Story Comments

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

You so conveniently forget that the current spending is being done in an attempt to correct the downward trend in the current economy.
However the spending during the Bush administration was largely just an attempt to line the pockets of the Good Old Boys Party.

0 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

endo,

I've asked you, & many others on these threads over the past couple months...

Since no one else is hiring or spending - even WITH the tax cuts to the wealthiest citizens & largest corps, exactly who else besides the gov't CAN or WILL spend & CAUSE TO BE HIRED in this economy?

& remember, we've had 20 of the past 28 years doing the "trickle-down" & deregulation BS. See where it's gotten us?

PLEASE, someone who NOW opposes deficit spending -even / ESPECIALLY those who were adamantly supportive of it during the last administration - PLEASE (I'm begging you) answer calmly, quietly, & most importantly, logically....

0 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

endo - Your math is all screwy. The national debt, after 8 years of Bush, rose to about 9.8 trillion dollars, a rise of over 4 trillion dollars. The budget deficit of 2009 alone is 410 billion dollars. While the entire budget of 2009 signed by Bush is 3.1 trillion dollars.

So a rise of over 4 trillion dollars in national debt over 8 years averages out to 500 billion per year.

I do not know what the official average budget deficit per year under Bush was. However, most of the funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars was NOT included in the official yearly federal budget. Most of the funding was achieved through emergency supplemental spending bills that Bush muscled thru congress.

Thus the yearly official budget deficits was kept artificially low. Oh, and there were the usual budget shenanigans like borrowing from the Social Security funds to decrease the official deficit, when actually that INCREASES the deficit.

I am not saying that I am happy about Obama's budget. However, the total budget of 3.4 trillion is not that far off of Bush's budget of 3.1 trillion for the current fiscal year. Moreover, it was Bush's mishandling and the financial crisis he precipitated that necessitated much of Obama's stimulus package and deficit spending.

To summarize, your claim of an average of 200 billion deficit under Bush is ridiculously low (ie., a lie). Furthermore, he imposed the cost of the immoral Iraq invasion and this financial collapse on our country that will hurt us for generations to come.

0 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

The National Debt doubled under Bush from around $ 5 trillion to around $ 10 trillion. Your figure of $ 200 billion would be well short of that as you conveniently forget the "off budget" spending.
I wish I could pull that nonsense and buy a Lamborghini "off budget".

0 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Many Democrats do champion extension of socialism beyond my own comfort zone as a default. And it's true that, budget-wise, we see the Dems operating similarly to the Reagan administration in putting forth a budget that seems unfathomable to most of us--but it is designed to jumpstart the economy, as it was then.

I agree that the Dems were unfair to Specter. He gave them the biggest gift of his career, and they broke their promises.

I'm so underwhelmed by the politics and ethics of both parties that I think we need some fresh ones.

0 Replies