Congressional Budget Office: Budget deficit drops to $435B

Stupidity is slashing government spending and laying off over half a million government workers in the midst of the worst recession in 80 years where there were already millions more unemployed.

 

I never suggested any such thing. Presidents do have veto though.

I have addressed all of your points. I it is you that keeps ignoring basic math.

The 2009 Bush Budget proposal was 400 Billion - 400 Billion baked into the cake
It was the Bush Crash that resulted in 600
The rest of the 400 Billion dollar deficit was from TARP and other stimulus spending due to the Bush Crash.

NONE of the above (except a small percentage of the stimulus spending) is attributable to Obama.

Republicans Reagan and Bush Sr spent money like princesses with credit cards .... increasing and not decreasing deficits. Bush Jr took a balanced budged and ended up with 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit which he handed to Obama.

Obama has reduced that deficit to under 500 Billion.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is a link to the CATO institute - which is certainly not a shill for the right wing - saying exactly the same thing I have just told you about the 2009 Deficit.

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

Blame whomever you like but, its not Obama's fault because he was not even in office when the money was spent.

 

is that not what I said, revenue is up and the dollar amounts are at historic highs. I was as usual, factually correct. Yet, we still see deficit spending which should be a huge cause for concern to all as the debt increases

 

Your statement about "historic revenue" creates an impression that revenues are at historic levels and yet we still have deficits, suggesting the problem is all in spending. By the normative measure against GDP, revenues are not at historic levels. If revenues were at FY2000 levels, the deficit would be virtually eliminated.

 

Really, it is so duplicitous for conservatives to pretend concern about the deficit. In fact the
We could easily address the deficit by returning tax rates to rates of the 90s

Concern for the deficit is simply a political tool that we know has a visceral public response
But the agenda is not really the deficit, or the health of the economy
It is only about serving an ideological agenda... Along with the interests of large donors

 

No. I did not. I recognised your point about the conditions Obama inherited and validated it. Bush points at Obama, Obama points at Bush. But if you take Obama/Bush together, they are both failures, it's time for change.

 

Sure you are. When you use your averages to make the false claim that the deficit has done so much worse under Obama, you are attributing to Obama the huge deficits from the Great Recession he inherited, and blaming it on him.

 

Nothing that I said is incorrect

The fed govt took in more $$$ revenue than ever yet continues to spend more thant it receives thus increasing the debt.

So, even with more $$$ than ever, they all, the cowards who won't stand up against Obama, and the socialist himself have dirty hands.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody would ever dare blame anything on Obama; that would be racist.

 

Yes. Only he constitutionally can sign budgets into law. Bush handed this power over him at the inauguration. Fiscally Bush was just terrible as President, I do not deny that, but I'm also certainly not blind to the fact that Obama is much worse. It's time for change.

 

Actually that would be a brilliant move. You see, not slashing government spending and
punishing the only people who pay their fair share of personal income taxes is why we're in the
worst recession since fdr. Had he left taxes alone and kept government spending at a
minimum the depression would have ended around the 2nd year of his presidency.

The government definitely needs to be slashed and personal income taxes need to be
slashed to the bone.

 

Your proving my point. Looking at raw numbers without the context of relation to GDP is inaccurate.

Then why do you blame him for the deficits he inherited. Are you a racist?

- - - Updated - - -

Only a modern "conservative" would say that eliminating half a million jobs in the worst recession in 80 years was a brilliant move.

It's brilliant if your goal is to undermine the economy, and then blame the president for the resulting weak recovery.

Gee, I wonder if any Republicans thought of that?

Fiction. Bush slashed personal income taxes to among the levels in decades, and yet still left the worst recession since FDR. Not to mention squandering a surplus budget and leaving the biggest deficits since WWII.

Great plan. If your goal is to make the richest richer at the expense of the middle classes. Which it is, isn't it?

 

Bush inherited a surplus budget and left the biggest deficit since WWII.

Obama inherited that deficit and it has dropped by 2/3.

I'm not sure how you could call Obama "much worse" with those facts.

 

It's a good thing I'm not a conservative.

You're describing the current economy and administration to a T.

Correct, the above is fiction. W didn't slash anything. If you'll remember, the economy didn't
crumble until the left gained control of both houses. Does the housing crash ring a bell?

During fdr the US didn't get out of the depression until WWII and his programs had
to be put on hold. Had it not been for WWII and his death there's no telling how bad
of shape the US would be in.

If you want to play the blame game at least be accurate.

Not true. This is typical leftist dogma. Cut their taxes so the middle class can grow. It's
worked every single time it's been done. EVERY TIME! The current administration has
stifled the middle class.

 

Bush tax cuts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

I do remember. If you'll remember, the housing bubble blew up to its absurd levels and started imploding before the Dems took control of Congress.



The recession was just a matter of time.

Year - GDP 2009$
1929 1,055.6
1930 965.8 -8.5%
1931 904.1 -6.4%
1932 787.5 -12.9%
1933 777.6 -1.3% <-FDR takes office
1934 861.4 +10.8%
1935 938.2 +8.9%
1936 1,059.6 +12.9%
1937 1,113.6 +5.1%
1938 1,076.7 -3.3%
1939 1,162.6 +8.0%
1940 1,265.0 +8.8%
1941 1,488.9 +17.7% <- US enters WWII in December
1942 1,770.3 +18.9%
1943 2,072.0 +17.0%
1944 2,237.5 +8.0%

There was nothing inaccurate in my statement.

Cutting taxes on millionaires and billionaires and cutting programs middle lower class folk depend on is a great way to make the rich richer. Which is your goal, isn't it?

 

No. Bush's final deficit , his largest, was still less than Obama's smallest. Bush was terrible on fiscal policy, but Obama has been much much worse. It's time for change.

 

Correct. W slashed nothing. Lowered, yes.

 

Play your stupid sematics games elsewhere.

The Democrats did not take over in 2006. Is that what Rush has been telling you?
Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post

I disagree that going from a 6 to 12 percent decline to an average 8% per year increase after FDR took office in 1934 is "nothing positive."

See above.

I have no problem with the rich getting richer, unless it is at the expense of the rest of the country.

Everybody else didn't get richer. Real incomes of the bottom 90% of American earners have barely changed since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, while real incomes of the rich skyrocketed.

Could be. Your greed has been working great for the 1%. Good for you.

 

Let's REALLY be honest.

The Clinton "surplus" was a result of intergovernmental borrowing, mainly from SS.

You know, a false surplus. Like taking out a loan and claiming your rich.

 

obama has not ignored it, he has done what all politicians do - kicked the can down the road so his successor has to deal with it. Just like the dumbocrats setup obamacare so that some benefits would kick in early and all the bad parts would kick in late in obama's term. As the CBO has stated for several years, the deficit will shrink, its at the bottom point now, then will increase significantly as soon as obuma leaves office.

 

are you kidding, Bush doubled the debt