State of the UnionFollow

Oh come off it Joph. The starting point for Bush is a "projected surplus" based I can only assume off someone imagining that we'd just keep taxing at the same rate and not actually do anything else. It's one of the more absurd measurements you can use.

I also bolded the most significant point here. The bulk of the deficit run by Bush occurred as a result of his tax cuts. Yes. The prescription thingie added some. And the wars added some. And normal government spending increases in the non-discretionary budget areas added some (as it does every single year unless massive efforts are made to avoid it). But the bulk of the deficit was because Bush's federal government simply took a smaller piece of the countries economic pie. A significantly smaller piece...




Only if you start with the magical unicorn guess of an 800B surplus which Bush was supposed to have (and that's fanciful by anyone's standards). That presents a very false perception. The reality is that if you take away tax cuts which reduced total federal revenues, and look only at spending increases compared to actual economic losses causing revenue reduction and calculate that as a "intended deficit" versus "opps! We broke the economy! Deficit", you'll find that the deficits generated in 2009 stack up there with those in 2008, both of which dwarf anything Bush did early in his administration.


Surely we can agree that there's a difference between a few hundred billion dollar deficit delta resulting from lower taxes, and the same delta caused by economic collapse and the same delta caused by massive spending increases. The first condition is not nearly as bad as the other two even when the dollar amounts are identical. I'm sure you can noodle out why...

Short version from Gbaji: Racking up massive deficits are okay and perfectly defensible when the GOP does it, but not when the Democrats do it.

No surprises there.

Lol. Nice use of inappropriate superlatives there Joph.

How about: Running modest deficits while gdp growth is sufficient to allow for stable debt/gdp ratio is a perfectly defensible economic strategy, especially if you are operating on an economic theory that says that lowering taxes will spur economic growth and most of that deficit is generated by lowering taxes.


It is *not* defensible to run deficits 3+ times higher than any produced in the previous decade (well, "ever"), while gdp growth is dropping, resulting in a significant jump in debt/gdp ratio. Doubly so when 5/7ths of that deficit is generated by spending increases without even a theory or suggestion as to how this might increase economic growth and allow the debt to settle.

Bush's economic policy was sustainable long term. Obama's is clearly not. Obama's policy seems pretty much to consist of "spend while the spendings good!". And we'll be paying for this spending for a very long time...



That you'd horribly miss-characterize the entire issue? Yeah. No surprise at all!

Edited, Feb 3rd 2010 8:18pm by gbaji

No, it was entirely accurate.

Funny thing: Bush's massive deficit spending was "sound fiscal policy" because it matched a certain percentage of the GDP. Yet, Obama's deficit spending, if not for Bush's massive spending with absolutely no plan to pay for it, would put us right in that same range if not lower. So essentially, Bush and the GOP ran up the credit cards and skipped out on the bills (and that was sound policy!) but when Obama needs to use one of them, it's "Oh noes! He's over the credit limit! Bad Democrats! Bad! How dare they spend like that! Have they no sense of fiscal policy at all?!"

Even better, when the Democrats try to re-enact PAYGO rules (which the GOP gutted because they couldn't rape the deficit if there were laws actually preventing that sort of thing), Republicans whine and ***** about it and try, to a man, to block it. Because being expected to cover your fiscal *** is suddenly a bad thing.

Ah, you guys are so predictable. It'd be funny if you hadn't left us all in a giant hole due to your inability to read a budget sheet and spent like drunken teenagers with no interest what so ever in covering your binges.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2010 10:57pm by Jophiel

How about: Taking in more than you spend.

Any ******* child can answer Sesame Street math except for the GOP, which insist that lower taxes mean good for all. Except of course, the ******* budget. If ANYONE ran their household they way the Bush's did, they wouldn't have that house for long. You can spout any graph, number or ******** statistic you want Gbaji but that's a simple truth.

We have to get taxes up and spending down.

I don't understand how the Republicans managed to align themselves with the term fiscal responsibility. Whether you believe the economic goals of the party to be beneficial or not, they're definitely not fiscally conservative. The GOP criticizes Democrats for spending beyond their means, but on the flipside the Republicans are unwilling to earn enough to cover their costs.

If Republicans were fiscal conservatives then they're be pushing to cut government spending programs before attempting to cut the taxes that pay for those programs.

You're not though and I am so I'm perfectly happy to continue discussing the deficit and where it came from. Why are you so afraid to talk about it that you need to keep trying desperately to change the subject?


I'm just stating fact: Bush and the GOP pissed all over the notion that you pay for things when you buy them and instead ran up giant deficits with their fiscal irresponsibility. If you have evidence to say this isn't true, you must be saving it for some other day. You guys can cry and whine about how "Oh, but it doesn't count because it was tax cuts!" or "Oh, it only counts if it's THIS percentage!" but, at the end of the day, the simple fact is this: Bush and the GOP gutted legislation requiring them to keep a balanced budget so they could pass their pet projects and agendas without being honest to the American people what it'd cost them down the line. As a result -- as a direct result -- Bush and the GOP drove the nation deeper into a debt it didn't need to be in.

I'm not even talking in vague terms of "the economy" here. I believe, and I've said before, that much of the economy is out of the hands of the president or Congress. They can affect it but they don't drive it. What is 100% in the hands of the president and Congress is the budget and deciding whether you'll have one that's balanced or one that borrows giant piles of cash from the future so you can have your cake and eat it too -- so long as someone else is stuck with the bill long after you've left.

This isn't even arguable. It's just fact. Watching you guys fall all over yourselves trying to defend it is a hilarious display of hypocrisy. I know you'll never admit to it -- that's what blind partisan hypocrites do: rationalize and hand-wave away the truth because it doesn't fit your mindset. But it really is very funny.

Go ahead now and be sure you talk about anything besides the actual content of this post. You never disappoint

Edited, Feb 4th 2010 10:06am by Jophiel

Alluding.

And yet they didn't. And they won't. They never will because the GOP is made of pussies who will, unarguably and with plenty of evidence, drive the nation deep into debt rather than make any unpopular choices.

"Cut taxes! Free money for everyone! No, don't ask how we can afford it... aren't you just happy that we cut taxes! Whatever you do, don't think of the future!..."

Thanks, I had a brain fart. I even had that one in there first, and thought, "No, that's not the right one, you dork."