AlaskanInfidel replied to comment from Bob Gill
February 2, 2011 12:58 AM
Reply
"The deficit rose precipitously under Reagan and started to go down under Clinton."Clinton enjoyed the benefits of the tax cuts that Reagan put in place in response to the deficit. It took years for results. Clinton did nothing to affect this change.
"Then, Bush rose it to 11 trillion from 6 trillion. Obama inherited a gigantic financial crisis, 2 wars and a sluggish economy."
Not sure where you got those numbers but...I'm not a fan of Bush. Here are some numbers that I can back up.
Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped QUADRUPLE the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.
What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:
* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
* President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.
You lose.
"Health care costs are ridiculous in this country. We should have a public option that competes with the private monopolies and forces them to offer more affordable services."
The "Public Option" is the death knell for the health insurance industry and you must surely know it. I agree that health care costs are high. I had a heart attack and it cost me bigtime. Funny thing though. As soon as they found out I didn't have health insurance...all my bills went way down. When you never even see the bill, you don't care what it costs and they don't care what they charge you. The bill will be paid. If not for insurance companies paying bills without question things would be quite different.
"And yes, we have the best health care but only for those rich enough to afford it."
Wrong. You get the care you need regardless. No one asked me for cash up front. They put me in the Cardiology unit pronto and operated without question or hesitation to save my life. Same with nearly all ailments. There are numerous ways to get what you need no matter what.
I have a friend from High School that started doing crack cocaine some35 years ago... I think he's on his 5th or 6th heart valve now. Never paid a dime of any of it. Lives for free and gives back nothing and he gets top shelf healthcare. We lose and..
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You lose again.Cornelius
February 2, 2011 2:36 AM
Reply
Bush added $5 trillion to the debt in his 8 years....terrible in-and-of-itself. Obama has added close to $3 trillion in 2 years, with Health-care "reform" expected to add trillions more down the road.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornelius
February 2, 2011 3:04 AM
Reply
GILL: "And yes, we have the best health care but only for those rich enough to afford it."
Perfect example of liberal delusions. My niece is a medicaid recipient born with congenital defects, her parents of very modest means. She had an artificial heart-valve installed and has gotten the best care money could buy.
No comments:
Post a Comment