Ebony & Ivory - Obama Deficits & Bush Deficits Together

In back-to-back press conferences (held Nov. 24, 2008) by Bush (first) and Obama (second), the men either stated or implied that they were sort of working together to muscle the nation through this tough economic period. Bush said, “I talked to Obama about the decision we made. I told the American people, and I told the president-elect when I first met him, that anytime we were to make a big decision during this transition, he will be informed, as will his team.” The plans discussed are still in play to this day during the Obama Administration. Image Credit: St. Louis Post-Dispatch (2008)

Ebony & Ivory - Obama Deficits & Bush Deficits Together

These figures do not live together in perfect harmony here in Carter's Second Term.

Question:

Did you know that the Barack Obama Administration inherited deficits from the previous Bush Administration? Really?!

How can the Obama Administration continue to float the tired old saw that they just happen to inherit large deficits so it will take more just to dig ourselves out?

After sixty short days, the Congress that the Obama Administration actually DID INHERIT, and Barack Obama himself, increased the commitments to spend taxpayer money on social programs alone from the 3% of GDP to 20% of GDP ... or an increase in social spending programs of an eerie 6.66 times greater level.

It is called Deficit Spending (socialism) - and now foreign countries (China and Russia) are suggesting that the world economy adopt a new currency on which to peg/judge the value of other currencies other than the United States dollar - the formally most stable currency in the world.

Graphic showing the Bush Administration and the committed and projected Obama Administration deficits side-by-side. Graphic Credit: The Washington Post via the Heritage Foundation (2009)

This excerpted and edited from the Heritage Foundation -

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures
The Heritage Foundation - Posted March 24th, 2009 at 10.20am

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 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.
Reference Here>>

What the American people inherited with the Clinton and Bush Administrations (and thrust forward with the Obama Administration) were the building blocks of economic slavery and communism.

First, the Government took the position that every person that lived in America (citizen or non-citizen) deserved to be able to participate in home ownership. The Clinton Administration formed the quasi Governmental financial institutions backed by taxpayer money of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to insure low interest loans with reduced qualification requirements. Bonus programs were implemented and paid to the political (Democrat) management of these organizations.

Banks did not want to lend money with this level of low proof, so the management of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had community development organizations (ACORN) prod them to loan money through lawsuits. In order to fuel demand for these weak mortgages (purchase commitments without the ability or intention to pay), the Government regulating agencies allowed them to be bundled and packaged as grouped financial instruments and sold to the highest bidder through insurance companies and financial institutions (AIG, WAMU, Wachovia, banks in France, Finland, Germany, and etc.).

What triggered this collapse is the increased payment demanded the mortgage companies when the initial period of artificially low inducement interest ran out and the actual value of the house became greater than the mortgage value of the home. People who originally had no real means to afford the home they committed to purchase in the first place, simply walked away with no real damage to their lives leaving all of the intuitions holding the mortgages without an income stream. The asset value of the bundled "Junk Mortgages" dropped and the economic crisis begins.

The sick logic in all of this is that the two-party Bush Government got our economy into this position and now the one-party Obama Government (of Obama/Pelosi/Reid) is smart enough to get us out … with heavier intervention and greater spending commitments - all on the American Taxpayer.

Does anyone in Government realize that this deficit spending of our collective money will all implode eventually?

This strategy will turn our currency into the value of the bundled "Junk Mortgages" that helped to put us into this place to start with - all on the back of the Government move toward social engineering!