Obama's Budget Deficit Larger than Clinton's Entire Budget 9 comments
February 27, 2009
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
It's pretty much impossible to get one's head around the sheer enormity of the numbers in Barack Obama's first budget. But it's important to try, and one anonymous commenter has a very good point: the entire federal budget, as submitted by President Clinton in 1996 through 1999, was smaller than the budget deficit that Obama is proposing for next year.
Obama's total budget is $3.6 trillion, which works out at $34,000 per household; median household income is about $50,000. Which basically means that for every dollar that a US household earns, the US government plans to spend 68 cents next year. And the ten-year T-bond still yields less than 3%. Extraordinary.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 9 comments:
Quick question about your negativism. Did previous administration know what to do? If so, what it their main goal to destroy the economy or it just happen because of the Republican conservatism? Also, what are the alternatives you had at the moment? Sarah Palin? The girl would have surely fix this country in two days, about the time Obama's been on the job, right?
On Feb 27 02:31 PM martypaul wrote:
> Why are you surprised? Obama is a pathological lier. He and his tax
> cheating cabinet with the tax heaters in congress, have no idea on
> what do do. Even more important they dont know whats happening. He
> is putting us into a depression that will last for many years. However,
> he did get another stripe on his goal of becoming leader of a socialistic
> country. He has added Citi to the socialized companies in America.
> We voted for him, and now we are stuck with him. P.S: Nice dress
> Michelle at the speech. You really have class. Unfortunately its
> all low
We reap what we sow, and we have reaped the martypauls of the world, and for that we are doomed.
Heaven help us.
No country in the history of the world has borrowed, taxed or spent its way to prosperity. And I do not see that changing now.
After screaming sirens all over the place from INSIDE Fannie and Freddie.........bankin... oversight never got through congress in 2003 (Democrat majority and some Republican sellouts). Especially disgusting in congressional debate is Barney Frank saying there will never be a problem and taxpayer dollars will NEVER be used in a bailout. See concrete proof at about 4:40 on the video link below.
www.taxfoundation.org/...
Then it was the attorney general of NY who made the banks take back billions of toxic assets (sold as AAA), not the feds. Congress just continues to give taxpayer funding to Fannie, Freddie and the banks.
And to prove where the REAL DAMAGE occurred and why.............in very simple math (from Mortgage Liquidity Du Jour by Credit Suisse, March 2007)
"low/no documentation loans increased from just 18% of purchase originations in 2001 to 49% in 2006"
"sampling 100 stated income loans found that 60% of borrowers had "exaggerated" their income by MORE than 50%"
That means 30% of ALL mortgages in 2006, the buyer only had 66% of the income they claimed. Other mortgages were also likely bad from minute one. If the buyer lied by 49% or 30% on their application?
Can anyone of integrity pretend that vote against oversight in congress is the single biggest root cause?
Please present something better if you have it.......not 17 winey items or failures, or a philosophy, just one event that is bigger!
On Feb 28 10:09 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
> What is extraordinary Mr Salmon is that the US economy did so well
> under Clinton. But since Mr Bush ran the US economy into the ground,
> large deficits are unfortunately essential. Read some economics and
> forget the secondary school math.
On Mar 01 12:59 AM Hmm?! wrote:
> No Mr. Banks I am afraid not!
>
> After screaming sirens all over the place from INSIDE Fannie and
> Freddie.........bankin... oversight never got through congress in
> 2003 (Democrat majority and some Republican sellouts). Especially
> disgusting in congressional debate is Barney Frank saying there will
> never be a problem and taxpayer dollars will NEVER be used in a bailout.
> See concrete proof at about 4:40 on the video link below.
>
> www.taxfoundation.org/...
>
> Then it was the attorney general of NY who made the banks take back
> billions of toxic assets (sold as AAA), not the feds. Congress just
> continues to give taxpayer funding to Fannie, Freddie and the banks.
>
>
> And to prove where the REAL DAMAGE occurred and why.............in
> very simple math (from Mortgage Liquidity Du Jour by Credit Suisse,
> March 2007)
>
> "low/no documentation loans increased from just 18% of purchase originations
> in 2001 to 49% in 2006"
>
> "sampling 100 stated income loans found that 60% of borrowers had
> "exaggerated" their income by MORE than 50%"
>
> That means 30% of ALL mortgages in 2006, the buyer only had 66% of
> the income they claimed. Other mortgages were also likely bad from
> minute one. If the buyer lied by 49% or 30% on their application?
>
>
> Can anyone of integrity pretend that vote against oversight in congress
> isn't the single biggest root cause?
>
> Please present something better if you have it.......not 17 winey
> items or failures, or a philosophy, just one event that is bigger!
>