Friday, June 11, 2010

The partial reason for the deficit during the Bush years

Rich like a lot of his fellow liberals has already forgotten about what happened on 9/11. Maybe that possibly had something to do with the creation of the deficit as well.

The bigger question for liberals is since we on the Conservative side have all stated that Bush spent way too much money and strayed from any conservative roots he might have had why do you continue to bring Bush up and continue to try to paint over all of the terrible things that this current administration has done by comparing everything to the Bush years?

I repeat I am disgusted with all of the spending on entitlements that occurred while Bush was the President. I am not disgusted by the increased military spending and I am proud that under his leadership we did not suffer any othe terrorist attacks on US soil.

We can all agree that Bush signed the legislation as pushed forward by the Democratic Congress known as TARP. We will not agree unless you admit to the fact that since Democrats have been in control of Congress the deficit has grown to a level that is unprecedented. For you to try to gloss over the fact that the Pelosi and Reid led Congress is much more responsible for the deficit than any Republican is intellectually dishonest.

The Democratic Congress certainly has had the power to stop any of the increased spending. Instead they have chosen to increase spending to a level that is unsustainable no matter how much you increase taxes. These are the facts and this is why the majority of Amercians want to throw them all out. I agree that any Republican who is voting for this increased spending should be voted out as well. That is why we are happy about what happened in Utah during the straw poll.

Rich, if you cannot at least admit to the fact that this current Democratic controlled Congress is out of control as far as spending goes then you have zero credibility in your posts.

1 comment:

Baxter said...

Mark -

The consequences of 911 are reflected in the economic data, which indicated growth shortly after the attack. To the extent that the cost of government rose pursuant to 911 (wars, etc) taxes should have been raised to fund same. Couldn't we have added $1 - $2 per gallon "war on terror" gas tax right after the towers fell? Wouldn't the American people have been responsive to such an approach? Instead, the GOP monopoly cut taxes and raised spending. We have continued to bankroll both sides of the war on terror through our profligate use of energy.

TARP was "pushed forward" by Hank Paulsen. Remember the three-page proposal that was ridiculed for it's brevity? The Democrats supported Bushes TARP plan and thank God they did. Bushes last six months were his best six months - we avoided a complete collapse and depression, which was no small feat. I give very high marks to Paulsen (and thus, Bush) for his actions along with Bernanke and Geithner in our darkest hour.

Bush inherited a $200B surplus and promptly turned it into a deficit. Thanks to tax cuts and a mild recession, the surplus was gone before 911. He continued to cut taxes and raise spending and after eight years he had doubled the national debt. He then handed the new president a $1.3T deficit. The fiscal policy and regulatory approach of the Bush administration was an unmitigated disaster. The Bush Collapse is a direct consequence of six years of Republican monopoly control.

Joe Scarborough (R) talks about how Bush removed most of the regulators across government in his first term and replaced them with industry stooges. Christopher Cox at the SEC phoned it in. There was no meaningful oversight for eight years. Well - we found out how that works, didn't we?

When discussing the deficit it is important to remember that Bush would have had a net surplus if he had merely maintained Clinton's revenue as a percentage of GDP. Instead, Pay/Go was scrapped and taxes were massively cut. The Democrats are responsible for none of this.

When the new president came to office with the worst economy in 70+ years, should he have set about cutting spending? Is that the best way to address a collapse in demand in the private sector? Thats what Hoover (R) did and fortunately, the Democrats did not make the same mistake.

OK, Mark. You have said that spending by the Democratic Congress is out of control. I have asked you several times what spending you would cut specifically and all I hear are crickets. You haven't proposed a thing. I sent you my proposal by email, which I had posted here May 8th.

I have my deficit hawk bona fides. I think the Good Doc will even back me up on that. As we get out of this recession and grow the economy, we will need to enact very painful spending cuts, entitlement reforms and taxes. We have a (slowly shrinking) $1.4T annual deficit for crying out loud. There are no soft and easy ways to balance the budget, return to surplus and pay down the debt. Nonetheless, that is what we must do.The Boomers have had it pretty easy our whole lives. Now we get to do the heavy lifting.

I have high hopes for the Debt Commission this fall. Hopefully, my optimism will not prove naive. It is getting way too late in the game to keep kicking the can down the road.