No doubt the Bush lovers will hate this, as its full of facts. But what we should take awey form this analysis is an understanding of where the deficits came from so we can reverse the causes.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017397975_deficitassess02.html?prmid=head_main

Whew...what a relief. It really is Bush's fault and Obama has been a very effective president. Thanks for clearing that up Dave.

Bush inherits a balanced budget with a surplus when he takes office, after 8 years of repealing the capital gains tax and tax breaks for the rich, we are now in the red for trillions.
But it's Obama's fault for not fixing it.

Chuck, your observations are all - more or less- valid. Now can you try to ignore politics and focus on the actions that caused the deficit - irrespective of who took them. Then lets ask how we can reverse those actions.

Your last sentence reflect a fear that future tax cuts MAY increase the deficit. So, do you suppose past tax cuts may have had any effect?

I know its hard to deal with facts, but the article has lots of them. Does it mater who cuased the mess as much as what caused the mess?

I do not claim Obama has been an effective president. That's not the point here. The point is how do we fix what's broken without understanding how it got broken?

Wall street seems to like Obama a lot more than GW.
Very strange since GW was the "self regulation" president.

"ince the Democrats had a majority in the House under Bush"

Not true. For a time the Reps had all three houses...thus the mess.

To put the blame on an individual whether Bush or Obammy, is not even close to truth....How about we look at the Congress and their special interests as well.
The only way we can change is a wholesale clean out of all.....Time for Congressional Term Limits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well thank you FP. But you seem a little more confused than usual today. I actually didn't write that piece. And while there is some limited merrit to your observations about the powers of congress.The presidents have to take some response ability. Yes obama too.
My point was and remains to be that we must know what caused the deficit if we're to cure the deficit.

Harsh. 'Specially the comparison to "Mr. just a partisan hack."

Forget the article, and its *who* is responsible as premise. Dave's question as to the causal factor(s) of the present economic barrel goin' over the waterfall still remains for the PP economists....

c

The problem isn't how long a legislator can serve, it's corporations having the same rights a private citizens, and thus being able to anonymously funnel large sums of money to the candidate of their choice.
Corporations are not individuals, saying they are is the problem.
We need campaign reform, not term limits.

There's a link to a CNN Money article in the "Bad News for Dems" thread (I think stlhead posted it). Very disturbing read, for many reasons, but most immediately because:

a. It says that Congress is making it a priority to make the Bush tax cuts permanent before they expire, and
b. It addresses the projected effects of Obama's extension of the tax breaks for those making less than $250K (the trillions figure in the article referenced in this thread).

I'm an idiot in all matters financial, but even I can see that trying to solve a budget deficit crisis by reducing revenue is a road to nowhere. I don't think it's any major coincidence that the deficit ballooned after the tax cuts were implemented under Bush, and I think it's a no brainer that the deficit will only increase as additional cuts (which I believe are only being proposed as a consolation to quiet the vast majority of Americans that will be screwed on a permanent basis once the Bush tax cuts are made permanent) are implemented under Obama. Any president in the present era is a puppet, and the rich and special interests are holding the strings.

I wonder what part of terms like 'pork barrel, reduced spending, term
limits and no lobbyists beyond the Beltway is incomprehensible to so
many voters. Keerist cannot WE THE PEOPLE get our sorry azzes out of the muck and actually vote our wishes and toss the legislators that
don't get the message.

And I wonder what the sorry sacks that have Bush to blame it all on
will do when that one dries up....

What is government's main job, something like, protect our country
maybe? The rest is just frosting.

"The solution is simple, cut spending across the board."

Vedder has posted many threads where those who think simply cutting will resolve our problems can post all of the cuts they will make to balance the budget. If you think "The solution is simple, cut spending across the board."
how many people do you plan to unemploy and what are your plans for them given you've just cut unemployment benefits and welfare and medicare and ...........remember there is already officially 10% unemployment now but the number is much higher.

And once again, I remind folks... The lynchpin for the "bush tax cuts" is giving a 50%+ discount to income earned as capital gains vs. ordinary income. If you believe (as I do) that having SOME incentive to encourage long term investment -- what is an appropriate incentive? I know for me a 25% discount from ordinary income would be sufficient to incentivize me plenty well.

So WHY is it helping the economy to have a DOUBLE discount for this relatively elite deduction? Advocates claim it encourages job creation/investment, but I just don't see how the second 25% changes the calculus. It's just a gift.

Charging income instead of capital gains on Hedge Funds "carried interest" would raise $18 billion.

Stock market is going great for me. Woo hoo!

It's only fun to blame Buscho because they so richly (pun intended) deserve it. Simply put, they reduced revenue, especially from their friends the "Have Mores" and increased spending that even a drunken sailor would envy. Therefore the solution is increased taxed revenue, most particularly from a growing economy, and from controlled and more likely than not reduced spending. Can't get much simpler than that.

Chuck,

I think it was pretty valid to show how much the deficit was increased by various past actions. We do know what has happened so far. I agree that the future is speculation. But I do think any reasonable person would agree that we must have both revenue increases and program cuts.

Hank,

No doubt the reenactment of the Bush cuts will not solve the problem, but why not take a step in the right direction? The deficit reduction panel saw an offer of significant program cuts, with even Social Security and Medicare on the table, IF we could get minor revenue enhancements. That was a no go for the republicans.

Seems to me that meaningful deficit reduction would require some give by both sides.

If either party had only the good of America on their minds they could easily agree to some formula of tax increases and spending cuts to get us back on track. Instead they stubbornly refuse to compromise and our country suffers.

FALSE *and* classic logical fallacy on top.

Ending the "Bush Tax Cuts" is more like $200b a year, and with interest, in 10 years it's more like 3.26 TRILLION. So you're only off by oh, a factor of four. ( Citation)

Also a logical fallacy that since it doesn't solve the entire problem it's not a justified step. Economic problems are multi-facedted, and require a multitude of solutions. We can keep the Bush Tax Cuts, but it's JUST ANOTHER EXPENSE. It's an expense that is IMO unjustifiable in the current economic climate.