Half of Obamas stimulus went in 2009's budget which is why I said Bush increased the deficit a trillion dollars not 1.4 trillion Obamas stimulus was a 1 time cost,Bushs costs are ongoing The Bush Deficit Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate. By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending. In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them. Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Of course, tomorrow's deficit problem is a bit different from today's. Looking decades into the future, it's the rising cost of health care that seem likely to wreck federal finances. But health care reform addresses that too, by putting in places the policies and institutions necessary to curb spending on medical care. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html Whatâs also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obamaâs major expenses were temporary â the stimulus is over now â while Bushâs were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didnât just lower revenue for 10 years. Itâs clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them. To relate this specifically to the debt-ceiling debate, weâre not raising the debt ceiling because of the new policies passed in the past two years. Weâre raising the debt ceiling because of the accumulated effect of policies passed in recent decades, many of them under Republicans. Itâs convenient for whichever side isnât in power, or wasnât recently in power, to blame the debt ceiling on the other party. But it isnât true.
Ok i appreciate the fact that you have atleast gotten to this level, now given the fact that the stimulus and TARP were both 1 time expenditures, Why did the deficit proceed to go higher the year after and stabalise at deficits over a trillion. We have gotten most of TARP money back, so not only should that have not contributed to future deficits, it actualls should have LOWERED THE DEFICITS as money came back in.
The increase in the deficit from 2008 to 2009 wasn't all from Obamas spending you moron it was lack of revenue do to bushs recession and tax cuts Bush estimated the 2009 deficit at 400 billion but revenue came up 600 billion less then he estimated
Which is the most important to you, furtherance of Randian ideology, a good economy regardless of ideology, or "get Obama"?
What's more important to you, defending Obama under any and all circumstances, or making sure someone else is always responsible for anything that goes wrong?
Refuting causes for many current problems, to the person who is blaming Obama for them, is not defending Obama.
Mostly due to Obama's stimulus being split into multiple years,increased SS,medicare,disability and unemployment ins costs and lack of revenue .Revenue went from 2.7 trillion in 2008 to 2.1 trillion in 2009 and 2010,that alone is a 600 billion deficit without 1 penny spent from Obama and Bush had a 400-500 billion dollar deficit when revenue was at 2.7 trillion Obama has added some other spending buts its nothing compared to bushs increased spending while cutting revenue
He has failed to create an environment for a growing economy. Look for more of the same the next 4 years, as he wastes time on gun control, pitting one group against another and other distractions. Hell, no wonder we are still stuck in "neutral".
That's funny, to most of us it appears getting fresh shit stains on your nose is the most important thing to you.