I understand he argues that he didn’t really inherit a surplus and he didn’t really leave a deficit. Must be nice to live full-time in Fantasyland in your head.
Yes, he claimed in an interview that the surplus he inherited wasn’t really, it was just paper projections (never mind that Clinton had a budget surplus for the last three years.) Then, of course, there was a recession, he said, and then there was 9/11, he said. So, see he didn’t really inherit a surplus.
I sorta exaggerated on that didn’t really leave a deficit thing, but he, like most GOP, says it was small because he doesn’t add any of the TARP costs to his tally sheet (Obama gets those under his weird accounting) and of course, he never added the Iraq/Afghan war costs to his tally sheet. So, in his contorted mind, he left a deficit of less than $400 million.
that is right W did increase the deficit by 1 Trillion in 8 years. Obama increased it by 4 Trillion in 2 years. Now we are at 14 Trillion and climbing.
I assume everyone is referring to the bipartisan deficit when he says the “Bush deficit.” Democrats only rant about the deficit at election time and then spend more money after the election. Unlike Obama, Bush never had a solid Republican majority in Congress, so the Democrats could have cut federal spending at any time.
The ” Bottom-Less Pit ” . At the end of the Clinton Presidency, Bill Clinton is recommending a bi-partisan Congressional commission to oversea balance budgets and decreasing the national deficit for the next 20 years. 8 years later the Concord Commission and the G.O.P. at the mid-term Congressional elections are blaming Obama for raising deficit-spending to save the U.S. from the deepest ‘Great Recession’ since the Great Depression (like saving a drowining swimmer by the lifeguard) but in so doing raising deficits to 66% of GDP. The U.S. main population and ‘upper-crust of top 2%’ was willing to raise national deficits to 125% of GDP to save U.S. from Tojo, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini in WWII and in the Cold War.
Gary, not only do I live on planet Earth, I follow the news from many sources.
Start with the pure numbers in the House and Senate. Bush never had a solid majority in either one before 2006. As we know, Democrats took control in 2006, and deficits soared.
As for the filibuster, it only applies to the Senate. So, the Republicans could not filibuster “everything.” Plus, 60 Senators can end the filibuster. Does that number sound familiar?
And if Obamacare was such a good idea, why did Obama have to bribe and threaten members of his own party for their support? Democrats as well as Republicans balked at that debacle.
^^There’s this thing called reconciliation, which the Cons used aggresively. They also said deficits don’t matter. You don’t need a solid majority when using that.
rockngolfer almost 13 years ago
Shovel ready, and ready for his one book.
believecommonsense almost 13 years ago
I understand he argues that he didn’t really inherit a surplus and he didn’t really leave a deficit. Must be nice to live full-time in Fantasyland in your head.
believecommonsense almost 13 years ago
Yes, he claimed in an interview that the surplus he inherited wasn’t really, it was just paper projections (never mind that Clinton had a budget surplus for the last three years.) Then, of course, there was a recession, he said, and then there was 9/11, he said. So, see he didn’t really inherit a surplus.
I sorta exaggerated on that didn’t really leave a deficit thing, but he, like most GOP, says it was small because he doesn’t add any of the TARP costs to his tally sheet (Obama gets those under his weird accounting) and of course, he never added the Iraq/Afghan war costs to his tally sheet. So, in his contorted mind, he left a deficit of less than $400 million.
wolfhoundblues1 almost 13 years ago
that is right W did increase the deficit by 1 Trillion in 8 years. Obama increased it by 4 Trillion in 2 years. Now we are at 14 Trillion and climbing.
AuH2O almost 13 years ago
I assume everyone is referring to the bipartisan deficit when he says the “Bush deficit.” Democrats only rant about the deficit at election time and then spend more money after the election. Unlike Obama, Bush never had a solid Republican majority in Congress, so the Democrats could have cut federal spending at any time.
Ronald Johnson almost 13 years ago
The ” Bottom-Less Pit ” . At the end of the Clinton Presidency, Bill Clinton is recommending a bi-partisan Congressional commission to oversea balance budgets and decreasing the national deficit for the next 20 years. 8 years later the Concord Commission and the G.O.P. at the mid-term Congressional elections are blaming Obama for raising deficit-spending to save the U.S. from the deepest ‘Great Recession’ since the Great Depression (like saving a drowining swimmer by the lifeguard) but in so doing raising deficits to 66% of GDP. The U.S. main population and ‘upper-crust of top 2%’ was willing to raise national deficits to 125% of GDP to save U.S. from Tojo, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini in WWII and in the Cold War.
comYics almost 13 years ago
That’s actually obama’s deficit also.
AuH2O almost 13 years ago
Gary, not only do I live on planet Earth, I follow the news from many sources.
Start with the pure numbers in the House and Senate. Bush never had a solid majority in either one before 2006. As we know, Democrats took control in 2006, and deficits soared.
As for the filibuster, it only applies to the Senate. So, the Republicans could not filibuster “everything.” Plus, 60 Senators can end the filibuster. Does that number sound familiar?
And if Obamacare was such a good idea, why did Obama have to bribe and threaten members of his own party for their support? Democrats as well as Republicans balked at that debacle.
WarBush almost 13 years ago
^^There’s this thing called reconciliation, which the Cons used aggresively. They also said deficits don’t matter. You don’t need a solid majority when using that.
WarBush almost 13 years ago
PIMPLE: Hence my name.
pirate227 almost 13 years ago
Worst… President… ever!