Bush's estimated 1.2 trillion deficit (source)

13 posts / 0 new

Here is a polifact source for the Bush deficit numbers.

It also contains a source for the CBO and other estimates that break down the effect of the deficits from tax cuts etc...

One source is quoted as saying that it's nearly all the economy.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/27/barack-ob...

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

Wow, even these discredited fact checkers could not find a way to give Obama a less than "true." It must be a leadpipe cinch and beyond debate.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I actually like their motivation - if Gingrich says 'We balanced the budget when I was in the house' that is stricly true. But, spending did not decline - it was the result of increasing revenues fro the economy increasing and perhaps CLinton's tax increase. So, even though what Gingrich said was strictly true, it should only get a 'mostly' true.

I looked at some pages of the 'true's' and none of them had any Republicans making facts about their own efforts at policy making. I think they are being way too hard on Obama though.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

"In January, 2009, just prior to Obama being sworn in as president, the government's nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an estimate of the projected deficit for the 2009 fiscal year (which straddled both Bush's and Obama's terms).

According to the CBO report, "The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO currently projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP."

Yes, BUT

I don't know how much, if any, of that $1.2 trillion figure is the TARP passed in October 2008, which Obama voted for as a Senator. So laying the blame at Bush's feet for that awful piece of legislation is... hypocritical?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Who cares? We could spend the next ten years trying to figure out who to blame. And what will that get us? It will get us in a helluva lot more debt. It will solve absolutely nothing.

If you were seriously injured in a train wreck, would you want the first responders to mill about pointing fingers and placing blame? Or would you want them to get you to the hospital to get you fixed? Well this is a train wreck and we need to get it fixed.

If we were as obsessed about paying down the debt as we are in placing blame, we wouldn't have any debt. We just need to suck it up and stop spending so damn much money. It's irresponsible, it's crazy and it will destroy us.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am

OK, in your analogy the injured party would need a lot of blood and meds as well as intensive medical care right away. After the emergency intervention, we would be urging government to inspect the rail systems and why they failed. It would probably reveal that costs had been cut leading to bad infrastructure and management. We would then spend what it took to improve the rail system. I think that analogy is the right one, not the scenario you suggest.

Once again, if you want to go after waste, do so. Just don't act as if everything we invest in government is going to be bad and what we get to keep in our pockets is going to make us better off. If we fail to invest in America and in the people around us, what we get will stink to high heaven.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Why are you worried about the debt in the midst of the worst global recession in any one's memory? If you are in a major train wreck, worrying about the debt is the equivalent of the first responders dealing with lost luggage, while 400,000,000 globally are out of work. First save lives, then deal with clean up, and luggage. Putting the debt first will ensure we follow the UK and Ireland into a Great Depression.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:Why are you worried about the debt in the midst of the worst global recession in any one's memory?

Because that is the subject of the post. If you have an issue with the topic, then your beef is with Doc Econ not me.

So why do we focus so heavily on placing blame rather than fixing problems?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1: So why do we focus so heavily on placing blame rather than fixing problems?

We are trying to emphasize what policies led to the deficit, so we can correct them.

For instance, the deficit this year was the same as Bush's last year (1.2 trillion) - so we can roughly conclude that the Obama's stimulus did not increase the deficit. Also, it is quite likely that it is the recession and tax cuts that caused a good deal of the deficit - since the budget was balanced before Bush.

Thus, the Republicans are liars when they blame Obama's policices for causing the deficit.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

But what is causing this year's deficit of $1.2 trillion? Income tax policy is unchanged from Bush's last year, GDP is bigger than any year under Bush (or close to it - I'm not sure), aren't we spending less on the military this year, winding down in Iraq?

I know the official numbers on Bush's deficits are understated because they don't count the wars, but apples to apples the deficit should be lower.

Is more Social Security being paid out (due to the baby boomers becoming eligible) in proportion to Social Security taxes coming in? Is that a factor?

If we're looking stictly at income taxes, the fact that more income is being "earned" by those in the highest brackets, and less is being earned by the wage slaves (who by and large pay very little income taxes), the deficit should be lower. Even 15% on their dividends and capital gains is more than income taxes on a bunch of 30-hour-a-week minimum wage jobs. (Yes I understand I'm not counting Social Security and Medicare - save it.)

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Seems to me that we expect too much out of politicians when it comes to the economy. The important thing is who they surround themselves with that are actually calling the shots. As far as I can tell they've done a piss poor job of picking economists over the last 30 years. Mix that with failed policies such as reaganomics and you've got the disaster we find ourselves in now. Never the less they have to keep on swimming toward one shore or the other because you can only tread water for so long before you sink.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Dr. Rachel did a good expose on "Politifact," and they do not live up to their name and they are slanted to the Right. If they were only another opinion source, they would not be such hypocritical fakes. They really need to get their facts aligned with rhetoric and implication. Quoting selected stats or recognizing that lying can use literal "truths" to spin the meaning does not seem to be the way they operate. They accept Gingrich claiming credit for balanced budgets he never voted for. Yes, Clinton did it over the Grinch's ankle biting and impeachment shit.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:...But what is causing this year's deficit of $1.2 trillion? Income tax policy is unchanged from Bush's last year, GDP is bigger than any year under Bush (or close to it - I'm not sure), aren't we spending less on the military this year, winding down in Iraq?

Well, even though GDP is bigger every year, it needs to grow about 3% a year to maintain full employment.

Last year it was 1.7, although in the last quarter it was 2.8%. And, interestingly enough, the 2012 deficit is not projected to be 1.1 trillion.

Although we are not technically in a recession, wehave slow growth and high unemployoment.

Come to think of it, we kept all the Bush tax cuts and even added more.

I know the official numbers on Bush's deficits are understated because they don't count the wars, but apples to apples the deficit should be lower.

Is more Social Security being paid out (due to the baby boomers becoming eligible) in proportion to Social Security taxes coming in? Is that a factor?

If we're looking stictly at income taxes, the fact that more income is being "earned" by those in the highest brackets, and less is being earned by the wage slaves (who by and large pay very little income taxes), the deficit should be lower. Even 15% on their dividends and capital gains is more than income taxes on a bunch of 30-hour-a-week minimum wage jobs. (Yes I understand I'm not counting Social Security and Medicare - save it.)

[/quote]

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system