PDA

View Full Version : Economics Obama increased the debt more than Reagan and George W.....Myth and BS


BigRedChief
01-29-2010, 06:57 PM
The biggest contributors to the total federal debt, by far, are Republicans, starting with President Ronald Reagan, who doubled the debt during his eight years, from about $1.6 trillion to over $3.0 trillion, and George H.W. Bush, who added another $1.5 trillion in just four years, before George W. added nearly $5 trillion.

In fact, over his eight-year reign, George W. watched the total deficit go from about $5.7 trillion to $10.625 trillion, an increase of almost $5 trillion! And, in his last full fiscal year (2007/2008), which ended September 30, 2008, there was an increase of almost $1 trillion ($0.962 trillion) for just one year!

When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the federal debt stood at $10.626 trillion. As of the end of September, which is the end of a 2008/2009 federal fiscal year, the debt was $11.776 trillion, or an increase of about $1.15 trillion. Before President Obama took office, about $500 billion already had been spent in the 2008/2009 federal fiscal year…by the no-contest winner of the federal-deficit Presidents: George W. Bush.

Saul Good
01-29-2010, 06:59 PM
Why should we take this seriously when the post seems to use "debt" and "deficit" interchangeably?

patteeu
01-29-2010, 07:28 PM
Do you know how ridiculous you sound defending Obama on runaway spending, BRC? Do you really believe that Obama will make it through his term without eclipsing the debt racked up by either Reagan or Bush by huge margins?

If you feel strongly about admitting open gays into the military or about special benefits for unions or about expanded government control over banks and auto companies, then by all means pimp your guy, but don't make a fool of yourself by trying to defend Obama's spending record.

patteeu
01-29-2010, 07:35 PM
Without doing any checking of my own (i.e. using your numbers), here are the average annual deficits for Reagan, Bush, and Obama:

Reagan - $175 billion/yr
Bush - $616 billion/yr
Obama - $1.15 trillion/yr

Even if we give Obama every benefit of the doubt and assign that $500 billion you were talking about to Bush, the numbers are

Reagan - $175 billion/yr
Bush - $654 billion/yr
Obama - $929 billion/yr

In other words, under both scenarios, Obama is worse than Reagan and Bush COMBINED.

And he's not going to have anyone else to blame for any part of year 2 so it's going to get worse for Obama, not better.

Saul Good
01-29-2010, 07:38 PM
This also only addresses money spent, not obligations. You can't just compare where the numbers were when one president took office versus when another left office versus the numbers right this minute.

If my wife is in charge of our family's finances until the end of January, she could charge up $10,000 on the credit card this weekend. Then, when we get the bill in February, she could point to the bill when she was in charge versus the bill when I was in charge to make it seem like I was the one who couldn't manage a budget. It would be about as honest as these numbers.

Norman Einstein
01-29-2010, 07:38 PM
The biggest contributors to the total federal debt, by far, are Republicans, starting with President Ronald Reagan, who doubled the debt during his eight years, from about $1.6 trillion to over $3.0 trillion, and George H.W. Bush, who added another $1.5 trillion in just four years, before George W. added nearly $5 trillion.

In fact, over his eight-year reign, George W. watched the total deficit go from about $5.7 trillion to $10.625 trillion, an increase of almost $5 trillion! And, in his last full fiscal year (2007/2008), which ended September 30, 2008, there was an increase of almost $1 trillion ($0.962 trillion) for just one year!

When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the federal debt stood at $10.626 trillion. As of the end of September, which is the end of a 2008/2009 federal fiscal year, the debt was $11.776 trillion, or an increase of about $1.15 trillion. Before President Obama took office, about $500 billion already had been spent in the 2008/2009 federal fiscal year…by the no-contest winner of the federal-deficit Presidents: George W. Bush.

Just wondering there BRC, where did you cut and past this one from? Not showing the references on purpose? Stealing content? Wanting others to think you wrote this yourself? :rolleyes:

Saul Good
01-29-2010, 07:39 PM
Without doing any checking of my own (i.e. using your numbers), here are the average annual deficits for Reagan, Bush, and Obama:

Reagan - $175 billion/yr
Bush - $616 billion/yr
Obama - $1.15 trillion/yr

Even if we give Obama every benefit of the doubt and assign that $500 billion you were talking about to Bush, the numbers are

Reagan - $175 billion/yr
Bush - $654 billion/yr
Obama - $929 billion/yr

In other words, under both scenarios, Obama is worse than Reagan and Bush COMBINED.

And he's not going to have anyone else to blame for any part of year 2 so it's going to get worse for Obama, not better.

How much of Bush's was interest from the debt in 2000?

BigRedChief
01-29-2010, 07:40 PM
Do you know how ridiculous you sound defending Obama on runaway spending, BRC? Do you really believe that Obama will make it through his term without eclipsing the debt racked up by either Reagan or Bush by huge margins?

If you feel strongly about admitting open gays into the military or about special benefits for unions or about expanded government control over banks and auto companies, then by all means pimp your guy, but don't make a fool of yourself by trying to defend Obama's spending record.I'm not defending his spending. I'm providing context. Reagan raised taxes, Reagan doubled the debt. Reagan increased the deficit. Where were Reagan's poll #'s after one year in office?

My point is historical context is needed by some here.

And FTR, I think we should balance the budget and not spend one dime more than we take in. And that the budget should be balanced by taking on entitlements.

patteeu
01-29-2010, 07:49 PM
I'm not defending his spending. I'm providing context. Reagan raised taxes, Reagan doubled the debt. Reagan increased the deficit. Where were Reagan's poll #'s after one year in office?

My point is historical context is needed by some here.

And FTR, I think we should balance the budget and not spend one dime more than we take in. And that the budget should be balanced by taking on entitlements.

Obama is no Reagan.

BigRedChief
01-29-2010, 07:51 PM
Obama is no Reagan.Thats right. He's spending less, he's not raising taxes like Reagan and his top tax rate he wants to have is 34%. Reagans was what 70%? Again, context.

patteeu
01-29-2010, 07:58 PM
Thats right. He's spending less, he's not raising taxes like Reagan and his top tax rate he wants to have is 34%. Reagans was what 70%? Again, context.

He's not spending less. You posted the numbers... how could you not know this?

Reagan CUT top tax rates by 60%. Obama wants to RAISE top tax rates by almost 12% (to 39.1% not 35%).

Bwana
01-29-2010, 07:59 PM
:spock:

KCWolfman
01-29-2010, 08:34 PM
Ronald Reagan and GWB both had years where Dems controlled House, Senate, or Both.

Why do people continue to ascribe debt created to solely the party in the WH? Blame the party that created the plan as well. Be honest

petegz28
01-29-2010, 08:40 PM
Thats right. He's spending less, he's not raising taxes like Reagan and his top tax rate he wants to have is 34%. Reagans was what 70%? Again, context.

Reagan did NOT raise taxes to 70%.

MarcBulger
01-29-2010, 08:42 PM
So in 8 years Bush spent 5 trillion over what was taken in...In 1 year Obama over spent by 1 trillion. SO if my math is correct in 7 more years ObaMA will be 8 Trillion over..OK thanks for playing..

BigRedChief
01-29-2010, 09:31 PM
He's not spending less. You posted the numbers... how could you not know this?

Reagan CUT top tax rates by 60%. Obama wants to RAISE top tax rates by almost 12% (to 39.1% not 35%).
Since I voted for both, I win! :Poke:

HonestChieffan
01-30-2010, 07:03 AM
This may help if you want to understand more about debt and deficit:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2178.cfm

Norman Einstein
01-30-2010, 08:48 AM
This may help if you want to understand more about debt and deficit:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2178.cfm

HCF, he doesn't want to understand, he just wants to scream about the situation as he understands it.

HonestChieffan
01-30-2010, 09:22 AM
BRC is pretty reasonable so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he looks at the information on that link.

Mr. Kotter
01-30-2010, 09:53 AM
Thats right. He's spending less, he's not raising taxes like Reagan and his top tax rate he wants to have is 34%. Reagans was what 70%? Again, context.

Doug... :spock:

....uh, you really needed to re-examine the facts if that is your mistaken understanding.

BTW, link? :shrug:

Norman Einstein
01-30-2010, 10:18 AM
BRC is pretty reasonable so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he looks at the information on that link.

We seem to have very different opinions of BRC.

BigRedChief
01-30-2010, 10:21 AM
This may help if you want to understand more about debt and deficit:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2178.cfm
I did go look at the link. I agrree with some points but its a group/viewpoint thats too far to the right so I can't trust their conclusions or #'s. It would be like trusting Daily Kos for factual information.

Our Mission
To formulate and promote conservative public policies

Sorry, even if what they say may be true their political direction and purpose is a one sided agenda.

BigRedChief
01-30-2010, 10:23 AM
Doug... :spock:

....uh, you really needed to re-examine the facts if that is your mistaken understanding.

BTW, link? :shrug:My point and "understanding" is that some on here need some historical context in their thought process. What is happening today is not a lot different from what has happened in the past.

Norman Einstein
01-30-2010, 10:30 AM
My point and "understanding" is that some on here need some historical context in their thought process. What is happening today is not a lot different from what has happened in the past.

When did the government bail out wallstreet in the past? When did they take over corporations and dictate policy with them? I think your objectivity is really in the dumper there dude.

patteeu
01-30-2010, 10:49 AM
I did go look at the link. I agrree with some points but its a group/viewpoint thats too far to the right so I can't trust their conclusions or #'s. It would be like trusting Daily Kos for factual information.

Our Mission
To formulate and promote conservative public policies

Sorry, even if what they say may be true their political direction and purpose is a one sided agenda.

Good lord, you can't possibly be comparing the Daily Kos with the Heritage Foundation. WTF?

Compare Heritage with the Brookings Institute or with the faculty at Harvard if you want, but Kos? Don't bogart that joint. You've had enough.

BigRedChief
01-30-2010, 10:58 AM
Good lord, you can't possibly be comparing the Daily Kos with the Heritage Foundation. WTF?

Compare Heritage with the Brookings Institute or with the faculty at Harvard if you want, but Kos? Don't bogart that joint. You've had enough.I don't know what goes on reguarlly at Daily Kos since I don't visit there. I've been pointed to the heritage foundation by Republicans before. It is a partisan website and think tank. That was my point, not that Daily Kos and the Heritage foundation are on the same intellectual level.

And my experience is that the Heritage foundation is not filled with BS lies but they do slant their stories, facts to match their political viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that other than it makes them partisan website.

HonestChieffan
01-30-2010, 11:47 AM
I did go look at the link. I agrree with some points but its a group/viewpoint thats too far to the right so I can't trust their conclusions or #'s. It would be like trusting Daily Kos for factual information.

Our Mission
To formulate and promote conservative public policies

Sorry, even if what they say may be true their political direction and purpose is a one sided agenda.

Every data point referenced is reference linked to federal sites to support the data. Sadly in our high paced and intellectually shallow world, we have developed into a culture of doubt the information becuse we have some bias directed at the source. Instead of learning from the information, its far to easy to toss it because of a bias, fact based or not.

patteeu
01-30-2010, 12:19 PM
I don't know what goes on reguarlly at Daily Kos since I don't visit there. I've been pointed to the heritage foundation by Republicans before. It is a partisan website and think tank. That was my point, not that Daily Kos and the Heritage foundation are on the same intellectual level.

And my experience is that the Heritage foundation is not filled with BS lies but they do slant their stories, facts to match their political viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that other than it makes them partisan website.

OK, fair enough. I don't think it's right to say that they slant their stories to match their viewpoints though. I think it would be more fair to say that their viewpoints/theories inform their assumptions and their models and that their conclusions flow naturally from there. Same as any good analyst.

BigRedChief
01-30-2010, 12:41 PM
Every data point referenced is reference linked to federal sites to support the data. Sadly in our high paced and intellectually shallow world, we have developed into a culture of doubt the information becuse we have some bias directed at the source. Instead of learning from the information, its far to easy to toss it because of a bias, fact based or not.I agree. Hence the rights disbelief of any #'s published by the white house.

I'm not saying anything negative about the heritage foundation other than its a partisan website. Factual statistics can be made to match a certain viewpoint without even that much effort in the era of google.

KCTitus
01-30-2010, 01:37 PM
It takes two to tango...both congress and president are responsible for the ongoing debt problems. Reagan's tax rate cuts nearly doubled the revenues to the treasury and still they couldnt stop spending...they outspent their revenues.

Bottom line this has got to stop.

If it was bad in Bush's day to deficit spend, it's bad now too. The latest budgets proposed have 1 Trillion dollar deficits for several years and by 2019, the debt will be about 70% of GDP. Also, This doesn't take into account those things like Social Security which will also go negative in 9 years.

I would like to think we can all agree on these points regardless of bias. If so, why doesn't those in control of government reverse course and immediately? Either they're irretrievably stupid or it's intentional.

Neither option is comforting.

ROYC75
01-30-2010, 02:23 PM
BRC is like the 3 monkeys on this one, hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil on dear leader Obot, the spending machine.

BRC, How much was that in a 10 year period he proposed ?

Comrade Crapski
03-08-2013, 06:52 AM
Barack Obama attended high school (or was it school, high? Nah, go with the first one) at the prestigious George Orwell Academy for the Political Performing Arts on the West Side of Chicago. There, he met his best friends for the next few years, Fat Albert and Rerun.

Fat Albert was likable and very outgoing, but he could be rather shallow; you could almost think of him as two-dimensional. Rerun was a rotund fellow who loved revolutionary dance, although the spinning around made him dizzy. Rerun's most notable affect on the young Obama's life was to introduce Barack to his sister, Dee, who would later become Mrs. Obama. They immediately shared much in common, such as a love of Marxist Comedy and a propensity for name changes.

The Orwell School was very high on sloganeering; in fact, the walls of the building were loaded with them. Phrases like "Freedom is Slavery" and "War is Peace" and "Buy Band Candy or Die!" importuned the eye wherever one looked, imprinting their kindly Stalinist messages into the mush of young brains. Obama was impressed with the messages, especially the band candy one.

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Mao_BuyCandy.jpg

The strategy of sloganeering seemed an ideal one for building revolutionary fervor in the hearts and minds of the oppressed masses. As a political weapon, it is a masterstroke; a minimal amount of data for low-information proletariat types to remember, yet an almost hypnotic effect from the repetition of the message. Obama was excited at his discovery! He wanted to rush home and tell mom the news, but first he had to go and buy some band candy or the telescreen would report him.

Obama's favorite subject in high school was Parliamentary Melodrama, taught by Mr. Trotsky. Despite Barack's love of the subject, his class participation was minimal and his report cards show him merely as "present" for these sessions on most days. Even worse, Barack persistently fell behind in Chemistry where his project to develop a Revolution-Promoting Extremely-Rapid Oxidation Device was, to coin a phrase, a dud. Luckily his lab partner little Billy Ayers was an expert in such matters, having blown up many tools of the oppressors in his mansion as a child. Billy was happy to help Barack out; in fact, he was always wishing he could do more, at least when it came to explosions.

In contrast, girlfriend Dee (whose name was now Aretha) was doing excellently in school. Her best subject was Anti-Imperialist English where she won a Double Plus Very Good Award for her essay, "If You Don't Give Me A Good Mark for This, You're A Racist!"

It wasn't that Barack was not bright, for as we all now know he is the brightest person there ever was or ever will be on this planet and probably lots of other planets we don't know about yet. No, the problem was that his great mind was on other things, bigger gooder things like bringing Hope and Change to the World and probably lots of other worlds we don't know about yet. But it might be hard because most people are too stupid to recognize brilliance when they see it; brilliance can only be recognized by the brilliant but they can only recognize some of the brilliance because you cannot recognize all the brilliance of someone more brilliant than you. That idea likely came from one of Chairman Mao's little Red Books that all the brilliant people were reading at the time.

Chairman Mao's other brilliant idea was to eradicate all the dummies who were not brilliant enough to recognize the brilliance in Chairman Mao. Would that work in the United States? Probably not, because the media was not in the control of Party functionaries as they were in progressive societies (Ed. note: It's true! They really WEREN'T back then! Hard to believe, isn't it?).

Media organs that reported news instead of performing their primary function of promoting progressive political agendas could foment counter-revolutionary movements among the unwashed. The downtrodden would lose sight of the current truth and start believing the newspapers because they contained comics and money-off coupons on toilet paper. No, unfortunately, the American downtrodden had to be CONVINCED of the superior person's correctness; they couldn't simply be told what to do, which is how it usually happens in more enlightened and progressive societies.

But how?

The answer came as Barack munched on some band candy: the slogan! Why had the capitalist oppressors succeeded in foisting the reactionary pig Richard Nixon on the American workers in 1972 instead of the enlightened President McGovern? It was so simple, it was brilliant - Nixon had a much better slogan than McGovern!

Nixon's slogan in 1972 was "Four More Years". It was clear, direct and left the huddled voter with plain instructions: "Give me four more years of power and then go on with your worthless little lives." There also was a touch of unspoken threat to it, a tacit demand that helped focus the simple minds of the simple-minded.

In contrast, President McGovern's slogan was "Come home, America!" What the hell was that? It sounded as if he was calling his dog! The easily-duped voter would be sitting in his living room and say to himself, "What's he talking about? I already AM home!"

This was a key insight from the brilliant mind of Obama. The average person retains no more than a few tidbits of information. Everyone remembers the words to the Winston Cigarette jingle ("Winston tastes good like a cigarette should!") but nobody remembers the Preamble to the Constitution ("Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth a new nation...") Why? Unlike the preamble, the jingle has the virtues of being short and easy to remember and contains no complex ideas.

Political campaigns back then were full of junk like platforms and philosophies and positions; there were just too many "P's" for the average downtrodden to be able to sort through and come up with the correct vote! Why confuse the unwashed with facts and figures that they are ill-equipped to deal with, and risk their wrong decision? Ideas were useless baggage in a Presidential campaign, pearls before the swine American voter. A slogan is all he would need; tell the voter what to do, instead of hoping he would come up with the right answer.

Barack set to work on developing his slogan, one that would mesmerize, control, and instruct the average downtrodden in a few key words. Below are some of his early attempts:

"Trust me, I know what I'm doing!"
"Obama does good like a President should!"
"Buy band candy or die!"
"You're hopeless but you can change if you have to, you guess."
"Believe that we can hope to change!"

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=6490668

Garcia Bronco
03-08-2013, 08:38 AM
oy veh.

Congress spends the money. Not the President.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2013, 08:41 AM
It takes two to tango...both congress and president are responsible for the ongoing debt problems.

Yup! Plus all revenue bills originate in the House. Except for the Fiscal Cliff bill and Obamacare.

See what's happening, that bodes even worse nowadays?

BigChiefTablet
03-08-2013, 02:29 PM
The standard democrat argument: "The republicans did it too."

Well, here's a newsflash. Both parties suck. That doesn't mean what either have done or are doing is right.

I don't like either party, but at least some republicans seem to be realizing that they can't continue to spend way more than they take in.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2013, 02:49 PM
The standard democrat argument: "The republicans did it too."

Well, here's a newsflash. Both parties suck. That doesn't mean what either have done or are doing is right.

I don't like either party, but at least some republicans seem to be realizing that they can't continue to spend way more than they take in.

Yes. But Rs only act like Rs when the opposition has the WH. Give them a war, military intervention or invasion and they'll all be willing to vote spending for that.

BigChiefTablet
03-08-2013, 03:36 PM
Yes. But Rs only act like Rs when the opposition has the WH. Give them a war, military intervention or invasion and they'll all be willing to vote spending for that.

Which is why I don't like either party. The repubs give lip service to fiscal responsibility but don't actually ever do anything constructive about it. The dems give lip service to helping the poor but don't actually ever do anything constructive about it.

jettio
03-08-2013, 04:00 PM
Reagan's addition to the debt may be justifiable if that had anything to do with accelerating the end of the Cold War and the advent of Free Trade that Clinton undertook.

Bush I did his best to deal with the circumstances he faced. He got screwed by Reagan because Reagan's policies increased the debt, Bush I followed similar policy as Reagan, and then Perot builds a campaign based on nothing but reducing the debt, and Clinton gets the job.

Clinton did an outstanding job regards debt because he raised taxes early at political risk, he was fortunate to benefit from economic growth from Free Trade, when we had comparative advantage and tech growth.

B*sh inherited a great situation, but gave that up simply for ideological and theoretical reasons without concern for the consequences. Cut taxes. Then 9/11 and response slowed the economy and made unforeseen budget demands. However, Iraq War was incredibly expensive and unnecessary. Clinton had gone along with deregulation and B*sh regulators perfected the art of sleeping on the job. So then B*sh turns over an economy in awful condition.

Of course, Obama is going to have to spend money to try to limit the downturn and effect a recovery. The Stimulus was not perfect, but any President would have spent a lot of money to stimulate the economy under the circumstances.

Chris Getz might have batting average of .800 in a league where everybody else is 11-12 years old. But he is not going to bat .800 in the majors this year.

A good analysis takes into account the circumstances faced by that President.

Grades Regarding debt.

Reagan: B: mad spender, but seems to have had good results and debt effects exaggerrated.

GHW Bush: Audit: automatically screwed by the circumstances.

Clinton: A: started with an unpopular tax increase, trade, tech, timing, ends with surplus

B*sh: F: tax cut for no reason, war for no reason, lax oversight, financial disaster

Obama: Incomplete: automatically screwed from the beginning, no win situation regards debt

Garcia Bronco
03-08-2013, 04:33 PM
Reagan's addition to the debt may be justifiable if that had anything to do with accelerating the end of the Cold War and the advent of Free Trade that Clinton undertook.

Bush I did his best to deal with the circumstances he faced. He got screwed by Reagan because Reagan's policies increased the debt, Bush I followed similar policy as Reagan, and then Perot builds a campaign based on nothing but reducing the debt, and Clinton gets the job.

Clinton did an outstanding job regards debt because he raised taxes early at political risk, he was fortunate to benefit from economic growth from Free Trade, when we had comparative advantage and tech growth.

B*sh inherited a great situation, but gave that up simply for ideological and theoretical reasons without concern for the consequences. Cut taxes. Then 9/11 and response slowed the economy and made unforeseen budget demands. However, Iraq War was incredibly expensive and unnecessary. Clinton had gone along with deregulation and B*sh regulators perfected the art of sleeping on the job. So then B*sh turns over an economy in awful condition.

Of course, Obama is going to have to spend money to try to limit the downturn and effect a recovery. The Stimulus was not perfect, but any President would have spent a lot of money to stimulate the economy under the circumstances.

Chris Getz might have batting average of .800 in a league where everybody else is 11-12 years old. But he is not going to bat .800 in the majors this year.

A good analysis takes into account the circumstances faced by that President.

Grades Regarding debt.

Reagan: B: mad spender, but seems to have had good results and debt effects exaggerrated.

GHW Bush: Audit: automatically screwed by the circumstances.

Clinton: A: started with an unpopular tax increase, trade, tech, timing, ends with surplus

B*sh: F: tax cut for no reason, war for no reason, lax oversight, financial disaster

Obama: Incomplete: automatically screwed from the beginning, no win situation regards debt


Good post, but the Reason Bush supported a Tax Cut is because of the dotcom bust and the tanking of the retail market. People were not spending money.

jettio
03-08-2013, 05:11 PM
Good post, but the Reason Bush supported a Tax Cut is because of the dotcom bust and the tanking of the retail market. People were not spending money.

I seem to recall the main argument for the tax cut was the expected surplus. That it was better to let the people keep their money instead of trusting the government not to find new ways of spending the excess.

I googled and came up with this article. For some reason the website has a 2009 date, but it seems like it is referring to a weekly radio address early in his first term before the major tax cuts passed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-274334.html

BigRedChief
03-08-2013, 06:42 PM
Good post, but the Reason Bush supported a Tax Cut is because of the dotcom bust and the tanking of the retail market. People were not spending money.BS revisionist history. He justified the tax cut because of the surplus and the booming economy. The bad economy came after the tax cut was in place.

patteeu
03-08-2013, 06:54 PM
BS revisionist history. He justified the tax cut because of the surplus and the booming economy. The bad economy came after the tax cut was in place.

Speaking of revisionist history, the recession of 2001 started in March. The first round of Bush Tax cuts didn't happen until June 2001. The second round didn't happen until 2003.

BigRedChief
03-08-2013, 06:59 PM
Speaking of revisionist history, the recession of 2001 started in March. The first round of Bush Tax cuts didn't happen until June 2001. The second round didn't happen until 2003.welll these timelines on when recessions start and finish are BS. Your grasping at straws. Google the time period. It was the government is taking in too much money and the economy is good. Lets have some temp taxbreaks. I remember the era real well.

"Obama's" recession ended in 2009 officially. Anyone believe that? We are just now seeing anything that could even be labeled a "recovery".

patteeu
03-08-2013, 08:20 PM
welll these timelines on when recessions start and finish are BS. Your grasping at straws. Google the time period. It was the government is taking in too much money and the economy is good. Lets have some temp taxbreaks. I remember the era real well.

"Obama's" recession ended in 2009 officially. Anyone believe that? We are just now seeing anything that could even be labeled a "recovery".

Wrong. The shitty economy Bush inherited was shitty well before his tax cuts. The shitty economy during the Obama administration has endured through every heroic effort of our dear leader and shows little sign of getting back to GWBush levels, much less the prosperity of the 80s and 90s.

mlyonsd
03-08-2013, 09:46 PM
Wrong. The shitty economy Bush inherited was shitty well before his tax cuts. The shitty economy during the Obama administration has endured through every heroic effort of our dear leader and shows little sign of getting back to GWBush levels, much less the prosperity of the 80s and 90s.

Obama can't really hold Bush's jock on any issue if you think about it.

BigRedChief
03-08-2013, 09:53 PM
Wrong. The shitty economy Bush inherited was shitty well before his tax cuts. The shitty economy during the Obama administration has endured through every heroic effort of our dear leader and shows little sign of getting back to GWBush levels, much less the prosperity of the 80s and 90s.Summation:


Republican inherits a surplus and a booming economy from a Democrat. Runs it into the ground.
Democrat inherits worst recession ever from a Republican. Doesn't fix the Republican mess in less than 3 years.

Both are the fault of the democrats. Got it. ;)

petegz28
03-08-2013, 09:54 PM
Summation:


Republican inherits a surplus and a booming economy from a Democrat. Runs it into the ground.
Democrat inherits worst recession ever from a Republican. Doesn't fix the Republican mess in less than 3 years.

Both are the fault of the democrats. Got it. ;)

Bush did not inherit a booming economy, unless you consider all the layoffs from post-Y2k and the .com bubble bursting a booming economy

mlyonsd
03-08-2013, 09:55 PM
Summation:


Republican inherits a surplus and a booming economy from a Democrat. Runs it into the ground.
Democrat inherits worst recession ever from a Republican. Doesn't fix the Republican mess in less than 3 years.

Both are the fault of the democrats. Got it. ;)
Inherited a surplus what?

petegz28
03-08-2013, 09:56 PM
Inherited a surplus what?

you're not using your calculater with the democrat secret ring decoder.

BigRedChief
03-08-2013, 10:23 PM
Inherited a surplus what?Are you trying to say that when the Clinton administration ended, there wasn't a surplus in the government budget left for your boy Bush? Check the facts.

patteeu
03-09-2013, 09:15 AM
Summation:


Republican inherits a surplus and a booming economy from a Democrat. Runs it into the ground.
Democrat inherits worst recession ever from a Republican. Doesn't fix the Republican mess in less than 3 years.

Both are the fault of the democrats. Got it. ;)

Bush didn't inherit a booming economy. He inherited an economy whose dot-com bubble had just burst and which was tanking toward inevitable recession. We're going to have to rename you to BigRevisionistChief.

Comrade Crapski
03-09-2013, 09:28 AM
Summation:

[LIST=1]
Republican inherits a surplus

More fairy tales and lies.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Comrade Crapski
03-09-2013, 09:29 AM
Bush didn't inherit a booming economy. He inherited an economy whose dot-com bubble had just burst and which was tanking toward inevitable recession. We're going to have to rename you to BigRevisionistChief.

The only thing Bush inherited from Clinton was 20 Saudi terrorists and Jamie Gorelick's wall.

BigRedChief
03-09-2013, 09:38 AM
Bush didn't inherit a booming economy. He inherited an economy whose dot-com bubble had just burst and which was tanking toward inevitable recession. We're going to have to rename you to BigRevisionistChief.Typically Republican tactic. We are not doing "X". You are doing "X".

The history books are clear. Bush inherited a surplus of tax $'s and the dot come crash occurred in March 2000 with the collapse of the stocks on NASDAQ. Come on man, this is just plain facts.

Comrade Crapski
03-09-2013, 09:42 AM
Typically Republican tactic. We are not doing "X". You are doing "X".

The history books are clear. Bush inherited a surplus of tax $'s and the dot come crash occurred in March 2000 with the collapse of the stocks on NASDAQ. Come on man, this is just plain facts.

Why would Pat, who is a republican, want to take credit away from Newt Gingrich and the republican congress for that surplus?

Because their wasn't a surplus. It was a CBO estimate. There never was a vault full of cash.

patteeu
03-09-2013, 10:06 AM
Typically Republican tactic. We are not doing "X". You are doing "X".

The history books are clear. Bush inherited a surplus of tax $'s and the dot come crash occurred in March 2000 with the collapse of the stocks on NASDAQ. Come on man, this is just plain facts.

It's not the facts that I'm having trouble with. It's your revisionist interpretation.

Dot-com collapse -> cratering economy -> recession Bush inherited.

jettio
03-09-2013, 10:35 AM
It's not the facts that I'm having trouble with. It's your revisionist interpretation.

Dot-com collapse -> cratering economy -> recession Bush inherited.

So are you saying that during the 2000 campaign and the public speaking tour he undertook to sell the tax cut plan, B*sh's primary justification for the tax cut plan was the projected surplus, but that his primary justification changed by the time the first tax cuts were passed a few months into his Presidency?

Do you have any evidence of that?

It is undeniable what B*sh said on the campaign trail about the surplus and the tax cut. It is also undeniable that he kept making that same argument in the first months of his Presidency until the tax cuts passed.

I don't remember that B*sh ever changed his primary justification before the tax cuts were passed. However, if he did, is that not further proof that he was flying blind and taking an action based on ideology without regard for reality and consequences?

You should try to meet B*sh and have an extended discussion of his Presidency with him. He knows he messed some things up even if you never want to give him any credit for his mistakes.

BucEyedPea
03-09-2013, 10:55 AM
Typically Republican tactic. We are not doing "X". You are doing "X".

The history books are clear. Bush inherited a surplus of tax $'s and the dot come crash occurred in March 2000 with the collapse of the stocks on NASDAQ. Come on man, this is just plain facts.

History books are NOT clear because correlation does not imply causation. Not when other factors are taken into account. You should know that's a science and statistics claim. Your claim is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, just as Clinton inherited one from Bush Sr. This is the pattern the Austrian Economic school is constantly hammering home as being a result of Federal Reserve policies based on spending our way out of recessions. They call it the Business Cycle or the Boom-Bust cycle. It was going to happen with or without Bush in office or any tax cuts.

The dotcom boom was another artificial boom under Clinton in cahoots with Greenspan. Just as the 2008 and the "ownership society" under Bush was another artificial boom. The extra money put in circulation has to be spent somewhere. Real estate or stocks which creates overheated areas of speculation in the economy or cones. These eventually burst. They are not based on true value or increased production based on true market demands. They're inflated.

Tax cuts do not negatively impact economic activity by the players in the market which is the people. Govt spending simply crowds it out and that is a FACT. People who are anti-tax cuts are more concerned about govt growth which is just as much an ideology as those who believe in economic liberty ( growth ).

patteeu
03-09-2013, 11:09 AM
So are you saying that during the 2000 campaign and the public speaking tour he undertook to sell the tax cut plan, B*sh's primary justification for the tax cut plan was the projected surplus, but that his primary justification changed by the time the first tax cuts were passed a few months into his Presidency?

Do you have any evidence of that?

It is undeniable what B*sh said on the campaign trail about the surplus and the tax cut. It is also undeniable that he kept making that same argument in the first months of his Presidency until the tax cuts passed.

I don't remember that B*sh ever changed his primary justification before the tax cuts were passed. However, if he did, is that not further proof that he was flying blind and taking an action based on ideology without regard for reality and consequences?

You should try to meet B*sh and have an extended discussion of his Presidency with him. He knows he messed some things up even if you never want to give him any credit for his mistakes.

I'm saying that both motivations were factors in the first cut. Getting the economy going was the primary factor in the second cut.

Prison Bitch
03-09-2013, 11:25 AM
I am just utterly amazed any Lib wants to go there regarding Obama + Debt.



As I've pointed out numerous times, Libs themselves are confused as hell. Half say, "Who cares about the debt - we need jobs and stimulus!" The other half is unaware this is occurring, and you get threads like this claiming he's cut spending (or spending was terrible when he got there)



Libs are childish little POS who can't even formulate coherent arguments. This is just another example.

BucEyedPea
03-09-2013, 11:26 AM
Study: White House & CBO Projections Cook the Books

An influential economics paper from four economists including Frederic Mishkin (Ben Bernanke’s former right-hand man) was presented at a forum in NYC on 22 February 2013 is mentioned here.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/study-white-house-cbo-projections-cook-the-books.html