Skyrocketing Deficits, Unemployment

[eeally]

Sarah Palin got paid 100,000 to speak at the tea party convention. In her speech she forgot to mention the skyrocketing deficit and unemployment numbers left by the previous administration. How can Republicans really believe that they are part of the solution when even though I agree with tax cuts and smaller government: They BUSH was the party of increased deficits and no tax breaks for the working class. Still waiting for the trickle down affect I heard so much about. I guess the Saudi Princes' have not been in the states in a while spending our money to get it back to us working people. Did we know that one of the Princes of Saudi Arabia owns 5.5% of fox news.....

[UNT90]

Sarah Palin got paid 100,000 to speak at the tea party convention. In her speech she forgot to mention the skyrocketing deficit and unemployment numbers left by the previous administration. How can Republicans really believe that they are part of the solution when even though I agree with tax cuts and smaller government: They BUSH was the party of increased deficits and no tax breaks for the working class. Still waiting for the trickle down affect I heard so much about. I guess the Saudi Princes' have not been in the states in a while spending our money to get it back to us working people. Did we know that one of the Princes of Saudi Arabia owns 5.5% of fox news.....

Loved your work on the State of the Union.

[forevereagle]

Here...we...go!

Edited February 9, 2010 by forevereagle

[untbowler]

Sarah Palin got paid 100,000 to speak at the tea party convention. In her speech she forgot to mention the skyrocketing deficit and unemployment numbers left by the previous administration. How can Republicans really believe that they are part of the solution when even though I agree with tax cuts and smaller government: They BUSH was the party of increased deficits and no tax breaks for the working class. Still waiting for the trickle down affect I heard so much about. I guess the Saudi Princes' have not been in the states in a while spending our money to get it back to us working people. Did we know that one of the Princes of Saudi Arabia owns 5.5% of fox news.....

Keith Olberman called, he would like his teleprompter back.

Edited February 10, 2010 by untbowler

[EagleD]

Sarah Palin called. She wants the notes written on her hand back.

[UNT90]

The Democrats called, they want their congress back.

Oh wait, that's 8 months too earlier...

Carry on.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

FoxNews , America's answer to Prada (the voice of their Communist political party):

___________

Roger Eugene Ailes (born May 15, 1940) is an American businessman and president of Fox News Channel and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group. He was a media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, as well as Rudy Giuliani's first mayoral campaign in 1989.

I am not sure that he really is "fair and balanced" ....LOL...

Edited February 10, 2010 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTflyer]

Sarah Palin got paid 100,000 to speak at the tea party convention. In her speech she forgot to mention the skyrocketing deficit and unemployment numbers left by the previous administration. How can Republicans really believe that they are part of the solution when even though I agree with tax cuts and smaller government: They BUSH was the party of increased deficits and no tax breaks for the working class. Still waiting for the trickle down affect I heard so much about. I guess the Saudi Princes' have not been in the states in a while spending our money to get it back to us working people. Did we know that one of the Princes of Saudi Arabia owns 5.5% of fox news.....

Well, first of all... are you 4x as angry about the quadrupling of the deficit under Obama? For the first time ever we had a trillion dollar deficit, and he did it again with his second budget. In just 13 months, he has already passed Bush's deficits over 8 years.

Second, everyone got a tax cut under Bush who paid taxes. Everyone. If you didn't notice, I suggest getting an accountant. The poor don't pay taxes, in fact they get "earned" income tax credits, money from people who do pay taxes. The EITC was increased under Bush, and he proposed simplifying it so working class people could more easily claim it. The Democratic Congress did nothing.

Did you know Fox news stock can be purchased by anyone?

Seriously.... Facts vs. Daily KOS rubbish. It's no contest.

[UNTLifer]

Sarah Palin called. She wants the notes written on her hand back.

Obama called. He wants his teleprompter back so he can correctly refer to Navy service men as corp...oh wait he did have his teleprompter and still called them "corpsemen." Nice.

I also enjoyed his open speech to Iran thanking them for their contributions to humanity, etc...

[forevereagle]

Saturday Night Live called, they want their 10+ year old joke back.

[UNTLifer]

Saturday Night Live called, they want their 10+ year old joke back.

Please explain.

[forevereagle]

Please explain.

It was a formula joke on SNL in the 90s. X called, wants their Y back.

[Censored by Laurie]

It was a formula joke on SNL in the 90s. X called, wants their Y back.

My chromosomes called and they want their explination back.

[Green P1]

My chromosomes called and they want their explination back.

Someone of below average handsomeness called. He wants his face back!

[HoustonEagle]

Well, first of all... are you 4x as angry about the quadrupling of the deficit under Obama? For the first time ever we had a trillion dollar deficit, and he did it again with his second budget. In just 13 months, he has already passed Bush's deficits over 8 years.

Second, everyone got a tax cut under Bush who paid taxes. Everyone. If you didn't notice, I suggest getting an accountant. The poor don't pay taxes, in fact they get "earned" income tax credits, money from people who do pay taxes. The EITC was increased under Bush, and he proposed simplifying it so working class people could more easily claim it. The Democratic Congress did nothing.

Did you know Fox news stock can be purchased by anyone?

Seriously.... Facts vs. Daily KOS rubbish. It's no contest.

Again "facts" with no context. What was the deficit when the President took office? Of the additions to that dept how much was one-off(hopefully)spending to stimulate our economy and bail-out our banks? What is the general consensus amongst top economist on what a country should do when faced with a Depression scenario? Would you say that Summers, Volker and Bernake are top economist? Has the administration at least made a commitment to address deficit spending after it is clear that we are out of the woods? What party was in control of Government when PayGo was allowed to expire in 2002? What party was in control of government when we took on two wars but did not ask our citizens to sacrifice to pay for these wars? What Vice President said "deficits don't matter"? How much did the Medicare drug benefit cost? How did we pay for it? Why is it called the Laffer "curve" and not the Laffer diagonal line?

I am not completely happy with all aspects of the Obama Presidency but his critics should be fair. At the end of his term you may have a true argument about increased deficits, we shall see. At this point I think it rings hollow and reeks of Hannity, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh talking points.

[UNTFan23]

Again "facts" with no context. What was the deficit when the President took office? Of the additions to that dept how much was one-off(hopefully)spending to stimulate our economy and bail-out our banks? What is the general consensus amongst top economist on what a country should do when faced with a Depression scenario? Would you say that Summers, Volker and Bernake are top economist? Has the administration at least made a commitment to address deficit spending after it is clear that we are out of the woods? What party was in control of Government when PayGo was allowed to expire in 2002? What party was in control of government when we took on two wars but did not ask our citizens to sacrifice to pay for these wars? What Vice President said "deficits don't matter"? How much did the Medicare drug benefit cost? How did we pay for it? Why is it called the Laffer "curve" and not the Laffer diagonal line?

I am not completely happy with all aspects of the Obama Presidency but his critics should be fair. At the end of his term you may have a true argument about increased deficits, we shall see. At this point I think it rings hollow and reeks of Hannity, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh talking points.

This is a commonly used graph. It shows what the budget deficits under Bush were and proposed budgets under Obama. If the 2010 budget gets approved, Obama will have over spent in 2 years as much as Bush did in 8. Right now our deficit represents about 10% of our GDP. In order to get deficit spending under control, the President (and Congress) are going to have to get religion on reducing federal government spending and take a hack saw and start cutting programs like crazy.

I think some people get caught up between the terms deficit and debt. Both are related but they mean two very different things.

ScreaminEagle66 post in 3...2...

[EagleD]

This is a commonly used graph. It shows what the budget deficits under Bush were and proposed budgets under Obama. If the 2010 budget gets approved, Obama will have over spent in 2 years as much as Bush did in 8. Right now our deficit represents about 10% of our GDP. In order to get deficit spending under control, the President (and Congress) are going to have to get religion on reducing federal government spending and take a hack saw and start cutting programs like crazy.

I think some people get caught up between the terms deficit and debt. Both are related but they mean two very different things.

ScreaminEagle66 post in 3...2...

Do the Bush budget deficits include the two wars? I'm asking b/c I'm not sure.

[eulesseagle]

EagleD....you can't see two wars in the graph?? what two wars are you looking for that are not on the graph? of course they include the two wars.

***********

The second grade class that BHO spoke to would like to invite him back "WITHOUT" his teleprompters. That must have been a tough bunch of kids.

Edited February 11, 2010 by eulesseagle

[forevereagle]

This is a commonly used graph. It shows what the budget deficits under Bush were and proposed budgets under Obama. If the 2010 budget gets approved, Obama will have over spent in 2 years as much as Bush did in 8. Right now our deficit represents about 10% of our GDP. In order to get deficit spending under control, the President (and Congress) are going to have to get religion on reducing federal government spending and take a hack saw and start cutting programs like crazy.

I think some people get caught up between the terms deficit and debt. Both are related but they mean two very different things.

ScreaminEagle66 post in 3...2...

So where does the first bailout that Bush approved fall?

[UNTFan23]

So where does the first bailout that Bush approved fall?

This is the budget; not the extra spending bills that Congress passes as legislation. So, things like TARP and the 700 billion Economic stimulus from last year are NOT included in that graph.

[FirefightnRick]

Hat tip to the Mark Levin show on this article below in the American Thinker from Feb 11th regarding the "blame Bush for everything" arguement.

Deception as a Principle of Governance By James Long

The Democrats all agree that President George Bush received a surplus when he took office after President Clinton's term, and then he passed a deficit to President Obama. Democrats are outrageous prevaricators.

David Axelrod in the Washington Post, 15 January 2010:

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

Hillary said much the same thing on "Meet the Press," 15 November 2009:

It, it breaks my heart, David (Gregory), that in 2001 we had a balanced budget and a surplus; and if we'd stayed on that path, we were heading toward eliminating our debt.

Similarly, Senator Robert Menendez on "This Week," 24 January 2010:

And, you know, I love my dear friend (Jim DeMint) talking about, you know, fiscal responsibility, but when George Bush came to office, he had a $236 billion surplus. Barack Obama was handed a $1.3 trillion deficit.

And a 07 February 2010 NYT editorial put it this way:

When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been in the black for three (four, actually) years, and continued surpluses were projected for a decade to come.

President Obama in his first State of the Union address also mentioned the large surplus that President Bush inherited in contrast to the deficit that Obama himself inherited.

Every one of the above statements is patently and provably false. The dot-com bubble crashed almost exactly one year before Clinton left office, and the value of the NASDAQ (symbol ^IXIC available on YAHOO!) fell by $2.5 trillion dollars (half its total value) before the end of the Clinton administration. When the dot-com bubble popped, as all economic bubbles do, the NASDAQ fell sharply. Every economic indicator during Clinton's last year in office turned decisively downward -- the surplus, government revenues, and the markets included. Economic projections made at the very top of an economic bubble are foolish, but the dot-com bubble had long since popped, and everything was going south by the time Clinton left office. Consequently, the Democrats' projections of surpluses years into the future at a time when all indices were falling are not just foolish, but dishonest.

A lot of things happened in the economy during Clinton's last year, all of them bad. Besides the dot-com bubble crash in January 2000, the DOW also peaked and started down shortly before Clinton left office, and the S&P started down shortly after that. The NASDAQ continued to fall for an eventual loss of $4 trillion, and the collapse of the DOW and the S&P also resulted in more trillions of dollars lost in the markets.

Not only did Bush inherit a plunging economy, but given the magnitude of the dot-com crash, this was an extremely perilous time for the American economic outlook. In the event, President Bush applied the proper corrective measures and the damage was minimized, with unemployment limited to a relatively benign 6.1%. The economy went on to register solid jobs, growth, and productivity from 2003 to 2007 until the next Democratic disaster hit: the unaffordable housing bubble.

Sandwiched between the stupid Clinton dot-com bubble and the deliberate Democratic housing bubble, the Bush economy did quite well from 2003 to 2007, with deficits steadily being reduced and government growing at a slower relative rate than the economy. But President Bush had to pay for the considerable costs of Clinton's dot-com bubble (unemployment compensation, job training, lost tax revenues, etc.) until the economy began to recover in 2003, and then, at the end of his term, Bush had to stop the economic collapse that was triggered by the Democrats' mortgage follies. Democrats have hung a bad rap on President Bush because they want to achieve power, and dishonesty is one of the tools they have used successfully (and frequently) in their quest to tell us how to live.....

Rick

Edited February 13, 2010 by FirefightnRick

[MCMLXXX]

Well stated.

[UNT90]

Hat tip to the Mark Levin show on this article below in the American Thinker from Feb 11th regarding the "blame Bush for everything" arguement.

Deception as a Principle of Governance By James Long

Rick

I see where you are trying to go with this, but I'm more than a little leary of any article that labels everything bad "Clinton's fault" and everything good "Bush's accomplishments", just as I am extremely leary of the whole "it's all Bush's fault" and "Clinton was the best economic President ever!!",

Both just seem to go back to that 2nd grade arguement "I didn't do it, you did", "did not", "did, too", "did not", "did, too", etc...

[UNTflyer]

Again "facts" with no context. What was the deficit when the President took office?

$459 billion. Obama's first deficit was $1.2 trillion.

Of the additions to that dept how much was one-off(hopefully)spending to stimulate our economy and bail-out our banks?

What does it matter what it is spent on? No, sir, you can't use that "one-off" argument when Bush's deficit spending was caused by 9/11 and the War in Iraq, not by attempting to increase the size and scope of government.

Has the administration at least made a commitment to address deficit spending after it is clear that we are out of the woods?

That's like a fat guy saying, "I'll go on a diet after this pie-eating contest."

What is the general consensus amongst top economist on what a country should do when faced with a Depression scenario?

Show me where economists agree to a consensus on ANYTHING? We can look at history and see that government spending did nothing to get us out of the Great Depression. Creating "make work" jobs and bloating GDP numbers with unsustainable government spending is not how you avoid a Depression scenario, but we seem to following the same FDR policies which wound up making the Depression even worse. It took a 4-year war where rationing and sacrifice and jubilation of winning spurred an economic boom.

At the end of his term you may have a true argument about increased deficits, we shall see. At this point I think it rings hollow and reeks of Hannity, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh talking points.

I don't need any talking points, sir. I am an educated man and can think for myself.

[hickoryhouse]

Hat tip to the Mark Levin show on this article below in the American Thinker from Feb 11th regarding the "blame Bush for everything" arguement.

Deception as a Principle of Governance By James Long

Rick

Generally I tend to agree with the things that you post however I have to agree with "90" here. The whole Bush did nothing wrong argument, presented here, is just petty and not accurate. It just isn't that simple. There is plenty of blame to be tossed on members of both parties here and trying to limit it to just one, regardless of which one I think is irresponsible and bordering on petty.

Quick question, how many years did it take before Pres. Bush vetoed a spending bill?

Where did the money for the Perscription drug bil that he and Teddy Kennedy pushed come from?

There were ample opportunities for Bush to do things that would limit the deficits (sp) that accrued under his watch and he just didn't.

As we go forward in this country we will all blame people for the ills of our economic situation and partisan politics will continue to divide this country. I am ok with that personally, what is UT without OU, what is Ali without Frazier and what is the Democrats without the Republicans? But Bush?!?! That guy never met a spending bill that he didn't love.