The Bush legacy:
The specter of recession took a toll on President Bush’s proposed budget Monday, more than doubling the projected federal deficit and setting up an election-year battle with Democrats over spending priorities.
The $3.1 trillion budget would sharply reduce the growth of Medicare and trim other domestic programs, while providing sizable increases for defense, diplomacy and homeland security.
Perhaps its most lasting legacy, however, would be the re-emergence of deficits above $400 billion, nearly matching the $412 billion record set in 2004. The deficit would rise from $162 billion in 2007 to $410 billion this year and $407 billion next year.
Given the cheerleading forBush done by the Hewitt’s and the NRO’s the last eight years, it is particularly amusing listening to them tell us how “conservative” Romney is and that we should vote for him. Frauds.
pharniel
a book i read recently called ‘on her majesty’s occult service’ has an essay about what happens when the criminals become so powerful that they are in charge, and then they’re not really criminals anymore, because while what they are doing is wrong, it’s very hard to capture people with thier own personal army, and the resources of a nation.
Zifnab
Fiscal Responsibility! Fiscal Responsibility! Fiscal Responsibility!
Trillions for Defense, not a penny for entitlement tributes!
Wilfred
Giddy-up , pony.
Jen
I expect he knows the Dems are going to win this year and is just trying to leave a really, really, big mess to clean up.
Face
Something seems fishy. How does one raise the debt that much in one year? I understand the war costs, etc., but we’ve had those for years now.
Anyone understand how a deficiet could more than double in one year?
chopper
ah, what a nice present for the dems.
Davis X. Machina
The problem was all those Democratic majorities ramming wasteful spending past Bush’s vetoes.
That’s what people tell me.
The median voter in a general election is about as well-informed as a loaf of bread. It’ll be forty years and I’ll be in my grave before the Republicans gain the reputation for profligate spending. Hell, by then there may not be Republicans, as we currently understand the term.
IanY77
Amazing. This Tim F. post seems more prescient as time goes on. The only difference seems to be as soon as a Dem becomes president, the wailing over fiscal responsibility will begin.
Zifnab
Yup. I’m sure in years to come, Republican scholars will note how after six years in power, during the height of the Global War Against Brown People Trying To Kill Us, Republicans stood on the brink of a balanced budget. Then Democrats swept in and the Presidential funding proposal was ballooned by 200% This proves, definitively, that Democrats are “unserious” when it comes to the budget and that only a Republican controlled Congress can reign in wasteful spending.
I mean, numbers don’t lie people. In ’06 we had a $150 billion deficit. In ’08 its up to $400 billion. What’s the difference between ’06 and ’08? DemonRat majorities in the House and Senate. And conventional wisdom clearly states that DemonRats spend too much of your tax money.
TheFountainHead
So….how about all that Iraqi oil we’re making money off of, huh?
Amirite??
photonaton
I believe the war costs are largely off-budget.
The Grand Panjandrum
Some of the increase comes from spending more and some comes form falling revenues. The weakening economy is taking its toll on the money the government takes in.
What makes this budget worse is that it DOES NOT include enough money to sustain the Iraq abortion. Like every years since 2003 a supplemental bill will be required.
All the former Cheerleader! Thanks be to the money tree gods he has an MBA or we might be in real deep doo doo. Stock up on the lube boys and girls, because we are in for one good rogering by these guys.
Jen
Hi GP! How was the M.U.P./Man who has an M.U.P. — we’re not really too sure?
(Henceforth I shall use the initials and confuse the unfamiliar, lest I find myself once again the M.U.P.-is-not-racist defender role)
The Other Steve
Well it appears our Congress has repealed one legacy of Bush.
Leahy got through amendment that repealed the The Insurrection Act Rider. What is it?
It was basically a law pushed in there by the Republican Congress in 2006 that gave Bush the sole authority to declare Martial Law, basically in violation of long standing posse comitatus restrictions. The law was sold as clarifying the wording of the Insurrection Act from the Civil War, but it just made it easier for the President to do so with little or no reason.
Leahy’s statement in 2007 on this.
This is a BIG DEAL.
And of course, it’s receiving no news coverage.
Alan
I don’t understand…I thought tax cuts were the panacea for all our budget deficit woes.
These deficits will end up being responsible for the complete destruction of Republican Party and Reaganism. And Bush managed to do it while borrowing was cheap as opposed to the Reagan years and double digit interest rates.
The Other Steve
I should note, what little coverage it is receiving gives the credit to Bush for signing. Even though it was Bush who asked for the initial wording this bill is repealing.
Two-faced lousy excuse for a human being.
Wilfred
Well of course it isn’t. The press is finally coming to its patriotic senses and recognizes that Mr. Islamo-fascistloving Leahy’s actions have just handed what’s left of this country over to the enemy.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I seriously expect that people are getting their cynicism out of the closet for issues like this.
Fox News ratings are sinking like a rusted iron anchor in a freshwater lake, mainly because people can tell when they have nothing useful to say.
Not that it wont’ be a problem… but this “Roger Ailes said it, I believe it” shit isn’t going to fly very far any more.
Sinister eyebrow
I don’t think Fiscal Responsibility means what the president thinks it means. Neither do the terms “Budget” “Constitution” “Co-equal Branch” “Oath of Office” “Revenue” “Tax” or “Spend”.
srv
Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.
Sinister eyebrow
SRV:
Reagan proved deficits don’t matter to Republicans. As for the rest of us, they matter in all sorts of painful ways.
srv
Krugman blows the mythos out of the water.
Just more BDS.
TenguPhule
The Republican Bitch Majority in Congress put off spending bills until after the 2006 elections. All of it got pushed into the next fiscal year IIRC.
TenguPhule
At least in Discworld, they had an Assassin’s Guild.
Kat
For God’s sake, when will the kool-aid drinkers stop thinking of Republicans as ‘conservative’ — or ‘neoconservative’? None of them have ever had to even pretend to balance a budget – personal or public – in their entire lives.
It’s long past time to call them what they actually are —
neoradicals.
Say it with me now… Republicans are neoradicals bent on utterly destroying our Constitution and anything else that gets in the way of their insatiable greed and lust for power.
The Democrats may be fumblers and mumblers, but at least most of them actually intend to continue living in the U.S. for the rest of their lives.
I predict the neoradicals, on the other hand, will jump ship at the first opportunity, like the neorats that they are. (Dubya bought how much land in Argentina? Cheney put how much of his stash into Euro futures?)
The Other Steve
Come on, everybody knows if we decrease tax rates to 0%, we will have an infinite amount of money into the treasury.
It’s called the laugher curve.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
A nice little pair of quotes via Cunning Realist
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
oops, meant to post the CR quotes:
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I, for one, have been switching, and calling the right-wing “liberals”, or when I call them conservatives I include the quote-marks.
I bet everyone else is like this; I’m not a special dude.
So, I’ll say: Tell it to the Media. They’re the ones who refuse to challenge the establishment.
Sinister eyebrow
SRV
Nice job linking to a Krugman editorial that says nothing whatsoever about the relative importance or impact of federal deficit spending, or the size of the national debt as a result.
Deficits do matter when they become astronomical and continue year after year because the national debt matters. Countries have in the past and will continue in the future to bankrupt themselves. There is a hell of a lot of taxpayer money going to service the $9 trillion in debt we’ve run up, and deficits only build on that figure and increase the cost of servicing that debt at the expense of other programs and priorities …
Continuing to increase national debt leads toward destabilization and ultimately becomes economically unsustainable.
Jake
.
PotD
pharniel
*TenguPhule* Says:
See, I don’t mind smart capable evil leaders. Because a really smart, really dedicated, smart evil leader is going to realize that my life being awesum and secure is the best bet to maintaining power and fending off the other evil leaders.
I call it ‘smart evil’ and it looks alot like ‘good’ from a certian perspective.
‘smart evil’ doesn’t randomly torture people, or fuck with thier women because, hey, guess what, randomly torturing people or screwing with ther property or women is a sure fire way to get a revolt on your hands.
machiveli knew this. sun tzu knew this. I have a feeling both men were utter bastards, but at least they were fucking efficent, and knew that if the country/state did better, then they could do better.
I’d vote for The Patrician for president in a heartbeat.
because smart, self interested evil you can work with.
stupid evil is just a recipie for ‘your fucked’
srv
Nice job ignoring the link in his post with all of that.
Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1968 to 2007, as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product
Debt held by public:
1999 39.8%
2007 36.8%
Astronomical. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
liberal
Face wrote,
I thought one big contributor is the fiscal stimulus package; it’s $150B in additional spending.
Presumably another factor is the economic slowdown. During slowdowns, tax revenues fall and spending on automatic stabilizers like unemployment rise.
liberal
photonaton wrote,
I read up a couple Googled-news articles, then concluded that this opening paragraph at blogsforbush.com [vomit!] is correct:
That is, by putting war appropriations in supplemental emergency appropriations bills, Bush doesn’t have to include the amounts looking forward. (Not sure if he’s doing that this time around.) But those funds are definitely included in the “budget” retrospectively.
Jay
Yeah. The Laffer Curve should be spelled Laugher Curve. Supply Side Economics is a Ponzi Scheme.
Read this book.
Tlazolteotl
I’m still laughing at the Hinderacker quote posted below.
Those must be some powerful antidepressants the guy is on, seriously!
liberal
srv wrote,
One thing, though—“debt held by the public” ignores the buildup of debt owed by the general fund to Social Security. According to Table F-2 in the linked data doc, SS has been running an approx 1.5% GDP surplus since 1999.
Jake
I had to look at the budget for work related reasons.
An example:
Despite strong evidence that these programs don’t work and states have been refusing funds for AO, Bush wants to dump more money in the program.
LiberalTarian
Re the debt owed to Social Security … I read a while back that a lot of Bush wealth is held in Treasury Bonds (like SS).
I say we default on Bush’s bonds. The man owes us.
scott
I love the fact that Judd Gregg, Last of A Dieing Breed of Senator (a hard right convservative from the northeast) has already spoken out against this budget.
Nothing screams LAME DUCK when the usual water carriers for President 24%’s administration start taking potshots at his budget. Of course Gregg is also probably looking at those foul Democratic political winds in his region and wondering if even his cozy little Rethug family dynasty can save him next time ’round.
In the meantime, he’s spouting the usual “this budget is crap” so he can but *some* distance between him and the Worstest Preznit Evr.
OxyCon
Baby Bush really is just like Saint Ronnie Reagan. They both maxed out the credit cards, were fiscally irresponsible, piled up the national debt, and are responsible for China buying up our country.
Face
Oxymoron alert!
I really wish people would stop trying to declare the Republican party dead, due to (fill in something). Have you never been to Tennessee or Mississippi? If you think Jethro and WhitePower.edu will support Dems b/c Bush owes some money to a bunch of gooks (their words, not mine) across the globe, than you’re crazy.
IOW, stupid people will always exist, and always vote Republican.
scott
People tend to forget who some of the original settlers were in this country, namely intolerant religous types fleeing intolerant regimes so they could practice their own brand of intolerance in peace.
Another interesting dynamic can be traced back to the Revolution. Scholars typically say that 1/3 of the colonists wanted independence, 1/3 wanted to remain with Britain and 1/3 could give a shit just so long as the competing armies left em alone.
Not much has changed really. If you combine the early colonists with that dynamic, it’s easy to see why we’ve always had about 1/3 of the population (give or take) who will always be intolerant, conservative nutjobs. Nothing to do about them other than perhaps to let em resettle in a couple of southern states and let em secede.
rawshark
So Bush is forcing a rate cut to drive inflation up to save his ass?
rawshark
Not everyone wanted government of the people. For some a classic aristocracy was the way to go. Government should serve the interests of the creator classes, the betters, and a rising tide will then lift all the peasants. Those people, the ones who didn’t want the government we decided on, are conservatives. And they’ve been telling us ever since that their interests are our interests. They make america better, we’re americans, so they make us better. We need to coddle them or they’ll no work and then we’re in trouble. If we don’t let Paris Hilton inherit tax free our country will not endure.
Pb
To actually figure out how far our nation is in hock, look up the debt statistics and subtract them from year to year–it’s pretty consistently bad, despite what the MSM might ‘report’.
2000-2001: $133 billion
2001-2002: $421 billion
2002-2003: $555 billion
2003-2004: $596 billion
2004-2005: $553 billion
2005-2006: $574 billion
2006-2007: $501 billion
Face
Ah, here it is. This makes sense. IF they indeed are counting this loss of $150B on the books.
Was there a similar deficiet spike when the gov’t pledged $100B+ for Katrina? If not, why not?
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Possibly oversimplified, but quite likely, yes.
Bush has been eviscerating the economy for his own political gain for awhile now, so now he’s filling the gashes with temporary putty until he gets out of office.
Question #1: will it hold? Looks likely.
Question #2: How in the hell did he manage to get away with it for this long?
Dennis - SGMM
If historical debt service numbers on the National Debt are any indicator, debt service on Mr. Bush’s nine-trillion dollar national debt will be around 395Bn dollars this year. As we borrow more, those numbers will only go up. The Debt Ceiling has been raised five times during the Bush administration.
When Clinton left office, the National Debt was 5 trillion, 769 Billion dollars. Bush, through his canny stewardship of the economy, has managed in eight years to double the accumulated National Debt of the previous 231 years. The words “fiscal responsibility” should turn into ashes in the mouth of any Republican who utters them.
myiq2xu
Good thing for the GOP this next election won’t be a referendum on G-Dub. Just ask James Carville’s sperm bank:
This election is gonna be about ponies.
Dennis - SGMM
The shorter Mary: “We’ve forgotten about Bush, you should too.”
Jake
Trickle Down v. 1.0
Terror! Terror! Terror! LOOK OUT! You don’t want to look out? You’re a Traitor!
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
ZOMFG!!
/ducks
//Here, take my civil liberties! See, I’m not a traitor!
///and take my money! All of it!
////just protect me from the abortionist liberal fascist brown people!!!!
myiq2xu
From Paul Krugman:
He also
dissesdiscusses the MUP Health plan.Punchy
So only gay men vote now?
Jen
It better be, cause if it’s about bimbos, Hillarycare, and shady-as-hell Kazakh deals, I am tuning the hell out.
ThymeZone
Bush got his tax cuts for the rich, his war, his pork signings for his GOP friends on the Hill.
Now the chickens come home to roost.
Like he says, what else can we do but make the tax cuts for the rich permanent?
Of course, there is always Hucksterbee and “I will get rid of the IRS.”
Or John McCain “I read an economics book over the weekend, don’t tell me I’m not ready to lead.”
Yawn. How soon does 01-20-09 get here again?
Jake
Now you’re getting it CfC. It helps if you live in a place that is more likely to be struck by a solid gold metorite than tarrists. But just drink this Kook-Aid and you’ll be a proud member of the GOP.
Your benefits include … um … a smug sense of superiority even when the bank forecloses on your house. And … well. That’s it really.
myiq2xu
Do you want some cheese with that whine?
Zifnab
I wondered at that. Frankly, I think FOX is losing market share for two reasons. One, its not a real news source and never has been. So I can turn on CNN and at least pretend to get news – if a bridge collapses or a boat sinks or a hurricane hits, I can find out it happened. FOX is really only good for random E! Hollywood trivia or the latest missing pretty teenage white girl. I was sitting in a bar and they had the TV on in the corner. FOX ran stories, in order, on Natallie Holloway, Britney Spears, and Michael Jackson. It’s like the show was spiraling back in time. You would have to pay me to actively tune into that trash.
Two, the Democrats’ boycott of the show is depriving FOX of its audience. Who wants to watch Republicans talk at Republicans about being Republicans? There’s no drama. You need the Bill O’Reilly patented hissy-fit and you need the sacrificial Democrat to come on and get smeared. If they could book Hillary or Barak and then lay into them, FOX ratings might recover. As it stands, they can only book no-name consultants and throw up grainy pictures of George Soros. Who wants to watch that?
ThymeZone
Tappin’ freedom, tappin’ out justice, tappin’ out love between my brothers and my sisters, all over this land.
Dennis - SGMM
POTD
Jen
I never whine. I *bitch*. And sometimes, yeah, I like a little St. Andre with it, what’s it to you?
This was a good article about the ratings at Fox News. But Karl Rove is going to be commentating during Super Tuesday. That should help.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
I think you should give up your cheese AND your whine. You’ve had enough whine to drop a team of field oxen.
/and we need your keys; we can’t let you pine and drive.
//if you won’t give us your keys, we’ll take your pants.
///Jen is the Official Pants Remover until Krista gets back.
myiq2xu
You’re the one who said you wanted to take me out. Now you want someone else to remove my pants.
D-Chance.
Yes, if only we’d remained content with 21.5% prime interest rates, double-digit inflation, near double-digit unemployment, and an economy so breezy that we saw all-time highs in a measurement called the “misery index“. Wonderful times, the late 70s.
Jen
You there, Krista? I do *not* want to remove his pants. I ain’t no Ohio cop.
myiq2xu
What I find most amusing is that Caidence assumes that I am wearing pants.
Jen
Aha, a Giuliani man.
p.lukasiak
My favorite part of the budget is where it predicts a surplus for 2012. How does Bush get that number? By letting ALL his tax cuts expire…
Jake
Fxd
ThymeZone
He’s an outlier. Nobody else here would make that assumption.
Zifnab
True believers ride the Unity Pony bareback. We’ll make a true believer out of you yet.
Emma Anne
Praise Om.
Zifnab
I blame Carter. You didn’t see rocky economic conditions* under Reagen, Ford, Nixon, or Eisenhower. The economy was in paradise through the 50s, 60s, and 80s.
(*)”Rocky economic conditions” do not constitute stagflation under Republican presidencies, massive deficits, stock market crashes, or massive exports of American jobs overseas.
LiberalTarian
Turns out I have ancestors on both sides. The loyalist side didn’t do so good, and gr-gr-gr-gr-gr granddad died in prison because he was an outspoken loyalist. If things go really south in this country, my plan is to STFU (I know, hard to believe).
And, for gawd’s sake MyIQ, cover that thing up. I can’t take any messy visuals today, I just can’t. ;)
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Touché. I should’ve known better.
Ed Drone
The shortest Mary Matalin: “Who is this ‘Bush’ you refer to?”
Ed
myiq2xu
Looks like CfC got spooked and ran to hide. He must be very young to be so shy.
I have to go stand on a corner and beg for money, so if CFC comes back tell him he can relax, he’s not my type. Despite the fact that I am from California I am a flaming heterosexual.
And I do wear pants while surfing the net.
Usually.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Wait, is “CFC” supposed to be me?
Did you nickname me?
After a world-killing chemical?
/I’ll give you all sunburns as revenge!!!
//muha
///mwhah
////muhahahahahahahahaha
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
BTW myiq: you’ve got 12 hours left to articulate your argument to not ride Teh Pony until he passes out from exhaustion or drowns while fording the Redneck River.
In before “But, I did”: You only gave a list of reading material. I don’t give a shit about Daily Howler. You took my abuse, you get listened to.
/If I’m wanting reading material, I’ll go find a blog that espouses the rank shit I want to believe as truth.
//Or talk to my mom, who will remind me how I’m an awesome guy, and any girl would be lucky to have me.
Dennis - SGMM
The important distinction between economies under Republican presidents and those under Democrats is that Republican economies only have “adjustments” while Dems have “recessions” and “depressions.”
Although the Republicans’ adjustments may involve millions losing their jobs and tens of thousands being put on the street the Repubs can always furnish charts proving, say, that one doorknob factory in Canton, Ohio, increased production so therefore the current discomfort is merely an “adjustment.”
OTOH, if the economy goes the least bit south during a Democratic administration these same Republicans will produce further charts proving that, although the situation germinated and grew in the rich loam of Republican malfeasance, it is indeed a recession and the Democrat’s fault.
Zifnab
Just your mom? I get to hear that from every girl who is not currently classified as my “girlfriend”.
LiberalTarian
Hm. My mom says I’m pretty and that should be enough. Funny how that works.
The Populist
LOL on this…so basically this war is good for whom?