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: 4369
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
#1. To: dont eat that (#0)
(Edited)
2001 Budget Surplus = $128bln...as presented when Clinton left office, the 2002 and beyond budgets were projected to be in surplus and would have been had Boy Blunder not foolishly cut revenues...
I kicked in a hundred about an hour ago. Badeye posted on 2007-01-12 15:19:41 ET Reply Trace The Lip-ped one boasting of his donation to LP just before his ass was booted...
Clinton's dot com bust is what caused the deficit. And while the rate of taxes went down, what is unknown is how much additional tax revenue came in because of the spending brought about by the tax cuts.
Amen.
Its getting uglier out there...
Bzzzzt...
I kicked in a hundred about an hour ago. Badeye posted on 2007-01-12 15:19:41 ET Reply Trace The Lip-ped one boasting of his donation to LP just before his ass was booted...
Wha..chuckle...huh? REVENUES FELL
I kicked in a hundred about an hour ago. Badeye posted on 2007-01-12 15:19:41 ET Reply Trace The Lip-ped one boasting of his donation to LP just before his ass was booted...
They may have fallen even more if not for the tax cuts.
And your support for this is what? Using your favorite stat, GDP grew but revenue growth fell and continued to fall...for YEARS...
I kicked in a hundred about an hour ago. Badeye posted on 2007-01-12 15:19:41 ET Reply Trace The Lip-ped one boasting of his donation to LP just before his ass was booted...
And I would say that the tax cuts were a primary reason for GDP growth
You'd be wrong...
Yep, however I still say Hillary Clinton won't enter the 2008 primaries. Badeye posted on 2006-10-27 12:58:16 ET Reply Trace
Bottom line is this years budget is bigger than last years, and bigger than any passed during Bush's eight years. Its also worth noting Obama didn't vote AGAINST a spending bill from 2005 forward.
Its getting uglier out there...
Here's US historical budget tables...which one of Boy Blunder's was less than any of Clinton's? The fact is, given automatic increases that are built in by law he could "cut" spending and still spend more... But Obama didn't campaign on lower spending...Boy Blunder did...except for the military which he insanely doubled and while it was enough to support his Haliburtion buddies it still wasn't enough to support his wars at least one of which was optional... Its also worth noting Obama didn't vote AGAINST a spending bill from 2005 forward. It's also worth noting that 99.9% of all spending bills are the result of joint conferences in which 99.9% of the parties agree... I now further note the big sac of nothing that your post was...
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's going on here? Is war claiming (erroneously) that revenues (to the treasury) fell after tax cuts? Is he also unaware that under the since the Dems took control of congress and since Zero that what used to be a _yearly_ deficit number under the Repubs is now a _monthly_ deficit number after several years under a Dem congress *and* now coupled with Zero's reign? Is he aware? Hello? .
Yepper and I posted the historical budget tables which prove that they did...
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
This is better known as the Blame Bush Defense. So we have a classical transformation taking place, with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) transforming into the Blame Bush Defense (BBD). If we consider a function of Obama as Obama(), then we have the following one- way (non-bilateral) transformational functional relationship expressed between BDS and BBD when the one-way Obama() function is applied to BDS as shown below: Obama(BDS) => BBD .
2001 1,991,426 2002 1,853,395 2003 1,782,532
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
Yepper and I posted the historical budget tables which prove that they did... I don't know what it was you posted, but, it must have had a) serious defects, b) was scaled inappropriately for inflation, c) was grossly misinterpreted by person or persons d) hallucinogenic substances (could have been large amounts of testosterone, coffee, etc) were acting on various persons CNS Let's explore the "Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts52;and the Facts" compiled about 2007 Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low. Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit. Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves. Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
2002 1,853,395 2003 1,782,532 Great usage of a conspiracy theorist's greatest tool: "Display of data, use of numbers, outside of context of those numbers."
As evidenced by key economic indicators such as increased capital investment and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and strong job growth, the President’s tax relief played an important role in strengthening the U.S. economy as it was coming out of the recent recession http://treasury.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf
Maybe if we looked at those numbers as compared against other numbers you can see the difference. Excerpt from: Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts by William Ahern Fiscal Fact No. 15 How big were the Bush tax cuts? According to the Treasury Department*, there have been 19 significant federal tax cuts since the end of World War II. Three of them have been passed under the Administration of George W. Bush52;the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002 (JCWA), and The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). Some taxpayers and policymakers have questioned the size of the Bush tax cut, considering the war costs and projected deficits. Table 1 below compares the 2003 tax cut with Bush57;s 2001 and 2002 tax cuts, and with the two largest tax cuts in the post-WW II era52;the Kennedy tax cut in 1964, and the Reagan tax cut in 1981. Table 2 compares these historic tax cuts to other federal fiscal priorities at the time.
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.
Comments (42 - 83) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBoy Blunder did not inherit a surplus from Bill Clinton
#2. To: war (#1)
The deterioration in the performance of the economy together with income tax relief provided to help offset the economic slowdown and additional spending in response to the terrorist attacks produced a drop in the surplus to $128 billion (1.3% of GDP) in 2001 and a return to deficits ($158 billion, 1.5% of GDP) in 2002.
#3. To: dont eat that (#2)
Someone needs to tell President Obama: If you think President Bush spent too much, then put a stop to it.
#4. To: padlock (#2)
...the dot com bust is what caused the deficit.
#5. To: dont eat that (#2)
And while the rate of taxes went down, what is unknown is how much additional tax revenue came in because of the spending brought about by the tax cuts.
#6. To: war (#5)
REVENUES FELL
#7. To: dont eat that (#6)
They may have fallen even more if not for the tax cuts.
#8. To: war (#7)
GDP grew
#9. To: dont eat that (#8)
#10. To: dont eat that (#8)
#11. To: Badeye (#10)
(Edited)
Bottom line is this years budget is bigger than last years, and bigger than any passed during Bush's eight years.
#12. To: dont eat that (#0)
#13. To: _Jim (#12)
(Edited)
Is war claiming (erroneously) that revenues (to the treasury) fell after tax cuts?
#14. To: _Jim (#12)
(Edited)
#15. To: dont eat that (#0)
#16. To: _Jim (#12)
#17. To: war (#13)
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
#18. To: war (#16)
2001 1,991,426
#19. To: war (#9)
#20. To: war (#16)
#21. To: _Jim (#18)
#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)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]