AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@blatham,

Yep, Democrats are on a suicide mission.

@Foxfyre,

I am NOT overlooking that fact. Ican IS. The fiscal year started on Oct 1, 2008 Obama was not responsible until after he took office on Jan 21, 2009. Any deficit spending prior to that time can clearly be attributed to Bush. According to Treasury that was almost 600 billion dollars. You can't blame that deficit on Obama. Deficit is on MONEY SPENT during Bush's time in office. When ican claims Bush's 8 year deficit was less than 2 trillion dollars he is ignoring the last 4 months in office for Bush.

The allocation passed by Bush but NOT spent yet is being given 1o0% to Obama by your reckoning. That again would be false. Obama can't be responsible for allocations signed by Bush. Yes, he could have rolled it back but his failure to roll it back doesn't make him responsible for every penny of it.

Quote:

So what Obama signs into law or whatever the Congress spends from inaugeration day is Obama's baby

That logic completely ignores the fact that policies put in place by Bush are still in place on Jan 22. By that logic we can blame Bush totally for 9/11 and for the 2001 recession.

Quote:

President Bush had the same situation in 2001 when he took over and any deficit accumulated that year was on his watch and is included in his record.

There is a problem with that logic Fox. Bush took over with a SURPLUS for the year. You are giving Bush credit for Clinton's policies and making Obama responsible for Bush's policies. Even you can't think that is accurate.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

That rapier wit honed even sharper and brighter in my absence. Toss a tomato in the air anywhere near you and it's going to come down perfectly ready for those little triangle sandwiches.

2 Replies

@blatham,

The trouble with his sandwiches is they're also filled with bullshit. Don't accept one, even if Marilyn Monroe suddenly comes back to life and offers you one from a tray she's holding bust high.

2 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Hmm...would I munch on a poopwich for Marilyn? It's a dilemma I'd never previously considered. I think I shall flip a coin and then redact the result.

0 Replies

@parados,

Technically no President is responsible for anything spent other than what Congress allocates and he is responsible to distribute according to what Congress allocates. But the President does sign off on the appropriations bills and what is spent goes on his record. So whether Ican is off by several months on the graphs he has used, the fact is that he is absolutely right that President Bush and Congress were fiscally irresponsible and Obama intends to be very much more so.

Here's the projections from the Heritage Foundation who many on the Left have demonized for their conservative perspectives, but who nevertheless have done excellent research and who have an excellent track record for accuracy. They have been properly mostly complimentary of President Bush's tax policies which greatly reduced the deficits that otherwise would have occurred, but who have not been complimentary of fiscal excesses during his administration.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

Quote:

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures
Posted March 24th, 2009

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.

President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.

President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.

President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

How can you call Heritage an 'excellent' source when they print such tripe?

From the piece,

Quote:

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.

This simply is not true. The public debt went up by 5 trillion dollars during Bush's term, not 2.5 trillion. They are off by quite a bit.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

This is what I have been trying to explain to ican. He just doesn't get it.

Compare this statement to what ican has been repeating in post after post...

Quote:

Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years

Twice as much debt is NOT 4 times or 3.4 times as much. Ican is posting bull **** and the article you posted confirms it.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

"public debt" has meaning Cyc. They are correct concerning public debt. Public debt is debt held by the public so the total is basically achieved by simply adding the deficits up. Deficits however don't include trust fund debt. The total debt is public debt plus government debt to trust funds.

The projected deficits by the Obama administration only include public debt. So it is a fair comparison to compare public debt to public debt.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

As usual, Foxie misinterprets budgets for Bush and Obama; what Obama is required to do to extend unemployment benefits to hundreds of thousands of laid off workers is a cost that belongs to Bush - not Obama. It's not a matter of those people laid off from their jobs are lazy; it's all part and parcel of the federal government's responsibility to provide some form of stability for families who have lost jobs. What would conservatives have our government cut? They want to see starving people in our streets? That will surely increase crime. It's no less a responsibility of security provided our citizens by our military, police and firefighters.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

"public debt" has meaning Cyc. They are correct concerning public debt. Public debt is debt held by the public so the total is basically achieved by simply adding the deficits up. Deficits however don't include trust fund debt. The total debt is public debt plus government debt to trust funds.

The projected deficits by the Obama administration only include public debt. So it is a fair comparison to compare public debt to public debt.

Fair enough and I retract my allegation. But I dislike this use of 'public' debt. It doesn't accurately represent our debt as a society. It's like pretending that half your debts don't exist when calculating your bottom line. Not smart.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes, it does point to future large unfunded expenditures. However it does add something to the argument when you examine it.

Yes, the US will eventually have to tax enough to pay back those trust funds as the bill comes due. This leads us to another point about the argument of when the trust funds go bust.

If the government is capable of paying the money back for the trust fund then they are taking in enough money to cover the shortfall when the imaginary money in the funds run out.

Let me see if I can make it simple

For 10 years -
The government takes in $100 and spends $100 but borrows $50 from a trust fund. The deficit is zero but the debt is $50 per year.
Over 10 years the government would have a debt of $500.
Over the next 10 years the government takes in $150 and spends $150 but $50 of what it spends is what was promised in the trust fund.

At the end of those 10 years, the trust fund is now owed no money but..
The government is taking in $150 so it could still pay out $50 for the trust fund shortage and $100 for the rest of its spending.

What I am trying to illustrate is that trust funds aren't going to suddenly force large increases in taxation when they are no longer owed money. Those tax increases will have to come before then to balance the budget.

1 Reply

@parados,

That's a very simplified example without considering a) inflation, b) interest on the loan, c) unforeseen emergency expenditures needed beyond the annual budgets, and d) congress living within their means is an oxymoron.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I trust the Heritage numbers. Please post your evidence that disputes them. You should know the difference between the federal debt and the public debt before you do that, however.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Are you lonesome tonight?

Maybe you and ceci should hook up...

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

You have consumed bullshit sandwiches your entire life, why hope for any kind of change in your diet now?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

waterman, You create bullshit sandwiches, but not many here will consume it. The smell turns off people.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

ceci, it's time for your meds and a nap.
And please have an adult change your smelly diaper soon, you reek!

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

I don't need naps during the day, but from the evidence of your posts, you must create all that BS from your sleep.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

For all you conservatives; see if you know how to digest this and who to blame?

Quote:

U.S. economy tumbles steeply in first quarter
The U.S. economy contracted at a surprisingly steep 6.1 percent rate in the first quarter, dragged down by a record plunge in business inventories and a slump in exports, data showed on Wednesday.

Who do you think has the responsibility now to make sure that Americans are fed and housed? Try to guess how much in billions of dollars this has cost and will continue to cost, and who's budget it will be tacked onto?

All the bailouts of banks and auto companies also fall in the same category as does the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Obama inherited all these problems from your esteemed GW Bush.

You guys are too dense to understand how responsibility is placed on presidents.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know