Under the control of Democrats the budget of the United States has grown by a trillion dollars in the last few years.
Year/Spending total/Deficit
2007 / $2.7 trillion/ $161 billion / Bush
2008 / $2.9 trillion / $239 billion / Bush*
2009 / $3.1 trillion / $407 billion / Obama*
2010 / $3.55 trillion / $1.17 trillion / Obama*
2011 / $3.7 trillion / $1.6 trillion / Obama*
*- Democrat-controlled Congress
Obama and the Democrats have exploded federal spending. They have a two pronged effort to ruin this country underway- one is to irretrievably bury us in debt and the second is simple denial.
There was a time when debt and deficits mattered to Democrats. That would be when a Republican is President.
Democrats will use deficits to attack Bush, GOP credibility
Democrats are honing an election-year strategy of using record federal deficits to try and undermine the credibility of President Bush and Congress’ majority Republicans.
Democrats assail Bush’s budget, deficit
Democrats are attacking President Bush’s budget for worsening the already bleak deficit picture, even as a new congressional analysis of his fiscal plans shows no end in sight for huge amounts of red ink.
But all that concern magically ended the day Democrats took control of Congress and it hasn’t been seen since.
Few of us were happy with the way George Bush spent but it is inarguable that Obama and the Democrats have made W look like Ebenezer Scrooge.
What has just been agreed to was the Fiscal 2011 budget. The Fiscal 2011 budget was proposed by Barack Obama in February 2010. The 2011 Fiscal Year runs from October to September. That means that Democrats have been entirely derelict in their duties and it was left to Republicans to fix their mess. Democrats had from February 2010 (When the budget was handed to them) to the end of December to pass a 2011 budget and they controlled all of Congress during that time.
And they failed.
Not only did Democrats fail, they spewed all sorts of garbage during the negotiations.
Biden said Democrats agreed to $73 billion in cuts.
Vice President Joe Biden announced late Wednesday that House and Senate bipartisan negotiators had agreed to a spending-cut target of $73 billion in 2011 budget talks aimed at heading off a government shutdown before next week, when a temporary bill keeping the government operating runs out.
Obama also claimed Democrats agreed to $73 billion in spending cuts:
President Obama says Democrats have agreed to $73 billion in spending cuts for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, and that this is the same target Republicans have set.
Except that they didn’t:
Republican House Speaker John Boehner says the Democrats are calling for $33 billion in cuts, and that his party hasn’t agreed to that or any other number.
The actual figure turns out to be $39 billion.
And the national debt increased by $54 billion while they were dickering over $39 billion.
Barack Obama finally decided to “come off the sidelines.”
Once criticized as too aloof, President Obama has forcefully stepped up his involvement in budget negotiations by repeatedly calling Capitol Hill’s top Republican and top Democrat to the Oval Office, underscoring the new power balance in Washington with the House GOP having earned a seat at the table.
Before you caught up in thinking that that’s impressive, remember that this budget should been a done deal by October 1 of last year. Obama again voted present, jumping in once the dust had largely settled.
Still, the most ridiculous aspect of this episode was Obama’s taking credit for any spending reductions.
“Today, Americans of different beliefs came together again,” Obama said.
The president said that negotiators have reached “a budget that invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history,” adding that he compromised on cuts that he would “not have made in better circumstances.”
Assinine. Obama never had the slightest intention of cutting anything. And make no mistake- nothing was actually cut. The agreement was only a reduction in proposed spending increases. These morons have increased federal spending by 33% in four years. It’s confounding trying to understand why it was so easy to add so much and so difficult to remove.
The Obaminated Press predictably awarded Obama a victory:
Obama, Boehner each earn wins in budget pact
Rivals in a divided government, President Barack Obama and the most powerful Republican in Congress split their differences to stave off a federal shutdown that neither combatant was willing to risk.
After calling $32 billion in cuts “draconian” and “unworkable” the terminally hypocritical Hairy Reid said
“We must get our fiscal house in order. We’ve agreed to an historic level of cuts for this fiscal year.”
Historic?
Nonsense. This wasn’t a “cut.” It was a reduction in proposed spending. That’s all. A real cut in spending will see the US federal budget being lower for Fiscal Year 2012 than for 2011.
Good luck with that.
And a reminder:
Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half
President Obama will announce Monday that he plans to cut the nation’s projected annual deficit in half by the end of his first term, a senior administration official said Saturday.
Look for Obama to claim this as a success. As always, the devil is in the details.
Obama pledges to cut nation’s deficit in half
President Barack Obama pledged Monday to cut the nation’s $1.3 trillion deficit in half by the end of his first term.
If, by some miracle, Republicans whittle away at the next budget to the tune of $600 billion in proposed spending increases Obama will claim success as that would represent half of the $1.3 trillion deficit from 2009. Then again, he could even claim that a $300 billion reduction in proposed spending would be a success as well.
How?
Because in that $1.3 trillion was included the $700 billion TARP money, which has largely been paid back.
Which also means Obama did not inherit a $1.3 trillion deficit, but rather a $600 billion deficit (not that that’s small potatoes).
And one last blast from the past:
“I refuse to leave our children with a debt they cannot repay,” he said in remarks opening the one-day summit at the White House. “We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end. … We cannot simply spend as we please.”
You are an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Here’s an interesting exercise I just did.
The national debt is $14.2 trillion.
The annual revenue of the government is $2.57 trillion.
The annual spending of the government is $3.83 trillion.
The spending cut was $38 billion.
What does that really mean in dollar numbers that we can understand?
Let’s assume that your annual salary is $50,000.
Using the same percentages, this would mean that you owe $276,265, and you are spending $74,514 each year.
You realize that this can’t go on forever, so you decide to cut your annual spending by $739.
You congratulate yourself for making such a tough decision.
The photo of the guy with the guy who has his head in the sand was a fitting choice. By the way Dr J, out of the current crop of presidential candidates who is your current favorite replacement for the TOTUS?
The “Cuts” were a drop in the Bucket while un-sustainable spending goes on unabated. Neither Party is Fiscally Responsible or Economically Literate at this point. The duplication of ‘services’ on the part of the Federal Government vs State Government is irresponsible as well. Time is past due for the Constitutionally Illiterate to read the 10th Amendment and the Enumerated Powers and get back to the Intent of the Founding Fathers before the Republic becomes insolvent.
@Old Trooper 2: The commerce clause seems to be a passage of the constitution that allows for anything according to either party. Creative reading?..
Dr. John, you have an asterisk by the years that the Democrats controlled the Congress.
Shouldn’t that include 2007 as the Democrats won control of the House in the November, 2006 elections, giving them control of the 2007 Congress?
In 2007, the Democrats held 233 out of 435 Congressional seats and 51 out of 100 Senate seats. While it did not give the Democrats a filibuster proof majority, they still held a simple majority.
@Zac:
I have been reading the Federalist Papers, concerned with the founding father’s views on the Constitution and how certain phrases and sections were meant to be applied. I found this quote, from James Madison, recently, and it has become a favorite of mine now.
We have a serious education problem in this country, and I don’t mean math or english, although those certainly are problems. No, I’m talking about American History, and in particular, the Constitution and the Declaration. Too many of our young people come out of school with little to no understanding of these documents, instead, listening to the liberal rhetoric about a “living document” and that most anything that can be done by congress can be shoehorned into certain sections or paragraphs of the Constitution. We, as a country, no longer have a revered view of the Constitution. Instead, we, as a country, see it as a dated document, no longer relevant to today’s world.
And by doing so, much of America misses the magic of that particular document. Namely, the fact that it is general enough to encompass current events, and specific enough to elicit outrage at modern legislations when warranted. James Madison himself stated that in future times, he would hope that when questions about the Constitution arise, that legislators would harken back to the days of the construction of the document, and to what the authors of the Constitution were thinking about, of the inclusions of the phrase or section in question.
The commerce clause, for instance, requires much deliberation, as it is used as authority for all manner of intrusive government legislation upon the common citizen.
To understand that phrase, one must understand that at the time of our country’s birth, the thirteen original states were considered to be their own sovereign entities, akin to their own sovereign countries. The Union was meant to be a consolidation of these entities, of which, in most issues, the people were like-minded, and that a consolidation of power, mainly for the defense of the States from foreign aggression, made sense so as to endear a stronger presence in the world. As such, commerce between the states, and between a state, or states, and a foreign country, and amongst the states and the Indian tribes(not considered inclusively with the Union), was to be regulated so that a state that imported items, through other states, were not subjected to egregious actions by those pass-through states, to a point where it could become untenable to import from certain locations, and advantageous to import from other, certain locations. A leveling of the playing field, so to speak, as states like VA and NY, in particular, imported very little that passed through other states, while others very much used travel through other states to obtain goods.
In the modern world, the commerce clause is applied to legislation, so as to effect certain regulations on products, or services. The fact that a product or service is sold between states is of little consequence to the legislators, as the main thrust is the regulation itself, becoming ever more intrusive upon the freedoms and liberties of the individual citizens. It is because of this clause, and the modern interpretation of it, that Representatives, like Pete Stark, D-CA, claim that the federal government can “do most anything it wants”. Oh, how James Madison must be rolling in his grave right now.
This clear usurpation of power by our federal government must become one of the lightening rods for modern day conservatives. We must educate the populace, to as great an extent as possible, on the Constitution, so as to elicit a shared goal of ending these atrocious overreaches by the federal government into our daily lives.
Perhaps we should go to The Hermitage and dig up Andrew Jackson since he was the only president to ever pay off the national debt.
Next year, 2012, if the current form holds true for the federal debt and the GDP, will be the first year since the 40’s that our debt will exceed the GDP. We came out of that mainly due to WWII, and in spite of Roosevelt’s “New Deal”. The difference this time, is that out of the new spending by the federal government, much of it is very specific, and not likely to find it’s way into the general economy.
@retire05: George Bush submitted the proposed FY 2007 budget in February of 2006 as is tradition. Congress passed it in May of 2006. The federal fiscal year begins October 1 and continues through September 30. Democrats did not take control until January of 2007.
@johngalt: There is a very big difference between that debt and the current debt, i.e. who holds it.
@johngalt: JG, almost all of what you say is unfortunately true, especially when you look at the professors our children have to put up wit, sitting in their Ivory Towers, and pronouncing their liberal screed on everyone- but if you speak up, as my daughter did, a couple of times, you find yourself targeted by liberal eco- whackos who believe that freedom of speech applies only to THEIR speech.
Sadly, they have been lied to by their parents, who told their entitled brats that they were the smartest people in the room- kinda like Barrie Obama, huh?
Keep in mind, this 39 billion is not a “cut”- it is only a reduction in spending. Cuts will be when not only do we NOT spend, we ELIMINATE whole Departments, like “Education”, EPA, HHS, defund the IRS and change the tax code to a 5/10/15 solution with NO loopholes.
If we can do this, then the banks will loosen their lending, and small businesses will grow and jobs can be created- not until then.
$200 billion in spending on redundant programs and useless gvt. employees! Some legitimate estimates that go as high as 25% in waste and funds that cannot even be accounted for! And let’s not forget NPR,CPB, Planned Parenthood and any other entity that if the public wants it, let them support it themselves (and for you libbies out there, this also means programs supported by the entrenched Rep. scumbags as well. i am after all an equal opportunity disser when given the chance)! I could go on and on. The point is a $38 billion cut for the rest of the fiscal year is just another slap in the American people’s face!
As we are now seeing our leader, you know, the one who had his ass against the wall and will be more than happy to abandon his Soviet style agenda only long enough so as to keep his sorry ass position. Not only is this clown taking credit for basically nothing, but he’ll use it to show he “is listening and thus deserves re-election! Any one who is foolish enough to even remotely believe this clown has changed his stripes is either stone cold dumb or completely ideologically brain dead!
BTW: @Blake: My daughter went through the exact same thing at USF. She was given a low “C” on a dissertation that flat out proved her professor was a liberal elitest asshole period. Mush to her credit, she fought it. Didn’t get anywhere of course as she was told she had no right to bring her right wing agenda as they called it to the campus. Much to my great fatherly pride, my little girl told the entire staff involved to “Blow it out there asse”s and that they were in fact the enemies of this country. That was over 12 years ago and it’s only gotten worse!
@joetote:
Love it!
I have a little girl of the same cloth.
@DrJohn: We are indeed lucky men!!!
Insight
On the Commerce Clause, it has been ‘bastardized’ beyond it’s original intent to becoming a tool for the Fiscally Irresponsible and an Umbrella excuse for Political Patronage for Special Interest to serve Political Gain and not to create opportunity for the Sovereign States to regulate Commerce within their borders or with other individual States as intended. It is broken and requires definition by the Judicial Branch to check the Powers of the Executive and Legislative Branches as is clearly defined by the Enumeratiive Powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. A Failure to do so will doom the Republic. The Constitution is not a Buffet to be eaten in the parts and pieces that You like. It is the Law of the Land that applies as a Whole.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
That’s a true statement if I ever heard one. None of the people running seem to have a plan to get a definition on the commerce cause that is not self serving.
@joetote: Joe, does she ever call you on your cell and explode about the nitwits?
It’s one of the great pleasures of my life.
A continuation of #7, and the discussion of the powers of congress to spend our money:
Along with the commerce clause, the ‘general welfare’ clause is one of the most misunderstood, and misrepresented clauses within the Constitution. It is used as reason and means to enact various legislation for which it was never intended.
Article I, Section 8;
Again, we must go back to the time of the construction of the document. In Federalist Paper no. 41, James Madison writes of an objection to the phraseology of the above. In it, the detractors argue that the phrase “amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare”. How prescient they were. However, Madison likens the phraseology of the section to the building of a paragraph, and that the first phrase, like a first sentence in a paragraph, is only a general idea of the powers, and that the immediate following phrases within the section enumerate the powers generally discussed within the first phrase.
Unfortunately for Madison, the modern liberal has involved, and included, the phrase within their sphere of powers granted by the Constitution, and have thus used it to reason away many liberties and freedoms, and at the same time, legislating the formation of several entitlement programs for which their powers never extended to.
As is the case in #7 that I cited, with the ‘commerce’ clause, the lack of education on the Constitution, and specifically, the powers it vests within the three branches, has enabled the usurpation of power by the federal government from the state and local administrations. One could argue that using the ‘general welfare’ clause, for “the common good”, is used with the best of intentions in mind, to endow the elderly with retirement income, keep children of the poor fed, provide for medical services to those who do not possess the means, etc., however, as with many good intentions, the results become disastrous and in opposition to the clear mission, enumerated within the Constitution, of the federal government over the ‘several states’.
What this has enabled, more than anything, is a redistribution of wealth, and not from those who can to those who cannot, but from those who will to those who will not. And any attempt at shutting off the spigot of federal dollars to these programs, or even a lessening of flow, is met by derision and lies from liberals, with claims of conservatives killing old people, starving children, taking away medical care from women, and other, equally outlandish claims, of conservative destruction upon America.
We have a Congress, along with a President, that just completed the 2011 budget, nearly a year later than commonly done, and over six months past the start of fiscal 2011, and they want us to be happy about cuts of $39 Billion for the rest of the year. That amount is paltry, considering the total estimated spending for the year, and considering the too numerous to count funding items within the budget, most of which do not fit within the granted powers to Congress, spelled out within the Constitution, and discussed at length by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, and found in other discussions by founding fathers upon the Constitution.
I sought to include lists of spending on unconstitutional items, but the job is quite daunting, to say the least. Credit must be given to those like Paul Ryan, who can delve into federal spending, however, my guess is that he is missing much of the unconstitutional spending that goes on annually. The departments of Education, HHS, Energy, and Agriculture are just a few of the biggest spending areas for which Congress has no right, and indeed, has usurped power from state and local administrations. I will not compile a list, as I do not have the time necessary to devote to that monumental task.
I will leave with this thought, though: Congress, and the federal government at large, have turned the producers of this country into servants for the machine. We no longer work to provide for the Constitutional authority of the federal government. We work to provide for an engine geared towards taking wealth from one, to give to another, based on the ‘need’ of that other. Charity has devolved into theft at gunpoint, by a government we give power to, and many of us are simply happy that they take no more than they do. We no longer live for ourselves, but for the benefit of others. In effect, we have become the servants, and the government the masters.
@DrJohn: Funny story. She is like a miniature (4’9″) version of me except she’s a she! We speak 3 or 4 times a week. She’s married to a State Policeman who is every bit as conservative. We do indeed have some amazing calls and as you say it is a great pleasure. Of my four kids, 2 girls and my son are conservative. My oldest daughter also went to USF and unfortunately she chose to let herself be indoctrinated by those same professors. Makes for some interesting family get togethers for sure. LOL!
My biggest laugh with her is she’ll always throw a nice snide comment on my blog basically to one up DAD!
god, I love that!!!
@joetote:
OMG!
I hope she is not in CA!
The CA law requires all people 4’9” or under to be placed in a car booster seat!
LOL!
Sounds like a mini-firecracker of a girl.
A continuation of the discussion of the Constitution, and it’s relation to the authored topic above;
Our Constitution has faults, as does every object ever devised by Man, however, it also contains ideas of such significant genius, that to change, or obliterate them, could be considered an egregious error. One such idea was the original mode of selecting for service, to the federal government, the offices of senator. The 17th Amendment erased the brilliance of our founding fathers, and at the same time, placed handcuffs on the ‘several states’ in their ability to protect their own sovereign well-being.
The genius;
Article I, Section 3,
A discussion within the Federalist Papers;
Representation, on the federal level, was meant to be the people, the states, and the union, all having voice upon the affairs of the union, in regards to foreign, states, and individual respects. The people, represented by the House, of which it’s members were elected within local districts, to represent their own local portion of the population of the union as a whole. The Union, represented by the President, with the deciding signature, or “vote” on legislation, is thoughtful of the Union entire, and as such, elected by the whole of the Union. The States, represented by two senators, to place the voice of the ‘several states’ within discussions on legislation, of which their members were selected, based on individual state’s preferences, by their own legislatures.
The process was simplistic, yet genius, as the states had a voice within the federal Congress, to oppose or support, whatever business was pertinent to their own well-being, including any encroachment upon their sovereign entities, or rights which they held. With the 17th Amendment, the process of choosing senators fell upon the people of the state, and in so doing, became creatures beholden not to the state, but the people entire within that state, but also bastardized to include the union itself. The states lost a weapon to combat federal overreach into the realm of their own sovereign rights.
One can admit to failings with the original process, however, not due to the senators themselves, but only to the process by which they were selected. Deadlocks within individual state legislatures caused many senators to not be seated when required, and corruption of the process by political entities within state legislatures. As a result, popular vote within a state determined it’s senators. The detrimental effects of such a change is revealed by the fact that the urban populations within a state tended to choose the senators, and the influence of such choices is obvious. No longer does the state whole have a say, or representation within the senate. That is owned by the large urban areas, often in opposition to rural desires, or in opposition to protecting the rights of the state itself. And what’s more, these urban areas often reflect liberal viewpoints, on a national scale, without regard for the encroachment by federal authority over the rights of the states, and individual.
If you question that last sentence, look no further than any senator’s rhetoric upon any legislation of the day. You do not hear any of them discuss how it is good for their state, or bad for their state. Their words always reflect a national sense of viewpoint, rather than single state’s rights. The 17th Amendment, over all other words, clauses, or phrases, misused and misrepresented within the Constitution, is responsible for the erosion of the states being their own sovereign entities, and as such, having their own sovereign rights, freedoms and liberties. Again, it started with good intentions, being that states would have their representation, on time, and without corruption, within the federal Congress, but it has ended in disastrous results to the original intent of the founding fathers, and their views of a Union, made up of sovereign states.
How does this apply to the discussion at hand? Simply put, individuals and states began in earnest to lose their freedom and liberty upon that amendment. It allowed the furtherance of legislation to benefit the urban areas, at the expense of the rural. It allowed the spending of federal monies on unconstitutional grounds, influenced by urban poverties. No longer were the states represented as an entirety, to address the problems in relation to a states’ rights, but by popular voice within urban settings, without regard for the rural voice in opposition. As such, we now have spending on programs designed to address the plight of the poverties within high population areas, at the expense of the individual citizen. The very fact that senators speak with the influence of the population entire is evidence of this.
@Nan G: Still laughing at that one! My wife and 2 of the three girls are 4’10 or under. the other is 5′. We tease them alot as to the possibility of booster seats. Also, they can’t drive vintage Corvettes! At least some cars are drivable for them was they sit on a phone book though. BTW: She’s in Fl.
Could you please point me to the last Republican led congress and President who felt balanced budgets were worthy of top priority. That would be the liberal anti- military establishment Dwight D. E.. What repugnicans are opposed to is Democrats spending money. Repugs, love spending money on their employers, ie, the banks and big oil concerns.
States rights would pour off my lips should I not have to defend your sorry asses. Those most independent sovereigns of Alaska, Alabama and Nebraska, suck more from the teat of the federal government than any others.
@lgfrench: Per your comment #25- it is true that the virus known as progressivism has crept into Republican circles (Just look at Lindsay Graham or John McCain), but that does not mean that all conservatives are Republican- most real conservatives want to cut out ALL the spending (Hey- did you not get the memo? We’re broke)- now, I know it just cuts Libbies to the bone- they are soooooo good at spending other people’s money, but the well is dry, until we pay off our debt.
If progressives had ever spent a day balancing a company payroll or even just working for a living (community organizing doesn’t count), they would be conservatives.
@lgfrench: And, I should hasten to add, your attitude is one that would not go over real well, especially since it was your rezident that has been yapping about “civility”, but not curbing your loose lips- same ol’, same ol’- the Indians had it right regarding Obamma, anyway- the man does speak with forked tongue, doesn’t he?
And you seem to have no problem with this lying- why is that? No morals, like most of the rest of your crowd? Or do you just follow along tamely like a lap dog?