Obama Unveils $3.73 Trillion Budget For 2012 That Includes $367 Billion in Tax Hikes
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, February 14, 2011, 4:42 AM
The Obama Administration proposed a $3.73 trillion budget today. The administration also said they expect the Obama deficit to grow to a record $1.65 trillion this year.
Barack Obama tripled the national deficit in one year.
Last year it was at $1.29 Trillion dollars.
This year it will be even higher.
(The Captain’s Comments)
And next year the deficit is also expected to be over $1 trillion dollars for the fourth straight year in a row.
President Obama is sending a $3.73 trillion budget to Congress today.
The AP reported:
President Barack Obama is sending Congress a $3.73 trillion spending blueprint that pledges $1.1 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade through spending cuts and tax increases.
Obama’s new budget projects that the deficit for the current year will surge to an all-time high of $1.65 trillion. That reflects a sizable tax-cut agreement reached with Republicans in December. For 2012, the administration sees the imbalance declining to $1.1 trillion, giving the country a record four straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.
Senior administration officials say Obama would achieve two-thirds of his projected savings through spending cuts that include a five-year freeze on many domestic programs. The other one-third of the savings would come from tax increases, including limits on tax deductions for high-income taxpayers.
Even before Obama’s new budget for 2012 was unveiled on Monday, Republicans were complaining that it did not go far enough. They branded Obama’s budget solutions as far too timid for a country facing an unprecedented flood of red ink that has pushed annual deficits to all-time highs above $1 trillion.
“We’re broke,” House Speaker John Boehner said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He was defending a Republican effort not only to squeeze more savings out of Obama’s 2012 budget but also to seek $61 billion in cuts for the current budget year.
The Obama Administration say they intend to get two-thirds of the $1.1 trillion in savings from spending cuts and one-third from tax revenues. That comes to $367 billion in tax hikes.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
YouTube Pulls Video of Trayvon Martin at Fight Club… But They Can’t Hide It Forever – Here It Is Again
Published May 22, 2012 at 5:04 am - 34 Comments
Mike commented:
What this man knows about economics can be written on a postage stamp with a 5 inch paint brush. Brutal. He’s trying to turn us into the Soviet Union by spending us into bankruptcy. We can not afford another term. Vote him out in 2012!
Carbon Pootprint commented:
WTF Pres?? He’s gonna save us 1.1 trillion over 10 years of his 1.5 trillion per year deficits? WTF????? bahahahha
Iconoclast commented:
Well, I’m sure no one making less than $250,000 a year will see an increase in their taxes . . . after all, Øbowma promised us this.
And Mike #1? I’m really glad I was between sips of coffee when I read your postage stamp analogy. All good humor contains some truth. Sadly, your comment was 100% pure.
forest commented:
From link: “The White House intends to get two-thirds of the $1.1 trillion in savings from spending cuts and one-third from tax revenues”
Tax increases are not “savings”. If a person gets a raise, it’s not “savings”, it’s more revenue. Much like getting a pay cut does not need to be “paid for”, but you may need to spend less. It reminds me of the regime calling “tax credit” transfer payments to people who pay no income taxes “tax breaks”.
Regimespeak:
welfare = “tax breaks”
tax hikes = “savings”
government spending = “investment”
genuine tax cuts = government spending that must be “paid for”
government programs = “initiatives”
The Regime is entirely incapable of being honest and we should never adopt their definitions and dishonest word choices.
Granny commented:
#3 February 14, 2011 at 6:06 am
Iconoclast commented:
Well, I’m sure no one making less than $250,000 a year will see an increase in their taxes . . . after all, Øbowma promised us this.
_____________
Yeah, well. At the rate “president” IWon WTF is going, nobody will be making over $250,000 a year anyway.
befuddled commented:
100 billion republican proposed spending cut: draconian
300 billion democrat tax hike: courageous
befuddled commented:
when did tax hikes become spending cuts?
P. Aaron commented:
The last budget sent to congress by Bush was about $1.6 trillion. What the Hell’s happened since then that it has to be doubled?!!!
Militant Conservative commented:
Come on House Republicans (starve the beast) shut down the government if needed. DO NOT let the terd in the WH get this passed.
This is another attempt to destroy America via Cloward and Piven.
powder is dry.
Freddy commented:
The bottom line after all the wordsmithing is simple.
How much can we afford to have the Federal Reserve PRINT in order to attain this level of spending?
We are now monetizing ALL of the new debt!
Madkangaroo commented:
#11 wrote: The last budget sent to congress by Bush was about $1.6 trillion. What the Hell’s happened since then that it has to be doubled?!!!
Nothing at all has happened. We could limit the budget to that amount and save rougly that amount each year for 10 years, ie. 16 trillion. It’s reported that there’s something like 700 billion in unspent money in agency accounts – (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/balances.pdf);we could shift that to SS and Medicare to reduce pressure on those programs (a political necessity for the GOP).
DiscomBOBulated commented:
Obos’ inability to mask his true intentions is rapidly becoming more obvious to anyone with a pulse and more than two brain cells. Sadly, the man is not inept, simply anti-American.
Maintaining current spending levels while making minimal effort to cut federal budgets is like bailing out the titanic with a teacup.
greg commented:
Budget cuts of over a trillion dollars over the next decade……Sounds very impressive…. But when the country is running an annual trillion and a half dollar deficit minus a budget cut of hundred billion the national debt goes up 14 trillion dollars in that same period,,,,twice the debt we have today.
Thirty years of business accounting taught me that when people use different base lines, the opportunity to misinform goes up very fast.
THE ONLY base line NUMBER THAT IS FREE FROM different interpretations is the national debt number that is used to bump up the national debt ceiling. If all budget discussions were contrasted against the response to national debt, the government would work on real budget management issues.
Until then smoke and mirrors and politicizing to assure the base is not worked, favorite programs for constituent are started, the leadership Dem And Republican get reelected. This is why there is a tee party
kato commented:
The worst president in history. Unless you’re a Section VIII parasite or a union slug.
Nanna1 commented:
Cut into Government retirement , including the Congress and President’s retirement. They all get huge retirement packages, no matter how rich they are. Don’t just stop at Social Security, or things for the poor!! Which they seem to be stuck on!!
Robert commented:
And of course there was all that “waste, fraud, and abuse” ($400B)
we were told about while they were forcing Obamacare on us.
Dennis commented:
This is one more (though slightly more subtle) example of Obumble looking out on the nation with his middle finger on the side of his face. I you redistribute through debt, the 50% who pay taxes in this country HAVE to pick up the tab, like it or not, or face the bankruptcy of the nation. Voila! Forced redistribution.
Don Rodrigo commented:
I don’t get it. We’ve had big government for a trillion dollars less in the recent past, and even after you take out bailout and stimulus funding (which are multiyear), and war funding, you still get more than $3.1 trillion for the budget. What’s the extra $400 billion being spent on that the previously already-big government didn’t need to?
Now, keep in mind that the only major agency that has been cut in the last two years is Defense, it means that at least $450 billion in new spending is in that Obama budget, and has been in the previous two FYs. Where the Hell is that money going? As I said, it’s not stimulus, it’s not bailout, so what the hell is it?
ogee commented:
I can’t stress enough how we need to get rid of this pResident NOW!. He is still doing his alinsky tactics of bankrupting the system to take down USA and put Muslem brotherhood in charge and sharia..we are on a precipice of disaster. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Repubs wipe the dust from your eyes and LOOK. (i’m unaffiliated) radical socialists like him do not play nice but are good at fooling others. This man is evil to the core. Wake up! don’t try to make sense from this evil doer.
He is rotten to the core. HEED. Are we going on the offense or the defense?????????
Paddy commented:
The latest CBO estimate of the 2011 deficit is $1.65 billion. Please correct your graph accordingly.
ogee commented:
Here————-> read all of this
http://emergingcorruption.com/2011/02/what-did-wade-rathke-know-about-egypt-that-the-cia-didnt-and-what-will-obama-do-now/
You must think outside the box and LOOK here—->
http://emergingcorruption.com/2011/02/what-did-wade-rathke-know-about-egypt-that-the-cia-didnt-and-what-will-obama-do-now/
That’s where the truth lies.
Truth
Truth
HowExceptional commented:
That’s an interesting graph.
So today’s news story is that in the first quarter of 2011, Obama is setting the 2012 budget.
But somehow he also set the 2009 budget a year before being sworn in as well and it wasn’t set the year before.
Getting on that change you can’t believe in bandwagon yourself there eh.
I guess it doesn’t take much when you’re working with small minds like these.
Seriously, why would you need to lie about that? What exactly is the problem with honestly IDing the 2009 budget as Bush’s? Do you believe that by doing this the debt run up under Obama won’t be properly identified as his own? That it isn’t significant enough when 2009 is taken out? No?
So just a little foot shooting exercise there for no purpose other than to keep this black-and-white Narnia of yours squeeky clean. How pathetic.
Chisum commented:
That’s an interesting graph.
So today’s news story is that in the first quarter of 2011, Obama is setting the 2012 budget.
But somehow he also set the 2009 budget a year before being sworn in as well and it wasn’t set the year before.
Getting on that change you can’t believe in bandwagon yourself there eh.
I guess it doesn’t take much when you’re working with small minds like these.
You act so condescending. As if you are so brilliant and everyone else here is so stupid.
You have yet to get one thing right yet. When is the light going to go on?
BO did set the 2009 budget.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29632177/
No cookie for you.
But please keep on sneering.
George Fulmore commented:
The graph for the is article is a fib. It only shows the “on-budget” deficit numbers in the Bush years. Adding in the “off-budget” costs, which include the costs of the wars, the borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund and more, doubles the deficits show on the graph in this article. In fact, the last full year of the Bush administration came in just under $1 trillion for the annual deficit. The next year went to $1.8 trillion, with $500 billion already there as Obama took office. Last year, it was $1.65, as reported. Go to Wikipedia under federal debt to see a graph that includes both the on-budget and total budget numbers.
George Fulmore commented:
President Obama did NOT triple the national deficit in one year. That is a fib. It was just under $1 trillion in the last Bush year; it was about $1.8 trillion in the first Bush/Obama year. It was $1.65 in Obama’s first full year. Why do people continue to tell fibs? Go to this link to do the numbers yourself: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np