Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 123,612
- 79,099
- 2,635
It was less than a trillion and about 1/3rd of that was in tax cuts. The other 2/3rds were for spending. Don't you know anything, jester ??Wow thats not revisionism.Of course Democrats get the blame for spending us out of Bush Great Recession. For example, Bush asked for $700b to help save the economy. Obama then asked for an additional $550b to stimulate growth due to Bush's Great Recession. In both cases, Democrats passed it so of course they are credited with that spending. However, it isn't so myopic. That spending was an attempt to repair the economy which was cratered by Republican policies from years earlier.So the blow out in spending under Bush was actually the Democrats' fault since they controlled Congress for some of that time, especially in the hyper-deficit recession years. Right?Already answered, forum jesterThats my point jerk-off: Deficits are HIGHER now than in pre-recession Bush years, despite record revenue. If we have more revenue theoretically deficits ought to be LOWER, not HIGHER. Yet htey are HIGHER, Whose fault is this?And that decline is mostly attributable to a growing economy producing higher revenue. Spending is still near record highs. And again, it's Congress which controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.
Which brings me full circle to my initial point on this before the forum jester tried to deviate away from it since it implicates Republicans ... Another poster pointed out the debt is expected to increase by $4 trillion over the next two years ... that's $2 trillion per year or double the $1 trillion per year we've been averaging over the previous 4 years.
Since revenues are expected to continue increasing over the next two years that means spending is the main reason for adding $4 trillion in debt over the next two years ........
....... and which party controls the House, where ALL spending bills originate??
But I'll repeat if for ya since you're slow ....
Congress controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.
Capiche?
But let me guess ... if $4 trillion is added to the debt over the next two years amid growing revenues and Congressional spending -- you're going to blame Obama and not the Republican-led Congress, right?
For starters, Obama's Stimulus was about 1T. ANd it failed. And deficits have piled up unde rthe Democrats ever since, higher now than any time during the Bush years except 2009.
Congress Approves 787 Billion Stimulus Plan NPR
And no, it's not possible to say it failed since it was designed to "save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010," and estimates have shown it could have been that high. By the same token, it's not possible to say it was successful either since those same estimates came up short on the low end.
And more of your idiocy is to claim that deficits "piled up" since deficits don't accumulate from year to year. Yet another thing I can only chalk up to your immeasurable ignorance. But since we seem to agree that deficits remain near record highs, how do you not blame the House, which creates all spending bills and has been under Republican control for 4 years now?