dstraito
TB Fanatic
I read this opinion piece in the paper today. I wanted to address a paragraph at the end.
From http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/1242131.html
SMITH: Republicans have nerve objecting to Obama’s tax plan
.
.
.
Obama became president less than seven weeks ago.
He inherited a nightmarish situation from Bush — record federal budget deficits, two costly wars and an exceptionally brutal recession featuring rapidly escalating unemployment, the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression, a severe credit crunch, a U.S. auto industry in free-fall and a decimated stock market.
Smith's article seems to point a finger of blame at the previous administration and as a major argument point talks about how bad it is to have a record federal budget.
Yes the previous administration had a record deficit and while that is not acceptable it is understandable in the light of two costly wars and a brutal recession.
So as a logical constraint, is it really an appropriate argument to say my predecessor messed up things by having a record budget deficit and then move on to creating a deficit that is four times as large?
Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
That seems pretty irresponsible and hypocritical to me. Spend 8 years rallying about how bad it is that the President ran up such a huge deficit and then move on to a shortfall four times larger.
From http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=324745&highlight=budget+deficit
Where the U.S. government usually consumes 21 percent of gross domestic product, this Obama budget spends 28 percent in 2009 and runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.7 percent of GDP. That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II.
Add that 28 percent of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12 percent spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40 percent of the economy in 2009.
We are not "headed down the road to socialism." We are there.
Since the budget was released, word has come that the U.S. economy did not shrink by 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter, but 6.2 percent. All the assumptions in Obama's budget about growth in 2009 and 2010 need to be revised downward, and the deficits revised upward.
Look for the deficit for 2009 to cross $2 trillion.
$2 Trillion. Really?
Isn’t that like throwing gasoline on a fire and hoping it goes out?
Isn’t that throwing conventional wisdom out the window?
Let’s see, the credit card is maxed out, I’ll just open three other accounts to resolve this situation. At some point we’ll just be making payments on the interest as that will be all we can afford.
We need to start asking questions.
Is the correct way to resolve this economic problem really by spending more money and creating an even larger deficit?
Is it really smart to raise taxes in a recessionary period?
Will raising taxes bring in more money or will it actually result in a net loss.
We all having to be thinking about these things and questioning them before the current administration goes too far.
JMHO
From http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/1242131.html
SMITH: Republicans have nerve objecting to Obama’s tax plan
.
.
.
Obama became president less than seven weeks ago.
He inherited a nightmarish situation from Bush — record federal budget deficits, two costly wars and an exceptionally brutal recession featuring rapidly escalating unemployment, the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression, a severe credit crunch, a U.S. auto industry in free-fall and a decimated stock market.
Smith's article seems to point a finger of blame at the previous administration and as a major argument point talks about how bad it is to have a record federal budget.
Yes the previous administration had a record deficit and while that is not acceptable it is understandable in the light of two costly wars and a brutal recession.
So as a logical constraint, is it really an appropriate argument to say my predecessor messed up things by having a record budget deficit and then move on to creating a deficit that is four times as large?
Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
That seems pretty irresponsible and hypocritical to me. Spend 8 years rallying about how bad it is that the President ran up such a huge deficit and then move on to a shortfall four times larger.
From http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=324745&highlight=budget+deficit
Where the U.S. government usually consumes 21 percent of gross domestic product, this Obama budget spends 28 percent in 2009 and runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.7 percent of GDP. That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II.
Add that 28 percent of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12 percent spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40 percent of the economy in 2009.
We are not "headed down the road to socialism." We are there.
Since the budget was released, word has come that the U.S. economy did not shrink by 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter, but 6.2 percent. All the assumptions in Obama's budget about growth in 2009 and 2010 need to be revised downward, and the deficits revised upward.
Look for the deficit for 2009 to cross $2 trillion.
$2 Trillion. Really?
Isn’t that like throwing gasoline on a fire and hoping it goes out?
Isn’t that throwing conventional wisdom out the window?
Let’s see, the credit card is maxed out, I’ll just open three other accounts to resolve this situation. At some point we’ll just be making payments on the interest as that will be all we can afford.
We need to start asking questions.
Is the correct way to resolve this economic problem really by spending more money and creating an even larger deficit?
Is it really smart to raise taxes in a recessionary period?
Will raising taxes bring in more money or will it actually result in a net loss.
We all having to be thinking about these things and questioning them before the current administration goes too far.
JMHO
