Deficit Through The Years

Bush -- 2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus

Bush -- 2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit

Bush -- 2003 $374 Billion Deficit

Bush -- 2004 $413 Billion Deficit

Bush -- 2005 $319 Billion Deficit

Bush -- 2006 $248 Billion Deficit

Bush -- 2007 $162 Billion Deficit

Bush -- 2008 $455 Billion Deficit

Obama - 2009 $1.416 Trillion Deficit

Obama - 2010 $1.294 Trillion Deficit

Obama - 2011 $1.299 Trillion Deficit

Obama - 2012 $1.330 Trillion Deficit

 

That's really unfair. Bush started with a SURPLUS (given him by a dem) and Obama started with DEFICIT (given to him by a rebup).

Not a fair comparison at all.

 

Pay him no mind. He still thinks a mutilated corpse will descend from the skies and "save him". Highly laughable as the thread itself. You can't allow partisan nonsense like this get to you. Anyone who follows politics closely should know than to take this thread with a grain of salt.

 

While Clinton was a much more moderate Democrat than Obama, he had the good fortune of being president during the high tech boom and Alan Greenspan making good choices with interest rates. Bush's OMB Director Rob Portman got the deficit down to $162 billion before he left that position. There is no reason the deficit should have tripled over a 4 year period.

 

Anyone who follows politics knows that it is all partisan...we all have a side. And I think this should be taken with more than a grain of salt. This should be a huge slap in the face wake up call.

:smt059:smt059:smt059

 

Sonny, this isn't a "wake up" call as you believe it to be. It's obvious that the previous administration created the calamity, and even before with the housing bubble all flanked upward into an economic mess. This administration adopted a major mess and unfortunately, he's having a hard time getting bipartisan bills passed thanks to an extreme right-wing part of the GOP.

And while its partisan in of itself, there's always room for factual clearing rather than twisting rhetoric around as though the downfall of this country is imminent thanks to this administration.

 

The previous administration came into a recession in the early 2000's left by a Democrat. He turned that around in 4 months. It has taken Obama 4 years and we still have no signs of consistent job creation. And the spending is out of control. There is no way we should be at a $1.3 trillion deficit just 4 years later...and this is before Obamacare. Even non-partisan groups have come out and said that government this size is un-sustainable. Can't hide from the facts!

 

We will let Loki take care of this.

 

Here is a much more accurate view on the deficit. There is plenty of blame on BOTH sides, not just Obama. Most folks really don't understand how close we all were to a depression that would have made the 1930's look like a cakewalk. Spending has to be curtailed for sure let's hope partisan politics in an election year doesn't lead to gridlock.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

 

Let it be known that there were opportunities in which President Obama offered Congress, both 101st and 102nd, a jobs bill. In fact, even one that's called the Grand Bargain, which would could have been passed had it not been more the extreme wings of both parties, more so from the loud, fear-mongering right-wing.

Secondly, your history is heavily skewered. There was a surplus provided by Clinton. When Bush came into office, he actually had a surplus on his plate and all he had to do is allow wasted all of that money on two meaningless wars, which caused a heavy deficit, and on top of that, the Bush Tax Cuts didn't even help with the deficit either. It actually made things worse. I don't know where did you flip-flop on that aspect of history, but I've caught you in a lie.

With the Tea Party basically ignoring the grand old procedure of compromise, it's going to be hard unless some moderate voices, from both sides come win elections. Or simply people who can walk both aisles and close this gap of media plurality and skewered judgment.

 

I was going to say.. I thought he said that Clinton only had a surplus bc of the tech boom of the 90's? Which I'm sure was in direct proportion to how well bush...never mind. I'll be nice.

And then even though we had a large surplus bc of Clinton...bush turned us around in 4 months? Because Clinton caused it even though he left office with a surplus.

Also I think this needs to be mentioned.

Even if we had a "small" recession/depression in the early bush/Cheney years, what Obama is dealing with is in no way small. And as has been pointed out: tea party represents the crazy..so..

 

The atmosphere is far more polarized than ever before. And realistically, there's no tried and true solution that would curb the deficit or give the economy a major boost. Regardless of fiscal ideology or economic discipline, it all looks good on paper. But when executed, you're dealing with a complexity that would take decades to heal, especially in this magnitude.

 

That had a lot of really large words I don't get.
Fiscal ideology?

Economic discipline?

*pops bubble gum and twirls hair*

 

Hahaha, you already know what I mean. :lol:

 

Good article. George W. Bush definitely abandoned the principles he had in his first term and Alan Greenspan kept interest rates too low which lead to widespread abuse in the markets. That lead to spending increases in his second term.

I think what we have to remember is that politics is a partisan game whether we like it or not. Sure there are small things that both parties can come to an agreement on like when both Obama and Romney agreed to keep student loan interest rates low. But for the most part, they fundamentally disagree on major issues like the economy and how our national debt should be managed. I think Obama realizes that keeping social programs are his ticket to a re-election so he will fight every spending cut suggested by Republicans because that would eat away his base.

 

1) Clinton was definitely helped by the tech boom in the United States. He also brought in Republican people and used Republican policies. He supported Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve, he appointed Robert Rubin as Treasury secretary and backed his strong dollar policy and signed important trade liberalization agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. So by reducing inflation, keeping the dollar strong, endorsing free trade agreements initiated by his Republican predecessors and signing the Republican Congress's capital gains tax cut, Mr. Clinton was effectively practicing Reaganomics.

2) The Bush recession was smaller, but many economists will tell you that it is difficult to correct those kind of recessions. You have stabilize and turn something around before it gets really bad. Obama came into a "depression" for all intents and purposes. So he started at rock bottom where the only way to go was up. Yet he managed to keep us at the bottom for 4 more years.

3) Clinton was a moderate Democrat. He understood Republican principles and effectively used them to make his presidency a success. That's why he has been publicly critical of Obama in recent months.

 

There are two ways you can curb the deficit:

1) Cut spending and increase taxes- Clinton method
2) Cut spending, broaden the base, and lower taxes- Republican method

One way to not curb the deficit:

1) Increase spending and maintain tax rates- Obama method

 

The Republican method would never work. It's essentially Grover Norquist's idea. Had the Norquistian method been applied, the country would have accumulated more debt and would have added to the deficit, which is basically the Bush method aka the GOP method.

Simply cutting spending and lowering taxes would be a problem. Reagan knew that all to well, as did his Reaganomics Architect, David Stockman. Thanks to his working with Tip O'Neill and the Democratic led Congress, he found a balance. But somehow, history always tend to be skewered.

Obama's method would have been Clinton's method if his plans actually passed, but no...the tug of war plaguing Congress, especially from those who lack the meaning of compromise, basically had the Executive Branch in a gridlock.

 

James never specified the "democrats" method. If anything, the modern mainstream Democrats adopted more of the Reagan policies, combined with the efforts of Clinton. You have to ask yourself, though both sides have their extremes, which one (in the center-right nation known as the US) have had more influence?