Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Studies Show Bush Responsible For Deficit

Posted by   + Show Post

 

Studies Show Bush Responsible For Deficit

August 10, 2012
By

A week ago Thursday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a nonpartisan not-for-profit think tank, found that the wars, spending cuts, and Great Recession of the Bush administration account for nearly all of the budget deficit.

The above graph shows the influence of certain factors on the deficit. Note the virtually nonexistent deficit indicated by the black line toward the bottom of the graph estimating the deficit without those factors.

Another falsity perpetuated by the right-wing propaganda machine is that spending has increased dramatically under Obama. This simply is not true, as indicated by the following:

The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) data can be found here. The Office of Management and Budget also has relevant information and data tables here. Even with the stimulus bill under President Obama, spending is still increasing at the slowest rate since the 1950s.


Obama has not increased spending except by less-than-normal levels, and is not responsible for the deficit. We can thank Bush for that.

by on Aug. 11, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Replies (71-77):
Lizardannie1966
by on Aug. 13, 2012 at 9:30 AM


Quoting grandmab125:


Quoting Lizardannie1966:


Quoting BigRoni:


Quoting Lizardannie1966:

Poor Dubya! lol He was even blamed for Hurricane Katrina at one point.

I remember when George W. was running for a second term and brought up how Clinton was responsible for this and for that....and everything in-between.

There will always be blame held to the preceding President and no, our current one will not be exempt once he's finally out of office.

Just how it goes.

Bush wasn't blamed for Hurricane Katrina. He was blamed for how the government responded to it, he being the president and all...

In a lot of Internet bulletin boards and forums at that time, he was blamed by many Democrats for that Hurricane, which was ludicrous and indicative of them grasping. People were angry and were lashing out which is totally understandable, though.

I wasn't too pleased with how the government responded either but how do you fully prepare for something of that magnitude?

To begin with, the people in New Orleans had  been warned for several days to evacuate.  Most of them chose to stay.  The city told people they would send busses for those who couldn't get out on their own, then they told them to go to the convention center or the Superdome.  They didn't supply the busses.  They also didn't supply any food or water or security at those two places.  Basically, they had no formal evacuation plans, nor did the state.

The Federal Gov't cannot get involved until it is asked to do so by state officials.  When the governor did ask for help a few days later, it was for food and shelter, not transportation.  She thought the city was supplying the transportation.

So, even though, the travesty that followed was due to incompetence of a democratic mayor and governor, neither of whom had absolutely any evacuation plans....astoundingly stupid, when New Orleans has I think just one bridge out, and sits below sea level...George Bush got the blame for not responding and fixing everything with a snap of his fingers.

There was no way to truly prepare in time for something of this magnitude.

Bush should not have been blamed period.

LadyByrdNest
by on Aug. 13, 2012 at 9:40 AM

You build on sand, rock, the side of a mountain, or low lying areas, you have no right to complain when something happens. I mean you can if you want, but there are a lot of people that could say "I told you so" and they will.

Quoting grandmab125:


To begin with, the people in New Orleans had  been warned for several days to evacuate.  Most of them chose to stay.  The city told people they would send busses for those who couldn't get out on their own, then they told them to go to the convention center or the Superdome.  They didn't supply the busses.  They also didn't supply any food or water or security at those two places.  Basically, they had no formal evacuation plans, nor did the state.

The Federal Gov't cannot get involved until it is asked to do so by state officials.  When the governor did ask for help a few days later, it was for food and shelter, not transportation.  She thought the city was supplying the transportation.

So, even though, the travesty that followed was due to incompetence of a democratic mayor and governor, neither of whom had absolutely any evacuation plans....astoundingly stupid, when New Orleans has I think just one bridge out, and sits below sea level...George Bush got the blame for not responding and fixing everything with a snap of his fingers.


grandmab125
by Gold Member on Aug. 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting Lizardannie1966:


Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting Lizardannie1966:


Quoting BigRoni:


Quoting Lizardannie1966:

Poor Dubya! lol He was even blamed for Hurricane Katrina at one point.

I remember when George W. was running for a second term and brought up how Clinton was responsible for this and for that....and everything in-between.

There will always be blame held to the preceding President and no, our current one will not be exempt once he's finally out of office.

Just how it goes.

Bush wasn't blamed for Hurricane Katrina. He was blamed for how the government responded to it, he being the president and all...

In a lot of Internet bulletin boards and forums at that time, he was blamed by many Democrats for that Hurricane, which was ludicrous and indicative of them grasping. People were angry and were lashing out which is totally understandable, though.

I wasn't too pleased with how the government responded either but how do you fully prepare for something of that magnitude?

To begin with, the people in New Orleans had  been warned for several days to evacuate.  Most of them chose to stay.  The city told people they would send busses for those who couldn't get out on their own, then they told them to go to the convention center or the Superdome.  They didn't supply the busses.  They also didn't supply any food or water or security at those two places.  Basically, they had no formal evacuation plans, nor did the state.

The Federal Gov't cannot get involved until it is asked to do so by state officials.  When the governor did ask for help a few days later, it was for food and shelter, not transportation.  She thought the city was supplying the transportation.

So, even though, the travesty that followed was due to incompetence of a democratic mayor and governor, neither of whom had absolutely any evacuation plans....astoundingly stupid, when New Orleans has I think just one bridge out, and sits below sea level...George Bush got the blame for not responding and fixing everything with a snap of his fingers.

There was no way to truly prepare in time for something of this magnitude.

Bush should not have been blamed period.

Yes there was a way to truly prepare in time to minimize the effects on the citizens of New Orleans.  It's called emergency evacuation readiness planning.  New Orleans had none.  Apparently most of the people had grown complacent over evacuation orders, because they thought it would be no big deal, they thought the levies would hold, etc.  If the people had started to get out of the city when the warnings were first issued, the city provided those buses ahead of time and after, had some kind of Army type rations (food that doesn't need to be cooked), and water stockpiled in a warehouse somewhere then moved to the dome and center, and also supplied the police and maybe National Guard for security, they could have avoided the major negative results of that hurricane.

grandma B

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Aug. 13, 2012 at 1:51 PM
Quoting IhartU:

 the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a nonpartisan not-for-profit think tank, found that the wars, spending cuts, and Great Recession of the Bush administration account for nearly all of the budget deficit.

That misses off a big factor - the economic crisis (triggered by the housing morgages thing) that happened on Bush's watch.  That required a large investment in order to stave off another Great Depression and collapse of the entire banking system.

BigRoni
by Member on Aug. 13, 2012 at 2:55 PM


Quoting kailu1835:

 I am talking about spending that Obama himself is directly responsible for.  Not policies that were enacted before he took office but then became active afterwords... no... these are regulations and policies that did not pass until after he took office.  He spends an average of a trillion more deficit spending per yer than Bush did.  It's about 3 times more a day than Bush.

The bailouts were all Obama, not Bush (almost 800 billion).  The "affordable" healthcare act was all Obama, not Bush (we won't even know exactly what that will cost for many years yet, but it is already estimated to be around 2 trillion, or over 50 billion per year).  And then there is all the spending that he could put a stop to, but chooses not to because he thinks it's a good idea, such as the war on drugs. 

Quoting littlelamb303:


Quoting kailu1835:

 Nice creative spin on the facts.  Obama has spent way more than Bush, even with 2 wars under Bush, and even though it's only been half the time.


NO, Obama has NOT spent more than bush. He has inherited bush's massive debt, it was added to what obama spent.  All presidents spend, but not all have debt that was inherited up the ying yang

 

The bailout was not President Obama...

U.S. Democrats Start Setting Terms for Bailout - NYTimes (09/22/08)


wave" The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking and writing" - John Adams

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Aug. 13, 2012 at 2:57 PM

 The person who signs it is responsible for it.  He passed it in 2009 after he took office, therefore it is his responsibility.

Quoting BigRoni:


Quoting kailu1835:

 I am talking about spending that Obama himself is directly responsible for.  Not policies that were enacted before he took office but then became active afterwords... no... these are regulations and policies that did not pass until after he took office.  He spends an average of a trillion more deficit spending per yer than Bush did.  It's about 3 times more a day than Bush.

The bailouts were all Obama, not Bush (almost 800 billion).  The "affordable" healthcare act was all Obama, not Bush (we won't even know exactly what that will cost for many years yet, but it is already estimated to be around 2 trillion, or over 50 billion per year).  And then there is all the spending that he could put a stop to, but chooses not to because he thinks it's a good idea, such as the war on drugs. 

Quoting littlelamb303:

 

Quoting kailu1835:

 Nice creative spin on the facts.  Obama has spent way more than Bush, even with 2 wars under Bush, and even though it's only been half the time.


NO, Obama has NOT spent more than bush. He has inherited bush's massive debt, it was added to what obama spent.  All presidents spend, but not all have debt that was inherited up the ying yang

 

The bailout was not President Obama...

U.S. Democrats Start Setting Terms for Bailout - NYTimes (09/22/08)


 

babiesbabybaby development

BigRoni
by Member on Aug. 13, 2012 at 5:11 PM


Quoting kailu1835:

 The person who signs it is responsible for it.  He passed it in 2009 after he took office, therefore it is his responsibility.

Quoting BigRoni:


Quoting kailu1835:

 I am talking about spending that Obama himself is directly responsible for.  Not policies that were enacted before he took office but then became active afterwords... no... these are regulations and policies that did not pass until after he took office.  He spends an average of a trillion more deficit spending per yer than Bush did.  It's about 3 times more a day than Bush.

The bailouts were all Obama, not Bush (almost 800 billion).  The "affordable" healthcare act was all Obama, not Bush (we won't even know exactly what that will cost for many years yet, but it is already estimated to be around 2 trillion, or over 50 billion per year).  And then there is all the spending that he could put a stop to, but chooses not to because he thinks it's a good idea, such as the war on drugs. 

Quoting littlelamb303:


Quoting kailu1835:

 Nice creative spin on the facts.  Obama has spent way more than Bush, even with 2 wars under Bush, and even though it's only been half the time.


NO, Obama has NOT spent more than bush. He has inherited bush's massive debt, it was added to what obama spent.  All presidents spend, but not all have debt that was inherited up the ying yang

 

The bailout was not President Obama...

U.S. Democrats Start Setting Terms for Bailout - NYTimes (09/22/08)


 

sure, okay...

wave" The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking and writing" - John Adams

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)