>
>
> President Bush inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades).
Jeez Louise, how many times I gotta tell ya. The Surplus was gone
before Bush's first budget hit the stands. According to the CBO, the
U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001. This was the one
that started in October of 2000, a full month before the election.
> What really troubles me, aside from the hypocrisy of those wanting to blame
> Obama for spending increases properly credited to Bush, is that the increase
> in government spending isn't the only factor that has caused the deficit.
> What some pols conveniently (deliberately?) forget is the precipitous
> fall-off in government revenue from taxes.
Largely related to the biz cycle since 2006 or so. The fall in taxes
largely follows the fall in income.
>
> There are two reasons for the collapse. The Bush tax cuts, which reduced
> revenue, and the weak economy, which has reduced the incomes and capital
> gains upon which most federal taxes are based.
But they did not. Look at the pre-recession and you'll see rev went
up. Every year. In fact if you look at the scoring of the Joint
Committee on Taxation, you will note that the fall off the first wasn't
as bad as they said it would and it turned back positive the second year
with the JCT saying it would fall for the entire 10 years.
> President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal
> revenue, while federal spending growth continued. This combination
> ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.
It did not until the biz cycle kicked in.
>
> By the middle years of the Bush presidency, however, on the strength of the
> housing boom and strong economic growth (much of it, unfortunately, was
> illusory: built on borrowed money with too much leveraging and too little
> real collateral) federal revenues began to grow rapidly.
Fueled by a bubble like the Clinton year's dot com surplus.
By 2007, in fact,
> the gap had almost closed. But that huge surge wasn't sustainable. When
> the housing bubble burst the economy plunged into deep recession. And then
> President Bush handed President Obama the worst recession in more than 70
> years, leaving Obama to both take the blame and clean up the mess.
Heavy lies the head that wears the crown.
> In apportioning blame, it's important to note that Congress approved all of
> the decisions by both Presidents regarding the economy. Both sides have
> contributed mightily to the mess that is our current economy.
And for the most part in a decidedly bipartisan manner. I saw a study a
year or so indicated that most of the really bad happening involving the
federal government took place when the vote was heavily bipartisan. Be
carefule what you wish for (g).
.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
> I especially liked his comments about Newt. He asked if we want the man who
> couldn't run the House worth a damn to now run the entire country.
Newt ran the House just fine, thank you. His contract with America
even
resulted in Clinton signing legislation that "ended welfare as we know
it".
>He
> expressed serious disaffection with Obama's lack of leadership but tempered
> that with the acknowledgment that people who tell the truth to the American
> electorate don't stand much chance of getting elected or re-elected.
What does telling the truth have to do with Obama?
> We've "had it all" for many years after WWII and we want that to continue,
> despite the massive changes that have taken place in the world and the fact
> that we were basically the only game in town after the war - European and
> Asian manufacturing dropped to the lowest levels ever because their
> factories were destroyed, leaving us with a gigantic playing field that's
> been shrinking ever since.
One of the few things you've posted that is true. So, why the class
warfare that blames all the USA's problems on the wealthier,
successful
Americans? For example, you constantly complain that the loss of
maufacturing jobs is due to evil corporations. Yet here you
acknowledge that there
are powerful world economic forces directly involved.
>What burns me is the number of people who insist the
> deficit is all Obama's doing, even for things that were appropriated long
> before anyone knew his name like continuing benefits for all the soldiers of
> WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, GW1, Somalia, etc.
Welcome to the club. It burns me when you claim the current
recession and collapse in housing prices is all Wall Street's fault.
I and others here have given you our list and it's long and includes
everyone from Wall Street, to govt, to those that bought houses
they could not afford because they believed housing only went up.
I also don't recall blaming all of the deficit on Obama. Nor have
I seen anyone else here, ie Kurt, KRW, etc either. What we
have said is that under Obama the rate of adding to the deficit
has increased greatly due to SPENDING. Spending has increased
40% in just the past 4 years. $tril in new debt has been added
under Obama, bringing the total to $5tril $tril of the $5tril
in just 3 years. Was there excessive spending under Bush
and the Republican Congress? Yes. But his deficits averaged
$50bil a year. The current deficit is $.6 tril. See the
difference?
We also take exception when someone tries to point to the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as being major contributors to
the $5tril deficit because it's simply not true.
> President Bush inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades). Then, hit
> with a recession, he was forced into deficit, just like Obama. Then he cut
> taxes, growing the deficit to $00 billion a year. Then, the economy boomed
> between 2005 and 2008, reducing the deficit to $00 billion a year.
Which shows why the tax cuts were needed and how well they worked.
Thank you. And unless one had a crystal ball and could see the
subrpime
collapse coming, it was reasonable to assume the deficit would
continue
to decline. All that would have been needed was to control spending.
Or even better, under Bush, they could have controlled spending then,
in
which case the deficit would have been either smaller or non-existent.
Then,
> the financial crisis hit, and the Bush deficit ballooned to $00 billion
> again.
> When Obama took over in 2009 during the worst recession since the Great
> Depression he signed an $00 billion spending increase at the same time that
> GDP and tax collections tanked. The combination of these two factors--growth
> in spending and a drop in revenue--exploded the deficit to $.4 trillion.
Cool. Sounds good. A one time thing blew the deficit out to
$.4tril.
So, tell us then, why is it that now, 3 years later, we have a deficit
of $.6tril?
And why Obama's last budget shows deficits of $tril a YEAR FOR THE
NEXT
DECADE? And that's under the assumption that the economy has
recovered soon and has a healthy growth rate.
> Republicans insist that President Obama has exploded the size of federal
> government spending in his tenure as President, and it is true that he has
> increased it. But President Bush actually increased federal spending by more
> than 2X as much as Obama has.
True, but it took 8 years under Bush. Obama has managed it in just 3
years.
> Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because
> of the $00 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he
> inherited from President Bush.
If that's true, then spending should have gone up one year, in 2009.
Yet, here we are in 2011 and spending is $.8 tril. In 2008, it was
$.0 tril.
There goes that argument.
> But the increase in federal spending under
> Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush . . . From
> 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $.3 trillion,
> from $.9 trillion a year to $.2 trillion a year.
It's actually a bit less, from $.8 tril to $.0, but close enough.
You think
maybe 911 and all the money that had to be spent on homeland security,
taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, etc had something to do with it?
Granted, they should have cut spending elsewhere, but of course
you libs would have none of that, would you?
And again, that is over 8 years of Bush compared with 3 years of
Obama.
> From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has
> risen by $00 billion, from $.2 trillion a year to $.8 trillion a year.
It's actually $tril to $.8.
> It has also now begun to decline. In other words, federal government
> spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President
> Obama.
It hasn't declined one bit. Right now the FORECAST is for it to
decline
from $.8tril to $.7 tril. That's a tiny decrease and only a
FORECAST.
Meanwhile, your pal Obama is running around screaming "Pass it now!"
for his new $00bil spending bill. Do what he wants and the budget
just
went up another .5tril in one shot. See the problem here?
> What really troubles me, aside from the hypocrisy of those wanting to blame
> Obama for spending increases properly credited to Bush, is that the increase
> in government spending isn't the only factor that has caused the deficit.
> What some pols conveniently (deliberately?) forget is the precipitous
> fall-off in government revenue from taxes.
Sure, no one is denying that is a factor too. But why is it that
Obama's own
budget shows deficits of $tril a year for the next decade? A budget
that includes the forecast that the economy will have recovered?
See the problem?
> Sadly, Obama's stimulus hasn't had as big an impact on the economy or tax
> collections as he and his advisors like Tax Cheatin' Timmy G. promised it
> would.
It did have about the effect than many predicted it would though.
>The sheer enormity of the mess Obama inherited suggests it's
> possible that nothing would have fixed our stalled economy by now.
> Approaching the next election even rabid Obama supporters are unhappy with
> his over-promising along with many of the decisions he has made. But who's
> *really* to blame?
Nothing can satisfy the rabid loons that Obama has chosen to align
himself with. Some hate him for keeping Gitmo open. Some for
accelerating
the war in Afghanistan. Some for changing his mind on trying
terrorists
in NYC. Some for bombing Libya. Some for not spending even more.
Many for not creating some ultimate socialist utopia.
And ironically those same loons fail to give him credit for even
Obamacare.
Must be tough being Obama.
> There are two reasons for the collapse. The Bush tax cuts, which reduced
> revenue, and the weak economy, which has reduced the incomes and capital
> gains upon which most federal taxes are based.
What collapse is that? What we have is a SPENDING problem.
> President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal
> revenue, while federal spending growth continued. This combination
> ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.
Yes, but as you acknowledge, the deficit was declining and down to
just $61bil
by 2007. Here's a new question. Are you for or against a balanced
budget
ammendment?
> By the middle years of the Bush presidency, however, on the strength of the
> housing boom and strong economic growth (much of it, unfortunately, was
> illusory: built on borrowed money with too much leveraging and too little
> real collateral) federal revenues began to grow rapidly. By 2007, in fact,
> the gap had almost closed. But that huge surge wasn't sustainable.
What huge surge, Mr. Monday morning quaterback? The ecomomy was
doing OK, but it wasn't spectacular. There was no particular reason
to
think that housing was going to collapse suddenly.
>When
> the housing bubble burst the economy plunged into deep recession. And then
> President Bush handed President Obama the worst recession in more than 70
> years, leaving Obama to both take the blame and clean up the mess.
No denying that. But it's what Obama has done that in response that
is the
problem. For example, the economy was already in a severe crisis.
Was that
the time to ram through Obamacare, which polls showed then and
continue
to show now, the public did not want? Was it a good idea to burden
businesses
with that cost and uncertainty? Was it a good idea to halt all new
drilling in
the Gulf because of one oil well? Was it a good idea to vilify much of
business,
from drug companies and healthcare companies to Wall Street? Is it a
good idea to engage in classwarfare on those making $00,000 a year,
many of whom are small business owners, where most new jobs are
created?
Is it a good idea to have the NLRB suing
Boeing to prevent a new factory in SC that will emply 2000 from
opening?
Is it smart to be screwing around with Boeing and the 787 with $00bil
in
orders and tens of thousands of jobs depending on it?
> The recession eviscerated federal revenues, which still have not regained
> their 2007 bubble highs. President Obama's stimulus, meanwhile, helped add
> about $00 billion to federal spending. The combination of these two factors
> ballooned the deficit from $00 billion when President Bush left office to
> nearly $.3 trillion now.
$00bil? Where did that come from? Just the one stimulus bill was
$50bil. And if it was $00bil over 3 years, why is spending this
year at
$.8 tril and why is it forecast at about that level for next year?
Must
be a magical $00bil.
> Even those who believe the "Bush Boom" was real and not just debt-fueled
> "book cooking" will eventually have to admit the recession and financial
> crisis began on his watch, and the deficit was already exploding when
> President Obama took office. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that
> President Bush bears a lot of the responsibility for our current quagmire.
If it was debt fueled book cooking under Bush, what the hell is it
under Obama? Does Obama or you support a balanced budget
ammendment?
> A quick look at:
> http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.php
> There are several unmistakable bulges in the deficit that correspond to the
> Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII and the AfRaq wars. Wars cost money
> and to cut taxes in the middle of a war projected to cost more than 3
> trillion dollars was almost certain to increase the deficit. But voters on
> the right appear to believe that Great War Fairy will magically appear and
> cover those debts.
No war fairies. Per your own statements above, the deficits under
Bush were declining and were down to $61bil in 2007. With some
spending restraint and had not the subprime recession occured, the
deficit could have been taken to zero.
>Voters on the left also appear to believe the Medicare
> and Social Security Fairies will magically cover the shortfalls that will
> soon plague those programs. These fairytales will eventually come to a very
> unhappy ending as long as spending overtakes revenues.
> In apportioning blame, it's important to note that Congress approved all of
> the decisions by both Presidents regarding the economy. Both sides have
> contributed mightily to the mess that is our current economy.
That's true. But which side now is willing to address them? Who
is in favor of a balanced budget ammendment? Who has put forth
a plan to tackle entitlement spending? From the whitehouse all
we hear is class warfare and crickets...
> Voters were deliriously happy as Congress cut taxes and increased spending -
> we had, so we thought, our cake and got to eat it, too. Some are cheering
> now as Republicans promise us that by cutting taxes and spending we'll find
> our way out of the deep, dark woods. In the real world, Greece and the UK
> have shown that enacting austerity in the midst of a fragile recovery
> doesn't work.
Funny, I thought what they showed was were socialism, big govt, and
reckless spending will get you.
>Less spending results in even less growth and less tax
> revenues. It's a bitter, vicious cycle that in the past has often led to
> war when economics caved in on themselves and entire countries entered
> economic death spirals.
Look where more govt spending has gotten us. Solyndra done
anything for you lately?
> In short, we all want our free lunch. We expect the Great War Fairy to pick
> up the tab for wars that have gone on twice as long as WWII and with victory
> just as elusive as it was on day one. Politicians know how much we like our
> wars and our welfare, and promise more each election even though the numbers
> tell us that at some point in the future the waiter is going to bring us a
> check for all those lunches and we'll end up having to wash dishes to pay
> for it. Lots and lots of dishes. Very dirty dishes.
> What troubles me the most is that former and current SecDefs from both
> parties agree that this is exactly the wrong time to force across the board
> cuts on the Pentagon. I'm not sure we'll ever learn the lesson of staying
> away from wars of choice, as SecDef Gates (R) said, because wars of
> necessity come along often enough. With tensions rising both with China and
> Iran, will we have both the stomach and resources to deal effectively with
> those situations? Those former SecDefs say no, and I tend to agree with
> them.
> http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/with-super-committee-dead-showdown-l ...
> <<The arguments against defense cuts haven't just come from the right,
> though. Secretary of Defense Panetta has been arguing against them since
> August and, most recently, just yesterday: Automatic spending cuts that
> could result from a special congressional committee's failure to reach a
> deficit-reduction agreement could "tear a seam" in ...
> read more
My, my. I would think you'd be in favor of military spending cuts.
You
don't like it when we use the military, so why not make cuts. Don't
you just want to send Al-Qaeda a cake?
XML site map
>
> President Bush inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades).