Fox at it again on Bush's last budget

by: DaveJ

Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 12:00


Linked, of course, from Drudge, and echoed at 2,870 websites as I write, there is this at Fox News: Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents,
President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.

That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.

That's a big increase. But compared with other presidents' first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.


It goes on like that.

Fiscal 2009 started October 1, 2008 and ended September 30, 2009.  This was Bush's last budget, beginning before the election.  

It included a bit of the stimulus spending.

There is a propaganda drumbeat aimed at DC lawmakers, that the deficit is too large.  Question, will they attack the largest item in the budget, spending about $1 trillion total on military?  Or will they go after what our government spends to benefit us?

My question, whose job is it to counter this kind of thing?  The Obama administration is just letting it hit them.  In fact, instead of fighting back, they validate the perception that they have ballooned the deficit.  The problem is this hurts the rest of us out here.  What to do?

DaveJ :: Fox at it again on Bush's last budget

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

This isn't the place for rebuttals. (0.00 / 0)
Go to FOX's blog & tell them. I did.

They only call it class war when we fight back.

Come on, nobody cares about your comment at Fox news. But maybe... (0.00 / 0)
... Rachel Maddoff or Jon Stewart will stumble across this blog here and get an idea for a story...

[ Parent ]
No Afghanistan, no Iraq (4.00 / 3)
That will save billions off the top and help people (no more killed and wounded).

Get the economy moving not just stop the sinking.  When more people are working it will generate nore jobs, more taxes.

Soak corporations and the rich.  Really soak them.  Again, more taxes means smaller deficits.

No more money to banks and Wall Street.  

Regulate businesses.  Heavily.

Government employment.  Lots of it.

Build roads, build bridges, build schools.  Do some repairs on the national parks.  Invest in non-military research.

Stay at home, Mr. President.  No more foreign trips.  The work we need to do is here.

Fire Geithner, Summers, Gates, Petraeus, Bernanke, and possibly McChrystal.  Somebody other than the Right Wing needs to be firing people in the Obama Administration.

I'm sick of Conrad, Cooper, Bayh, Stupak, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bennet.  Squeeze em hard till the juice runs out before they squeeze the American people.

 


... (0.00 / 0)
1)Get the economy moving not just stop the sinking.  When more people are working it will generate nore jobs, more taxes.

Ok this makes sense.

2)Soak corporations and the rich.  Really soak them.  Again, more taxes means smaller deficits.

Contradicts #1, corporations hire most people. Soaking them will up their bottom line, which leads to less jobs. Taking money away from people just because they have money is not a good reason. It might be hard for some to believe, but there are companies and corporations that, on the whole, do good in society and deserve to be rewarded. Not only that, they employ ordinary people who are just trying to get on with their lives.

3)No more money to banks and Wall Street.  

Agree there, and also no more money to any companies for that matter.

4)Regulate businesses.  Heavily.

Disagree, banks need to be regulated, but not business in general. I see reasons for banks being regulated more heavily, but I don't see reasons to just arbitrarily regulate business other than for the sake of more regulations.

5)Government employment.  Lots of it.

Disagree for the most part, this one needs justification. Does government actually need something specific done or does it just need more jobs for the sake of more jobs.

6)Build roads, build bridges, build schools.  Do some repairs on the national parks.  Invest in non-military research.

This one is qualified, we don't need more bridges to nowhere regardless of how many jobs it creates.



[ Parent ]
Destroy the Obama presidency and allow neoconservatives back into power? (0.00 / 0)
That's one solution. After all, they're the same exact thing and at least we would no longer have to pretend there's a difference. In fact, I would argue Obama is more to the right than the Bush administration on nearly every issue. In the long term, keep informing people about progressive values on high traffic sites like Open Left and then make a run for it in 2020 with Alan Grayson when demographics will be ideal, people will be really well informed, and really, really fed up with neocons. Seems like a small price to pay for a progressive super majority if you ask me.



Not the same (0.00 / 0)
They are not the same at all.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Daily Kos called (4.00 / 1)
Your post is needed over there, stat.  

[ Parent ]
Go write a diary (0.00 / 0)
I'll rec' it.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
Interesting strategy, if we last (4.00 / 2)
Ten years is an awfully long time in an overclocked society, especially one fighting with drops in natural resource extraction efficiency.  At this rate, in 2020 we may find ourselves exporting our topsoil to the Middle East and Asia in the form of food!

[ Parent ]
Instead of fighting back (0.00 / 0)
They boost FOX's ratings with an appearance by Obama.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter


Strength of Outside Groups (0.00 / 0)
It all comes down to having strong non-party groups that can reach the public and promote progressive ideas, policies and candidates.

We have to work to "make them do it."

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson


[ Parent ]
"They" won't do it because we don't own "them" (0.00 / 0)
The corporatists own "them" -- otherwise the New Democrats would have been drummed out and sued for trademark infringement, not welcomed into the big happy family.

[ Parent ]
We need to focus the concern over the deficit (4.00 / 2)
All these people fussing over the deficit now never piped up when they occurred as a result of tax cuts or wars.  President Obama should go on TV and say, "As my cousin Dick Cheney put it, deficits don't matter" and then go on to say that while long-term deficits are definitely bad, going into debt in the short term to invest in the country's future can be a very good thing.

We seem to be just taking and taking these hypocritical attacks on deficit spending, when both sides love deficit spending, just for different things.


re: deficit (0.00 / 0)
All these people fussing over the deficit now never piped up when they occurred as a result of tax cuts or wars.

yes, the few times I've heard republicrats being confronted with the defitits created by the bush administration they blame bush

sure, but bush couldn't have done it alone

it's the house and the senate that write bills
the president signs them

those bills didn't appear on bush's desk by magic, someone wrote them...


[ Parent ]
Not to mention these ConservaDems voted for them (0.00 / 0)
Ben Nelson was one of two Democrats (the other being Zell Miller) who voted for the 2003 tax cuts. (I'm sure he voted for the 2001 ones as well.)

In fact, I can't think of one time Nelson voted on our side.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox