Obama: 4th straight trillion + deficit in a row

[CID1990]

The seventh sign. 2012 coming true.

The two biggest items on that list are war spending and tax cuts which Obama has continued.

There you go again with that "revenue" problem.

Tax cuts wouldn't be an issue if governement spending was under control. Unfortunately, our government cannot be compelled to spend less by simply cutting off the revenue stream (tax cuts). That's why there needs to be a tamper-proof (see Social Security over the last 40 years) constitutional control on spending.

[BDKJMU]

As an independent, where are the facts and figures of Bush policies and dealings causing those increases in his first year (and even possibly his second)?

2009 budget was signed by George W. Bush.

Wrong. FY 09 started Oct 1 08', but discretionary non defense operated on continuing resolutions, omnibus didn't get signed till March 09' by Barry.

"........"Day 51 -- March 11: Obama signs HR 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, a $410 billion piece of legislation containing over 8,000 earmarks. By signing the bill, Obama breaks at least three of his most important campaign promises:

Transparency -- Obama promised to post passed legislation online for five full days before signing it. Obama signed the Omnibus spending bill less than a day after he received it from Congress.

“When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you, the American voter, will have five days to look online and find out what it is before I sign it.
(June 22, 2007. Manchester, New Hampshire)
[Transcript] [Video]

Overall spending – Obama promised to enact net spending cuts as President. The Omnibus bill is more than 8 percent higher than 2008 spending levels.

“So we’re going to have to make some investments but we’ve also got to make spending cuts, and what I’ve proposed -- you’ll hear Senator McCain say ‘he’s proposing a whole bunch of new spending’ --but, actually, I’m cutting more than I’m spending. So that it will be a net spending cut.”
(Oct. 7, 2008. Second Presidential Debate, Nashville, TN)
[Transcript] [Video]

Wasteful spending – Obama promised to “go line by line” to make sure taxpayer money was not wasted. Among the questionable spending in the Omnibus bill is an earmark which sticks taxpayers with a $200,000 tab for a tattoo removal program in California.

“And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” (Sept. 26, 2008. First Presidential Debate, Oxford, Miss.)
[Transcript][Video].."
http://www.atr.org/obamas-first-days-hi ... more-a3167" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

The two biggest items on that list are war spending and tax cuts which Obama has continued.

There you go again with that "revenue" problem.

Tax cuts wouldn't be an issue if governement spending was under control. Unfortunately, our government cannot be compelled to spend less by simply cutting off the revenue stream (tax cuts). That's why there needs to be a tamper-proof (see Social Security over the last 40 years) constitutional control on spending.

Wars cost more money.

[UNI88]

There you go again with that "revenue" problem.

Tax cuts wouldn't be an issue if governement spending was under control. Unfortunately, our government cannot be compelled to spend less by simply cutting off the revenue stream (tax cuts). That's why there needs to be a tamper-proof (see Social Security over the last 40 years) constitutional control on spending.

Wars cost more money.

Isn't Dubya the only POTUS to ever reduce taxes while in the midst of a war(s)?

[BDKJMU]

A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.

In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opini ... yt&emc=rss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, but Bush policies are still affecting the budget. And Obama shares the blame too.

But you're little chart there treats taxes as a zero sum game. Its not. For example, if govt increases tax rates by 10% doesn't mean they will get 10% more revenue. Increased taxes will likely slow down growth (from what it otherwise would be) in which case govt won't get 10% more in revenue (than they otherwise would if taxes remained the same).

The opposite holds true. If govt cuts tax rates by 10%, doesn't mean govt will end up with 10% less revenue...