Federal Defict Caused By George W. Bush

[Whip Comes Down]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/obama-grappling-with-fall_n_387121.html

A forthcoming study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the $1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government has little to do with current White House policies and much to do with George W. Bush's actions.

"What we have looked at were several major contributors to the deficit: the tax cuts between 2001 and 2003 (on the assumption they get extended in 2010), the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the effects of the recession as well as the legislative response to the recession," James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center, told the Huffington Post. "When you take those things into account -- in other words, if we hadn't enacted the tax cuts, had the wars, if we hadn't had the recession and needed the legislation to deal with those problems -- the deficits are much, much lower. And basically none of those represent Obama's policies. He didn't run saying he wanted to pass a stimulus to deal with the recession or that he wanted to continue the war in Iraq or escalate [to this extent] in Afghanistan. He inherited these issues once he took office."

"Now we still have a big budget problem in the long run," Horney added. "It is not inappropriate for people to say we have to deal with that. And it is not inappropriate for them to say Obama is president and has the responsibility to deal with this. But it is not appropriate to say that Obama's policies have contributed to the deficit problem."

Horney said that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' analysis will be released in the next few weeks. But already, there is data available to supplement its findings. In mid-November, the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress put together an analysis of its own, in which it concluded that the so-called "Obama spending spree" paled in comparison to the checks written by Bush.

 

[texmaster]

So if everyone loved us in the world and we didn't give tax cuts to those who actually create jobs we would have no deficit.

While at the same time we'll ignore the largest spending bill passed by the Democrats in US history.

Gotta love liberal logic. :rofl

 

[American]

Huffington Post Syndrome

 

[justabubba]

Huffington Post Syndrome

is that the name they have given to the personality disorder of those who hide from the truth?

 

[Conservative]

Bush Deficit Hurting Obama: Reports

A forthcoming study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the $1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government has little to do with current White House policies and much to do with George W. Bush's actions.

"What we have looked at were several major contributors to the deficit: the tax cuts between 2001 and 2003 (on the assumption they get extended in 2010), the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the effects of the recession as well as the legislative response to the recession," James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center, told the Huffington Post. "When you take those things into account -- in other words, if we hadn't enacted the tax cuts, had the wars, if we hadn't had the recession and needed the legislation to deal with those problems -- the deficits are much, much lower. And basically none of those represent Obama's policies. He didn't run saying he wanted to pass a stimulus to deal with the recession or that he wanted to continue the war in Iraq or escalate [to this extent] in Afghanistan. He inherited these issues once he took office."

"Now we still have a big budget problem in the long run," Horney added. "It is not inappropriate for people to say we have to deal with that. And it is not inappropriate for them to say Obama is president and has the responsibility to deal with this. But it is not appropriate to say that Obama's policies have contributed to the deficit problem."

Horney said that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' analysis will be released in the next few weeks. But already, there is data available to supplement its findings. In mid-November, the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress put together an analysis of its own, in which it concluded that the so-called "Obama spending spree" paled in comparison to the checks written by Bush.

Very interesting since the U.S. Treasury Department, the nation's checkbook, disagrees with you as govt. revenue actually increased after the Bush Tax cuts.

Further it is my understanding from basic civics that the Congress, NOT the President, spends the money so I ask you which spending proposal of Bush's did Obama vote against. Apparently in your world and the world of the media Bush is responsible for the Stimulus spending, all the TARP spending, the auto bailout, Cap and Trade, and of course healthcare.

Yes, Bush derangement syndrome is alive and well but declining daily. GW Bush is no longer in office and civics challenged liberals always buy rhetoric instead of actually getting the facts.

 

[Conservative]

Bush Deficit Hurting Obama: Reports

A forthcoming study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the $1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government has little to do with current White House policies and much to do with George W. Bush's actions.

"What we have looked at were several major contributors to the deficit: the tax cuts between 2001 and 2003 (on the assumption they get extended in 2010), the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the effects of the recession as well as the legislative response to the recession," James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center, told the Huffington Post. "When you take those things into account -- in other words, if we hadn't enacted the tax cuts, had the wars, if we hadn't had the recession and needed the legislation to deal with those problems -- the deficits are much, much lower. And basically none of those represent Obama's policies. He didn't run saying he wanted to pass a stimulus to deal with the recession or that he wanted to continue the war in Iraq or escalate [to this extent] in Afghanistan. He inherited these issues once he took office."

"Now we still have a big budget problem in the long run," Horney added. "It is not inappropriate for people to say we have to deal with that. And it is not inappropriate for them to say Obama is president and has the responsibility to deal with this. But it is not appropriate to say that Obama's policies have contributed to the deficit problem."

Horney said that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' analysis will be released in the next few weeks. But already, there is data available to supplement its findings. In mid-November, the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress put together an analysis of its own, in which it concluded that the so-called "Obama spending spree" paled in comparison to the checks written by Bush.

So, when it is reported that Obama didn't run saying he wanted to pass a stimulus to deal with the recession or that he wanted to continue the war in Iraq or escalate [to this extent] in Afghanistan. He inherited these issues once he took office." Obama has pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

So GW Bush forced Obama to pass a stimulus plan that quadrupled the deficit and will create trillion dollar deficits for the next 10 years?

Yes, I see that liberal logic. In 2014 Obama will still be running against GW Bush since that is what his minions want to hear. You and the rest of the lap dogs never want to actual view the facts. Your numbers are declining and the American people are waking up to the empty suit you voted for.

How is that hope and change working out for you?

 

[liblady]

Very interesting since the U.S. Treasury Department, the nation's checkbook, disagrees with you as govt. revenue actually increased after the Bush Tax cuts.

Further it is my understanding from basic civics that the Congress, NOT the President, spends the money so I ask you which spending proposal of Bush's did Obama vote against. Apparently in your world and the world of the media Bush is responsible for the Stimulus spending, all the TARP spending, the auto bailout, Cap and Trade, and of course healthcare.

Yes, Bush derangement syndrome is alive and well but declining daily. GW Bush is no longer in office and civics challenged liberals always buy rhetoric instead of actually getting the facts.

it doesn't matter if revenue increases, when spending increases more.

 

[Conservative]

it doesn't matter if revenue increases, when spending increases more.

That seems to be true, however you cannot blame the deficit on tax cuts that increase govt. revenue, but you can blame it on the Congress and the President for spending too much. Most liberals want to focus on the tax cuts and claim they caused the deficit. No way, spending causes debt not tax cuts.

 

[liblady]

That seems to be true, however you cannot blame the deficit on tax cuts that increase govt. revenue, but you can blame it on the Congress and the President for spending too much. Most liberals want to focus on the tax cuts and claim they caused the deficit. No way, spending causes debt not tax cuts.

of course we spend too much. we're fighting 2 wars.

but it's certainly possible to raise taxes on the wealthy, cut them for the middle class and below, reduce spending AND reduce the deficit. seems that i remember another president who did just that.

 

[Conservative]

of course we spend too much. we're fighting 2 wars.

but it's certainly possible to raise taxes on the wealthy, cut them for the middle class and below, reduce spending AND reduce the deficit. seems that i remember another president who did just that.

What exactly do you have against the wealthy? That makes no sense unless the wealthy put their money into a hole in the backyard. The Wealthy save and spend money, both help the economy. When you raise taxes on the wealthy govt. revenue actual drops. Ask the state of NY that did just that.

What other President did that? Bush dropped taxes on ALL taxpayers and govt. revenue grew as did economic growth.

 

[Whip Comes Down]

So if everyone loved us in the world and we didn't give tax cuts to those who actually create jobs we would have no deficit.

While at the same time we'll ignore the largest spending bill passed by the Democrats in US history.

Gotta love liberal logic. :rofl

...the so-called "Obama spending spree" paled in comparison to the checks written by Bush.

 

[Conservative]

...the so-called "Obama spending spree" paled in comparison to the checks written by Bush.

Really? Bush spending is more than Obama's? LOL, you must be smoking some illegal substance. If Bush spending was more than Obama's then Obama wouldn't have given us a 1.47 trillion dollar deficit and projected trillion dollar deficits for the next 10 years. Obama created more deficits in 1 year than Bush did in the last four. Grow up, kid, and get the facts.

 

[Whip Comes Down]

Huffington Post Syndrome

...a huge chunk of that increase actually happened before President Obama took office​

"It's true that spending in 2009 was much higher than it was the previous fiscal year, by about $602 billion, excluding payments on the national debt (which actually declined in 2009 because of low interest rates)," wrote Michael Linden, an associate director for tax and budget policy at the Center. "But it turns out that a huge chunk of that increase actually happened before President Obama took office. In fact, fully 41 percent, or $245 billion, came in the form of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the rescues of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, actions taken in the fall of 2008 under President George W. Bush.

 

[Whip Comes Down]

is that the name they have given to the personality disorder of those who hide from the truth?

As for the deficit that conservatives decried, Linden concluded that it was the recession, not Obama, that was to blame. In 2009, federal tax receipts were $419 billion below 2008 levels -- the largest decline from one year to the next in seven decades. "The overall cost of the decline in tax revenues was four times larger than the cost of Obama's initiatives," wrote Linden.

 

[Whip Comes Down]

Very interesting since the U.S. Treasury Department, the nation's checkbook, disagrees with you as govt. revenue actually increased after the Bush Tax cuts.

Further it is my understanding from basic civics that the Congress, NOT the President, spends the money so I ask you which spending proposal of Bush's did Obama vote against. Apparently in your world and the world of the media Bush is responsible for the Stimulus spending, all the TARP spending, the auto bailout, Cap and Trade, and of course healthcare.

Yes, Bush derangement syndrome is alive and well but declining daily. GW Bush is no longer in office and civics challenged liberals always buy rhetoric instead of actually getting the facts.

The decline of tax revenues due to the recession may not be a development tied to Obama. But it has become a perplexing problem for this administration.

The White House has raised spending levels by roughly $600 billion in FY2009 -- almost exclusively through temporary programs such as the stimulus -- in order to spur economic growth and increase that revenue base. But spending money to make money can be a costly venture in the short run, especially as the recession is prolonged. Unemployment benefits that used to expire after six months, for instance, have been extended by Congress at a heavy but morally defensible cost. And even when GDP rises, the government is still operating off a largely reduced revenue stream, complicating its efforts to pass pieces of domestic legislation.

 

[Whip Comes Down]

So, when it is reported that Obama didn't run saying he wanted to pass a stimulus to deal with the recession or that he wanted to continue the war in Iraq or escalate [to this extent] in Afghanistan. He inherited these issues once he took office." Obama has pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

So GW Bush forced Obama to pass a stimulus plan that quadrupled the deficit and will create trillion dollar deficits for the next 10 years?

Yes, I see that liberal logic. In 2014 Obama will still be running against GW Bush since that is what his minions want to hear. You and the rest of the lap dogs never want to actual view the facts. Your numbers are declining and the American people are waking up to the empty suit you voted for.

How is that hope and change working out for you?

"It is not like when the recession ends, people's incomes bounce back to where they were before the recession," said Rob Shapiro. "You will be behind where you were before the recession for a while... There has been a real economic reduction in the base of GDP. So GDP now, when it goes up three percent, it is off of a lower base. It's not off of, say $15 trillion but off of $14 trillion."

 

[Conservative]

...a huge chunk of that increase actually happened before President Obama took office​

"It's true that spending in 2009 was much higher than it was the previous fiscal year, by about $602 billion, excluding payments on the national debt (which actually declined in 2009 because of low interest rates)," wrote Michael Linden, an associate director for tax and budget policy at the Center. "But it turns out that a huge chunk of that increase actually happened before President Obama took office. In fact, fully 41 percent, or $245 billion, came in the form of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the rescues of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, actions taken in the fall of 2008 under President George W. Bush.

How did Obama vote for that TARP bill? Easy isn't it, vote for the spending but never take any responsibility for that vote and then blame your predecessor for that spending. By the way, TARP was 700 billion of which 350 billion was spent before Obama took office leaving him 350 billion to spend. Bush had nothing to do with the 780 billion Stimulus plan nor did he have anything to do with the auto bailout. Guess the Huffington Post failed to get those facts.

Nor did GW Bush propose cap and trade or healthcare reform, neither of which are in the deficit numbers for fiscal year 2009.

Now you can keep blaming Bush but the fact is the American people are getting tired of Obama never accepting responsibility for anything. His poll numbers are plummeting as the American people wake up to the lies he and his Administration are spinning.

 

[Conservative]

"It is not like when the recession ends, people's incomes bounce back to where they were before the recession," said Rob Shapiro. "You will be behind where you were before the recession for a while... There has been a real economic reduction in the base of GDP. So GDP now, when it goes up three percent, it is off of a lower base. It's not off of, say $15 trillion but off of $14 trillion."

In 2000 the GDP of this country was 9.8 trillion, when GW Bush left office the GDP was over 14.2 trillion, the highest growth in GDP in U.S. History. BEA.gov is the source of that information.

how is that hope and change working out for you?

 

[Conservative]

The decline of tax revenues due to the recession may not be a development tied to Obama. But it has become a perplexing problem for this administration.

The White House has raised spending levels by roughly $600 billion in FY2009 -- almost exclusively through temporary programs such as the stimulus -- in order to spur economic growth and increase that revenue base. But spending money to make money can be a costly venture in the short run, especially as the recession is prolonged. Unemployment benefits that used to expire after six months, for instance, have been extended by Congress at a heavy but morally defensible cost. And even when GDP rises, the government is still operating off a largely reduced revenue stream, complicating its efforts to pass pieces of domestic legislation.

Domestic Agenda? What exactly do you envision the role of the Federal Govt.? Did you learn anything in civics? If so please give us an education?

 

[Dav]

Bush Deficit Hurting Obama: Reports

A forthcoming study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that the $1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government has little to do with current White House policies and much to do with George W. Bush's actions.

"What we have looked at were several major contributors to the deficit: the tax cuts between 2001 and 2003 (on the assumption they get extended in 2010), the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the effects of the recession as well as the legislative response to the recession," James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center, told the Huffington Post. "When you take those things into account -- in other words, if we hadn't enacted the tax cuts, had the wars, if we hadn't had the recession and needed the legislation to deal with those problems -- the deficits are much, much lower. And basically none of those represent Obama's policies. He didn't run saying he wanted to pass a stimulus to deal with the recession or that he wanted to continue the war in Iraq or escalate [to this extent] in Afghanistan. He inherited these issues once he took office."

"Now we still have a big budget problem in the long run," Horney added. "It is not inappropriate for people to say we have to deal with that. And it is not inappropriate for them to say Obama is president and has the responsibility to deal with this. But it is not appropriate to say that Obama's policies have contributed to the deficit problem."

Horney said that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' analysis will be released in the next few weeks. But already, there is data available to supplement its findings. In mid-November, the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress put together an analysis of its own, in which it concluded that the so-called "Obama spending spree" paled in comparison to the checks written by Bush.

Obama's solution: spend more money.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Very interesting since the U.S. Treasury Department, the nation's checkbook, disagrees with you as govt. revenue actually increased after the Bush Tax cuts.

Further it is my understanding from basic civics that the Congress, NOT the President, spends the money so I ask you which spending proposal of Bush's did Obama vote against. Apparently in your world and the world of the media Bush is responsible for the Stimulus spending, all the TARP spending, the auto bailout, Cap and Trade, and of course healthcare.

Yes, Bush derangement syndrome is alive and well but declining daily. GW Bush is no longer in office and civics challenged liberals always buy rhetoric instead of actually getting the facts.

Rankings of Post WW2 Presidents:
Bush - WORST President in Job Creation
Bush - Third WORST in GDP Growth
Bush - WORST in deficit spending (3rd worst behind his father and Reagan in percentage of deficit growth compared to GDP growht)
Bush - WORST in increase of personal debt (thanks to the alteration in bankruptcy laws - well-timed right before a massive economic meltdown).

The only "derangement" out there is anyone who thinks Bush, his appointees, and the Republican Congress did anything to help out anyone who makes less than $500,000 a year.

You can hate Democrats and Obama all you like. Fair enough. But to pretend that Bush did anything right economically or foreign policy-wise is to be utterly blind to little things called facts.

Source
Source
Source

And, you'll note that two of my sources (Wall Street Journal and Forbes.com) are conservative sources - WHICH also point out clearly, through demonstrable facts, that the economy has historically done better under Democrats than Republicans since the beginning of the 20th Century. In fact, Democrats are four of the top 5 in economic rankings or an 80% success rate; while Republicans make up 4 of the bottom 5 economies; or 80% failure rate.

Now, can your provide me sources that show that - LONG-TERM - Republican policy's actually work? I'm being serious. Yes, there was a short term bump after the tax cuts (just as there was a short-term boom in the 1920s when Hoover cut taxes); but just as things went under Hoover, that short-term boom was followed by a MASSIVE bust. And as you'll recall, Bush the elder continued Reagan's policies and ended up with a massive recession as well.

All economic data I've seen points to the economy doing better under Democratic leadership and some of the greatest failures occurring under Republican leadership. Can you provide facts to the contrary?

 

[Conservative]

Rankings of Post WW2 Presidents:
Bush - WORST President in Job Creation
Bush - Third WORST in GDP Growth
Bush - WORST in deficit spending (3rd worst behind his father and Reagan in percentage of deficit growth compared to GDP growht)
Bush - WORST in increase of personal debt (thanks to the alteration in bankruptcy laws - well-timed right before a massive economic meltdown).

The only "derangement" out there is anyone who thinks Bush, his appointees, and the Republican Congress did anything to help out anyone who makes less than $500,000 a year.

You can hate Democrats and Obama all you like. Fair enough. But to pretend that Bush did anything right economically or foreign policy-wise is to be utterly blind to little things called facts.

Source
Source
Source

And, you'll note that two of my sources (Wall Street Journal and Forbes.com) are conservative sources - WHICH also point out clearly, through demonstrable facts, that the economy has historically done better under Democrats than Republicans since the beginning of the 20th Century. In fact, Democrats are four of the top 5 in economic rankings or an 80% success rate; while Republicans make up 4 of the bottom 5 economies; or 80% failure rate.

Now, can your provide me sources that show that - LONG-TERM - Republican policy's actually work? I'm being serious. Yes, there was a short term bump after the tax cuts (just as there was a short-term boom in the 1920s when Hoover cut taxes); but just as things went under Hoover, that short-term boom was followed by a MASSIVE bust. And as you'll recall, Bush the elder continued Reagan's policies and ended up with a massive recession as well.

All economic data I've seen points to the economy doing better under Democratic leadership and some of the greatest failures occurring under Republican leadership. Can you provide facts to the contrary?

History will judge Bush not you or I. The problem today is Obama and putting Bush spending on steroids. Apparently you cannot see the direction he is taking this country. I do feel sorry for you and all his supporters. This country wasn't built on Obama economic policy, it was built on free enterprise and capitalism. Discontent with Obama is building and the best you can do is bash Bush.

 

[obvious Child]

That seems to be true, however you cannot blame the deficit on tax cuts that increase govt. revenue, but you can blame it on the Congress and the President for spending too much. Most liberals want to focus on the tax cuts and claim they caused the deficit. No way, spending causes debt not tax cuts.

Except that you assume tax cuts increased government revenue. What we know is that tax cuts cause deficits when there are not corresponding cuts. If the tax cuts had not occurred, then there would not be associated deficit spending. Therefore the tax cuts are to blame.

Furthermore, tax cuts have never generated more revenue then they cost. If that was true, tax cuts would pay for themselves. Good luck finding an economist that supports that notion.

 

[Conservative]

Except that you assume tax cuts increased government revenue. What we know is that tax cuts cause deficits when there are not corresponding cuts. If the tax cuts had not occurred, then there would not be associated deficit spending. Therefore the tax cuts are to blame.

Furthermore, tax cuts have never generated more revenue then they cost. If that was true, tax cuts would pay for themselves. Good luck finding an economist that supports that notion.

tell that to the U.S. Treasury as obviously they got their numbers wrong. I love the logic, give me more money so I can spend it. You don't see a problem with that argument?

Spending always causes debt but to not allow the American people to keep more of their money is criminal, IMO.

It is the taxpayer money first. tax increases give the govt. more money and the taxpayer less. I will take tax cuts anyday.

 

[Strucky]

...the so-called "Obama spending spree" paled in comparison to the checks written by Bush.

Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals

Obama Two Month Deficit Is More Than Bush Deficit For Entire 2006 Calendar Year

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents

President Obama Set to Exceed President Bush’s Deficits

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit