Maybe it's still Bush's deficit

[Anonymous]

The chart below is from the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/). It shows that the contribution of the Bush tax cuts is the single greatest component of the deficit. It is also the fastest growing, and is projected to outgrow the total of all other contributing factors.

I can't vouch for the organization's political neutrality, and I am sure this chart is enough to convince the GOP that it's a liberal mouthpiece, but I wonder how dependable their numbers are.

[Anonymous]

This is true. But I don't think that he should be blamed for tax cuts. The people ate making those permanent

The war and downturn? He gets100% credit for the first and 50% for the second.

[Anonymous]

Of course it's the tax cuts and an unfunded war that's depleted the pot.

[Anonymous]

Of course, it's Bush's fault. Anything negative that's occurring in this country is due to Bush's actions or lack of action. There's no one else to blame. His name will continue to be useful as a scapegoat for all things wrong in this country. Now, do you feel better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, it's Bush's fault. Anything negative that's occurring in this country is due to Bush's actions or lack of action. There's no one else to blame. His name will continue to be useful as a scapegoat for all things wrong in this country. Now, do you feel better?

No. But it's good to remind people of this fact from time to time. As a nation we have a very short memory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, it's Bush's fault. Anything negative that's occurring in this country is due to Bush's actions or lack of action. There's no one else to blame. His name will continue to be useful as a scapegoat for all things wrong in this country. Now, do you feel better?

That's a really, really silly answer. The question is whether key policies of Bush have lasting impact on our future. If I buy a house or car that I can't afford, that affects my financial picture for decades afterward. Why is it so unreasonable to think that of a President?

The fact is that we don't get back the money from the Iraq war and it is extremely difficult to turn back the clock on things like taxes or say the medicare drug plan, which is huge and isn't even shown on this graph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, it's Bush's fault. Anything negative that's occurring in this country is due to Bush's actions or lack of action. There's no one else to blame. His name will continue to be useful as a scapegoat for all things wrong in this country. Now, do you feel better?

That's a really, really silly answer. The question is whether key policies of Bush have lasting impact on our future. If I buy a house or car that I can't afford, that affects my financial picture for decades afterward. Why is it so unreasonable to think that of a President?

The fact is that we don't get back the money from the Iraq war and it is extremely difficult to turn back the clock on things like taxes or say the medicare drug plan, which is huge and isn't even shown on this graph.

I don't consider that answer to be silly at all. I think it's ridiculous and unreasonable to hear the constant bashing of Bush by liberals. I feel the same way when conservatives constantly bash Obama. Key policies of any president can have a long-lasting effect, but certain presidents are like lightning rods for those of the opposing party--Nixon, Carter, Bush, and Obama. There are a lot of other elected officials in this country who are also responsible for decisions that affect us.

[Anonymous]

Does it really matter whose fault it is. It's so much easier to sit there and point fingers rather then spend time, I dont know, FIXING it. Geez, who cares whose fault it is or isn't let's let the current administration fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does it really matter whose fault it is. It's so much easier to sit there and point fingers rather then spend time, I dont know, FIXING it. Geez, who cares whose fault it is or isn't let's let the current administration fix it.

You're right that the 'who' may not be relevant to fixing it, but the 'what' certainly is. As OP, I am willing to rephrase the subject line as "Maybe it's still the Tax Cut/War deficit". Is that better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, it's Bush's fault. Anything negative that's occurring in this country is due to Bush's actions or lack of action. There's no one else to blame. His name will continue to be useful as a scapegoat for all things wrong in this country. Now, do you feel better?

That's a really, really silly answer. The question is whether key policies of Bush have lasting impact on our future. If I buy a house or car that I can't afford, that affects my financial picture for decades afterward. Why is it so unreasonable to think that of a President?

The fact is that we don't get back the money from the Iraq war and it is extremely difficult to turn back the clock on things like taxes or say the medicare drug plan, which is huge and isn't even shown on this graph.

I don't consider that answer to be silly at all. I think it's ridiculous and unreasonable to hear the constant bashing of Bush by liberals. I feel the same way when conservatives constantly bash Obama. Key policies of any president can have a long-lasting effect, but certain presidents are like lightning rods for those of the opposing party--Nixon, Carter, Bush, and Obama. There are a lot of other elected officials in this country who are also responsible for decisions that affect us.

Yes, but Bush championed those policies (Iraq and the tax cuts). It is not like they were passed over his head. He openly claimed the credit, and it may have gotten him re-elected. It seems only fair that he should be assessed the blame for the long term effects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The chart below is from the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/). It shows that the contribution of the Bush tax cuts is the single greatest component of the deficit. It is also the fastest growing, and is projected to outgrow the total of all other contributing factors.

I can't vouch for the organization's political neutrality, and I am sure this chart is enough to convince the GOP that it's a liberal mouthpiece, but I wonder how dependable their numbers are.

Oh, yeah!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it really matter whose fault it is. It's so much easier to sit there and point fingers rather then spend time, I dont know, FIXING it. Geez, who cares whose fault it is or isn't let's let the current administration fix it.

You're right that the 'who' may not be relevant to fixing it, but the 'what' certainly is. As OP, I am willing to rephrase the subject line as "Maybe it's still the Tax Cut/War deficit". Is that better?

No. It's irrelevant. This is why nothing gets done. The reality of the situation is that we are in a major financial crisis. We are over spending and have been for way to long whether it is bush's fault that we are in this situation doesn't matter. He's gone,and won't be in office again, now lets deal with the problem .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it really matter whose fault it is. It's so much easier to sit there and point fingers rather then spend time, I dont know, FIXING it. Geez, who cares whose fault it is or isn't let's let the current administration fix it.

You're right that the 'who' may not be relevant to fixing it, but the 'what' certainly is. As OP, I am willing to rephrase the subject line as "Maybe it's still the Tax Cut/War deficit". Is that better?

No. It's irrelevant. This is why nothing gets done. The reality of the situation is that we are in a major financial crisis. We are over spending and have been for way to long whether it is bush's fault that we are in this situation doesn't matter. He's gone,and won't be in office again, now lets deal with the problem .

The nature of the problem cannot be irrelevant to solving it. The notion that it's all about spending is bullshit meant to keep the money redistributing upward. Lower taxes and less government spending is the mechanism responsible for the rising gap between the top level and the rest of the population. It's the old trick of accusing your enemy of your own sins -- Obama is accused of being a socialist intent of income redistribution, but his only sin along those lines is trying to slow down the upward redistribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it really matter whose fault it is. It's so much easier to sit there and point fingers rather then spend time, I dont know, FIXING it. Geez, who cares whose fault it is or isn't let's let the current administration fix it.

You're right that the 'who' may not be relevant to fixing it, but the 'what' certainly is. As OP, I am willing to rephrase the subject line as "Maybe it's still the Tax Cut/War deficit". Is that better?

No. It's irrelevant. This is why nothing gets done. The reality of the situation is that we are in a major financial crisis. We are over spending and have been for way to long whether it is bush's fault that we are in this situation doesn't matter. He's gone,and won't be in office again, now lets deal with the problem .

Part of fixing problems in politics is holding people and their ideas accountable, and remembering mistakes so that we donor repeat them. Most people have already forgotten that the tax cuts were specifically meant to be temporary stimulus. And that they would not have passed if not for the expiration. Clearly our amnesia is relevant.

[Anonymous]

No entity in Washington is nonpartisan. The chart assumes that Democrats wouldn't have spent all the money on new programs anyway which they would have. Look at the orgy of spending in 2009 after they got their hands on the purse strings for the first time 8 years.

How about showing the projected deficit with entitlement reform in 1980? 1990? 2000? That's something Democrats refused to do. In spite of the fact that people are living longer and healthier, the retirement age has remained 65. Despite the fact that there werer 11 workers per retiree and it's now approaching 2, there's been no adjustement. The entire system pretends that demographics don't exist. The deficit is being mainly driven by a pulse in the population known as the Baby Boom. This was as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. People born in 1945 turned 65 in 2010. During Vietnam Lyndon Johnson raided the SS fund to pay for the war and dropped in an IOU. After that, it never stopped. The contributions they made during the working years are gone. So the fund as well as the federal budget have been totally mismanaged for decades. Same with Medicare, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Raising taxes will only encourage the incompetance that reigns in Washington.
You get what you subsidize.

The Bush tax cuts were a stimulus for the 2000 recession and they worked. Had they not happened, Democrats would have spent more money anyway. That's all they ever want to do: tax and spend.

There're really no point even talking to liberals about this anymore. They want tax rates of 50-75% to pay for their laundry list of socialism. That's what they call fair.