Why didn't we hear about the deficit during the Bush administration?

[Samson]

Uh paying off 635 Congresspeople to get it passed?

You do realise that 635 Congresspeople are not all republican, right?

This is a silly thread, that has only accomplished one thing: Continuing the Great American Pastime of Bullshit Partisanism rather than reaching any solution to reducing the size of Federal Government that cannot even keep 12 million Messkins (and maybe a few Islamist Radicals?) from wandering across the border, and spends $13.4 Billion to run the Department of Treasury (2010 Budget) to feed itself.

BOTH the GOP and DNC better get their heads out of their asses....but

Why should they?

Oh yeah I meant BOTH Reps and Dems. ALL 635.

blu's not gonna like that.

 

[blu]

nope. i am talking about the tax cuts. all you have to do is look at the brackets.

You're saying that without showing us?

you're not getting my tax ID number.

show the "brackets"

 

[Samson]

You do realise that 635 Congresspeople are not all republican, right?

This is a silly thread, that has only accomplished one thing: Continuing the Great American Pastime of Bullshit Partisanism rather than reaching any solution to reducing the size of Federal Government that cannot even keep 12 million Messkins (and maybe a few Islamist Radicals?) from wandering across the border, and spends $13.4 Billion to run the Department of Treasury (2010 Budget) to feed itself.

BOTH the GOP and DNC better get their heads out of their asses....but

Why should they?

Because it smells and is very unsanitary!

Your standards are higher than Congress.

 

[blu]

Why didn't we hear about the deficit during the Bush administration?

When not waving the flag, Rush and Hannity bemoaned it quite often. Beck mocked and chided Shrub and the congress constantly. Guys like Boortz and Jason Lewis were going absolutely nuts. Then, there were the dems and their compliant media toadies, who pissed and moaned about it in conjunction with the tax cuts for those eeeeeevil "wealthy" people.

Whoever didn't hear about deficits exploding during Chimpy McShrub's eight years had to have been living on a deserted island, with Gilligan and the gang.

All while thumping their chests about the Bush economy ....

You did hear some conservatives bitch about Bush's spending ... they were mostly Libertarians or people too embarrassed to admit they were republicans at the time. Everyone else found religion on January 20, 2009.

they were called 'kooks' and anti-american etc. the usual neocon crap

 

[blu]

When not waving the flag, Rush and Hannity bemoaned it quite often. Beck mocked and chided Shrub and the congress constantly. Guys like Boortz and Jason Lewis were going absolutely nuts. Then, there were the dems and their compliant media toadies, who pissed and moaned about it in conjunction with the tax cuts for those eeeeeevil "wealthy" people.

Whoever didn't hear about deficits exploding during Chimpy McShrub's eight years had to have been living on a deserted island, with Gilligan and the gang.

All while thumping their chests about the Bush economy ....

You did hear some conservatives bitch about Bush's spending ... they were mostly Libertarians or people too embarrassed to admit they were republicans at the time. Everyone else found religion on January 20, 2009.

I don't know much about Beck. I have only seen him a couple times. but is he a libertarian? can't imagine fox would hire him, considering they didn't invite Ron Paul to their debate.

different people. ron paul is a guest on fox shows all the time

 

[blu]

I got into ford a few months ago, but not as soon as I had wanted.

I wish I invested in Apple back in December of 08. Would of made over double what I had originally invested.

Ford? Forget about it.

I mean eleven times what you invested? Deals like that don't come around often.

Though I have a feeling that China's bubble is going to take a hit in the near future.

Anybody with the balls to buy into to the market in March of last year made a bundle of money.

i went with aig (6->36), uyg ($1->$6), and wfc(6->26). I made out well

 

[blu]

You do realise that 635 Congresspeople are not all republican, right?

This is a silly thread, that has only accomplished one thing: Continuing the Great American Pastime of Bullshit Partisanism rather than reaching any solution to reducing the size of Federal Government that cannot even keep 12 million Messkins (and maybe a few Islamist Radicals?) from wandering across the border, and spends $13.4 Billion to run the Department of Treasury (2010 Budget) to feed itself.

BOTH the GOP and DNC better get their heads out of their asses....but

Why should they?

Oh yeah I meant BOTH Reps and Dems. ALL 635.

blu's not gonna like that.

how did I fit into what was quoted?

 

[Samson]

Oh yeah I meant BOTH Reps and Dems. ALL 635.

blu's not gonna like that.

how did I fit into what was quoted?

You seem to think that Ridiculously Large Deficites are a result of one party controlling congress. It must be disappointing to learn they are a product of both parties.

 

[uscitizen]

In addition, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) issued a joint report in 2006 supporting the continued use of earmarks. They argued that in 2005, for example, earmarks were very beneficial for Idahoans. They built a new wastewater infrastructure in Bonners Ferry, supported jobs at the Idaho National Laboratory, improved housing for families at Mountain Home Air Force Base, and expanded course offerings at Boise State University. Without earmarking, in their mind, these projects would not have been possible



One of the REDDEST STATES in the country and happens to be my home state.

Idaho? Toetapper would have won again had he ran?

 

[blu]

You seem to think that Ridiculously Large Deficites are a result of one party controlling congress. It must be disappointing to learn they are a product of both parties.

nope but the republicans were being discussed for most of this thread. its expected that the Ds would be for deficit spending.

 

[Samson]

You seem to think that Ridiculously Large Deficites are a result of one party controlling congress. It must be disappointing to learn they are a product of both parties.

nope but the republicans were being discussed for most of this thread. its expected that the Ds would be for deficit spending.

 

[Toro]

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
(Graphic from the Washington Post)

I believe that this graph is disingenuous, at least as it pertains to the Bush and Obama administrations.

The United States has a fiscal year that starts in October and ends in September, and the annotation for fiscal years is for the following year. For example, for the year 2009 in this graph, that is not for the calendar year 2009. It is for the fiscal year 2009. And the fiscal year 2009 began in October 2008 and ended in September 2009. In other words, it is the last budget passed by Bush.

As for the stimulus, a relatively small proportion of the stimulus was spent during the fiscal year 2009, ~10%-20%. Thus, only a small proportion of the deficit is attributable to the stimulus.

The reason why the deficit is so high is partly because of the Bush tax cuts - had Bush not cut taxes, the government would have received more revenue. But it is mainly because of the automatic fiscal stabilizers built into the budget. In other words, even if Bush had cut taxes, the deficit would still have been very high.

 

[Toro]

How can you ask me about the national debt growing 6 trillion per year when it grew 6 trillion during Bush's 8 years?

Seriously, try to focus.

It grew by that amount because the non-operating debts outside of the budgetary process rose. I explained how that occurs here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...administration-was-a-myth-10.html#post1296638

It is for the same reason why the debt rose under Clinton, even though Slick Willie ran operating budget surpluses.

More here.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[uscitizen]

How can you ask me about the national debt growing 6 trillion per year when it grew 6 trillion during Bush's 8 years?

Seriously, try to focus.

It grew by that amount because the non-operating debts outside of the budgetary process rose. I explained how that occurs here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...administration-was-a-myth-10.html#post1296638

It is for the same reason why the debt rose under Clinton, even though Slick Willie ran operating budget surpluses.

More here.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could and should not this "debts outside the budgetary process) costs have been predicted reasonably close and budgeted for? I mean it is a real cost/debt right?

That is how I do my budget....

 

[Samson]

How can you ask me about the national debt growing 6 trillion per year when it grew 6 trillion during Bush's 8 years?

Seriously, try to focus.

It grew by that amount because the non-operating debts outside of the budgetary process rose. I explained how that occurs here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...administration-was-a-myth-10.html#post1296638

It is for the same reason why the debt rose under Clinton, even though Slick Willie ran operating budget surpluses.

More here.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could and should not this "debts outside the budgetary process) costs have been predicted reasonably close and budgeted for? I mean it is a real cost/debt right?

That is how I do my budget....

Do you also print your own money?

 

[manifold]

Why didn't we hear about the deficit during the Bush administration?

Because democrats don't even pretend to give a shit about the deficit.

And republicans only do when a democrat is in the white house.

I thought everyone understood this.

 

[manifold]

Why didn't we hear about the deficit during the Bush administration?

Because democrats don't even pretend to give a shit about the deficit.

And republicans only do when a democrat is in the white house.

I thought everyone understood this.

Just like republicans don't bother pretending to give a shit about civil liberties (bearing arms notwithstanding).

And democrats only pretend to care when a republican is in the white house.

Government by the people, for the people and of the people is a big ruse.

Again, I thought most people understood this.

 

[uscitizen]

It grew by that amount because the non-operating debts outside of the budgetary process rose. I explained how that occurs here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...administration-was-a-myth-10.html#post1296638

It is for the same reason why the debt rose under Clinton, even though Slick Willie ran operating budget surpluses.

More here.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could and should not this "debts outside the budgetary process) costs have been predicted reasonably close and budgeted for? I mean it is a real cost/debt right?

That is how I do my budget....

Do you also print your own money?

And that has what to do with answering my queston?

Many do in essence print their own money with credit.

 

[Gunny]

Tomorrow is the State of the Union and Obama will be talking about the huge deficit we have. Why didn't we ever hear about it during the Bush admin when during his admin the national debt was more than doubled? The deficits were huge!

But Bush hid them. He didn't put the two wars in the budget like Obama is doing. Remember all those emergency supplementals that congress voted on every few months? 250 billion here, 500 billion there, to fund the wars. We don't have those anymore, because the wars are funded, out in the open, by the budget.

But now, we see the deficit spending that these wars are causing, and suddenly everyone's all outraged.

This money has been draining our treasury for 8 years already.

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2009

The 2009 debt number is from the Bush administration's fiscal year. When they post the 2010 numbers, that will be Obama's.

So I was just wondering why the media is so stupid? They keep talking about the huge deficit in the Obama admin. But they never mentioned the doubling of the national debt under the Bush admin. Are they really so stupid that they didn't realize all those war supplementals weren't in the budget and therefore hidden away each year?

Get over yourself huh? We DID hear about the deficit. Every time Bush spent a dime.

Here's some late-breaking news: Bush isn't President. Get over it. It doesn't matter what Bush did. It is irrelevant to your boy outspending Bush's 8 years in one year.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We did hear about the deficits during Bush's presidency...

...VP Cheney said they didn't matter.