Here we go, get ready for the looting…
"Shared Sacrifices Will Solve the Debt Crisis"
Having a frank conversation about the realities of the budget is harder than promising not to raise taxes.
What he means is that American producers will have to share and sacrifice.
Hoyer slanders Bush for the Obama-Pelosi debt.
From The Wall Street Journal this morning:
Americans are rightly outraged over our nation's fiscal situation. The course we're on will lead to public debt that will exceed the size of our entire economy, and a government that will eventually exist to do only two things: fund entitlement programs and make interest payments. Americans may be wondering whether the Greek financial crisis could happen here.
It will—unless we change course. There's a myth that our budget deficit mess sprang into existence at the presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009. But in truth, more than 90% of the projected deficit we will face over the next decade is the result of President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the rescue of the financial sector he began in the last few months of his presidency, and lower revenues from the recession.
That is a horrible lie.
During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth.
Obama, on the other hand, has destroyed the economy.
But, democrats want desperately for you to believe that it was George Bush who passed the failed stimulus and record 2009 spending bills.
Hoyer even goes on to say that Barack Obama has shown fiscal restraint:
Voters are demanding that Washington take fiscal responsibility seriously. Democrats agree. But the public has a responsibility, too: To understand that lower taxes and higher spending may be popular, but they are a dangerous combination that leads to exploding deficits.
On a host of other issues, President Barack Obama also showed his seriousness about fiscal restraint. His budget freezes nonsecurity discretionary spending and cuts our deficit by more than half by 2013, and more than $1.3 trillion over the next decade. He signed a bill to reform weapons acquisition and target cost overruns at the Pentagon.
Is he freaking serious?
Obama has been the most irresponsible spender in history. Obama raised government spending to a record level and then froze it.
This article is infuriating. What garbage.
Unfortunately, we have a planet-sized mountain of evidence that Washington in general (and Dems in particular) have zero ability or inclination to do anything resembling fiscal responsibility. Here's the latest continent-sized chunk to throw on the pile:
There's simply way any rational and intelligent person can think that the people who are now running the show are capable of doing what it takes to restore economic health to America. This country desperately needs the immediate removal of any and all such elected officials -- regardless of party -- at the next election. If they supported bailouts, takeovers, reckless government expansion, or legislative thuggery of any kind, VOTE FOR THE OTHER CANDIDATE.
The deficit commission held its first meeting yesterday, but another debate is taking place on the Hill these days. The 54-member Blue Dog Coalition is asking Appropriations chairman David R. Obey (D., Wis.) that domestic spending cuts go beyond what President Obama proposed in his fiscal 2011 budget.
They want an $8 to $10 billion cut in non-defense, non-homeland-security spending. In the worst-case scenario, that's a $10 billion cut out of a $530 billion budget. That's 1.89 percent.
That's 0.73 percent of the discretionary budget (security and non-security appropriations).
That's 0.27 percent of total spending.
You'd think that would be doable. But, according to Congressional Quarterly, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer disagrees.
"You know, we're in a very tough situation, and it's very tough for people to make decisions that they don't want to make because they don't want the consequences," Hoyer said. "Some people want to cut more, some people want to not be cut as much."
I would suggest that if they can't cut $10 billion out of $3.7 trillion (which is the equivalent of cutting $8.30 a month out of a $50,000 annual salary, or $16.6 a month out of a $100,000 salary), they are unlikely to perform appropriately when the time comes (i.e., now) to make the necessary cuts in the budget to address the entitlement-spending explosion.
Period. It's that simple.
If we as American voters can't take the time and exert the small effort it would take to learn at least that much about the people we're voting on, then we really have no grounds to complain about handing our kids and grandkids a craphole of an economy, nor do we have any defense against their certain ire and miserable circumstances. Now, if you want to start your preparation early, this is the absolute best place to start.
There's my two cents.