Ya, they didn't vote for it, but the GOP sure as hell got all the pork they could out of it
too. It's part of that whole "perpetually running for re-election" problem I spoke of previously: The GOP was SO opposed to Obama's stimulus that they, as quietly as possible with the exception of the idiots who said they'd refuse to take stimulus $ & then quietly backtracked on it, blew the stimulus for all the sweet cash they could get for them & theirs.
This is a fact. Here's a list of some of them, Paul Ryan being at the top.
Um... Except that Ryan's district didn't get the money they applied for. Did you read the article?
It's also more than a bit unfair to argue that because members of the GOP opposed spending the money in the first place, that they should not allow any of that spending to occur in their states or districts once the decision has already been made. They do also have an obligation to their constituents. Those constituents will have to pay an equal share of the cost of those things, right? There's nothing wrong with opposing doing something entirely, but then also saying that if we're going to do it, I may as well get something out of it so my own constituents don't get screwed.
Imagine there's a group of friends going out to the movies. Some of them want to see the movie on the most expensive Imax/3d screen, but a couple guys think it's too expensive and isn't worth it. They get overruled and so everyone ponies up for the more expensive tickets. Your argument is like saying that having been overruled, and having paid for the more expensive tickets, they should be chastised for wearing the 3d glasses while watching the movie.
So, I'm going to pretend your answer is yes: a deficit is the difference between revenue (taxes) & spending.
Did Obama increase spending? Abso-fucking-lutely. So of course Obama's economic policies increased the deficit.
Did Dubya increase spending? Abso-fucking-lutely.
I have never claimed that he didn't. My argument has always been about the rate of spending increase, not that there was one. Some spending increase can be handled by the economy. Too much spending increase cannot. Bush did the former, Obama did the later. That's why we recovered after the recession in the early 2000s, but have not recovered as well from this most recent recession.
As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under Dubya, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion; from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.
From 2009 to 2011, under Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year.
Oh, & it has also now begun to decline.
In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.
In 1/4th the time. Which means that he's increased spending at double the rate. Math is hard, I know!
You're also making the mistake of looking at the time line in terms of presidential terms and not gaps between/through recessions. The recession started in 2008. We should look at spending increases in response to that recession and not as some general trend. Look at the pattern of spending through the first shaded area. Now look at the spending pattern in the second. Notice anything? There is nearly no change to the overall spending pattern as we went through the first recession on that chart.
I's very different in the second though, right? That's what I'm trying to get people to see. Funny thing is that you dug up a chart that shows exactly what I'm talking about but you didn't see it.
So, who's responsible for the increase in federal spending? Answer: THEY BOTH ARE.
That's the wrong question: Who increased spending at a greater rate? Answer: Obama.
It could be argued that Dubya was MORE responsible, but I won't argue that as it isn't my point. My point is that Dubya & Obama both increased spending which is one HALF of the reason we had this "debt" crisis.
I suppose it "could" be argued that Bush was more responsible, but it would be an incredibly weak argument consisting of imaginary things like unicorns and pixies.
So, now that spending is out of the way & we can both agree that Obama & Dubya increased spending (This is a fact, it is inarguable) let's move on to revenue (taxes).
Yes. They both increased spending. So did Clinton, and Bush 41, and Reagain, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson, and Kennedy, and Eisenhower... Every president has spent more dollars than the president before him. It's completely meaningless to simply point that out and leave it as that. What matters is the rate of spending increase. And Obama's is massively greater that Bush's. Doubly so when we look specifically at "spending in a recession".
The Bush Tax Cuts, which have be extended under Obama, decreased revenue (taxes). This is a fact.
They decreased revenue from that 60 year relative high in 2000, yes. But that's also somewhat meaningless. Did they reduce revenue to dangerously low levels? Absolutely not. As I have repeatedly pointed out, revenue just prior to the start of this recession was at 18.5% of GDP. In the last 40 years, there have only been 9 years in which revenue was higher than that.
So historically, revenue was not low as a result of the Bush tax cuts. So if you are attempting to claim that the revenue part of the deficit is because of the Bush tax cuts, you are absolutely provably wrong.
Also, when the housing bubble popped, revenue (taxes) decreased as the government was no longer making the revenue (taxes) off of the housing market. It's effects rippled throughout various industries, many companies in various fields & many people aren't making as much money as they were before the housing bubble popped, so revenue (taxes) are down across the board.
Correct. Revenues drop when a bubble bursts (or some other dramatic shift occurs). This is usually what causes recessions. Let me remind you of a fact that I've already pointed out earlier in this thread: Between 2001 and 2003 revenues dropped by 3.3% of GDP. Between 2007 and 2009 revenues dropped by 3.6% of GDP. The point here being that the relative revenue loss in this recession was similar to that in the previous one. So if you're going to try to blame the current debt crisis on that, you're going to have to look elsewhere.
In conclusion: The deficit Obama inherited, which was a combination in an increase in spending coupled with a loss in revenue (taxes) under Dubya, combined with the increased spending of Obama & the continued lower revenues (taxes) taken in during Obama's term, is the reason we are in the current debt crisis.
How do you conclude this? Let me point out that in 2007, the deficit was only $160B dollars. That deficit had been falling for 3 years straight. To say that Obama "inherited a deficit" is a gross misstatement. The deficits which occurred as a result of the housing bubble had nothing to do with the tax rates
. It was purely because of losses as a result of the recession (and actions taken during it as well).
Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, the revenue losses in this recession, while high historically were similar to those in 2001-2003. Yet, the job market recovered quickly from that one, and hasn't from this one. What is the difference? Spending. The rate of spending is why we aren't recovering. The data is right there in front of you, but you refuse to see it.
Why must you turn this forum into a den of lies?
You're the one who is conveniently ignoring important facts and coming to conclusions which are completely false. I suppose I turn this forum into a den of lies, but that's because so many people find that in order to argue against the facts I present they have to lie. Maybe you should look to yourself and figure out why you feel you have to do that? Edited, Aug 26th 2011 2:13pm by gbaji