Courtesy Greenbaby President Barack Obama unveiled a multi-trillion-dollar spending plan Thursday that would boost taxes on the wealthy, curtail Medicare, lay the groundwork for universal health care and leave a string of deficits dwarfing any in the nation’s history.
In addition to sending Congress his $3.55 trillion budget plan for 2010, Obama proposed more immediate changes that would push spending to $3.94 trillion in the current year.
That would result in a record deficit Obama projects will hit $1.75 trillion, reflecting the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades.
But Republicans contended Obama was avoiding hard choices in favor of exploding the deficit and raising taxes.
Christina Romer, head of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, defended the administration forecast, telling reporters at a briefing that the private forecasters may not be taking into account all of the efforts the government is employing to jump-start the economy.
The Medicare plan is sure to incite battles with doctors, hospitals, health insurance companies and drug manufacturers.
The $1.75 trillion deficit projected for this year would represent 12.3 percent of the gross domestic product, double the previous post-war record of 6 percent in 1983, when Ronald Reagan was president, and the highest level since the deficit totaled 21.5 percent of GDP in 1945, at the end of World War II.
In for a penny, in for a pound. Where’s my bailout?
#32, “One that is interested in, and focused on, conserving the Constitution, money, lives, energy, health, fairness, reason, Mother Earth, freedom and truth.”
Wake me up when the aliens take over. Thanks.
Pork Pork Pork Pork Pork
Let’s spend all our children’s money in hopes of spending our way out of this.
Please Messiah I need gas for my car…..
Here’s a tip for all of you.
Weapons and ammo
This budget deficit number is bogus. Obama said he would go line by line through the budget and eliminate wasteful spending. He hasn’t done that yet, and when he does, the 1.75 trillion number will disappear.
Well, we all know that democrats can’t stand to be behind the republican administration in spending. I guess they wanted to set the spending bar so high this time that it would never be beaten again.
#34
So you were happy to pay for a wars in Iraq but when it comes ‘stimuli’, your reaching for your weapons?
Sound like party political nonsense to me.
#5 the only surplus Bush left Obama was the left over pocket change he left in the desk of the oval office, and forgot about.
What would the budget be with the old (GWB) accounting style?
It has been estimated that the US government’s debt limit will be increased by 63% within next two financial years. So keeping that in mind Mr.Obama has announced the budget. But at present the word “peace” is in danger worldwide. Specially after the case of 26/11. So, if Mr.President would have considered a huge chunk of money for high tech military spending then it would have strengthened the security of our US and I think it should be given the first priority now.
I’m eagerly going to await the “Crash Part 2”.
The stimulus bill will probably be remarkably effective in the short term (starting in about 4 months and lasting about 3-5 years).
The country got used to exceedingly bad habits of monsterously high consumer spending.
We haven’t even begun to see the true consequences of a false economy.
Don’t fret. It will be fun because the real hard work and tough decisions will have to be made.
(Things don’t seem so bad right now because oil is cheap again, but inflation will change all that in a very permanent manner).
Inflation? We haven’t even begun to smell inflation, much less see it. You can pump up an inflated balloon with more helium and make it bigger, and it shore is purty, but there’s the same amount of latex there nonetheless. Wait until it gets so big it pops.
Oh, exciting times are ahead.
#36,
Well, we all know that democrats can’t stand to be behind the republican administration in spending. I guess they wanted to set the spending bar so high this time that it would never be beaten again.
Ah, the days of Newt’s “Contract with America.”
Interesting observation there, Bob.
# 37 Hugh Ripper
No, wasn’t happy about sending over 4,000 service men and women to their death to remove Saddam when it could have been accomplished with a few nukes.
The war has only cost about a third of what the dumbass in the oval office has spent in the last week and it took 6 years to get to that point.
Show me all the stimulus in the bill that happens in time to do any good and maybe I will stop buying guns and ammo to prepare for the coming big sorrow.
#31, Dan,
I’m writing very slow so you can read along.
During the 1930, the complaint was the government did not spend enough. Although Roosevelt was following the advice of John Maynard Keynes, he was restrained by other fiscal conservatives and his own Secretary of the Treasury.
At Morganthau’s insistence, Roosevelt cut spending in 1937. This precipitated another recession.
Countries that followed Keynes model, such as Sweden, had financially healthy economies within a couple of years and were out of the depression by 1934. Countries like Canada that followed laissai faire economics, faired far worse until a new government was elected in 1935 and a recovery began.
These examples demonstrated how Keynesian Economics do work and are often cited by Economists to explain Macro-economics.
When right wing nuts keep pointing out that lowering taxes will solve everything, what they really mean is lower taxes will help them and their friends. The Bush Tax cuts did nothing to help the economy except continue with deficit spending.
The other grave error from the right wing nuts is the idea that labor is “disposable”. Labor can not be shut down and put in storage as if they were redundant machinery. What the right wing nuts ignore is that this “labor pool” consists of others grandmothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, and next door neighbors. We went to school with some of them. Their kids play on the same teams or against our kids. They can not be shunted aside and told to fend for themselves if we want our social fabric to remain.
To be blunt, if I have no money and my kids are hungry, don’t you think that I’m not going to think about taking what you have and still sleep well. I am quite sure that there are many others, including yourself, that think that way.
So yes, we need to the stimulus to help the country. Only traitors and those that hate America would suggest otherwise.
# 44 Mr Diesel said, “The war has only cost about a third of what the dumbass in the oval office has spent in the last week and it took 6 years to get to that point.”
Don’t confuse O’mama bots with facts. It only upsets them.
During the 1930, the complaint was the government did not spend enough. Although Roosevelt was following the advice of John Maynard Keynes, he was restrained by other fiscal conservatives and his own Secretary of the Treasury.
Keep rewriting history. It’ll make it so eventually. Any restraint by FDR was due to the SCOTUS striking down most of his programs as unconstitutional.
In 1933, the economy was starting to recover. The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1 percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent. FDR rejected Keynes’ advice on deficit spending.
1934: The economy turns around: GNP rises 7.7 percent, and unemployment falls to 21.7 percent.
1935+ Most of FDR’s programs are declared UC.
It was at this time that FDR decided to adopt Keynesian economics. He also threatens SCOTUS with liberal packing which forces them to approve his programs. These extend the GD until WWII as growth is slowed overall.
At the end of WWII, the deficit was 123% of GNP.
Re: Sweden
That’s not entirely correct. Yes, they did adopt some Keynesian ideas (basically, a deficit), but they also left ALL business profits untaxed and reduced income taxes on it’s citizens (and didn’t increase taxes on their rich — which kept them in the game). Plus, they didn’t plunge quite as far into depression as the US did.
It is even suggested that the simple act of eliminating the business profits tax would have pulled them out sooner though I wonder if labor would have rioted without the dole.
To say that Keynesian Economics is responsible for saving Sweden is misleading.
#47,
In 1933, the economy was starting to recover. The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1 percent this year.
That hardly sounds like a recovery. The GDP was still falling. Unemployment was still increasing. People were still hungry. Factories were still shuttered. Homes were still being foreclosed. And banks were still failing.
The rest of your rant is equal rewriting of history.
Current economic conditions have put the federal government under great pressure and strain. On one hand you have failed corporations, who are too big to fall and the government has to rescue them. So the government is in a position of hostage by big corporations. On the other hand, you have various programs that need financing, states that are in trouble and need financial help from the government, various infrastructure and other programs (news ones as well) and not enough money. Makes sense to start prioritizing and also start thinking how to control these costs and cut back on some of them, so we don’t wind up in a situation when the government simply needs to print more money, in order to meet its obligations.