Mike A, I agree with your general angst about the deficits, but keep in mind the “The Obama legacy: “trillion dollar deficits for years to come.”” is really defining the reality of the present administration. In the past 8 years President Bush has ruled over the largest increase of our national debt in history. Using Treasury data ( http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm ) the over all increase from Sept 99 to Sept 2008 was $4,458,453,995,297.06. Some economist types have published data does show a doubling of our national debt during the Bush years, but I am using the Treasury data to make my point. If you are going to blame Obama for a “legacy”, then be intellectually honest and attribute to Pres Bush this huge increase and present growth of deficits to him. I am not defending Obama, hell, he is not even president yet. It took 42 presidents to get to $5.6 Trillion, and it took one president to nearly double it.
Oh, and this data does not include the $750 Billion that the president asked for the Wall Street Bailout, nor the off the books stuff at the Federal Reserve. Fine mess we are in.
blast: As usual, a Dem in the White House will remind conservatives what a big spender REALLY is.
In one term Obama will deficit spend more than Bush did in 8 years.
P.S. Why do your stats suggest the Bush years started in Sept. 1999?
blast
16 years ago
mike a: Why do your stats suggest the Bush years started in Sept. 1999?
That was the Treasury dept’s fiscal years, it was the simplest research, but if you want to look at Jan 20th 2000 through today, then the actual case is much worse for President Bush. The increase in the deficit under President George W. Bush was $5,132,250,776,419.94 as of today and growing.
I don’t dispute that Obama will deficit spend more than Bush given the present and projected size of the deficit, and that is before any “stimulus package” is attached. With the deterioration of the economy the government naturally gets less in tax revenue. On our present course we are already in the trillion dollar a year national debt category. So lets be honest and not just blame Obama as this is a problem he is inheriting. That is not a get out of jail free card for his (Obama) administration either… they all need(ed) to focus on cutting the size of government.
blast, not to nit pick, but Bush was elected Nov 2000, and not sworn in until Jan 2001. So you may want to revise your revision from Jan 2001 forward.
And I’d say we’ll all agree that we did not like the spending under the GOP Congress, and Bush’s reticence to use his veto power to reign it all in. It is the fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP Congress I blame for 2006 and 2008 election results. Quite frankly, there have been no fiscally conservative GOPers to vote for, nor support.
And I’d say we also agree on a President Obama far outspending Bush as his “government is the cure” policy for the economy. Perhaps we should be sure to budget in the increased delay in recovery due to his proposed policies when we discuss his future spending… ala including the lost revenue from a slower-than-it-would-have-been-if-govt-didn’t-get-involved recovering business world.
blast: Following your calculus, anything Obama does wrong can be blamed on Bush. Even if it requires a fudging of the figures (Sept. 1999????) to make the case?
Sorry… Not going to work.
Bush was blamed for every hangover from the Clinton years and unless you are a member of the liberal “news” Obama apologist media it’s only fair to apply the same rules to him.
The question here is whether GOP leaders in the House and Senate will go along for the ride?
bbartlog
16 years ago
Soon, Republicans in Congress will get their first opportunity to show they stand for the principles of lower spending less government
Well, they already had lots of opportunities, but mostly didn’t avail themselves of them. It’s fair to say that I would attach a lot more weight to how my GOP congressmen voted when they had control of Congress than I will to how they vote and speak when they know they’re just blowing hot air.
Quite frankly, there have been no fiscally conservative GOPers to vote for
Dunno where you live, but nationally at least we had Thompson and Tancredo with decent credentials as fiscal conservatives (not to mention he who shall not be named). Maybe Hunter too, I never dug into his voting record though. Perhaps they were down and out by the time the primaries got to your state though.
blast
16 years ago
mike a:Following your calculus, anything Obama does wrong can be blamed on Bush. Even if it requires a fudging of the figures (Sept. 1999????) to make the case?
Mike, I (accidentally) used numbers that made Bush look better, not worse. I should have used the following sample set, but made a mistake, which did not paint Bush in a worse light, but a much better light. The number – revising it once again to account for dates etc, still leaves Bush with a HUGE deficit of $4,917,526,300,041.17 and if I used your counter from this post the Bush deficit would be over $5 Trillion and change (lots and lots of change), and growing.
My point is the Bush presidency was marked by the largest increase in our national debt in history. Do you dispute that? Do you dispute that the economy is declining and the national debt is over a trillion dollars annually already and growing at its fastest rate?
mike a:Bush was blamed for every hangover from the Clinton years and unless you are a member of the liberal “news” Obama apologist media it’s only fair to apply the same rules to him.
Ok, I hear you on that, now let agree to some things now then. When do you think we should assign responsibility for when Bush was accountable for the economy and I will recompute the deficit number to that date, so you can subtract as much of the Clinton hangover as you like. And likewise, let me know how long you think we should attribute the poor economy “the Bush hangover” to Bush and how long the Obama apologists have for blaming Bush vs. Obama. Just let me know so we know how to discuss this topic.
Mata, thanks for the correction, I updated my numbers here.
mata; And I’d say we’ll all agree that we did not like the spending under the GOP Congress, and Bush’s reticence to use his veto power to reign it all in.
I agree, but I am less to take him off the hook by calling it “reticence”, he could have vetoed the spending but chose to sign those checks. He is equally responsible or better. It takes an 2/3 majority to overturn a presidential veto and he could have forced the issue.
mata; And I’d say we also agree on a President Obama far outspending Bush as his “government is the cure” policy for the economy. Perhaps we should be sure to budget in the increased delay in recovery due to his proposed policys when we discuss his future spending… ala including the lost revenue from a recovering business world.
When the history of this is written we will know better of course. Right now I pray that Obama is successful as no matter what… he is our president for the next 4 years.
I agree, but I am less to take him off the hook by calling it “reticence”, he could have vetoed the spending but chose to sign those checks. He is equally responsible or better. It takes an 2/3 majority to overturn a presidential veto and he could have forced the issue.
Generally they have pulse’s of voting before bills are passed, and the WH for veto’s ability to be overturned. I suggest that most that were sent to the Oval Office desk would just have delayed the inevitable passage, and made it more difficult than it already was for Bush to prosecute the wars. The quid pro quo these past six years must have been unbelievably heavy. Dems did not give much support to war spending unless they got their pork projects in as riders. Kick out the pork, and lose the pearl of the appropriations?
I think, blast, there was more behind the scene on this stuff than you or I know. And ultimately, the handler of the purse strings is Congress. They have to take the onus of the blame by passing heavy spending to begin with. And when you look at how much of that is defense and war, there’s sty-load of pork in there. And… as we all agree… it’s only going to get worse.
When the history of this is written we will know better of course. Right now I pray that Obama is successful as no matter what… he is our president for the next 4 years.
I, personally, might revise that. Obama’s “success” does not necessarily translate to “success” for the US. And his economic New New Deal is a perfect example of that. He may be “successful” in implementing far more debt than is healthy for this nation downline. Obama “success” for his goals? Yes. But not success for us.
So yes, I pray for US success this next four years. Not for Obama’s “success”. In fact, I believe that in order for the first to happen, we many have to thwart moves Obama considers “success”.
marbleblaster
16 years ago
That debt counter spooks me bad.
Missy
16 years ago
I watched an interview that Tom DeLay did before he left the House. He was proud of the fact that they reduced the percentage of pork, which was their goal at the time. He explained that to get the budgets passed, you had to bargain for votes meaning our congress critters sell their votes. Funding our troops didn’t even change their way of doing business.
I understand what you are saying Mata. It’s sickening.
markdenis39
16 years ago
Blast – I also share a bit of your sentiment, however, Mata is more correct – Congress passes the budgets. And I do remember several years when Bush threatened vetoes of budgets that he considered too large – Congress (repubs?) had to repeatedly go back and cut more. Didn’t this also lead to a budget standoff one year that almost shut down the federal govt?
Point is that I believe GW tried to reign in Congress, BHO is giving them a blank check. I don’t think the Stimulus will do much and I was against it when GW did the mini-stimulus in ’08.
Elektra
16 years ago
@marbleblaster:
I know, right!
100,000 about every three seconds.
eep!
Gaffa: The President would have to veto an entire spending measure. Democrats in congress have made sure that a GOP President NEVER has line item veto authority.
And despite your best efforts to point the spending finger elsewhere, Obama has all but promised deficits which would dwarf those of the predecessors you cite.
Missy
16 years ago
Dem presidents that preceeded Reagan/Bush and GW Bush left our military in a mess, much had to be done to rebuild. Dems also promised spending cuts to both Reagan and Bush 41, they lied.
After his prison term, Dan Rostenkowski did an interview with the morning hosts on WLS/Chicago. The disgraced powerful dem, ruler of the House Ways and Means, later regretted what his party did to Bush 41. He said 41 was brave and knew allowing the tax increase would kill his career as president, but he believed the dems when they said they would cut spending. They lied and the sky is blue, grass is green, somethings are so dependable.
blast
16 years ago
mike a, I would love to see a balanced budget amendment and line item veto amendment. As to Obama and the deficits he is going to run… you never answered my questions from comment 7. I am really interested in when you think the “Clinton Hangover” should be calculated to, and how long the Bush hangover should be counted as well.
Blast: I usually only answer questions which interest me.
Interesting that you seem to wish to redraw the rules here.
“keep in mind the “The Obama legacy: “trillion dollar deficits for years to come.”” is really defining the reality of the present administration. In the past 8 years President Bush has ruled over the largest increase of our national debt in history. Using Treasury data “
Did Bush ever have a TRILLION dollar deficit?
EVER?
Your continued apologizing for Obama’s plans is nothing more than enablement of the most massive spending spree the federal government has ever seen.
blast
16 years ago
Mike,
I usually only answer questions which interest me.
I will remember that when you press the usual barrage of questions on me. For now I will then just have to be left guessing as to your motive to not answer such a salient question.
Did Bush ever have a TRILLION dollar deficit?
EVER?
Yes, for last calendar year the national debt was Jan 1 2008 – $9,210,587,444,062.47
Now subtract the present national debt (to be fair lets calculate the debt as of Dec 31, 2008 for a one year figure.) The debt as of Dec 31, 2008 was $10,699,804,864,612.13, making a difference of $1,489,217,420,549.66 — now as we wait on the present fiscal year to end many are stating that the budget deficit will be far north of the trillion mark.
The CBO is projecting $1.2 Trillion for FY 2009 (the last of the Bush Budget Years, without any Obama changes). Since this 2009 budget does overhang into the Obama year, lets look at what the FY 2009 deficit is year to date. From the beginning of the FY 2009 Oct 1, 2008 to today (your clock) the Bush deficit for FY2009 is $619,774,932,872.31… that is substantially more than the $407 Billion deficit he projected for all of FY2009.
Also, just do further answer you question about “did Bush ever have a trillion dollar deficit” – yes, he took office with a deficit of $5,728,195,796,181.57 it is now (according to your clock $10,774,000,000,000.00) so Bush did have more than a trillion dollar deficit over his term as well, way more… $5,045,804,203,818.43… and counting.
So we have a $5 trillion and growing deficit during the Bush Presidency, this last calendar year the deficit grew $1.489 Trillion dollars, and when the actual budget deficit comes in it will be over a trillion for sure, so to answer your question again… YES, Pres. George W. Bush did give us trillion dollar debts, Annually, Fiscally and over the duration of his presidency.
So I do ask you yet again… let me know when we can measure the end of the Clinton hangover and when we should stop measuring the Bush hangover. That way fairness can prevail and we don’t attach to Bush the poor economy he inherited, and then we can to the same for the next administration. I believe it is a valid question, but then again, you attack me as being partisan when that is precisely what you are doing. The facts speak for themselves.
Blast: Talking about future deficits, especially ones which overlap into Obama’s tenure in the White House hardly seems accurate when addressing the word “EVER.”
And let’s use facts, not play numbers:
You seem more interested in playing games than you do about addressing the spending problem in a serious way.
Again, it would appear you are an enabler for the big spenders.
blast
16 years ago
Mike, I wonder where you pulled that chart out of and what you are trying to say by posting it. The numbers I have posted were all from the Treasury department, with the exception to your clock of national debt.
You just can’t face the fact that the national debt has nearly doubled and cannot explain that away huh? You seem incapable of laying any responsibility on the sitting president while loading for bare on the incoming administration.
You seem more interested in playing games than you do about addressing the spending problem in a serious way.
Empty accusation. The facts say Bush nearly doubled the national debt… I and asked you when the Clinton hangover was over, and when you think the Bush hangover will be over and you toss out a strawman argument. What ever happened to responsibility? Bush has been President for 8 years, I think the present economy can be considered his and it is in shambles. You seem to pass over my comments in favor of both a line item veto and a balanced budget amendment in favor of dodging my questions to you.
Talking about future deficits, especially ones which overlap into Obama’s tenure in the White House hardly seems accurate when addressing the word “EVER.”
Oh, as to “ever”… I realize our fiscal year would overlap, that is why I used the calendar year 2008 as an example of increase of debt that would be totally tied to Bush alone, and that was $1.489 Trillion in debt for that year. The OMB numbers for FY2009 say $1.2 trillion budget def. (and that is in my opinion a low number), and that is without any Obama changes.
So I ASK AGAIN, when did the Clinton “hangover” end, and how long do you give for the Bush “hangover”.
Blast, I’m not sure your point in “doubling the deficit”… especially as it relates to current inflation. Actually, you might want to give me an example of anything other than advanced technology on, say computers and electonics or other more mass produced products, that’s cheaper today vs historic previous standards.
i.e. Your house today vs your house without adjusted inflation is an example of such analogies in some ways.
What may have more value is an analogy of these increased deficits with inflation, and perhaps adding Obama’s current economic proposal today using that same inflation index.
And again, I’m going to give both Bush and Obama (and most POTUS) somewhat of a pass because they can propose anything, but it is Congress who passes on a spending bill. And they have always spent more than required. All they (a POTUS) can do is say no. And then – without a line item veto – they must play the “throw the baby out with the bath water” compromise game.
So overall, I suggest you start laying responsibility with Congress and not the POTUS. And that, in essence, answers your question as to “when” the hangover starts and stops…. With Congressional power of the purse, and not the Executive branch.
Mata: Blast is playing a little game with facts and figures. It’s an old tactic that enablers the world over use to excuse something when it’s their guy doing it.
blast
16 years ago
mata:
i.e. Your house today vs your house without adjusted inflation is an example of such analogies in some ways.
Actually we are in a deflationary period and especially in home prices. I understand what you mean in general, but you have to admit going from $5.7 to $10+ Trillion is a bit more than adjusted for inflation etc. It was wanton spending. Sure we can spread blame to congress and even the electorate for not paying more attention, but in the history of this country… the buck stops with the President. I am not just laying this on Pres Bush’s doorstep, but the power of the presidency brings with it not just the veto pen but the bully pulpit as well. If it takes 218 votes in the house and 51 votes in the senate (not including the 60 to stop debate) and the president can shift that to 290 and 67 votes… that is real power to manage the budget if he chose to use it.
Mike:
Blast is playing a little game with facts and figures. It’s an old tactic that enablers the world over use to excuse something when it’s their guy doing it.
Actually Mike, you can say what you will, but you have not supported your argument here nor have you answered my very simple questions. You can cast stones at Clinton for the “hangover” and attack Obama for what may be coming, but you cannot even define where the measure is. You want to leave it nebulous so you can complain from the sidelines no matter what happens. How convenient for you Mike.
As to the old tactic that “enablers the world over use”… I just stated a couple INDISPUTABLE facts directly from the US Treasury… no filters, no spin. I tend to think the oldest tactic is to demean someone instead of arguing the facts. Try again.
Blast: As I said, if I was interested in your question, I would have answered it. You do realize that neither myself, nor my fellow F.A. contributors are under any obligation to provide you with free tutoring on the fine points of any particular issue? Perhaps if we set up a paypal account you can pay us to provide that service.
Frankly, if Mata wants to devote 20 minutes in a vain attempt to educate you that’s fine with me, but I have better things to do.
You have twisted numbers and figures to suit your enabling purpose. It’s an old trick. I’ve seen it many times before.
Here’s another web resource that may help you to avoid making such obvious whoppers as you do above (though that was your intention was it not?)
Mike, who is traxel.com? Are you kidding? That web site has data that was “estimated” for 2003 to 2008 and are not even hard real numbers. It is totally outdated and guesses! My facts are directly from the federal government and are current hard data (outside the OMB estimate for FY2009 and when I quoted your debt clock).
Oh, and to my intention… is to point out the fallacy of your bullet point “The Obama legacy: “trillion dollar deficits for years to come.”” There is no doubt the President-Elect spoke of trillion dollar deficits to come, but as to “legacy” we must understand that our government already burning through money at that rate and in an increasing trend. I did not start my argument with the democratic talking point about the budget surplus that Bush inherited… I spoke of the raw numbers and did not hang the “hangover” on Bush. In fact I was willing to look at the numbers based upon your belief that Bush inherited a “hangover” from Clinton and deduct that from my number, but then again you would have to agree that Obama is receiving a “hangover” from Bush. The problem with partisans from both sides is they only look at the negatives of their opponent and the positives of their position. You can’t claim a “Clinton hangover” (which you raised) and not define its length, nor can you dismiss the fact a “Bush hangover” will be there as well… unless of course you are doing precisely what you have accused me of; namely, being an apologist for one side of this equation.
If you want hard data and not guess-estimates from 2003 why not go to the links I mentioned earlier, or better yet, here they are again since you don’t seem to be following this closely.
As I said, if I was interested in your question, I would have answered it. You do realize that neither myself, nor my fellow F.A. contributors are under any obligation to provide you with free tutoring on the fine points of any particular issue?
I think I am providing you with the tutorship since you pulling numbers from old estimated sources from 2003! You are not obligated to answer any question put to you, however everyone can see our exchange and judge for themselves.
Frankly, if Mata wants to devote 20 minutes in a vain attempt to educate you that’s fine with me, but I have better things to do.
I think mata can speak for herself Mike. And on the subject of Mata, we have agreed and disagreed with many subjects and she has changed my opinion several times with cogent, thoughtful, passionate and honest arguments. When she writes something I “listen” carefully to what she says because her arguments have a foundation… even when if I may on occasion disagree.
Again, if you want to sign up for special tutoring on this topic, I’ll be happy to help.
You do of course realize that your link reveals nothing but a total of debt. Not at all germane to the discussion of deficits.
Do I need to remind you again what the topics are here or would you like to re-read the post first?
blast
16 years ago
Mike, you posted a debt clock and spoke of an Obama legacy in deficits. There is a direct correlation between debt and deficits. The national debt goes up with deficit spending as well as off the books spending. That makes these comments germane to the topic.
Again, if you want to sign up for special tutoring on this topic, I’ll be happy to help.
Oh, and how will you help, by giving me 5-6 year old numbers that were actually estimates at the time? No thanks, I will stick to real facts from the US Treasury that were based upon REAL data.
Amount of national debt 1/22/2001 $5,728,195,796,181.57 (Treasury dept figure)
Amount of national debt as of today $10,778,724,000,000.00 (according to your clock)
Amount of debt during Bush terms * $5,050,528,203,818.43 (*so far)
And that is a net increase of $4,724,000,000 since yesterday at 11am.
You’re complaining because you don’t like the debt clock?
Don’t you have ANYTHING better to do with your time?
Try and stick to relevant issues and not sidetrack onto irrelevancies.
Thus endeth the lesson for today.
blast
16 years ago
Mike, you claimed the debit was not germane to this post, and I was pointing out that YOU POSTED THE DEBT CLOCK. As to the link you posted with outdated information… now there I have a bone to pick. Maybe you might want to find data that shows something more than “estimates” for 2003 onward, it is 2009 after all.
“Enough with the condescending attitude, grow up.”
That’s very amusing coming from you. You’ve wasted so much of my time here whining about trivialities and avoiding the main issues.
Let me know when you have something interesting to add.
blast
16 years ago
mike; You’ve wasted so much of my time here whining about trivialities and avoiding the main issues.
Wow… such power I have to waste your time! Thank you!
The honest truth Mike is that I offered up current facts from the Treasury Department, you offer up “facts” which actually were “estimates” from 2003. Maybe if you just faced the reality that George W. Bush nearly doubled the national debt and put away your partisan hatchet long enough to look for solutions instead of fake outrage. I have posed questions to you based upon your comments and you refuse to even engage, instead you have gone onto character assassination mode. Retreating behind “Bush was blamed for every hangover from the Clinton years” and yet you have already started doing the same to Obama even before he becomes president!
Where did I EVER say that Bush wasn’t a big spender?
But as I have said, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
You seem hell bent on enabling Obama to make Bush look like a tightwad.
Oh, and yes, you’ve argued over trivialities at every opportunity.
You’re wasting my time and that of every reader.
Unlike you, most of us have better things to do.
blast
16 years ago
Oh, and yes, you’ve argued over trivialities at every opportunity.
No, I responded to your obfuscations Mike.
You seem hell bent on enabling Obama to make Bush look like a tightwad.
Not really Mike. Was it was not Bush’s Sec of the Treasury that asked for $750 Billion with hardly any oversight… kneeling down and begging for our money. Obama has presented a plan with tax cuts and stimulus spending in the same area of cost. I am actually waiting to see what the “package” looks like before attacking it. You know, wait till the facts are available… it only seems fair to give the President Elect and opportunity to fully present his case and see how congress acts on it.
I am not hell bent on enabling Obama or ANY president on taking our money and giving it away. If you bothered to look at the threads I have repeatedly called for both the line item veto and balanced budget amendment. The difference between Obama’s record and Bush’s… is Bush has a record and I have repeatedly posted it here and you complain about “hangovers” and other crap and don’t even define what you mean when asked. Oh, I forgot you pick and choose when you will answer questions or rather AVOID going on the record. You just want to have more of a bitch quotient when you attack Obama by not defining how long the “Clinton hangover” or “Bush hangover” should be measured. No problem. I just find that approach vacuous.
Craig
16 years ago
Mike, forget arguing with Blast. He doesn’t want to learn anything, he just wants to continue believing what he is already believing falsely. I just got a taste of his way of thinking on another thread. He won’t dare listening to the most respected Constitutional attorney in this world… he thinks he is smarter than him… lol
blast
16 years ago
craig; He won’t dare listening to the most respected Constitutional attorney in this world… he thinks he is smarter than him… lol
The dude is not so smart and respected if he appeared on the Alex Jones Kook Show! And yeah, I am smart enough to know Jones is radioactive.
Craig
16 years ago
Blast, go play in traffic!
blast
16 years ago
Craig…. lol, dude, you really ought to find better places than Alex Jones’ show to support your arguments. I may disagree with you, but you are not an idiot like Jones.
Mike A, I agree with your general angst about the deficits, but keep in mind the “The Obama legacy: “trillion dollar deficits for years to come.”” is really defining the reality of the present administration. In the past 8 years President Bush has ruled over the largest increase of our national debt in history. Using Treasury data ( http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm ) the over all increase from Sept 99 to Sept 2008 was $4,458,453,995,297.06. Some economist types have published data does show a doubling of our national debt during the Bush years, but I am using the Treasury data to make my point. If you are going to blame Obama for a “legacy”, then be intellectually honest and attribute to Pres Bush this huge increase and present growth of deficits to him. I am not defending Obama, hell, he is not even president yet. It took 42 presidents to get to $5.6 Trillion, and it took one president to nearly double it.
Oh, and this data does not include the $750 Billion that the president asked for the Wall Street Bailout, nor the off the books stuff at the Federal Reserve. Fine mess we are in.
blast: As usual, a Dem in the White House will remind conservatives what a big spender REALLY is.
In one term Obama will deficit spend more than Bush did in 8 years.
P.S. Why do your stats suggest the Bush years started in Sept. 1999?
That was the Treasury dept’s fiscal years, it was the simplest research, but if you want to look at Jan 20th 2000 through today, then the actual case is much worse for President Bush. The increase in the deficit under President George W. Bush was $5,132,250,776,419.94 as of today and growing.
I don’t dispute that Obama will deficit spend more than Bush given the present and projected size of the deficit, and that is before any “stimulus package” is attached. With the deterioration of the economy the government naturally gets less in tax revenue. On our present course we are already in the trillion dollar a year national debt category. So lets be honest and not just blame Obama as this is a problem he is inheriting. That is not a get out of jail free card for his (Obama) administration either… they all need(ed) to focus on cutting the size of government.
blast, not to nit pick, but Bush was elected Nov 2000, and not sworn in until Jan 2001. So you may want to revise your revision from Jan 2001 forward.
And I’d say we’ll all agree that we did not like the spending under the GOP Congress, and Bush’s reticence to use his veto power to reign it all in. It is the fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP Congress I blame for 2006 and 2008 election results. Quite frankly, there have been no fiscally conservative GOPers to vote for, nor support.
And I’d say we also agree on a President Obama far outspending Bush as his “government is the cure” policy for the economy. Perhaps we should be sure to budget in the increased delay in recovery due to his proposed policies when we discuss his future spending… ala including the lost revenue from a slower-than-it-would-have-been-if-govt-didn’t-get-involved recovering business world.
blast: Following your calculus, anything Obama does wrong can be blamed on Bush. Even if it requires a fudging of the figures (Sept. 1999????) to make the case?
Sorry… Not going to work.
Bush was blamed for every hangover from the Clinton years and unless you are a member of the liberal “news” Obama apologist media it’s only fair to apply the same rules to him.
The question here is whether GOP leaders in the House and Senate will go along for the ride?
Soon, Republicans in Congress will get their first opportunity to show they stand for the principles of lower spending less government
Well, they already had lots of opportunities, but mostly didn’t avail themselves of them. It’s fair to say that I would attach a lot more weight to how my GOP congressmen voted when they had control of Congress than I will to how they vote and speak when they know they’re just blowing hot air.
Quite frankly, there have been no fiscally conservative GOPers to vote for
Dunno where you live, but nationally at least we had Thompson and Tancredo with decent credentials as fiscal conservatives (not to mention he who shall not be named). Maybe Hunter too, I never dug into his voting record though. Perhaps they were down and out by the time the primaries got to your state though.
Mike, I (accidentally) used numbers that made Bush look better, not worse. I should have used the following sample set, but made a mistake, which did not paint Bush in a worse light, but a much better light. The number – revising it once again to account for dates etc, still leaves Bush with a HUGE deficit of $4,917,526,300,041.17 and if I used your counter from this post the Bush deficit would be over $5 Trillion and change (lots and lots of change), and growing.
My point is the Bush presidency was marked by the largest increase in our national debt in history. Do you dispute that? Do you dispute that the economy is declining and the national debt is over a trillion dollars annually already and growing at its fastest rate?
Ok, I hear you on that, now let agree to some things now then. When do you think we should assign responsibility for when Bush was accountable for the economy and I will recompute the deficit number to that date, so you can subtract as much of the Clinton hangover as you like. And likewise, let me know how long you think we should attribute the poor economy “the Bush hangover” to Bush and how long the Obama apologists have for blaming Bush vs. Obama. Just let me know so we know how to discuss this topic.
Mata, thanks for the correction, I updated my numbers here.
I agree, but I am less to take him off the hook by calling it “reticence”, he could have vetoed the spending but chose to sign those checks. He is equally responsible or better. It takes an 2/3 majority to overturn a presidential veto and he could have forced the issue.
When the history of this is written we will know better of course. Right now I pray that Obama is successful as no matter what… he is our president for the next 4 years.
Generally they have pulse’s of voting before bills are passed, and the WH for veto’s ability to be overturned. I suggest that most that were sent to the Oval Office desk would just have delayed the inevitable passage, and made it more difficult than it already was for Bush to prosecute the wars. The quid pro quo these past six years must have been unbelievably heavy. Dems did not give much support to war spending unless they got their pork projects in as riders. Kick out the pork, and lose the pearl of the appropriations?
I think, blast, there was more behind the scene on this stuff than you or I know. And ultimately, the handler of the purse strings is Congress. They have to take the onus of the blame by passing heavy spending to begin with. And when you look at how much of that is defense and war, there’s sty-load of pork in there. And… as we all agree… it’s only going to get worse.
I, personally, might revise that. Obama’s “success” does not necessarily translate to “success” for the US. And his economic New New Deal is a perfect example of that. He may be “successful” in implementing far more debt than is healthy for this nation downline. Obama “success” for his goals? Yes. But not success for us.
So yes, I pray for US success this next four years. Not for Obama’s “success”. In fact, I believe that in order for the first to happen, we many have to thwart moves Obama considers “success”.
That debt counter spooks me bad.
I watched an interview that Tom DeLay did before he left the House. He was proud of the fact that they reduced the percentage of pork, which was their goal at the time. He explained that to get the budgets passed, you had to bargain for votes meaning our congress critters sell their votes. Funding our troops didn’t even change their way of doing business.
I understand what you are saying Mata. It’s sickening.
Blast – I also share a bit of your sentiment, however, Mata is more correct – Congress passes the budgets. And I do remember several years when Bush threatened vetoes of budgets that he considered too large – Congress (repubs?) had to repeatedly go back and cut more. Didn’t this also lead to a budget standoff one year that almost shut down the federal govt?
Point is that I believe GW tried to reign in Congress, BHO is giving them a blank check. I don’t think the Stimulus will do much and I was against it when GW did the mini-stimulus in ’08.
@marbleblaster:
I know, right!
100,000 about every three seconds.
eep!
Surely the debt is the responsibility of the current President especially if they have the power to veto.
http://jimbuie.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/05/natl_debt_chart_2006_2.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Looks to me if the US National debt has gone up considerably under Reagan and the Bushes.
Obama hasn’t spent a penny yet.
Gaffa: The President would have to veto an entire spending measure. Democrats in congress have made sure that a GOP President NEVER has line item veto authority.
And despite your best efforts to point the spending finger elsewhere, Obama has all but promised deficits which would dwarf those of the predecessors you cite.
Dem presidents that preceeded Reagan/Bush and GW Bush left our military in a mess, much had to be done to rebuild. Dems also promised spending cuts to both Reagan and Bush 41, they lied.
After his prison term, Dan Rostenkowski did an interview with the morning hosts on WLS/Chicago. The disgraced powerful dem, ruler of the House Ways and Means, later regretted what his party did to Bush 41. He said 41 was brave and knew allowing the tax increase would kill his career as president, but he believed the dems when they said they would cut spending. They lied and the sky is blue, grass is green, somethings are so dependable.
mike a, I would love to see a balanced budget amendment and line item veto amendment. As to Obama and the deficits he is going to run… you never answered my questions from comment 7. I am really interested in when you think the “Clinton Hangover” should be calculated to, and how long the Bush hangover should be counted as well.
Blast: I usually only answer questions which interest me.
Interesting that you seem to wish to redraw the rules here.
“keep in mind the “The Obama legacy: “trillion dollar deficits for years to come.”” is really defining the reality of the present administration. In the past 8 years President Bush has ruled over the largest increase of our national debt in history. Using Treasury data “
Did Bush ever have a TRILLION dollar deficit?
EVER?
Your continued apologizing for Obama’s plans is nothing more than enablement of the most massive spending spree the federal government has ever seen.
Mike,
I will remember that when you press the usual barrage of questions on me. For now I will then just have to be left guessing as to your motive to not answer such a salient question.
Yes, for last calendar year the national debt was Jan 1 2008 – $9,210,587,444,062.47
Now subtract the present national debt (to be fair lets calculate the debt as of Dec 31, 2008 for a one year figure.) The debt as of Dec 31, 2008 was $10,699,804,864,612.13, making a difference of $1,489,217,420,549.66 — now as we wait on the present fiscal year to end many are stating that the budget deficit will be far north of the trillion mark.
The CBO is projecting $1.2 Trillion for FY 2009 (the last of the Bush Budget Years, without any Obama changes). Since this 2009 budget does overhang into the Obama year, lets look at what the FY 2009 deficit is year to date. From the beginning of the FY 2009 Oct 1, 2008 to today (your clock) the Bush deficit for FY2009 is $619,774,932,872.31… that is substantially more than the $407 Billion deficit he projected for all of FY2009.
Also, just do further answer you question about “did Bush ever have a trillion dollar deficit” – yes, he took office with a deficit of $5,728,195,796,181.57 it is now (according to your clock $10,774,000,000,000.00) so Bush did have more than a trillion dollar deficit over his term as well, way more… $5,045,804,203,818.43… and counting.
So we have a $5 trillion and growing deficit during the Bush Presidency, this last calendar year the deficit grew $1.489 Trillion dollars, and when the actual budget deficit comes in it will be over a trillion for sure, so to answer your question again… YES, Pres. George W. Bush did give us trillion dollar debts, Annually, Fiscally and over the duration of his presidency.
So I do ask you yet again… let me know when we can measure the end of the Clinton hangover and when we should stop measuring the Bush hangover. That way fairness can prevail and we don’t attach to Bush the poor economy he inherited, and then we can to the same for the next administration. I believe it is a valid question, but then again, you attack me as being partisan when that is precisely what you are doing. The facts speak for themselves.
Blast: Talking about future deficits, especially ones which overlap into Obama’s tenure in the White House hardly seems accurate when addressing the word “EVER.”
And let’s use facts, not play numbers:
You seem more interested in playing games than you do about addressing the spending problem in a serious way.
Again, it would appear you are an enabler for the big spenders.
Mike, I wonder where you pulled that chart out of and what you are trying to say by posting it. The numbers I have posted were all from the Treasury department, with the exception to your clock of national debt.
You just can’t face the fact that the national debt has nearly doubled and cannot explain that away huh? You seem incapable of laying any responsibility on the sitting president while loading for bare on the incoming administration.
Empty accusation. The facts say Bush nearly doubled the national debt… I and asked you when the Clinton hangover was over, and when you think the Bush hangover will be over and you toss out a strawman argument. What ever happened to responsibility? Bush has been President for 8 years, I think the present economy can be considered his and it is in shambles. You seem to pass over my comments in favor of both a line item veto and a balanced budget amendment in favor of dodging my questions to you.
Oh, as to “ever”… I realize our fiscal year would overlap, that is why I used the calendar year 2008 as an example of increase of debt that would be totally tied to Bush alone, and that was $1.489 Trillion in debt for that year. The OMB numbers for FY2009 say $1.2 trillion budget def. (and that is in my opinion a low number), and that is without any Obama changes.
So I ASK AGAIN, when did the Clinton “hangover” end, and how long do you give for the Bush “hangover”.
Blast, I’m not sure your point in “doubling the deficit”… especially as it relates to current inflation. Actually, you might want to give me an example of anything other than advanced technology on, say computers and electonics or other more mass produced products, that’s cheaper today vs historic previous standards.
i.e. Your house today vs your house without adjusted inflation is an example of such analogies in some ways.
What may have more value is an analogy of these increased deficits with inflation, and perhaps adding Obama’s current economic proposal today using that same inflation index.
And again, I’m going to give both Bush and Obama (and most POTUS) somewhat of a pass because they can propose anything, but it is Congress who passes on a spending bill. And they have always spent more than required. All they (a POTUS) can do is say no. And then – without a line item veto – they must play the “throw the baby out with the bath water” compromise game.
So overall, I suggest you start laying responsibility with Congress and not the POTUS. And that, in essence, answers your question as to “when” the hangover starts and stops…. With Congressional power of the purse, and not the Executive branch.
Mata: Blast is playing a little game with facts and figures. It’s an old tactic that enablers the world over use to excuse something when it’s their guy doing it.
mata:
Actually we are in a deflationary period and especially in home prices. I understand what you mean in general, but you have to admit going from $5.7 to $10+ Trillion is a bit more than adjusted for inflation etc. It was wanton spending. Sure we can spread blame to congress and even the electorate for not paying more attention, but in the history of this country… the buck stops with the President. I am not just laying this on Pres Bush’s doorstep, but the power of the presidency brings with it not just the veto pen but the bully pulpit as well. If it takes 218 votes in the house and 51 votes in the senate (not including the 60 to stop debate) and the president can shift that to 290 and 67 votes… that is real power to manage the budget if he chose to use it.
Mike:
Actually Mike, you can say what you will, but you have not supported your argument here nor have you answered my very simple questions. You can cast stones at Clinton for the “hangover” and attack Obama for what may be coming, but you cannot even define where the measure is. You want to leave it nebulous so you can complain from the sidelines no matter what happens. How convenient for you Mike.
As to the old tactic that “enablers the world over use”… I just stated a couple INDISPUTABLE facts directly from the US Treasury… no filters, no spin. I tend to think the oldest tactic is to demean someone instead of arguing the facts. Try again.
Blast: As I said, if I was interested in your question, I would have answered it. You do realize that neither myself, nor my fellow F.A. contributors are under any obligation to provide you with free tutoring on the fine points of any particular issue? Perhaps if we set up a paypal account you can pay us to provide that service.
Frankly, if Mata wants to devote 20 minutes in a vain attempt to educate you that’s fine with me, but I have better things to do.
You have twisted numbers and figures to suit your enabling purpose. It’s an old trick. I’ve seen it many times before.
Here’s another web resource that may help you to avoid making such obvious whoppers as you do above (though that was your intention was it not?)
http://traxel.com/deficit/
Mike, who is traxel.com? Are you kidding? That web site has data that was “estimated” for 2003 to 2008 and are not even hard real numbers. It is totally outdated and guesses! My facts are directly from the federal government and are current hard data (outside the OMB estimate for FY2009 and when I quoted your debt clock).
Oh, and to my intention… is to point out the fallacy of your bullet point “The Obama legacy: “trillion dollar deficits for years to come.”” There is no doubt the President-Elect spoke of trillion dollar deficits to come, but as to “legacy” we must understand that our government already burning through money at that rate and in an increasing trend. I did not start my argument with the democratic talking point about the budget surplus that Bush inherited… I spoke of the raw numbers and did not hang the “hangover” on Bush. In fact I was willing to look at the numbers based upon your belief that Bush inherited a “hangover” from Clinton and deduct that from my number, but then again you would have to agree that Obama is receiving a “hangover” from Bush. The problem with partisans from both sides is they only look at the negatives of their opponent and the positives of their position. You can’t claim a “Clinton hangover” (which you raised) and not define its length, nor can you dismiss the fact a “Bush hangover” will be there as well… unless of course you are doing precisely what you have accused me of; namely, being an apologist for one side of this equation.
If you want hard data and not guess-estimates from 2003 why not go to the links I mentioned earlier, or better yet, here they are again since you don’t seem to be following this closely.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
I think I am providing you with the tutorship since you pulling numbers from old estimated sources from 2003! You are not obligated to answer any question put to you, however everyone can see our exchange and judge for themselves.
I think mata can speak for herself Mike. And on the subject of Mata, we have agreed and disagreed with many subjects and she has changed my opinion several times with cogent, thoughtful, passionate and honest arguments. When she writes something I “listen” carefully to what she says because her arguments have a foundation… even when if I may on occasion disagree.
Again, if you want to sign up for special tutoring on this topic, I’ll be happy to help.
You do of course realize that your link reveals nothing but a total of debt. Not at all germane to the discussion of deficits.
Do I need to remind you again what the topics are here or would you like to re-read the post first?
Mike, you posted a debt clock and spoke of an Obama legacy in deficits. There is a direct correlation between debt and deficits. The national debt goes up with deficit spending as well as off the books spending. That makes these comments germane to the topic.
Oh, and how will you help, by giving me 5-6 year old numbers that were actually estimates at the time? No thanks, I will stick to real facts from the US Treasury that were based upon REAL data.
Amount of national debt 1/22/2001 $5,728,195,796,181.57 (Treasury dept figure)
Amount of national debt as of today $10,778,724,000,000.00 (according to your clock)
Amount of debt during Bush terms * $5,050,528,203,818.43 (*so far)
And that is a net increase of $4,724,000,000 since yesterday at 11am.
You’re complaining because you don’t like the debt clock?
Don’t you have ANYTHING better to do with your time?
Try and stick to relevant issues and not sidetrack onto irrelevancies.
Thus endeth the lesson for today.
Mike, you claimed the debit was not germane to this post, and I was pointing out that YOU POSTED THE DEBT CLOCK. As to the link you posted with outdated information… now there I have a bone to pick. Maybe you might want to find data that shows something more than “estimates” for 2003 onward, it is 2009 after all.
Enough with the condescending attitude, grow up.
“Enough with the condescending attitude, grow up.”
That’s very amusing coming from you. You’ve wasted so much of my time here whining about trivialities and avoiding the main issues.
Let me know when you have something interesting to add.
Wow… such power I have to waste your time! Thank you!
The honest truth Mike is that I offered up current facts from the Treasury Department, you offer up “facts” which actually were “estimates” from 2003. Maybe if you just faced the reality that George W. Bush nearly doubled the national debt and put away your partisan hatchet long enough to look for solutions instead of fake outrage. I have posed questions to you based upon your comments and you refuse to even engage, instead you have gone onto character assassination mode. Retreating behind “Bush was blamed for every hangover from the Clinton years” and yet you have already started doing the same to Obama even before he becomes president!
Where did I EVER say that Bush wasn’t a big spender?
But as I have said, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
You seem hell bent on enabling Obama to make Bush look like a tightwad.
Oh, and yes, you’ve argued over trivialities at every opportunity.
You’re wasting my time and that of every reader.
Unlike you, most of us have better things to do.
No, I responded to your obfuscations Mike.
Not really Mike. Was it was not Bush’s Sec of the Treasury that asked for $750 Billion with hardly any oversight… kneeling down and begging for our money. Obama has presented a plan with tax cuts and stimulus spending in the same area of cost. I am actually waiting to see what the “package” looks like before attacking it. You know, wait till the facts are available… it only seems fair to give the President Elect and opportunity to fully present his case and see how congress acts on it.
I am not hell bent on enabling Obama or ANY president on taking our money and giving it away. If you bothered to look at the threads I have repeatedly called for both the line item veto and balanced budget amendment. The difference between Obama’s record and Bush’s… is Bush has a record and I have repeatedly posted it here and you complain about “hangovers” and other crap and don’t even define what you mean when asked. Oh, I forgot you pick and choose when you will answer questions or rather AVOID going on the record. You just want to have more of a bitch quotient when you attack Obama by not defining how long the “Clinton hangover” or “Bush hangover” should be measured. No problem. I just find that approach vacuous.
Mike, forget arguing with Blast. He doesn’t want to learn anything, he just wants to continue believing what he is already believing falsely. I just got a taste of his way of thinking on another thread. He won’t dare listening to the most respected Constitutional attorney in this world… he thinks he is smarter than him… lol
The dude is not so smart and respected if he appeared on the Alex Jones Kook Show! And yeah, I am smart enough to know Jones is radioactive.
Blast, go play in traffic!
Craig…. lol, dude, you really ought to find better places than Alex Jones’ show to support your arguments. I may disagree with you, but you are not an idiot like Jones.