If You Hate the Debt, Blame Bush

Happy 10th Anniversary to the Bush tax cuts — the single largest contributor to the current national debt since 2001.

Please share this with your tea party friends. Ask them why they voted for George W. Bush twice.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Economy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

    yeah, it had nothing to do with spending or anything.

  • JMKirker

    willful ignorance is fun!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

    It’s funny though when you realize that there was more annual tax revenue then ever in 2005 and thereafter for the government to spend. Look it up.

    • mrbrink

      Ha ha.

      “Spending”

      Oh, the horror Bush faced staring down the barrel of a balanced budget!

      Before the Bush Republican concentrated wealth scam, we were on track to be debt free by 2009.

      It takes a whole new class of colossal f- ups to do what Bush Republicans did with the national treasury, and are still doing.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

        Interesting, The Balanced Budget Ammendment was passed in the House back in the 90’s. It was killed in the Senate where every single voted against it was by a (D). Let’s consider your balanced budget, when Bush was elected in Nov 2000, the DOT COM Bubble burst was well underway, starting in May 2000 when the NASDAQ plunged. The tax cuts were to soften the effects on the public (who earned the money in the first place).
        Tax revenues in 2005 set a record, however spending continued to ramp up as usual. Look at the chart above, it goes out to 2019, that’s 8 years from now. Who is it that extended the tax cuts? What party had been in charge of Congress for the last 4 years until this last January? Democrats. Who controls the purse strings? Congress. The problems belong to both party’s, and this stupid adversarial bullshit propagated on websites like this that fuel the division, preventing anything productive from getting done.

        • mrbrink

          1) A balanced budget amendment is a tool for fools who don’t know we can balance a budget without placing unneeded authoritarian restrictions on congress’s constitutional authority. President Clinton proved it.

          2) The DOTCOM bubble burst was the result of Wallstreet manipulation and insane appraisal.

          3) Bush was not “elected.” He was appointed.

          4) The tax cuts reimbursed the idiots who appraised dotcom crap in a AAA rated box who then used those reimbursements to blow up the housing market.

          5) Not understanding the cause and effect of GOP policies, or the difference between a balanced budget and ‘starve the beast’ are what divides this country.

          Your obfuscations are what divides this country.

          And no. It’s not funny at all, Josh. You have a sick sense of humor.

          What you’re claiming to be “funny” is actually the result of unprecedented income inequality, and according to pre-Bushco CBO projections, the temporary tax revenue increase of 2005 was still an under-performing shortfall.

          And when you consider the “wars” were kept off the books, or that economic “growth” under Bush a sadistic joke on the great majority of Americans, all that good ol’ fashion fuzzy GOP math coupled with warped priorities cancels out any temporary appearances/illusions in the great revenue surge of 2005, and what’s left in your hand is a caviar-fed pile of elephant shit, but at least you get to show everyone what you just stepped in, tuh.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            “wars” were kept off the books? You buy that line? It was added to Bush’s debt dummy. And BTW the wars added $125B a year to the debt on average over 8 years. You want to baffle your followers by claiming my math is fuzzy? Tell us what percent of the avarage annual budget over 8 years that was Mr Genius… if you can.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            It’s not a “line;” it’s the truth. They added to the debt, but not the deficit. They were funded with “emergency supplemental” spending bills, not as part of the annual federal budget (hence “off the books”). Moreover, they were financed wholly by borrowing, not by raising additional revenue or cutting spending elsewhere.

            And all this done quite deliberately, to create the illusion that federal spending and deficits suddenly exploded as soon as a Democrat became President, and get their voters/supporters/enablers/fans to accept that illusion/lie as an article of faith.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            Like I said, it was added to the debt. No illusion, unless you want to make believe people haven’t been paying attention the the debt.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            It’s the line used by people like you that creates some illusion. Or delusion. And yeah it was borrowed…duh. I think all of the debt is, right?

          • GrafZeppelin127

            You might try being a little less nasty. Start by limiting your discussion to the topic, and refrain from making remarks about the person.

            Ta.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            My apologies, I was met with attacks.

          • Guest

            FYI, teabagger boy, some of us consider it a waste of time and effort to argue with RW nutjobs since there is so rarely anything to be gained, hence, verbal attacks, which require no thought, and get the point across, albeit inelegantly.

            Edited for clarity.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            You rarely have anything other than vitriol to spew , so no loss here.

    • Scopedog

      “Look it up”? Where–on a GOP site?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

        willful ignorance is fun!

        • BuffaloBuckeye

          Sorry, your alter ego, LMKirk, already used that one.
          ‘willful ignorance’ does do a good job of describing GOP electorate, however.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            Boy, you’re really clever.

          • Guest

            boy you’re really stupid.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            Another display of brilliance!

          • Guest

            Just mimicking you, teabagger boy.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    We all know this. The people who need to know it, don’t. And never will. They will never blame Bush, or any other Republican, for anything. And, of course, they’ll say that we’ll never blame Obama or any Democrat for anything, and we’ll just go round and round and nothing will get resolved.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think we’re spinning our wheels here; it’s important to keep pointing these things out, even if it’s only on the off change that someone will get it.

    Make no mistake: President Bush and the Republicans ran up this debt on purpose. They did it so they could get rid of everything the federal government does that they perceive takes money away from their wealthy and corporate benefactors, by making it unaffordable. Not only that, but they knew they could stick the next Democratic president with the check, so to speak, because they know their supporters and enablers will never blame them for anything.

    Ironically, it’s Republican voters, supporters and enablers, not us, who need to be pointing this out to GOP officeholders, candidates, media figures, and each other. Politicians in elected office don’t refrain from bad policymaking because their opponents criticize them for it.

    • Scopedog

      “We all know this. The people who need to know it, don’t. And never will. They will never blame Bush, or any other Republican, for anything. And, of course, they’ll say that we’ll never blame Obama or any Democrat for anything, and we’ll just go round and round and nothing will get resolved.”

      Yep.

      “Make no mistake: President Bush and the Republicans ran up this debt on purpose.”

      Robert Parry over at Consortium News said the same thing. It’s their strategy, and they know they can count on a brain-dead MSM to gloss over it (or folks like Josh Ua to babble on about “But the Democrats were in charge and they did nothing!!”).

      Bush’s tax cuts were bad–period. Full stop. End of story.

      Now, anyone want to drag up Nader’s bull that “there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference” between Bush and Gore?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

      Let me get this straight, you choose to completely neglect that the Democrats had both houses of Congress for 4 years, 2007 to 2011.
      Were they simply incapable of doing anything to help fiscal discipline?

      If you read my comment above, I blame both parties, as well as the pundits who amplify division, creating gridlock, allowing the governemnt to grow and grow, spend and spend, faster and faster, without the same cost benefit that should be expected. In fact many here want them to spend MORE. And here we’re bitching that they spent more than they took in, even though what they took in was more than ever. Weird.

      Had the Bush tax cuts never been enacted, it would have provided $1 Trillion over 10 years of additional revenue. That’s $100 Billion a year.
      Do you honestly thing $100 Billion in additional revenue would have handled the $5 Trillion in additional debt spending that was done?
      Now we have an additonal $4 Trillion on top of that after Bush left office.

      The people who need to know that, don’t. And never will.

      • mrbrink

        Three republican presidents accumulated over ten trillion in current debt, plus interest and threw it all down a spider hole to nowhere.

        It’s the bi-partisan minded Obama democrats who have attempted to restore fiscal sanity(ending corporate welfare, military bloat, wallstreet oversight, healthcare costs, on and on) to GOP obstruction and hostage taking at every turn by taking on the evils of Medicare, Social Security, NPR, and Acorn.

        I’ll give you a perfect example of your “both parties” gibberish.

        Since 2000, Oil companies have given to both parties!

        Republicans have received over 70%.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

          Bill Clinton added about $2 Trillion to it, there I fixed it for you, but let’s ignore that, along with the fact that it’s Congress that spends the money, k?

          • Robert Scalzi

            Josh You are an Ignorant TeaFarter. take a fucking hike. no need to even try and point out the obvious to you or listen to anything U have to say. Ther eis no point in having a debate w/ someone whose head is full of rocks.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            There it is folks! Someone can’t handle facts, so they regress back to high school behavior.

          • Guest

            Fuck you, teabagger ignoramus. Hard.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            Brilliant.

          • Guest

            It was a perfectly adequate response to an idiot who refuses to deal in facts.

          • Guest

            Ignoramus.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            President Reagan inherited a $900B national debt; he and President Bush I handed President Clinton a $4T national debt. President Clinton inherited a $4T debt and handed President Bush II a $5T debt. President Bush II inherited a $5T debt and handed President Obama an $11T debt.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            it was $5.8 Trillion when Bush was elected. Why lie? Is that the liberal thing to do to win an argument?

          • GrafZeppelin127

            And it was $4.4 trillion when Clinton was elected, $11.9 trillion when Obama took office. Is it the “conservative” thing to do to characterize rough estimates as “lying” and deliberately miss the larger point?

            Since you’re going to be nasty, I’m not talking to you anymore. Have a nice day.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            And the $11 Trillion you site included TARP, which is to be paid back, right?

            Where’s the debt now? What’s that gonna be, $4 Trillion in 3 years? Way to go!
            That’s Bush’s fault too, right?

          • http://twitter.com/bphoon Brian C

            The Bush Administration got TARP passed and handed that to Obama as part of a $1.2 trillion fiscal deficit. That we even needed a TARP was due largely to the laissez faire economic policies of the Bush Administrations. Keep in mind that before the Democrats took majorities in the 2006 election the GOP held majorities in both houses of Congress–and the Presidency–for six years. After the Democrats took the Congressional majority in ’06, the GOP Senate minority engaged in obstruction via a record of filibusters unmatched in the history of our country that continues to this day.

            The Democrats tried to start fixing our economic mess in 2007 and the GOP obstructed their efforts at every turn.

            The facts are that the national debt nearly tripled under Reagan and more than doubled under W. Each handed record fiscal deficits to their successors.

            The Great Recession that was caused largely by the above mentioned GOP laissez faire economic policies was the worst since the Great Depression. It’s gonna take a little more than three years to unfuck what Bush and the GOP took eight years to fuck up.

            This ends today’s history lesson.

          • mrbrink

            “Bill Clinton added about $2 Trillion to it, there I fixed it for you, but let’s ignore that, along with the fact that it’s Congress that spends the money, k?”

            What does Bill Clinton have to do with three republican presidents racking up over ten trillion in current debt, plus accumulated interest, and Clinton’s balanced budget?

            The President of the United States submits the budget to Congress, just so you know, and Bush was a line-item vetoing madman.

            How much bullshit can you fit into one paragraph? I’d say you’re testing the boundaries of acceptable conclusions.

            You’re still obfuscating and it’s clear you don’t get challenged nearly enough.

            And your understanding of each party’s collective priorities are where you’re going wrong.

            Take oil companies, tax cuts, and healthcare, for example.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            Brink, Congress adds most of the spending bills to the budget. Are you sure you want to deny that, and claim I’m testing the boundaries of acceptable conclusions?

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          Three republican presidents accumulated over ten trillion in current debt, plus interest and threw it all down a spider hole to nowhere.

          Funny you should mention that….
          http://www.politicalruminations.com/2011/06/from-the-archives-who-ran-up-the-national-debt.html

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            A spider hole to nowhere! That’s humorous! Let’s spend even more!

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            Go away. You’re boring and too stupid to argue with. Really.

          • mrbrink

            How about spending humanely, sanely, and more equitably, Josh?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            I have no problems with that at all! The problem I have is waste and self serving spending, and duplication. Nothing productive is done to streamline things, it is only made bigger, costlier, with no real additional benefit.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        A lot of this is incoherent so it’s hard to respond.

        The bit about Democratic control of the 110th Congress is just a Talking Point; it’s meaningless without a more specific, detailed and thorough explication of what was spent, on what, how much, and why. The fact that the Democrats controlled Congress during the years you mention establishes correlation, not causation. Unless you can identify specific spending bills, appropriations, laws passed, policies enacted, etc., the correlation in and of itself is meaningless.

        You claim to “blame both parties,” but you don’t. Everything you’ve written on this forum indicates otherwise. You can keep saying that all you want, but you won’t convince me (or, I presume, anyone else here) until the substance of your contributions support that assertion.

        That last paragraph makes no sense at all.

        Ponder this: What is the real, practical, utilitarian risk of having increasing federal deficits and national debt? Forget ideology, forget whatever the right-wing hate-o-sphere is ordering you to think, and just use practical logic. The risk is that we will have a government and a nation that can’t afford to do anything except service the debt. Public debt can be serviced in perpetuity (absent a default), but if the debt becomes too large, then all of our resources will have to be devoted to servicing it; everything else, including social programs, the safety net, and even the military eventually, will have to go away.

        Now, which party wants that?

        Democrats want a government that works, that takes care of the needs of its people, especially the most vulnerable. Deficits and debt are destructive of those ends. Republicans do not want that; they want a government that makes war and protects wealth/property, and essentially nothing else. Deficits and debt, in the long term, destroys what Democrats hold most dear, and gives Republicans what they want most of all.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

          A lot of this is incoherent? Give me a break.

          Republicans want war? And you accuse me of using talking points?

          40 million Iraqi’s are freed from tyranny with a hopeful future, at a large cost of lives and cash.
          Yes.

          Meanwhile Democrats pour Trillions into housing finance programs to help people buy homes through risky subprime mortgages to millions. Housing prices increased due to demand. Millions are then left homeless when their rates increase beyond their ability to pay for them, or the increased property tax payments on the new high assessments . This eventually leads to the mortgage meltdown, which Democrats were warned about but chose to make believe everything was fine, they resisted the regulation that was proposed by Republicans. Yes I do defend Republicans here more than Democrats, as you all simply belittle them daily like high school kids pick on nerds, or their parents.

          Republicans freed people. Democrats created a mess.

          There you go, incoherent that.

          You want to blame Wallstreet? heh, they simply took some the risky loans packaged as mortgage backed securities off the hands of Fannie and Freddie ( who has required the largest bailout, and are not required to pay it back ). Good going Democrats! Wonderful vision.

          • Alex0001

            Republicans and regulation in the same sentence? Now I KNOW you’re full of shit. This entire post is so incredibly backwards it’s astounding….

          • i_a_c

            Housing prices also increased in large part due to speculation on housing prices, buying and selling large sums of properties to jack up the price of housing. This was a problem, but it was made much worse due to the securitizing of subprime mortgages, which were misrated by various Wall St. rating firms. While the commercial banks were making billions trading and making bets off of derivatives, once it turned out that many of the securitized mortgages were actually worthless, the bottom fell out on their securitization schemes and the banks began losing millions of dollars a day.

            The causes of the financial crisis are broad and not limited to one party’s actions.

        • mrbrink

          Perfect.

          Eloquent, thoughtful, even poetic.

          You touched me, man.

          Outstanding.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

            “Eloquent, thoughtful, even poetic.”

            ?

            Democrats good, helpful, nice, kind.
            Republicans evil, destructive, mean, brutal.

            I really don’t know what to say.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

    It’s obviously pretty easy to tweak liberals that live in the world of make believe. I’m done here. Not productive.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Lies vs. facts. Liberals win again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1300471920 Josh Ua

    Are you the Mayor of Make Believe?

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      Josh, just give it up. You don’t want to have a nuanced discussion and you’re acting like a troll.

      • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

        correction, IG.

        He isn’t “acting like a troll”.

        He is a troll. And a particularly ignorant one.

        • JMAshby

          One day I’ll teach you gals not to play with the trolls while I’m asleep or busy ;)

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            But its so easy and so much fun to watch them spin around and foam at the mouth….then vomit multicolored prose.

          • Guest

            x2

          • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

            :-)

  • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com Bob Rutledge

    Wow. I thought the Bush-apologist was extinct.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      No, no matter what you do they keep coming back. Like cockroaches.

  • mrbrink

    Just one more thing.

    When the shit hit the fan on 9/11, Bush stood atop the rubble and told everyone to “go shopping.”

    He didn’t tell everyone the producers and job creators would fix it.

    He was making a demand side argument, knowingly or not.

    That’s because trickle down is just a concentrated wealth scam and the real economy is consumer driven– not “producer”- driven.

    • JMAshby

      You could say that was the entire point of installing Bush in White House.