Obama on Recession: ‘Less Money Coming In,’ So We Had to ‘Spend Even More’

CNSNews ^

[Sub-Driver]

Obama on Recession: ‘Less Money Coming In,’ So We Had to ‘Spend Even More’ Tuesday, July 26, 2011 By Nicholas Ballasy

(CNSNews.com) – When speaking to the nation in a primetime television address on Monday, President Barack Obama said that because less money was “coming in” during the recession, the federal government had to “spend even more.”

“The deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office,” said Obama. “To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more -- on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.”

Obama then went on to make his argument for a “balanced approach,” with tax increases as part of a deal to increase to debt limit.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), known as the economic stimulus, was passed by the Democrat-led Congress in February 2009 and has cost the taxpayers $821 billion.

The CBO projects that the federal budget deficit will reach $1.5 trillion by the end of the fiscal year 2011. The current national debt limit is $14.29 trillion.

Official debt figures from the U.S. Treasury show that the 111th Democrat-led Congress added $3.22 trillion to the national debt.

Following the president’s remarks, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called for a reduction in federal spending and no tax increases as part a deal to increase the debt limit.

“The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you’re spending more money than you’re taking in, you need to spend less of it,” said Boehner.

“There is no symptom of big government more menacing than our debt,” he said. “Break its grip, and we begin to liberate our economy and our future.”

Boehner also mocked the economic stimulus package signed by President Obama.

“Here’s what we got for that spending binge,” said Boehner, “a 'stimulus' bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs and a national debt that has gotten so out of hand it has sparked a crisis without precedent in my lifetime or yours.”

[Sub-Driver]

For the record.......

[frogjerk]

“The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you’re spending more money than you’re taking in, you need to spend less of it,” said Boehner

Boehner, please keep repeating it over and over and do not cave!

[KJC1]

Reminds me of Biden saying: “Yes you can spend your way out of bankruptcy.”

[J40000]

“it required us to spend even more — on tax cuts for middle-class families”

Can SOMEBODY please explain how CUTTING TAXES equates to become ‘government spending’???

HOW do you “SPEND” on tax CUTS???

Oh... sorry.. I totally forgot that ALL money belongs to the federal government and we are graciously ALLOWED some of it via tax CUTS... duhhhh...

[Steelfish]

So what did the $800B shovel ready jobs get us? And how do you explain the flood of waivers for the $1T ObamaCare?

[antidemoncrat]

Progressive logic: Homosexuality is normal, killing babies is a woman's choice not infanticide, spending monies you do not have and did not earn is your right, and being a pathological liar ok.

[EGPWS]

Spending is all they know.

[JimmyMc]

I think amoung other sujects that our “leader” failed in school, math was one.

[blackdog]

Some little pissant democrat wordsmithing prick coined the notion and phase "Spending in the tax code".

Not one media whore has kicked their asses for playing games.

It is really a newspeak culture with no concern for it's consequences.

[Secret Agent Man]

Obama finaly drank Biden’s stupid.

You recall it wasn’t long ago Biden was talkign to seniors and saying “We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.”

The towering logic of these two is immeasurable.

[reefdiver]

Democrat liberal, marxist, leftest logic is if your spending more than your taking in, You need to take in a whole bunch more.

They have been doing it since the sixties, and it’s worked just fine.

They never cut. Give them 1/2 of what they demand, and that is a 50% cut

No increase, cuts, across the board.

If the elected can not do it, step down. Now

[SpaceBar]

There is simply no tree high enough.

[blackdog]

To infer that deductible expenses are somehow an expenditure of government is at best a very deceptive political spin, and at worse a reflection of collectivist policy that the government has claim to all income. And is he really willing to take away the charitable giving deduction from the segment that provides the bulk of donations? Last edited by ATL Bear; 04-13-11 at 11:24 PM.

The first date I could find on Obamas twisted little game of marxist wordsmithing was on April 13th, 2011. Some insider references to his administration date back to March 4th, when I guess they were working this bullshite into our media speech patterns.

[SandRat]

That does not compute.

[lowbridge]

HOW do you “SPEND” on tax CUTS???

Same way the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. Now if you went to a good school like Harvard or Faber College, you'd know this.

[jennings2004]

Sure it does...suppose you are so unlucky as to get a 10% pay cut...but lucky to have a job still...you get home and tell the wife, “Honey, we have to increase our spending, what with this pay cut and all...” What a crock!

[PreciousLiberty]

'President Barack Obama said that because less money was “coming in” during the recession, the federal government had to “spend even more.”'

This guy is just about the furthest thing from the "smartest President ever". Of course we can't tell by any objective measure, since all of his test scores and scholastic records are sealed. What a farce! Yet, the press continues to give him an absolute pass on all that. If it had been GWB, they'd be frothing at the mouth to get him.

This simply calls for my favorite picture of 0:

It definitely reminds me of his deft handling of the economy! (Moochelle looks gracious and poised in that pic as well, eh? lol)

Palin '12!!!

[SandRat]

If I told my that I’d get a rolling pin upside of head.

[PreciousLiberty]

Ah, I found the larger version I remember (you can see the lovely Moochelle quite a bit better):

Some of the suggested captions are pretty good:

• Was this umbrella from the Bush era?
• Get me Petraeus!
• Honey, maybe if you climb up and over the gate......
• Where the #$&\* is Rahm when you need him?
• No, I never ran a private business. Senators have staff for this.
• We need a new federal program to design collapsible umbrellas for tight spaces.
• Umbrella was an elective at Harvard.

And it was even from the LA Times:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/obamas-maneuver-a-federal-umbrella.html

[DrC]

“They never cut”

The humorous thing about Obama’s claim is the implication that if he’d had more revenues he would have spent less. That defies progressive logic. Once you’ve extracted resources from the sheeple, what kind of doofus would ever give it back? Spending under Obama is easy to predict:
S = R x 1.67.

Obama could have inherited a surplus of $500B and he still would have figured out a way to spend it and then some.