It took decades for us to get into the precarious position were are in. Arguing about who was worse is pointless.
They all did it.
Posted on 08/07/2011 1:53:18 PM PDT by MsLady
You are right.
But the other difference is that Bush did not loathe America and America’s history. He is just another elitist who thinks he knows better.
Obammie the Commie hates America, he hates whites, he hates America’s freedom, America’s prosperity, the can-do attitude that Americans have because of our freedom, and, above all, like all the other feudalists, he loathes the middle class.
What Obammie the Commie is doing is nothing less than a ruthless attack intended to cause suffering and to destroy.
The deficits under Bush from 2001 to 2008 were in series, 128, -158, -378, -413, -318, -248, -161 and -459 billion which sums to 2,007billion. Attributing the increased spending by the Democrats in 2007 and 2008 to Bush is silly. Bush could have vetoed those bills but that would have put funding for Iraq and Afghanistan in jeopardy. In 2009 Bush is only responsible for the cost of TARP which the CBO puts at $184billion.
So $5.8 trillion in deficits attributed to Bush is a lie.
So even Klein admits the spending has to be cut, guess he did not get the “TEA party downgrade” memo, where more spending would have avoided the S&P downgrade. Where is Obamacare on that chart?
Haha, good point!!!
Ezra Klein is a Progressive. Facts mean nothing to him, just the endless redistribution of wealth and the glorification of central planning and gov’t do-gooders.
Ezra, the Obama Administration went on a spending binge and borrowed to do it.
And how can Ezra be confused?
http://confoundedinterest.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/debtgdp.png
This economist shows the graphs of spending. While both parties had a hand, it was the Democrats that opened all the stops and went wild with spending and borrowing to do it.
Once you understand that the two aren’t much different and then look at the republican leadership in th ehouse and senate you will understand that they are ALL socialists.........and we are the pray
The House of Representatives appropriates money - no one else. There is no process to override the House on this issue nor force its hand. The House has absolute power over the purse strings - thus it is on the House that the blame for spending and debt rightfully falls.
The data you want to look at is who was Speaker of the House when any appropriations were made. Once you look at the data that way, the story becomes clear: post-Clinton, GOP Houses were spendthrifts, but the Pelosi years were simply devastating to our fiscal position with things like EESA/TARP, ARRA, and Obamacare blowing near- and long-term holes in the outlook while getting basically zero return on that money.
Boehner has taken us back to being mere spendthrifts again. Unfortunately for our credit rating, that's not a sustainable position, either.
The rate reduction produced more REVENUE, real MONEY for the Feds than before the lower tax rates.
What a dumb son of a camel that erza klein is.
Those bastards lie and are stupid to boot.
It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.
‘Abd-ar-Rah.mân Abû Zayd ibn Khaldûn(1332-1406)
(pre-Laffer curve)
Interesting euphemism. Sort of like "Sub-supervisor in the sub-division of the department of sub-terranian sanitation".
Like any good "political scientist" he knows that the Constitution was written more than a hundred years ago. And it's very confusing. Especially to people who studied political science.
Can "political science" make one useful prediction, does it have one falsifiable hypothesis? Who are histories great political scientists, and what contributions have they made to welfare of the human race?
Ezra Klein is a lunatic.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 says, “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” It is so easy to recognize the difference when you see it.
THis guy is in his twenties and the new “guru” of the left. I won’t even ruin my day by reading this because he’ll never admit that revenues went UP under the Bush Tax cuts and the deficit was going down UNTIL the Dems took over Congress. The economic collapse resulted from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s policies for years and yet they are STILL asking for money. Why did Obama really not let Bush tax cuts expire??? Because he knew that it would mean EVERYONE who works (40,000 and above) would see their taxes go up...of course that won’t mean much soon since more people will NOT be working than WILL be working.
It took decades for us to get into the precarious position were are in. Arguing about who was worse is pointless.
They all did it.
Ezra Klein.
‘Nuff said.
Besides the fact that some of the numbers are not real, but CBO statistical numbers, they are not “deficit” numbers.
But instead of looking at spending numbers, here’s the “deficit” numbers:
2001-2008 Total Outlays vs Revenue -2.005 trillion
2001-2008 “On Budget” Outlays vs Revenue - 3.368 trillion
2001-2008 “Off Budget” Outlays vs Revenue (SS) +1.363 trillion (Yes children, they spend 100% of SS “surpluses”).
2009-2011 Total Outlays vs Revenue -4.351 trillion
2009-2011 “On Budget” Outlays vs Revenue - 4.623 trillion
2009-2011 “Off Budget” Outlays vs Revenue (SS) +0.271 trillion
So, in sum, whatever the national debt is, it is the result of deficits not simply spending, or revenue; and in that regard Mr. Obama is accumulating deficits (adding to the national debt) at an average rate of 1.541 trillion a year in his three years; to Mr. Bush’s 0.421 trillion a year in his 8 years.
Mr. Obama has already spent (”on budget”) in three years a sum equal to 57% of what was spent (”on Budget”) in the eight years of 2001-2008.
Source of numbers:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
But all of this ignores why we have 536 national elections every four years, not one.
The debts and deficits are as much the result of us electing rotten Congress critters as they are the products of spendthrift Presidents. Congress does after all control the Federal government’s purse strings.
At first, blaming Bush was plausible, and in some aspects, like being a big spender, true. But anyone who thinks this ISN’T Bam Bam’s economy, full and complete credit to the Marxist is kidding themselves. The more the left denies the Bamster’s credit for this financial mess, the more they are now looking out of touch with reality.
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.