AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.pdf
Table F-1.
Since I do not have the CBO's projections for the Budget deficits for 2009 thru 2016, I'm going to ignore these CBO actual deficits for 2001 thru 2008.

Cyclo, I think it makes far more sense to base our current evaluations of Obama versus Bush budget deficits on these two sources:
2009 thry 2016:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Summary_Tables2.pdf
2001 thru 2008
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

The source, Cyclo, that you provided presents Federal Debt and not merely total Budget Deficits that include both on budget and off budget deficits. Federal debt and budget deficits are far different.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.pdf
Table F-1.
Since I do not have the CBO's projections for the Budget deficits for 2009 thru 2016, I'm going to ignore these CBO actual deficits for 2001 thru 2008.

Cyclo, I think it makes far more sense to base our current evaluations of Obama versus Bush budget deficits on these two sources:
2009 thry 2016:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Summary_Tables2.pdf
2001 thru 2008
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

The source, Cyclo, that you provided presents Federal Debt and not merely total Budget Deficits that include both on budget and off budget deficits. Federal debt and budget deficits are far different.

The budgets from the WH site do not include all costs incurred. It is more helpful to look at what we ACTUALLY owe than it is to look at what some politico PROJECTS we owe. Wouldn't you agree?

At the end of the day, the budgets presented on the WH site do not represent our bills as a nation; they aren't really useful for looking at total costs.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cice, I am not going to try to prove your claim that, "you cannot compare a Bush budget with a Obama budget." It's your job to prove your claim!

I not only think I can "compare a Bush budget with a Obama budget." I did "compare a Bush budget with a Obama budget."

The Bush 2001 budget had a surplus because of a carryover from Clinton's surplus the previous year.

Even if that carryover had been a deficit INSTEAD OF A SURPLUS, Bush's total deficit 2001 to 2008 would still be less than a third (i.e., 1/3.096)
of Obama's projected deficit for 2009 thru 2016. Obama would in that event continue to rate as three times the SIMPLETON than Bush was.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Simple; the reason you cannot compare the two are many-fold. Let's begin with the economy. Bush left Obama with a destroyed economy. To save our economy, Obama will have to spend money that would not have been necessary to house and feed all those Americans losing their jobs and homes, and extending their unemployment insurance. At the end of the Bush regime, job loss exceeded over half million every month. Do we have to spoon feed you that? The other is that Bush left Obama with the war still unsolved in Iraq that's been costing our country some ten billion every month. That's a cost Obama must carry in his budget. Reasonable people will call that a huge irresponsibility about president Bush. You want more? Just ask.

You simpletons can't figure out the enormity of the problems Bush left for the next president. Many fathers and mothers are now killing their children and themselves, because they've lost the jobs. You just don't know how to accept responsibility for all the screw-ups of the Bush administration.

It seems Obama is getting some heat from the democrats to pursue the torture authorized by Bush and his gang. I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of both domestic and international laws, and thrown in prison for the rest of their miserable lives.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The budgets from the WH site do not include all costs incurred. It is more helpful to look at what we ACTUALLY owe than it is to look at what some politico PROJECTS we owe. Wouldn't you agree?

At the end of the day, the budgets presented on the WH site do not represent our bills as a nation; they aren't really useful for looking at total costs.

I agree that when determining what is totally owed by our government, one should look at what is totally owed by our government.

BUT when comparing Bush's total budget deficits with Obama's total projected budget deficits, one should compare these budget deficits with each other. Obama is clearly expecting that in 2009 thru 2016 his total budget deficit--in current dollars--will be more than 3 times Bush's budget deficit 2001 thru 2008. That, if true, will mean that Obama will be 3 times the SIMPLETON than was Bush.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You are an imbecile; you still want to limit Bush's budget that includes the eight years from 2001 to 2008. Bush's responsibility extends into 2009 and beyond that the Obama administration "must" spend in order to save our economy - that Bush destroyed. No free pass. Is that too spacial for you?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cice, that's false. It is not true that, "To save our economy, Obama will have to spend money that would not have been necessary to house and feed all those Americans losing their jobs and homes, and extending their unemployment insurance." All he had to do was cut spending and cut taxes and the economy would have recovered normally. It continues to be doubtful that Obama's approach to saving the economy will do anything other than make things worse.

Obama intends to do what Hoover did to rescue the economy from depression: raising taxes, increasing tariffs, and increasing spending. Hoover's scheme did not work.

Obama intends to do what Roosevelt did to rescue the economy from depression: raising taxes, leaving tariffs high, and increasing spending. Roosevelt's scheme did not work.

Obama intends to do what Carter did to rescue the economy from depression: raising taxes, raising tariffs, and increasing spending. Carter's scheme did not work.

What Reagan did to rescue the economy from Carter's failures, did work. He cut taxes significantly, although he increased spending.

Even Clinton's scheme worked: reducing spending and tariffs, while increasing taxes a small amount.

Bush's lowering Clinton's taxes started to work despite his also raising spending. When Chris Dodd and Barney Frank refused to fix the 2 FMs, and Bush signed TARP into law, Bush's increased spending caused the economy to tank.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bush's responsibility extends into 2009 and beyond that the Obama administration "must" spend in order to save our economy - that Bush destroyed.

Chris Dodd, Barney Frank , and George Bush caused the economy to tank. Obama, must cut spending in order to offset the damage done by Bush increasing spending. Why in the world do you believe that Obama's amplification of what Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and George Bush did to make the economy tank, will rescue the economy?

That's pure simplistic reasoning. That's the thinking of today's SIMPLETONS. That's imbecilic!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were not in control of any budget; it was congress (as a whole) and Bush. SURPRISE!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The Congress allowed Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to continue to cripple our banks' lending abilities, and then push banks to make bad loans.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

How does congress allow two members of congress to do anything?

Please show us how Dodd and Frank pushed banks to make bad loans? You mean banks have no responsibility? WOW! That's a new one.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Some more evidence of the Bush gang crime:

Quote:

Rice delivered OK to waterboard as Bush's adviser
Then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice verbally OK'd the CIA's request to subject alleged al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in July 2002, a decision memorialized a few days later in a secret memo that the Obama administration declassified last week.

Rice is now teaching at Stanford. I wonder if this news will have any effect?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Many fathers and mothers are now killing their children and themselves, because they've lost the jobs

Are you seriously saying that its Bush's fault that people are commiting murder/suicide now?

Quote:

The other is that Bush left Obama with the war still unsolved in Iraq that's been costing our country some ten billion every month.

And since Obama has said he will have the US out of Iraq in 16 months, how is that a problem?
IF he does what he claimed, then that money wont be part of the budget problem.

It seems to me that you are already trying to make excuses.
You seem to be saying already that any money Obama spends is Bush's fault, that the massive deficits Obama runs up are Bush's fault, that none of it is his fault.

Quote:

At the end of the Bush regime, job loss exceeded over half million every month

That would be 6 million a year.
You are exagerating the problem.
Even the Presidents own people arent using that number. Here is what they are saying...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02/horrible_scary_new_job_loss_nu.html

Quote:

Today's report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is the latest evidence that the U.S. economy is contracting greatly. Payroll employment declined by 598,000 in January, bringing the total job loss since the recession began in December 2007 to 3.6 million

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Quote:

Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline sharply in March (-663,000),
and the unemployment rate rose from 8.1 to 8.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Since the recession
began in December 2007, 5.1 million jobs have been lost, with almost two-thirds
(3.3 million) of the decrease occurring in the last 5 months.

So, since those 2 numbers seem to be the extremes and the real job loss number is somewhere in between, where do you get the figure of 6 million people a year losing their jobs?

Quote:

Bush's responsibility extends into 2009 and beyond that the Obama administration "must" spend in order to save our economy

Sorry, but this statement by you is false.
You may want Bush's responsibility to extend beyond 2009, but that isnt going to happen.
Once Obama's first budget goes into effect, and the last Bush budget has expired, then it is entirely Obama's baby.
Good or bad, it will no longet be Bush's fault, it will all be Obama's fault.

Just as you and others liked to say about Clinton "he isnt the President now", so you cannot hold Bush repsonsible for the problems Obama faces or creates for himself.
Yes, you can hold Bush responsible for the problems his last budget caused, but you cannot hold him responsible for the problems the Obama budgets cause, unless you are willing to give Bush the credit for the good things in the Obama budgets also.

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

mm writes:

Quote:

Just as you and others liked to say about Clinton "he isnt the President now", so you cannot hold Bush repsonsible for the problems Obama faces or creates for himself.
Yes, you can hold Bush responsible for the problems his last budget caused, but you cannot hold him responsible for the problems the Obama budgets cause, unless you are willing to give Bush the credit for the good things in the Obama budgets also.

Yes, yes, yes. Immediately after President Bush was elected, President Clinton's disciples were excusing him from any issues being faced in 2001 or thereafter. Clinton or nobody else was to be blamed for anything on Bush's watch no matter what the circumstances or history was leading up to January 2001. Any of us who referred to the Clinton administration were shouted down. He wasn't the President any more.

But now, for some, it seems that anything happening on Obama's watch is Bush's fault and nothing is Obama's fault.

I think there are few of us who call ourselves modern American conservatives who didn't rail against the fiscal excesses of the Bush administration, his mismanagement of the early years of the war, some really bad appointments, his expansion of government/entitlements, and fuzzy policy on the environment, immigration, and the port authority to name a few. He deserve the blame for all of that.

At the same time he got stuff right too, and deserves credit for that. I still believe history will be much more kind to his administration than are his critics.

But Obama is the President now. He didn't create the problems he inherited any more than George Bush created the problems he inherited. Every president comes into office facing issues or situations left unresolved by his predecessor.

But the omnibus bill with all that pork he signed was put together by Democrats in Congress on Obama's watch and he signed it. The heavy handed approach with financial institutions and the auto makers are his decision. The appointments he is making are his. The game plan being laid out to deal with the recession and beyond is his. Uncomplimentary comments being made by world leaders are about him. Policy implemented is by his consent or decree. Missteps, bungles, and bumbles now are not George Bush's no matter how much Obama wants to blame others for all his problems. Obama speaks with forked tongue there--he says it is time to look forward but he constantly points backward.

Knowing the history of any issue is important so that we don't make the same mistakes again. But grown up people don't blame history for the decisions they make now.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
At the end of the Bush regime, job loss exceeded over half million every month

That would be 6 million a year.
You are exagerating the problem.
Even the Presidents own people arent using that number. Here is what they are saying...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02/horrible_scary_new_job_loss_nu.html

Quote:
Today's report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is the latest evidence that the U.S. economy is contracting greatly. Payroll employment declined by 598,000 in January, bringing the total job loss since the recession began in December 2007 to 3.6 million

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The last time I checked 598,000 exceeds half a million and January 09 would be the end of the Bush regime.

I'm not quite sure what you are arguing MM since your own source confirms CI's statement as quite accurate.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

nce Obama's first budget goes into effect, and the last Bush budget has expired, then it is entirely Obama's baby.
Good or bad, it will no longet be Bush's fault, it will all be Obama's fault.

I will agree with you there MM as far as the budget will be all Obama. There are some problems that may still exist as carryover from the Bush administration that won't be solved until the spending on an Obama budget has gone on for more than a few days of even months.

Of course, this is a realization on your part that the 1.7 trillion dollar deficit in Bush's 09 budget year is Bush's responsibility.

1 Reply

@parados,

No, it isn't Bush's responsibility. The current Congress and President has complete authority to spend, not spend, increase, roll back, or do anything it wants to do re expenditures. Given that the Congress and President have that power, whatever is spent on Obama's watch, other than intractable entitlements or previously contracted obligations, is the current Congress and Administration's baby all the way.

1 Reply

Obama is promising a deficit over his 8 year term of office, 2009 thru 2016, of $6,789 billion, or more than 3 times Bush’s 2001 thru 2008 deficit of $1,962 billion, in order to rescue the USA’s economy.

Obama and his supporters are simpletons. They think the best way to curb Bush’s excessive spending and lending, in order to rescue the USA’s economy, is to INCREASE that excessive spending and lending.

However, if they do not want to rescue the USA's economy and instead want to replace our economy with something else, then they are simpletons plus something else!

Foxfyre wrote:

The current Congress and President has complete authority to spend, not spend, increase, roll back, or do anything it wants to do re expenditures. Given that the Congress and President have that power, whatever is spent on Obama's watch, other than intractable entitlements or previously contracted obligations, is the current Congress and Administration's baby all the way.

Foxfyre is correct!

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It's really funny how conservatives are prone to conflict with themselves about responsibility for the economic crisis; some blame Dodd and Franks, and some like Foxie confirms that it's congress and the president who has "complete authority."

Which is it?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican, You keep trying to compare apples and oranges. You claim Bush's budget impacts only eight years, and Obama's budget impacts sixteen years.

I just continue to wonder how your brains work?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know