Only Blind Hardcore Leftists Approve of Obama’s Handling of Deficit Today
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, February 9, 2011, 10:42 AM
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)
The national debt has increased $5 Trillion since top democrats promised “no new deficit spending.”
Most of the country is aware of the dangerous Obama big-government, big-spending agenda.
But, there are a few hardcore leftists who still approve of his tripling of the national deficit.
Gallup reported:
President Barack Obama’s approval rating for handling the federal budget deficit has gone from bad to worse in recent months, even as his ratings on all other major national issues have generally held steady. Currently, 27% of Americans approve of Obama on the deficit, down from 32% in November, while 68% disapprove…
…Democrats’ disapproval on the deficit is a key reason Obama does worst on that issue. It is the only issue on which fewer than 6 in 10 Democrats approve of his performance. By contrast, about three-quarters of Democrats approve of Obama’s handling of healthcare and foreign affairs…
…Independents are closer to Republicans than to Democrats on the two most polarizing issues — healthcare and the economy. Independents come even closer to GOP views with respect to the federal budget and taxes, making these potential problem issues for Obama when it comes to garnering independents’ support in the next election. However, on four other issues — foreign affairs, energy policy, Egypt, and Afghanistan — independents’ views fall at about the midpoint between Republicans’ and Democrats’ views.
Related… President Barack Obama is calling for a six-year, $53 billion spending plan for high-speed rail system in the United States.
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
Joanne commented:
High speed rail systems run on electricity, often from nuclear power. How does Obama suppose to run this system? On coal? On oil or gas? On nuclear? The guy is such a fraud.
The All Real Numbers Symbol commented:
$53 billion dollars? We’re almost flat broke and he wants to spend $53 billion on a high speed rail line? Hasn’t that diaster been tired once before? Whatever happened to Amtrak? I mean, I’d like to ride on a train, but there has to be a better way to do this.
Paul in N. AL commented:
I’m all for high speed rail (real high speed > 200 mph, not this garbage of just over 100) however I do believe it would have to come from corporate interest, and investment, not from government spending of it to make it happen. I do not have any trust in govt to find profit, however I do have faith in corporations to find that profit.
Stan25 commented:
One of those hardcore leftists is Alan Colmes from Fox News. He still insists that Obama is polling near 50% approval rating, even if the evidence is irrefutable towards the way is posted.
Granny commented:
$53 billion boondoggle is what he wants. Might as well just print out the $53 billion, pile it up and light a bonfire under it.
And then there is the whole “where is it going to be built” question. $53 billion is nowhere close to enough to cover a substantial part of the country with high speed rail, and I, for one, have no inclination to foot the bill for high speed rail for California!
Muffin commented:
I see that chart and i think Obama is mentally ill. Or, something similar….or more sinister….not even the current line of thinking, that he is fully incompetent, explains that chart. Because an imbecile would at least get lucky on some policies, right?
Granny commented:
#
#3 February 9, 2011 at 11:08 am
Paul in N. AL commented:
I’m all for high speed rail (real high speed > 200 mph, not this garbage of just over 100) however I do believe it would have to come from corporate interest, and investment, not from government spending of it to make it happen. I do not have any trust in govt to find profit, however I do have faith in corporations to find that profit.
_______
Unfortunately, we pretty much wiped out the ability of private entities to invest in rail in this country back when we nationalized the railroads and saddled ourselves with Amtrak.
Militant Conservative commented:
#6 February 9, 2011 at 11:11 am
Muffin commented
your comment is one I have made numerous times before. The only logical conclusion is that Obama desires the outcome he is getting. He has continuously worked tword a goal of cloward and piven.
powder is dry
nelli commented:
I’m for a one-time high-speed rail line, from Washington DC to Anwar, AK. It could zip our politicians out there, and then we can wait for their health care, rail line, environmental and other policies to take effect. If we like what we see, we can ok their return trip.
Joe College commented:
O’Reilly gave him a nice bounce with the pregame softball fest:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Reaganite Republican commented:
Also in approval would be any who perceive them as likely beneficiaries of any Cloward-Piven type collapse
Edouard commented:
All that $53 billion is, is a big fat bow-tied gift to his union supporters and a wet kiss to the blue voters in big cities. To most Americans (not in either of those two categories) it is yet another Chicago-thug street-heist perpetrated by the I-don’t-cares currently occupying Washington.
Airon Later commented:
First off, there is a HUGE problem with the graph used here – one that the modern American Right is over-eager to use. What is never revealed to the mouth-agape masses who see this as some primary signifier that the Obama administration is the root cause of our financial situation should finally recognize that it was the Bush administration that signed-off on the fiscal year 2009 budget. That’s a fact. Deal with it. This isn’t a “blame Bush” meme, but a reality of how things work. Secondly, Obama made it clear that we had to deal with how we were spending in regards to Iraq/Afghanistan – which was largely done in an “off the books” fashion. Couple that with spending on domestic issues ( something completely ignored by Bush and his cronies ) and you get exactly where we are. This notion that you can get everything you want without spending is laughable.
Chisum commented:
Airon Later,
You are wrong.
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/speaker-pelosis-final-insult-deficit-reduction-has-been-a-high-priority-video/#comment-228266
Read the whole thread. You’ll learn something.
Edouard commented:
#14
If you think that the one-billionth attempt by a leftist like you to blame Boooooooosh for today’s catastrophic lack of fiscal restraint in Washington will have any effect around here, you need a 12-step program.
Insanity like yours is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Two salient points:
1) You are in the wrong forum if you think anyone around here is happy with Bush’s record of deficit spending. Any fool can see, though, that Bush’s deficit spending was child’s play compared to Obama’s explosion of fiscal irresponsibility and ongoing atrocious record.
2) Only a liberal can think in terms of “getting everything you want” in the context of government spending. Can you point out any single fiscally responsible conservative who comes close to using such a phrase? No — you cannot get ‘everything you want” or even close. Conservatives want austerity. Thus your last point, if it was meant as some kind of swipe against conservatives, is a ridiculous straw man.
Larkin commented:
I suggest a trip to Austin, Tx to see how well the new “high speed” commuter rail is working out.
It is a lame, expensive, dismal failure. And now they want to waste another billion, just to prove how progressive they are.
Airon Later commented:
To Chisum and Edouard – who both can’t seem to exercise even a fraction of intellectual honesty……
First off, for Chisum, you link to Jim Hoft as a reliable source for information? How is that link even remotely going to refute ( oh, excuse me, “refudiate” ) the realities which I have laid before you?
As for Edouard, when are you going to realize that you – and many like you – have completely abandoned what was once a cornerstone of conservativism – accountability.
But per your “salient points”, I shall offer this retort:
1) The sudden implementation of the “well, we didn’t like Bush at all” narrative – used by prominent voices within your cabal like Michelle Malkin – runs contrary to the fact that ANY time someone of alternate political alignment takes him to task ( and rightfully so ) for his failures, your ilk are the first in line to defend him.
2) If conservatives are truly the fiscally responsible giants that you claim they are, why the sudden disappearance of the trillion dollar surplus the Clinton administration left our country? Why the desire to ignore the domestic needs of the American people in favor of “nation building” in Iraq? Why was that money not accurately accounted for in the National Debt? Why are conservatives more interested in defunding NPR or the NEA rather than taking a look at programs that soak up more money? Do you really know how much money NPR and the NEA takes in from taxpayers? No, you don’t, because they are nothing but “boogeymen” to you so you don’t take notice of the financially destructive monster standing next to you.
Chisum commented:
Airon Later,
You’ve exposed yourself for the ignorant leftist you are. You didn’t even click on the link I provided or else you would know that I didn’t “quote Jim Hoft”. Either that or you didn’t want to admit that you were wrong which my link proves.
Either way you keep sneering, condescending and assuming. It’s not as if we haven’t dealt with you and your ilk before.
Edouard commented:
#18
The intellectual dishonesty is yours, pal. But I’m used to leftists such as yourself imagining what my motives are and trying to put words in my mouth.
Did I say I “didn’t like Bush at all”? No i did not.
I have not liked the deficit spending in Washington, though, for as long as I can remember, going back decades, encompassing both Democrat and Republican administrations.
Might I add also, that the “Clinton surplus” that free-spending libs love to take credit for was much less about Clinton and much more about an era of economic boom, and a Republican Congress staring Clinton down while holding the purse strings.
And even then, Congress spent too much.
Did I ever say I opposed government accountability? No I did not. But please, Airon Later, do attribute more false motives to me, make more false claims of dishonesty, and foist more absurd straw man arguments. I fully expect nothing less from a sophist progressive such as yourself.
avery commented:
Airon 14# You are Laughable but you got to earn your payday.
Airon Later commented:
Alright, how about round #2 for Chisum and Edouard, seeing as how they can’t seem to respond to my clearly worded comment in favor of both hyperbole and revisionist history.
First, for Chisum, you linked what was nothing more than a minimalist version of the thread we are now posting in – complete with usage of the chart that was the catalyst for my primary comment. Despite your inability to understand how linking and the internet works, what you have done is, in point of fact, “quoted” a post made by Hoft.
But as for Edouard, I will at least give a modest amount of credit where it is at least marginally due. The Congress during the final years of the Clinton administration did have the “power of the purse”, but it should not be ignored that virtually ALL Republicans in the lower chamber were completely AGAINST the Clinton budget that lead to the surplus that Bush squandered.
Lastly, it would lend at least a waft of credibility to your particular socio-political bent if you would respond to the second point I have made rather than spending more time on sophomoric name-calling and misdirection. After all, you are commenting on an issue that you claim your side claims superiority over, so one would be inclined to think that they would at least be met with a response that could – at best – make them see it’s merits. As of now, you both are disappointments to your cause.
Chisum commented:
Actually Airon the AssHat my link took you to this COMMENT:
#81 January 5, 2011 at 6:30 am (Edit)
Rio commented:
I’ll take a stab at Pete’s #4 question……Bush did not sign that last budget, the dems held it over, wouldn’t give the budget to Bush to sign. Obama signed it in private after the democrats added increased spending across the board, can’t remember the percentage, think it was around 13%…… and, it had over 8,000 of those dastardly earmarks in it too? Line by line? He didn’t do that line by line thingy he promised. And, gasp, he released a…….signing statement, right out of the gate, promises broken and, the FY 2009 redline is is owned by Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
“In a sign of his discomfort with the bill, Obama signed it in private. He declined to answer a shouted reporter’s question about why.
Obama also released a “signing statement” in which he said several of the bill’s provisions raised constitutional concerns. This week, Obama criticized his predecessor, George W. Bush, for frequently issuing such statements upon signing bills into law.
>Snipsnip< It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29632177/
============================================
Not to Jim Hoft or his opinion. It proves you were WRONG!
You see, Airon the AssHat, we have been dealing with ill-informed idiots like you for a long time. We don’t need to rehash the old arguments over and over. That’s why we refer you to older threads and the comments found there.
I realize that you think you are brilliant, with fresh and new ideas that nobody has ever thought of before.
Again, you’re WRONG.
Oh and regarding the Clinton surplus:
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Wm T Sherman commented:
Airon – come back, buddy. Where did you go?
∅ commented:
Airhead forgot to mention a very important aspect regarding war funding legislation. The dims made President Bush pay twice as much for the war as it should have cost. Stuffed into the legilslation was thousands of amendments for pet lib projects. None of these war funding bills were clean. If you don’t know what that means, then look it up.
∅ commented:
Oh , I forgot to mention two other deficit producing events during the Bush administration: 9/11 and Katrina. What fiscally responsible measures would you have taken regarding spending for both disasters? BTW, before you blame Bush for Katrina, I lived in New Orleans, and I’m familiar with what took place with regard to money allocated for the levees over the past thirty years.
squeaky commented:
[The ranks of black firms shot up more than 60 percent from 2002 to 2007, compared with the overall national increase of 4 percent. By the end of the boom, Prince George's County had the highest share of black-owned businesses - 55 percent - among all large counties in the nation.] oddly two things happened in 2007 – one being the downturn in the economy and the other being the most ethical congress to ever grace this land..cue [ Cue (theatrical), the trigger for an action to be carried out at a specific time, in theatre or film] eery music.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020805063.html
Airon Later commented:
To Chisum: While your link to direct to a comment regarding Obama and the budget for fiscal year 2009 – the claims made by the commenter were specious and provided an equal amount of speculation regarding the spending of the Obama administration.
I am, despite what you obviously believe, not so proud as to admit that I was mistaken in claiming that Bush signed the 2009 budget. However, some context should be provided in order to see the 2009 budget for what it really is:
First, from CATO:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/
Lastly, from CBPP on what is really driving up deficits:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036