80% of our national debt comes from Reagan, Bush and Bush II, two biggest culprits are the Bush wars and Bush tax cuts (illegal, Afghanistan)

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by calmdude

because they are not talking about 2006. In 2009-10, they do show tarp reducing deficits.

You havent yet explained to me why they FLIP FLOPPED, from a generator to a cost.

Originally Posted by calmdude

wars were ended?? News to me. I dont think the the industrial complex will let either party get out so quickly.

You mean you havent heard? Obama brought the troops out of Iraq.. Tell me again how Obama expanding OTHER wars, are a Bush cost on the chart?

Originally Posted by calmdude

these are projections. End wars today, hike taxes today, and the brown part disappears quickly.

Thats a non answer. If wars end today then clearly they would not be a cost, and if the wars can end today, then why are the costs counted against Bush?
As for the tax hikes, AGAIN, The CBO said the tax cuts GENERATED MORE MONEY, so what makes you think tax hikes wont have the opposite effect? Why are you having difficulty understanding this?

Originally Posted by calmdude

...because they do seem to be driving the deficits even though they are counted under obama's tenure

Then they wouldnt be Bushs policies, would they?

Still waiting to find out how a tax cut turns from an economic stimulus to a cost.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by pghquest

No they do not have a $200B surplus if they only spent $2.8T instead of the budgeted $3T. Where on gods earth did you get your education from?

According to the House Joint Economic Committee, a Surplus is
It should be pointed out that "surplus" here and in common usage means when the cash revenues received by the federal government in a given time period exceeds the cash outlays in that same time period.
Budget Surpluses, Deficits and Government Spending (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budget/surplus2/surplus2.htm - broken link)

Do you want to tell me what your qualifications are that you think you are more qualified than the Chairman of the Joint Economics Committee?

It is called basic accounting. Try it sometime. All federal budgets are based upon projected revenues. When they spend more than what was budgeted, they incur a deficit. When they spend less than what was budgeted, they have a surplus.

Surpluses and deficits only pertain to budgets, not the National Debt. When total revenues are finally known, then the difference is either debt or credit. If revenues do not exceed what was spent, then more is added to the National Debt. If revenues are more than what was spent, then the National Debt can be reduced by that difference. Not that Congress would, but it could.

[calmdude]

Originally Posted by pghquest

You havent yet explained to me why they FLIP FLOPPED, from a generator to a cost.

Maybe, in 06-09, it was stimulative and generated more revenue than anticipated but, with recession, it resulted in lower-than-expected revenue, hence the flop. I cannot read the organization's mind - bit it is a non-partisian organization we are talking about, not HuffPo or Fox news.

You mean you havent heard? Obama brought the troops out of Iraq.. Tell me again how Obama expanding OTHER wars, are a Bush cost on the chart?
Do you see the war costs reducing with time in the graphs? Iraq may be winding down but Afganistan is not.

Thats a non answer. If wars end today then clearly they would not be a cost, and if the wars can end today, then why are the costs counted against Bush?
...because wars are not ending today.

As for the tax hikes, AGAIN, The CBO said the tax cuts GENERATED MORE MONEY, so what makes you think tax hikes wont have the opposite effect? Why are you having difficulty understanding this?

...again, refer to first answer. The non-partisian cbpp does not think tax cuts are adding to revenue now. Does the CBO think tax cuts are currently generating net additional revenue?

Then they wouldnt be Bushs policies, would they?
...they mostly would be because it is impossible for the new president to suddenly do an about face. But 2 years into this, yes, Obama is certainly starting to own some of this.

Still waiting to find out how a tax cut turns from an economic stimulus to a cost.
.....?? see above....

Somewhere along the line, you need to acknowledge that the two big brown swatches - tax cuts and wars - are due to policies started by W. Till the wars end or taxes are raised, the picture is not going to change much.

It is getting late for me - so I am signing off. I dont think either of us can change the other's mind at this point.

[chickenfriedbananas]

Originally Posted by pghquest

So you blame Obama for the trillions of dollars he's rung up since his election?

Partly, yes, but at least he's spent it on things like trying to get people working again.

Reagan spent money on wasteful star wars programs. Bush launched us into an ill-advised war.

See the difference?

[Bily Lovec]

I have some bad news for ya, freefellandhitmyhead,
these are all now Obama's wars and Obama's tax cuts. he has chosen to extend them all.
they no longer have anything to do with President Bush.
Obama isnt smart enough to have any new ideas, he steals from the past. mostly from Lenin and Marx...

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by freefall

80% of our national debt comes from Reagan, Bush and Bush II.

The two biggest culprits now are those Bush wars and the Bush tax cuts.

The economic downturn caused by reckless deregulation during the Bush Administration is another big factor.

It might shock you to learn that Congress is about to pass another big wall street bailout. The conservatives call it an extension of tax cuts.

This ‘tax-cut for the wealthy’ bill amounts to an astronomically larger debt than 5 stimulus packages or healthcare bills would have.

The recipients of this tax cut are the very, very wealthiest Americans.



Spiraling Debt on Republicans, but Lying Works Too | The Nevada View

and during those times who controlled the congress, the Republicans or the Democrats. The Pres makes suggestions, the congress makes the budget.

Nita

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by freefall

The Republicans and a few stupid Dems followed the war monger and corporatists presidents in office who were beat the drums.

This has nothing to do with the budget: as for a few stupid Democrats as you call them (a few) how many voted to invade Iraq? I think it was more than a few...

Nita

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Sorry, but obama's stimulus cost more than the war(s).

The Bush tax cuts have been the status quo for a decade. There is NO cost..unless you believe that ALL incomes belongs to the federal government.

You are correct.

But there are lot's of big government lemmings who do in fact believe that the government owns all of your income and just let's you keep a portion.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

I assume you are referring to the stupid war monger in the White House today... who refuses to end the wars as he promised.... and continues to waste hundreds of billions on three useless wars.

...not to mention he will be responsible for over two thirds of the national debt before he leaves office, while being the biggest contributor to crony capitalism in our nation's history.

[pocketaces74]

I also love how people conveniently forget the economic impact from 9/11 when addressing the problems of the Bush presidency.

Oh, and the overwhelming support for the "let's get those bastards" mentality that followed.

Marvin the Martian could have been in office, and the policies would have been the same.

Also, a large chunk of that debt is directly related to the housing bubble bursting while Bush II was still in office. Had it waited another year, it'd be on Obama (or McCain). It's all semantics. Realistically, we should pin it all on Alan Greenspans head, and anyone who blockaded the attempted corralling of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004, when we still had a chance to stop this. Yes, I'm looking at you, Barnie Franke.