This should come as no surprise

BO's FY 2013 budget, via the Weekly Standard (click to embiggen):

From almost two-and-a-half years ago:

h/t Tom

Size matters

We've had budget graphics up before but it's been a while and this one (via Weasel Zippers) really has a lot of detailed info. You'll want to click on the graphic so as to be able to see the wee, tiny speck labelled "2011 Proposed Cuts"...

Insanity or Cloward-Piven?

Either way, it's not a good thing.

Click on to embiggen, as they say (via Moonbattery).


...According to The Hill, Democrats are so frustrated with President Obama's "passivity on the economy" that they're actively working on a fresh stimulus package that would include significant new spending on roads and other infrastructure, paid for by closing various tax loopholes...

[....] The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. At the moment, that seems a fitting description for the Democratic Party's economic agenda.

"S&P threatens to cut U.S. credit rating on deficit"

So reads the headline on this story at Reuters. They haven't done it yet—they haven't lowered our credit rating below its current AAA rating. Yet. 

...S&P, which assigns ratings to guide investors on the risks involved in buying debt instruments, slapped a negative outlook on the country's top-notch credit rating and said there's at least a one-in-three chance that it could eventually cut it.

A downgrade, which would leave Germany and France with a higher rating, would erode the status of the United States as the world's most powerful economy and the dollar's role as the dominant global currency....

[....] "Because the U.S. has, relative to its AAA peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness, and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable," S&P said....

"Stable" basically means "steady as she goes," while "negative" means, well, what you think—not good.  The time frame during which they'd lower our credit rating—maybe—is at least 2 years away.

So there's been all sorts of spin put on this today, ranging from opinions that ratings agencies have performed miserably over the years, to Eric Cantor (R-Va) saying S&P made clear, getting spending and our deficit under control can no longer be put off for another day, which is why House Republicans will only move forward on the President's request to increase the debt limit if it is accompanied by serious reforms that immediately reduce federal spending and end the culture of debt in Washington....

to Peter Welch (D-Vt) trying to make the argument that this "revised outlook" was an indication that the debt limit needed to be raised without restraining spending:

America pays its bills. I hope Majority Leader Cantor and those in Congress seizing upon debt ceiling pressure as a "leverage opportunity" are listening to the markets today and thinking twice about their risky strategy.

Another story at Bloomberg is here.

Look, all I know is if somebody—S&P, Moody's, whoever—lowers our rating down the road sometime, that means that we will have to offer higher yields, which means higher debt payments, and that will only worsen our deficit problems as we borrow more money.

Stop. the. madness.


Subscribe to deficit