Thank you for posting the chart. See that $161B in 2007. That was the last Republican budget, the Democrats took control of the congress January 2007 for FY 2008. See that 2008 deficit of $1,400B? And it stay over $1,000B for the next for, as usually the CBO projections were wrong. It doesn't matter that Bush was still in office when the Democrats took control of the budge in 2007 other than he was able to limit some of the higher spending they wanted to pass for FY2008 which is why that deficit is ONLY $400B. In 2008 for FY2009 they cut him out of the budget expecting and getting an incoming Democrat President who could then get his spending request included and sign their even HIGHER spending which President Obama did. Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Long title Making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. Enacted by the 111th United States Congress Effective March 11, 2009 Citations Public law 111.8 Legislative history Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 1105 by Dave Obey on February 23, 2009 Committee consideration by House Committee on Appropriations, House Committee on the Budget Passed the House of Representatives on February 25, 2009 (245-178) Passed the Senate on March 10, 2009 (voice vote) Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 11, 2009 And we got a $1,400B deficit. The Democrats increased spending 9% in 2008 and then 18% in 2009. And Obama as a Senator fully supported and voted for those Democrat budgets so spare me the Obama rode into town January 2009, he was part and parcel to those deficits and you don't just inherit what you helped to create. You can't divorce him from them. You and CATO make the fundamental mistake of just looking at from who was President and that it was ALL Republican until Obama moved over from the Senate to the White House. That is folly and fundamentally false. It's which PARTY controls the balance of power. Tell me did you support the Republican over the budget and spending battle with Obama and the Democrats? You know when they were blamed for shutting down the government and then the sequester? Or did you support Obama and the Democrats? Did you support Bush and vote for Republicans when they were taking their worst 2000/2001 recession deficit of $400B down to that measly $161B or did you help vote the Democrats back in?
Nope sorry that is not accurate at all. When exactly does the fiscal year start again? When exactly did the cost of the wars started in 2001 get put on the books again? being disingenuous doesn't actually alter reality. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/
AGAIN, it is not about OBAMA. It is about DEMOCRATS. You act as if the Republicans controlled not just the White House but the Congress until January of 2009. The Democrats took the Congress, and majority control of government particularlly the budget and fiscal policy, in January of 2007. The 2008 and 2009 deficits were DEMOCRAT deficits. If Obama inherited them from anyone if was from himself and his fellow Congressional DEMOCRATS. When you can understand that fundamental historical fact and REALITY get back to me.
It's not about the DEMOCRATS. It's about the HOUSING BUBBLE that BLEW UP TO ABSURD LEVELS and then started TANKING during the time the REPUBLICANS controlled the ENTIRE CONGRESS and the WHITE HOUSE. By the time the Democrats got the WH, the gig was already up and 98% of that spending was already locked in the books because of the GR.
From your link: 12%: This new rate applies to single filers starting at $12,000 up to $45,000 and married joint filers after the $24,000 deduction up to $90,000. 25%: This rate starts at $45,000 for single filers and $90,000 for married joint filers. I would fall into the 12% bracket but for the 2016 tax year I actually paid 7.3% of AGI and 12.7% of "taxable income" but that "taxable income" calculation will change under trump's plan. Since I itemized last year and I won't be able to under trump's plan, my "taxable" will most likely go up and I will end up paying more taxes.
so what you are saying is the administration is not responsible for any economic outcomes. Okay I get it.
The Democrats took control of the government and the budget two years before one of them moved over to the White House. Blame them for that already locked in spending why are yiu trying to blame Bush?
So tells us exactly what legislation the Dems passed that you claim was responsible for the deficit to skyrocket. It had nothing to do with anything the Dems did. It had everything to do with the gigantic housing bubble that blew up and started crashing while the Republicans controlled the government.
It dependsnon the make up of the government, sorry if that is too complicated for you. Presidents have the least budget control and least input. If their party has majority or total control then they have more input.
Their 2008 and 2009 budgets and huge spending increases DUH. Now explain how Bush was responsible for this "locked in spending" How abiut YOU responding to questions.
Which had nothing to do with Democratic legislation to expand programs (as you could not identify even one) but everything It had everything to do with the gigantic housing bubble that blew up and started crashing while the Republicans controlled the government.
Please quote the post you're referring to where you claim I said Bush was responsible for locking in the spending. I'm under no obligation to respond to your fabricated claims as to what I've said.
I see so it really isn't trumps economy and he's trying to take credit for something he has little or no control over. Typical.
Well then from whom are you claiming Obama inherited a deficit? The Democrats, which would be correct of course. Wack-A-Mole time again for you I see.
Bush wasn't a Democrat. The government had a trillion+ deficit when he left office because of the GR.
It had to do with their huge spending I inceases. Those were their budgets just ad the ones 1996-2007 were Republican. Aoblets compare them. Which had the highest deficits?
Congress was, both houses, their budgets. And it had a trillion dollar deficit, actually a $1,400B just two years after the last Rwpublican $161B, because of their HUGE spending increases which they BRAGGED about including how Bush would not have them over a barrel for 2009 and they cut him out so a Democrat President could get their spending increases in and sign the budget. Guess who that was? So why are you trying to blame Bush for not stopping your guys from enacting policies yiu supported. They didn't even present him a budget to veto. That's a little self serving wouldn't you say? So who did Obama inherit that deficit? "We have seen the enemy and he is us"....Pogo
Baseless nonsense. You utterly failed to identify one new spending program the Dems passed that caused that spending increase. They couldn't in any event, because Bush was president. Which you like to conveniently forget.
This GOP bill is a head-fake, roughly a revenue neutral bill. What we need is a real tax-cut, paid for by reductions in government spending and/or sale of government assets. But the "clever" little RINOS have no interest in that.
Republican Tax Cuts cutting Medicare and Repealing Healthcare to pay for cuts to Rich repeal move also was dictated by the Republicans' need to find revenue sources for the massive tax-cut bill, which calls for steep reductions in the corporate tax rate and elimination of some popular tax breaks. "We are optimistic that inserting the individual mandate repeal would be helpful; that's obviously the view of the Senate Finance Committee Republicans," Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters.
Proposed cuts in spending to stuff this pig of a bill into the reconciliation envelope haven't received enough attention yet. They started with the $1.5 trillion cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Now, they want to repeal the Obamacare mandate. The idea is to have people drop health insurance to save on subsidies (yes, you heard it, less insured people = better in GOP land). Of course, those are often healthy, young men, who think they'll never get sick -- until they do. Who is then going to pick up their bill? Well, look into how that worked before Obamacare. Second, premiums are going to rise because less healthy people pay into the pool. So, this is another hidden "tax" increase (plus benefit cut) to the majority, while a tiny minority will get a huge tax cut they don't need and will stuff under the mattress.
With the proposed elimination of PA property tax and an increased state income tax as well as an increased state sales tax, I am not going to see any benefit for my tax situation. I may as well move out of my state. This country is so ****ed up. In PA, it's a giant hand out to baby boomers that pushed the legislation, and a gigantic detriment to the working class. Working class renters will feel ZERO benefit to the removal of this property tax and landlords are under no obligation to reduce rent payments because they no longer have a tax burden. This is a wealth shift in PA from the poor to the rich, as usual.
That's not the point. The point for me personally is that my state is doing me a triple whammy; 1. My wife is a teacher so cuts to education funding directly impacts my and my family's lives 2. cutting state property tax and increasing income tax and sales tax will absolutely cost me more over the year then my current school property tax and 3. the FED disallowing me to exclude income taxes paid to the state will no longer be allowed. I stand to lose quite a bit. Hence why I am against both of these moves, the federal and state. In my state this change will only benefit old people, not the working class, not the poor, no one but the baby boomers who pushed it. It's absurd, and it is the furthest thing from fair - a lot of those people don't have a mortgage to pay, nor do they shop much. I agree with taking care of our elderly but not at the expense of every red cent I earn.
