« Two incredible scientific discoveries | Main | Not ready to lead »

"Obama tripled the national deficit his first year in office"

GatewayPundit's got the must read of the day:


Obama tripled the national deficit his first year in office and he's off to a record-setting start in fiscal year 2010.

Despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, the Clinton Recession he inherited, and the 9-11 attacks, President Bush brought down the national budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007.

On July 11, 2006, the Bush Administration announced they were revising midyear budget estimates. They changed their projections after they discovered that greater than expected tax revenues would drop the deficit below 300 billion dollars. Budget Director Rob Portman drove home the message later that day telling reporters that this latest revision was proof that the administration's tax cuts were working.

This wasn't a one time event. During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth.

Then again Bush cut taxes while Obama has decided to spend his way out of this recession. 

Obama announced this week that in December he'll hold a jobs summit, his answer to the rising unemployment numbers we've seen during his reign.

The much better answer is to simply cut taxes.  The evidence is clear that it works.  Why won't this Administration adopt a solution with a proven record of its success?

Maybe it's because this Administration doesn't want that kind of success.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Obama tripled the national deficit his first year in office":

» Seeing the Forest linked with Cato: Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit

Comments (21)

To a socialist state-ist on... (Below threshold)
recovering liberal democrat:

To a socialist state-ist only the government can be successful. They can only do that if they take the money from the population. "O" is so text book it is painful. It's not that he doesn't know what he is doing. He knows exactly what he is doing. All of the planning between him and his advisers to advance their agenda on all fronts has the country in a state of shock.

"Why won't this Administrat... (Below threshold)

"Why won't this Administration adopt a solution with a proven record of its success?"

Quite simply because the Democratic mantra is that 'tax cuts don't work'. Besides that, YOUR NOT THE ONE PASSING OUT THE MONEY. After all, loyalty (according to Democrats) has a price.

And the liberals to this da... (Below threshold)

And the liberals to this day are repeating the mantra that "they inherited this mess".

If it weren't so scary, it would be funny. The problem is it is not funny at all.

Worst president ever!

It seems like there's a fun... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

It seems like there's a fundamental relationship between liberalism and government spending. Yes, Republicans have done poorly in that area as well, but the cure is for the Republican party gets back to it's conservative roots. Either that or the Republican party may go extinct as it's replaced by a new conservative party. The nation needs a viable alternative to out of control spenders.

If I were the chief supreme head grand ayatollah of America I would institute fair trade policies, as I have explained before, and revamp the SBA into just the Business Administration to provide loans to businesses with terms based on an employment metric that rewards companies that provide American jobs. With all businesses not listed on the stock market having access to low interest loans, the Fed can then use the overall interest rate to control inflation without stagnating job creation.

Next I would commission some real economic experts to figure out the optimal tax structure from the standpoint of generation the most revenue for the government (we have to get out of this hole were are in and it's going to take money) . Because a zero percent tax raises no revenue from the economy and because a 100% tax raises no revenue because there no economy, there must be an optimal rate somewhere between 0 and 100% the raises the most review. That rate may change due to a number of factors, be we need to know what those factors are. Without that information both raising or lowering taxes amounts to voodoo economics. It's time we get a look at the road in order to avoid the ditches on both sides.

I've already posted my plan to reform healthcare, so there's no need to do that again. As for energy, I would push for energy independence utilizing all sources.

Unfortunately (or fortunately if you're a liberal), it's unlikely the position of chief supreme head grand ayatollah of America is going to open up anytime soon.

Sorry about the double post... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Sorry about the double post. Win7 thought I lost the connection the first time so I posted again.

The tidal wave implementati... (Below threshold)

The tidal wave implementation of jobs going overseas due to busisnesses having to pay high health care premiums for their employees, will only continue until there will be no businesses left to operate because premiums are sky high -- this insurance monopoly is sort of like paying the mafia in order to operate!

If health care does not pass, it will reveal that the U.S. Congress does not have enough strength or right intentions to pass a healthcare bill that will benefit the people of the United States finally, control health care costs for both businesses and individuals -- that Insurance Companies and Pharmacies have more power over these legislators than the people who have sent them to Congress! It is always like pulling teeth for these legislators to do something beneficial for the people -- example: increasing unemployment benefits and raising the mimimum wage to a living wage and even that falls far short! I have faith that a bill will pass -- that it is the people's time now and not the corporations and insuarnce companies...

Also, Why do the GOP fear the terrorists being tried in open court in New York? I think they are greatly angered that this is something they did not do -- try the terrorists anywhere! However, these terrorists are not military and should not be tried as such. The GOP remind me of bullies who pretend to be tough but are really afraid.

"Despite the wars in Iraq a... (Below threshold)

"Despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, the Clinton Recession he inherited..."

Hold on there, buddy. While to many the first word that comes to mind about the Bush Administration would be "lies" or "war" or "torture" or "incompetence," to the economist the first word may well be "recession." Bush's first term recession began in March 2001 and lasted to November 2001, with Clinton out of office for several weeks by the time it began. Bush's second term recession began in December 2007 (a recession far deeper than his first and one that has had economists deeply worried) and was the one inherited by Obama.

Hey Angellight.......when t... (Below threshold)

Hey Angellight.......when that whole trial farce blows up in Barry's face, we'll welcome your "educated" response.

Highlander "inherite... (Below threshold)

"inherited by Obama."

So now it's his job to fix so he owns it.
Claiming you can do a better job than the previous person then then blaming others for your failures doesn't hack anymore.

I'd love to see the whole c... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

I'd love to see the whole country get to vote on this question:
What would you prefer this country spend $100B/yr on:
a. Staying in Iraq/Afghanistan
b. Ensuring that Americans are covered by basic health insurance

Both parties didn't skew intelligence and whip the country up over the fear of non-existent WMD's in a country that didn't attack us. Democrats are guilty of being spineless and not willing to ask the tough questions prior to the invasion of Iraq. They are also guilty of going along with the continual supplemental spending bills that Bush wanted and got.
I don't have a blind eye to the shortcomings of the democrats or the successes of the republicans. I do note that the Bush administration threw blood and treasure into their bastardized view of what they were after and didn't care. Now is the time to hold all remaining accountable?

A Jobs summit will be just ... (Below threshold)

A Jobs summit will be just the thing for the fast food and big box retail industries.

It's pretty clear that these guys in Washington just don't get it, either in Congress or the White House. I simply can't explain their obstinate refusal to understand even the basic laws of economics. It's all about illiterate, petty class grievances and the arrogance of unchecked power.

jc hammer[head] "Both ... (Below threshold)

jc hammer[head] "Both parties didn't skew intelligence and whip the country up over the fear of non-existent WMD's in a country that didn't attack us."

Psst these incidents are acts of war conducted by Saddams iraq against U.S. Fighters.

Nov, 1996 "A U.S. fighter jet patrolling the skies over southern Iraq fired a missile yesterday at an Iraqi radar site after being illuminated by the radar, the White House and Pentagon disclosed last night."

Sept. 30, 2002 "Within hours of the arrival of that letter, Iraq was again firing at U.S. and coalition aircraft patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zones. Within hours of promising to fulfill the relevant Security Council resolutions and to do so, quote, "without conditions," unquote, Iraq was trying to shoot down and kill coalition pilots, U.S. and U.K., who are implementing those relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions."

Those are acts of war nitwit, not the you'll ever admit they are, nor will you admit the dozens of other incidents that occurred within the no fly zones.

And btw, both parties DIDN'T skew intelligence? I believe all those listed below were DEMS.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

The other side of this equa... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

The other side of this equation was that emergency actions by both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration prevented the collapse of many American banks. Further action by the Obama Administration prevented the collapse of both GM and Chrysler and the loss of hundreds of thousands of related auto industry and support jobs. Further, the economic stimulus bill did provide enough construction jobs to cut unemployment in some states such as Oregon by .5 percent last month.

Certainly, these emergency government actions were very expensive. However, the collapse of many banks as well most of the American auto industry would have made any chance of economic recovery for the U.S. much more difficult. The U.S. could have been headed down a path of having an economy similar to the 1950's Soviet Union with few major manufacturing industries or banks.

Yet, while these emergency acts might have shored up these vital sectors, the larger issue of a rescue of the overall economy remains an elusive goal and difficult to achieve. Part of the problem is this recession, another part is the overall decline of the United States as a major economic power since about 2000, worsened by the 9/11 attacks of 2001.

I'd love to see the whol... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I'd love to see the whole country get to vote on this question:
What would you prefer this country spend $100B/yr on:
a. Staying in Iraq/Afghanistan
b. Ensuring that Americans are covered by basic health insurance

Fine, if you want to do b), then why not send X amount of money to each under-or-not insured person and let them shop for the best coverage?

Highlander Talking a... (Below threshold)

Talking about hypocrisy in the same post. You claim the 2001 economics was owned by the first year President Bush. However it doesn't apply to the first year President Obama that passed humongous spending bills before his first budget. At least Bush's economy recovered in a short order until the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 while Obama's economy isn't looking good. In addition if he gets what he wants it will destroy our economy.

Further action by ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Further action by the Obama Administration prevented the collapse of both GM and Chrysler and the loss of hundreds of thousands of related auto industry and support jobs.

With respect to Chrysler it's likely more accurate to say that the Obama Administration's actions delayed the collapse. That shoe will drop in 2011 or early 2012 and cost Obama dearly in terms of his reelection bid. By then it will seem absurd even to some liberals to blame Bush for such failures.

Barack Obama is a complete ... (Below threshold)

Barack Obama is a complete liberal despot and tyrant no wonder his polls are falling

The only thing Obama inheri... (Below threshold)

The only thing Obama inherited from the previous administration is Afghanistan. Or as the dems say "the real war", He owns it and the 24 trillion debt He's incompetently mounted up..

Hes worse than even Mr. Peanutz.

Hey look, it's a hockey-sti... (Below threshold)

Hey look, it's a hockey-stick graph!

angellight, all you know is... (Below threshold)

angellight, all you know is cut and paste. You're all over the web with the same cut and paste job as "bacangel", "angellight", "wdsoulplane" - what other names are you using and/or who are you plagiarizing?

Er, I hate to burst anybody... (Below threshold)
Blue Sun:

Er, I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but the 2009 budget was put into effect at the start of the 2009 fiscal year, October 1, 2008. It is Bush's final budget, not Obama's first budget. The main reasons that the budget took a major jump were the Bush administration's TARP bailout and the additional trillions paid out by the Fed, and the fact that the Bush administration had been phonying up the budget by keeping both the Iraq and Afghan wars off-budget by financing them with supplementary funding requests. He was, in effect, putting the wars on the national credit card, and leaving them for the next President to have to come to grips with. Bush also factored into the real deficit surpluses from Social Security and other similar programs, lowering the real debt to a phony debt more than $160 billion less each year.

When Obama came into power, he ended Bush's little smoke and mirrors games; for example, including both wars in the budget for a more honest and realistic picture than the Bush economists were creating.

Before Ronald Reagan came into power, the national debt from the Washington to Carter was something over $900 billion dollars. That skyrocketed under Reagan's and Bush I's record deficits. Reagan and Bush I added just over $3 TRILLION to the $900 BILLION debt, quadrupling it in 12 years. Under Clinton, for all his faults, the deficit dropped for 8 straight years, turning into a growing surplus during the last three years. He was the first president in many years to actually pay down some of the national debt. Economists were forecasting in 2000 that if Clinton's policies stayed in place, the entire national debt would be paid off by 2010. They weren't counting on Bush.

Then Dubya came along, turned the Clinton surpluses into deficits that made the Reagan/Bush deficits look like withdrawals from a kid's piggy bank, and singlehandedly built up an additional $5 TRILLION in debt in a mere 8 years. So, from less than one trillion dollars to a figure approaching 10 trillion dollars in a mere 20 years of Reaganomics (and it would have been much worse if Clinton hadn't reversed the trend for 8 years).

Obama is deserving of legitimate criticism on a number of grounds, but anybody in the Republican Party who criticizes him for financial irresponsibility only comes across like a serial baby raper and murderer calling a kid reading a Playboy a pervert. You just don't have the moral or economic high ground to hurl accusations from.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy