Dem Leader Steny Hoyer: Shared Sacrifices Will Solve Debt Crisis – Obama Is Serious About Fiscal Restraint (Gag Alert)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 8:03 AM
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.
Somebody has to pay the Obama-Pelosi debt off.
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.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Republican Military Hero & First Female to Command Fighter Squadron Will Announce Run For Congress Today
Published February 8, 2012 at 8:42 pm - 88 Comments
Andreas K. commented:
And who’s going to “share” these “sacrifices”?
I can tell you.
The “evil rich” people. Aka the middle class. They will bear the brunt of this. Just like in Europe.
Just_Saying commented:
The Democrats are such consummate liars, they themselves don’t even know when they’re lying anymore…
.
Auntie Em commented:
Obama serious about fiscal restraint???
OMG…
clark commented:
But wasn’t the budget in surplus when Bush and the Republicans took over in 2001?
ADVERTISEMENT
Militant Conservative commented:
No their right on this one…..There WILL BE SHARED SACRIFICE…..November 2nd most Democrats will be sacrificed at the alter or freedom and constitutionality.
The tidal wave is coming. Powder is dry.
Andreas K. commented:
He signed a bill to reform weapons acquisition and target cost overruns at the Pentagon.
Cause this is totallyt he reason for the huge deficit and national debt. Yep. Totally. Not.
Wall Street Journal, yet another branch of Obama’s Pravda.
bill-tb commented:
So will backing out all the waste that is Obama reparations spending. Dump government rationed health care, it costs too much. Kill the education and energy departments … I am sure others can add more waste and junk to jettison.
But if we must share and sacrifice, I propose we reduce all congressional clunkers salaries to the average USA wage, when then reduce all government salary spending to a max of the average USA wage, all of it, everybody. Then we stop use of all government planes, autos, chauffeurs and other transport means.
And then lets see what we can cut out of the remaining wasteful turd that has become the federal government after that.
Do you actually think a congressional clunker warrants $170k a year salaries?
Auntie Em commented:
And it crashed when Democrats took control of Congress…. in re budget surplus.
People tend to conveniently forget that.
Who was Fannie and Freddie’s male cheerleader again?
susan commented:
Just a sip from the filthy cup of Social Justice results in a mouthful of lies spewing the Serpent’s evil tongue.
jd commented:
@clark
auntie em gets it partially right-while there was a surplus under clinton (and props to him), bush did run into deficits. some of it was due to wars, katrina, etc. it started skyrocketing when the dems took control of congress, but Bush was still in charge, so some of the blame goes to him.
But Bush isn’t in charge any more. While he did leave deficits (EVERY PRESIDENT LEAVES PROBLEMS TO THE SUCCESSOR), Obama’s startling economic solution makes things exponentially worse. his “debt commission”, like everything he does, is just for show.
Dennis Thompson commented:
This is a textbook example of THE BIG LIE.
Kevin P commented:
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Liberals have no conscience, therefore no shame, therfore no embarrassment.
Liberals do not recognize facts. Liberal do not recognize truth.
Therefore, liberals do not recognize God, therefore there’s no such thing as a God-given rights.
Therefore liberals and their minions willingly believe lies and deceit and push us all into slavery.
Highlander commented:
In my opinion, the greatest internal threat we face as a free nation is not the radical socialists in Washington, but a press that has completely thrown in with them. Regardless of who is in power in DC, our liberties will never be entirely secure until we have a media that reports facts – irrespective of the consequences.
Atlanta Media Guy commented:
Obama is the largest tXrd to float in the DC cess pool, ever!
WaPo/ABC make up headlines that Americans trust the Dems more. Not in my neighborhood which leans Dem.
The MSM ignores, the report that slammed Obamacare, which came out a week after the vote. I don’t care if it sat on a desk or not, the content of the report is what matters to me.
Waxman and Stupak cancel their dog and pony show against the CEO’s when they discover it was their own rules that these corporations were following and the substance of what they were saying IS the truth.
The Dems raise the debt limit and add to the spending before “freezing it”. They claim they are not raising taxes by letting the BOOOOSH tax cuts expire. They are raising taxes on everything we consume and since the cuts expired, taxes are going back up. Small businesses will have to spend more to file, has anyone seen the new rules for next year?
The fact this guy has to campaign everyday for his sh%^ty programs speaks volumes.
I’m so tired of the so called journalists that are letting this community organizer bamboozle them and America.
Will anyone keep Gibbs and Prompterbama honest? This whole administration is a fraud and November 2nd, will be the “outlier”. Unless of course there is a crisis and the elections are canceled due to martial law being imposed. I hate to be negative but by the time this guy is through he will control 65% of the economy.
This ass is even taking credit for Ford’s profit, which did not take any bailout cash. Hey Obozo! Ford is profiting because of your asinine decision to take over GM. My fourth grader figured that our on his own!
Hoft your blog is very informative but I must stop drinking coffee while reading your blog, my screen is a mess!
Valerie commented:
Kevin,
I’ve been a Liberal for a long time, and so have a number of other posters, here. The current Democratic leadership is not liberal. It is radical, and you might as well use the word. They’d feel flattered by it, anyway.
The Democratic Party has been busy throwing the Liberals out. Remember Joe Lieberman?
In November, things can really change for the better, provided the Liberals and the Conservatives can find enough common ground to rein in the radicals.
That’s what the Tea Parties are all about.
Riff Raff commented:
I started reading his column but stopped at the first lie. I weep for you having suffered through the whole thing.
Kevin P commented:
Valerie – I stand corrected. Although – I don’t understand how the democrat party hasn’t been radical
since at least 1970.
bg commented:
++
SHARED sacrifices??
where’s my invite??
oh wait..
“I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”
‘We are God’s partners in matters of life and death’
‘my individual salvation is not gonna come about
without a collective salvation for the country’ …
Father Obama, Mother Gaia
Obama is some sort of god, paying taxes
is Patriotic and we ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
think maybe i’m getting the hang of this,
though i never expected it to be so literal..
[his excuse for not doing things he should is his political advisers won't let him.. wonder what he'd do if they told him to jump off a bridge.. /sarc/]
==
Freddy commented:
Obama clearly explained his economic strategy last week. Most all of the media focused on his comment about a VAT, but they missed the point Obama was really making.
Obama clearly stated that he was going to first spend everything that he deems appropriate for the government to do. Then, Obama will determine how to pay for that new ‘baseline’ of spending.
Obama will need to find a way to generate 3.6 trillion of tax revenues for the new federal government described in Obama’s budget.
Too bad it is not possible in the long run without major inflation.
Erich Boleyn commented:
It’s not a lie that most of the total deficit (not yearly) came from the Bush Administration.
Calling it a “vicious lie” (especially when it’s not a lie at all) is someone trying to control/manipulate the conversation via emotional comments.
averagemelon commented:
iS THAT THE BEST YOU CAN DO, eRICH?
Chris commented:
Just like any other mugger would “ask” the latest victim to “share” in the “sacrifice” of his/her worldly assets, done at the barrel of a gun with the very real threat of impending violence, all of which to inspire “voluntary” compliance.
Gee, sort of sounds like the IRS…
Corporal Vere commented:
In one year, Obama on the other hand, has destroyed the economy; reduced GDP; and skyrocketed unemployment.
The federal deficit just in 2009 rose $1.6 trillion (in Bush first year it rose what $300 billion due the 9/11 massacres and Wall Street crash), while the Bush unemployment rate was 5.2% until late 2008 – thanx Sen. Obama, Dodd, and Bawney Fwank! Obama’s new full employment real unemployment rate is 16% and no possible improvement in sight due to his 24/7 hard work at destroying the private sector economy; and GDP year-to-year declined for the first time since Clinton – again thanx to Malcolm X’es diligent work to destroy the capitalist system.
Chisum commented:
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Zachriel commented:
Jim Holt, you still haven’t corrected the graph. 2009 is Bush’s last budget. Bush tripled the deficit.
Bill H commented:
Oh don’t worry, I’m sure BO’s debt commission will provide all the answers… one month after the November elections.
Radegunda commented:
Andreas, it’s an op-ed by Steny Hoyer, so it doesn’t mean that the WSJ has gone over to the dark side.
squeaky commented:
congress – betting that mc cain wouldn’t win -
chose to save the remaining 2009 fiscal budget
for obama to sign. obama signed it and called it
Bush’s bill. when he signed it – i would think he
owned atleast part of it.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/24/budget
bandit commented:
He means you sacrifice and Dem constituencies (aka freeloaders) share.
squeaky commented:
“Shared Sacrifices Will Solve the Debt Crisis”
Having a frank conversation about the realities of the budget..” one way sharing. sharing the wealth without sharing the sweat it took to earn the wealth. working cuts into one’s hang-out time.
bg commented:
++
Is he freaking serious?
yes!!
what military??
==
Scott Wiggins commented:
I’m so sick of hearing of the budget surplus under Clinton…Did anyone ever hear of the contract with America? The Gingrich led Republican Congress tied Bill Clinton’s hands and facilitated the future surplus budgets…The fact of the matter is that Republicans pushed for a balanced budget amendment that failed in the Senate by one vote…The democrats with Bill Clinton as President faught like rabid dogs to prevent the amendment from passing…Now you know the rest of the story…A balanced budget amendment could have prevented the fiscal crisis that has now bankrupt the Federal government…Please get over Bill Clinton and balanced budgets. It is misleading and factually wrong once you get past the soundbyte…
Atlanta Media Guy commented:
Amen Scott! The contract with America made Clinton look good. You’d think Obama would work on getting a Repub majority in November so he could take credit and get reelected.
I still fear that this idiot in chief will create a crisis so massive the elections will be canceled and HE will take the controls of all government.
It only speculation on my part, but when you sit in editorial meetings and you hear what these lib editors say it boggles my mind! Tea Partiers must go! How can we make them look like idiots? Any connections between McVeigh’s family and the Tea party? They actually say this stuff.
A couple of weeks ago I brought in the video from the protest at the 2004 repub Convention in NYC. I compared that video of the vile signs and swastikas to the Tea Party in Washington. (One shot I love is Meredith Viera, of Today Show fame, walking with her young kid with a sign directly behind her that said F*** Bush! Priceless) A producer I was working with loved the idea but it was shot down, the bosses said that was not the story we’re trying to tell. I could not believe it! If I didn’t need my job I would have walked out.
bg commented:
++
Freddy @ 9:41 am #19
re: [Obama clearly explained
his economic strategy last week.
[..]
Too bad it is not possible in the
long run without major inflation.]
agreed.. but you couldn’t possibly see what a success an Obama signature
on that would be without stepping back & taking a good look at the entire picture!! /sarc/
==
bg commented:
++
Erich Boleyn @ 9:55 am #20
Bush is dead, long live Bush, oh wait..
==
bg commented:
++
Zachriel @ 10:49 am #26
Jim Hoft.. there, corrected that for you, now
why don’t you post your “corrected” graph??
==
Zachriel commented:
bg: why don’t you post your “corrected” graph??
2009 is Bush’s last budget. He proposed a deficit of $1.4 trillion dollars.
Scott Wiggins: I’m so sick of hearing of the budget surplus under Clinton
It’s doesn’t go away because you are sick of hearing about it. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber. Gore broke the tie in the Senate. The Republicans said Clinton would own the results. The economy expanded, the deficits declined, and the U.S. went into surplus with good prospects paying down the debt. There was talk of setting aside some of a surplus in a “lockbox” for a rainy day.
The Democrats paid a stiff political price, but history shows it was the right decision.
bg commented:
++
Zachriel 6:37 pm #38
forget the graph, read the words..
==
bg commented:
++
Zachrie @ 6:37 pm #38
re: [There was talk of setting aside some of a
surplus in a “lockbox” for a rainy day. ~ SW]
Where is Al Gore’s Lock Box?
links @ link..
Dems SS Applause
==
Chisum commented:
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn’t a surplus under Clinton.
For those that want a more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
bg commented:
++
Zachriel 6:37 pm #38
just a sample:
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
The Budget Surplus That Does Not Exist
[Clinton and the Democrats are ready to pounce. The White House estimates, for example, that one spending bill would have to slash many labor, health and education programs as much as 18%. (It's ironic that the Democrats and the Republicans are willing to "play politics" with the most important issues effecting American nationals, without any sense of moral compunction, after all, the slashes in programs will be the result of an agreement the President entered into with Congress. The self-serving agendas of each party is little more than a source of national shame. WFI Editor) "I do not believe there is a consensus in this Congress or in this country to make the kind of draconian reductions that would be required," said Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.]
[SOURCE: Excerpted from the 11 July, 1999, issue of the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition, from an article entitled, "Heaping Surplus Built on Mountain of Assumptions." Reprinted in the public service of the national interest of the American people.]
==
bg commented:
++
Chisum @ 7:12 pm #41
lol, you beat me to it, but only because i stopped
to read the smoke & mirrors article, TWICE..
==
Scott Wiggins commented:
#38
The Republican led balanced budget amendment failed because of one vote from turncoat Republican Mark Hatfield…I don’t know what history you are reading…The Clinton led machine killed the balanced budget amendment of 1995…Clinton later benefited by the first Greenspan bubble, the dotcom bubble that crashed spectacurly before GW Bush took office…Typical democrat, you try to steal the good works of Republicans and hide the disgusting behavior of democrats that bankrupt the Federal Government…You are a lost soul…Good luck in the debt restructuring of America that is on the way….
Chisum commented:
BG,
It’s worth repeating.
Particularly since the progs keep bleating about Clinton’s surplus.
Kathy from Kansas commented:
I about choked yesterday when one radio host played the excerpt of Mr. Pompous-Ass-in-Chief scolding us all about how we need to be more fiscally responsible.
It’s like a rapist coming back and scolding the victim for throwing away her virginity.
A_Nonny_Mouse commented:
BHO: “Dang, you guys are really expensive to take care of. You’re going to have to dig deep, I mean REALLY DEEP, to pay for all the swell, super-good wonderfulness I’ve been gracious enough to give you. Hey!! You’re not thanking me yet, you racist ingrates!!”
Zachriel commented:
bg: Where is Al Gore’s Lock Box?
Gore may have received more votes, but he lost the election. The money was used for tax cuts instead.
Chisum: However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn’t a surplus under Clinton.
CBO disagrees. And yes, the Social Security surplus is part of the unifed budget, and explains why Gore and others wanted to set some aside for a rainy day.
Scott Wiggins: I don’t know what history you are reading…
The one that led to a dramatic reversal in the U.S. fiscal position: the deficit reduction act of 1993 that actually did something about the problem. Prohibiting deficit spending by amendment would be bad policy. During economic downturns, it would mean the U.S. would have to raise taxes and cut spending, leading to an accelerated downturn.
Most economists agree that countercyclical policy can even out the booms and busts of the economic cycle. That’s why it was important to rein in spending and increase taxes during economic booms, such as during the Clinton years, and then set that money aside for the lean times. It’s just prudent policy. Instead, the Bush Administration overstimulated the economy with taxcuts, which along with lax regulation led to the bubble economy and the resulting fiscal calamity and ensuing economic collapse.
Chisum commented:
Lying About Bush’s Tax Cuts
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html
Keep plucking those chickens, Z.
Zachriel commented:
Chisum: Lying About Bush’s Tax Cuts
Unfortunately, your numbers don’t tell the whole story. The income tax represents 44% of total federal revenues, but the payroll tax represents 42% of revenues. The payroll tax is regressive and the top quintile pays an effectively lower rate.
The top quintile has 53% of the income and bears 67% of the burdern.
Scott Wiggins commented:
Z,
Your back…So, you put up a good argument for why the balanced amendment as proposed by the Gingrich led House of Representatives was a bad idea…Fast forward fifteen years. We are now 12 Trillion in debt with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see…Within a decade we will not be able to pay interest on the debt and will be printing more money for the Fed to buy more of our own Treasuries…The dollar is headed for collapse with resulting destruction of dollar denominated savings, and huge costs of living increases for all Americans given the nature of the global economy…Tell me again why the balanced budget amendment was a bad idea?
bg commented:
++
Zachriel @ 6:33 am #49
may have, but did not..
(i know, i was a Dem back then)
==
Zachriel commented:
Scott Wiggins: So, you put up a good argument for why the balanced amendment as proposed by the Gingrich led House of Representatives was a bad idea
The reasoning was already provided. Because in an economic downturn, raising taxes or cutting spending will accelerate the downward spiral. Countercyclical policy means setting aside money during times of plenty, and spending during downturns.
behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good. And, behold, seven thin ears and blasted with the east wind sprung up after them. And the seven thin ears devoured the seven rank and full ears. And Pharaoh awoke , and, behold, it was a dream
At the end of the Clinton Administration, the projected surpluses could have been set aside for a rainy day. What’s the metaphor? In a safe, er deposit box, oh, in a lock box. Instead, the money was squandered by the Bush Administration, which left a fiscal calamity as one of its many legacies.
Zachriel commented:
bg: may have, but did not..
There is no doubt that Gore won more votes in the 2000 presidential election. Final tally:
Gore, 50,999,897
Bush, 50,456,002
The controversy at that time concerned only who won more votes in Florida due to the peculiarities of the Electoral College system in the U.S.