Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Politics Free For A Month?
Log In to post a reply
100 messages
View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Labhead
Labhead
1868 posts

Re: Bush vs Obama deficit

cybele wrote:
Again, I don't want this to happen. This is why I didn't support all of the spending that Bush did and I surely didn't vote for Obama. His spending puts the Bush spending on steroids.


From the Congressional Budget Office...
re:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1

and: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/how-we-crunched-the-deficit-numbers/?ref=economy


There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.

The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.

[...]

The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.
[...]
========================================

I'll admit that I wish Obama was doing more to bring this down, even if he's only responsible for perhaps 10% of this debt... he is still responsible for bringing down Bush's spending, but I suspect he's screwed either way. If he tries to pull back from Iraq and Afghanistan too quickly, people will say he's soft on war. No matter what he does, someone will complain.

I personally think a lot of economic problems would be solved if he would modify the war on drugs in regards to the softer drug(s), but how many people would chastise him if he were to legalize mary jane?

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Jun 22, 2009, 23:10



________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Topic Outline: