Another Brilliant Plan Out of WI

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Now I ask how much of the current $3.7 trillion Obama budget is interest payments on Bush's war and tax cuts? Judging by the budget increase it should in the range of $600-$700 billion and sadly it's not.

FYI

In 2009 Bush's last year and (his biggest budget) $260 billion was paid out to interest of a $3.107 trillion budget. Or 8.5% of total budget.

Obama's 2012 budget $3.7 trillion calls for 6.3% of total budget or $233 billion to be dedicated to interest.

So while Obama's budget exceeds Bush's by $600 billion it pays $27 billion less in interest? Coupled with what Obama did in 2010 and 2011 we're talking trillions of new dollars in debt.

Bush 2009 budget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Un...federal_budget

Obama 2012 budget http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

And some are so blinded to disliking Obama they dismiss the reality of our financial situation and not only what got us here, but what is costing us big in borrowed money and interest payments over now and years to come.

It sure as hell wasn't Obama.

Bush more than doubled our national debt in 6 years. Obama kept us out of a depression, using a necessary stimulus package that most say wasn't even enough as the recession is a slow recovery.

The stimulus packages cost are a tiny part of our national debt obligation - the cost of which most is already gone, and will be even more so within 2 years - while the borrowing with interest to pay for the Bush debaucle of credit card charging and giving away our revenue is more than half, and is with us for years.

Hard to spin reality. Calling Obama the big spender for domestic spending (which he has cut, including Medicare, although discretionary is only like 16% of our budget) and stimulus - both comprising only a tiny portion of our debt obligation - is ludicrous and not supported by any facts.

The below chart clearly shows how tiny the cost of the stimulus and bailouts were, and how terribly expensive and disastrous increasing spending while cutting our revenue was - because we had to borrow that money with interest, and we are paying it back to China and others forever.

It's the dark gold on this chart that is borrowed money, with interest, that is increasing over time. Thank you, George W. Bush. You didn't even give us a kiss. And yes, Obama should have allowed the tax cuts to expire, so we could already be paying this off. That is essential - that we regain that revenue stream.

That is the threat to our grandchildren. Blaming it on "Obama spending!" is simply false.

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures



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.


http://blog.heritage.org/?p=4210

[Riot]

You diss the independent CBPP, yet you post from Heritage?

It's good to know that Obama could borrow a trillion dollars over the next five years, have repayment start in six years, have repayment last 10 years with interest, and you will entirely blame whomever is elected in 2016 for that debt

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

You diss the independent CBPP, yet you post from Heritage?

It's good to know that Obama could borrow a trillion dollars over the next five years, have repayment start in six years, have repayment last 10 years with interest, and you will entirely blame whomever is elected in 2016 for that debt

Here we go no CBPP or Heritage just straight numbers, no projections. You'll notice Obama while spending $2.67 trillion more over a 3 year period managed to pay $70.6 billion less on interest.

Bush
Total Spent Interest
2006 $2.655 Tril $226.0 billion
2007 $2.728 Tril $237.1 billion
2008 $2.982 Tril $252.0 billion

Totals $8.365 Tril $715.1 billion

Obama
Total Spent Interest
2010 $3.456 Tril $196.2 Billion
2011 $3.818 Tril $206.7 Billion
2012 $3.728 Tril $241.6 Billion

Totals $11.002 Tril $644.50 Billion


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ate=US#usgs302

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

you mean the propaganda put out by the CBPP?

It's strange you that propaganda, as they are very well-respected, considered independent, and their date is peer-reviewed and considered very accurate. So your attempted blanket dismissal of the information doesn't fly. Sorry.

Now I ask how much of the current $3.7 trillion Obama budget is interest payments on Bush's war and tax cuts?

I would ask the right question - you can't ignore the principle.

Do this, and please, us CBO numbers: tell us how much Bush has borrowed, over what time frames, and the repayment. Two unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare drug giveaway, unfunded tax cuts, and the first half of the stimulus.

Because it's nice of you to keep blaming Obama for all that, plus the split- stimulus that Bush approved at the end of his term (that he left in Obama's lap), and the tax cuts, and the wars, but that won't fly, either.

Obama is responsible for his own spending. Not the disaster Bush left us. Stop trying to twist the facts ridiculously in the wind to meet up with the false meme that Republicans are savers, and Dems are spenders. History of the last 60 years proves that wrong.

[dellinger63]

You'll also notice that Obama's increase in spending over his first three years exceeds what Bush spent for the entire budget year of 2006. And where did that get us?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You'll also notice that Obama's increase in spending over his first three years exceeds what Bush spent for the entire budget year of 2006. And where did that get us?

We are not in a depression, the auto industry is saved, the 700,000 jobs a month lost in the last months of Bush has been reversed, and the economy is recovering, albeit slowly.

Tell me, Dell - where is the cost that we have to pay back of Bushes wars, and his tax cuts, and his prescription drug program? Oh, yeah, and that stimulus he gave out on his way out the door? When did we borrow that money, and where is it being paid back? If you think that is all listed as ending Jan 2009 - as you are acting as you think - you are wrong.

That's not in the graph you posted. No matter what Heritage says <g>

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama is responsible for his own spending..

Finally.

And as posted over and over his spending has increased $2.67 trillion compared to Bush while payments made towards interest has decreased. If he could only somehow make a U-turn we'd be headed in the right direction.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Finally.

And as posted over and over his spending has increased $2.67 trillion compared to Bush while payments made towards interest has decreased. If he could only somehow make a U-turn we'd be headed in the right direction.

Well, if you are going to be "head-in-the-sand" simplistic regarding who initiated that debt, and who causes our deficit, there's nothing I can do.

Again, I'm glad you are going to blame every bit of debt we have on whomever takes office in January 2016. Because that's exactly what you are doing, now.

BTW: via Politifact, regarding the deficit - and who increased it, and who is already decreasing it.

To get historic perspective, we looked at U.S. budgets from 1930 until 2010. The highest deficits, as a percentage of spending, came in 1943 during World War II, when 69.5 percent of spending was debt financed.

In 1985, during when Ronald Reagan was president, the gap was 22.4 percent, and the deficit gap never fell below 11 percent under his watch.

In 1995, during the Clinton Administration, the gap was 10.8 percent. The budget would actually enjoy four years of surplus at the end of his tenure, reaching a high point with revenues exceeding spending by 13.2 percent in 2000.

In 2005 under George W. Bush, deficit spending accounted for 12.9 percent of outlays. The 2009 budget, passed during Bush’s final months in office and altered when Obama took over, saw spending exceed revenues by 40.2 percent.

To review, Rigell said the United States is "borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar we spend." Under the total budget figures the deficit is actually a bit smaller than that mark, coming in at 37.5 percent in the last fiscal year and a slightly lower number so far this year.

Politifact: Eric Cantor says: In the past two years, Democrats have "spent more money than this country has spent in the last 200 years combined."

Pants-On-Fire lie

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You'll also notice that Obama's increase in spending over his first three years exceeds what Bush spent for the entire budget year of 2006. And where did that get us?

The spending during the first two years of Obama is mostly Bush legacy, and a one-time stimulus (only 2/3 of which was actually spent). There are automatic increases in Medicare, Social Security, etc. You can continue to lay that at Obama's feet, but it doesn't wash.

Bush took a budget surplus, and spent it all. Then, as he increased spending markedly, and cut our revenue at the same time, he had to start borrowing money. Billions and billions.

Billions and billions.

That money is being spent over multiple years, and is to be paid back over multiple years (the future), with interest.

No subsequent President is responsible for the huge portion of the deficit, and thus budget payback, that is Bush legacy. Do you not agree with that? Yes or no?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

No subsequent President is responsible for the huge portion of the deficit, and thus budget payback, that is Bush legacy. Do you not agree with that? Yes or no?

No I don't think Bush is responsible for Obama's spending and I certainly don't think he's responsible for his complete lack of financial responsibility making lower interest payments. BTW I'd like to see budget payback/interest payments no matter whether it's the five trillion left over by Bush or the few trillion already added on by Obama. It's time to tighten the purse strings not throw billions around the mideast like pocket change.