United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: None of this is Bush’s fault
Source:
North Star national
URL Source: http://www.northstarnational.com/2010/02/03/bushs-fault/
Published: Feb 3, 2010
Author: Dan Calabrese
Post Date: 2010-02-03 11:07:51 by dont eat that
Keywords: None
Views: 4308
Comments: 83
Let’s explode one of President Obama’s most egregious bits of nonsense concerning his profligate spending – the whole I-inherited-this-mess business. This is better known as the Blame Bush Defense. As Obama so helpfully explains, the day he walked into the Oval Office he was facing $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye could see, and there was nothing he could do about it. It was all George W. Bush’s fault. Balderdash. It is true that Bush did not restrain the out-of-control spending of the Republican Congress during his years in office, as he should have. And it’s true that the deficit when Obama took office exceeded $1 trillion. But that was true one time only, because of what was supposed to be a one-time emergency provision – a provision Obama voted for as a senator. It was not a long-term trend, until Obama made it one. Bush did not inherit a surplus from Bill Clinton, as Democrats like to say, but the deficit during Bush’s first year in office was only $144.5 billion. After 9/11, the start of the Iraq War and the continued upward trajectory of legally mandated entitlement spending – along with the many earmarks and domestic program increases so loved by the GOP Congress, the deficit ballooned over the next several years, topping out at a record $605 billion, or 5.3 percent of GDP, in 2004. But as economic growth set in, largely as a result of the Bush tax cuts, the deficit began to decline, falling to only $459 billion, or 3.4 percent of GDP, in 2007. The deficit was on a similar downward trajectory in 2008 when the mortgage market melted down in September, leading to the massive bailout spending that exploded the deficit to just over $1 trillion. Yes, that was the deficit that Obama “inherited.” But the TARP bailout, which Obama voted for, was initiated as a one-time emergency measure. It was not established as part of the year-to-year budget baseline. The deficit rose to over $1.35 trillion in 2009 because of Obama’s massive “stimulus” bill, which was sold as the only way to keep unemployment under 8 percent, which of course it did not do. Now Obama proposes to spend $3.8 trillion in 2010, with a deficit of $1.6 trillion. Why? Are we passing another $787 billion stimulus bill? Are we doing TARP all over again? George W. Bush did not establish this kind of spending as permanent parts of the federal budget. Barack Obama did. If Obama was serious about spending discipline, he would have treated the one-time TARP emergency expenditure as just that – a one-time thing. He would not have larded a $787 billion pork barrel boondoggle onto the following year’s budget. And he wouldn’t have come back this year and proposed a budget even bigger. He would have put a stop to such spending and started to get control of all discretionary spending, then went to work reforming entitlements. He isn’t doing any of this. Whatever he may have inherited, he is making the choice to make it worse. Much, much worse. Someone needs to tell President Obama: If you think President Bush spent too much, then put a stop to it. But he doesn’t want to stop. He wants to spend, even as he tells you he is taking deficits seriously. He is taking nothing seriously, and he’s simply hoping you’ll keep believing that George W. Bush, safely retired to Crawford, Texas, is forcing him to spend all these trillions. Nothing that’s happening today is Bush’s responsibility. It’s all Obama’s. Every penny of it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-20) not displayed.
.
.
.
#21. To: _Jim (#18)
Ask him what happened to revenues in 2004, 2005, and 2006 after the 2003 Bush tax cuts.
Those are the receipts to the government in the years after the tax cut...there is no "out of context" that is what the government took in.
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Don't need to. Tazes were cut...revenues fell...they fell after Kemp-Roth too and rose after the chief toll collector for the welfare state, Bob Doles, got Reagan to sign TEFRA.
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Chuckles...a good snick of it was that states having to increase their tax burden increased the number of Americans subject to the AMT as itemized deductions increased... But, as an economy grow, receipts usuallt grow with it...DOH...
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
He's only going to see what he wants to see, hear what he wants to hear and interpret ANY factual data to fit preconceived notions or memes. He has a model in his mind that disregards active elements in the economy that seeks to minimize the payment (the pain) of taxes, and that taxing activities (inflicting pain) causes a reduction in that activity (avoidance of pain) - Like he has never heard of 'negative reinforcemnt' regarding behavior before in his life.
I gave my answer...refute it...
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Ask him what ... Like one of my favorite sayings at work (when explaining that the technical staff has trouble relaying the situation to the non-tech administrative staff): "It's like talking physics to a dog." .
Rewvisting Boy Blunder's TAx Cuts: Tax Cuts and Deficits Congressional Budget Office data show that the tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years. Legislation enacted since 2001 added about $3.0 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2007, with nearly half of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts (about a third was due to increases in security spending, and about a sixth to increases in domestic spending). Yet the President and some Congressional leaders decline to acknowledge the tax cuts’ role in the nation’s budget problems, falling back instead on the discredited nostrum that tax cuts “pay for themselves.” Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues. Proponents of tax cuts often claim that “dynamic scoring” — that is, considering tax cuts’ economic effects when calculating their costs — would substantially lower the estimated cost of tax reductions, or even shrink it to zero. The argument is that tax cuts dramatically boost economic growth, which in turn boosts revenues by enough to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts. But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy; these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost. Under other assumptions, Treasury found that the tax cuts could slightly decrease long-run economic growth, in which case they would cost modestly more than otherwise expected. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-27-06tax.htm) The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves also is contradicted by the historical record. In 1981, Congress substantially lowered marginal income-tax rates on the well off, while in 1990 and 1993, Congress raised marginal rates on the well off. The economy grew at virtually the same rate in the 1990s as in the 1980s (adjusted for inflation and population growth), but revenues grew about twice as fast in the 1990s, when tax rates were increased, as in the 1980s, when tax rates were cut. Similarly, since the 2001 tax cuts, the economy has grown at about the same pace as during the equivalent period of the 1990s business cycle, but revenues have grown far more slowly. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm) Some argue that, even if most tax cuts do not pay for themselves, capital gains tax cuts do. But, in reality, capital gains tax cuts cost money as well. After reviewing numerous studies of how investors respond to capital gains tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that “the best estimates of taxpayers’ response to changes in the capital gains rate do not suggest a large revenue increase from additional realizations of capital gains — and certainly not an increase large enough to offset the losses from a lower rate.” That’s why CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the White House Office of Management and Budget all project that making the 2003 capital gains tax cut permanent would cost about $100 billion over the next ten years. (http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm) Reality: The 2001-2007 economic expansion was sub-par overall, and job and wage growth were anemic. Members of the Administration routinely tout statistics regarding recent economic growth, then credit the President’s tax cuts with what they portray as a stellar economic performance. But as a general rule, it is difficult or impossible to infer the effect of a given tax cut from looking at a few years of economic data, simply because so many factors other than tax policy influence the economy. What the data do show clearly is that, despite major tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006, the economy’s performance between 2001 and 2007 was from stellar. Growth rates of GDP, investment, and other key economic indicators during the 2001-2007 expansion were below the average for other post-World War II economic expansions (see Figure 2). Growth in wages and salaries and non-residential investment was particularly slow relative to previous expansions, and, while the Administration boasts of its record on jobs, employment growth was weaker in the 2001-2007 period than in any previous post-World War II expansion. (http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm) Median income among working-age households, meanwhile, fell during the expansion. Census data show that among households headed by someone under age 65, median income in 2006, adjusted for inflation, was $1,300 below its level during the 2001 recession. Similarly, the poverty rate and the share of Americans lacking health insurance were higher in 2006 than during the recession. (http://www.cbpp.org/8-28-07pov.htm) Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
I gave my answer...refute it... Woof Woof woof.
See, I was right. The correct answer (from above) is: c "c) was grossly misinterpreted by person or persons"
Riiight...cause only a fucking genius understands that if in year one you taken in 1.9bln and the next year you take in 1.8bln and the year after that 1.7bln you've actually taken in MORE money each year... /sarc
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Legislation enacted since 2001 added about $3.0 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2007, BS BTW: CBPP is one of three left wing think tanks funded by the Democracy Alliance. The other two are the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute.
You weren't rigth about dick, dick...there is no way you ould have read what I posted and examined the links...in fact...you've said nothing except that you can bark like a dog and since ass sniffing is big in your GOP crowd, it's an excellent trait for you to have... Buck up your data, or begone, troll.
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Rewvisting Boy Blunder's TAx Cuts: And so 'war' proposes ... tax increases? How did that work during FDR's days (imposition of tariffs, raising taxes, more gov't control, etc)? Have you looked at the economics of that era? What was your (erroneous) conclusion?
Meanwhile, this years budget is larger than last years budget, or any during the Bush Administration's two terms.
Its getting uglier out there...
You weren't rigth about dick, If you're going to take that tack (the language), we'll end this discussion right here and now.
How do you propose to pay for your Boy Blunder's credit card purchases?
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Buck up your data, or begone, troll. Woof.
Bite me...I was having a civil conversation until you started with the dog nonsense and other invectives. It was obvious that you aren't here to discuss anyway...you've added nothing but the usual GOP mantra which has failed three times out of the last 3 republican presidencies... Oh boo frickety hoo he called me a bad word...
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
How do you propose to pay for your Boy Blunder's credit card purchases? So 'war' DOES propose tax increases ... how did that work during FDR's years again? It worked - right? I guess you don't recognize the concept of 'negative reinforcement' of behavior either.
I'm outa here.
Take it up with the GOP controlled CBO and Boy Blunder's own US treasury...that's the data that they are using...
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
YOu tell me...you're long on questions, crying and bullshit but short on anything meaningful...
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Its the norm for the fraud of long island.
Its getting uglier out there...
Meanwhile, that tidbit is about as meaningful as knowing that this year it's Super Bowl XLIV and last years was XLIII and the year before that XLII and the year before that...
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Could you have posted a more useless chart? Go look at those budget tables and determine if revenues fell or rose after the 1993 budget passed...
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
(laughing)
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Didn't you recently post a study from a conservative think tank about what an abject disaster Boy Blunder's tax cuts were?
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
What your left wing moonbat source is doing is saying that any revenue left in the private sector by the tax cut adds to the deficit, which is BS.
Feel free to quote the piece accurately... I'll give you one thing padlock...you're not the typical republican like Crying _Jim or the One Eyed Blunder...at least you TRY to make a point...
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
They arrive at that tax cut number by just figuring that was the amount of taxes that weren't directly collected because of the cut, and ignore the revenue generated by this money being left to circulate in the economy. Typical left wing smoke and mirrors.
What your left wing moonbat source is doing is saying that ... His website source is using 'doctored' numbers. Doing a little bit of work on the history on the organization that he cherry picks his charts from - the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" is a less than neutral observer of all that is taking place; think butcher with his thumb on the scales distorting the true measure of what is taking place. An example of jimmying the numbers:Why the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Is Wrong about the Cost of Bush's Tax Plan The so-called "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" is also a product of another group, the "Matrix Group". Here is an announcement of the launch of the website "the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" So now, the question is, who is this "Matrix Group International" group?
The wesbite wart is using is aimed at creating propaganda, for unions, for the so-called "low income" classes. It is dumbed-down economics the likes of which wart can probably understand and quote from. It would not surprise me if wart was receiving stimulus Obama bucks to make his appeal with jimmied numbers, graphs and charts. He might even be on a union payroll from somewhere. Anyway, back to the announcement of the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" website: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Home Page Matrix Group announce today the launch of the newly redesigned website for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (The Center). The Center is one of the nation's premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals. Code words for "union". Might as well have been an announcement of for a CPUSA website like "The Daily Worker". I wonder, has wart ever been, or associated with, members of the communist party? His goals would seem to be the same ... .
The date of your link: February 16, 2001 The date of my information: August 29, 2008 /moron
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
ROFLMAO... "_Jim" code word for "moronic douchebag"... Attack the messenger...it's all you got shill... The bottom line is that the tax cuts REDUCED the rate of revenue growth...there is no way around it...
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Them tariffs you speak of were proposed by Republicans and signed into law by Hoover.
Which has to do with budget deficits and lower revenues how?
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
He's been wrong just about every which way he turned...correcting him at this point and believing that he'd accept it would be too far a disruption of his time space continuum...
Allen's going to win. I don't need a poll to predict it. Badeye posted on 2006-11-01 9:30:23 ET Reply Trace
Either you realize that cutting taxes returns money to the economy which in return creates additional economic activity, product, and revenue or you don't. To ignore that aspect of tax cuts means one is either a fucking moron or a fucking liar.
Comments (62 - 83) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#22. To: _Jim (#18)
(Edited)
#23. To: _Jim (#20)
Maybe if we looked at those numbers as compared against other numbers you can see the difference.
#24. To: dont eat that (#21)
Ask him what happened to revenues in 2004, 2005, and 2006 after the 2003 Bush tax cuts.
#25. To: dont eat that (#21)
Ask him what happened to revenues in 2004, 2005, and 2006 after the 2003 Bush tax cuts.
#26. To: _Jim (#25)
#27. To: dont eat that (#21)
#28. To: _Jim (#20)
#29. To: war (#26)
#30. To: war (#24)
#31. To: war (#28)
#32. To: _Jim (#27)
"It's like talking physics to a dog."
#33. To: war (#28)
#34. To: _Jim (#31)
(Edited)
#35. To: war (#28)
#36. To: dont eat that (#33)
#37. To: war (#34)
#38. To: _Jim (#35)
And so 'war' proposes ... tax increases?
#39. To: war (#34)
#40. To: _Jim (#37)
#41. To: war (#38)
#42. To: war (#40)
Bite me...I was having a
#43. To: dont eat that (#33)
(Edited)
BS
#44. To: _Jim (#42)
#45. To: _Jim (#41)
...how did that work during FDR's years again?
#46. To: _Jim (#42)
#47. To: Badeye (#36)
(Edited)
Meanwhile, this years budget is larger than last years budget, or any during the Bush Administration's two terms.
#48. To: dont eat that (#30)
#49. To: Badeye (#46)
#50. To: go65 (#41)
#51. To: war (#43)
#52. To: dont eat that (#51)
(Edited)
What your left wing moonbat source is doing is saying that any revenue left in the private sector by the tax cut adds to the deficit, which is BS.
#53. To: war (#52)
Legislation enacted since 2001 added about $3.0 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2007, with nearly half of this deterioration in the budget due to the tax cuts
#54. To: dont eat that (#51)
#55. To: dont eat that (#53)
March 27, 2009
#56. To: _Jim (#54)
#57. To: _Jim (#55)
(Edited)
Code words for "union".
#58. To: _Jim (#35)
How did that work during FDR's days (imposition of tariffs...
#59. To: dont eat that (#53)
They arrive at that tax cut number by just figuring that was the amount of taxes that weren't directly collected because of the cut, and ignore the revenue generated by this money being left to circulate in the economy.
#60. To: lucysmom (#58)
#61. To: war (#59)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]