Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years

Yes it has....Honest.

 

No, not really.

HEre's a joke for you.

The newly elected congressman came home to his wife and wheile they were going to bed he told her that he had been elected to congress.

She asked "Honestly?"

He said "well, let's not get into hat.".

 

You could argue it that way, or you could argue that it's due to government bloat and a refusal on all sides to keep that spending to a reasonable level and maintain a balanced budget.

 

I don't know about the ideology, but it is good electioneering. Promise a Republican a new toaster oven and they'll follow you to the gates of hell.

 

You could argue it that way, or you could argue that Clinton balanced the budget for two straight years and pin the entire current deficit and debt squarely where it belongs - on Bush and the Republicans.

 

Only if you want your pants to burst into flames. The debt went up every year under Clinton which means there was never a balanced budget or a surplus. The budget the was in effect when the recession started under Bush was Clinton's budget and it wasn't balanced nor did it have a surplus nor did it maintain a trend toward a balanced budget.

 

Sure, ONE side wanted Gov't to be FUNDED. One continually voted to defund it! HONESTY!

 

A YEARLY BUDGET is ONLY the amount of money coming into Gov't and the yearly expenses out. NOTHING about debt. Right wing meme NOT based in reality



DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/budget-surplus.asp





Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.





http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/




How the Deficit Got This Big

In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.

Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

 

The federal government operates on two year budgets....and http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-837799

 

"federal government operates on two year budgets.."

lol

SERIOUSLY? Since you CAN'T refute that a surplus or deficit is SOLELY based on income versus expenses, you throw out bullsh*t about a 2 year budget and a link about debt using Steiner's argument? Typical


The 2014 United States federal budget is the budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year (FY) 2014, which began on October 1, 2013 and ended on September 30, 2014.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_States_federal_budget

 

There were BOTH!!! Just because we chose not to pay down on the debt doesn't mean there wasn't a surplus. And remember, Bush had that surplus for his first year or two and refused to pay down on the debt because of 'prepayment penalties' or some other such idiocy. In other words, he wanted to be able to spend the surplus on the war he KNEW was coming.

 

Bush's intent was to fool the public by trying to hide the costs of his wars. Obama was more honest about the costs..

 

Only an ignorant fool wasn't aware that Congress passed bills for war spending. Obama cut and ran.

 

Sorry, Mr. Sensitive. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings. But it's a current story right now how the Texas Bored of Education is re-writing history for their textbooks. The dumbing down of Merca is in full gear and Texas is leading the way. No personal insult, just a general comment about Texas' substandard education standards.

 

The Great Bush Recession started in 2007, six years after Clinton's last budget. I'm no big fan of Slick Willie, but you're off by a mile.

 

He put the costs of Bush's wars in his budget. Bush tried to hide them. There's the difference.

 

Bush had the wars paid for. Look up the Congressional vote. And when Obama became POTUS, they were his wars.

 

Starting with YOU,apparently...And Texas does NOT have substandard educational standards,What we DO have is the longest border with Mexico in the country and immigrants skewing the numbers..

 

So the Bush tax cuts were ignored by the left whose out of control spending CAUSED a large deficit. BTW don't forget that the deficit is the difference between tax revenue and spending. It only adds to our already $16 TRILLION debt.

 

Never said they weren't paid for. How many times do I have to explain that Bush hid the costs (or tried to) from the American public?

Bush started them. He owns them. It was Obama's job to clean up the mess. Which is why Bush is the butt of jokes now and Obama, while he has a lot of other stuff to answer for, has an incomplete record and awaits the future judgment of his legacy.

In the end, the cost of Bush's wars will be counted in the trillions which could have been better spent on education, starting with Texas.

 

Bull! The votes on appropriating war funds was as public as the budget. I saw the votes on CSPAN, heard about it on network news, so what the hell was 'hidden'? Make sense pal.

Bush's wars are now Obama's wars. He had a super-majority for 4 1/2 months in his first term and could have left. Now ISIS is all Obama's creation and is the worst thing to rear it's ugly head since the Nazis. And Obama adding $7,000,000,000,000 to the debt minus war money of $590,000,000,000 leaves Obama responsible for $6,400,000,000,000 of new debt. Ain't math fun?

 

I am just happy that those tax cuts and wars turned out to be sooo very successful. With friends like Bush, who needs ISIS?