Obama's Budget Deficit 4 times Larger Than Bush's

Budget deficit to top $1.8 trillion; 4 times 2008's record...
With the economy performing worse than hoped, revised White House figures point to deepening budget deficits, with the government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year.

The deficit for the current budget year will rise by $89 billion to above $1.8 trillion -- about four times the record set just last year. The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout, the cost of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as a structural imbalance between what the government spends and what it takes in.

Government borrowing 50 cents for every dollar it spends...
For the current year, the government would borrow 46 cents for every dollar it takes to run the government under the administration's plan. In one of the few positive signs, the actual 2009 deficit is likely to be $250 billion less than predicted because Congress is unlikely to provide another $250 billion in financial bailout money.

The developments come as the White House completes the official release of its $3.6 trillion budget for 2010, adding detail to some of its tax proposals and ideas for producing health care savings. The White House budget is a recommendation to Congress that represents Obama's fiscal and policy vision for the next decade.

Weak tax receipts...
White House officials said the gloomier deficit picture reflected weaker tax receipts as the economy declined and higher costs for social safety-net programs such as unemployment insurance. Spending on the government rescues for the financial and automobile industries also was a factor in the higher deficit, according to the White House.

"The change in the deficit estimates reflects upward technical revisions in light of new information regarding the collection of receipts, financial stabilization efforts and other federal programs," White House budget director Peter Orszag said in a blog posting.

High U.S. budget deficits are being driven by an economic crisis that President Barack Obama inherited, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said on Monday.

Oh no, no, no, no. You mean to tell me that Bush's economy was so bad, his spending was so bad, that the only way to fix it is to spend 4 times more than Bush ever did? No sir, the budget deficit belongs entirely to Obama. Blaming Bush for Obama's socialist policies is just weak, it is just escapism, it is just deferring atrocious spending policies onto a whipping boy. Man up, and take some credit for your own actions Obama. Bush may have made many fiscal mistakes, but he didn't blame it on Clinton.

White House Economists Predict 3.5% Growth by Year-End...
The Obama administration projected that the U.S. economy will expand at a 3.5 percent annual rate by year-end, a rebound that would be almost twice as strong as private forecasters expect.

In the economic assumptions of its 2010 budget request, President Barack Obama’s economic team didn’t change its 2009 predictions for a 1.2 percent drop in gross domestic product this year, slower inflation, higher unemployment and lower market interest rates than a year ago.

As early as the end of this year, GDP may rise at a 3.5 percent annual rate, the same pace projected for all of next year, helped by a $787 billion stimulus package, the administration said in the report today. That’s more optimistic than the 1.8 percent fourth-quarter growth estimate in the monthly Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey released May 10.

Here is to hoping they are right. I guess we will find out at years end. If it does recover to such a degree, it is a true testament to the power of capitalism; that it was able to overcome so much socialist meddling.


Guest said...

Bush didn't blame clinton because clinton left him a budget SURPLUS. Bush left Obama with a budget DEFICIT. Take some time to learn the difference between these two very different words.

Notoriously Conservative said...

I think you misunderstand the comparison. It is about personal responsibility, not the definition of SURPLUS and DEFICIT. Bush could have blamed Clinton for enacting weak defense policies that led to 9/11 but he didn't. Bush could have blamed the lack of oversight in the Clinton administration that led to the collapse of Enron among others. But he didn't. I could make further illustrations of this concept, but I think this suffices. Obama, and liberals at large have the habit of blaming others for their own actions when something fails, i.e. blaming a staffer for a Air Force One, NYC flyby.

Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.

While you're at it, visit our message boards!