Dedicated to a nice guy and liberal: Scott S.
From The Washington Examiner: Not a day, maybe not an hour, goes by without someone in Washington denouncing irresponsible spending and unfair tax cuts by George W. Bush and the Republican Party. To take just one example: This week a Florida Democratic representative, Corrine Brown, explained her vote against the debt-ceiling agreement by citing "eight years of horribly reckless spending and excessive tax cuts for the rich under President Bush and the Republican Congress."
Some critics have trouble with even the most basic facts. George W. Bush was indeed president for eight years. But do Brown and her colleagues remember that Congress was fully controlled by Republicans just four of those eight years? The GOP ran the House from 2001 to 2007, Bush's first six years in office, while Republicans only controlled the Senate from 2003 to 2007. (In Bush's first three months, the Senate was divided 50-50 until the May 2001 defection of Republican Sen. James Jeffords gave Democrats control.)
As far as tax cuts are concerned, Bush did indeed cut taxes for the wealthy -- along with everybody else who paid income taxes. But does Brown remember that tax revenues actually increased in the years after the Bush tax cuts took effect?
Revenues fell in Bush's first two years because of a combination of the tech bust and the start of the tax cuts. But then things took off. After taking in $1.782 trillion in tax revenues in 2003, the government collected $1.88 trillion in 2004; $2.153 trillion in 2005; $2.406 trillion in 2006; and $2.567 trillion in 2007, according to figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. That's a 44 percent increase from 2003 to 2007. (Revenues slid downward a bit in 2008, and a lot in 2009, when the financial crisis sent the economy into a tailspin.) "Everybody talks about how much the Bush tax cuts 'cost,'" says one GOP strategist. "We're saying, no, they led to a huge increase in revenue."
And deficits shrank. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus in 2001, the Bush administration ran up deficits of $158 billion in 2002; $378 billion in 2003; and $413 billion in 2004. Then, with revenues pouring in, the deficits began to fall: $318 billion in 2005; $248 billion in 2006; and $161 billion in 2007. That 2007 deficit, with the tax cuts in effect, was one-tenth of today's $1.6 trillion deficit.
Deficits went up in 2008 with the beginning of the economic downturn -- and, not coincidentally, with the first full year of a Democratic House and Senate.
Finally, there's the national debt. When Bush took office in January 2001, the debt was about $5.7 trillion, according to Treasury Department figures. When Bush was sworn in for his second term in January 2005, the debt stood at about $7.6 trillion. When Bush left office in January 2009, the debt was $10.6 trillion. He had increased the national debt almost $2 trillion in his first term and $3 trillion in his second, for a total increase of nearly $5 trillion over both terms. (Of that $3 trillion increase in Bush's second term, $2 trillion came under a Democratic Congress.)
The debt stood at $10.6 trillion when Barack Obama took office in January 2009. Now, it's about $14.4 trillion. The president has increased the national debt nearly $4 trillion in his first two and a half years in office. By the time Obama finishes his first term, he will have increased the national debt by somewhere in the $5 trillion-to-$6 trillion range -- more than Bush did in two terms.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/08/obama-partisans-ignore-facts-when-bashing-bush#ixzz1U8y7R6y7
And remember, in Bush's later years, conservatives were pretty pissed at Bush for all of his spending on things, other than war related.
This also doesn't mention anything about 9/11, which liberals seem to forget that we were attacked and we had to go to war, with Democratic approval. And thanks to Bush and Obama (not to mention the intelligence, military, police and other agencies that have kept us safe), we have not been attacked since, except for isolated incidents like Fort Hood and a couple other incidents.
So, Bush wasn't great, but Obama and the Democrats clearly take the cake when it comes to spending and wasting money, increasing the debt limit and in general, irresponsibility in the past 2 years.
Sunrise — 6:56.
5 hours ago
Hello again.
ReplyDeleteTaxes:
Bush's cuts went predominately to the top 5%, with the top 1% getting 24% of the cuts. But the bottom 95% weren't left out entirely.
Obama's payroll tax cuts have gone to employers and middle-income wage earners.
Spending:
Bush's spending was the Afghan war (justified by 9/11), the Iraq war (irresponsible) and Medicare Part D (unfunded, but just in time for an election). Then there was last minute stimulus spending to prop up Wall Street after the Lehman collapse.
Obama's spending has been more stimulus (mostly effective, maybe saving 1.5% unemployment) and TARP (mostly a waste).
Deficits over the next 10 years:
40% Bush's tax cuts ($7T)
25% recession (lower taxes, increased unemployment, medicaid, wic, etc)
15% wars
10% stimulus
5% TARP, Fannie, Freddie
5% other stuff
So if you want a lower deficit:
1. Eliminate the Bush tax cuts, at least on the top 5-10%.
2. Get out of Iraq & Afghanistan as quickly as possible without being irresponsible.
3. Get out of the recession
3a: cut household debt, speed up inevitable foreclosures and possibly force mortgage holders to forgive debt in excess of (arbitrarily) 130-150% the value of the home
3B: approve outstanding trade deals to create manufacturing jobs
3C: get absolutely brutal with China on currency manipulation, this undercuts our manufacturing