Why didn't we hear about the deficit during the Bush administration?

[Queen]

Tomorrow is the State of the Union and Obama will be talking about the huge deficit we have. Why didn't we ever hear about it during the Bush admin when during his admin the national debt was more than doubled? The deficits were huge!

But Bush hid them. He didn't put the two wars in the budget like Obama is doing. Remember all those emergency supplementals that congress voted on every few months? 250 billion here, 500 billion there, to fund the wars. We don't have those anymore, because the wars are funded, out in the open, by the budget.

But now, we see the deficit spending that these wars are causing, and suddenly everyone's all outraged.

This money has been draining our treasury for 8 years already.

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2009

The 2009 debt number is from the Bush administration's fiscal year. When they post the 2010 numbers, that will be Obama's.

So I was just wondering why the media is so stupid? They keep talking about the huge deficit in the Obama admin. But they never mentioned the doubling of the national debt under the Bush admin. Are they really so stupid that they didn't realize all those war supplementals weren't in the budget and therefore hidden away each year?

 

[Coyote]

Good question.

Wasn't it Reagan that said deficits don't matter?

 

[Xenophon]

We did.

Try some other lame talking point besides 'but bush.'

 

[Ragnar]

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
(Graphic from the Washington Post)

•President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

•President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

•President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.

•President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.

•President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.

•President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

•President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

As to... "Why didn't we hear about the deficit during the Bush administration?"

Answer - You didn't read the NYT or WaPo or the internet? You did not watch CNN or FOX News? In other words, what's this "we" stuff kemosabe?

 

[Yurt]

the deficit was never mentioned under the bush admin......

amazing

 

[Ragnar]

the deficit was never mentioned under the bush admin......

amazing

We have been a 50/50 nation for a long time, at least since Clinton's first term. Yet it's as if some on the left wing actually thought that when Bush (W) had poll numbers in the 30's it was because America was suddenly 60+% pinko-democrat. Not so. People were growing angry about the spending and that anger grew (for those on the right of center side) after 2006 when the Dem's got back Congress and it grew some more when the Republican party ran a happless, rebel-withoiut-a-clue in 2008.

On edit:

The link goes to a few nuggets of New York Times wisdom vis a vie the deficit under Bush vs Obama and concludes, unsurprisingly thus...
Power Line - That Was Then, This Is Now

"Unpaid-for government," to a greater extent than that which the Times denounced during George Bush's administration, is, in fact, "the norm" as far as the eye can see. But that's what you expect from the Times: either deliberate falsehood or impenetrable ignorance; it's often hard to tell which. The Times' editors are in the bag for the Left, and there is little pretense of consistency or intellectual integrity; in fact, the editors are not very bright--to be a Times editor is to be a full-time shill.

 

[rightwinger]

Teabaggers don't object to right wing deficits

$5 Trillion didn't matter

 

[Queen]

Good question.

Wasn't it Reagan that said deficits don't matter?

It was Cheney, who said Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Reagan just about tripled the national debt. It was 907,701,000,000.00 in 1980 and 2,602,337,712,041.16 in 1988.

 

[Avatar4321]

We didn't? Obviously someone wasnt listening.

 

[Queen]

We did.

Try some other lame talking point besides 'but bush.'

No, we didn't. Bush hid the deficit by leaving the wars out of the budget. He also didn't pay for the tax cuts for the rich.

Obama's budget is honest. That's why we can see what's being spent. It was all shrouded and cloaked during the Bush admin and we didn't know how much would be spent on the wars until they asked for another supplemental.

 

[WillowTree]

Tomorrow is the State of the Union and Obama will be talking about the huge deficit we have. Why didn't we ever hear about it during the Bush admin when during his admin the national debt was more than doubled? The deficits were huge!

But Bush hid them. He didn't put the two wars in the budget like Obama is doing. Remember all those emergency supplementals that congress voted on every few months? 250 billion here, 500 billion there, to fund the wars. We don't have those anymore, because the wars are funded, out in the open, by the budget.

But now, we see the deficit spending that these wars are causing, and suddenly everyone's all outraged.

This money has been draining our treasury for 8 years already.

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2009

The 2009 debt number is from the Bush administration's fiscal year. When they post the 2010 numbers, that will be Obama's.

So I was just wondering why the media is so stupid? They keep talking about the huge deficit in the Obama admin. But they never mentioned the doubling of the national debt under the Bush admin. Are they really so stupid that they didn't realize all those war supplementals weren't in the budget and therefore hidden away each year?

CAUSE EVERYBODY IS A RACIST!

 

[Queen]

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
(Graphic from the Washington Post)

•President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

•President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

•President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.

•President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.

•President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.

•President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

•President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

As to... "Why didn't we hear about the deficit during the Bush administration?"

Answer - You didn't read the NYT or WaPo or the internet? You did not watch CNN or FOX News? In other words, what's this "we" stuff kemosabe?

I don't know where your graph is from but it's not accurate.

Can you explain where the 6 trillion dollars is in that graph? because it shows less than that, and the national debt grew by 6 trillion during the Bush years.

 

[beowolfe]

Tomorrow is the State of the Union and Obama will be talking about the huge deficit we have. Why didn't we ever hear about it during the Bush admin when during his admin the national debt was more than doubled? The deficits were huge!

But Bush hid them. He didn't put the two wars in the budget like Obama is doing. Remember all those emergency supplementals that congress voted on every few months? 250 billion here, 500 billion there, to fund the wars. We don't have those anymore, because the wars are funded, out in the open, by the budget.

But now, we see the deficit spending that these wars are causing, and suddenly everyone's all outraged.

This money has been draining our treasury for 8 years already.

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2009

The 2009 debt number is from the Bush administration's fiscal year. When they post the 2010 numbers, that will be Obama's.

So I was just wondering why the media is so stupid? They keep talking about the huge deficit in the Obama admin. But they never mentioned the doubling of the national debt under the Bush admin. Are they really so stupid that they didn't realize all those war supplementals weren't in the budget and therefore hidden away each year?

Silly, don't you know that it's because of the liberal media! That darn liberal media never goes after liberals!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't know where your graph is from but it's not accurate.

Can you explain where the 6 trillion dollars is in that graph? because it shows less than that, and the national debt grew by 6 trillion during the Bush years.

How can the National debt grow 6 trillion dollars per year when spending is a quarter of that?

 

[rdean]

During the Bush years, the cost of both wars was never included in the budget. As soon as Obama took office, both wars were suddenly included, which of course made the true deficit skyrocket.

Also, Bush, as with most Republicans, used what is called, "creative bookkeeping". Projecting revenues or savings that "might" happen into a "real" budget.

Only Republicans believe that we can fight two wars, cut taxes, cut education, shift the tax burden to the middle class, send jobs overseas and the result will be a "growing and robust economy". I just don't get it. Then when their "mess" doesn't work, they complain it wasn't "true conservatism".

 

[Queen]

We didn't? Obviously someone wasnt listening.

You people aren't getting it.

When a budget is announced, and it's in the red, the media goes nuts.

When a budget is announced and it's in the black, no one says a word.

Bush's budgets didn't include the wars, so they didn't show huge deficits. The national debt grew but the accounting wasn't out in the open. It was hidden in war supplemental funding.

 

[Avatar4321]

We didn't? Obviously someone wasnt listening.

You people aren't getting it.

When a budget is announced, and it's in the red, the media goes nuts.

When a budget is announced and it's in the black, no one says a word.

Bush's budgets didn't include the wars, so they didn't show huge deficits. The national debt grew but the accounting wasn't out in the open. It was hidden in war supplemental funding.

So what your saying is that no one knew that Bush was spending tons of money in wars or expanding the national debt? Then what on the world has the left been whining about the past 8 years???

 

[Queen]

I don't know where your graph is from but it's not accurate.

Can you explain where the 6 trillion dollars is in that graph? because it shows less than that, and the national debt grew by 6 trillion during the Bush years.

How can the National debt grow 6 trillion dollars per year when spending is a quarter of that?

How can you ask me about the national debt growing 6 trillion per year when it grew 6 trillion during Bush's 8 years?

Seriously, try to focus.

 

[Samson]

"Why didn't we hear about the deficit during the Bush administration?"

I don't know why YOU didn't hear about it.

Maybe you should join the Libertarian Party?

The Obama Administration has been pretty silent about Deficite Spending until last Tuesday.

I wonder what happened LAST TUESDAY to capture the sudden interest in controlling Government spending.....

 

[xsited1]

Why didn't we hear about the deficit during the Bush

Which rock were you living under?