published Wednesday, June 6th, 2012

Audacity that stinks

President Obama's chief mouthpiece, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, recently issued a challenge that is rooted in re-election politics, not official business.

Carney proclaimed, "... do not buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness."

This was said immediately after the hyped claim by Carney that Obama "has demonstrated significant fiscal restraint and acted with great fiscal responsibility." Carney continued his flourish stating, "Federal spending is rising at its slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower."

Amid a deficit revealed in a USA Today analysis to be more than $5 trillion in 2011 alone in contrast to the "official" $1.3 trillion reported, 12.5 million citizens unemployed, and a third year with no budget for the federal government, the "BS" being vigorously shoveled is by a panicked White House.

The facts, as published by the Obama administration's Office of Management and Budget's own figures: There have been only five fiscal years since World War II in which federal spending has exceeded 24 percent of the gross domestic product, the size of America's entire economy. Want to guess when four of those years might be?

1. In fiscal year 1946, the first year after World War II's end, with spending at 24.8 percent of GDP.

2. In fiscal year 2009, the first part of this budget year that began on Oct. 1, 2008, found then-Sen. Obama criticizing Bush deficit spending but voting for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which included the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. The second half of the budget year saw President Obama presiding over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and its $831 billion spending. The federal government's spending in fiscal 2009 accounted for 25.2 percent of our nation's economy.

3. In fiscal year 2010, the continued spending spree of our Congress and president, holding the veto pen, was recorded at 24.1 percent of GDP.

4. In fiscal year 2011, the nation remains budgetless with a historic deficit achieved and 24.1 percent of GDP spent out of Washington.

So, the truth is that Barack Obama, whose 2012 spending is projected to be 24.3 percent of GDP, will be the only president whose entire term had spending that exceeded 24 percent of the nation's economy. Only Franklin Delano Roosevelt surpassed the 24 percent mark in the post-World War era in 1946.

While rhetoric is cheap during election time, the actions of Obama, the Democrats in Congress and all the "progressive" apologists are very costly in terms of the financial reality and the destruction of our economic health.

It's your audacity that stinks.

14
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Easy123 said...

"So, the truth is that Barack Obama, whose 2012 spending is projected to be 24.3 percent of GDP, will be the only president whose entire term had spending that exceeded 24 percent of the nation's economy. Only Franklin Delano Roosevelt surpassed the 24 percent mark in the post-World War era in 1946."

This statement sums up why it takes audacity to change things. FDR is one of the greatest presidents ever. Why doesn't he catch any flack for spending so much? Maybe because he understood that you had to spend in order to make changes. We are coming out of two wars, an abysmal and failing economy, and many other problems. I believe that Obama could have done more than he has done but he is doing what he can with what he has to work with. He is a better man for the job than Willard Mitt Romney; I am sure of that.

June 6, 2012 at 12:23 a.m.
nucanuck said...

While the US economy is struggling, it seems to be the strongest ecconomy in the developed world at the moment. Could that mean that US policies were better tuned to current circumstance or should we have been making the kind of cuts made in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and now, Italy?

Should we be following their austerity model? Is that what Republicans are clammoring for?

June 6, 2012 at 12:41 a.m.
joneses said...

Everything Hussein Obama has done has been a complete failure so anyone that thinks he is a better man for the job is ignorant to the facts of all his failed policies. I have yet to hear Hussein Obama campaign on one success he has had. There is a simple explanation, he has none or what you liberals call his successes are not popular to anyone who has any level of intellect. Only the most ignorant still support Hussein Obama.

June 6, 2012 at 6:06 a.m.
joneses said...

FDR spent a total of 500 billon dollars in todays dollars and there was a positive outcome with something to show for it. Hussein Obama has spent almost 6 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it and the ignorant thinks he spent this money wisely? Get real.

June 6, 2012 at 6:11 a.m.
joneses said...

FDR's New Deal Disproportionately Hurt the Poor

The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.

New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.

June 6, 2012 at 6:24 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Joneses,

Please provide some evidence for your claims about Obama's failed policy and all these facts you speak of. Then spread more of your propaganda about how FDR's New Deal was bad. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.

June 6, 2012 at 7:07 a.m.
joneses said...

Why? You are so blind you have lost the ability to acknowledge facts. FDR did impose many excise taxes that disproportionately hurt the poor. Look it up. Obama's failures? Here are two of may of Hussein Obama's failures that you should be pissed about. He has added almost 6 trillion dollars to the debt he promised or lied to you that he would cut in half. He spent 800 billion on a failed stimulus package that yielded nothing. You are really ignorant aren't you? And what is really pathetic is you think he is doing an outstanding job. Why is he not campaigning on any accomplishments? He has none. Wake up and stop being so ignorant of the facts. Do your own research and stop only looking at the lies that support Hussein Obama's failed agenda.

June 6, 2012 at 8:42 a.m.
nucanuck said...

A sure sign of ignorance is trying to project it on to others.

June 6, 2012 at 10:05 a.m.

Easy123, FDR was 60+ years ago, but you can find editorials of the same nature in paper archives.

Joneses, nothing to show for it? Have you not been driving on some local roads that were paved thanks to the Stimulus? Maybe you don't appreciate the lack of bumps, but I sure do.

You're blind, as you keep claiming nothing.

Besides, your 800 billion figure includes Tax Cuts as well. Since we know you like Tax Cuts, why are you hating so bad on them? Why are you so averse to the facts?

June 6, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
degage said...

Easy and Happy, You guys are so funny,I love reading your silly rants.

June 6, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Joneses,

You have still provided nothing. Show me the massive failures please. I can name A LOT of accomplishments just off the top of me head. Killed Bin Laden, saved the US auto industry, increased veteran's benefits, Wall Street reform, Healthcare reform. You can keep reading here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

So you are implying that FDR was bad, correct? Please name a "good" president please.

degage,

You aren't funny and you add nothing to the conversation with any of your posts.

June 6, 2012 at 12:50 p.m.
degage said...

easy are you getting testy?

June 6, 2012 at 2:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...

You prove my point with every post.

No, it's the Internet. I have no reason to get "testy".

June 6, 2012 at 2:20 p.m.
charivara said...

"Chief mouthpiece"? I believe the term is Press Secretary. And this from an editorial writer who seeks to influence public opinion? You might disagree with the President and his policies, but he is still the President. All this shows is the lack of respect conservatives have for the results of elections that do not go their way. For the continuance of democracy in this country that is a very dangerous development. Today's "conservatives" have more in common with fascists than Republican conservatives like Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. Democrats are by no means perfect, but look at the alternative.

June 7, 2012 at 1:16 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.