Friday, June 11, 2010

Miss Him Yet?

Thanks for the memories. CBPP (02.17.10), via those commies over at the Washington Monthly:
"Some critics charge that the new policies pursued by President Obama and the 111th Congress caused the huge federal budget deficits that the nation now faces. In fact, the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years"

Where Today's Large Deficits Come From

As Steve sez:

"For those who believe empirical facts exist, we know exactly what caused the $1.3 trillion budget deficit Republicans left for Democrats to deal with. Boehner's humiliating gibberish notwithstanding, Bush's tax cuts are the single biggest factor in the budget shortfall -- and will remain the single biggest contributor to the deficit over the next decade."

UPDATE: More from Matt.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

You mean it ain't all them there Mexicans flooding in goin' on welfare and taking our jobs? SHOCKING, simply SHOCKING.

12:32 PM  
Blogger Mohawk on the Dartmouth said...

Gee, it's not because we're spending money like it's going out of style?

Granted, the Bush Administration did spend tons of money, but guess who has the final say on the budget. It isn't the president, it's the congress. Guess who controlled Congress for the last six years of Bush's eight year term.

I don't think Democrats should challenge Bush's spending (although, as a fiscal conservative, I feel entitled to), have they not looked in the mirror lately?

Maybe Bush would've taken less heat if he had tripled federal spending like Obama did inside of a year.

4:58 PM  
Blogger knobboy said...

Guess who controlled Congress for the last six years of Bush's eight year term?

Ummm. Mostly Republicans. They controlled the House during the 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses. The 107th Senate was a bit complicated, but they controlled the Senate for the 108th and 109th Congress.

The Dems took control for the 110th Congress, which would correspond roughly with the last two years of Georgie's eight year term.

Obama tripled federal spending? Yeah, well there's Fox, and then there's facts. Guess you just have to take your pick.

7:10 PM  
Blogger Mohawk on the Dartmouth said...

I'm sorry if I mispoke, I was talking about Healthcare, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Department of Veteran Affairs, Children’s Health Insurance Bill, White House Urban Affairs office, Cash for Clunkers, etc. Not to mention his taxpayer funded trip to lobby the olympic comittee to bring their games to Chicago (no kick-backs there I'm sure). How about that $2.8 billion Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant? Now, maybe some of those things didn't happen in the first year, but you get the idea.

You can blame Bush's tax cuts all you want. I blame Congress for spending so much, and Bush for letting them (and encouraging it). He only exercised his veto power 12 times in 8 years.

There's plenty of fat in our spending that needs to be sliced off, starting with presidential and congressional paycuts. We also have ludicrous government pension plans (you know, the same kind GM had).

What would you do if your income was cut? Would you spend more? No, because you can't just print more money. What the Federal Reserve is doing will inflate the currency, and make the greenback about as valuable as a deutchmark in the Weimar Republic).

I honestly blame both major parties. They're both bailing out assholes who should pay for their mistakes, instead of having taxpayers pay for them. They're not bailing out all of the assholes, just the ones that funnel money to their campaigns.

All I know for sure, is that lazy bums are getting more handouts and a free ride (unlimited unemployment) on the backs of hard-working taxpayers like myself. Meanwhile, Congress spends away our children's future, and possibly the nation's sovereignty.

Since we're on the subject of spending, I have a question for you knobboy: How do you feel about Obama's $400 million ransom payment to Hamas?

4:35 PM  
Blogger knobboy said...

Don't ask me. Ask a Nobel prize winning ecomomist: "Spend now, while the economy remains depressed; save later, once it has recovered. How hard is that to understand?"

Cut federal pensions? Hmmm. Tell that to my neighbor. He retired from Vets Administration couple years ago. Bet he'd appreciate that.

Look I don't have a problem kicking in to help kids get health insurance like SCHIP does. I don't have a problem with ARRA. A good chunk of the dough is going to help a lot of people. Cash for Clunkers helped save GM and Ford. Saved a lot of jobs there too, it did. Don't have a problem with that, either.

Guess I'm just a chump in that I figure most of the folks working for the government are honest and hard-working, just like me. And I guess I'm a chump in that I figure the government can do a lot of good for a lot of people. I just don't get the sense that most of these folks are out to screw me. Some? Sure, but what the hell. It's gonna happen no matter what.

And Hamas? The democratically elected political party running Gaza? Won by a landslide? Considering where some of my relatives live, I might not be the best guy to ask about that.

Now you want to cut the hell out of the defense budget, I'm there with ya. You want to stick those assholes on Wall Street in the slammer for a decade. I'm there with ya. But beyond that, let's just agree to disagree. Leave it at that, eh?

9:28 PM  
Blogger Mohawk on the Dartmouth said...

Wow, that economist is soooo smart! The problem with that idea, is that the government will never "save later." It just won't happen. Besides, you don't have to do much of anything to win a Nobel Prize these days.

As far as cutting federal pensions, I guess I should've specified veterans are not in my sights. My father was in the Marine Corps for 20 years, and earned 2 purple hearts in Vietnam. If we need to do anything for veterans, it's give them more.

As for SCHIP, it's just as unconstitutional as nationalized healthcare. If a State gov't like Massachusetts or Hawaii want to try it, that's fine with me. It is a power the Federal Government should not have under the 10th Amendment.

I'm sorry to hear some of your relatives live in Gaza. I hear it isn't a very pleasant place. That being said, the fact that Hamas was democratically elected is not comforting. Democracy is mob rule, which is why our founding fathers established our government as a representative republic.

Why would you want to cut the defense budget? Think body armor for our troops is too expensive? Maybe bullets are too costly. If you want to get out of quagmire wars like Iraq & Afghanistan, I'm with you. The corruption in those countries have made these wars self-sustaining.

I'm with you on the Wall St. thing, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Our disagreements mainly come from my faith in The Constitution. Unlike Obama, I don't believe it to be a flawed document. As a matter of fact, if we followed it, we wouldn't be in two senseless wars right now. We also wouldn't have been in Vietnam, Korea, The Balkans, and many other conflicts. How much money and American blood would that have saved? We also wouldn't let a private bank like the Federal Reserve dictate monetary policy without oversight. That's supposed to be Congress' job.

5:04 PM  

Post a Comment