Utopia Talk - Politics - Is Bush to blame for the economy?

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue May 07 04:17:39 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Is Bush to blame for the economy?

habebe
Member Mon Sep 15 18:23:55
Considering that his tax cuts while initially led to a lower revenue intake, now have led to all time record high tax income for the government, can we blame Bush for overspending? I don't reasonably think so, also considering that some of the biggest expenses (and why we have such a horrible deficit) is due to SS and Medicare payments, failed socialistic plans left over from FDR, and BUsh even pushed for more personal freedom to control our own financial destiny on SS, even though it hasn't passed AFAIK

People complain about war spending, but in reality we are not spending that much on the war, especially when compared to healthcare costs and such

habebe
Member Mon Sep 15 18:25:31
WASHINGTON - Federal revenue collections hit an all-time high in April, contributing to a further improvement in the budget deficit for the year.

Releasing its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Thursday that through the first seven months of this budget year, the deficit totals $80.8 billion, significantly below the $184.1 billion imbalance run up during the first seven months of the 2006 budget year.

So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record.
Tax collections swell in April every year as individuals file their tax returns by the deadline.

For the first seven months of this budget year, which began Oct. 1, revenue collections and government spending are at all-time highs.

However, the spending total of $1.585 billion was up at a slower pace of 3.2 percent from the previous year.

The difference in the growth of tax collections and spending is the reason for the narrowing deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office said that it now expects the deficit for all of 2007 to total between $150 billion and $200 billion. That would be a significant improvement from last year’s deficit of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest imbalance in four years.

The federal budget was in surplus for four years from 1998 through 2001 as the long economic expansion helped push revenues higher. But the 2001 recession, the cost of fighting a global war on terror and the loss of revenue from President Bush’s tax cuts sent the budget back into the red starting in 2002.

The administration’s budget sent to Congress in February projects that the deficit will be eliminated by 2012 even if the president achieves his goal of getting his tax cuts made permanent. They are now due to expire in 2010.

However, critics say the improvement in the deficits will be only temporary with deficits expected to balloon again with the higher Social Security and Medicare payments needed as 78 million baby boomers retire.

While Bush sought to make entitlement reform the centerpiece of his domestic agenda in a second term, his proposals to bolster Social Security with personal savings accounts has gone nowhere in Congress.

White House Budget Director Rob Portman said the surge in tax revenues over the past two years was directly related to the economic rebound spurred by the Bush tax cuts. He said Congress should reject efforts to roll back the tax relief.

“With strong economic growth and spending restraint, we can continue to reduce budget deficits and balance the budget as the president has proposed,” Portman said in a statement.

For April, revenue receipts totaled $383.64 billion while spending totaled $205.97 billion, leaving a surplus for the month of $177.7 billion.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18595849/ - 49k

The Powers That Be
Member Mon Sep 15 18:38:40
Think of all that extra revenue freed up if there was no war.

Of course, I wouldn't expect the corrupt politicians of my government to do something wise with it like, oh, maybe pay down our trillions of dollars national debt.

habebe
Member Mon Sep 15 18:43:59
Look, I'm no fan of the war, but there is no getting out now without chaos, and in reality, we are not paying that much more financially because of the war

Some have called it the "300 billion dollar war", but that is an unfair assesment IMO, here is why

They get that astronomical number by counting in all military expenses. The problem with that is war or no war we would have many of these expenses, like soldier salary and benefits

They also never mention that the US has almost a monopoly on contracts in Iraq, which brings US firms more income, it's also most likley that we will have much better economic ties with them now, which down the road is a helpfull thing

Hrothgar
Member Mon Sep 15 18:49:47
Every leader since the 1930s has some blame in this. But Bush and Clinton can have the biggest fingers pointed at them.

More so than them though, are people like Greenspan. The people who control the Fed and decide on regulations.

habebe
Member Mon Sep 15 18:53:12
I'm not denying that other administrations are not partly to blame for not passing changes in programs like SS and medicare, but the premises they are based on set out by FDR were a quick fix that anyone with common sense would see in the long run could not sustain themselves

crownroyal
Member Mon Sep 15 19:12:14
"Considering that his tax cuts while initially led to a lower revenue intake, now have led to all time record high tax income for the government, "

Since the population grows and there was no recession, shouldn't that be a given? The fact is, it took 5 years to reach 2000 revenue levels. (2006 revenues were finally bigger). The housing boom was happening with or without Bush's 2001 or 2003 tax cuts and that boom carried the economy. Meanwhile, the deficit balooned. But that is neither here nor there. Is Bush responsible for current Wall St. nighmare? Partly, I suppose, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Congress was willfully asleep, constantly prodded by lobbyists (from Fannie and Freddy among others) to deregulate ever more. Bush administration made house ownership their policy, bragging about the record numbers of new house owners. They did resist the effort by state governors to crack down on predatory lenders. Then there are bankers, brokers and credit agencies who made out like bandits, peddling crappy papers with AAA ratings. Where was the oversight? There were warnings, everybody relevant ignored them. And now, there is no choice but for government to bailout these greedy assholes, because several more large bancrupcies might take the hole system down, cause panic and run on banks.

Master Bates
Member Mon Sep 15 19:18:20
Wow, Bush leaves the US in shambles.

NeverWoods
Member Mon Sep 15 19:20:30
McSame 2008!

crownroyal
Member Mon Sep 15 19:21:00
"Wow, Bush leaves the US in shambles. "

I don't know, who could have predicted that a life-long fuckup who bancrupted every business his dad gave him, would leave the nation in shambles? It defies belief, it really does.

habebe
Member Mon Sep 15 19:44:34
"Since the population grows and there was no recession, shouldn't that be a given? "

IF the tax rate remained the same, of course, I suppose it would be better to see, how many new taxpayers there are, and at what brackets they are in for a more complete assesment

But what you are saying is that the population growth outpaced his taxcuts, atlest thats what I perceived

"Is Bush responsible for current Wall St. nighmare? Partly, I suppose, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Congress was willfully asleep, constantly prodded by lobbyists"

I would blame 90% if not more on the CEOS's and the boards that run these companies, in reality we are not seeing that many more financial bankruptcies then usual, people just became reckless, unfortanatley the government/admin. seem to want to have more of this behaviour by bailing them out, let bad companies fall, if you bail these companies out, then you get inneficient/unproductive companies who irresponsibly and deserve to fail, if the name is worth saving another business will buy it

habebe
Member Mon Sep 15 19:50:33
Oh well, I'm going to bed, I've been up since 2 am, and havn't had my synthroid for over a month, I took 6 sudaphed just to stay awake today (cleaned the house and yard today) and I'm getting tired/spacey, g'night

Madc0w
Member Mon Sep 15 19:54:22
"Is Bush to blame for the economy? "

No, Jimmy Carter is.

corkie
Member Mon Sep 15 20:15:26
"Is Bush to blame for the economy? "

Actually, I blame June Carter

Madc0w
Member Mon Sep 15 20:18:24
That is absolutely hilarious^.

MuRDeR
Moderator Mon Sep 15 23:16:05

"Some have called it the "300 billion dollar war", but that is an unfair assesment IMO, here is why. They get that astronomical number by counting in all military expenses. The problem with that is war or no war we would have many of these expenses, like soldier salary and benefits."

habebe: You are mistaken. The $200b+ annual cost of the war is in addition to our regular defense budget.

MuRDeR
Moderator Mon Sep 15 23:18:34

"in reality we are not seeing that many more financial bankruptcies then usual"

habebe: These are the heavyweights in the US financial sector that are collapsing. There sure as hell are more, and the consequences of their failure are felt throughout the economy.

Total Eclipse
Member Mon Sep 15 23:23:42
"Is Bush to blame for the economy?"

Umm... who else. He's the president..

kargen
Member Tue Sep 16 02:44:08
No President Bush is not to blame for the economy. We the people are to blame. We borrowed money we could not pay back from companies that did not have it to loan. We allowed people to declare bankruptcy time and again with little reprecusions. Hell there for a while in the 90s if you had bad credit and actually had some shit repossessed you could get a credit card quicker than a person that always paid his loans on time. You could get a higher limit also.
Some of the mess started as far back as the 70s (that I can remember, could have been even earlier) when the government started bailing out failed companies. It was like a green light to go ahead and take stupid risks. Loan to people who have no business borrowing. Why not, chances are all will be forgiven anyway.
I can remember my grandparents putting stuff they wanted on lay-away. That meant they paid for it in monthly installments but the item stayed at the store until it was fully (or insome cases mostly) paid for. Borrowing was prety much left to buying a house or a car. Now damn near everything in most peoples houses is on some kind of payment plan.

That is why the economy is shit. We are so busy paying interest and fees on all our debts that we aren;t getting all that money out and circulating. We did this to ourselves.

Hot Rod
Moderator Tue Sep 16 02:45:45

Partly.

patom
Member Tue Sep 16 09:12:40
kargan, isn't it a little ironic that the conservative republicans are falling all over themselves bailing out the people who should have known better but don't give a shit about the poor people who were told that they have unlimited credit.

redblooded
Member Tue Sep 16 11:28:30
So what happened to the revenues and expenditure in 2008? The article you posted speaks of 2007. Just before the credit crisis bloom...

You know the crisis because of the explosive availability of cheap money, the growth of money because of huge deficit spending, risky loans, etc...

YOu don't think that that might have had as much or perhaps even a bigger impact on the revenue growth? So were the costs worth this Bush regime's "record revenue" in a month in 2007?

licker
Sports Mod Tue Sep 16 11:49:02
ITs not ironic patom, its disgusting.

kargen
Member Tue Sep 16 13:13:14
licker beat me to it. Not ironic. I was going to say pathetic, but disgusting works.

"...bailing out the people who should have known better but don't give a shit about the poor people who were told that they have unlimited credit."

Hey the poor as much at fault as the big guys in that case. They knew they were borrowing above their means and did it anyway. The lenders also knew the borroweres were going above their means but loaned anyway. In some cases they loaned money they didn't have.
Both are to blame for the mess we find ourselves in. The government spends money they don't have because we let them. After all we do it why shouldn't they, and they throw us a bone from time to time so all is good.
The problem will not go away (with government spending) until we the people get off our asses and pass an amendment to the constitution putting an end to deficit spending. That is something we could do it we really cared about the deficit.

habebe
Member Tue Sep 16 19:55:32
Murder, Are you sure on that number? I'll have to look into it, as the figure was from memory off the the top of my head, I'll google it shortly (tom. at the latest)

"habebe: These are the heavyweights in the US financial sector that are collapsing. There sure as hell are more, and the consequences of their failure are felt throughout the economy. "

I know their are more, from the report that I seen, with all of these combined there are still fewer than avg. bankruptcies of lending firms, although I will admit that these while fewer where of much more prominent firms

""Is Bush to blame for the economy?"

Umm... who else. He's the president.. "

You are being sarcastic, right? I'm fairly sure you are, but you never know

RB, I could not find info on 08, if you could find some I'd like to see it, if not, I could look again shortly (tom. at the latest, it was a long day)

show deleted posts

habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 18:23:55 Considering that his tax cuts while initially led to a lower revenue intake, now have led to all time record high tax income for the government, can we blame Bush for overspending? I don't reasonably think so, also considering that some of the biggest expenses (and why we have such a horrible deficit) is due to SS and Medicare payments, failed socialistic plans left over from FDR, and BUsh even pushed for more personal freedom to control our own financial destiny on SS, even though it hasn't passed AFAIK People complain about war spending, but in reality we are not spending that much on the war, especially when compared to healthcare costs and such
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 18:25:31 WASHINGTON - Federal revenue collections hit an all-time high in April, contributing to a further improvement in the budget deficit for the year. Releasing its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Thursday that through the first seven months of this budget year, the deficit totals $80.8 billion, significantly below the $184.1 billion imbalance run up during the first seven months of the 2006 budget year. So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record. Tax collections swell in April every year as individuals file their tax returns by the deadline. For the first seven months of this budget year, which began Oct. 1, revenue collections and government spending are at all-time highs. However, the spending total of $1.585 billion was up at a slower pace of 3.2 percent from the previous year. The difference in the growth of tax collections and spending is the reason for the narrowing deficit. The Congressional Budget Office said that it now expects the deficit for all of 2007 to total between $150 billion and $200 billion. That would be a significant improvement from last year’s deficit of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest imbalance in four years. The federal budget was in surplus for four years from 1998 through 2001 as the long economic expansion helped push revenues higher. But the 2001 recession, the cost of fighting a global war on terror and the loss of revenue from President Bush’s tax cuts sent the budget back into the red starting in 2002. The administration’s budget sent to Congress in February projects that the deficit will be eliminated by 2012 even if the president achieves his goal of getting his tax cuts made permanent. They are now due to expire in 2010. However, critics say the improvement in the deficits will be only temporary with deficits expected to balloon again with the higher Social Security and Medicare payments needed as 78 million baby boomers retire. While Bush sought to make entitlement reform the centerpiece of his domestic agenda in a second term, his proposals to bolster Social Security with personal savings accounts has gone nowhere in Congress. White House Budget Director Rob Portman said the surge in tax revenues over the past two years was directly related to the economic rebound spurred by the Bush tax cuts. He said Congress should reject efforts to roll back the tax relief. “With strong economic growth and spending restraint, we can continue to reduce budget deficits and balance the budget as the president has proposed,” Portman said in a statement. For April, revenue receipts totaled $383.64 billion while spending totaled $205.97 billion, leaving a surplus for the month of $177.7 billion. © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18595849/ - 49k
The Powers That Be Member	Mon Sep 15 18:38:40 Think of all that extra revenue freed up if there was no war. Of course, I wouldn't expect the corrupt politicians of my government to do something wise with it like, oh, maybe pay down our trillions of dollars national debt.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 18:43:59 Look, I'm no fan of the war, but there is no getting out now without chaos, and in reality, we are not paying that much more financially because of the war Some have called it the "300 billion dollar war", but that is an unfair assesment IMO, here is why They get that astronomical number by counting in all military expenses. The problem with that is war or no war we would have many of these expenses, like soldier salary and benefits They also never mention that the US has almost a monopoly on contracts in Iraq, which brings US firms more income, it's also most likley that we will have much better economic ties with them now, which down the road is a helpfull thing
Hrothgar Member	Mon Sep 15 18:49:47 Every leader since the 1930s has some blame in this. But Bush and Clinton can have the biggest fingers pointed at them. More so than them though, are people like Greenspan. The people who control the Fed and decide on regulations.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 18:53:12 I'm not denying that other administrations are not partly to blame for not passing changes in programs like SS and medicare, but the premises they are based on set out by FDR were a quick fix that anyone with common sense would see in the long run could not sustain themselves
crownroyal Member	Mon Sep 15 19:12:14 "Considering that his tax cuts while initially led to a lower revenue intake, now have led to all time record high tax income for the government, " Since the population grows and there was no recession, shouldn't that be a given? The fact is, it took 5 years to reach 2000 revenue levels. (2006 revenues were finally bigger). The housing boom was happening with or without Bush's 2001 or 2003 tax cuts and that boom carried the economy. Meanwhile, the deficit balooned. But that is neither here nor there. Is Bush responsible for current Wall St. nighmare? Partly, I suppose, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Congress was willfully asleep, constantly prodded by lobbyists (from Fannie and Freddy among others) to deregulate ever more. Bush administration made house ownership their policy, bragging about the record numbers of new house owners. They did resist the effort by state governors to crack down on predatory lenders. Then there are bankers, brokers and credit agencies who made out like bandits, peddling crappy papers with AAA ratings. Where was the oversight? There were warnings, everybody relevant ignored them. And now, there is no choice but for government to bailout these greedy assholes, because several more large bancrupcies might take the hole system down, cause panic and run on banks.
Master Bates Member	Mon Sep 15 19:18:20 Wow, Bush leaves the US in shambles.
NeverWoods Member	Mon Sep 15 19:20:30 McSame 2008!
crownroyal Member	Mon Sep 15 19:21:00 "Wow, Bush leaves the US in shambles. " I don't know, who could have predicted that a life-long fuckup who bancrupted every business his dad gave him, would leave the nation in shambles? It defies belief, it really does.
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 19:44:34 "Since the population grows and there was no recession, shouldn't that be a given? " IF the tax rate remained the same, of course, I suppose it would be better to see, how many new taxpayers there are, and at what brackets they are in for a more complete assesment But what you are saying is that the population growth outpaced his taxcuts, atlest thats what I perceived "Is Bush responsible for current Wall St. nighmare? Partly, I suppose, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Congress was willfully asleep, constantly prodded by lobbyists" I would blame 90% if not more on the CEOS's and the boards that run these companies, in reality we are not seeing that many more financial bankruptcies then usual, people just became reckless, unfortanatley the government/admin. seem to want to have more of this behaviour by bailing them out, let bad companies fall, if you bail these companies out, then you get inneficient/unproductive companies who irresponsibly and deserve to fail, if the name is worth saving another business will buy it
habebe Member	Mon Sep 15 19:50:33 Oh well, I'm going to bed, I've been up since 2 am, and havn't had my synthroid for over a month, I took 6 sudaphed just to stay awake today (cleaned the house and yard today) and I'm getting tired/spacey, g'night
Madc0w Member	Mon Sep 15 19:54:22 "Is Bush to blame for the economy? " No, Jimmy Carter is.
corkie Member	Mon Sep 15 20:15:26 "Is Bush to blame for the economy? " Actually, I blame June Carter
Madc0w Member	Mon Sep 15 20:18:24 That is absolutely hilarious^.
MuRDeR Moderator	Mon Sep 15 23:16:05 "Some have called it the "300 billion dollar war", but that is an unfair assesment IMO, here is why. They get that astronomical number by counting in all military expenses. The problem with that is war or no war we would have many of these expenses, like soldier salary and benefits." habebe: You are mistaken. The $200b+ annual cost of the war is in addition to our regular defense budget.
MuRDeR Moderator	Mon Sep 15 23:18:34 "in reality we are not seeing that many more financial bankruptcies then usual" habebe: These are the heavyweights in the US financial sector that are collapsing. There sure as hell are more, and the consequences of their failure are felt throughout the economy.
Total Eclipse Member	Mon Sep 15 23:23:42 "Is Bush to blame for the economy?" Umm... who else. He's the president..
kargen Member	Tue Sep 16 02:44:08 No President Bush is not to blame for the economy. We the people are to blame. We borrowed money we could not pay back from companies that did not have it to loan. We allowed people to declare bankruptcy time and again with little reprecusions. Hell there for a while in the 90s if you had bad credit and actually had some shit repossessed you could get a credit card quicker than a person that always paid his loans on time. You could get a higher limit also. Some of the mess started as far back as the 70s (that I can remember, could have been even earlier) when the government started bailing out failed companies. It was like a green light to go ahead and take stupid risks. Loan to people who have no business borrowing. Why not, chances are all will be forgiven anyway. I can remember my grandparents putting stuff they wanted on lay-away. That meant they paid for it in monthly installments but the item stayed at the store until it was fully (or insome cases mostly) paid for. Borrowing was prety much left to buying a house or a car. Now damn near everything in most peoples houses is on some kind of payment plan. That is why the economy is shit. We are so busy paying interest and fees on all our debts that we aren;t getting all that money out and circulating. We did this to ourselves.
Hot Rod Moderator	Tue Sep 16 02:45:45 Partly.
patom Member	Tue Sep 16 09:12:40 kargan, isn't it a little ironic that the conservative republicans are falling all over themselves bailing out the people who should have known better but don't give a shit about the poor people who were told that they have unlimited credit.
redblooded Member	Tue Sep 16 11:28:30 So what happened to the revenues and expenditure in 2008? The article you posted speaks of 2007. Just before the credit crisis bloom... You know the crisis because of the explosive availability of cheap money, the growth of money because of huge deficit spending, risky loans, etc... YOu don't think that that might have had as much or perhaps even a bigger impact on the revenue growth? So were the costs worth this Bush regime's "record revenue" in a month in 2007?
licker Sports Mod	Tue Sep 16 11:49:02 ITs not ironic patom, its disgusting.
kargen Member	Tue Sep 16 13:13:14 licker beat me to it. Not ironic. I was going to say pathetic, but disgusting works. "...bailing out the people who should have known better but don't give a shit about the poor people who were told that they have unlimited credit." Hey the poor as much at fault as the big guys in that case. They knew they were borrowing above their means and did it anyway. The lenders also knew the borroweres were going above their means but loaned anyway. In some cases they loaned money they didn't have. Both are to blame for the mess we find ourselves in. The government spends money they don't have because we let them. After all we do it why shouldn't they, and they throw us a bone from time to time so all is good. The problem will not go away (with government spending) until we the people get off our asses and pass an amendment to the constitution putting an end to deficit spending. That is something we could do it we really cared about the deficit.
habebe Member	Tue Sep 16 19:55:32 Murder, Are you sure on that number? I'll have to look into it, as the figure was from memory off the the top of my head, I'll google it shortly (tom. at the latest) "habebe: These are the heavyweights in the US financial sector that are collapsing. There sure as hell are more, and the consequences of their failure are felt throughout the economy. " I know their are more, from the report that I seen, with all of these combined there are still fewer than avg. bankruptcies of lending firms, although I will admit that these while fewer where of much more prominent firms ""Is Bush to blame for the economy?" Umm... who else. He's the president.. " You are being sarcastic, right? I'm fairly sure you are, but you never know RB, I could not find info on 08, if you could find some I'd like to see it, if not, I could look again shortly (tom. at the latest, it was a long day)
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: