Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Obama Not Even Pretending Like He’s Going To Rein In Deficit Spending

Well, I guess you’ve got to give him points for being honest about being a heedless tax-and-spend liberal.

Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.

“I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,” Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.

This is in contrast to John McCain who is promising to eliminate the deficit in his first term in office, and you gotta love how the Associated Press frames this divide between the candidates:

So what is more important in tough economic times? For the government to spend more to help hard-hit Americans or to eliminate a deficit that can lead to higher borrowing costs and slow the economy?

What’s more important?  Helping families?  Or eliminating the deficit and slowing the economy?

That’s a fair and objective way of putting it.  And I’m being sarcastic when I write that, if it wasn’t obvious.

Sometimes these reporters don’t even try to pretend to be objective.

Regardless, I’m a bit skeptical of McCain’s promise to balance the budget.  Can it be done?  Sure.  Is McCain the guy who can do it given that he’ll probably be working with a Democrat-dominated Congress?  I find it unlikely.

But even so, Obama’s statement about wanting to increase government spending even further rather than give some money back to the taxpayers so that they can spend it in the economy and create jobs (remember that’s what the stimulus checks Obama and the rest of the politicians supported were all about) is a bit shocking.  I think most Americans find the federal deficit, and the national debt, to be worrisome and aren’t going to like Obama’s rather cavalier attitude about it at all.

Of course, in the coming days as Obama begins to take some flak for this he’ll undoubtedly “refine” his position a bit, claim he never meant what he actually said, and then wonder why everyone’s making a fuss.

Comments

When R U going to sleep?

watashiwa on July 8, 2008 at 09:48 pm

Sometimes these reporters don’t even try to pretend to be objective.

Or knowledgeable about economic matters.  Deficit spending doesn’t create economic growth, it creates a short-term illusion of economic growth, which is great for political purposes, but is bad in the long run.  Deficit reduction, on the other hand, helps investors, which energizes the economic growth cycle, which builds the foundation for future economic growth.
Deficit spending to fund social engineering programs is the prima facie evidence that they are not working, and are not beneficial to our economy, in either the short or long term.


Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

robert108 on July 9, 2008 at 12:14 am

Obama and McCain are the same.

Things will be the same for the next four years at least.

ews48 on July 9, 2008 at 06:10 am

I guess you’ve got to give him points for being honest about being a heedless tax-and-spend liberal.

Those are points that President Bush doesn’t get. He’s a little tax-and-spendandspend bitch. Look in the mirror. You guys have no room to bray about this.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on July 9, 2008 at 06:15 am

You guys have no room to bray about this.

Counterfactual and unconsciously ironic, as usual, Sparkie.  President Bush is demonized for his tax rate cuts by you lefties, so you can’t have it both ways.  I have always found the hypocrisy of you lefties very amusing, in that you bash him for spending like one of you, and then promise to spend even more.  The difference here is that you lefties are going to raise tax rates and useless social spending.
At least some of President Bush’s spending was for National Defense, whereas Clinton gutted both our military and our intel capabilities, thus facilitating 9/11 and the growth of Al Qaeda.  Nice.


Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

robert108 on July 9, 2008 at 08:38 am

You guys have no room to bray about this.

Sparkie,

Actually, no!  If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that most of us conservatives have been berating Mr. Bush for his unfamiliarity with the veto pen pretty much since his first year in office.

And of course, R108 is correct that the Bush tax rate cuts were the correct medicine for an economy that was in the lingering throes of a “recession” when he took office (Thanks, Woof!) and further hobbled by the events of 9-11-01.  Not to mention that some of those tax rate cuts not only stimulated the nation’s economy, as advertised, but more than paid for themselves as well!


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on July 9, 2008 at 08:14 pm

Sparkie Arbuckle - He’s a little tax-and-spendandspend bitch. Look in the mirror. You guys have no room to bray about this.

What do you read while you’re here? Have you missed all of the many arguments against increasing spending? It’s not like they’re few and far between.

You had no room to say what you did.

likwidshoe on July 9, 2008 at 08:17 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.