I'm not rewriting history at all. I'm simply referring to the dumber bush. He lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003. He did this while also putting two wars on the China credit card. Medicare Part D? Ok let's give more money to insurance companies and create a completely unneeded program instead of expanding Medicare like he should have. I'm talking about Dubya...
It wasn't the wars that caused any deficits. It was the social programs he expanded across the board, plus medicare prescription drugs. Also, he inherited a massive stock market crash that erased more peoples' life savings than the bank crash that obama inherited. The things he did were all textbook to stop recessions and start growth. Medicare isn't the blueprint for government health care. The VA hospital system, county hospital system, DMV, etc., is.
Re: W http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush Spending Under President George W. Bush During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent. During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 12.5 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 53 percent. One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent. Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget. President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.
2000 was Clinton's last year in office. There was a massive stock market crash. This is what W inherited. http://www.stockpickssystem.com/2000-stock-market-crash/ The 2000 stock market crash resulted in a loss of almost $8 trillion of wealth. Obama inherited a similar (but not worse) mess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis Between 1 January and 11 October 2008, owners of stocks in U.S. corporations suffered about $8 trillion in losses Now, why is it bad that Bush cut taxes and spent at deficit levels, but not bad that Obama did exactly the same thing, just at much higher levels? Hypocri...
So how did we pay for them then? Also, you aren't forgetting that the market was trading at 7000 ish when Bush went out of office are you? https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...2a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher. Washington increased military benefits in late 2001 as the nation went to war, seeking to quickly bolster its talent pool and expand its ranks. Those decisions and the protracted nation-building efforts launched in both countries will generate expenses for years to come, Linda J. Bilmes, a public policy professor, wrote in the report that was released Thursday. “As a consequence of these wartime spending choices, the United States will face constraints in funding investments in personnel and diplomacy, research and development and new military initiatives,”the report says. “The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come.” Bilmes said the United States has spent almost $2 trillion already for the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those costs, she said, are only a fraction of the ultimate price tag. The biggest ongoing expense will be providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of the two conflicts. “Historically, the bill for these costs has come due many decades later,” the report says, noting that the peak disbursement of disability payments for America’s warriors in the last century came decades after the conflicts ended. “Payments to Vietnam and first Gulf War veterans are still climbing.”
You and Mags keep burning straw man after straw man. Every Democrat hated when Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. You need to get off that bullshit notion that I have agreed with everything Obama has done. There are lots if things I have disagreed with especially when it has come to capitulating with Republicans. I want taxes to be raised. Across the board. Raising my taxes $100 + will be fine with me if we are paying for schools, roads, bridges, healthcare, jobs...
Bush inherited a $200B+ surplus, right? If you can trust the Federation of American Scientists, the wars cost: Or $1.6T/12 years = $133B. $133B is less than the surplus. $236B > $133B That's how he paid for the wars. Like I said, though... It's OK for Obama to spend deficits and spend big money trying to fix the economy, but not W. Hypocri...
If the tax cuts were a bad idea, why did the democrats pass them and Obama sign them? Why did Democrats and Obama cut taxes as part of the "emergency" "stimulus" package in 2009?
Clueless question. He complained about those tax cuts the entire time. Republicans put those in the bill remember? Those where Republican amendments in the stimulus package. You also seem to be forgetting that he traded two years of the Bush tax breaks for an extension of unemployment insurance. Peddle that bullshit to the people that aren't paying attention.
You complain about Bush's spending. You want me to quote you? Why not complain about Obama's. It's only fair. I am asking you a perfectly fine question.
Extending the Bush tax cuts was one of Obama's campaign promises. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...7/extend-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-lower-incomes/ Extend the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes Extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single) Sources: Obama campaign interviews with the Tax Policy Center Subjects: Taxes
It looks to me like both parties believe tax cuts are a good thing. Don't you agree? They sure vote to cut taxes and the presidents of both parties sign those tax cuts into law.
That's what I'm taking about. Tax cuts for the Middle class and poor are economic simulators. Tax cuts for the top 1% are not. This is because middle class and poor spend 100% of their money as opposed to the 35% that is spent by the rich.
Every dollar spent on food stamps generates between $1.60-$1.70 in economic stimulus. Whereas if you give rich people a dollar it turns into $0.35.
Those tax cuts were passed with a gun to their heads regarding unemployment insurance. Brinksmanship is a dangerous game and Republicans love to play it. That's why we have government shutdowns when it comes to the debt ceiling.
Tax cuts, period, are economic stimulus. Period. That's why obama pushed for extending all the Bush tax cuts in 2010 after the targeted ones FAILED. Summer of recovery ring a bell? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html
Hahahahaha. It costs $1 and provides something less than $1. Someone, at least, gets a cut to pay for writing the checks. Geez.
Another laugher. Where do the rich keep the supposed 65% they "don't spend?" In their mattresses? Al Gore's lock box? If they put it in the bank, the bank lends it to nottherich.
