Bush Pulling Even With Obama

[punked]

Same as Bill Clinton in 2000.....great strategy Mr. Gore!

Yah Gore was dumb but Clinton was on the trail working for congressional and Senate candidates.

[Shady]

You look at one Republican and then conclude that they're all the same? Sorry, I don't concur. Yes, Bush was a spender, but that does not prove your theory.

Exactly. Not only that, but after the Dems gained control of congress, they rejected every one of Bush's budgets as being too small. And went on to increase them significantly.

[dre]

It's not a theory. It's what the system is about.

Kennedy/Johnson (1961-1964)

Spending Grew by 6.5% YoY (Year over Year)

Spending Grew by 5.28% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

Lyndon B. Johnson (1965-1968)

Spending Grew by 10.93% YoY

Spending Grew by 7.74% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

Richard Nixon (1969-1972)

Spending Grew by 6.7% YoY

Spending Grew by 1.97% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

Nixon/Ford (1973-1976)

Spending Grew by 12.85% YoY

Spending Grew by 4.44% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

Jimmy Carter (1977-1980)

Spending Grew by 12.32% YoY

Spending Grew by 2.37% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

Ronald Reagan, First Term (1981-1984)

Spending Grew by 9.62% YoY

Spending Grew by 3.46% YoY (Inflation Adjusted

Ronald Reagan, Second Term (1985-1988)

Spending Grew by 5.79% YoY

Spending Grew by 2.33% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

George H. W. Bush (1989-1992)

Spending Grew by 6.75% YoY

Spending Grew by 2.24% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

Bill Clinton, First Term (1993-1996)

Spending Grew by 3.1% YoY

Spending Grew by 0.31% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

Bill Clinton, Second Term (1997-2000)

Spending Grew by 3.48% YoY

Spending Grew by 1.15% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

George W. Bush, First Term (2001-2004)

Spending Grew by 6.41% YoY

Spending Grew by 4.02% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

George W. Bush, Second Term (2005-2008)

Spending Grew by 6.82% YoY

Spending Grew by 3.4% YoY (Inflation Adjusted)

Barack Obama (2009-2012)

Spending Expected to Grow by 6.71% YoY (according to White House projections)

Put down the pompom's. They're all the same.

Not completely the same. Up until Reagan, at least the spending increases were mostly funded. US tax payers were actually paying for their own government instead of borrowing the money and financing it through inflation.

And of course administrations that came after just loved this... They no longer had to worry about all that pesky math, and budgeting, or having their adgendas scuttled by lack of funding, or losing political support for having to raise taxes to fund their mandates. Now they could increase spending AND cut taxes at the same time. They could pursue an extravagant mandate and dump the cost of it off on future administrations! How freaking great is that? Like giddy little pigs wallowing in their own feces they were!

Problem is... its starting to catch up with the government now. Bush had record defecits. Obama will have record defecits as well. And which ever government wins next time will have them as well, and the next one after that. Each of them saddled with even more baggage than the one before. Each of them on the hook for the cost of more and more unfunded mandates by their predescessors.

I think Obama will finish his time as president with an even lower approval rating than Bush, and then the next President will have an even lower one than that. I see that trend continuing for the next few presidents.

Edited October 11, 2010 by dre

[Shady]

Not completely the same. Up until Reagan, at least the spending increases were mostly funded. US tax payers were actually paying for their own government instead of borrowing the money and financing it through inflation.

And of course administrations that came after just loved this... They no longer had to worry about all that pesky math, and budgeting, or having their adgendas scuttled by lack of funding, or losing political support for having to raise taxes to fund their mandates. Now they could increase spending AND cut taxes at the same time. They could pursue an extravagant mandate and dump the cost of it off on future administrations! How freaking great is that? Like giddy little pigs wallowing in their own feces they were!

Problem is... its starting to catch up with the government now. Bush had record defecits. Obama will have record defecits as well. And which ever government wins next time will have them as well, and the next one after that. Each of them saddled with even more baggage than the one before. Each of them on the hook for the cost of more and more unfunded mandates by their predescessors.

Most of what you said is untrue. Especially the part about the next administration after Obama will also have record deficits. The only way that would happen is if Obama's FDR type spending spree continued, as well as his smothering of the private sector, limiting economic growth.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Shady

[dre]

Most of what you said is untrue. Especially the part about the next administration after Obama will also have record deficits. The only way that would happen is if Obama's FDR type spending spree continued, as well as his smothering of the private sector, limiting economic growth.

WOuldnt suprise me one bit. More and more cost is getting sluffed off on each administration. Not only will that president have his own mandate to fund, but he have to work on paying off Bush's mandate, and Obamas as well. Not to mention theres trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure upgrades needed, a large aging population to care for that eats 5 cheeseburgers per day, and all kinds of other budgetary pressures looming.

Beyond that nothing I said is untrue or even questionable. You can just look at the raw data, and see the exact trend I described. The "record defecits" part is a prediction obviously but even Its wrong it wont be by much. The next few administrations will continue to significantly grow the national debt, and the US Government as a whole will remain very unpopular no matter which party or president is in charge of it.

The only way that would happen is if Obama's FDR type spending spree continued, as well as his smothering of the private sector, limiting economic growth.

The spending spree has been going on for more than 30 years. Its a systemic problem with the way the US government operates not simply an "Obama" problem, like you would love to think, or a "Bush" problem like idealogs at the other end of the spectrum from you like to think.

Edited October 11, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Beyond that nothing I said is untrue or even questionable. You can just look at the raw data, and see the exact trend I described. The "record defecits" part is a prediction obviously but even Its wrong it wont be by much....

But Shady is right on this point....the record "deficits" will not likely continue or match Obama's. Raising the US federal debt ceiling is not the same as record annual deficits.

[Shady]

Beyond that nothing I said is untrue or even questionable.

Actually it is untrue and very questionable. Bush didn't have record deficits. He has one, his last, which was because of the TARP expense. Obama's first record deficit was mostly because of his stimulus, so in that sense, he gets a bit of a pass. But that doesn't give him a pass for the trillion dollar deficits this year, and next year, and the forecasted years after that. Which don't include TARP or stimulus. They just include his reckless overspending. You can look at the actual data. Compare for yourself the percentage of GDP spent by the government now, under Obama, with previous Presidents. The only one who's close to Obama is FDR.

[dre]

But Shady is right on this point....the record "deficits" will not likely continue or match Obama's. Raising the US federal debt ceiling is not the same as record annual deficits.

Possibly. But I still dont think its at all a crazy prediction. If the American people get worried about something the government opens up the damn and lets the borrowed money flow. Both Bush and Obama has pretenses for all that spending. Terrorism, security, the recession at the end of the dotcom boom, and the economic collapse a couple of years ago.

Youre assuming the next administration wont have a fantastic excuse to spend a whole shitload of borrowed money, and I pointed out they probably will, and that theres a whole lot of things in the queue over the next couple of decades that will put pressure on the US Gov to spend money.

Heres some stats followed by projections through 2014. The second column from the right shows the real "public debt". Youll see the trend I mentioned... that started in the 70's... Thats when defecit financing really kicked into gear, and the US government decided they would start funding themselves more and more with borrowed money instead of through taxation of its own citizens.

1940 50.6 52.4 42.8 44.2

1950 256.8 94.0 219.0 80.2

1960 290.5 56.0 236.8 45.6

1970 380.9 37.6 283.2 28.0

1980 909.0 33.4 711.9 26.1

1990 3,206.3 55.9 2,411.6 42.0

2000 5,628.7 58.0 3,409.8 35.1

2001 5,769.9 57.4 3,319.6 33.0

2002 6,198.4 59.7 3,540.4 34.1

2003 6,760.0 62.6 3,913.4 35.1

2004 7,354.7 63.9 4,295.5 37.3

2005 7,905.3 64.6 4,592.2 37.5

2006 8,451.4 65.0 4,829.0 37.1

2007 8,950.7 65.6 5,035.1 36.9

2008 9,985.8 70.2 5,802.7 40.8

2009 12,311.4 86.1 7,811.1 54.6

2010 (2 Sept) 13,442.1 92.1 (2nd Q) 8,933.2 61.2 (2nd Q)

2010 (est.) 14,456.3 98.1 9,881.9 67.1

2011 (est.) 15,673.9 101.0 10,873.1 70.1

2012 (est.) 16,565.7 100.6 11,468.4 69.6

2013 (est.) 17,440.2 99.7 12,027.1 68.7

2014 (est.) 18,350.0 99.8 12,594.8 68.5

I dont see any reason that this trend wont continue. Both sides talk about "fiscal restraint" but when It comes right down to it, all they REALLY want to do is cut spending on the OTHER SIDES priorities while increasing spending on their own. I dont think anybody in government is evenly genuinely serious about reversing this trend. The US will continue to fund itself with borrowed money, and continue mitigating all that borrowing through inflation.

As long as the scam keeps working, and the people around the world keep buying US treasuries instruments I dont think its likely that much will change.

[Shady]

I dont see any reason that this trend wont continue.

The reason why it won't continue is that it can't continue. Greece is the perfect example.

[dre]

Actually it is untrue and very questionable. Bush didn't have record deficits. He has one, his last, which was because of the TARP expense. Obama's first record deficit was mostly because of his stimulus, so in that sense, he gets a bit of a pass. But that doesn't give him a pass for the trillion dollar deficits this year, and next year, and the forecasted years after that. Which don't include TARP or stimulus. They just include his reckless overspending. You can look at the actual data. Compare for yourself the percentage of GDP spent by the government now, under Obama, with previous Presidents. The only one who's close to Obama is FDR.

First of all the federal defecit doesnt start from scratch every year. Government programs and policies are not just funded in the year they are enacted, they are funded every year until they expire or are discontinuted. So to suggest that a trillion dollar defecit is simply the result of Obamas "reckless over spending" is sophormoric and silly. The defecit is a reflection of accumulative policy from governments past as well. And the reality is that no matter who was in government spending at this time would be very high.

Edited October 11, 2010 by dre

[dre]

The reason why it won't continue is that it can't continue. Greece is the perfect example.

Theres a huge difference. Greeces debt was not denominated in its own currency! The US's debt IS. The US is the one country in the world that can literally wipe out its debt with monitary policy that inflates its currency. This puts the US in a very unique position. Theoretically it can continue with the this policy as long as theres a market for US bonds. And as long as the US is a major consumer and is willing to run huge trade defecits with "producing" nations, then those countries will keep buying US treasuries instruments.

This wont change until the rest of the world stops seeing the US as being "too big to fail", and decides to end massive BAILOUT the US has been getting for the last 30 years from the rest of the world (and its own citizens as well). Countries like China for example are likely to keep propping up the US dollar for the forseeable future because they depend so heavily on the US consumer market.

I think it will be decades still before the scam is over. And when it ends, the US wont owe anybody ANYTHING besides a bunch of worthless paper, that cant even buy stuff anymore.

Edited October 11, 2010 by dre

[Pliny]

First of all the federal defecit doesnt start from scratch every year.

The annual deficit does end. It is added to the Federal debt and the new budget is drawn up. The revenues are estimated and the deficit if there is one is also estimated.

There are future unfunded liabilities beyond the fiscal year that continue in successive annual budgets but for the upcoming fiscal year are included in the budget. The only unfunded liability that Bush contributed to as far as I know was medicaid.

Government programs and policies are not just funded in the year they are enacted, they are funded every year until they expire or are discontinuted. So to suggest that a trillion dollar defecit is simply the result of Obamas "reckless over spending" is sophormoric and silly. The defecit is a reflection of accumulative policy from governments past as well. And the reality is that no matter who was in government spending at this time would be very high.

The reason there is budgets is to make an account of the year's spending. The debt and not the deficit is a reflection of accumulative policies from governments past.

Unfortunately, the deficit is simply the result of Obama's "reckless over spending". What is spent over and above revenues in a fiscal year is a deficit. It is added to the debt and the budget for the next fiscal year is drawn up. They basically know what has to be funded and need to adjust their spending or their revenues to meet the budget. Obama has done nothing to improve revenues and has not curtailed but increased spending. Hence a huge deficit. If Bush added any spending through policies and programs they were included in Obama's budgets so he was aware of them and did nothing. Rather he concentrated on creating even greater future liabilities.

[BubberMiley]

But that doesn't give him a pass for the trillion dollar deficits this year, and next year, and the forecasted years after that. Which don't include TARP or stimulus.

But naturally you would give a pass to Harper's government and its record deficit and forecast of continued deficits for the next five years.

Why is that?

Oh yeah, because you're consumed by partisanship.

I forgot.

[dre]

The annual deficit does end. It is added to the Federal debt and the new budget is drawn up. The revenues are estimated and the deficit if there is one is also estimated.

There are future unfunded liabilities beyond the fiscal year that continue in successive annual budgets but for the upcoming fiscal year are included in the budget. The only unfunded liability that Bush contributed to as far as I know was medicaid.

The reason there is budgets is to make an account of the year's spending. The debt and not the deficit is a reflection of accumulative policies from governments past.

Unfortunately, the deficit is simply the result of Obama's "reckless over spending". What is spent over and above revenues in a fiscal year is a deficit. It is added to the debt and the budget for the next fiscal year is drawn up. They basically know what has to be funded and need to adjust their spending or their revenues to meet the budget. Obama has done nothing to improve revenues and has not curtailed but increased spending. Hence a huge deficit. If Bush added any spending through policies and programs they were included in Obama's budgets so he was aware of them and did nothing. Rather he concentrated on creating even greater future liabilities.

Unfortunately, the deficit is simply the result of Obama's "reckless over spending".

Not even close. If you go line by line through the federal budget youll see that the vast majority of spending has nothing to do with Obama at all. The vast majority of it is simply the cost of the US government, and the accumulated programs and agencies and their budgets. Did Obama create the 40 billion DHS? Did he start two costly wars? Did he give the rich a trillion dollar taxcut over x years? Take a look at a pie chart of the Federal budget and look at all those agencies spending all that money. Most of it is just the cost of doing business. All these different agencies have bloated in cost year after year, administration after administration, and now nobodys got the guts to remove them. BOth parties just want to spend more and more.

[bush_cheney2004]

Possibly. But I still dont think its at all a crazy prediction. If the American people get worried about something the government opens up the damn and lets the borrowed money flow. Both Bush and Obama has pretenses for all that spending. Terrorism, security, the recession at the end of the dotcom boom, and the economic collapse a couple of years ago.

Correct...and ditto from WW2's 100% federal deficits. Should America have shown better fiscal restraint and let the Europeans screw themselves (again)?

Youre assuming the next administration wont have a fantastic excuse to spend a whole shitload of borrowed money, and I pointed out they probably will, and that theres a whole lot of things in the queue over the next couple of decades that will put pressure on the US Gov to spend money.

See above....

Heres some stats followed by projections through 2014. The second column from the right shows the real "public debt". Youll see the trend I mentioned... that started in the 70's... Thats when defecit financing really kicked into gear, and the US government decided they would start funding themselves more and more with borrowed money instead of through taxation of its own citizens.

That's right...guns AND butter do not come cheap. Hell, make the rest of the beneficiaries around the world pony up to keep the party going.

[dre]

Correct...and ditto from WW2's 100% federal deficits. Should America have shown better fiscal restraint and let the Europeans screw themselves (again)?

See above....

That's right...guns AND butter do not come cheap. Hell, make the rest of the beneficiaries around the world pony up to keep the party going.

That's right...guns AND butter do not come cheap. Hell, make the rest of the beneficiaries around the world pony up to keep the party going.

Bingo. Thats exactly whats happening. And my point was they WILL pony up and keep things going because if the US implodes they lose most of their customers, most of their jobs etc. Thats why like I said the world will continue to prop up the US until some of the other emerging consumers markets get very large. But its over its really gonna be over, and you wont be able to buy a bag of extra zesty cheetos for two semi truck loads of US dollars. Weve seen this happen in other countries... when I was in Mexico about 20 years ago a chocolate bar cost me about 3000 Pesos. Theyre lower value coins (centavos etc) were quite literally useless as you would have needed a wheelbarrow of them to buy an ice-cream cone.

[Moonlight Graham]

Your comment only supports the poll swing, as even Americans with short memories know that Bush's TARP (rebranded by Obama) was largely successful is staving off a banking system collapse and is being paid back, while the "stimulus" package politically associated with Obama is just as you describe.

What % of Americans even know what TARP is? If you polled Americans whether it was Bush or Obama who signed the "bailout" into law, how many would know?

The average citizen in our neck of the wood knows jack. People are just PO'd with the economy the issues of the day.

If presidents "preside" over collapse (even though they don't), then they also preside over recovery (or in this case, no recovery).

You can't blame Bush or Obama completely for the crash & recovery, respectively, though you also can't say they don't hold some responsibility for it. Same with Congress.

[bush_cheney2004]

What % of Americans even know what TARP is? If you polled Americans whether it was Bush or Obama who signed the "bailout" into law, how many would know?

Many Americans do know the difference between TARP and the stimulus package, regardless of who signed the bill(s) into law.

The average citizen in our neck of the wood knows jack. People are just PO'd with the economy the issues of the day.

Why are they "PO'd"? I'm certainly not "PO'd" about the "economy".

You can't blame Bush or Obama completely for the crash & recovery, respectively, though you also can't say they don't hold some responsibility for it. Same with Congress.

I'm not blaming anybody...the politics of it all will take care of that.

Edited October 13, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

we do not even acknowledge your sham political system

The Royal "we," huh?

At any rate, "we" believe you, that you hold this platitudinous opinion. "We" do not require further reminders of this singular point. "We" get it.

Edited October 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

Not even close. If you go line by line through the federal budget youll see that the vast majority of spending has nothing to do with Obama at all. The vast majority of it is simply the cost of the US government, and the accumulated programs and agencies and their budgets.

That's what I have said. They know what needs to be funded and draw up the budget. Most of it is the existing cost of government - Payroll, capital costs, inflation, etc. New programs, new departments are included and that increases the budget. The budget definitely doesn't get smaller every year. If revenues can match the spending then there is no deficit.

Did Obama create the 40 billion DHS? Did he start two costly wars? Did he give the rich a trillion dollar taxcut over x years? Take a look at a pie chart of the Federal budget and look at all those agencies spending all that money. Most of it is just the cost of doing business. All these different agencies have bloated in cost year after year, administration after administration, and now nobodys got the guts to remove them. BOth parties just want to spend more and more.

Obama didn't create the 40 Billon DHS. He did not start two costly wars. Bush did spend on those but half his deficit was the TARP program (the drop in revenues from the crash was staggering)and the rest of the shortfall was probably in his 2002 tax cuts. Revenues were down during the housing boom and Bush kept on spending.

Obama in his fervor to bring a 2000 page health care package that Americans didn't want, his $800B bailout program for Wall Street, other spending and his unwillingness to cut any spending means you are correct both parties want to spend more and more. Obama has added more spending to Bush's spending but as you pointed out - Bush cut taxes that contributed to the deficit, only it wasn't, as you state, just for the rich - it was across the board. There would be no tax cuts for the middle class for Obama to extend if what you say, "tax cuts for the rich", was true.

This from Wikipedia, although containing some Liberal claptrap, has some interesting points.

US Budget

[bush_cheney2004]

Bush cut taxes that contributed to the deficit, only it wasn't, as you state, just for the rich - it was across the board. There would be no tax cuts for the middle class for Obama to extend if what you say, "tax cuts for the rich", was true....

This is the ideological argument....i.e. "It's not the government's money". Spending = deficits

[Topaz]

This is the ideological argument....i.e. "It's not the government's money". Spending = deficits

True, but if you cut off the money coming in from income taxes than you reduce the money you have to pay the bills. The US has many millionaires nd billionaires and how much money was not coming in but going out by doing so.

[Shady]

But naturally you would give a pass to Harper's government and its record deficit and forecast of continued deficits for the next five years.

Why is that?

Actually, no I don't. I've specifically criticized them in the Federal Politics section regarding deficit spending. I think much greater steps need to be taken to cut spending. I've been disappointed in the last couple of budgets. However, acknowledging the fact that the slumping US economy has a significant impact on our economy and therefore our budget situation, is just acknowledging reality. That being said, I still want more done to cut the deficit, regardless. But it doesn't suprise me that you jumpt to conclusions and prejudge based on your own partisanship.

[bush_cheney2004]

True, but if you cut off the money coming in from income taxes than you reduce the money you have to pay the bills. The US has many millionaires nd billionaires and how much money was not coming in but going out by doing so.

No, you are only continuing the ideology of tax revenue. It's not the government's money. Deficits are not caused by tax cuts to "millionaires and billionaires". Deficits are caused by government spending over and above revenues.

[dre]

That's what I have said. They know what needs to be funded and draw up the budget. Most of it is the existing cost of government - Payroll, capital costs, inflation, etc. New programs, new departments are included and that increases the budget. The budget definitely doesn't get smaller every year. If revenues can match the spending then there is no deficit.

Obama didn't create the 40 Billon DHS. He did not start two costly wars. Bush did spend on those but half his deficit was the TARP program (the drop in revenues from the crash was staggering)and the rest of the shortfall was probably in his 2002 tax cuts. Revenues were down during the housing boom and Bush kept on spending.

Obama in his fervor to bring a 2000 page health care package that Americans didn't want, his $800B bailout program for Wall Street, other spending and his unwillingness to cut any spending means you are correct both parties want to spend more and more. Obama has added more spending to Bush's spending but as you pointed out - Bush cut taxes that contributed to the deficit, only it wasn't, as you state, just for the rich - it was across the board. There would be no tax cuts for the middle class for Obama to extend if what you say, "tax cuts for the rich", was true.

This from Wikipedia, although containing some Liberal claptrap, has some interesting points.

US Budget

Sure Im not defending Obamas spending... Im trying to point out that these defecits are the symptom of what the US government is structurally and culturally and how it operates. Blaming a single administration misses the point. This has been going on since the 70's, and in fact started in 1972 when the US scuttled bretton woods and decoupled its currency from gold. A conscious decision was made to change the way the US government is funded. Tax rates were slashed... by almost 70% for the upper most bracket over a few short years and immediately the cycle of defecit financing began.

And once that cycle started it wasnt going to stop. Why? Because politicians are ADDICTED to it. The LOVE it... now they can pursue lavish, expensive, and ambitious agendas, without having to raise taxes to fund them. "Fund them you say? FUCK funding them... Ill just pass the cost of my massive unfunded mandate onto the next government!". Hell... now they could even announce gigantic spending increases and huge tax cuts in the same damn speech, and not worry one little bit about where the money was gonna come from.