The chart

#3
#3
lumping the bush tax cuts in there is bogus, because that actually led to an increase in federal revenue. that chart is only showing half of the picture. for dems, its the only half they like to acknowledge
heritage-budgetgrowth.jpg
 
#4
#4
i will say, Bush and his Republican congress should be to blame for their out of control spending too! they are a large reason why the republican party has been in shambles for the past few years.
 
#5
#5
Even if you took the 1.8 trillion out from the Bush tax cuts, he still spent over $3 trillion compared to Obama's projected $1.4 trillion in new spending.

I'm not saying that everyone isn't to blame. But this notion that its Obama's spending that has caused this mess is ludicrous given the actual facts.
 
#7
#7
lawgator1 said:
Even if you took the 1.8 trillion out from the Bush tax cuts, he still spent over $3 trillion compared to Obama's projected $1.4 trillion in new spending.

I'm not saying that everyone isn't to blame. But this notion that its Obama's spending that has caused this mess is ludicrous given the actual facts.
Click to expand...

I agree that Obama isn't the only one to blame. But he certainly isn't doing anything to fix the problem.

I guess it's a double standard. Bush reckless spending = bad. Obama reckless spending = good. Bush = devil Obama = Jesus
 
#8
#8
golfballs03 said:
lumping the bush tax cuts in there is bogus, because that actually led to an increase in federal revenue. that chart is only showing half of the picture. for dems, its the only half they like to acknowledge
heritage-budgetgrowth.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm dim. Please explain your comment. I see where revenues topped out in 2000 around the time the temporary breaks were enacted. They then decline steadily until roughly 2004 and don't return to pre-break figures until 2006. The only period in which revenues even approach a level higher is 2007-8 and the increase on your graph appears quite small. It would appear from your graph that the temporary breaks led to a precipitous drop in revenues initially and only for a short period produced a slight increase. What am I missing?
 
#9
#9
golfballs03 said:
I agree that Obama isn't the only one to blame. But he certainly isn't doing anything to fix the problem.

I guess it's a double standard. Bush reckless spending = bad. Obama reckless spending = good. Bush = devil Obama = Jesus
Click to expand...

black jesus.
 
#10
#10
golfballs03 said:
I agree that Obama isn't the only one to blame. But he certainly isn't doing anything to fix the problem.

I guess it's a double standard. Bush reckless spending = bad. Obama reckless spending = good. Bush = devil Obama = Jesus
Click to expand...


Less than $500 billion of Obama's bill is for non-stimulus spending. Bush's is about three-four times that, if my math is right.

And that is still excluding the Bush tax cuts.

I don't see value in blaming Bush for this, either. But I have no problem with Obama defending himself from the charge from the GOP that its spending under his tenure that has created the problem. Its just not.
 
#11
#11
CSVol said:
I'm dim. Please explain your comment. I see where revenues topped out in 2000 around the time the temporary breaks were enacted. They then decline steadily until roughly 2004 and don't return to pre-break figures until 2006. The only period in which revenues even approach a level higher is 2007-8 and the increase on your graph appears quite small. It would appear from your graph that the temporary breaks led to a precipitous drop in revenues initially and only for a short period produced a slight increase. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

I would say you need to look at the business cycle. The peak around 2000 was from rapid growth that was followed by a popping bubble. Notice that revenues plummet BEFORE the tax cuts and continue down a bit after. Then we see an new high in the 2007 time period.

Now the 1 million dollar question is - what would the 2007 number have been without the tax cuts? The argument in favor says that they (the 2001 cuts in particular) stopped the economic slide that occurred after the 2000 bubble and was heigthened by 9/11 and started us back on an accelerated recovery.

The argument against says the recovery would have been the same and thus revenue was left on the table.

We really won't ever know for sure how much impact the cuts had.

We do know that after 2 major shocks the economy, tax breaks were instituted and the economy AND JOBS rebounded - at least until the next bubble (housing).
 
#12
#12
CSVol said:
I'm dim. Please explain your comment. I see where revenues topped out in 2000 around the time the temporary breaks were enacted. They then decline steadily until roughly 2004 and don't return to pre-break figures until 2006. The only period in which revenues even approach a level higher is 2007-8 and the increase on your graph appears quite small. It would appear from your graph that the temporary breaks led to a precipitous drop in revenues initially and only for a short period produced a slight increase. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

The tax breaks were enacted in 2003. Dems took control of congress in 2007
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Less than $500 billion of Obama's bill is for non-stimulus spending. Bush's is about three-four times that, if my math is right.

And that is still excluding the Bush tax cuts.

I don't see value in blaming Bush for this, either. But I have no problem with Obama defending himself from the charge from the GOP that its spending under his tenure that has created the problem. Its just not.
Click to expand...

Bush did it over 8 years; Obama has done it over 2.5. If you do the math the are equal offenders. If you add in the trajectory we are on under Obama, he is will blow Bush away on these metrics.
 
#17
#17
This chart is full of errors.

also, that chart is of "projected" spending by Obama until 2017. HA!

It forgets to tag Obama with the second part of TARP which fell under his watch. The first part under Bush they claim cost $773B. Most calculations I've seen only pegged it at $150.

The cost of Iraq and Afghanistan wars includes spending in the DoD that would have taken place regardless of whether we were going to war or not. So why are those absent from Obama's side? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama has continued operations in Iraq, expanded operations in Afghanistan, and also in Libya. Where are those figures on his side?

This chart is bogus.
 
#18
#18
volinbham said:
Bush did it over 8 years; Obama has done it over 2.5. If you do the math the are equal offenders. If you add in the trajectory we are on under Obama, he is will blow Bush away on these metrics.
Click to expand...

droski said:
ding ding ding ding
Click to expand...


You both need to read the chart more closely.


volinbham said:
can we get the source for this?
Click to expand...


The Atlantic, reprinted I believe from the NYT. It is from the CBO and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan think tank on federal tax policy. (though wiki says that the Heritage Foundation claims they are misleading -- of course they are getting their data from the CBO).
 
#19
#19
Most of TARP was paid back, FWIW. Not all of it has been paid back yet. After all is said and done, the government will have made money off of TARP due to the payment of preferred dividends and share appreciation.
 
#20
#20
HSVol said:
Most of TARP was paid back, FWIW. Not all of it has been paid back yet. After all is said and done, the government will have made money off of TARP due to the payment of preferred dividends and share appreciation.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
You both need to read the chart more closely.





The Atlantic, reprinted I believe from the NYT. It is from the CBO and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan think tank on federal tax policy. (though wiki says that the Heritage Foundation claims they are misleading -- of course they are getting their data from the CBO).
Click to expand...

You honestly think that this chart is accurate in the claim that Obama is only adding 1.4 trillion in new spending through 2017?
 
#23
#23
lawgator1 said:
Even if you took the 1.8 trillion out from the Bush tax cuts, he still spent over $3 trillion compared to Obama's projected $1.4 trillion in new spending.

I'm not saying that everyone isn't to blame. But this notion that its Obama's spending that has caused this mess is ludicrous given the actual facts.
Click to expand...

Red-staters don't know how much Bush spent. Blue-staters don't care how much Obama is spending. Which is worse?

I don't think anybody is claiming Obama's spending has created the mess we are in. I complain that it's done nothing to fix the mess and it put us in further debt.

Also, I don't believe the 2-term projections for a second.
 
#24
#24
golfballs03 said:
Link?
Click to expand...

I should've caveated that this is my understanding, not hard fact.

Don't have anything concerning hard figures, but I do know that the government bought preferred shares from these corporations which guarantee dividend payments and the shares had to be bought back from the government.

I also made logical deductions given the time period mentioned, the asset prices at the time, and the course of the market since then.

So, I apologize for not knowing the exact figures at this time. I acknowledge that I could be wrong on the figures.

However, I am certain that TARP did not ultimately cost the figures that have been quoted.
 
#25
#25
volinbham said:
I would say you need to look at the business cycle. The peak around 2000 was from rapid growth that was followed by a popping bubble. Notice that revenues plummet BEFORE the tax cuts and continue down a bit after. Then we see an new high in the 2007 time period.

Now the 1 million dollar question is - what would the 2007 number have been without the tax cuts? The argument in favor says that they (the 2001 cuts in particular) stopped the economic slide that occurred after the 2000 bubble and was heigthened by 9/11 and started us back on an accelerated recovery.

The argument against says the recovery would have been the same and thus revenue was left on the table.

We really won't ever know for sure how much impact the cuts had.

We do know that after 2 major shocks the economy, tax breaks were instituted and the economy AND JOBS rebounded - at least until the next bubble (housing).
Click to expand...

I appreciate your objectivity.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top