Posted on 07/24/2011 1:59:55 PM PDT by shoff
With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
WOOFIE ROCKS!
Rarely do ii see such clarity in argument.
Let me add the NYT chart shows exactly the cause and bush and tax cuts ain’t it.
The deficits trend strongly downward 2004 to 2008. That’s called republicN control of congress and exec branch. Dems sweep the house and senate in Jan 2007. At that moment all hell broke loose.
Most specifically the twin demons of Fannie Mae and freddie mac unleashed the mrtage bust since congression stopped regulating them. Once dems took control in January 2007 the 4.7 percent unenployment rate was shattered and the economy was destroyed.
Until conservatives are willing to rhetorically recover the true legacy of bush we will lose to bad arguments like this one. Bush tax cuts brought a world record 2.5 trillion in one year to federal coffers! That’s a liberal dem spendmonster wet dream. The growing economy is the only way out of deficits and bush and the republicans were gradually yet powerfully doing that until Jan 2007. The nyt chart proves that.
To all thanks for replies but how do they manage to show these numbers in such a favorable light? Is it because there is no budget from the Democrats to base it on and they have to go with any changes from the last budget. I know the quick answer is the Democrats controlled spending in the house until the election of 2010.
Just after you posted I figured it had to do with the House being under Democrat control. This makes the most sense since it shot up like wall mart sales after a welfare pay day.
No better place for answers than Free Republic, now I can casually ask my neighbor two questions about this article
1 Why didn’t Clinton pay the debt with his “surplus?”
2 What party controlled the spending during those big jumps in the graph?
In other words, I know for a fact that Clinton wanted to spend more and did when he had a lib congress, but the repbulicans forced him to cut and he got the famous "Clinton surplus". Bush spent WAY too much but as I recall, the dems were always proposing bigger spending.
Yes, Bush and the Republicans were that bad and that is why voters tossed them out. However, the only reason things looked good during Clinton’s time in office was that Republicans forced welfare reform and capital gains tax reductions on Clinton. When Clinton first raised taxes, the economy started sinking. Republicans in Congress actually saved his presidency. Ironic, isn’t it?
1. There never was a Clinton surplus. The national debt increased EVERY YEAR under Clinton. The last time there was an actual surplus - meaning the debt was reduced - was in 1957 under President Eisenhower (yes, the last President to actually run a surplus and pay down the national debt was a Republican).
2. Federal receipts in 2003 (when Bush tax cuts were passed) in constant 2005 dollars: $1.9 trillion. In 2008 (last budget that President Bush signed) in constant 2005 dollars: $2.3 trillion.
The Bush tax "cuts" saw an increase in tax revenue of $400 BILLION over 4 years, in real tax revenue growth. Far from a tax cut, it was the Bush tax INCREASE - rates dropped, but economic activity increased (GDP grew) so the actual Federal revenue take was increased - via more taxes collected.
How are tax cuts a cost? If you buy that argument we have already lost.
Good point. It’s impossible to compare across years since they use the future years to balance the books. Like right now they are talking about cutting a trillion over 10 years so they can spend 1 trillion more this year.
Not entirely true sad to say. Over the objections of TRUE conservatives like Paul and Coburn, the spending in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was declared “an emergency supplemental” (an EMERGENCY for 8 Years?) and therefore the money was officially spent “off-budget” meaning it still put us farther into debt but didn’t officially count against the deficit. The Congress ended that practice shortly after Obama took office. Which is not to say the Porklous Bill wasn’t profligacy at its worst, but just that the RINOs in Bush’s budget office deserve more share of them blame than they’ve gotten to date.
Very well said.
But the 52% has to pay through the nose on sales taxes, property taxes, etc.
Why is it when the freeloading "52%" pays sales and property taxes it is deemed "paying through the nose" but when the Producers pay the exact same rate it is deemed "not paying their fair share"?
“Let us not forget that the Internet Bubble burst at the end of the Clinton years.”
That’s right. Bush walked right into the Clinton recession.
There was frantic economic activity leading up to the Y2K bug deadline. After the clock struck midnight that all stopped.
Bush and Gore stupidly campaigned on how they were going to spend the surplus as the markets were imploding. Capital gains and Tax revenues were evaporating. Nobody called them on it.
Rosy ecomomic forecasts were pure vaporware. The media, the politicians and labor unions (contracts) were all pretending good times would last forever.
Then there was 9-11.
Hmm...clearly there are other factors. How is it that in 1999 that a $400 billion increase in the debt got you a $200 billion increase in GDP, while by ‘02 it took $800 billion in more debt to get you $200B in GDP, and by ‘07 it took $1.2T to get you $200B in GDP?
Surely the debt didn’t drop by $1.4T in ‘08 — it didn’t rise as much as expected?
If we had a surplus in 00 and 01 how come the debt clock, that the Dems love to point at...until now, was still rising?
It was the tax cuts that have kept this economy going.
Bush's spending was not what caused the deficits or our current economy.
Bush’s tax cuts caused the majority of the deficit, but it did what was intended, getting us out of recession. At least he did the right thing by cutting taxes instead of doing a trillion dollar porkulus.
Also, Bush never had more than 18% of the budget to cut. The rest was defense, interest on the debt, and entitlements. What cuts he asked for, were mostly blocked by the Democrats, although he did get some budget cuts every year except the last two IIRC (even though the budget increased). His discretionary spending increases over eight years equaled only 3.6% of gdp and if you discount security and defense spending, it only equaled .6%,
The majority of his budget increase were for defense, but it was badly needed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost, but they only equaled about 5% of the budget annually (it was not counted in the budget). He also was responsible for NCLB and Medicare part D, but both have been successes. NCLB forced teachers to prove they were educating kids (that is why teachers to a person hate NCLB), and Medicare part D has come in 40% under budget. Both were campaign promises that he kept, and both were far less expensive than the Democrat’s proposals.
For the last three months of his term, he believed he had no choice but to bailout the financials with TARP. He also had to work with Pelosi to get anything passed at all. I was not happy with the authorization to bail out Wall Street, but it worked. It prevented a catastrophe. We didn’t know at the time of the $550 billion dollar run on our money markets, but the President did. FWIW, of the 700 billion authorized, there is about 190 billion outstanding, and more will be paid back if Obama allows it. Bush believed he had no choice, and I agree. I understand though, why many do not.
When you add in the challenges from Enron and the dotcom bust, 9/11, all of the natural disasters under his term (and there were a bunch of them...five hurricanes including Katrina in 2005 alone), the war on terror, and the financial collapse, GWB and the Republicans actually were conservative in their spending, even though the debt doubled in eight years (5 Trillion).
In fact, because of GWB’s business friendly policies of holding down taxes and regulations, our GDP grew rapidly enough to keep government spending in the 18.5-20.5% of the GDP, below average for the last thirty years. If not for the real estate collapse, our budget would have been balanced in 2008...it almost made it in 2007. The debt to GDP held steady at about 60% of GDP, about the same as 1990-1996.
It is mostly the paulites that keep tagging GWB as such a huge spender, but they are wrong. They discount the fact that for six years Democrats voted as a block against everything Delay and Bush tried to do with the budget, and the incredible demands on the government in the same time period.
On the other hand, Obama’s spending (just in the budget) may exceed 35% of GDP. It is at 26% right now. He may well double the debt in his first term (10 trillion). There really is no comparison between the massive spending we are seeing now, and the previous administration’s. Unfortunately, Republicans voting as a block cannot affect Obama’s budgets, as the Dems (with the help of a few RINOs) could GWB’s.
Tom Delay told conservatives that Republicans did the best they could, and it was the truth. With Obama and the Democrats having shown their true colors on spending the last three years, it is time to quit trying to paint GWB and the Republicans spending as somehow the same. It wasn’t, and it is easy to prove. A good example is conservative’s throwing Republicans under the bus for $44 billion in earmarks, about 2% of the budget in 2005. In place of them, we have Pelosi who won’t even talk about earmarks, and a porkulus bill that will spend $300 billion on exactly the same type of projects. 44 billion was not an exorbitant amount, it was just presented that way as a Democrat talking point.
Certainly spending was far higher than what libertarians would prefer, but now we need to acknowledge the realities of the Bush Administration’s fiscal policy.
This theme keeps coming up, and it only helps Obama cover the staggering amount of spending he and the Dems are doing, spending that will destroy our country.
Here are the links to back this info up.
Bush’s tax cuts caused the majority of the deficit,
Economy Pays Price For Bush Tax Cuts.
Their conclusions were totally wrong as proven by the explosion in revenue in 2005-2008, but their numbers on the revenue loss until 2004 are valid.
and entitlements
Bush never had more than 18% of the budget to cut.
although he did get some budget cuts every year except the last two
I couldn't find one link that lists them all, but most are in the google search.
His discretionary spending increases over eight years equaled only 3.6% of gdp and if you discount security and defense spending, it only equaled .6%,
he did increase spending on defense, but it was badly needed
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost, but they were only about 5% of the budget annually.
897,000,000,000 war cost divided by 20,359,000,000,000 budgets from 2002-2009= 4.4%
Medicare part D has come in 40% under budget.
Medicare Part D Comes In Under Budget
Bush Drug Plan Beats Cost Mark
We didn’t know at the time of the $550 billion dollar run on our money markets,
2008 TARP bailout was prompted by fears of 5 Trillion dollar bank run
there is about 190 billion outstanding, and more will be paid back
even though the debt doubled in eight years (increase of 5 Trillion).
Notice it tripled under Reagan, and nearly doubled under Clinton.
our GDP grew rapidly enough to keep government spending in the 18.5-20.5% of the GDP,
If not for the real estate collapse, our budget would have been balanced in 2008
The debt to GDP held steady at about 60% of GDP, about the same as 1990-1996.
It is at 26% right now.
There really is no comparison between the massive spending we are seeing now, and the previous administration’s.
P.S. Don't let liberals say that Clinton had a surplus. It is a lie. Here is the best site I've found that details it.
?You don't have to be in the top 48% or even top 10% to be a producer. Everybody who works an honest job is a producer.
I’m not buying or supporting the article. They are using every trick in the book to sell it.
Freeper shoff just asked if someone could post the graphs and I posted the graphs.
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.