Who Increased the Debt?

[cawacko]

That's hilarious. Clinton left Bush with a balanced budget and projected surpluses for the foreseeable future and Bush (and Greenspan) decided that surpluses were bad for the economy and implemented tax cuts that blew the budget to shit and caused substantial debt and structural deficits from that point forward.

Here's a better question, what would Bush's numbers look like if he didn't cut revenues?

To say Clinton left projected budget supluses well into the future, to use one of your favorite terms, is hilarious. Oh the CBO might have claimed that but anyone working in the real world knew the dot-com boom was coming to an end and was made official with the 2001 recession. Companies with little or no revenue and multi-billion dollar valuations cannot continue on an upward projectory forever without actually producing something. It was these companies that helped produce massive capital gains revenue for the government.

 

[Damocles]

That's hilarious. Clinton left Bush with a balanced budget and projected surpluses for the foreseeable future and Bush (and Greenspan) decided that surpluses were bad for the economy and implemented tax cuts that blew the budget to shit and caused substantial debt and structural deficits from that point forward.

Here's a better question, what would Bush's numbers look like if he didn't cut revenues?

Clinton left Bush with a huge bubble ready to burst and a burgeoning recession, it isn't even difficult to see the results. Bush even warned (not strenuously enough I know) about what was coming and tried to change it before it happened. But we'll ignore that because he just didn't try hard enough.

Bush spent too much, heck yes. Did I like it? Heck no. I often spoke of his stupid spending and liberal social policy (pill bill, ignoring the problems inherent in illegal immigration, etc.) as stupid crap he did. You ignore that Obama doubled down on these.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's hilarious. Clinton left Bush with a balanced budget and projected surpluses for the foreseeable future and Bush (and Greenspan) decided that surpluses were bad for the economy and implemented tax cuts that blew the budget to shit and caused substantial debt and structural deficits from that point forward.

Here's a better question, what would Bush's numbers look like if he didn't cut revenues?

THAT is bullshit. The projected 'BUDGET surplusses' were based on a fairy tale. The country was IN A RECESSION (you know... an ACTUAL event, rather than fairy tales written on paper).

As for the Bush tax cuts, as I have said a million times, they are a very effective means for short term stimulus, but they fail in the long run without the corresponding spending cuts. Which is what I have said for the past ten years. Which is why I have stated a million times that Bush was fiscally irresponsible.

But none of that changes the FACT, that he inherited a recession. None of it changes the FACT that the repeal of Glass Steagall had a FAR greater impact than the tax cuts or wars.

 

[Damocles]

THAT is bullshit. The projected 'BUDGET surplusses' were based on a fairy tale. The country was IN A RECESSION (you know... an ACTUAL event, rather than fairy tales written on paper).

As for the Bush tax cuts, as I have said a million times, they are a very effective means for short term stimulus, but they fail in the long run without the corresponding spending cuts. Which is what I have said for the past ten years. Which is why I have stated a million times that Bush was fiscally irresponsible.

But none of that changes the FACT, that he inherited a recession. None of it changes the FACT that the repeal of Glass Steagall had a FAR greater impact than the tax cuts or wars.

Correct, and you can find posts on this very site with republicans like myself speaking to the fact that his continued overspending was a detriment, that tax cuts need to be met with spending cuts or they won't be effective...

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Conservatives are fond of "family" analogies, aren't they?

If the costs of maintaining a family (housing, food, clothing, etc.) go up, by no means should the family seek to increase their income. In fact, they should refuse any increase, since that would only "encourage" paying their bills. They should only cut spending.

Make sense?

If so, you're a conservative devoted to supporting tax cuts while cutting expenses (on programs you don't like or don't personally benefit from).

Where was this fiscal Puritanism when Bush was cutting taxes and borrowing to fund two lost wars?​

 

[Damocles]

Conservatives are fond of "family" analogies, aren't they?

If the costs of maintaining a family (housing, food, clothing, etc.) go up, by no means should the family seek to increase their income. In fact, they should refuse any increase, since that would only "encourage" paying their bills. They should only cut spending.

Make sense?

If so, you're a conservative devoted to supporting tax cuts while cutting expenses (on programs you don't like or don't personally benefit from).

Where was this fiscal Puritanism when Bush was cutting taxes and borrowing to fund two lost wars?​

As I stated before, it was present on this very site, and on politics.com (where a large portion of this group ultimately migrated from), on SR's site (an interim site that the same group migrated from). The reality is we have redundancies and can cut costs without cutting the programs you are dedicated to. Here on this site you'll even see republicans calling for a cutback on defense spending.

 

[Damocles]

That's valid criticism Damo except, where were you when Bush was setting records for deficit spending and sitting asleep at the wheel while Wall Street tanked our economy? You'd be credible to me if you had criticized Bush with the same virulence you do Obama but you didn't so you aren't.

Rubbish. I spent 8 years criticizing Bush for that spending. I also criticized him for undeclared nation-building wars that he promised he would never enter into...

That you refuse to honestly look at even personal history doesn't change those facts.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

As I stated before, it was present on this very site, and on politics.com (where a large portion of this group ultimately migrated from), on SR's site (an interim site that the same group migrated from). The reality is we have redundancies and can cut costs without cutting the programs you are dedicated to. Here on this site you'll even see republicans calling for a cutback on defense spending.

If the costs of maintaining a family (housing, food, clothing, etc.) go up, by no means should the family seek to increase their income.

In fact, they should refuse any increase, since that would only "encourage" paying their bills.

They should only cut spending.

Make sense?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

If the costs of maintaining a family (housing, food, clothing, etc.) go up, by no means should the family seek to increase their income.

In fact, they should refuse any increase, since that would only "encourage" paying their bills.

They should only cut spending.

Make sense?

only if the family can TAX YOU to increase their income....does the analogy make sense

 

[Damocles]

If the costs of maintaining a family (housing, food, clothing, etc.) go up, by no means should the family seek to increase their income.

In fact, they should refuse any increase, since that would only "encourage" paying their bills.

They should only cut spending.

Make sense?

The reality is earning is often static, just saying, "get a better job" (which seems to be what you are saying) and increase debt is inane. A family needs to reduce spending and pay debt to lower debt burden, not just "get more credit"... That same family can't simply "raise taxes" to supposedly increase their income.

What makes sense is to aim at higher earnings through better production (get a new job), not by simply lowering the kids' allowance (taxing). You just aren't going to get enough without the growth and increased production (new job) to pay the bills that are increasing. Saying, "Just tax more" will solve all our problems is foolish.

We absolutely need to take a hard long look at spending in order to get our fiscal house in order.

We can go on and on with the family's finances and create analogies. It's interesting how you look at it so differently. There is no endless pool of money just ready for the government to get through "taxing the rich"... The parents only have so much money.

 

[Damocles]

Anyway, the OP stating that Obama only increased our debt by 16% is absolutely ridiculous. He takes over with 10 Trillion in debt, 2.5 years later we have 14 Trillion and are running up on the debt limit that is 40% by any measure. 40% in 1/4 the time Bush had to overspend stupidly.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I never said tax cuts were spending. You do realize that revenues and spending are both components of debt and deficits don't you?

you responded to Damo's call to cut spending and listed taxes as the biggest factor......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Where was this fiscal Puritanism when Bush was cutting taxes and borrowing to fund two lost wars? [/INDENT]

creating the Tea Party........

 

[Bonestorm]

To say Clinton left projected budget supluses well into the future, to use one of your favorite terms, is hilarious. Oh the CBO might have claimed that but anyone working in the real world knew the dot-com boom was coming to an end and was made official with the 2001 recession. Companies with little or no revenue and multi-billion dollar valuations cannot continue on an upward projectory forever without actually producing something. It was these companies that helped produce massive capital gains revenue for the government.

Cawacko, I have shown you and SF and anyone else interested in listening that the CBO did not project dot-com level growth but projected GDP growth below the average level of growth in the prior three decades. Of course, you and SF like to pretend otherwise, but that's the truth.

Moreover, even assuming that the surpluses were bullshit, that is all the more reason not to cut taxes. The initial rationale for the Bush tax cuts was based on the existence of the surplus. In the absence of a surplus, the tax cuts are more reckless from a fiscal perspective, not less.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Cawacko, I have shown you and SF and anyone else interested in listening that the CBO did not project dot-com level growth but projected GDP growth below the average level of growth in the prior three decades. Of course, you and SF like to pretend otherwise, but that's the truth.

More bullshit. They projected revenues to continue on the path they were on in 1999/2000. They were fantasy. Period.

Moreover, even assuming that the surpluses were bullshit, that is all the more reason not to cut taxes. The initial rationale for the Bush tax cuts was based on the existence of the surplus. In the absence of a surplus, the tax cuts are more reckless from a fiscal perspective, not less.

They were bullshit. Again, in a recession are you not one of the ones who agrees deficit spending it ok? Tax cuts are a great way to stimulate the economy in the short term. As stated, like ANY deficit spending, the cuts are NOT sustainable in the long term.

 

[Truth Detector]

Someone needs to show this to those flaming Fleabaggers
so they can scream at the bastards responsible for our debt.

What is it with Progressive Liberals that makes them so hateful towards a group of people who CORRECTLY believe that we are all Taxed Enough Already?

Liberals have controlled the House, the holders of the purse strings, for approximately 59 years of which Republican have held it for perhaps 10 of those years; in those years the budget has only been balanced about 4 or 5 times.

The notion that higher taxes equate to balanced budgets or fiscal responsibility can only be professed by those wallowing in willful denial or ignorance.

 

[Truth Detector]

I wonder what that Obama bar would look like if you counted the $831 Billion for his stimulus that technically counts against Bush's 2009 budget although he didn't pass or sign it.

He did vote for it however.

 

[Truth Detector]

I wonder what that Obama bar would look like if you counted the $831 Billion for his stimulus that technically counts against Bush's 2009 budget although he didn't pass or sign it.

In addition, let's not forget who was controlling the Congress when this spending passed. The idiot argument that places Fiscal responsibility on Presidents can only be made by those who are clueless how Government works and who has the authority to spend and confiscate the taxpayers har earned wages. It is NOT the President.

 

[Damocles]

He did vote for it however.

No, he was President in 2009. He voted for a budget that didn't include that particular spending. He was inaugurated then pushed for and received what was supposed to be less than 800 Billion in funds for "stimulus" (CBO has changed that number twice once to make it near 900 Billion, and just lately to lower it back down to 831 Billion) which passed in February after he was elected. However that counts against Bush's 2009 Budget even though Bush never suggested it, it wasn't in the budget he produced, and he didn't sign it....

 

[Damocles]

In addition, let's not forget who was controlling the Congress when this spending passed. The idiot argument that places Fiscal responsibility on Presidents can only be made by those who are clueless how Government works and who has the authority to spend and confiscate the taxpayers har earned wages. It is NOT the President.

The President has great power in this area as they are the ones that produce the budget. Now Congress can entirely ignore that budget and go in a different direction, but I don't believe I have ever seen it happen. This creates a huge battle, shutdowns, republicans are blamed by the press...

Split government tends to lead towards lower budget deficits (sometimes even budget surpluses, although those have yet to come to reality by the end of those years), and better fiscal times for the US. Some people are foolish enough to give all the credit/blame to the President...