Just as I thought, you can not back up your statements. Sorry, but one of your fatal flaws is not understanding the difference between impressions and axioms. Just because you believe it to be true does not make it true. You think you can simply tell us that spending caused deficits and all of us are suppose say "two points, Conservative" for a brilliant argument?.... No, that poor argumentation.
Again (and again)... the government, under the leadership of GW Bush, advocated and then implemented a tax cut that was originally designed to eliminate surplus (it was DESIGNED to affect the government coffers via revenue adjustment). Of course, when you implement a surplus buster when you don't have a surplus,. you get deficits... which is exactly what we got..... the cost to the government for this tax cut was somewhere between $1.2T and $2.9T, depending on how you look at it. If you just consider the tax revenue collection shortfall to GDP (8.7% before the cuts; $7.4 after)... I would calculate it at $1.9T to 2010 (see earlier chart posted by me).
Bruce Bartlett: Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem? - NYTimes.com
Does Anyone Still Remember Why We Have The Bush Tax Cuts? - Forbes
The Bush tax cuts are here to stay | Economic Policy Institute
The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan
At the front end of the Bush administration we have the government forgoing revenue; at the back end, we get a massive recession that immediately removes $400B annually from individual income tax receipts. As we did not get an immediate recovery, that revenue shortfall took a few years to earn back. Call it (and I am guessing) $1T in revenue cost from the recession. Add the two together, and about $3T of deficits of the past 12 years are caused by revenue shortfall (nothing to do with spending)... so, you are wrong to tell us its all spending.
...and I am not telling you its all revenue, as spending played a part, including expected increases in mandatory spending that had nothing to do with the prior administration and wars/occupations (and Medicare Part D) that had EVERYTHING to do with the previous administration. Those
elective wars (Afghanistan was more of an elective occupation as the actual war was not really elective) now have an estimated cost of $4 to $6T, much of which is baked into future spending.
No, what is amazing is you never tell us how Bush created deficits when we clearly went from a "balanced budget" to large deficits during his tenure, yet you want to tell us how Obama debt is so huge. The fact is, Presidents have some control over budgets during their administration; but debt is a function of deficits and budget infrastructure often set during previous administrations. Obama is not responsible for most of the cost infrastructure of government including the wars and mandatory spending, the obligations of which were set up well before he assumed office.
Sorry, while the debt may "only" have risen $4.9T during the Bush presidency. The debt was $5.7 when Bush assumed office in 2001; it is $16.7T today, a change of $11T. Bush is pretty responsible for MOST of that change. Granted, Obama now owns the tax cuts, as the Bush cuts expired in 2010 (and were extended to 2012), and Obama owns part of the stimulus spending... but most of the rest of the government economic infrastructure (spending and revenue) has nothing to do with him.
Feel free to refute this (with facts).... and spare yourself canned counter-argument 101 that its Congress' fault... that argument shows a lack of understanding of how government works... though the House is chartered with creating budgets, its meaningless without support of the Senate and Presidency.. if not, we would be living under the Ryan Budget. The President pretty much has to endorse the budget, or it don't happen... the veto pen is far too strong in today's fractured COTUS.... and, so we can all look at how our budget went from under control to out of control between 2001 and 2009 (the Bush years)... allow me to present, well, the budget (Table 1.1 thereof, anyway).
View attachment 67150849
Sorry, the facts are not on your side, except in your own mind. Quite the contrary, in fact, as you have yet to produce any facts, much less refute any of mine. Look, the Bush Presidency, from an economic perspective, was a disaster... we are still digging out. You should accept that embarrassment of an economic leader and move on. It will help you blood pressure.
I wish I were as smart as you. If we could get one of you guys in the white house for 8 years, imagine the performance. I bet the end of that administration would leave the U.S. in an absolute golden position. A chicken in every pot, the average American making 30-40 bucks an hour without unions holding patriots back, it would be grand wouldn't it?
