ties a small % of social security to CPI. Are you kidding me. Folks, by HIS OWN ESTIMATES, Obama will add $7T to our National Debt in 6 years. $7T. The ENTIRE debt was $10T when he took office. Since George Washington $10T. Obama $7T.
These are his numbers. These aren’t from Fox News. They are from the WHITE HOUSE. Links below.
This is why we have chronic unemployment, record levels of Americans on disability and the lowest force participation rate in decades. Business and Consumers know that government spending always results in new taxes. It is a total drain from the efficient private sector to the inefficient public sector. This is historical fact. Obama either doesn’t know or doesn’t care. My opinion – He knows and despite his populist messaging, he doesn’t care…
“If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all,” he wrote. “Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”