Free Markets, Free People

Obama’s Budget Blueprint Passes In Congress

Yeah, yeah, I know, you’re tired of “budget talk”. Well too bad – this is extremely important stuff. It’s not just about the amount of money, which is monstrous, but the agenda it puts into place:

Congressional Democrats overwhelmingly embraced President Obama’s ambitious and expensive agenda for the nation yesterday, endorsing a $3.5 trillion spending plan that sets the stage for the president to pursue his most far-reaching priorities.

Voting along party lines, the House and Senate approved budget blueprints that would trim Obama’s spending proposals for the fiscal year that begins in October and curtail his plans to cut taxes. The blueprints, however, would permit work to begin on the central goals of Obama’s presidency: an expansion of health-care coverage for the uninsured, more money for college loans and a cap-and-trade system to reduce gases that contribute to global warming.

These are the paving stones for the road to hell and they’ve now been authorized by the Congress. Of course this is just the blueprint. The authorization of the funds will come in separate appropriation bills. And you had better believe Democrats are going to try to use every procedural trick in the book to ease their passage.

Just to leave you with the appropriate chill up your back, I leave you with an example of what is to come:

Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) called cap-and-trade “the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time,” and said it would be difficult to pass without reconciliation because Democrats would be forced to accommodate a handful of Republicans as they did in the debate over the president’s stimulus package.

And when it comes to “revenue-generating”, the Democrats want nothing standing in their way, especially a few Republicans.  The third wave of liberalism (New Deal, Great Society and now the Raw Deal) is afoot.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

19 Responses to Obama’s Budget Blueprint Passes In Congress

  • Well, given that the Reagan era reforms of privatization and deregulation brought us this crisis, maybe trying something new isn’t a bad idea.  It’s not like the economic policies of the last quarter century have brought us to a good place.  So maybe history will prove your fears wrong — it’s possible.

    • So, a slightly more than garden-variety financial crisis and a tough recession is all that the quarter-century of the Reagan era brought, in your view, Scott?

      I guess the completely reinvigorated and reinvented economy and the massive prosperity must be discounted, and we need to quickly follow Obama and Pelosi as they ride the federal government’s share of GDP up from the 20% level to around 35% or so (to alleviate all that Reagan-era tragedy).

      You are indeed an idiot of the smallest proportions.

  • That’s the problem with your logic – privatization and deregulation as the cause of the current crisis is not a given.  Oh, it is the popular mantra – repeated by pundits and dolts like yourself enough so that it becomes the dogma du jour for those who support the Democrat agenda.

    Does that mean I support the GOP version of same – NO.  But I will never support any type of blank check being bandied about by the Obama administration such as what this so called budget entails.  I think it is humerous of you to “try something new” on one hand and then talk about being adverse to the huge deficits this budget will decree on the other.  Looks like one Maine professor is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

    “So maybe history will prove your fears wrong.”  Maybe so – but in this case I won’t being paying the butchers bill for this abomination – my children will.  And I love my children far too much to saddle them with the socialistic debt this budgets entails.   I could ask if you feel toward your children in the same way but that would be below the belt.

    • Fair enough — privatization and deregulation alone did not cause this.  What really happened was increased debt, and an unsustainable trade deficit driven by short term profit motives.  Reagan started borrow and spend, and started the shift towards unsustainable current accounts deficits.  Clinton continued it.  The last quarter century has set up this crisis.

      As for “no terror attacks in eight years.”  Well, the same could be said for 1993 to 2001 (on American soil), save domestic terror.  But while I agree heightened homeland security and counter terrorism play a role, there is zero evidence that the debacle in Iraq had any positive impact — it also destroyed the GOP chance to create the ‘opportunity society.’  If you dislike where Obama’s leading the country, well, he couldn’t be doing this if it wasn’t for Iraq.  Iraq set up the current administration, it made Obama possible.

      • “Reagan started borrow and spend”.

        Since he unfortunately doesn’t seem to be under constant supervision for his own and others’ protection, statements this ignorant  must be intentional, i.e. dishonest.

      • First: What has ““no terror attacks in eight years” got to do with my comment?

        Second: “Reagan started borrow and spend” for a specific reason – run the Soviet system into the ground.  Defeat the Soviets economically by pushing the only bellybutton he knew the Soviets would react to – a conventional arms race.   And the results of that is now history – he won.  Alone – no, not even I am of that mind.  The Soviets were well on their way down but Reagan pushed them over the edge.  By the time Bush the elder came on the scene, the soviets were done for and the beginnings of the “Peace Dividend” (Remember that BS!) were being pushed.

      • Well, the same could be said for 1993 to 2001 (on American soil),

        That’s not true.  US Embassies are on American soil…and there was a US Embassy that was attacked.

  • Blaming Reagan?  Lets at least be intellectually honest here.  This crisis was created by government intervention in the housing market – compelling banks to make bad loans to consumers who couldn’t afford them.  Regardless of who you blame for this, we have to start here.   Also….a little known fact of the Reagan Revolution was the massive increase in revenues realized by all levels of government.  By improving the business climate, tax collections increased dramatically.   

    History will show that these fears are founded.  Obama’s outrageous spending will promote serious and out of control inflation by early 2010.  Since Obama can’t fund this level of debt by borrowing, he will have to continue printing money to meet his obligations under the Stimulus and Budget packages.   

    Inflation is the cruelest tax of all.  It impacts the poor and middle classes the most as costs for food and fuel are driven upward while wage increases always fall behind.   Again, these are historical facts.  LBJ invented the inflation methodology as a way of paying for the Vietnam War as well as for costs of the Great Society.  Reagan finally got that under control.  If one recalls, under Jimmy Carter, inflation, unemployment and interest rates were all in double digits all as a result of overspending and overborrowing.

    History has already shown where Obama is taking us.  We have to learn from history rather than put faith in a good speech.

    Thanks for reading!

  • McQ, I think that “The Raw Deal” is a little on the plain side.

    How about “The New Plantation”?

  • Actually, all this understates the problem greatly.

    Last year’s (2008) budget deficit, before Obama came in, calculated using private sector accounting rules, was $3 trillion, not the “official” $455 billion, says the US Treasury itself.

    For perspective,  the entire operating cost of the whole federal government was $2.9 trillion, so the govt ran up debt that was bigger than the govt!

    And that was before Obama came in and started running up the deficit.

    As things are going, by 2030 the US government will be a pension & retiree health benefit plan with an army — except that it might not be able to afford an army.

  • What’s with the GOP pretending like it has never spent public money? For the past 8 years trillions of dollars worth of taxpayer money have been funneled into failed national security policies. But when Democrats want to spend money on healthcare that would benefit everyone, sustainable energy policies and the like republicans refuse to vote for it. Bipartisanship is a myth, see:

    • Yawn – can’t you trolls do any better than this?  Virtually everyone who has commented here on this post – to date – has taken the GOP to task for its out-of-control spending.  Take a moment and read the entry from yesterday taking the GOP to task for its own worthless version of the budget.

      But you on the other hand don’t really get it – do you?  Bush doubled the National debt – basically from $5 to 10 trillion.  That was bad – but Obama’s budget projects a further $17 Trillion deficit in the next ten years – and that is based upon his rosey GDP numbers.  Should anyone apply some realistic growth numbers – not accounting for imflation – and you get $22 to 24 trillion in additional debt – on top of the 10 we have now.  Now do you get it?!?!?!?


    • “For the past 8 years trillions of dollars worth of taxpayer money have been funneled into failed national security policies.”
      You refer, I take it, to the national security policies that kept our cities safe from terrorist attacks and aggressive powers in their place internationally, allowing world trade to function, and preventing major catstrophic wars. Those failed national security policies?

      The U.S. produces about one-quarter of the world GDP (or GWP) and has sufficient wealth and integrity to maintain its role as the sole surviving superpower and guarantor of strategic peace on about 5% of our GDP, which is pretty reasonable. You wouldn’t want to live in a world without it. And for all its kabitching, Europe certainly wouldn’t want to live without it, though how it does enjoy grooming its moral vanity about ugly America.

      • You refer, I take it, to the national security policies that kept our cities safe from terrorist attacks…

        You have no proof of that.  There is no evidence that Bush’s policies have “kept our cities safe from terrorist attacks…”
        The best you could do is refute the claims that they are “failed policies.”  As there is also no evidence that they have failed in “keeping our cities safe from terrorist attacks…”

        AQ, apparently, takes their time.  Remember, it was more than eight years between their attacks on American soil.  You can speculate, and you’re entitled to your opinion of course.  But that’s all it is, an opinion.  And we probably won’t ever know for sure if it was Bush’s policies that kept our cities safe et cetera.

        • “You have no proof of that.  There is no evidence that Bush’s policies have “kept our cities safe from terrorist attacks…””

          Stop drinking. There were some 20 thousand terrorists through the training camps in Afghanistan. If you’d like to go back eight years and try it without the full-court press, you need your small brain examined.

        • Of course he does, Pogue – no cities were attacked by terrorists.

          It’s up to you to prove the measures failed to prevent that, since the policies and measures taken were designed to provide that protection.


          • It’s up to you to prove the measures failed to prevent that, since the policies and measures taken were designed to provide that protection.

            Why is it up to me to prove that the measures failed?  Since it wasn’t me that made the claim.  It’s up to Rosa to prove it, if Rosa intends to back up the claim.  I fully acknowledged the fact that there is no proof that the measures failed.

            But there is also no evidence that Bush’s policies are the reason we haven’t been attacked.  There is no evidence of cause and effect, as of yet.  Remember, it was more than eight years between attacks on American soil.  If we had been attacked much more frequently, and then the attacks suddenly stopped, then there would be reason to suspect Bush’s policies as the cause of the success.

            These measures may very well have protected us.  We just don’t know.  There maybe another handful of assh*les with box cutters or something else waiting for the right situation.

            Why is that such an unreasonble position?


          • But there is also no evidence that Bush’s policies are the reason we haven’t been attacked.

            Hmm … measures and policies put into effect to prevent terrorist attacks on cities.


            No terrorist attacks on cities (although there were attempts which were thwarted because of the heightened security the measures provided).


            Seems like proof to me.