Posted on 08/30/2012 11:47:00 AM PDT by moonshot925
30 September 2001 = 5,807,463,412,200
30 September 2009 = 11,909,829,003,512
Total Increase = 6,102,365,591,312
Increase in by Fiscal Year
FY 2002 = 420,772,553,397 FY 2003 = 554,995,097,146 FY 2004 = 595,821,633,587 FY 2055 = 553,656,965,393 FY 2006 = 574,264,237,492 FY 2007 = 500,679,473,047 FY 2008 = 1,017,071,524,650 FY 2009 = 1,885,104,106,599
Actually, you both are incorrect - IIRC, the Dems took control in January 2007 of the House and Senate.
Here is a free civics lesson.
Presidents don't write Budgets, Congress do.
Thus endeth the lesson...
Regardless, kudos to you for starting the conversation, and making people defend our party’s profligate spending.
The budget for fiscal year 2009 was submitted by President Bush on 4 February 2008.
And fiscal year 2009 began on 1 October 2008 during the Bush Administration.
January 4, 2007 Nacy Pelosi said this:
“After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”
Did they pass his budget as submitted or did they use the House’s budget?
How about in 2007? Bush’s budget or the House budget numbers?
How about in 2008? Bush’s budget or the House budget numbers?
So, in your world of Keynesian economics, pro-growth tax cuts don't stimulate economic growth, and economic growth doesn't increase revenue to the fedgov? Huh?
Reagan's tax cuts set our economy on a growth curve that even BJ Clinton got to ride to two terms. Under Reagan, revenue to the fedgov doubled. That's pretty incredible, especially when you consider the massiveness of his tax cuts, don't you think? Unfortunately, democrats in Congress couldn't control their spending.....as per usual.
Don't you think all of this makes a great case for making government as small and inconsequential as possible?
The reason we have massive deficits today is because the economy is sucking wind. Our deficits skyrocketed, as you call it, when the economy went south. The problem is your guy, Obama, doesn't have any idea what the role of government should be to achieve economic growth. Democrats have no idea how to make an economy grow because they are all a bunch of idiots and anti-capitalists. That's why change is coming in November. I choose Bain Capital over Das Kapital. What's your preference?
You need to study up a little bit. Democrats took the house and senate in 2006, and took office in january 2007.Bush had two wars to fight and lost control of both houses effective January 2007.
Bush eight years; Hussein four years.
Bush fighting for our freedom.
Barky fighting our freedom.
My gas costs twice under Barky what it cost under Bush--is that Bush's fault.
Barky won't let us drill our oil but lets China do it.
Another four years of the Islamo-Commie and our Republic is doomed.
The president submits a submits a budget request to congress.
The congress either approves or disapproves it.
Yup, but that blackmail thing works when you have to save the victims right now!
Did the congress stick to his budget in 2007 2008 2009 or did they do what they wanted?
Ahhh no the budget "proposal" for fiscal year 2009 was submitted by president Bush yadda yadda.
And a budget "proposal" has all the Constitutional weight of say a New York times used to line the bottom of a bird cage.
One more time Presidents don't write Budgets they have no Constitutional Authority to do so.
Article 1.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Got it now Sparky?
Yep, and so can I and they both have exactly the same Constitutional weight.
The Budget is Congresses Case closed.
You confuse Proposal and Budget.
The Constitution is clear the Budget must originate in the House of Reps. first then the Senate can propose Amendments and the rest of can ask as well including the President but it all rests with Congress.
I don't recall exact figures, but the deficit for that fiscal year was around $1.6 trillion, and included the TARP funding of around $800 billion and then Obama's $870 billion "stimulus" package. The deficit for that fiscal year was a shared responsibility of Bush and Obama.
Bush was a big spender no doubt, but Obama is a spender like no one ever imagined, having trillion dollar plus deficits every year and also trillion dollar deficits in his longer term projections.
The lowest deficit position in the past ten years came with bush and republican control of congress.
2006 budget yielded a deficit of 160 billion. That was part of consecutive reductions in the deficit from previous years with the same management.
Bush and the republicans also netted in that era the largest federal revenue in us history: more than 2.5 trillion.
That revenue arose out the bush tax cuts.
That record govt income betrays all the arguments in this thread.
Bush and the republicans were reducing the deficit and increasing revenue.
In jan 2007 when Fannie Mae bought the democrat congressional landslide
Hell literally broke loose.
Republican fools who join trolls bashing bush do a disservice to conservatism and the future of our nation.
All blame rests with the dems on this issue. Obamas own budget site shows this.
That deficit figure is misleading.
The national debt increased by $575 billion in FY 2006.
Way too many posters have blinders on. Stop the nonsense about 2007 and 2008. Bush submitted budgets that increased domestic social spending and entitlements in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. The REPUBLICAN Congress passed them. Bush ran up spending — not just war spending but domestic social spending. Look at each freakin budget category. What the Hell do you think “No Child Left Behind” did? That was Bush turning on the educational spending spigot full blast. What about “Free Drugs for Seniors”? That was Bush opening up the entitlement spending spigot full blast. And when some conservative Congressmen fought him on it, he played dirty pool and twisted their arms. The fact that Obama is worse does not excuse Bush. This is not Obama blaming Bush. Its us recognizing that Bush was a big spender and that we can’t go back to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.