Obama Approval Rating ACTUALLY at 47%

[PatekPhilippe]

This is a disingenuous graph, at least as it pertains to 08 and 09. Those were budgets signed by President Bush. The stimulus program added $100 billion to the deficit in the 2009 fiscal year. That is fair criticism of the Democrats, but the inherited deficit was over $1 trillion.

There were no new major spending initiatives in 2008 or 2009. The reason why the deficit exploded was because of the cyclical adjustments caused by the recession. The biggest spending initiatives of the past decade were Medicare Part D, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President (though in fairness supported by Congressional Democrats), and the Iraq war. The fiscal balance further deteriorated by the Bush tax cuts. Medicare Part D, war and tax cuts exacerbated the deficits that we are now in.

Going forward, it is fair to criticize the Democrats for the deficits we will incur. There should be no new spending programs that are not self-funded. In fact, we have to start cutting back our current programs, particularly Medicare and SS. But to say that the Democrats caused the budget deficit to explode in 08 and 09 is absolute bullshit. It demonstrates why you shouldn't listen to highly politically partisan people.

Answer this Toro...who proposed and put in all of the spending measures in those budgets you are citing Bush for signing...WHO?

Would you rather he acted like Obama and just NOT SUBMITTED a budget because he was afraid of the reaction from the public WITH ALL THE DAMN MONEY WE ARE BORROWING FROM THE FRICKEN CHINESE!!!?????

 

[Toro]

Answer this Toro...who proposed and put in all of the spending measures in those budgets you are citing Bush for signing...WHO?

Would you rather he acted like Obama and just NOT SUBMITTED a budget because he was afraid of the reaction from the public WITH ALL THE DAMN MONEY WE ARE BORROWING FROM THE FRICKEN CHINESE!!!?????

Who? Republicans and Democrats.

Remember this?

Bush signs $286.4 billion highway bill - Politics- msnbc.com

When one stops constantly looking at the world through a political prism, everything looks much clearer.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Answer this Toro...who proposed and put in all of the spending measures in those budgets you are citing Bush for signing...WHO?

Would you rather he acted like Obama and just NOT SUBMITTED a budget because he was afraid of the reaction from the public WITH ALL THE DAMN MONEY WE ARE BORROWING FROM THE FRICKEN CHINESE!!!?????

Who? Republicans and Democrats.

Remember this?

Bush signs $286.4 billion highway bill - Politics- msnbc.com

When one stops constantly looking at the world through a political prism, everything looks much clearer.

Oh...really...like you just didn't look at everything through a political prism while blaming the deficits on Bush....I see.

 

[Toro]

Oh...really...like you just didn't look at everything through a political prism while blaming the deficits on Bush....I see.

I defended Bush in 2001 and 2002 when Democrats and liberals were blaming him the recession because it is utterly false. I've also mentioned here numerous times that the financial crisis was not Bush's fault, and that his actions almost certainly prevented a depression.

However, Bush did contribute to the deficit.

1. Medicare Part D
2. Iraq war
3. Tax cuts

Not to mention other crap like the Highway Bill.

The deficit still would have been sky high in 2009 had none of this happened. But the idea that the Republicans and "conservatives" are fiscally responsible has turned into a load of crap. Where the f*** were "conservatives" when spending under Bush was ramping? They were cheering the administration on. Remember, "deficits don't matter."

Since Ronald Reagan, a majority of Republican politicians have gradually come to conclude, as Vice-President Dick Cheney famously told former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, that "deficits don't matter." What's interesting and alarming, however, is that different Republican factions believe deficits don't matter for opposite and incompatible reasons.

Supply-siders believe deficits don't matter because tax cuts so boost investment and productivity that the economy grows its way out of debt. The opposite, "starve the beast" faction, epitomized by tax tactician Grover Norquist, hope tax cuts will indeed create deep deficits that will then force spending cuts. But both things can't be true.

Under George W. Bush, the merry ideology calls for tax cuts in all seasons for all reasons. Spending has increased faster than under Clinton, and deficits have ballooned, yet tax cutting marches on.

What Killed Off The GOP Deficit Hawks?

 

[Papageorgio]

You're neglecting the fact that Reagan's policies lead to huge budget deficits.

LOL!!! And Obama's spending has already led to bigger deficits, and he is still going strong.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the vast majority of the deficit comes from two sources: lost revenue due to the recession and Bush's budget-busting tax cuts.

So Obama decides to lower the tax rates, further still. Doesn't cut any spending, in fact increases spending and taxpayer liability. Brilliant move!!!!

 

[Papageorgio]

Obama Approval Rating ACTUALLY at 47%. That's 9 points higher than Reagan was at this point in his presidency.

Wow! Undeniable proof that Obama is better than Reagan!

Obama's numbers are buoyed by Blacks who will vote for Obama even if he's seen drinking the blood of babies as well as stupid Liberal White people who thought they were overcoming their own racism by "voting for the Black guy".

Didn't Obama start out with a close to 80% approval rating and now he is at 47%? He must be doing a good job. How proud he must be.

 

[code1211]

Reagan was sending balanced budgets to Congress and the Congress was adding spending to his plans.

When?

Certainly not when David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, was there. In Stockman's book, he details the surreality of the budgeting process during the Reagan administration.

Having done a little more research, I stand corrected.

Reagan's Budget Proposals

Federal Budget Outlays
Proposed (Reagan) and Actual (Congress) and
Cumulative Percent Difference
(billions of dollars)1

Outlays
Fiscal Year Proposed Actual % Difference (Cumulative)
1982 695.3 745.8 7.3
1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 (12.1)
1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 (10.8)
1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 (11.6)
1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 (13.5)
1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 (14.6)
1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 (19.1)
1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 (24.5)
______________________________________
Totals $7,357.6 $7,554.9 Avg 2.8 (3.1) (averages for 82-9)
The problem with this chart is that the proposal numbers are phony. Reagan's proposals were based on such optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to reality.

 

[code1211]

This is a disingenuous graph, at least as it pertains to 08 and 09. Those were budgets signed by President Bush. The stimulus program added $100 billion to the deficit in the 2009 fiscal year. That is fair criticism of the Democrats, but the inherited deficit was over $1 trillion.

There were no new major spending initiatives in 2008 or 2009. The reason why the deficit exploded was because of the cyclical adjustments caused by the recession. The biggest spending initiatives of the past decade were Medicare Part D, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President (though in fairness supported by Congressional Democrats), and the Iraq war. The fiscal balance further deteriorated by the Bush tax cuts. Medicare Part D, war and tax cuts exacerbated the deficits that we are now in.

Going forward, it is fair to criticize the Democrats for the deficits we will incur. There should be no new spending programs that are not self-funded. In fact, we have to start cutting back our current programs, particularly Medicare and SS. But to say that the Democrats caused the budget deficit to explode in 08 and 09 is absolute bullshit. It demonstrates why you shouldn't listen to highly politically partisan people.

The final budget of the W Presidency was not for a full year. The Pelosi led House only approved the budget through January and then the Big 0 signed the other half of the year. The Big 0 is unique among presidents in that his first term and first budget started almost simutaneously.

2009 belongs to him about 90%.

 

[Toro]

The final budget of the W Presidency was not for a full year. The Pelosi led House only approved the budget through January and then the Big 0 signed the other half of the year. The Big 0 is unique among presidents in that his first term and first budget started almost simutaneously.

2009 belongs to him about 90%.

Well, hardly. The fiscal year starts in October, so four months passed before Obama was even sworn in. He passed the stimulus act in March. So half the year was gone. Most of the additional spending signed by Obama was the stimulus, which amounted to $100 billion during the remaining portion of the fiscal year. Obama changed little to the FY09 budget apart from that. Had nothing happened, the budget deficit would have been $100 million less.

So most of it is on Bush.

FY2010 is on Obama.