Jonathan Cohn writes: "Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart in this article, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate."
The president responsible for the current budget deficit is George W. Bush. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
These regressives, including Obama and most Democrats, refuse to even consider the People's Budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus(see http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vFX8OW0S9RkJ:grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%2520CPC%2520FY2012%2520Budget.pdf+People's+Budget&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShYOg7bK7F dAqoOGfG6S89H5s yDb8BtUn2ZrKcMn aMqFQbIw3ptqegIl23QHQfPDOhqIdHjrq 4ZWo_j-NAyruUsXJYJ66p7 It-haxUbj6ZwUpau4q MrDeOREdT8HG1_cWCBvPqr&sig=AHIEtbS1AvDNdJo1-RlIhK8CEPCe-R1A1A)
Or that Bush had a "wasteful" $50 inauguration, but Obama's was TRIPLE that, and noone let out a peep?
Or that Bush had a "wasteful" $50 inauguration, but Obama's was TRIPLE that, and noone let out a peep?[/
YOU LIE!!!!
Once 'twas George and Dickie's time,
Now Oh Bomb Ah's next in line.
Endless warfare is o.k.,
'Cause in fact, they make it pay.
Villainaires, they call the shots,
As Americans get the trots,
Clearly paying through the nose,
While the deficit grows and grows.
And villainaires, they have their way,
While Americans pay and pay.
Better ways to kill and spy,
On Americans as we try...
To put an end to costly war,
The world's economy to restore.
We're surveilled and spied upon,
As their spin goes on and on.
Medicaid and Medicare, and
Social Security's not warfare.
So they'll cut it and not restore,
Tax on wealthy, like before.
For. indeed Greed is their game,
Power is their middle name.
And the devil has his way,
'Til we the sheeple revolt some day.
It's one thing to continually blame Republicans for all the stuff they rightfully should be blamed for. But it's another entirely to give the Dems a free pass. The Dems voted for the Bush tax cuts when they went through initially, they voted for them again when Obama took office, they voted for the wars and they continue to expand those wars under Obomber...
So how's about some objectivity here instead of Demo party baloney?
It's also interesting to note that following the 2003 implementation of the tax stimulus plan, that federal tax revenue soared some 44 % thru the end of 2007. When the economy crashed again, as it did just before Bush came in, tax revenue once again, fell thru the floor - driving deficits up again.
Note: I said "interesting"
Could you be a little more specific about the "crash" that happened before bush took office?
You mean the crash which resulted in the economic reversal which caused an almost immediate reversal from budget surpluses to huge deficits?
That one?
Let's see, Dean Baker summed it up this way in March of 2001, looking back:
"The nation's political leaders [during the bubble years] chose to ignore the stock market bubble . . . As a result, millions of families have seen their dreams of a secure retirement or their children's college education vanish with the stock market bubble. The level of negligence of the nation's political leaders in ignoring the stock bubble exceeds anything since the days of Herbert Hoover."
That one?
Also seems to me that many of those folks were dear friends to all, and especially to Bill Clinton.
It was what it was.
Are you against deregulation? Do you think there should be more government regulations on big business?
As I recall 2001 was not before bush took office. If "that one" is refering to Enron, then bush didn't "inherit" it. One of his best friends got caught doing the same thing his brother did in the 80's. Remember "that one" - the "lost" bush brother?
Bush came in - the economic bubble had crashed - Clinton's old pals petitioned the Bush admin. to help Enron, Bush refused and Enron - like thousands of other companies, collapsed.
And who can't stay on topic? LOL
There's good regulations and bad regulations. The Clinton/Summers/Geithner/Rubin/Gramm deregulation was pretty bad. The HUD regulations which created the housing bubble that led to the next crisis, was even worse - in my view.
You remember Clinton's "Everyone Deserves A Home, Even If They Can't Afford It?" SOMEONE always pays, and in this case, EVERYBODY pays!
Fanny and Freddy can just laugh all the way to the bank-bailout!
You do a wonder Kabuki dance, spinning great 360s.
This . . .
Oct. 2000 - HUD ANNOUNCES NEW REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE $2.4 TRILLION IN MORTGAGES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 28.1 MILLION FAMILIES
http://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/pr00-317.html
. . and the orders, in the late 90's to lower lending requirements of poor minorities to linoleum level.
Bush's effort was to provide a subsidy for the down payment to poor minorities who could qualify for more conventional loan.
Bush was, seeking major reforms to tighten up what Fannie and Freddie had created at the orders of Andrew Cuomo's HUD, earlier on.
If the point of your comment was to underline how President Clinton should never have caved in so much to repugnican pressure and should have actually represented the liberal values of the people who elected him, then I AGREE COMPLETELY.
I don't remember anyone from the Republican side of the isle forcing Ron Brown to include Enron on all of those trade missions. I don't remember anyone forcing Bill Clinton to publicly announce what a wonderful civil servant Ken Lay was. I don't remember anyone forcing Bill Clinton to play golf with Ken Lay. Don't remember anyone forcing the Clinton admin to dole out the guaranteed US backed loans.
PBS Frontline interview - May 22, 2001, interview. "We had a lot of access in the Clinton administration, " Ken Lay.
And once again, according to your rules, Obama didn't inherit an economic crisis, either. Notably since he was a big fan of the HUD regulations which created the entire mess, in the first place.
Reagan didn't inherit a crisis. Bush didn't inherit a crisis. etc.
Grow up.
We'll see how Obama does with his.
What was 9-11?? The entire month of August he was vacationing on his ranch, while CIA was warning of something big brewing. He was told that Al Quida was planning to attack inside USA!!!! George Tennet warned thet their "HAIR WAS ON FIRE. That is to be rather upset.
And when a CIA employee came to the ranch to warn him. His answer was: "OK YOU COVERED YOUR ASS YOU CAN GO NOW"
Yes, He really worked hard at protecting us??....as I mentioned before republicans dont give a damn about governing
Could you point me in the right direction, so that I may relieve myself of the notion that, bush's multi-trillion dollar wars, increases in the overall military budget and tax cuts for the rich were the cause of bush's deficit?
I'm trying to understand why bush's deficit is the fault of President Clinton. It seems that the entire argument rests on the notions that:
1. Enron cost the federal budget 10 trillion dollars,
2. President Clinton was behind all the deregulation that led to the Enron scandal without repuglican support,
3. bush's and his crony's hands were clean,
4. and that bush's increases in the military budget, wars for personal profit, and tax cuts for other members of his class had nothing to do with it.
It also rests on the idea that this article has all of its numbers wrong.
If I Google "Enron bubble crash", the top hit refering to your comment is YOUR comment.
Could you just save me some time and point to a source proving that bush's deficit was not bush's fault, but was the fault of President Clinton because Clinton was friends with "Kenny Boy", even though it was actually bush who gave him the nickname "kenny boy" and it was bush who had the special relationship with him?
Can you not read?
I said the silly short term surpluses and projected surpluses which were expected forward, at the end of 2000 -- disappeared mostly because of the March 2000 collapse. The economy and budget shortfalls and spending during the Bush years added greatly to it.
Personally - don't see that they'd been much different had Gore or Kerry been president - Perhaps a $trillion one way or the other - but in the big picture - that's rounding, these days.
Sure hard, as always, to keep with your every changing bouncing creativity.
So -- No. . You can read what I said. It was not complicated.
You don't like what you read about the Bush stimulus bill and current analysis of it, so you shift it to your lack of understanding of the bubble collapse (or was it, that you don't remember recent history - by choice?). Then you shift it to your lack of understanding about one of the many players, Enron. Then, when you don't like the way that's going, you shift it to military spending on wars.
Gee - seem to remember this pattern with you.
Comparing what the general mood must have been like during the last couple of years in the Clinton era, to the last couple of years in the Bush era - Both would have been well aware that they were nearing the end of a very dangerous econ bubble. Both would know that the sooner the darn thing ended/crashed, the less damage/chaos would result.
So I offered-because of the way it is, the want for both to want to get to the end of their reign with the economy sill purring along (revenues rising-all that) there's just no way that either would have been able to pull the plug.
It's sort of sad, as in both cases, the darn bubbles crashed pretty much in their last year +/- . And in both, great carnage pursued. Worse in the second instance, of course. That is partly because we never recovered from the first one.
The bad news - this one will be worse yet. It's just piling on, while the can is being kicked down the road.
And, to your last point. Sure - Had Clinton not had the Dot.com (Enron) bubble, and Bush not the housing bubble - neither would have had much of an economy.
Of course, in both cases that would have been better - we could have talked re-tooling, without the need for crisis management.
Republicans can't govern. They don't give a DAMN about people, just their rich benefactors. You are sickening Traitors
I don't mind seeing George W. Bush's disgraceful legacy revisited, but he's been out of office for 3 years now. Isn't it time to start putting the blame where it belongs? Remember, Dems held their largest majority in the Senate in decades, a huge majority in the House and Obama in the Oval Office and, quite frankly, they blew it. All of us "hope and change" voters are wondering what happened to that catchy little phrase. I thought it was a campaign promise, but change hasn't happened and hope seems equally vacant. Bush didn't stuff through that disgusting health care bill, Demos did -- and then Obama took a sh*t sandwich and tried to tell us it was a porterhouse steak...he's still trying. Probably the single greatest negative for the Dems since Obama took office and it handily lost them their House majority and almost lost the Senate one, too.
Just a little too much unsubstantiated hyperbole in this article for me. Like this line, for instance: "It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office."
The dems got Don't ask, don't tell" repealed and a renewal of the nuclear arms treaty with Russia, plus redux of ss tax for the gainfully employed ...
Hmm-I think that most folks, inc liberal Brookings (recently) analyized this and says that 82% of the tax cuts did not go to the very very wealthy(above $250K).
Not defending the final score of the Bush era here - I assure all - but, any economist will tell you that it mattered not, whether Gore or Bush was president in 2001 - all of the nice budget surplues we were experiencing at the time, as well as all of the projected budget surpluses (that hysterical $5.6 Trillion paper projection) were to quickly turn to huge deficits within a couple of years - by far, the reason being the collapse of the Dot.Com bubble (Enron bubble) in March, 2000 and the fallout from it. 9/11 didn't help much either.
Who knows what Gore might have done in 2001 - hearing the December 2000 (after the campaign) calls from both sides on how to stimulate the economy which was going into free fall? Daschle, Liebermann and Kucinich pusing for the tax rebates; Corzine pushing for capital gains and dividend tax relief, etc.
There is a conversation to have on how incoming administrations deal with the crisis they inherit. Reagan, Bush and Obama are the only three in recent decades that inherited crisis.
We'll see how Obama does now.
I don't know who the "most folks" you are refering to but the Brookings institute's analysis did indeed inform us the Bush tax cuts went to the wealthy. In fact 65% went to the top 20%. The top 1% (those making $620k/year) received 35% of the cuts
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/the_bush_tax_cuts_disproportionately_benefitted_the_wealthy/
Estimated the 10-yr cost of extending Bush tax cuts (no stimulus effect considered) being $3.675 Trillion.
Then, using the Treasury's est that the 10 yr revenue gain from not extending the tax cuts to those earning over $250K (for individuals, $200K) to be $679 billion.
Math - about $3 trillion then is not associated with the tax cuts which Obama wanted then (still does) to not extend; or, 82% of the total.
Seems to be about the same way it was always scored.
The tiny effect of canceling the corporate jet tax break which was in Obama's 2009 Stimulus Bill probably won't affect this calculation.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2785
PS I'm waiting to see if I responded in the correct place a moment back??
Just as we all know....
The Bush tax cuts went to the Wealthy.
Here is the Pie chart from the Brookings institute Tax policy center
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/cuts0106.cfm
It's right there on the Urban Institute - Tax Policy Center page, which I linked. I was specific in my language. This the conversation which has been in front of the American people, compliments of President Obama - which he has been specific on since before his election.
You are citing a different class. That's fine, if you wish to speak of something different than what the heat of the national discussion has been. However, I made no mistake, and your comment was insulting -"as any intelligent persons would know."
For the record - for goodness knows how many times - I'm on record here in my view - for which I have been highly activist on - that the top tax cuts, which we (Obama) have been speaking of - I've supported reversing since at least 2004, or so.
So please learn how to conduct a civil conversion - please.
The irony is too rich!!!
Once again - Forest Home changed the parameters.
I'm working with the issue that the President and the national media has kept in front of the audience for the past couple of years - nonstop.
It's on the table today - the Pres. mentions it, in his daily blame game, almost every day (or someone else does.) The national media directs their questions in the same manner.
On the table is overturning, or not extending, that portion of the Bush stimulus bill -- or more correctly putting it, changing the tax code law - such that the income tax rate of those making over $200K ($250K for married couples) is raised.
When the entire world here talks about how much revenue that is worth over ten years - that is the discussion.
Forrest changed the subject - to a much much broader category. He could have begun with, "OK - I get that, but how do you feel about a broader, or a different measure?"
That is - if one wants to debate. He'd got the buzzer in a debate. They'd thrown you out the door.
well for starters he would have avoided a useless and costly war in Iraq breaking in doors to look for invisible weapons
And, of course, Gore, Clinton and the whole Clinton team - all believed that Saddam both possessed WMD's, were trying to make more WMD's, and that they were a threat to us and to others in the region.
Clinton was perhaps one the most outspoken, in defending Bush on the WMD claims - well into the summer of 2003 and beyond - and then saying that the most important thing for Americans to do was to get behind the effort to rid the world of Saddam and to bring some form of democracy to the long suffering people of Iraq.
He made those comments on Larry King Live in July of 2003. The entire national media looked the other way, never quoting him, never questioning him again on it, and always trying to make sure that the broad public would always believe that Bush just made it all up.
All should be held legally accountable for stampeding America into a tragically wasteful and cruel military action on the basis of knowing falsehoods.
Your second assertion is absolutely out of left field - makes no sense.
"The entire American political leadership KNEW that all their hullabaloo about WMDs"
Oh boy -- Well, that is absolutely a fabrication. Some doubted, some didn't believe, but most? "all" "entire" - how can anyone have a dialog with such?
Then why was damn near all of them D and R alike, notably those on the military and intelligence committee's all coming out and insisting that Saddam had them, was attempting to make more of them, and was a threat?
Even John Edwards was out over and over again - even years later - defending that view. Sen Carl Levin, D, was on MSNBC's hardball in 2005, insisting that it was a fact that Saddam had nuclear weapons. (OK - I'll write him off to senility.)
The Lie Factory, by Robert Dreyfus & Jason Vest
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/lie-factory
You're right about one thing, though. Many Democrats did take bush at his word when he said he had "PROOF".
It's too bad. The left wing were to busy reading articles from the so-called left-wing media that had proof bush was lying. The left-wing knew all along that there would be no w.m.d.s and that we were being lied to all along. Too bad Democrats in office were unwilling to challenge the "proof" layed out by the president.
If only some Democrats would have had the courage to shout, "YOU LIE" at the last president, the way the entire teapublican party is now doing with this President.
Gore was in favor of the first Gulf War and opposed to the second - he did not support ground troops in the second conflict
There's plenty of debate about Gore's speech, Feb, 12, 2002 - but that only allows for debate about the details, and perhaps who might have done it in a better manner:
And then came September 11th.
Al Gore:
"In the immediate aftermath, I expressed full support for our Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush. Tonight I reaffirm that support of the President’s conduct of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and I appreciate his candor in telling the American people that this will be a long struggle – for which the nation must be braced and its political leadership united across party lines.
Indeed, President Bush deserves tremendous credit for the way he has led the nation in a highly successful opening counter-attack in the war against terror."
[..]
"There are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq."
Bush couldn't have said it better.
Parity, Gore's speech you are quoting from Feb 12, 2002 to the Council of Foreign Relations is a call for solidarity, but it identifies Iran as the more important adversary. The speech is cautionary about action in Iraq. Gore continues:
"But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition."
for the entire speech go to http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore021202.html
I volunteered in my comment:
There's plenty of debate about Gore's speech, Feb, 12, 2002 -. .but that only allows for debate about the details, and perhaps who might have done it in a better manner:
Gore supported a major effort to remove Saddam from Iraq, and Gore believed that Saddam was a threat to the US, and Gore believed what his administration had passed onto the Bush admin - the WMD issue.
The war, the conduct of the war, the planning for the war - will, and always should be a vigorous and meaningful debate.
The sanctions resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children during the 90's. The left was hard at work trying to end the sanctions on Iraq. As soon as Bush looked to do something about the problem which Gore and Clinton had so boldly expressed (over and over again), suddenly the left's cry changed to, "The Sanctions are Working."
There is little high ground.
Remember - fewer people died in the 2000's, in the world, from civil conflict, genocide, and war, than in the 1990's. Perhaps there's a reason for that.
President Clinton in July, 2003:
". .it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks. .of biological & chemical weapons. [..] And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy?
The crime here is that the entire national media acted as if Clinton, and the others never said anything - they censored their comments from the public, and they never sought to even ask them about it -- with rare exception. Such that, well as everyone here can testify - they never heard any of it.
YOU LIE!
Where - how do you believe that I lied?
- Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
- Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
- Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
- S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
- Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
- The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
- Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
- Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
- NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
TOTAL: $3.92 trillion--such a deal when compared to Obama's $14-TRILLION and climbing money-laundering!
What an IDIOT! How in the heck can anybody run up a $14 TRILLION DOLLAR deficit in 2 and a half years? It took the Reagan-Bush presidencies 12 YEARS to run up a $4.2 trillion dollar debt! I know, I tallied it up on the calculator. All I have to say is this;
YOU LIE!
Problems were long before Bush. Clinton tided up some but he taxed not the Rich...everyone, and middle class and poor felt it as did Seniors. His buds laughed all the way to the Caymans mon!
Realist, indeed! Obama campaigned on a platform to bring our troops home and no cuts to Social Security, and we get, yet another Fascist.
They are not going to be satisfied until we are ALL living as third-world slaves.
I am so tired of hearing people blame President Obama for everything! They pretend and believe these Republicans are their fairy mothers. No they are your WORSE NIGHTMARE!
Obama is not perfect, but he is certainly not the worse! The Republicans especially now Boehner is the real reason we can't come together for the best outcome for our nation. That is of course if pouting Boehner doesn't WALK OUT in NEGOTIATIONS again.
Sorry David, it's something your mom probably should have told you a long time ago.
We’ve increased our cumulative expenditure on our wars of choice in the Middle East to $1.3 trillion since 2001.
Our annual military spending rose from $653 billion in 2007 to the current $966 billion, a 48% increase in four years.
Federal government transfers for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Veterans, Food Stamps, and Welfare increased from $1.7 trillion in 2007 to the current level of $2.3 trillion, a 35% increase in four years.
We have been screwed by both of these idiots.
RSS feed for comments to this post.