ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/17/2018 02:18 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.186 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality: Good
Back to Overview  
02/28/2009 10:49 AM ID: 77316 Permalink   

Obama Releases New Budget, The Cost: $3.6 Trillion

 

The plan, released Thursday, shows Obama's budget plan for 2010. It includes tax hikes on the rich, billions for dying financial companies, and health care. Obama has said this budget could increase to $3.94 trillion, growing the deficit to $1.75 trillion.

Republicans are calling the spending out of line; Minority Leader Mitch McConnel said, "while the American people are tightening their belts, Washington seems to be taking its belt off." This budget also extends the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.

John Boehner, in a statement, said: "This budget makes clear that the era of big government is back, and Democrats want you to pay for it." The increase in spending would push the deficit to unseen numbers since WWII, and 4 times higher than last year.

 
  Source: www.foxnews.com  
    WebReporter: cray0la Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  24 Comments
  
  spend spend spend away  
 
my childrens futures, there childrens futures and so on.

seriously how can any of you lefties sit by this obsene amount of spending?

lets tally it up here,

the 787 Billion Dollar stimulus aka porkulus bill with calculated cost overuns of 3.2 trillion.

410 Billion Dollar spending bill passed from the house

the housing bailout 275 billion

the bank bailouts 700 billion- 2 trillion.

the spending will increase, watch and see.

when are you democrats on this board going to stand up against this TSUNAMI OF SPENDING, your railed and rallied against bush every time he ran the deficit up a dollar, now you sit back and watch obama and the democrats burn up the printing presses.

when does it end?

 
  by: cray0la     02/28/2009 10:57 AM     
  oh and  
 
i bet im forgeting something in that tally too.
 
  by: cray0la     02/28/2009 10:58 AM     
  can a op  
 
capitalize the title for me correctly, i didnt notice i forgot to.

Obama Release New Budget, The Cost: 3.6 Trillion
 
  by: cray0la     02/28/2009 11:00 AM     
  Why was Robin Hood called a thief?  
 
He didn't rob the poor. I'd vote for him for president if it was possible.
 
  by: White Albino   02/28/2009 11:57 AM     
  @cray0la  
 
I don't recall you whining this much when Bush spent trillions. And as I'm sure you recall in your lucid moments, he wasn't a 'leftist'.
 
  by: Ec5618   02/28/2009 11:59 AM     
  @ec  
 
thats not the point and you avoided my question, so please be my guest to go back answer the question at hand and then feel free to ask me more.

i never been for obscene spending and i have said here many times bush spent like a drunken sailor.
 
  by: cray0la     02/28/2009 12:11 PM     
  @cray0la  
 
"..answer the question at hand.."
You imagine that is 'the' question at hand. My implication is also 'at hand'.

"i never been for obscene spending"
Really? Obscene spending? You're opposed? Really?

Do you also oppose 'doing stupid things'? We might be more alike than either of us realised.

"..i have said here many times bush spent like a drunken sailor."
To my recollection, you didn't do so during Bush's reign. I have always had the distinct impression that you began to criticise Bush in order to seem like less of a hypocrite. Would you correct me?
 
  by: Ec5618   02/28/2009 01:27 PM     
  Iraq War  
 
Bush War spending = $25+ trillion in future healthcare costs for returning troops alone.

 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/28/2009 06:10 PM     
  Yep  
 
Compared to the last eight budgets from Bush, this budget, while very large, is also responsible by comparison. It actually accounts for the costs of fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which Bush somehow managed to forget every time he drafted the budget and then had to get "emergency funding" in the hundreds of billions for (look it up, righties). So Obama's budget is probably around the same size or even a bit smaller than the last budget drafted for us by The Party of Small Government.

But hey, the Republicans are a completely different party than they were way back then, under Bush, and it's totally unfair of their critics to continuously point out that they didn't give a spit about fiscal responsibility such a long time ago while they had a Republican in the Oval Office. Come on, lefties, that was over FIVE WEEKS ago. Aren't you guys all about "Moving On"?

:D
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     02/28/2009 06:21 PM     
  ^ $2.5 trillion  
 
Correction
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/28/2009 06:25 PM     
  @crayola  
 
I agree that the spending is outrageous. I also think this president was saddled with some pretty large debts, the worst economic conditions in decades, two wars and a mandate to get it all under control within 4 years. I say we give it a chance, at least for a couple of years.

I really don't understand conservatives. It seems that during Clinton's presidency the economy was booming and yet the right wingers said it was all because of spending. Somehow though, the debt and deficit was significantly reduced.

The "cuts" that your party often seems to pursue are related to education, health care and all those other "socialist" ideas. When it comes to tax cuts or helping big business, military or Wall Street your party defends it as essential for capitalism.

As part of the reduction of "big government" your party pushed for the deregulation of businesses, Wall Street and the media under Reagan. We are dealing with a deregulated Wall Street now. Are you really happy with it?

As far the the media. Do you realize that the largest media outlets that span hundreds of brands are owned by a very small group of people who have often made it known they are not liberal. I know you did not mention "liberal media" but please just realize there is liberal Hollywood and than there are large, corporate media conglomerates that and not owned and run by liberal interests. Do your own reseach. Chomsky had some interesting things to say on this subject.

So, really the point of my post is, how can you and your party act so hypocritically and not even see it? In the past couple of decades I have seen a recurring theme of Republicans coming into offce, pursuing the interests of the very rich and then driving the economy into the dirt. I then see Democrats coming in, reducing the deficit and turning the economy around. I am just an average citizen and frankly the trickle down economics your party practices has not worked out particularly well for me. Can you honestly say that things have been financially better for you and the country when you party has been in office for at least the past 20-30 years? If so, I have to wonder what tax bracket you are in.
 
  by: Lilbrother   02/28/2009 06:52 PM     
  HAAHA  
 
I don't agree with the spending either but it is down right comical that the right wing suddenly has it's ass puckered up like a snare drum after bush spending just got done reaming out the tax payers arses.

Republicans... since Reagan have tripled or doubled the deficit.

And it was ok then, because it's healthy to borrow and have the chinese invest in the US...

But now, WOW, it's a continuation of bush spending and big government, but suddenly a complete 180 turn-around with republicans - spending is bad and we shouldn't borrow any more money from chinese.

The Conservatives are suppose to be the responsible spenders but here's the kicker: THE ONLY ADMINISTRATION TO PUT MONEY DOWN ON THE DEFICIT(HALF A TRILLION) WAS A DEMOCRATE (BILL CLINTON).

How does it work, Crayola?
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/28/2009 08:18 PM     
  @ukcn001XYZ  
 
"Republicans... since Reagan have tripled or doubled the deficit."

more around 9 times; after you exclude clinton increase to the national debt, which still lowered the national debt as a percentage of gdp by 5-10%...

in 1980 the national debt was only 907 billion (about 35% of hdp)...

in 1988 it was 2.6 trillion (about 50-55% of gdp)...

in 1992 it was 4 trillion (about 65% of gdp)...

in 2000 it was 5.6 trillion (about 55-60% gdp)...

when bush left it was 10.6 trillion (about 70-75% of gdp).
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/28/2009 08:48 PM     
  obama and the dems  
   
  by: cray0la     02/28/2009 09:24 PM     
  This is interesting reading  
 
Go to http://www.time.com and read about the breakdown of the Securities and Exchange Commission. I always thought much of the scamming going on in the banking industry could not have taken place without either collusion or a blind eye by government overseers (SEC). Draw your own conclusions.
 
  by: White Albino   03/01/2009 05:19 AM     
  Cray0la (lol as if you'll reply)  
 
Anywho, there's a problem with the 'funny' image you posted. That wreck was caused by you Republicans, dumbass.

As soon as I saw this topic I knew it was another stupid post from the stupid Fox news site, but then again, it was Cray0la posting so what other source is there? (right Cray0la?)

Sorry (not really) for having to aim this at you but you always tend to avoid discussions so I don't give a crap because you'll probably ignore this one as well.

I agree with EC, where were you when Bush was pissing the economy down the drain? Oh yeah, up his ass.

Bye

 
  by: agnaram   03/01/2009 05:45 AM     
  To America...  
 
Welcome to the rest of the world! I sure hope Obamas speeches were worth the taxes your going to be footing the bill for. Hey! Maybe youll become overtaxed, miserbale and short tempered just like us good old Brits who have this so called 'advanced' political system.

WHAT I wouldnt give to get out.
 
  by: Red!   03/01/2009 09:04 PM     
  @red  
 
:(

f'n horrible...

i don't want it!
we're all gonna get locked up in the denver airport!@ crap!
 
  by: mrmarler     03/02/2009 07:00 AM     
  it's official  
 
I've sh@ my pants.
 
  by: zatonado001     03/02/2009 08:41 PM     
  @zatonado001  
 
Let me guess: you read cray0la's comments.

When does it end?
 
  by: Ec5618   03/02/2009 08:45 PM     
  @Ec  
 
@Ec

I was joking around a bit. Seems like there are one of these THE BAILOUTS GONNA COST OUR CHILDREN'S SOULS articles everyday.

 
  by: zatonado001     03/02/2009 09:12 PM     
  Bottom line:  
 
Taxes.

They're going to go up if you earn more than $250,000 per year. If you're earning about that much, they're going to go up by about $100 a month. That's right -- if you earn about $5,000 per week, you will be taxed an extra $25 per week.

I'm sorry, I just totally fail to see how that's a tremendous burden. Perhaps a rich person can explain to me how they just can earn $5,000 a week and not be able to afford an extra $25 in tax.
 
  by: ben_reilly     03/05/2009 04:32 PM     
  Ha!  
 
Makes perfect sense. Lets take money from succesful small business owner who have worked hard to be where there at, and lets give that money to failing companies who have not done well. Yea, that makes sense.
 
  by: jOnO_oRiGiNaL     03/05/2009 05:20 PM     
  haha  
 
President Obama said the budget he presented to Congress this week represents “the change the American people voted for in November.”

yup, obscene spending unseen of in such a short time, broken promises.

the change you all asked for
 
  by: ninjaghost   03/09/2009 07:59 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com