Wednesday, March 25, 2009

What "Responsible" Financial Management Looks Like

BUSH DEFICIT VS. OBAMA DEFICIT IN PICTURES.



Lord help us all.

Posted by Bob at 7:58 AM

5 comments:

  1. Lenny TempoMarch 25, 2009 at 9:37 AM

    That graphic isn't entirely accurrate. Don't forget that Bush is responsible for about $1 trillion of the 09 deficit, and he doesn't get credit for the 00 and '01 budgets because they happened before he took office.

    Keep in mind, as Glenn has stated, this is not about Democrat vs Republican or Obama vs Bush. This is about the fact that BOTH parties are failing taking us to the same, WRONG, place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BobMarch 25, 2009 at 10:53 PM

    Hey Dan,

    Actually both Bush and Obama are financial disasters -- squint your eyes and look at the overall trend line. The point is that Obama is doubling down on what Bush did. He says the problem was the Bush spent too much and had too much deficit spending (all too true) so therefore the solution is to spend even more (insane)! If government spending is good then Bush spent plenty already that we should all be rich.

    Take a look at Peter Schiff's video in the previous post -- it's just like what Hoover and FDR did.

    Hoover has been painted as some sort of free market guy when he wasn't. The parallels are spooky: Roosevelt actually ran against Hoover as being too interventionist and then turned around and was even worse.

    The Austrian school economists (Schiff is an Austrian as am I) predicted the Great Depression as well based on the same loose Fed fiscal policy then as Greenspan and Bernanke enabled for Bush recently. But the media doesn't want you to know that the Austrians exist at all costs. Schiff is a good enough speaker that he's making life difficult for their narrative.

    He even showed up on MSNBC today and dumbfounded the MSM guests that were there to some extent. I'll post that one next...

    ReplyDelete
  3. BobMarch 25, 2009 at 11:07 PM

    I forgot to mention also: the Clinton "surplus" wasn't real either. The dot com crash was another Fed inflationary bubble where Bush and Greenspan played "kick the can" and were able to re-inflate it and now the crash is bigger and unstoppable.

    And just as Bush told us to go shopping after 9/11 and last fall, Obama's also doing the same thing.

    We have a Ponzi economy where we have driven production offshore with crazy taxes, environmental policy and a culture where it's not cool to engineer and create things. Spending is what's broken, savings and it's enablement of production are the solution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lenny TempoMarch 26, 2009 at 1:16 PM

    You're dead on there, Bob. Also, It was the Republican congress who held spending to lower levels than what Clinton proposed that allowed us to have the so-called surpluses.

    So I will give the Republican's credit for that, but then they blew it after the 2000 elections. Instead of taking advantage of their control of Congress and the presidency to truely reign in spending, they were still too shell shocked after the '95 school lunch fiasco to step up.

    And this get's to what we need to do. We can't expect our representatives cut government spending unless WE show them that we are willing to sacrifice our own personal interests and agendas in favor or keeping out government under control. We can't allow ourselves to be moved by every Socialist party's or special interest group's marketing campaign (ex: School Lunch Programs) for their own pet projects if we are to get our government under control.

    Once we show that we can stand against out of control spending and make the sacrifices for it, then, we'll be able to field like minded candidates that are willing and able to stand up as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BobMarch 26, 2009 at 2:42 PM

    Dan,

    Yup. The big dilemma is whether there are enough of us left not on the dole to make this happen.

    Which reminds me of something I have on my future post list. Did you realize that the Tea Party happened in spite of the British tea being lower priced? The colonists stood on principle for freedom and against taxation -- not just on who would sell them the lowest price tea!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)