Biden Blames Unpopularity Of Administration On....Wait For It......

[Fern]

VPOTUS blamed the George W. Bush administration for any unpopularity the current administration has suffered.

“We inherited a cynical republic, and I can’t blame them,” he said.

No, what they "inherited" was a US population largely hopeful and very optimistic. Polling back from the election and inauguration clearly shows that.

What happened?

I don't think anythings changed with the Repubs, I doubt they were happy about Obama's election anyway. Nope, they've disaffected many independents. Now many of them may have had unrealistic expectations, but Obama's campaign rhetoric/promises are also certainly to blame. Give us a trillion $'s and unemployment won't go above 8%? Oops. (I know some will argue that wasn't promised, but right or wrong it's the perception, and perception is reality in politics.) Transparency in gov? Ooops. Didn't happen, not close. Change in Washington? Oops. Didn't happen, not close. Backroom deals, 'bribes', ramming stuff through etc. Excusing it by saying the other guys did it too is major 'fail' when you're promising "Change" (yes, witha capital "C"). I could go on, but you get the point.

I'd guess that the independants would be a lot more patient about results (better economy, more jobs, reduced deficits etc) if promises about the political process and 'giving the people a voice' were kept.

Fern

 

[Patranus]

This post just exemplifies the ignorance on your side of the debate. If you can't figure out how tax cuts impact a federal deficit, just stop posting.

Incorrect. The only thing that can cause a deficit is SPENDING.
Yes, tax cuts do impact the budget but they cannot cause a deficit.

 

[piasabird]

Oh, it was Bush that passed this Health Care Socialism Bill and it Was Bush that had the government take over all student loans. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course I clicked the link, CSG- but I'd already read it previously.

So, uhh, how about the fearmongering and whinging from the Right about how Obama was taking away old folks' medicare? "Death Panels?" Or is that, uhh, different? Funny how the Right points out the obvious wrt medicare spending, they screams bloody murder when somebody tries to actually do something about it...

Funny, too, that they don't want to talk about the effects of the Bush taxcuts, the Reagan taxcuts, and how that affects debt maintenance. From the article-

That massive increase there at the end is due to two things: growth in spending on Medicare and Medicaid, and growth in interest payments on the debt.

The only reason the author singles out medicare vs debt maintenance is apparently because we might be able to do something about that, vs doing something about increasing debt, which would require raising taxes, obviously. Can't have that...

America's wealthiest luvs their US govt securities, too- world's safest investment... If we somehow paid off the debt, they'd have to actually risk their capital in the market... the Horror!

 

[Mani]

A deficit is caused by spending, not allowing people to keep more of their own money. Not understanding that fact shows the ignorance on your side.

Uh...wrong. A deficit is simply the amount expenditures overextend revenues. Bringing in less revenue contributes to a deficit every bit as much as increased spending. That is why it is listed in the analysis of what constitutes the deficit in the link posted. This is pretty elementary stuff.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Uh...wrong. A deficit is simply the amount expenditures overextend revenues. Bringing in less revenue contributes to a deficit every bit as much as increased spending. That is why it is listed in the analysis of what constitutes the deficit in the link posted. This is pretty elementary stuff.

Ah but you ASSume that taxcuts reduce revenue for that to be true. History has shown differently as growth was spurred from the cuts. However, for a deficit to happen, spending must happen - that is why deficits can happen with or without tax changes. It's SPENDING, but you and your types are too in love with taxes that you can't look past them.

 

[Mani]

Ah but you ASSume that taxcuts reduce revenue for that to be true. History has shown differently as growth was spurred from the cuts. However, for a deficit to happen, spending must happen - that is why deficits can happen with or without tax changes. It's SPENDING, but you and your types are too in love with taxes that you can't look past them.

The ASSumption - or rather, huge leap of faith is on your side. Nowhere close to every tax cut has been stimulative, particularly in the long term. Which is exactly why you see the impact of the Bush tax cuts expanding on the graph.

Also, don't assume a damned thing about me - I don't love taxes any more than I love a root canal. What I am in favor of is basic fiscal responsibility - instituting a tax cut with no commensurate cuts in spending it just plan idiocy.

 

[cliftonite]

A deficit is caused by spending, not allowing people to keep more of their own money. Not understanding that fact shows the ignorance on your side.

Hello did we not fight a few wars in conjunction with those cuts?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The ASSumption - or rather, huge leap of faith is on your side. Nowhere close to every tax cut has been stimulative, particularly in the long term. Which is exactly why you see the impact of the Bush tax cuts expanding on the graph.

Also, don't assume a damned thing about me - I don't love taxes any more than I love a root canal. What I am in favor of is basic fiscal responsibility - instituting a tax cut with no commensurate cuts in spending it just plan idiocy.

That is semi more rational but it's still not entirely rational because it suggests that tax cuts are a "cost" when they are nothing of the sort.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Hello did we not fight a few wars in conjunction with those cuts?

Yes, one is spending, one is not.

 

[Harvey]

Oh, it was Bush that passed this Health Care Socialism Bill and it Was Bush that had the government take over all student loans. Thank you for clearing that up.

First, I doubt you could define the word, "socialism," let alone discuss it's relative merits and failings. Second, if you are capable of defining it, I doubt you could contort the bill as passed to conform to any established definition of the word.

What we DIDN'T get from Bush was any oversight of greedy private insurance providers who were more intent on finding loopholes to deny paying for medical care to their existing, paying customers and to exclude those most in need of help so they could give their top execs millions in bonuses and golden parachutes. They are vampires and ghouls enriching themselves on the blood and broken bodies of American citizens.

What we DIDN'T get from Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan (who started all the deregulation) was adequate oversight of greedy lenders who, in addition to raping the financial system and corrupting those in government charged with overseeing their oversight, were more intent on giving their top execs millions in bonuses and golden parachutes than investing in the education of students who are the only real hope we have for the future of America.

Are you one of those greedy, over-paid, over-stuffed execs? If so, what's your excuse?

 

[Mani]

That is semi more rational but it's still not entirely rational because it suggests that tax cuts are a "cost" when they are nothing of the sort.

I didn't imply anywhere that it's a cost. What I said was that it can and does impact the deficit the same way spending does.

 

[ProfJohn]

Uh...wrong. A deficit is simply the amount expenditures overextend revenues. Bringing in less revenue contributes to a deficit every bit as much as increased spending. That is why it is listed in the analysis of what constitutes the deficit in the link posted. This is pretty elementary stuff.

Have you looked at spending under Obama???

Let's throw out 2009 due to the recession and the mess it created and look at future years.

In 2010 Obama is going to spend $600 billion more than Bush spent in 2008.
From that point forward Obama continues to spend more every year.

To put that into perspective:
When Bush took office spending was at $1.8 trillion for FY 2001.
It took him four years to add $600 billion more in spending to the budget. And that was during the time that we added $150 billion more per year just for the wars, subtract out the war spending at it took him nearly 6 years to increase spending by that much.

Or look at that in percentage growth of our government to make it fair.
Obama's $3.6 billion in spending for 2010 is 24% greater than Bush's last year. That is a 25% boost in spending in two years.

It took Bush 3 years to increase spending by 25%, and again this was during the time that we added $150 billion per year in spending due to the war.

Now let's look at government spending as a percentage of GDP
During Clinton's second term it dropped to around 20%
Under Bush it stayed at around 20% until 2008 where it rose to 21%
Obama is projecting to spend at least 21.8% of GDP.

If you really want to know why we have a deficit then look at that figure. Nearly every year that spending is below 20% we have a surplus and every year that it is over 20% we have a deficit.

Also keep in mind that going all the way back to 1945 revenue to the government has exceeded 20% of GDP only 3 times.

So Obama can blame the Bush tax cuts all he wants the simple fact is that there is NO way for him to balance the budget while spending like he is doing. Period! End of story.

Look at the figures for yourself:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

 

[ProfJohn]

What we DIDN'T get from Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan (who started all the deregulation) was adequate oversight of greedy lenders who, in addition to raping the financial system and corrupting those in government charged with overseeing their oversight, were more intent on giving their top execs millions in bonuses and golden parachutes than investing in the education of students who are the only real hope we have for the future of America.

Perhaps you forgot this gem from Barney Frank Chairman of the Financials Services Committee:
"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

How about a few more all from Democrats
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.): “Through nearly a dozen hearings, where frankly we are trying to fix something that wasn’t broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and in particular at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.”

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): “I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time.”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): “And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission.”

Franklin Raines, former head of Fannie Mae: “These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%.

And don't forget that the Democrats controlled congress in the years prior to the meltdown and did nothing about the problems until it was too late.

 

[Mani]

Have you looked at spending under Obama???

Let's throw out 2009 due to the recession and the mess it created and look at future years.

In 2010 Obama is going to spend $600 billion more than Bush spent in 2008.
From that point forward Obama continues to spend more every year.

To put that into perspective:
When Bush took office spending was at $1.8 trillion for FY 2001.
It took him four years to add $600 billion more in spending to the budget. And that was during the time that we added $150 billion more per year just for the wars, subtract out the war spending at it took him nearly 6 years to increase spending by that much.

Or look at that in percentage growth of our government to make it fair.
Obama's $3.6 billion in spending for 2010 is 24% greater than Bush's last year. That is a 25% boost in spending in two years.

It took Bush 3 years to increase spending by 25%, and again this was during the time that we added $150 billion per year in spending due to the war.

Now let's look at government spending as a percentage of GDP
During Clinton's second term it dropped to around 20%
Under Bush it stayed at around 20% until 2008 where it rose to 21%
Obama is projecting to spend at least 21.8% of GDP.

If you really want to know why we have a deficit then look at that figure. Nearly every year that spending is below 20% we have a surplus and every year that it is over 20% we have a deficit.

Also keep in mind that going all the way back to 1945 revenue to the government has exceeded 20% of GDP only 3 times.

So Obama can blame the Bush tax cuts all he wants the simple fact is that there is NO way for him to balance the budget while spending like he is doing. Period! End of story.

Look at the figures for yourself:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

Actually, I don't disagree with any of this - in fact I share many of the concerns about what seems to be the lack of a plan to get us to a balanced budget even past 2012. If you have any reasonable republican proposals to accomplish this though, I'd love to see one.

All said, it doesn't change the fact that Obama's reduced popularity has little to do with deficits and much more to do with the current state of the economy. Public opinion tends to mirror current economic conditions, which IS what was inherited from the Bush admin.

 

[Harvey]

Have you looked at spending under Obama???

Let's throw out 2009 due to the recession and the mess it created and look at future years.
.
.
.
So Obama can blame the Bush tax cuts all he wants the simple fact is that there is NO way for him to balance the budget while spending like he is doing. Period! End of story.

Look at the figures for yourself:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

Sorry, PJ, but you're not very good with figures, or at least what they mean in the real world. Quick! What's the single largest component of Federal spending? Here's a picture:

Now, I know you're not anxious to cut military spending. How do you propose to cut the budget by anywhere near meaningful without doing that?

And don't forget that the Democrats controlled congress in the years prior to the meltdown and did nothing about the problems until it was too late.

I didn't forget about any of your quotes, but it seems you didn't read my post where I did note those who came before Bush. The relevant part said:

What we DIDN'T get from Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan (who started all the deregulation) was adequate oversight of greedy lenders who, in addition to raping the financial system and corrupting those in government charged with overseeing their oversight, were more intent on giving their top execs millions in bonuses and golden parachutes than investing in the education of students who are the only real hope we have for the future of America.

What we DID get from Bush in far greater terms than we got from neither of his predecessors was complete abandonment of all oversight and regulation AFTER the signs of economic greed, fraud and corruption appeared, both before and after the onset of, impending collapse.

I'm sure you remember Georgie's buddy, "Kenny Boy" Lay of Enron and the other corrupt firms that bled their stockholders dry while they blatantly bribed our legislative and the executive branches of government. Or maybe you don't. Right wingnuts have such ummm.... convenient long term memory problems that they can't seem to recall anything that happened before Obama was elected.

You seem to have short term memory lapses, as well. In this very thread, yllus posted this graphic showing components of the deficit:

Note that every section of the graph is relatively constant or diminishing over time, EXCEPT the part attributable to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

How could that be? WHO is responsible for the Bushwhackos' tax cut for the wealthy? :hmm:

 

[EXman]

You are in the minority, asshole. America is on the side you despise. You've had the American flag up your ass so long you can't figure out you're a traitor.

You know opinions are a lot like assholes...

Is that excuse of "it's still GWB's fault" ok with you? C'mon you are better than that. BHO is a narcissist who cannot fathom that anyone thinks he is anything less than a great President. "It's still GWB's fault" is a grade school attempt at the blame game at best.

 

[ProfJohn]

Note that every section of the graph is relatively constant or diminishing over time, EXCEPT the part attributable to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

How could that be? WHO is responsible for the Bushwhackos' tax cut for the wealthy? :hmm:

Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy END this year!

Starting next year the tax rates will return to the level they were prior to Bush taking office.

Explain to me how his tax cuts can be responsible for future deficits when they will no longer exist.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW that chart you posted is total BS

80% of the national debt is caused by military spending???

Since the end of Vietnam defense spending hasn't exceed 30% of total government spending and since the majority of our debt has been pilled up during this time it would be dishonest to claim that 30% of spending is responsible for 80% of our debt.

 

[Patranus]

What we DID get from Bush in far greater terms than we got from neither of his predecessors was complete abandonment of all oversight and regulation AFTER the signs of economic greed, fraud and corruption appeared, both before and after the onset of, impending collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Bush called for more regulation in 2002......

 

[Jhhnn]

There are consequences to top-down looting sprees, also to offshoring productive jobs and the profits from them. We're living them now.

There are consequences to enabling fluffed up real estate values and fraud in corresponding financial derivative values to artificially inflate GDP.

There are consequences to cutting top tier tax rates, substituting debt for actual revenue, as well, and Republicans have been enabling and facilitating all of the above for 30 years.

It's part and parcel of the greatest political and financial flimflam in the history of the world, trickle down economics. It's a systemic failure, quite by design. Reference Grover Norquist and starve the beast political philosophy come to fruition... Not only have they starved it of revenue, they've loaded it down with debt, as well...

 

[ProfJohn]

There are consequences to believing the BS you read instead of looking at the actual figures yourself.

From 1970 to 1979, pre-Reagan and trickle down, revenue to the government exceeded 18% only three times, in 1970, 1974 & 1979.

From 1980 to 1989 revenue to the government exceeded 18% six times!
From 1990 to 1999 it exceeded 18% six time again.

So despite Reagan's tax cuts, his trickle down economics and everything else the left claims about him, the actual amount of money going into the government during the last 30 years FAR exceeds the amount of money our government received prior to his taking office.

In the 30 years since Reagan took office the amount of money received by our government has exceeded 18% 14 times!!!
In the 30 years prior to his taking office it exceeded 18% only 7 times.

 

[ShawnD1]

BTW that chart you posted is total BS

80% of the national debt is caused by military spending???

I trust wiki more than I trust other random internet people. Here's wiki's latest numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Budget

The schizophrenics who edit wiki think the military ("defense") is 23%, social security 20%, medicare and medicaid 19%, "other" 17%, other other 12%, interest 5%, tarp 4%.

That's spending, not debt. They're sort of related.

 

[umbrella39]

This post just exemplifies the ignorance on your side of the debate. If you can't figure out how tax cuts impact a federal deficit, just stop posting.

Sadly, we'll have to wait until the day this young winnar111 gets a date before we can look forward to that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Love your use of percentages, PJ. Percent of what? GDP enhanced with false real estate and stock values? GDP held up by over-leveraged lending institutions and real estate construction increasingly empty? Hedge Fund activity? Private equity buyouts and asset stripping?

Oh, and your conveniently forgot the regressive increase in SS revenues concealing loss of revenue from other sources, from Reagan forward, PJ... as spending exploded under his watch, and that of GHWB and GWB... mostly on the military and, no surprise, debt maintenance, basically a subsidy to the world's wealthiest citizens.