Quietly, without much fanfare, (barely anyone even mentioned it in the Main Stream Media) our National Debt hit $12 trillion dollars last week. I guess they were too busy covering Adam Lambert's cancelled show. (That search uncovered hundreds of stories)
CBS was one of the very few sources to do any writing on it at all and that was only in a blog written by CBS News White House correspondent.Mark Knoller. Mr. Knoller had this to say,"The National Debt has increased about $1.6 trillion on Mr. Obama's watch, though less than $4.9 trillion run up during the presidency of George W. Bush. But the White House budget review issued in August projects that by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept 30th, the National Debt could top $14 trillion. It gets worse. The same document projects that by the end of the decade, the National Debt will hit $24.5 trillion -- exceeding the Gross Domestic Product projected for 2019 of $22.8 trillion." That's $1.6 trillion that Obama and his Californication Dems have spent in just slightly less than a year. I guess that's just not big enough news compared to an Adam Lambert story.
I would say that the Obama Administration is spending like drunken sailors-but that would be an insult to drunken sailors who couldn't spend $1.6 trillion if every single one of them were drunk their entire lives.
While it's true that Bush (hardly a fiscal conservative) ran up considerable debt over his 8 years, his $4.9 trillion will be dwarfed by an eight year total for Obama of $12.8 trillion at his current rate of spending. And keep in mind, that doesn't even include the bill for the Health Care overhaul. Also, included in Bush's total is the Medicaid part "B" prescription benefit and the TARP funds, most of which are also being spent by the Obama Administration. To get a real grip on how outlandish this is all becoming, check out the U.S. debt clock which is literally spinning out of control.
Why this isn't being covered better, I'll let all of you try to figure out. However, to keep the younger readers in my crowd from committing suicide over the debt we are passing along to them, I'll end this piece on a positive note. Even Obama can't escape the wrath of the comedians forever and SNL has finally broken from the MSM and is no longer punching with furry mittens. H.C*UPDATE* These vids keep getting removed, so I will reload them as quickly as I can find new ones. NBC is claiming copyright infringement, but I find it interesting that only select vids (like this one) are removed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
How's that 'Hope and Change' working out for ya?
I'm not a betting man, but if I had to venture a guess I'd say this news has fallen under the radar for a couple of reasons.
(1) The obvious love affair the MSM has with Obama (though it's interesting that Fox News keeps making this kind of noise, when they're ALSO considered a mainstream outlet. But I digress...)
(2) The spending has been forgiven by everybody who is NOT a teabagger (whose opposition goes a bit further than spending, let's keep it real) because it's seen as a necessary evil to combat the financial disaster we've been witnessing. Essentially, they've been spending money on water to put out fires. Where the Obama administration has screwed up is in spending a fortune buying Perrier or other exorbitant designer water (i.e. bailouts for companies who did nothing more than hoard that money for their wealthy executives), instead of investing that ridiculous amount of spending in something that would truly aid this faltering economy. Investing in people and jobs...what a novel idea. Why didn't anybody think of that before? Seriously.
The intention behind the spending was good. But the execution was miserable.
Hey Hack,
I'm not really sure if that's a serious question or not. But, since I do get asked that a lot (since I did vote for Obama), I'll answer as if you are serious.
I didn't vote for President Obama because of some "Hope" or "Change" campaign slogan. I would never vote for anyone that said, "There is no hope." I can't imagine who would. As far as "change." That's the mantra of every politician seeking an office held by the other party, particularly if that office was run badly. Every one of them run on "change" so that slogan meant absolutely nothing to me. Back in October of 2008, I ran a piece intitled, "Who and what I'll be voting for and against November 4". In it I detailed my reasons for voting for Obama. None of my reasons had anything to do with "Hope and Change", in fact, I didn't use the word "hope" or "change" even once. While Obama has disappointed me on several fronts, my reasons that I voted for him haven't changed. If I misunderstood you and you weren't serious, just consider this an answer for everyone else. Thanks as always for your comment.
Hey Dre,
I'll agree with you on the love affair between MSN and the President. Also, you bring up a good point that FOX IS part of the MSM. Hopefully, they'll stay there so it won't be ridiculously left-leaning.
Now, on your second point.
"The spending has been forgiven by everybody who is NOT a teabagger." Not true. I'm not a Teabagger, nor are any of my friends, and I don't know of a single person (even my Liberal friends) that doesn't think the spending is out of control.
"it's seen as a necessary evil to combat the financial disaster we've been witnessing."
I disagree. It may have been necessary when the finacial markets were froze up, but throwing money at states to temporarily shore up their budgets is just delaying the inevitable and making the long-term situation worse. I don't believe that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was necessary or helpful except possibly reducing inventories of houses and cars.
"instead of investing that ridiculous amount of spending in something that would truly aid this faltering economy. Investing in people and jobs...what a novel idea"
I agree that's it's better than throwing money at filthy rich people. However, the problem with Obama's approach is that he's not creating jobs-he's just putting more people on government subsidies. At some point, we have to take the patient off the respirator. That will be the real test. If the Democrat idea is to use artificial support all the way to the mid-term, they won't have my vote.
"The intention behind the spending was good. But the execution was miserable."
I'll end on a positive, I agree that Obama's (and the Dems) have good intentions. They just have a really bad plan at this point-in-time.
"I'll end on a positive, I agree that Obama's (and the Dems) have good intentions. They just have a really bad plan at this point-in-time."
Yeah, and Tiger was just running out to the CVS for some diapers....
Hey Hack,
The important thing to remember is that good intentions are not the same as good ideas. They might actually believe that drilling another hole in the boat will let the water out. That's all I was saying.
Post a Comment