BUSH RECORD BUDGET DEFICIT

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Oct 3, 2002
266
0
0
46
www.beat-tech.com
#1


WHO WILL PAY FOR BUSH'S WAR? The above Bush deficit of $304 billion, the largest in history as well as the most precipitous, (see above) is pre-budget. With the new Bush budget in place, our deficit is $5.4 trillion over ten years. (Bush is back-loading the deficit so the entire economic penality of what he is doing will not be readily apparent until after he is out of office.) Paul Krugman suggests that we count on that post-budget deficit to increase by around $140 billion evey six months, and that's based upon past behavior and does not count the Bush war against Iraq: "Independent analysts, who take into account the stuff the administration pretends doesn't exist — the war, the alternative minimum tax, and so on — think we're looking at deficits of 3 or 4 percent of G.D.P., maybe more, for the next decade. And then it will get much worse." We know that a deficit such as that which is predicted could move our country into a depression in ten or so years. But as Bush said as he was leaving Texas for D.C. when told that the state was moving into deficit spending due to his ill-advised tax cuts, "That's not my problem." To see how bad it could get, let's look at a NYT estimate of the cost of a Bush war on Iraq.

Military Deployment = $79 billion
Military Occupation = $105 billion (First 5 years only.)
Humanitarian Aid = $10 billion
Governance = $12 billion
Reconsrtuction/Recovery = $105 billion
Debt/Claims/Reparation = $361 billion
Aid To Allies = $10 billion (Does not include quid pro quo deals)
TOTAL: $682 billion

The Bush budget assumes a deficit of $5.4 trillion by the end of ten years, but the addition of a Bush Iraq war deficit of .7 trillion will push it up to $6.1 trillion, and assuming Bush will continue his ill-advised economic plans with a GOP Congress in place, the deficit by the end of his present term in office will reach $6.7 trillion. Bush plans to plunder the taxpayers' money coming in to support Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security to bring down the deficit to $3.2 trillion, but pretty much eliminating the three programs by so doing, which is his ultimate goal, thereby destroying the key economic safety nets nearly all of the poor and most of the middle class have. By then, the government will have to delete 30% of its social programs or put heavy taxation in place to avoid doing so. Given the huge deficit we will still have at that point, "the temptation to print money to pay our debts will become almost irresistible." That being the case, inflation will set in, jobs will be lost, and wages will remain fixed as prices go up. By then, of course, ex-President Bush will be saying, "That's not my problem." It will be ours. --Politex, 02.15.03
 
May 13, 2002
218
0
0
44
www.thechill.com
#5
That graph is foolishly misleading. It unfoundedly actually makes it look like we had a budget surplus. It even makes it look like clinton reduced the deficit (very untrue). Why don't we look at REAL numbers (instead of these fabricated projections which are put out for political reason and are no better then ENRON type numbers). Here it is copied right off the treasury dept website. And please notice that NO TIME during Clinton's 8 year term did the DEFICIT EVER DECLINE. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 *
12/31/1979 845,116,000,000.00 *
12/29/1978 789,207,000,000.00 *
12/30/1977 718,943,000,000.00 *
12/31/1976 653,544,000,000.00 *
12/31/1975 576,649,000,000.00 *
12/31/1974 492,665,000,000.00 *
12/31/1973 469,898,039,554.70
12/29/1972 449,298,066,119.00
12/31/1971 424,130,961,959.95
12/31/1970 389,158,403,690.26
12/31/1969 368,225,581,254.41
12/31/1968 358,028,625,002.91
12/29/1967 344,663,009,745.18
12/30/1966 329,319,249,366.68
12/31/1965 320,904,110,042.04
12/31/1964 317,940,472,718.38
12/31/1963 309,346,845,059.17
12/31/1962 303,470,080,489.27
12/29/1961 296,168,761,214.92
12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68
12/31/1959 290,797,771,717.63
12/31/1958 282,922,423,583.87
12/31/1957 274,897,784,290.72
12/31/1956 276,627,527,996.11
12/30/1955 280,768,553,188.96
12/31/1954 278,749,814,391.33
12/31/1953 275,168,120,129.39
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
116
#8
but pretty much eliminating the three programs by so doing, which is his ultimate goal, thereby destroying the key economic safety nets nearly all of the poor and most of the middle class have
this has been a democratic claim for 20 years now. but it is the new york times writing the article.
 
May 13, 2002
218
0
0
44
www.thechill.com
#10
ReservoirDog who cares if Bill Clinton beat the "budget"? That means nothing. The budget is just a screwy ass projection of what they THINK we will have. If clinton EVER truly beat the real budget (meaning spent less money then we actually brought in) then you would have seen the numbers I posted decrease from one year to the next. As you notice that never happened. So when all is said and done what does that graph show us that you posted? It just shows us there projection was just a screwed up figure based on manipluated assumptions. So in summary for the last time did Clinton ever reduce the deficit NO! and that's all that matters, not beating some fake budget.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
49
#13
ReservoirDog said:
Even Allen Greenspan recently said Bush's economics are faulty and will not help the economy (look into it)...
thats not what he said. what he said was that it looked like the economy was already showing growth and that in the long run it would come back to normal. therefore cutting taxes was not needed because the economy would eventually come arounf in the long run. and then he also went on to say that the bush plan would help in the short term nad in the long term but that he didnt think that it was needed
 
Oct 3, 2002
266
0
0
46
www.beat-tech.com
#15
"Anything that will help us stop spending money, I'm in favor of," said Rep. Sue Myrick, R-North Carolina, in The New York Times on Tuesday. "And if there's a deficit, that may help us.'' (Can you believe this bitch? What happens if another be emergancy happens like 9/11? How are we going to pay for it a long with war, education, health care, ect... Republicans need to start thinking about emergancy spending among other things...)

The argument suddenly shifted in the Democrats' favor this week when Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan uttered these fateful words. "There is no question that when deficits go up, contrary to what some have said, it does have a negative impact on the economy."

Two years ago, on January 25, 2001, the following Greenspan utterance proved to be very fateful: "Having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good."

With that, President Bush got his first tax cut. Now he's proposing another, even bigger one. What does the Greenspan oracle have to say this time?

"I do believe it should be revenue neutral," Greenspan said Tuesday.

Aha! The President's tax cut has to be paid for, to keep the deficit under control.

Democrats are gleeful.

"I think Alan Greenspan two years ago breathed life into the administration's proposal for tax cuts," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, in a news conference Tuesday. "Today, I think he made the kiss of death for the plan that was offered this year again."

Greenspan's testimony may or may not be the kiss of death for the President's economic plan. But it was certainly the Play of the Week.

Will Republicans pay a political price for the deficit? Ronald Reagan didn't. But the first President George Bush did.
 
May 13, 2002
218
0
0
44
www.thechill.com
#17
I notice there is no response when we talk actual numbers. Something else interesting about deficit management if you guys want to try and play political games about this president spends to much money or this president spends to much money (btw there is a lot more to do with the deficit then president's spending money). But anyway here it is since I seem to see so much Clinton vs Bush fan fare going around on here.

I will use Sept 30 of there 1st year in office as starting dates and then go two years into there term so 9/30/92 - 9/30/94 for Clinton and 9/30/00 - 9/30/02 for Bush (I am using the sept 30 dates because I can't find date specific information on the 1992 year so I can't use the date they took office). So how much did the deficit increase for each of them? let's look:

Bush:
deficit as of 9/30/00 - $5,674,178,209,886.86
deficit as of 9/30/02 - $6,228,235,965,597.16
Increase during time period = $554,057,755,710.30

Clinton:
Clinton as of 9/30/92 - $4,064,620,655,521.66
Clinton as of 9/30/94 - $4,692,749,910,013.32
Increase during time period = $628,129,254,491.66

So don't try and pretend like Bush is doing any worse then Clinton did with the deficit. If you truly think presidents deserve the praise for managing the deficit (which they don't) then the only presidents I would say even deserve it would be Calvin Coolidge and maybe Harry Truman.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
49
#19
Hit The Blunt said:
So don't try and pretend like Bush is doing any worse then Clinton did with the deficit.
he isnt doing any better. and thats one of the points where i disagree with Bush , on his budget. 2.2 trillion which when broken down is close to $7,000 per American Citizen. the government has no business spending that much money
 
May 13, 2002
218
0
0
44
www.thechill.com
#20
technically he is doing approx 75 billion dollars better then Clinton did through the same time period and Bush had to deal with an attack on American soil during that time.

P.S. I hope everyone realizes I am arguing this from a 'devils advocate' point of view. Unlike many of you I put very little emphasis on presidents and their correlating or should I say uncorrelated budget deficits.