Handwriting on the Wall for Democrats

[Warph]

Updated January 06, 2010
Handwriting on the Wall for Democrats
By Bradley Blakeman
- FOXNews.com



The handwriting is on the wall for Democrats in 2010 and the message is clear, "you failed to lead." The Democrats had it all, the presidency, the House and Senate with high majorities, but, in spite of everything they failed to govern and lead America like they had promised.

For these and other reasons, Democrats like Dodd, Dorgan and Ritter are now dropping like flies, because they know what is in store for them and other Democrats come this November.

The American people are upset, they hoped for "change" and "transparency" and what they got was the best legislation money could buy in paying off Senators and members of Congress for their votes on bills that were written behind closed doors and were never read by those called upon to vote on them.

The "stimulus" was a failure; unemployment is still over 10% nationally. Democrats' health care reforms will bankrupt the nation and create massive amounts of debt. The deficit has ballooned to over $1.8 trillion dollars this year and is likely to be more  a trillion dollars per year for the next 10 years if Democrats continue on their course of massive spending.

The Democrats were so drunk with power that they squandered and abused their golden opportunity to lead. 2010 will no doubt be a year of "change" but not the "change" Democrats were hoping for.

Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.

[Anmar]

the demorats had it all (except the supreme court) for a year and pushed through their biggest issue, health care.  Bush and the rebulicants had it all for 6+ years and they accomplished less.

[srkruzich]

the demorats had it all (except the supreme court) for a year and pushed through their biggest issue, health care.  Bush and the rebulicants had it all for 6+ years and they accomplished less.

You know what, I would take bush back in a new york second.  He did far less damage to this country in his 8 years than obama in his 1 year.  Hell i would take clinton back over obama.

[Anmar]

Give me clinton over any of the presidents of my lifetime.  I agree with you there.  I don't think there's much difference between Bush and Obama on the major issues.  The only difference is that Obama is actually pursuing the things he talked about during his campaign while Bush did a complete 180 after being elected.

[srkruzich]

Give me clinton over any of the presidents of my lifetime.  I agree with you there.  I don't think there's much difference between Bush and Obama on the major issues.  The only difference is that Obama is actually pursuing the things he talked about during his campaign while Bush did a complete 180 after being elected.

Bush didn't destroy everything in his path.  Obama's hell bent on destroying this nation. you can't say bush bankrupted or even came close to bankrupting this country. 
Right now, Jimmy carter is estatic. He can now claim he isn't the worst president in US history anymore.

[Anmar]

Bush doubled the national debt, what are you smoking?  Bush bailed out the banks and the auto industry, bush got us into 2 wars and destroyed our international relationships.  Bush made it easier for businesses to ship our jobs oversees. 

[srkruzich]

Bush doubled the national debt, what are you smoking?  Bush bailed out the banks and the auto industry, bush got us into 2 wars and destroyed our international relationships.  Bush made it easier for businesses to ship our jobs oversees. 

And obama's more than quadrupled the national debt just in one year.  SOrry but you can't lay this on bush. Its obamas mess.   
The last i checked, the muslims attacked us, and declared war on  us, not the other way around. What do you want us to do,lay down and surrender?  Not going to happen.
Jobs were going overseas LONG before bush took office. Nafta was in full force during clinton years.
Jobs didn't go overseas becuase of bush. JObs went overseas because of the consumer.  They voted their jobs out of the country with thier dollars. 
And international realtionships were fine.  We just didn't kiss the muslims ass is all.  Sorry but your going to have to do better than its bush's fault. Its all obamas baby now and he's created a whole lot worse mess than Bush. 
Interstingly enough, your railing about bush and war, and Obama's got his war to prosecute.  I don't hear you squeeling about that. 

[Varmit]

Hey, speaking of doing what they said they would on the campagin trail...didn't obama say that the healthcare debates would be on C-Span??...do away with special interest groups?..."save or create" a bunch of jobs?...close GITMO within a year (bad idea by the way)?...

[Anmar]

And obama's more than quadrupled the national debt just in one year.  SOrry but you can't lay this on bush. Its obamas mess.   
The last i checked, the muslims attacked us, and declared war on  us, not the other way around. What do you want us to do,lay down and surrender?  Not going to happen.
Jobs were going overseas LONG before bush took office. Nafta was in full force during clinton years.
Jobs didn't go overseas becuase of bush. JObs went overseas because of the consumer.  They voted their jobs out of the country with thier dollars. 
And international realtionships were fine.  We just didn't kiss the muslims ass is all.  Sorry but your going to have to do better than its bush's fault. Its all obamas baby now and he's created a whole lot worse mess than Bush. 
Interstingly enough, your railing about bush and war, and Obama's got his war to prosecute.  I don't hear you squeeling about that. 

Obama hasn't even doubled the debt, he hasn't even increased it by 25%.  You are really showing your ignorance.

We attacked Muslims first.  Gulf war, Iran, Lebanon, second gulf war.

Bush facilitated the process, he even gave tax incentives and breaks to companies that went overseas.

If you think international relations were fine under bush, you need to broaden your horizons a bit.

I have problems with the way Obama is handling the wars, i'm more of a wait and see kinda guy.  I like to give people a chance before i start to discuss.   I've mentioned twice already on this forum that i believe he's starting to be a carbon copy of Bush.

[Warph]

Come on.... since Obama has taken office, our national deficit has more than tripled.  Earlier this year (2009), as part of the stimulus package, Congress set a statutory debt limit.  The limit was $12.104 trillion — and we've now exceeded it.  The latest calculation of the National Debt as posted by the Treasury Department has... at least numerically... exceeded the statutory Debt Limit approved by Congress last February as part of the Recovery Act stimulus bill.  The ceiling was set at $12.104 trillion dollars.  The latest posting by Treasury shows the National Debt at nearly $12.135 trillion.

A senior Treasury official told CBS News that the department has some "extraordinary accounting tools" it can use to give the government breathing room in the range of $150-billion when the Debt exceeds the Debt Ceiling.   Were it not for those "tools," the U.S. Government would not have the statutory authority to borrow any more money.  It might block issuance of Social Security checks and require a shutdown of some parts of the federal government.

Check: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5987341.shtml

Well golly gee, it's a good thing the government has some breathing room, because I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of hyperventilating Americans reading this.  Meanwhile, Obama continues along his merry little way, signing a new spending bill. This one is going to cost us around $1.1 trillion.  So that brings our national debt up even more. And as always, it's in the name of stimulating the economy:


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama has signed into law a $1.1 trillion bill that increases the budgets in many areas of the government by about 10 percent, including health, law enforcement and veterans' programs.
Obama signed the bill privately at the White House on Wednesday after receiving the bill from Congress on Sunday.
The bill lumps together six of the 12 annual appropriations bills for the 2010 budget year that began Oct. 1.
Most Republicans opposed the bill, citing runaway federal spending. They also pointed to an estimated $3.9 billion for more than 5,000 local projects sought by lawmakers from both parties.
Democrats said the spending would help the economy recover from the recession.


This is a dangerous game that Demorats clowns are playing.... and one that we have to stop in November.  The thing is, we can't afford to keep spending like there's no tomorrow.  At best, we can get rid of some of this debt by getting extremely fiscal politicians in office who want really small government. Those politicians could theoretically slash a lot of unneeded, wasteful government programs or the ones that have proven to be an abject failure.  So what are our choices?  We can't keep selling our debt to China, and China doesn't even want to keep buying it anyway.  So basically, we're saddling our grandchildren, and probably even generations after our grandchildren, with a mountain of debt that they didn't even create.  It's ridiculous.  If we keep this up, we'll bankrupt ourselves. You think the economy's bad now?  How will we fare when the government literally has no money anymore?  Everything will fall apart.  Everything.  We have become too reliant on big government to take care of us, and the only way to step back from this precipice is to stop this runaway spending train immediately.  Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen for at least a year.  But how much more damage can be done in a year?  Even if the entire Congress is voted out in next year's elections, the damage may already be done.  What have we done to our country in the name of "CHANGE"?

I have an honest question to all of the Obama voters out there.  Is this the America you want to leave to your children?  Are you happy with what you got?



Obama's Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures:
This Tuesday the White House released their Mid-Session Review admitting they made a $2 trillion miscalculation in the size of the federal deficit that President Barack Obama's borrow and spend policies would inflict on our nation. Heritage senior policy analyst Brian Riedl details the carnage:

* While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the "stimulus" was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
* The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.
* In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama's budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.
* The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.
* The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

Rest of story and graph at:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/28/obama%E2%80%99s-tripling-of-the-national-debt-in-pictures/


Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures:

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama's budget deficits in context of President Bush's.

What's driving Obama's unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama's budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama's budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Rest of story and graph at:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Who Is Going To Pay Off Obama's Debt? Our Kids
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/07/4994/