Obama moves to make government more fiscally responsible
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health
The Bush Deficit
Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate.
By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending.
In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them.
Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html
Whatâs also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obamaâs major expenses were temporary â the stimulus is over now â while Bushâs were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didnât just lower revenue for 10 years. Itâs clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.
The Bush Deficit
Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate.
By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending.
In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them.
Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html
Whatâs also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obamaâs major expenses were temporary â the stimulus is over now â while Bushâs were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didnât just lower revenue for 10 years. Itâs clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.
You need to calm down right now.
Tell me where I question the value of diversity. I'm Indo-Caribbean FYI.
Tell me where I have said anything right wing. Tell me anything about my post history actually! How many times today do I have to report you for harassment before they delete your username (yes, I know, we all know, that you will show up with another username).
Gabby going off the deep end over the number 88.http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3372852&highlight=diversity#post3372852
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3285212&highlight=diversity#post3285212
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3284993&highlight=diversity#post3284993
A for the rest of your P&R posts, they speak for themselves.
http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/numbers_88.asp
Another example of obama's fiscal responsibility is only pissing away $500 mill on his pals at Solyndra. If someone less responsible, say Jon Corzine, had been in charge, they might have handed over billions to them. Or hundreds of billions, you know, like they are doing with FNM/FRE to preserve the democrat slush funds there.
Anyway, it's all that tyrant Bush's fault.
Anyway, it's all that tyrant Bush's fault.
At no point did I say anything negative about diversity. If you read carefully, which you did not, you would see that I question why someone would value diversity over more important aspects, such as actual skills in the work place. Why hire someone to meet diversity quotas when a "diverse" person may not actually bring anything new to the team besides a different color? Isn't forcing diversity on people more racist than actually assessing people based on their skills?
Well, clearly I am not a Neo Nazi. But do you really think that accusing some random person on a forum of being a Neo Nazi really amount to anything? Aren't you just bringing more attention to Neo Nazi? You, Brass, are the real problem here, you give free publicity (a small amount lol) to a hate group.