Budget Approved

[Iriemon]

Iriemon:
No, I don't know how much of GDP is for the heatlh industry. How much?

Surprising... That you wouldn't know, that is.

Thanks, I think.

Record Share Of Economy Spent on Health Care

By Marc Kaufman and Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 10, 2006; Page A01

Rising health care costs, already threatening many basic industries, now consume 16 percent of the nation's economic output -- the highest proportion ever, the government said yesterday in its latest calculation.

The nation's health care bill continued to grow substantially faster than inflation and wages, increasing by almost 8 percent in 2004, the most recent year with near-final numbers.

Record Share Of Economy Spent on Health Care - washingtonpost.com

USA Spent $2.2 Trillion, 16.2% of GDP, on Health Care in 2007
Health spending in the United States grew 6.1 percent in 2007, to $2.2 trillion or $7,421 per person.
For comparison the total GDP per person in China is $6,100. This continues the trend of health care spending taking an every increasing portion of the economic output (the economy grew by 4.8 percent in 2007). This brings health care spending to 16.2% of GDP (which is yet another, in a string of record high percentages of GDP spent on health care). In 2003 the total health care spending was 15.3 of GDP.

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net...2-trillion-162-of-gdp-on-health-care-in-2007/

This document is also available as a printable .pdf file.
Health Insurance Costs

Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care

Introduction

By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at a rapid rate and forcing businesses and families to cut back on operations and household expenses respectively.

In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs

Thanks. What's the point? I certainly agree our health care system is fucked up. That was a reason I supported Obama because he at least promised to try to change it instead of staying the same course that has got us to this point.

The point(s):
1.) Health care (public health administration, to be precise) is my profession, so I know a little bit about how the system got fucked up, and I also have a pretty good handle on what it would take to fix it. Politicians can promise all they want; it's what they do to get elected. However, politicians (including Presidents) do not have the answers to everything, despite all the nice words you hear from them (on any subject).
2.) Obama and McCain, AND other candidates not in the 2-party system, promised to try to change the fucked up system -- they simply had different ideas about how to do that (which they presumably got from someone who DID know something about the subject). IMO, however, none of them can/will fix it -- and that means, since Obama is now in charge of trying to do so, Obama can't/won't fix it because he's still going at it with a "bandaid approach". There is no real reform.
3.) Reform is what is required in order to lower the cost ratio to the GDP, and it's conceivable that it could be done. You know, you can't build a new house on an old foundation. The analogy applies here.

Seems to me the most cost effective system would be to provide government hospitals (single payor?) and clinics to provide basic health care to all, and let those who think it is worth it pay for private insurance and health care.

But I'd be interested in your thoughts as an insider.

 

[Newby]

Why didn't you get a job or a better paying job and increase your revenue?

Where does the CBO project a quadrupling of the national debt? In its latest projection it projects the total debt to be roughly doubled.

This looks like approx. quadruple in the first year to me. The WAPost numbers (used in their article and graph) came from the CBO.

Projected Deficit - washingtonpost.com

OK, I see why you're confused. That article talks about the deficit. You had said debt. Those are two totally different things.

The deficit is a measure in any given year the difference between expenditures and revenues.

The debt is the accumulation of amount borrowed.

Obama possilble might quadruple the debt (depending upon how you measure it) but he is not going to quadruple the debt, or even close to it.

As Diamond Dave how to measure a deficit, and he'll tell you to look at how much the Govt borrowed in a year. Using that measure, the Govt borrowed over a trillion dollars in Bush's last year, and Obama is unlikely to even double that, stimulus spending and all.

They are related. Debt is just accumulated deficits, so the deficit absolutely has an impact on what the total debt becomes. But, you just keep cheerleading for all of that Obama spending, while I'm sure you bitched about whenever there was an "R" in the Whitehouse.

 

[editec]

So ALLBizFR0M925 , do you have a proposed solution to this problem?

For the life of me, I can't find one that doesn't involve socializing medicine entirely.

I consider single payer universal health care INSURANCE just another bandaide approach.

How about you?

 

[Iriemon]

This looks like approx. quadruple in the first year to me. The WAPost numbers (used in their article and graph) came from the CBO.

Projected Deficit - washingtonpost.com

OK, I see why you're confused. That article talks about the deficit. You had said debt. Those are two totally different things.

The deficit is a measure in any given year the difference between expenditures and revenues.

The debt is the accumulation of amount borrowed.

Obama possilble might quadruple the debt (depending upon how you measure it) but he is not going to quadruple the debt, or even close to it.

As Diamond Dave how to measure a deficit, and he'll tell you to look at how much the Govt borrowed in a year. Using that measure, the Govt borrowed over a trillion dollars in Bush's last year, and Obama is unlikely to even double that, stimulus spending and all.

They are related. Debt is just accumulated deficits, so the deficit absolutely has an impact on what the total debt becomes.

Sure

But, you just keep cheerleading for all of that Obama spending, while I'm sure you bitched about whenever there was an "R" in the Whitehouse.

What does that have to do with the thread? I said nothing about spending. All I said was that he confused deficit and debt, which your post confirms.

Or is this just another off topic irrelevant pot shot?

 

[DamnYankee]

Why didn't you get a job or a better paying job and increase your revenue?

Where does the CBO project a quadrupling of the national debt? In its latest projection it projects the total debt to be roughly doubled.

This looks like approx. quadruple in the first year to me. The WAPost numbers (used in their article and graph) came from the CBO.

Projected Deficit - washingtonpost.com

OK, I see why you're confused. That article talks about the deficit. You had said debt. Those are two totally different things.

The deficit is a measure in any given year the difference between expenditures and revenues.

The debt is the accumulation of amount borrowed.

Obama possilble might quadruple the debt (depending upon how you measure it) but he is not going to quadruple the debt, or even close to it.

As Diamond Dave how to measure a deficit, and he'll tell you to look at how much the Govt borrowed in a year. Using that measure, the Govt borrowed over a trillion dollars in Bush's last year, and Obama is unlikely to even double that, stimulus spending and all.

No, I didn't say it, but I probably misread it. After having so many of you either use the terms interchangeably or just mistype what you meant, it's sometimes hard to tell exactly what we're all talking about. The point I was attempting to address was, in terms of the budget, which this thread is about, the deficit is most definitely being projected at quadruple the previous year. It is what it is, regardless of how much we actually owe (debt).

 

[Newby]

OK, I see why you're confused. That article talks about the deficit. You had said debt. Those are two totally different things.

The deficit is a measure in any given year the difference between expenditures and revenues.

The debt is the accumulation of amount borrowed.

Obama possilble might quadruple the debt (depending upon how you measure it) but he is not going to quadruple the debt, or even close to it.

As Diamond Dave how to measure a deficit, and he'll tell you to look at how much the Govt borrowed in a year. Using that measure, the Govt borrowed over a trillion dollars in Bush's last year, and Obama is unlikely to even double that, stimulus spending and all.

They are related. Debt is just accumulated deficits, so the deficit absolutely has an impact on what the total debt becomes.

Sure

But, you just keep cheerleading for all of that Obama spending, while I'm sure you bitched about whenever there was an "R" in the Whitehouse.

What does that have to do with the thread? I said nothing about spending. All I said was that he confused deficit and debt, which your post confirms.

Or is this just another off topic irrelevant pot shot?

I don't think it's an irrelevant potshot. What you're essentially doing in all of these discussions about spending and budgets is defending Obama and his spending. I heard eight years from those on the left absolutely pile it on Bush for doing the same thing, only Obama's spending is even worse. Did you complain about Bush's spending? I know you've complained about the debt that he left, and yet you don't seem to have a problem with what Obama is doing. It's just not very honest of you, imo.

 

[DamnYankee]

Thanks, I think.



Thanks. What's the point? I certainly agree our health care system is fucked up. That was a reason I supported Obama because he at least promised to try to change it instead of staying the same course that has got us to this point.

The point(s):
1.) Health care (public health administration, to be precise) is my profession, so I know a little bit about how the system got fucked up, and I also have a pretty good handle on what it would take to fix it. Politicians can promise all they want; it's what they do to get elected. However, politicians (including Presidents) do not have the answers to everything, despite all the nice words you hear from them (on any subject).
2.) Obama and McCain, AND other candidates not in the 2-party system, promised to try to change the fucked up system -- they simply had different ideas about how to do that (which they presumably got from someone who DID know something about the subject). IMO, however, none of them can/will fix it -- and that means, since Obama is now in charge of trying to do so, Obama can't/won't fix it because he's still going at it with a "bandaid approach". There is no real reform.
3.) Reform is what is required in order to lower the cost ratio to the GDP, and it's conceivable that it could be done. You know, you can't build a new house on an old foundation. The analogy applies here.

Seems to me the most cost effective system would be to provide government hospitals (single payor?) and clinics to provide basic health care to all, and let those who think it is worth it pay for private insurance and health care.

But I'd be interested in your thoughts as an insider.

In a nutshell, without boring everyone with too much detail, the first step to reform (and cost effectiveness) would be to eliminate all overlapping programs (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, Family/Kid Care, SCHIP, private/corporate insurance, etc.) and consolidate them into one health care program/system.
1.) Eliminates the need for multi-managed systems, cutting costs of personnel and administration.
2.) Forces competitive rates from insurers and medical providers/suppliers.
3.) Provides true group coverage rates for all.
Who pays would still be an issue for some, but the premises I've outlined have been enough to convince some very conservative people I know to, not only agree that this makes sense but, be willing to kick in an additional 5% in taxes to support them.

Obama made a concession of sorts to his lack of expertise on the subject when he solicited public input earlier this year (after breaking with his priority list he outlined in a CNN interview, that is). An offer was made, taking him up on his "call out" to the American people -- without a response.

 

[Iriemon]

They are related. Debt is just accumulated deficits, so the deficit absolutely has an impact on what the total debt becomes.

Sure

But, you just keep cheerleading for all of that Obama spending, while I'm sure you bitched about whenever there was an "R" in the Whitehouse.

What does that have to do with the thread? I said nothing about spending. All I said was that he confused deficit and debt, which your post confirms.

Or is this just another off topic irrelevant pot shot?

I don't think it's an irrelevant potshot. What you're essentially doing in all of these discussions about spending and budgets is defending Obama and his spending. I heard eight years from those on the left absolutely pile it on Bush for doing the same thing, only Obama's spending is even worse. Did you complain about Bush's spending? I know you've complained about the debt that he left, and yet you don't seem to have a problem with what Obama is doing. It's just not very honest of you, imo.

I didn't say squat about spending in this thread, much less the post you responded to. All I did was point out the error on calling it the debt, which you confirmed.

 

[DamnYankee]

So ALLBizFR0M925 , do you have a proposed solution to this problem?

For the life of me, I can't find one that doesn't involve socializing medicine entirely.

I consider single payer universal health care INSURANCE just another bandaide approach.


How about you?

Since we already pay for so many "socialized" medical programs, as you'll read in my response, I feel that it makes sense to use them in conjuction with private programs. If we're not going to rid ourselves of those otherwise, wouldn't it make sense to maximize our outlay?

 

[Newby]

Sure



What does that have to do with the thread? I said nothing about spending. All I said was that he confused deficit and debt, which your post confirms.

Or is this just another off topic irrelevant pot shot?

I don't think it's an irrelevant potshot. What you're essentially doing in all of these discussions about spending and budgets is defending Obama and his spending. I heard eight years from those on the left absolutely pile it on Bush for doing the same thing, only Obama's spending is even worse. Did you complain about Bush's spending? I know you've complained about the debt that he left, and yet you don't seem to have a problem with what Obama is doing. It's just not very honest of you, imo.

I didn't say squat about spending in this thread, much less the post you responded to. All I did was point out the error on the debt, which you confirmed.

Spending causes the debt. And in other discussions that we've had, you have said that you support the Obama spending plan. So, from where I'm sitting, you didn't approve of what Bush spent the money on, but you do approve of what Obama is spending the money on? The war is still going on and money is still being spent, you do realize this?

 

[Iriemon]

I don't think it's an irrelevant potshot. What you're essentially doing in all of these discussions about spending and budgets is defending Obama and his spending. I heard eight years from those on the left absolutely pile it on Bush for doing the same thing, only Obama's spending is even worse. Did you complain about Bush's spending? I know you've complained about the debt that he left, and yet you don't seem to have a problem with what Obama is doing. It's just not very honest of you, imo.

I didn't say squat about spending in this thread, much less the post you responded to. All I did was point out the error on the debt, which you confirmed.

Spending causes the debt.

No. Borrowing causes debt.

And in other discussions that we've had, you have said that you support the Obama spending plan. So, from where I'm sitting, you didn't approve of what Bush spent the money on, but you do approve of what Obama is spending the money on? The war is still going on and money is still being spent, you do realize this?

I don't think I've ever actually said that. I've said I support the need for stimulus spending and that spending that creates demand in the economy makes sense in a recession like this.

I've never gone thru the Obama speniding plan per se and evaluated whether I thought particular spending items met that criteria or that I otherwise approved, and I don't think I've ever offered an opinion on that.

I supported Bush giving tax rebates in 2001 because there was a concern of a recession. But most of the time Bush was in office, the nation was not in a recession. Deficits can be warranted in a recession; not when the economy is growing well. Even military spending during a recession can be beneficial; it employs folks and creates demand when the private market is failing in this regard.

 

[Newby]

I didn't say squat about spending in this thread, much less the post you responded to. All I did was point out the error on the debt, which you confirmed.

Spending causes the debt.

No. Borrowing causes debt.

And why do we have to borrow?

And in other discussions that we've had, you have said that you support the Obama spending plan. So, from where I'm sitting, you didn't approve of what Bush spent the money on, but you do approve of what Obama is spending the money on? The war is still going on and money is still being spent, you do realize this?

I don't think I've ever actually said that. I've said I support the need for stimulus spending and that spending that creates demand in the economy makes sense in a recession like this.

I've never gone thru the Obama speniding plan per se and evaluated whether I thought particular spending items met that criteria or that I otherwise approved, and I don't think I've ever offered an opinion on that.

I supported Bush giving tax rebates in 2001 because there was a concern of a recession. But most of the time Bush was in office, the nation was not in a recession. Deficits can be warranted in a recession; not when the economy is growing well. Even military spending during a recession can be beneficial; it employs folks and creates demand when the private market is failing in this regard.

Yes, you've stated that you agree with his spending. You've said that Bush's spending got us into this mess, but that even more spending by Obama is going to get us out. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Iriemon]

Spending causes the debt.

No. Borrowing causes debt.

And why do we have to borrow?

Not enough revenues.

And in other discussions that we've had, you have said that you support the Obama spending plan. So, from where I'm sitting, you didn't approve of what Bush spent the money on, but you do approve of what Obama is spending the money on? The war is still going on and money is still being spent, you do realize this?

I don't think I've ever actually said that. I've said I support the need for stimulus spending and that spending that creates demand in the economy makes sense in a recession like this.

I've never gone thru the Obama speniding plan per se and evaluated whether I thought particular spending items met that criteria or that I otherwise approved, and I don't think I've ever offered an opinion on that.

I supported Bush giving tax rebates in 2001 because there was a concern of a recession. But most of the time Bush was in office, the nation was not in a recession. Deficits can be warranted in a recession; not when the economy is growing well. Even military spending during a recession can be beneficial; it employs folks and creates demand when the private market is failing in this regard.

Yes, you've stated that you agree with his spending. You've said that Bush's spending got us into this mess, but that even more spending by Obama is going to get us out. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I've never stated Bush's spending got us into this mess. That is false.

I've said that spending on stimulus in a recession can be warranted.

In a recession like ours, people are afraid and lack confidence. So are busineses. They don't spend. Since people aren't buying as much stuff, business cut back because there isn't enough demand for production. They fire people. That creates less demand, more fear. Also, an unusual characteristic of this recession is that the dominating financial institutions made a wholesale error in guaging the risk of their mortgage investments. Because their asset values were falling rapidly, and because they feared that other banks and financial institutions weren't sound, they weren't lending money. That credit freeze threatens the health of the entire economy that uses credit to operate.

In this situation, Govt spending can help by creating demand for goods and services. To meet the Govt's reqiurements, businesses hire and spend. The argument is that that can halt the precipitous decline of the economy, improve confidence, and get the production cycle started back into the positive direction again.

So that is why a shitload of spending makes sense now when it might not if the economy is functioning well.

 

[Newby]

No. Borrowing causes debt.

And why do we have to borrow?

Not enough revenues.

If there is not enough revenues with what they are already taking then they need to cut back. That is where we differ. I'm a conservative who believes in small, unintrusive government as it was intended to be via the Constitution. I don't think the government is there to take care of everyone from the time they are born until the time they die. The federal government has greatly expanded their scope past what it was originally intended to be. Not only that, there was good reason for the limitations placed on it, it is becoming too powerful and too controling.

I don't think I've ever actually said that. I've said I support the need for stimulus spending and that spending that creates demand in the economy makes sense in a recession like this.

I've never gone thru the Obama speniding plan per se and evaluated whether I thought particular spending items met that criteria or that I otherwise approved, and I don't think I've ever offered an opinion on that.

I supported Bush giving tax rebates in 2001 because there was a concern of a recession. But most of the time Bush was in office, the nation was not in a recession. Deficits can be warranted in a recession; not when the economy is growing well. Even military spending during a recession can be beneficial; it employs folks and creates demand when the private market is failing in this regard.

Yes, you've stated that you agree with his spending. You've said that Bush's spending got us into this mess, but that even more spending by Obama is going to get us out. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I've never stated Bush's spending got us into this mess. That is false.

I've said that spending on stimulus in a recession can be warranted.

In a recession like ours, people are afraid and lack confidence. So are busineses. They don't spend. Since people aren't buying as much stuff, business cut back because there isn't enough demand for production. They fire people. That creates less demand, more fear. Also, an unusual characteristic of this recession is that the dominating financial institutions made a wholesale error in guaging the risk of their mortgage investments. Because their asset values were falling rapidly, and because they feared that other banks and financial institutions weren't sound, they weren't lending money. That credit freeze threatens the health of the entire economy that uses credit to operate.

In this situation, Govt spending can help by creating demand for goods and services. To meet the Govt's reqiurements, businesses hire and spend. The argument is that that can halt the precipitous decline of the economy, improve confidence, and get the production cycle started back into the positive direction again.

So that is why a shitload of spending makes sense now when it might not if the economy is functioning well.

I just simply do not agree. If you thought the spending was out of control under Bush, there is no justification for what is happening today.

 

[Yurt]

No. Borrowing causes debt.

And why do we have to borrow?

Not enough revenues.

I don't think I've ever actually said that. I've said I support the need for stimulus spending and that spending that creates demand in the economy makes sense in a recession like this.

I've never gone thru the Obama speniding plan per se and evaluated whether I thought particular spending items met that criteria or that I otherwise approved, and I don't think I've ever offered an opinion on that.

I supported Bush giving tax rebates in 2001 because there was a concern of a recession. But most of the time Bush was in office, the nation was not in a recession. Deficits can be warranted in a recession; not when the economy is growing well. Even military spending during a recession can be beneficial; it employs folks and creates demand when the private market is failing in this regard.

Yes, you've stated that you agree with his spending. You've said that Bush's spending got us into this mess, but that even more spending by Obama is going to get us out. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I've never stated Bush's spending got us into this mess. That is false.

I've said that spending on stimulus in a recession can be warranted.

In a recession like ours, people are afraid and lack confidence. So are busineses. They don't spend. Since people aren't buying as much stuff, business cut back because there isn't enough demand for production. They fire people. That creates less demand, more fear. Also, an unusual characteristic of this recession is that the dominating financial institutions made a wholesale error in guaging the risk of their mortgage investments. Because their asset values were falling rapidly, and because they feared that other banks and financial institutions weren't sound, they weren't lending money. That credit freeze threatens the health of the entire economy that uses credit to operate.

In this situation, Govt spending can help by creating demand for goods and services. To meet the Govt's reqiurements, businesses hire and spend. The argument is that that can halt the precipitous decline of the economy, improve confidence, and get the production cycle started back into the positive direction again.

So that is why a shitload of spending makes sense now when it might not if the economy is functioning well.

i'm pretty sure this is an untruthful statement. the search function is not working, so i can't pull up your posts, but you have been defending obama's comment that he "inherited" the deficit...when i pointed out the obama approved the 2007 budget, you said it was not obama's name on the budget, of course the budget name had bush's name on it, though he can't vote, he submitted the budget.

you simply cannot reconcile that obama is not responsible for the budget because his name is not on it and then say i never said bush got us into this mess...you repeatedly bring up the deficit under bush in order to show that obama did inherit this mess and is no way responsible for it...

care to explain your inconsistency?

 

[Iriemon]

And why do we have to borrow?

Not enough revenues.

Yes, you've stated that you agree with his spending. You've said that Bush's spending got us into this mess, but that even more spending by Obama is going to get us out. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I've never stated Bush's spending got us into this mess. That is false.

I've said that spending on stimulus in a recession can be warranted.

In a recession like ours, people are afraid and lack confidence. So are busineses. They don't spend. Since people aren't buying as much stuff, business cut back because there isn't enough demand for production. They fire people. That creates less demand, more fear. Also, an unusual characteristic of this recession is that the dominating financial institutions made a wholesale error in guaging the risk of their mortgage investments. Because their asset values were falling rapidly, and because they feared that other banks and financial institutions weren't sound, they weren't lending money. That credit freeze threatens the health of the entire economy that uses credit to operate.

In this situation, Govt spending can help by creating demand for goods and services. To meet the Govt's reqiurements, businesses hire and spend. The argument is that that can halt the precipitous decline of the economy, improve confidence, and get the production cycle started back into the positive direction again.

So that is why a shitload of spending makes sense now when it might not if the economy is functioning well.

i'm pretty sure this is an untruthful statement. the search function is not working, so i can't pull up your posts,

I'll put aside your speculation on whether my statement was truthful until you have something more substantial to support it.

but you have been defending obama's comment that he "inherited" the deficit...when i pointed out the obama approved the 2007 budget, you said it was not obama's name on the budget, of course the budget name had bush's name on it, though he can't vote, he submitted the budget.

you simply cannot reconcile that obama is not responsible for the budget because his name is not on it and then say i never said bush got us into this mess...you repeatedly bring up the deficit under bush in order to show that obama did inherit this mess and is no way responsible for it...

care to explain your inconsistency?

Given the fact that you can't get my statements accurate, there is even more reason to doubt the accuracy of your speculation.

I never said that Bush's spending got us into this mess. I have said that Bush's tax cuts, which cut revenues by hundreds of billions annually, plus his increased spending on the military and wars, are the primary reasons the debt increased $5 trillion over the past 8 years when he had inhereted a surplus budget.

As to Obama, what I said was, again, that the 2007 budget was not Obama's budget.

Obama's budget would have included a tax increase on the wealthy and more spending for health care.

Now, if the 2007 budget was Obama's budget so that it would be fair to blame him for it, why do you suppose there was no tax increase on the wealthy in it? (Hint: Think about the president's role in bills becoming laws.)

 

[Yurt]

oh lord....

then whose deficit did obama inherit?

 

[Iriemon]

oh lord....

then whose deficit did obama inherit?

The current deficit consists of three primary components. Two have have caused deficits since the Govt budget was balanced in 2000, the third is a more recent phenonemon.

1) Revenues were cut significantly because of the tax cuts, and have grown much more slowly than GDP.

2) Spending increased more than GDP, mostly on the military, the wars, and some on health care.

3) Stimulus spending to avoid a depression.

Whose fault these items are which have caused the deficit is a matter of debate.

IMO the fault of the decreased revenues can be fairly laid at the feet of the Bush administration.

The spending increase for the military and Iraq war can be fairly laid at the feet of the Bush administration. Health care increases not so, that is a programic increase that I wouldn't blame him or anyone for, though you could argue that he had 8 years and did little to fix the health care system.

The fiscal stimulus spending is necessary because of the recession and mortgage credit fiasco. Whose fault that is ... well we could start another 10 threads on that one.

 

[Yurt]

as you said....i never said bush's spending got us into this mess

do you stand by that statement or not

yes

no

or do you now believe bush's spending got us into this mess. so, did bush's spending get us into this mess

yes

no

 

[Iriemon]

as you said....i never said bush's spending got us into this mess

do you stand by that statement or not

yes

no

or do you now believe bush's spending got us into this mess. so, did bush's spending get us into this mess

yes

no

I'll repeat:

I never said that Bush's spending got us into this mess. I have said that Bush's tax cuts, which cut revenues by hundreds of billions annually, plus his increased spending on the military and wars, are the primary reasons the debt increased $5 trillion over the past 8 years when he had inhereted a surplus budget.