|
Phydeaux -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/8/2016 5:21:59 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Since you didn't have the honesty to do it - here are the numbers:
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
9/30/2007 9 trillion dollars.
9/30/2015 18.2 trillion dollars.
Since these are on fiscal year basis - lets look to budget deficits shall we?
from Office of Management & Budget, Historical table 1.1
2000 -296.4
2001 -156.7
2002 -189.6
2003 -441.4
2004 -470.1
2005 -350.5
2006 -264.
2007: -166.6
2008 -459.4
2009 -1412.7
2010 -1279.2
2011 -1259.5
2012 -1034.0
2013 -637.5
2014 -447.7
2015 -531.0 (est)
So the 7 largest deficits in our history have been under Obama. Baracks worst deficit was almost triple Bush's worst.
During Obamas administration our debt as % of gdp went from 40% to 106%.
You should challenge your assumptions Lucy.
There's an issue, Phydeaux. The 2009 budget was made under Bush, and Obama didn't really have much say in it. Likewise with the 2001 budget, Bush didn't have much to do with it. Just because it happens during one President's administration doesn't mean it was the fault/credit of that administration. That would be like blaming Bush for 9/11, even though he had only been President for 8 months, and the planning started before he was in office.
If you shift the deficits one year (Bush being responsible for 2002-2009), the difference becomes less, but it's still there, and it's still in Bush's favor. If you change the way you assign deficits, the deficits under Bush $3.75T, and $5.189T under Obama (for just the 6 years listed).
Liberals often make that argument. I don't accept it, in this case. Most of the time I would agree with you, the bill for 2009 would be passed no later than september 2008. Bush would have signed it, and been responsible for it.
Fact is, the spending bill was almost six months late - continuing resolutions were used to fund the government. The bill was signed by Obama, not bush, and modifications to the bill were made by the Obama administration. His signature, his bill. Additionally, the spending of the bill, which included TARP, was almost entirely determined by the Obama administration.
Had he objected he could have used recissions - or asked for supplemental spending.
The spending plan for FY2009 may not have been finalized by Jan 2009, but that's already nearly 1/3 of the year in the books. Yes, Obama could have reduced the spending (now that we've all had a laugh), the table had been set by the Bush Administration, and a Democrat Congress. There is a limited amount of things that Obama could have done, so it's not exactly accurate to assign him full blame for 2009 deficits.
It's still not even close when you look at the deficits under Bush and Obama.
The amount of time already in the book argues against you. The continuing resolutions funded government for the months in question, at the previous spending levels. So sure, bush is responsible for 1/3 of the year at the rate of the previous year. but the enhanced (huge) budget deficits only take effect with the signing of the bill.
The 700 billion Tarp bill bills expenditures were directed almost in its entirety by the obama administration. If they're spending the money - its their deficit.
|
|
|
|
