Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Ugly numbers...


Usually, when one points out Obama's unprecedented spending spree, his supporters start deflecting by saying bad things about Bush's spending or even Reagan's. Indeed, it's probably bad under any circumstances to increase the nation's debt. But what the president has done staggers the mind and shows what happens when you elect a guy who hasn't run a business and has no real economic acumen.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that over the next ten years, cumulative deficits will reach $9.7 trillion and federal debt 90% of the gross domestic product. Global capital markets are unlikely to accept that credit erosion. If they revolt, as they did in 1979, ugly changes in fiscal and monetary policy will be imposed on Washington.

How bad is the outlook? The size of the federal debt will increase by 250% over 10 years. Other than during WWII, this hasn't been seen since record-keeping began in 1792. It is so bad that by 2020, the country will have to borrow $5 trillion a year just to refinance maturing debt and raise new money.

No family can long survive spending beyond its means...sooner or later, it has to shut down all-but-necessary spending and try to get the wheels back on the road. Obama loves big government and he's the answer to every liberal's prayer. But this ain't play money he's tossing around. And to help cover his uncontrollable spending habit, he is resorting to another Democrat favorite...raising taxes. For our sake, and the future of our kids and grandkids, this neophyte spender-in-chief needs to be reined in. His first trip to the woodshed will occur in November.

2 comments:

Jeff S. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff S. said...

Certainly that can't be your criteria for what makes a successful president: someone who has run a business. The correlation between that and one's ability to balance a budget is nil. George W. Bush ran a business--right into the ground--and ran up never-before-seen deficits once he entered office. Clinton and LBJ, both liberals who had no business-running experience, balanced the budget and created a surplus.

Since you cite the CBO, I'm guessing that you also believe their numbers regarding the health care bill: that it will save $1.3 trillion over the next decade.

And I'm puzzled as to why you are afraid of rising taxes? You are not the target of a tax hike. The tax hike will affect only those who make over $250,000 per year, and I'm assuming that you're not one of the two percent of Americans who fall into that category. Are Republicans genuinely upset that Bill Gates will have to pay more taxes? That certainly doesn't keep me awake at night.

I want to be clear: spending needs to be curtailed significantly, but the Obama stimulus package and the Bush TARP package were--according to the vast majority of economists--necessary to keep from sinking into Great Depression II. You simply can't have a deregulated Wall Street running wild during the Clinton and Bush years and not expect to face the consequences.