Sorry, this is getting old ...
W took us from a budget surplus to a huge budget deficit
Obviously you didn't understand the state of the economy at the end of 2000. W. walked into a recession his first quarter and we already had massive, negative growth for over half of 2000. That included a surplus that was
in great retreat. When people started getting laid off in March/April 2001 (myself included), as a result of financial results of 2000, entitlements increased. This "deficit" in 2001 was hardly W.'s doing at all!
Just like it's not Obama's fault either now. But because people like yourself can't look past the bias in the media, you hear about how "W. created a $1.2T deficit for 2009" but you don't hear, "Clinton left the White House with a clear eradication of the surplus and deficit for 2001." That's what gets to me, especially when you spew that crap as if everything was "okay" when Clinton vacated the White House in 2000. And that's before you even add about the immediate $400B impact to our economy when the towers went down, plus the trillions in aftershocks. A lot of people (myself included) got laid off again as a result of the economy slowing down even more after that.
Furthermore, if you adjust the balance sheets of companies in late 1999 and throughout 2000 for all the non-GAAP practices, you have a lot of federal income collected over gains that simply didn't exist. There have been several models that show the recession actually started in 2000, when corporate accounting is adjusted to match the actual, real, financial statements of many, major firms.
A lot of people in 1999-2000 paid capital gains on wealth they didn't have by 2001-2002. Wealth that was eradicated. I had many, many colleagues that became millionaires in 1999-2000, paid massive amounts of gains, only to see that liability actually greater than what they were worth after 2000. It's probably one of the most horribly misunderstood facts about the economy of mid-1999 through 2000 -- it was
utterly false and much of the "surplus" was not only being eradicted by the end of 2000, but based on that
false reporting.
Enron didn't happen during W. The massive increase in SUV production didn't happen during W. Many things that people like yourself like to blame W. for did not happen during W., but during Clinton. But even then, that wasn't all Clinton, it was also the Republican Congress as well -- who Clinton
did work with.
and he spent a whole hell of a lot of money to do it (think Iraq and Afghanistan
Obama is going to spend more on Afghanistan, so that argument falls on its face. Dude, wake up. Even Obama agrees that Afghanistan is a problem, and any havens for fundamental religion-based terrorism are a danger to the US! Clinton also said the same in 1998, and issued two (2) Executive Orders that were what W. used to allow the FBI to detain people and wire tap without public warrants prior to the passage of the
Patriot Act. Read up!
As far as Iraq, understand there were as more entitlement and public work project dollars spent than the war costs. Granted, without the war, the "pork" that Congressmen and women would not have likely been passed. But because of the war, they would bargain for that "pork" in order for the President to secure their vote for war spending.
It was the big problem the American public had with the Republican Congress, and why they voted them out in 2006. Unfortunately, the Democrats
continued the tradition and that's why -- even before the "financial crisis" -- Congress' approval ratings
plumetted because they too were trying to pass "pork," just like the Republicans did.
I'm not saying Iraq doesn't cost money. But look at the
other spending increases as well.
, as well as a whole new government agency, Homeland Security).
Homeland Security is a merger of many agencies. It attempts to streamline processes while balancing due process, such as aggregating information while requiring different agencies to seek court orders to allow data to be released from one agency to another. Yes, some costs have increased, but an overall cost increase was expected post-9/11.
But some costs are actually costs that were already on-going, and attributed to separate agencies before. Some of the numbers people like to quote exagerate the numbers because of this fact.
Yes, he did cut taxes (but you can guess which end of the income spectrum saw the biggest benefits from those tax cuts),
Ummm, dude, it's a simple math test. In a progressive tax system, those who make the most get
at least the same tax cut as those who make less. It is
mathematically impossible to give a tax cut in a progressive tax system that benefits those who make less more of a cut than those who make more. No offense, you just failed that basic "I actually understand taxes" test, and proved to me that you listen to the media, not actual math.
The only way to give more is to give entitlements. Entitlements are a direct "redistribution of wealth." In the case of Obama, he's not for a tax cut, he's for an entitlement known as a "tax credit." A "tax credit" is whereby you don't reduce someone's tax liability, you give a direct amount of money to someone, and subtract that from their tax liability total. If the amount is greater than their liability, it is a check.
but he also spent like it was going out of style.
Yes, both the Republican and Democratic Congresses spent like it was going out of style. Obama is only increasing that, and far beyond what the economy actually needs.
And he certainly didn't make "cuts across the board in all government programs".
Nope. Once he started Iraq, the pork ramped up -- big time!
Bush, a member of the GOP, increased the size of government and drove us deep into debt. That doesn't match your description of a GOP President.
Nope. But even Clinton spent a crapload in 1993-1994. Once the Republicans got in Congress after the 1994 election, he crossed his own party.
I agree, a Republican Congress and Democrat President are ideal. Unfortunately, we've now got a Democrat Congress and Democrat President, and things are looking even worse than the Republican-Republican one on spending.
So perhaps you should have said they want Obama to behave like a largely mythical characterization of a GOP President.
No, he's not that at all. Obama idolizes Lincoln and FDR. Lincoln's civil liberties record is awful (sorry, read up), and FDR's record is still debated to this day.
But I agree that once W. started the war in Iraq, he had the same problem as LBJ did in Vietnam.
