Obama’s and Bush’s real effects on the deficit in one graph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

The second paragraph states, according to CBO, Clinton left a budget surplus 1998-2000. Please notify these people at the link above that the CBO lied, and that it did not happen. Sorry for using actual facts.

It doesn’t mean he was a good President, it just means he benefited from Community ReInvestment Act and prosperity that pushed housing prices higher to the bubble, and that he and Hillary worked hard to keep lending to the poor.

Also, you must remember that Newt Gingrich, Speaker from 1995-1999, and the Republicans in power forced Clinton to need to work with them. It worked to his benefit, and his/Hillary’s Health Care bill failed.
Sometimes a President does well because of the people, who are elected to Congress, it has nothing to do with their ability to lead.

Yes, Wikipedia claims it, but the actual record - which I linked to - shows it to not be the case. The actual debt record at the US Treasury - what I linked - shows the national debt increasing every single year.

As far as the CBO goes, remember they told us that Obamacare would save $1.6 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years!

The actual debt record is unequivocal and maintained to the penny - and every year under President Clinton it increased, as it has done since President Eisenhower.

Gold, silver, bronze.

Thanks for that...

You could do the same with Bush vs. Clinton and Bush would come out worse. Try out the period especially when the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress when Bush was President.

The problem is that there are enough people who have deluded themselves into believing that Bush's deficits and debts were good and at an acceptable level. NO! All deficits and debts are bad even when created by Republican presidents.

As bad as TARP was, it wasn't $770 trillion - it was up to $770 billion,...

Yes, you're right. I try not to do that, but once in a while I seem to slip one through. Oops. It would help if trillions were not on the table at all.

...it ended up being $465 billion used, and $440 billion paid back - it added $25 billion to the debt overall. Not the original $770 billion.

I appreciate this explanation, but I'm not able to agree with what you're saying here. Not trying to be arugumentative, but GM hasn't acually paid back it's funds. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac haven't paid back their funds. What GM paid back was through slight of hand. Fanny and Freddie are still exposed and may need to be bailed out further. Some of the banks essentially forced to take funds, have paid them back. The real kicker for me on this issue, is that Bush requested from Congress another $300 billion dollars just prior to Obama coming in, so he could hit the ground running because the economy was so bad. And then Obama requested the stimulus bill and got still more funds. If that original $770 billion had all been paid back, this wouldn't have been necessary. If that $770 billion had been paid back, Bush's spending in his last year would not have increased the debt as it did. Look at that chart I posted above.

The bad thing, IMHO, about TARP wasn't the $25 billion in debt it added; it was the sustaining of inefficient businesses on their deathbed. Those companies - like GM, for example - should have died an ignoble death and allowed others to replace them. While we're going to disagree about that $25 billion in debt, I agree with regard to bail-outs. Even so, I'm not convinced that GM would have died at all. In all likelihood it would have filed for bankruptcy, reorganized and remained essentially what it is today, only healthier.

And it doesn't change the fact that FY2009 was written by Pelosi and Reid, and signed into law by President Obama. With all due respect, and I'm sorry to have to say this to you, but this looks like denial to me. If Bush had remained in there, it is quite clear he would have been of a mind to do pretty much what Obama did in 2009. That $300 billion additional request to be ready for Obama's use in early 2009, makes it crystal clear Bush agreed with stimulus spending. As for the rest of the budget, you probably have a point. None the less, going rogue on the budget had already been done twice by the time Obama was sworn in. Acting as if Bush wouldn't have supported further stimulus spending seems more like fantasy than fact, at least to me.

It's a common leftist/Democrat trick to include all that spending of FY2009 under President Bush - but he never signed the bill, was never given the opportunity to do so (because he promised to veto it).

Please remember that Bush's submitted 2008 budget didn't include TARP or an additional $300 billion just prior to Obama being sworn in. Did that prevent him from blowing out the budget by over a trillion dollars? No. Look, I'm not here to dump on Bush, although his support for loans to people who didn't qualify was on the books. And quite frankly, that is my main focus as to why our nation wound up on the cliff. Democrats had been trying to do the same thing for more than a decade, so it wasn't all his fault by any means. Members of the Senate, Congress, the courts, the legal profession, even Obama participated as a lesser player in one such law suit in the 90s or early 2000s, pushing as hard as they could for unsound lending practices.

Did Bush address some of these issues while he was president? Yes, but in muted tones. It was kindof like a ten year old asking mom for the car keys rather sheepishly, then forgetting about it.

At the same time, Bush was out advocating for getting more Americans in homes. He didn't much care how that happened either. And it happened alright.

FY2009 was a 100% Democrat bill, and it sits squarely on President Obama's shoulders. Don't accept the lie that President Bush was responsible for FY2009, because the Congressional record proves otherwise.

I'm not a Democrat. I'm not pulling for Obama. I'm not buying into anything. A casual read of my comments on this thread will verify that. It's still a sad fact, that excusing and explaining away our involvement in wrong behaviors, only enables a continuation of the same. We have got to stop excusing away what our players do. We have to have one solid party to fight the Marxists.

I'm not excusing away anything Obama has done, and I'm going by the same set of principles with regard to folks who say they are on our team.

Was Obama responisible for astronomical spending in 2009? Of course. Who on this thread has been trying to claim otherwise?

Please post those links, so the Freepers can look at them too...thanks

Noone is defending Bush here, and thanks for your chart. I wish that were true. Please look at your next sentence.

However, Obama has increased the debt more than 4.5 trillion in THREE YEARS. Bush had two wars, and lots of military spending, including the expenses of 9/11 internally in NYC, Katrina, California Wildfires, and some of the most devastating Hurricanes ever, during his terms. I know Francis and Ivan cost me a bundle. Gov’t agency FEMA budget was depleted for sure.

If you look at the chart of growth for our national debt, it becomes clear that during the time when we were spending the most on these disasters, the Bush budgets remained the most solid. Six years into Bush's administration you couldn't say he had been a saint on the matter of deficits, but at least those deficits weren't astronomical. In years seven and eight, things went positively postal.

I believe the costs of the war started to spiral a bit, but even that was overplayed if you take infaltion into consideration. And no, I'm not refering to the idiotic figures the government puts out for the rest of us to keep us happy. I'm talking about actual inflation.

Now, Clinton left a surplus,... Due to the Republican Congress, Clinton had a balanced budget during his last year, perhaps two. He never handed off a surplus. He handed off $5.9 trillion dollars of national debt. Bush handed off around $9.8 trillion dollars in debt, a good portion of that increas in his last two years.

...but he also missed the chance to get Osama Bin Laden, when they asked him, and he said “NO”. Think of all the billions that would have been save if he had taken out Bin Laden then. Clinton was more interested in sex, than national security, as he and Hillary went to N. Vietnam to apologize for Vietnam War and lowered our flag to the communist N. Vietnam flag ( our flag never had been subjected to this humilation before). We're in agreement on this. Obama has taken off right where Clinton left off, and has actually gone down hill significantly from there.

However Bush did try to get some things like Freddie and Fannie under control, that were refused. Democrats have controlled Congress, since 2006. I have seen the statements on video from Bush and Snow, who made appeals to Congress to get this housing market problem, as far back as 2001, just before 9/11-—Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others booed his efforts claiming everything was fine. The Republicans took the majority in the House and the Senate in 1994. They lost that majority six years into Bush's presidency. It's an impossible task to get me to push all the blame for the problems off on the Democrats.

IMO, something changed with regard to the programs started under Carter. I say this, because the program was so disgusting by the time it caused the house of cards to crumble in 2008, that it couldn't function for a long period of time as it existed. If it had been as vile under Carter, we would have faced collapse decades earlier. Conserted efforts by just about everyone caused the credit requirements to be relaxed to the point of absurdity. Then lending institutions that had gone to court to prevent it, were faced with holding bad paper. Congress, the Courts, and even the president contributed to this situation.

Lending institutions forced to issue these bad loans, were faced with holding on to them and closing their doors when they went bad, or finding some way to spread them around. The government agencies that did hold on to them, what happened to them? Did Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac skate through unscathed? No. So when the big banks and lending institutions did have problems, those problems were much less than they would have been had they held all the bad paper that was forced on them.

You know, the Left has played this game as long as I have been alive. They used to piss and moan because the mean old United States had come by wealth unfairly at the cost of small nations, so they demanded the United States make loans to small nations. Then when those small nations couldn't pay the loans back, they blamed the United States for being a "loan shark" in the first place. That is exactly what is taking place today. Lending institutions who wouldn't make bad loans were bad. Lending institutions who did make bad loans were then bad when those loans failed.

I watched a special that showed how the Community Reinvestment Act, that originated with Jimmy Carter, put three Presidents in the prosperity category, until 2006, when the spiral started down. Those investments were AAA rated by the same rating agency’s now going to downgrade America...not that we don’t deserve it, so I am not a ‘head in the sand’ type. Any mention of these types of investments being tripple AAA rated, would have to be a CYA moment. The program you watched had to be bailing water for someone. Any businessman or business environment entity would have to know that those loans were going to go bad. People not earning enough money to make house payments by themselves, were none the less given loans on homes.

Now your chart may be correct, but WHY we had the spending is just important, as the spending itself. Yes it is. The sad thing is, Obama wants to blame this on "evil" lending institutions, "evil" corporations, "evil" Wall Street, and "evil" wealthy U. S. Citizens. And low and behold, we have people on this forum who actually think he's right on target with that.

Did banks and lending instiutions refuse to make these types of loans? Did they get hauled into court by Janet Reno, A.C.O.R.N., and just about every other leftist do-gooder with less than half a clue? Yes. And what was the upshot? The loans were made, the payments didn't come in. Loans failed. This caused a rippling shortage of credit. Large and small businesses didn't have access to capital.

Small businesses in my community were moving along just as they always had, things were a little more tight, but they were in no danger. All of a sudden, they couldn't get day to day capital. They went belly up. Was this because of evil players, or a catostrophic case of dominoes lined up and pushed over by the federal government? We all know what the government did. There's no question what caused this.

Obama did NOT have to have OBAMACARE, and he did not have to do ‘clunkers for cars”, and right now people with mortgage/job problems can get $12000 a year paid by federal gov’t on their debt. Services provided by Obamacare won't actually begin until about 2014. Preparations for it may hurt institutions, but the outlays by the government aren't there yet. When they are, you're going to be on the right track with comments like this. As for the clunkers program, you're right. It was a total waste of funds gearted to curry favor with far out fringe Leftists. It would be intresting to know how many of those cars were actually running prior to being turned in. Requirement or not, I'm betting there were a lot of cars taken out of back yards that weren't contributing to polutiona at all. In fact, in California all cars have to meet stringent smog certification to remain on the road. You hardly ever see a car going down the road here pumping out anything you can see.

Million went to abort babies in Africa by Exec Order right after Obama took office, and 900 Million went to Palestinian Hamas families to move to America, and live off our programs. Look at how many billions of taxpayer dollars was sent overseas by Obama, and to South America, etc. We're in agreement on this.

Millions are being supported, who crossed the border Illegally, and I find Obama’s 4.5 trillion in 3 years, when troops are coming home, and winding down...where is the money? The Tarp was wasted for jobs that did not exist, and we need to look at the details, of who got that money...really! We're in agreement on most of this. The money is gone. It's pointless to try to prove something we already know.

And we have clowns like Al Franken in the Senate, whose election was an Acorn joke, stolen and eventually determined as probably not tallied correctly. Reid should have been defeated, except for the new voting machines that gave him several million votes, after it went down, that weren’t there before. I'm not opposed to this type of thinking. I agree, but it really isn't on point.

We have a criminal system, and as for Government paperwork, all the corrections that have had to be made in past couple of years, and that makes me think those in charge aren’t even able, to add 2+2 and get 4. That tripple AAA rating you mentioned, is a good example.

Thanks for letting me state the obvious...too much BS on Capital Hill, and Dems whining the GOP is going to raid Medicare is hilarious, since they scheduled 500 billion of Medicare to go to Obamacare. Couldnt' agree more... My only problem with this line of reasoning, is that we have to man up and agree that our team (as much as I hate to call them that), actually contributed to this. The $500 billion aside, which we all agree is Obama and the Democrats grave stone as part of Obamacare, our team did not do their duty, to set in place fixes to protect our lending institutions. I wish I didn't have to be, but I am very bitter about what they allowed to take place. And now they have the gall to be upset that a Tea Party has formed and is taking away their lunch-money.

Bloodsucking Pariah’s...the whole bunch, except for a few, who really do want to balance the budget. We have duplicates of programs to as many as 25-30 in different agencies, so what do these people do with their time? The gov’t job programs do not work, and this President is still creating more. Yep, like Medicare Part D. How many of those layers of programs did the Republicans cut in 12 years? Are the Democrats evil? Absolutely! Have our people acted in bad faith, screwed us right into the dirt too? Hell yes. I'm mad at the whole lot of them, with some exceptions. There are good people there. It's just that they have been there in too small of numbers. It's my hope in 2012 that is about to change. If we can get the Tea Party totals in the House above the straight Republican presence, it's a whole new ball-game.

I’m so tired of the bull, cause I am not easily dupped, since all these politicians are doing is kicking can down the road. We're agreed here. And not to belabor a point, NPR, PBS, the Department of Education, the myriad of Leftist NGOs out there receiving large sums of government money, how many of those did our side eliminate in that 12 years? We had some excellent toe men during our majority-ship, let me tell ya.

Congress stole the money out of Social Security trust fund, and left IOU’s, that they cannot pay now. Millions were spent on electronics that could not be used for Census, but were paid for by this Admin anyway...it’s incompetency at it’s worse. We were doing the same things prior to 2008 too. We were doing them prior to 2006. Yes, the Democrats are vile. I don't harp on them because it's a given that we all know it. What isn't a given is that our people out here in fly-over country understand how bad our own side has been. There is far too much rooting for a Republican victory no matter what, instead of a good solid Conservative victory no matter what.

Those things don’t show up in the numbers, but should...for we are being taxed by people who misuse what is given to gov’t, and who are incompetant. We're in agreement on that. We probably agree about a lot of political things. Please don't see this as a criticism of you, as much as trying to put something on the forum that others can read and think about. We're never going to get anywhere, until we realize we have been sold out by two parties, and get to work voting out every single player with a Leftist vent no matter what party they are in.

If you think I'm off track here, please remember the re-election of John McCain, and what it symbolized. Top Republicans endorsed the guy to return to Washington. We will be dealing with him for more than another half decade. That s--t has got to stop!

“And we have clowns like Al Franken in the Senate, whose election was an Acorn joke, stolen and eventually determined as probably not tallied correctly. Reid should have been defeated, except for the new voting machines that gave him several million votes, after it went down, that weren’t there before. I’m not opposed to this type of thinking. I agree, but it really isn’t on point.”

I was writing this as Al Franken was on TV trying to say the Tea Party were the one’s destroying America. On the heels of Van Hallen saying the Tea Party was unfit to govern.
And Reid wouldn’t be the one writing a debt ceiling plan, if he had lost the election instead of stealing it.

It was right on point, in relation to whose in charge of Senate, and who is making speeches criticizing Tea Party electees in the House.

Yes, get that damn money back! And pay off in investors that gave it to the government.

Not trying to be arugumentative

Understood - neither am I! :)

GM hasn't acually paid back it's funds. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac haven't paid back their funds.

Correct. Both of those were funded after President Obama and Tim "the tax cheat" Geithner were sworn in. That spending is on their heads, not President Bush.

The real kicker for me on this issue, is that Bush requested from Congress another $300 billion dollars just prior to Obama coming in, so he could hit the ground running because the economy was so bad.

Yep; it was allocated and available but use was at the discretion of the President and the Treasury - not Congress. Thus the reason only $465 billion of TARP was ever spent - not the full $770 billion.

The reason that President Obama wanted the stimulus as well was because TARP - and the extension passed - were prohibited for use to the things President Obama wanted to spend on. It was restricted to bailouts of companies, not walkin-around money for unions, State employee wages, and the like.

President Obama could not tap TARP funds for his pork slush fund.

I'm not convinced that GM would have died at all. In all likelihood it would have filed for bankruptcy, reorganized and remained essentially what it is today, only healthier.

Probably - a lot leaner, and more efficient as well. Too bad we had to cement the failures in place...:(

If Bush had remained in there, it is quite clear he would have been of a mind to do pretty much what Obama did in 2009.

Maybe yes, maybe no. We do know that President Bush promised to veto the exact same budget that President Obama signed - which is why Pelosi and Reid held it until that time. So at least the budget would have been different.

That $300 billion additional request to be ready for Obama's use in early 2009, makes it crystal clear Bush agreed with stimulus spending.

That wasn't stimulus spending - that was an extension of TARP that Paulson recommended. It was additional funds for bailing out companies and financial institutions who had bad investments. Not stimulus funds at all. And I cannot find any records that the $300 billion actually was spent - if it's not spent, it doesn't affect the deficit or the debt, only the budgetary numbers.

Did that prevent him from blowing out the budget by over a trillion dollars? No.

Blowing out the budget and blowing out the deficit and the debt are two entirely different things. Just because you can spend the money (TARP funds, the extra $300 billion TARP extension), doesn't mean you have to spend the money (like only $465 billion of the $1.07 trillion allocated).

I'm not as concerned about budgets as I am about deficits - cash flow is more important to me than just predicted future costs/revenues. I hate accrual based accounting; give me cash-based every time! :)

Was Obama responisible for astronomical spending in 2009? Of course. Who on this thread has been trying to claim otherwise?

Oh, I'm not claiming anyone is! If that is what I've possibly implied, please accept my apologies and let me restate - I am trying to counter the liberal/Democrat lie that FY2009 was a "Bush year" when in fact the vast majority of the spending - and even the budget for the spending - was by President Obama.

That is the dirty little lie. By putting all that on the shoulders of President Bush and the GOP, they can make the GOP look worse that it really was, and make President Obama look better than he really is. Total deflection and reassignment of responsibility, and it should not be allowed to happen.

Comparing all three: Revenue - Spending = Surplus/-Deficit

Year____Revenue____Spending___Deficit__%_Change_from_prior_deficit

1990____1,032.0____1,253.1____-221.1
1991____1,055.0____1,324.3____-269.3____21.8%
1992____1,091.2____1,381.7____-290.5____7.9%
1993____1,154.3____1,409.5____-255.2____-12.2%
1994____1,258.6____1,461.9____-203.3____-20.3%
1995____1,351.8____1,515.9____-164.1____-19.3%
1996____1,453.1____1,560.6____-107.5____-34.5%
1997____1,579.2____1,601.3____-22.1____-79.4%
1998____1,721.7____1,652.7____69.0____-412.2%
1999____1,827.5____1,702.0____125.5____81.9%
2000____2,025.2____1,789.2____236.0____88.0%
2001____1,991.1____1,863.2____127.9____-45.8%
2002____1,853.1____2,011.2____-158.1__-223.6%
2003____1,782.3____2,160.1____-377.8__139.0%
2004____1,880.1____2,293.0____-412.9____9.3%
2005____2,153.6____2,472.2____-318.6____-22.8%
2006____2,406.9____2,655.4____-248.5____-22.0%
2007____2,568.0____2,728.9____-160.9____-35.3%
2008____2,524.0____2,982.5____-458.5____185.0%
2009____2,105.0____3,517.7____-1,412.7___208.1%
2010____2,162.7____3,456.2____-1,293.5___-8.4%
2011____2,173.7____3,818.8____-1,645.1___27.2%

Revenue Increases
1990____1,032.0
1991____1,055.0____2.2%
1992____1,091.2____3.4%
1993____1,154.3____5.8%
1994____1,258.6____9.0%
1995____1,351.8____7.4%
1996____1,453.1____7.5%
1997____1,579.2____8.7%
1998____1,721.7____9.0%
1999____1,827.5____6.1%
2000____2,025.2____10.8%
2001____1,991.1____-1.7%
2002____1,853.1____-6.9%
2003____1,782.3____-3.8%
2004____1,880.1____5.5%
2005____2,153.6____14.5%
2006____2,406.9____11.8%
2007____2,568.0____6.7%
2008____2,524.0____-1.7%
2009____2,105.0____-16.6%
2010____2,162.7____2.7%
2011____2,173.7____0.5%
2012____2,627.5____20.9%

Spending Increases
1990____1,253.1
1991____1,324.3____5.7%
1992____1,381.7____4.3%
1993____1,409.5____2.0%
1994____1,461.9____3.7%
1995____1,515.9____3.7%
1996____1,560.6____2.9%
1997____1,601.3____2.6%
1998____1,652.7____3.2%
1999____1,702.0____3.0%
2000____1,789.2____5.1%
2001____1,863.2____4.1%
2002____2,011.2____7.9%
2003____2,160.1____7.4%
2004____2,293.0____6.2%
2005____2,472.2____7.8%
2006____2,655.4____7.4%
2007____2,728.9____2.8%
2008____2,982.5____9.3%
2009____3,517.7____17.9%
2010____3,456.2____-1.7%
2011____3,818.8____10.5%
2012____3,728.7____-2.4%

So give me your overall take on this chart...to me it looks like spending has gone into double digits under Obama. Triple digits in 03 and 08 under Bush, however we were heavy into Iraq in 08...and 03 was build up aftef 9/11.

Plus the Hurricanes and Fires Fema paid for under Bush...not sure how much FEMA has into Floors and Tornados this past year.

Looks to me like Clinton had the most excess Revenue coming in vs. spending...explains the budget surplus claim. I don’t get the 2010 numbers? Estimates, I guess.

Correct me where I am wrong.
Thanks.

LOL Floors=Floods

The dates for Federal fiscal year 2011 are October, 1, 2010 - September 30, 2011. Fiscal year 2010 ended September 30, 2010.

Other thoughts...

Revenue: in the early 1990’s, companies started to implement “packaged” software for much of their backoffice. That is to say, every company has payroll and General Ledger; that’s the backoffice. Now, if you’re Fedex, you have custom applications that run the actual shipping process; these applications would be referred to generically by software people as “line of business” apps. A retail store may have a whole set of custom programs on PC’s that serve as Cash Registers in stores that they wrote back in the 1980’s. They would feed Sales data into say an AS/400 which had a custom Purchasing / inventory management system. They may have had an AS/400 software package from the 1980’s which was their General Ledger, Accounts Payable, Payroll, etc.

Well, in the 1990’s, everyone was talking about moving the data to a SQL database instead of keeping it in indexed files. They also like the color screens of PC’s. They also had not a clue and did not want to stick their neck out and volunteer to manage rewriting the old systems.

Sofware companies came out with packages for all the generic backoffice applications, G/L, etc., that stored data in SQL databases and offered PC-based user interfaces.

Voila - sales started going crazy.

By 1994 the internet was going commercial. Suddenly every company needed a website but again... risk... etc.

And by the mid 1990’s, every company realized that it’s old legacy, custom “line-of-business” applications - only had 2 digits for the year and would be complete disasters once the year 2000 happened.

Bill Clinton benefitted from a demand for software people that was orders of magnitude greater than it ever was or ever will be again until the years 9995-10000, since very few software programs are capable of handling 5-digit years. But that’s ok, everything we run now will have been rewritten by then, right ? In theory...

Since demand was so high for this labor, prices went up dramatically (remember economics). The economy suddenly had millions of office employees making six figures seemingly out of nowhere, and they all bought clothes, toys, cars, homes, etc.

This is why Tax revenue all over the nation was going up way faster than normal. If we had a man like the Biblical Joseph running things, we would have built up enormous cash reserves during those “fat years”.

The proof is in the pudding as to the fact that the government had no clue as to what was going on: while revenue increases went from 5.8% in 1993 to 10.8% in 2000, Federal spending annual increases only reached 5.1% in 2000. This was because the high revenue was unexplained and they did not know that it would continue until 2000. If they did, they most certainly would have increased spending accordingly.

The Bill Clinton era deficits were decreasing - because the government DID NOT know what was going on.

By 2000, everyone in the business media was talking about business, technology and economic principles themselves - being in a “new era”. It was truly insane. I read a story of one punk guy walking out on a sales demo for a city government - saying they “didn’t get” what he was talking about and that they’d come back to him. What nerve.

So post 2000 we see that right on schedule, 2000 was the peak and 2001, 2002 and 2003 all see a Federal tax revenue decline. Now the Federal government is trying read the tea leaves. How can this be ? Mr. Greenspan played the role of Hawkeye Pierce, pounding on the chest of the economy, shoving increases in the money supply and lower interest rates into it’s mouth, shouting, “live, d@mmit, live !”, hoping that he could handle this sudden drop off - in seemingly everything at once, from airline tickets to filet mignon to IPO’s. The music had stopped in 2000, and we just couldn’t “get that recipe again”, to paraphrase Jimmy Webb.

Well, eventually the patient’s arm, the one that does investing - noticed that the stock market was dried up. And Mr. G’s low interest rates suddenly made Real Estate a super proposition, because mortgages could be had for a song. So Johnny took tons of capital out of the stock market and put it into the R/E market, giving the final gasp of air that would be needed to expose the cruel hoax of CRA mortgages.

In 2005, 2006 and 2007, poor George W was watching Federal Tax Revenue go up - so he thought things were Ok. The R/E market was providing a fair amount of economic activity for a tax base and IT and other sectors were showing some signs of life. GW was listening to his “wall street” guys. And the Dems were going beserko fanning the flames of Fannie and Freddie. They thought they were in a “new” economy where housing would continue forever to appreciate at a faster than normal pace. Between his war spending and horsetrading with Dems, spending was going up. But Revenue was going up faster, GW was trying to be “responsible” and at least constrain spending so the deficit actually was going down. Sounds ok, if there’s no bubble ready to pop.

During this R/E bubble time, there were some lone voices starting to talk about the problems - actually in the media and on the internet. But I’m sure it became as case of just getting across the finish line of 2008 at all costs, hoping the bubble would hold on until early 2009. The Washington/Wall Street folks doing all they could to avoid collapse and embarassment.

Basically, Congress spends like they’re insane, trying to buy votes to get re-elected. They go as far as they possibly can. They don’t think about the Revenue side at all, they assume that money will come rolling in - if not this year, then down the road. The economy goes in cycles, right ? /SARC yet, right.

The only real problems: we let them borrow on behalf of the Federal government. If there was NO borrowing, they would simply play with what they get, arguing, posturing, grandstanding, etc. And we let them play with the money supply and interest rates. If we simply had a fixed interest rate and a money supply tied to the size of the economy, they could go home. And, we let them pick winners and losers, i.e., we let them make “policy”. And we let them override that according to their whim. It would be so much better if they just weren’t there.

Free advice 1: in terms of economic activity growth, any time someone says an asymptotic curve is the “new normal” they’re flat wrong, because it can’t be.

Free advice 2: there is no single investment that pays much more than 10% in the long run as long as there is fair competition. At the point that a business can clear that much profit, it’s just too darn inviting and someone else will join you in the market. If you have a secret, it may take them a while to figure out something as good or better, but eventually someone will figure something out and compete.

While I have not been bashful about taking Bush to task for his spending, I'm not necessarily trying to do that here. It's obviously going to look like it, but I can't addresst this fully without bringing his name into it. And where his name does fit in, it's fair to take him to task anyway. Still, attacking Bush wasn't as important to me as clearly defining the problem. My point here is that nothing gets fixed, until we face what has actually taken place. Only then can we focus such that we prevent ALL players from screwing us over, Democrat or Republican.

Not trying to be arugumentative

Understood - neither am I! :) And I appreciate that.

GM hasn't acually paid back it's funds. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac haven't paid back their funds.

Correct. Both of those were funded after President Obama and Tim "the tax cheat" Geithner were sworn in. That spending is on their heads, not President Bush.

Okay let's look at what took place. It's my take that Bush handed out these sorts of funds before he left office. I believe that Obama and company did hand out the biggest bundle of them, but Bush had already promised GM over $13 billion in January of 2009. LINK Another report states he had committed to handing out $17.4 billion to GM, around $6 billion to GMAC, and $1.5 billion to Chrysler by January 17th, 2009. LINK That's already a total of $24.9 billion.

The point here is not to make Bush look like THE bad guy. He was still one of the bad guys. He committed to using the TARP funds for bailout funds. Once again, the Republicans lay out the welcome mat for much larger bailouts, because they had already committed to them before they handed off.

Of course GM, GMAC, and Chrysler played the game just like any good Leftist organizations would. They claimed they needed about 25% of what they really needed, got Congress to swallow that before revealing the full extent of their shortfall. Once committed, the President and Congress were in. Too bad by that point.

In fairness to these auto companies and the financial arm of GM, nobody knew the full extent of how badly the downturn would hit the automakers. What looked like major tweaks in the beginning, became staggering amounts later on.

The real kicker for me on this issue, is that Bush requested from Congress another $300 billion dollars just prior to Obama coming in, so he could hit the ground running because the economy was so bad.

Yep; it was allocated and available but use was at the discretion of the President and the Treasury - not Congress. Thus the reason only $465 billion of TARP was ever spent - not the full $770 billion.

I'm not finding data to be able to challenge this position prior to Bush leaving office, but I do think Obama eventually found a way to use all of it. And we did open the door for that spending.

As for my comments about the nation's debt going up, this is bolstered by the graph I provided. I'm not playing smoke and mirrors here. When Bush came into office, the national debt was around $5.9 trillion and when he left office it was right at 92% higher, somewhere in the neighborhood of $9.8 trillion.

The reason that President Obama wanted the stimulus as well was because TARP - and the extension passed - were prohibited for use to the things President Obama wanted to spend on. It was restricted to bailouts of companies, not walkin-around money for unions, State employee wages, and the like.

I'm not opposed to that point of view. It's my take that is exactly what the stimulus was used for. ACORN got a ton of walking around money, as part of this.

President Obama could not tap TARP funds for his pork slush fund. Not for pork, per se, but he could spread it around to speudo bail out entities. You may disagree with this, but it's my take he spread it around to various orgs like ACORN that could assist home owners and mortage companies. In TARPs orginal development, I believe it was partially championed to help homeowners as well as lending institutions. Once again, my perception may be off. I still think this is some of what took place.

I'm not convinced that GM would have died at all. In all likelihood it would have filed for bankruptcy, reorganized and remained essentially what it is today, only healthier.

Probably - a lot leaner, and more efficient as well. Too bad we had to cement the failures in place...:( Yes. True. And in some instances, we change the structure for the worse, and then cemented that in place. What percent of GM do the unions own now? I believe they were given a pseudo management/owner's position.

If Bush had remained in there, it is quite clear he would have been of a mind to do pretty much what Obama did in 2009.

Maybe yes, maybe no. We do know that President Bush promised to veto the exact same budget that President Obama signed - which is why Pelosi and Reid held it until that time. So at least the budget would have been different. I'm not going to argue that point, because Bush was not true to his own budget of 2008. The nation's debt climbed considerably during his last year. He didn't stick to his budget. Vetoing a budget bill, may have looked good to the public, but the reality of what took place in 2008, should reveal to honest people what could happen in a Bush controlled 2009 as well.

That $300 billion additional request to be ready for Obama's use in early 2009, makes it crystal clear Bush agreed with stimulus spending.

That wasn't stimulus spending - that was an extension of TARP that Paulson recommended. It was additional funds for bailing out companies and financial institutions who had bad investments. Not stimulus funds at all. And I cannot find any records that the $300 billion actually was spent - if it's not spent, it doesn't affect the deficit or the debt, only the budgetary numbers.

Tthose seem like sound arguments. The problem is, Bush had been running the nation into debt to the tune of about $200 to $400 billion per year. In 2007 that grew and in 2008 it reached nearly a trillion dollars. We can quibble on the details of how that took place, but there was a leak and it was growing to gargantuan preportions under Bush.

Did that prevent him from blowing out the budget by over a trillion dollars? No.

Blowing out the budget and blowing out the deficit and the debt are two entirely different things. Just because you can spend the money (TARP funds, the extra $300 billion TARP extension), doesn't mean you have to spend the money (like only $465 billion of the $1.07 trillion allocated).

When I reference blowing out the budget, I am referencing funds that are spent over and above the revenues we bring in. Perhaps I'm not being articulate enough in my presentation, but I think it's easy enough for you to understand what I am addressing. Like yours, and I think I can safely say that, my concern is the mountain of debt we are passing off to future generations. I can't harp on Obama for spending like a drunken sailor, if I'm not going to hold my guy to the same standard.

I'm not as concerned about budgets as I am about deficits - cash flow is more important to me than just predicted future costs/revenues. I hate accrual based accounting; give me cash-based every time! :)

Fine, I'm not going to quibble over your preferences. I'm sure you do believe in living within budgets, so to some extent you have to buy into the idea of developing budgets and sticking to them. And here you confirm my thought that you are mainly concerned about deficits, the accumulation of debt. So although we have some differences of opinion or levels of understanding give or take, we're both pulling for the same thing.

Was Obama responisible for astronomical spending in 2009? Of course. Who on this thread has been trying to claim otherwise?

Oh, I'm not claiming anyone is! If that is what I've possibly implied, please accept my apologies and let me restate - I am trying to counter the liberal/Democrat lie that FY2009 was a "Bush year" when in fact the vast majority of the spending - and even the budget for the spending - was by President Obama.

Okay, first the part you won't like. As I have stated before, refusing to sign a budget is not the same as adhering to a sane budget. Bush blew out the deficit spending in 2008 despite having a reasonably (actually debatable if you get right down to it) developed budget. It's good that he didn't sign it. (the 2009er) Does that mean he wouldn't have spent an equally as bad amount?

Okay, maybe you're not going to like any of this... grrrrr. You and I agree that the spending under Obama in 2009 was ridiculous. It probably increased our national debt by about $1.6 trillion. And yes, we can state that Obama signed the budget. He spent the money, and therefore Bush didn't deserve any of the credit. Is that realistic? I think the one thing we can take away from this, is that Bush probably wouldn't have spent as much in 2009. If he had taken over from Obama though, his total increases for that year would have been laid off on Obama, had he preceeded Bush. Do you disagee with that? I tend to doubt it. Read on, and you'll see I don't think he would have spent as much, although I can't say for sure.

What I am left with is trying to devine what Bush would have spent vs what Obama did spend. Bush's deficits went from rough $400 billion, to $600 billion, to $1 trillion in 2006, 07, and 08. I'm not going to look up the exact figures, so they may vary somewhat. The point is, Bush's deficit spending graph seemed to be headed into the rarified air above $1 trillion dollars per year. Would he have run a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit instead of a $1.6 trillion dollar one? Maybe so. Is that something to praise him for? Not really. Bush had eight years to develop the sort of handoff he wanted to make. He had a Republican Congress for six of those eight years. It's very hard for me to say good things about the way he handed off.

When Carter handed off to Reagan, it took Reagan at least two years to get things purring along. I'm not making the case that Obama deserves that kind of consideration, because at this point after spending trillions, he's still nowhere near turning things around. At this rate we may see a slow recovery by 2013 or 14. Next year we'll see fudged numbers, but nothing like what Reagan was able to accomplish

The reason I mentioned this, is because it was reasoned to attribute the poor economy on Carter. It's also proper to blame this one on Bush..., for a while. That while is over. Although I'm willing to cut Obama some slack in 2009 and even a bit beyond, he's has been there far too long for us to be where we are right now, with no end in sight to all this.

Please don't think I'm giving the guy a pass at Bush's expense. I'm only trying to guage the current situation by another situation from relatively recent history.

That is the dirty little lie. By putting all that on the shoulders of President Bush and the GOP, they can make the GOP look worse that it really was, and make President Obama look better than he really is. Total deflection and reassignment of responsibility, and it should not be allowed to happen. I will be right there assigning all blame to Obama, when I can. And today, I can. In 2009, I don't think Bush would have spread around the gravy like Obama did. I still think the economy as it was, would have been used as an escuse to spend heavily. I'd like to think he would have held the spending to $1 trillion, but I'm not convinced he would have.

It's my take that Obama is the worst President in our nation's history. I goes way beyond spending, and is equally as dangerous. This guy is undercutting our nation any way he can. Please don't get the idea that I wish to defend him, or hate Bush so much that I would try to trash him unfairly. I am trying to be fair, not to Obama, not to Bush, but more importantly to myself.

I want to see things as they are. I don't think the Demcrats or the Republicans have represented themselves well in this mess, up to this point.

I appreciate the response. Take care. I'll look forward to anything you have to say about what I said here. Thanks.

Thanks, for the chart, and the rundown.

Those same people, who thought they could glean more than 10%, are probably victims of people, who offer so much more in Ponzi schemes.