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: 4237
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 (1-42) not displayed.
.
.
.
#43. To: dont eat that (#33)
(Edited)
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.
and supported by FDR.
IN this case, it didn't...what got the economy going was war spending and then borrowing by both the consumer and the government...
I think my prediction of 3 GOP Senate seats lost, and between 6 - 8 House seats is proving to be correct. But I think I nailed this one. We'll see. Badeye posted on 2006-11-03 16:11:09 ET Reply Trace ACtual results: House +31 Dems Senate +6 Dems
FDR did NOT support Smoot Hawley...
I think my prediction of 3 GOP Senate seats lost, and between 6 - 8 House seats is proving to be correct. But I think I nailed this one. We'll see. Badeye posted on 2006-11-03 16:11:09 ET Reply Trace ACtual results: House +31 Dems Senate +6 Dems
No, FDR did not support Hoover's tariffs, he rolled them back. He didn't support tariffs with words: Out of all the tons of printed paper, out of all the hours of oratory, the recriminations, the defenses, the happy-thought plans in Washington and in every State, there emerges one great, simple, crystal-pure fact that during the past ten years a Nation of 120,000,000 people has been led by the Republican leaders to erect an impregnable barbed wire entanglement around its borders through the instrumentality of tariffs which have isolated us from all the other human beings in all the rest of the round world. I accept that admirable tariff statement in the platform of this convention. It would protect American business and American labor. By our acts of the past we have invited and received the retaliation of other Nations. I propose an invitation to them to forget the past, to sit at the table with us, as friends, and to plan with us for the restoration of the trade of the world. Go into the home of the business man. He knows what the tariff has done for him. Go into the home of the factory worker. He knows why goods do not move. Go into the home of the farmer. He knows how the tariff has helped to ruin him. www.danaroc.com/guests_fdr_021609.html and he didn't support them with deeds: The Great Depression. The economic problems of the 1930s brought a precipitous decline in international trade. As part of his program to stimulate the U.S. economy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to increase foreign trade by reducing existing tariffs. In response to his leadership Congress enacted (1934) the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which authorized the president to “enter into foreign trade agreements with foreign governments” and to “proclaim . . . modifications of existing duties and other import restrictions”; any increase or reduction in a tariff rate was limited to a maximum of 50 percent of the existing rate. Under this act, which subsequently was extended every three years, the U.S. negotiated reciprocal trade treaties with many countries, particularly in Europe and Latin America.
The bottom line is nothing FDR did alleviated the 'Great Depression' and many of his measure, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, made it WORSE and PROLONGED the recovery time, by years.
Its getting uglier out there...
I'd characterize that as revisionism if it had any element of truth to it. The fact is, the US was well on its way to a Keynesian recovery until the SCOTUS struck down most New Deal work projects. If you track both GDP and employment in the 30's you see both the US economy and employment recovering and expanding until the Court started ruling against the New Deal. The economy went back into recession within a year...
I think my prediction of 3 GOP Senate seats lost, and between 6 - 8 House seats is proving to be correct. But I think I nailed this one. We'll see. Badeye posted on 2006-11-03 16:11:09 ET Reply Trace ACtual results: House +31 Dems Senate +6 Dems
Explain.
Look it up.
Its getting uglier out there...
He's doesn't "do" explanations if only because the usual explanation is that he's just making shit up...the fact of the matter is that the worst had already hit when FDR took office. He dismantled the tarrifs that the America Firsters had instituted with disastrous results and started working out bi- lateral trade deals [the only model of international trade that has ever worked, btw].
I think my prediction of 3 GOP Senate seats lost, and between 6 - 8 House seats is proving to be correct. But I think I nailed this one. We'll see. Badeye posted on 2006-11-03 16:11:09 ET Reply Trace ACtual results: House +31 Dems Senate +6 Dems
Does this screen name make my ass look fat?
I support the right. But I'm leaning to the left.
ROFLMAO... Tea?
I think my prediction of 3 GOP Senate seats lost, and between 6 - 8 House seats is proving to be correct. But I think I nailed this one. We'll see. Badeye posted on 2006-11-03 16:11:09 ET Reply Trace ACtual results: House +31 Dems Senate +6 Dems
lol Cheerio!
I support the right. But I'm leaning to the left.
FDR never sought the repeal of Smoot-Hartley.
FDR did NOT support Smoot Hawley... I could care less about the utter BS he spewed on the campaign trail. The tariffs existed throughout his entire Presidency.
Yep. But before Owe-Bama The Messiah, we had FDR the Messiah. As we see, liberals don't like it when their 'Gods' are mocked, or shown to be mere mortals with all that entails.
Its getting uglier out there...
Not as they were originally enacted, puddin' pop...they were reduced several times...
I think my prediction of 3 GOP Senate seats lost, and between 6 - 8 House seats is proving to be correct. But I think I nailed this one. We'll see. Badeye posted on 2006-11-03 16:11:09 ET Reply Trace ACtual results: House +31 Dems Senate +6 Dems
If it's true that those who don't know history are bound to repeat it; then it goes double for those who rewrite history. Perhaps he won't explain 'cause he doesn't know what he's talking about.
"Rewrite" hell...he just makes it up as he goes...
I think my prediction of 3 GOP Senate seats lost, and between 6 - 8 House seats is proving to be correct. But I think I nailed this one. We'll see. Badeye posted on 2006-11-03 16:11:09 ET Reply Trace ACtual results: House +31 Dems Senate +6 Dems
I'm not your file clerk, and the fact is if you look it up, the odds of you remembering it are much better. None of FDR's policies helped alleviate the Great Depression, this is just historical fact. It took the onset of WWII to begin to bring back manufacturing, for just one example. Its also well know the Federal Reserves actions made the GD worse, and in fact lengthened it. Ask the current Fed Chairman, or just google his name and 'great depression'. Its obvious you'll be surprised to learn the truth about that era. As for my anti groupie...he once posted I was lying about the weather here in Southern Ohio...(eyes rolling). If you want to take that insane posters ranting seriously...well, thats your problem, not mine.
Its getting uglier out there...
And that is just plain bullshit. Its also well know the Federal Reserves actions made the GD worse... Under Hoover, yes...it didn't do its job as lender of last resort and his NCC Was an abject disaster...under FDR, after he apppointed Marriner Eccles, no...the FRB played a key role in stemming bank runs and panics...
I think my prediction of 3 GOP Senate seats lost, and between 6 - 8 House seats is proving to be correct. But I think I nailed this one. We'll see. Badeye posted on 2006-11-03 16:11:09 ET Reply Trace ACtual results: House +31 Dems Senate +6 Dems
You were and I posted the weather data to prove it... Unlike you, I don't make it up as I go along...
I think my prediction of 3 GOP Senate seats lost, and between 6 - 8 House seats is proving to be correct. But I think I nailed this one. We'll see. Badeye posted on 2006-11-03 16:11:09 ET Reply Trace ACtual results: House +31 Dems Senate +6 Dems
(laughing) An oldie but goodie...
Sorry, the english language isn't the personal sandbox of those that can't describe opposing viewpoints accurately. Badeye posted on 2004-11-15 15:07:43 ET Reply Trace
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)
#62. To: lucysmom (#58)
Them tariffs you speak of were proposed by
Republicans Republicans and Democrats and signed into law by Hoover.
#63. To: dont eat that (#61)
(Edited)
Either you realize that cutting taxes returns money to the economy which in return creates additional economic activity, product
#64. To: dont eat that (#62)
...and supported by FDR.
#65. To: dont eat that (#62)
and supported by FDR.
#66. To: lucysmom (#65)
#67. To: Badeye (#66)
(Edited)
The bottom line is nothing FDR did alleviated the 'Great Depression' and many of his measure, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, made it WORSE and PROLONGED the recovery time, by years.
#68. To: Badeye (#66)
The bottom line is nothing FDR did alleviated the 'Great Depression' and many of his measure, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, made it WORSE and PROLONGED the recovery time, by years.
#69. To: lucysmom (#68)
#70. To: lucysmom (#68)
(Edited)
Explain.
#71. To: war (#70)
#72. To: Abu el Banat (#71)
(Edited)
#73. To: war (#72)
#74. To: lucysmom (#65)
#75. To: war (#64)
#76. To: dont eat that (#75)
#77. To: dont eat that (#75)
The tariffs existed throughout his entire Presidency.
#78. To: war, Badeye (#70)
He's doesn't "do" explanations if only because the usual explanation is that he's just making shit up...
#79. To: lucysmom (#78)
#80. To: lucysmom (#78)
#81. To: Badeye (#80)
None of FDR's policies helped alleviate the Great Depression, this is just historical fact.
#82. To: Badeye (#80)
he once posted I was lying about the weather here in Southern Ohio
#83. To: Badeye, Fred Mertz (#80)
(Edited)
I'm not your file clerk
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]