When I was young, I always wondered about people who had to have the biggest chair. There was something that felt very insecure about it.
So when I heard that then candidate Barack had this on his chair, it struck me as arrogant and insecure at the same time:
What makes someone who is running for President decide that they need a chair that says President?
Keep that thought in mind as you view this image from the White House press office:
Dude... you're President of the United States. Did you really think that you needed a plaque on your chair just to make sure that everyone else knew who the fuck you were? Or was this a history thing that happens to every chair in the White House? "Okay... we got a new chair for the new president. Let's put a plaque on it with the inaugeration date. Ugh."
However you look at it, it feels... desperate. Insecure & arrogant at the same time. Hey, this is my fucking chair. I'm the president. Get it?
I debunked the idea that Republicans were responsible for the FY 2009 spending here, and you can read all about it. But the important take away is that FY 2009 didn't actually have a budget. Why? Because the left wanted to wait until a president who was more friendly to spending came into office.
That man's name was Barack Obama... and Reid was so glad: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said
before passage that he was “very” surprised at how long it took
lawmakers to reach agreement on the legislation. He said the bill
will provide needed funding increases for federal agencies that
saw too many lean budgets during former President George W.
Bush’s administration.
Go figure... Democrats get into office and add $400 billion in spending. This isn't the stimulus, btw. It was just $400 billion in spending that they tacked onto the original spending.
So Democrats, and Barack, are responsible for FY 2009.
But wait, you say, spending did decrease since FY 2009.
Let me show you this chart that explains it all:
What did you notice? If you're like me, you noticed that revenue dropped from FY 2000 to FY 2003. But then it went up.
Which seems counter-intuitive, since there were tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. How do tax cuts result in an increase in revenue? Ask any supply sider, and they'll explain.
Secondly, note when the difference between revenue and spending really skyrockets. It starts rising in 2008 (after Democrats take over congresss), but just takes off like a bullet in FY 2009.
Go figure... right? Now yes... its dipped a little since then. But...
It was supposed to. TARP and the stimulus were both supposed to be one time expenses. So in theory, after FY 2009, the difference between revenue and spending should have gone back to FY 2008 levels. Yes?
But we spent MORE - even though the stimulus and TARP were not included - in FY 2011, then in FY 2009. How the fuck did that happen? Ergo, to say that Obama decreased the deficit is true only if you forget that FY 2009 had a huge amount of additional spending in it... and that FY 2010 did also. It also requires you to forget that TARP was mostly paid back. Soooo where did that money go? Shouldn't the difference go down significantly?
