Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He is right on Congress writing the budget, but remember the President has to sign it; therefore they have to compromise on his requests and what they pass in Congress.
Secondly, those numbers are not entirely accurate for the Bush era. Remember, they did NOT include the cost of the Iraq/Afghan wars in the budget. If you add those numbers in the total, the addition to our national deficit would be much larger.
Rest of the increase can be argued over ideological grounds since those were recession years (stimilus/TARP spending vs. we shouldn't have) and are valid, but are not just arbitrary spending increase (e.g. they had their reasons).
I can't argue with you but when there is a budget the President is held within what Congress decided. Of course, the President has to agree with a budget but is that not the reason the Dems provided Bush with two budgets and then stopped doing their duty? It is pretty obvious what the Congress was doing the last two years in not preparing a budget. However, Dirty Harry and Nasty Nancy didn't tell the story the way I saw it.
Don't confuse the left,....their minds are made up so FACTS don't matter.
It's much simpler to attack the OP or the source than to defend the incompetent one in the Oval Office, his circle of unapproved czars, and the bunch of crooks in the cabinet. The same tactics from the loonie left is wearing thin: attack EVERYONE but leave the empty-suit in the White House alone.
Damn, old man, you are just tough on THEM to not get some smack back. Of course, they always attack the messenger no matter whether it is us or our links. Seldom do any of them post much of any thing else.
The increase in spending didn't start under the Democratic congress though roy. It started when the Republicans were still in charge of congress.
And what you say about taxes isn't true, because if that worked, the lower taxes under Bush would have actually INCREASED government revenue due to increased economic activity. That never happened.
And, no, the link doesn't mention the wars... which is kind my point about how it distorts the truth.
I understand what you are saying about the wars but I don't see the writer as trying to do anything other than try to point out why the last two deficit years had to happen since we had no formal budget from Congress.
Anyone who feel that the current economic issues aren't tied to 8 years of Republican lead politics and the Bush administration, simply aren't living in the realm in reality.
I think everyone knows when the economy started going in the tank, and it wasn't in 2009.
In 2000, before Bush ever even took office after to dot-com bubble?
Or wait, it was in 1981 when Reagan took office.
No that's not it.
It was in 1945 after the war ended.
Nope, that's not it either.
It was just after the industrial revolution ended and progressives took over and started pissing out money and taking over countries like there was no tomorrow.
Lets say, for instance, that the congress is the ones to make or break the economy.
During the first several years of the Bush administration, it was a Republican congress, right? How many years does it take for an economy to turn around based on government intervention? 1 year, 3, 6? Its usually at least 4 years before policies can have a real effect on the economy. Part of what gets us in trouble is when we try and change things to quickly. The free market economy doesn't fair well with radical shifts of money addition. Its part of what lead to our current economic situation, radical change when patients was needed.
But again, now we have a Republican congress, have been for almost two years. If Democrats in 2007 (2 years) after they really took power in congress. The 2006 election was the year the Democrats took the Senate.
Both parties are screw ups, the current economic mess is both Democratic and Republican, but can we all agree that the last President had a lot to do with it also? The current hasn't helped matters either.
My point is, you keep trying to deflect from the Republican party, the party that is trying to continue the very Bush ideals of the last administration. Less taxation, coupled with less spending. In reality, we spent more and taxed less already, and if we lower taxes anymore it isn't going to balance the budget. And we can't cut our way to a balanced budget either. Both parties must accept that cuts will need to be made, and revenue increased. Then we can get serious about balancing our budget, and moving on with our merry little country. But pointing out that one party is to blame, and not the other isn't helping move anything forward.
I think that the graph in that link showed that we have been in deficit territory since the last two years of Clinton. That would show that Bush was in deficit all the time.
However, you aren't hitting the nail on the head when you say the GOP has been in control of Congress since the beginning of this year. Yes, they did gain some seats in the Senate in 2010 but the Dems still have control of that house. Now I am hoping that the Republicans can win the Senate in 2012 but they don't control it yet.
I am saying that the Republicans controlled the Congress from 2001 through 2006 but then Nasty Nancy and her group took over the House in 2007. That says that Bush had the same kind of split as Obama has now.
I am not trying to make one party more to blame than the other as far as deficits are concerned, but there is no way we can blame the Republicans when the Dems control the Senate and there are threads on our board right now blaming the Republicans for thing they just aren't to blame for.
I agree with you about both parties being to blame but right now there are too many Republicans in the House who are like mine who just aren't going to vote for that extension of the debt unless they get something that says there won't be more spending if that one is passed. Study what Tim Huelskamp says and see if I am wrong. He is a first time Rep and I think is so right on so many things.
In 2000, before Bush ever even took office after to dot-com bubble?
Or wait, it was in 1981 when Reagan took office.
No that's not it.
It was in 1945 after the war ended.
Nope, that's not it either.
It was just after the industrial revolution ended and progressives took over and started pissing out money and taking over countries like there was no tomorrow.
In 2000, before Bush ever even took office after to dot-com bubble?
Or wait, it was in 1981 when Reagan took office.
No that's not it.
It was in 1945 after the war ended.
Nope, that's not it either.
It was just after the industrial revolution ended and progressives took over and started pissing out money and taking over countries like there was no tomorrow.
I especially like to see THEM talking about the Republican control of 8 years when the Dems held Congress for the last 2 years of Bush.
Somehow they manage to not see how long progressives have been working against our nation and when they took control of the Democrat Party. It hurts to see them doing their thing and not being able to admit what has been, and still is, going on.
What do you say about my dislike of the EPA. I was excited about that bunch when they were created and were trying to clean up the air. I am not so excited about the way they are trying now to put Obama's cap and trade policies into effect without the Congress being included since the Congress failed to give him cap and trade. That last bit of EPA crap aimed at doing to the coal industry what Obama promised in his campaign is most of what I am talking about.
Keep talking about HUD and making sure we all know that both parties have used it. However, no part of that use of HUD by either of them comes close to what the EPA has done the past 2 years. I wonder when enough people will realize what they have done to the coal industry and the electric power industry. It will be too late but it will happen. It is just like what Obama and group are doing to us with his refusal to follow the orders of federal judges concerning oil.
I think that the graph in that link showed that we have been in deficit territory since the last two years of Clinton. That would show that Bush was in deficit all the time.
However, you aren't hitting the nail on the head when you say the GOP has been in control of Congress since the beginning of this year. Yes, they did gain some seats in the Senate in 2010 but the Dems still have control of that house. Now I am hoping that the Republicans can win the Senate in 2012 but they don't control it yet.
I am saying that the Republicans controlled the Congress from 2001 through 2006 but then Nasty Nancy and her group took over the House in 2007. That says that Bush had the same kind of split as Obama has now.
I am not trying to make one party more to blame than the other as far as deficits are concerned, but there is no way we can blame the Republicans when the Dems control the Senate and there are threads on our board right now blaming the Republicans for thing they just aren't to blame for.
I agree with you about both parties being to blame but right now there are too many Republicans in the House who are like mine who just aren't going to vote for that extension of the debt unless they get something that says there won't be more spending if that one is passed. Study what Tim Huelskamp says and see if I am wrong. He is a first time Rep and I think is so right on so many things.
And I'm saying that since the economy took a nose dive in 2007, it was still the Republican congresses fault, because it takes time for policies to start working. Not to give the Democrats a pass, but Republicans are to blame just as much, and the policies they want to continue will only make matters worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
