Sick of "Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush"

CHAINSAW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
60
Location
Miami, Florida
The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush, blah blah blah.
Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, I'll try a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:


If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

WAKE UP, AMERICA , BEFORE ITS TO LATE
 
Werbung:
Realy, who cares. Obama and Bush are no different, and neither are Obama and McCain. The only real difference is the level they go to to bribe the public. The senseless arguing between supporters of the different puppets is a distraction created to blindfold the public.
 
Im sorry but who was it again the decided to not pay for the war in Iraq? Who made the huge tax cuts while increasing spending? was that the Dems? did I miss something?

It never fails, the right will always find a way to claim its not there fault even when they are in power...

Also where was your little veto pen? I did not see Bush whip that baby out much now did I? but its not his fault right? I mean you can't expect him to have a spine enough to do what he says
 
Yeah lets claim BO would have a budget surplus if Bush hadn't passed tax cuts. And the cost for the two wars is a majority of the US budget. No doubt dude....

That makes sense to the senseless (aka liberals). They are so easily fooled.
 
Yeah lets claim BO would have a budget surplus if Bush hadn't passed tax cuts. And the cost for the two wars is a majority of the US budget. No doubt dude....

That makes sense to the senseless (aka liberals). They are so easily fooled.

Lets say Obama took over in 2000 not 2008...I am 100% sure we are much better off in 2008 when he leaves then when Bush did.
 
Realy, who cares. Obama and Bush are no different, and neither are Obama and McCain. The only real difference is the level they go to to bribe the public. The senseless arguing between supporters of the different puppets is a distraction created to blindfold the public.
The Difference Is That Obama Is a Half-White and Bush Is a Half-Wit
 
Im sorry but who was it again the decided to not pay for the war in Iraq? Who made the huge tax cuts while increasing spending? was that the Dems? did I miss something?

It never fails, the right will always find a way to claim its not there fault even when they are in power...

Also where was your little veto pen? I did not see Bush whip that baby out much now did I? but its not his fault right? I mean you can't expect him to have a spine enough to do what he says
Tax cuts are not government subsidies and rich Democrats with rich backers have rarely raised taxes on the rich like they claim they would do if given the chance.
 
Tax cuts are not government subsidies and rich Democrats with rich backers have rarely raised taxes on the rich like they claim they would do if given the chance.

Mark is on the ball. He knows a bribe when he sees one. It's just when he sees a real one to republicans he suddenly loses his eyesight. Truly anazing.

He's the type of charmless nerk that would complain about democrats putting out more trash than democrats or not saying enough prayers to save the country.
Anything but focus in the facts.
 
Tax cuts are not government subsidies and rich Democrats with rich backers have rarely raised taxes on the rich like they claim they would do if given the chance.
.
sleepy-smiley[1].gif
.
Yeahhhhh....Republicans were soooo certain that rookie, Bill Clinton, would never manage to control the Reagan/Bush recession....and, Republicans would waltz, right back into the Oval, after 4 years of Clinton!!!
.
 
Werbung:
Tax cuts are not government subsidies and rich Democrats with rich backers have rarely raised taxes on the rich like they claim they would do if given the chance.

Mark is on the ball. He knows a bribe when he sees one. It's just when he sees a real one to republicans he suddenly loses his eyesight. Truly anazing.

He's the type of charmless nerk that would complain about democrats putting out more trash than democrats or not saying enough prayers to save the country.
Anything but focus in the facts.
These are details from one summary of Obama's tax hikes:

Taxing the rich: The record under Obama (cnn.com)

For the latest business news and markets data, PLEASE VISIT CNN BUSINESS

Taxing the rich: The record under Obama

by Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoneyJanuary 30, 2015: 5:38 PM ET

President Obama's budget proposals to tax the rich are usually DOA with Republicans. Nevertheless, the top 1% are now paying an average tax rate that's 6 percentage points higher than when Obama first took office.

New year. Old strategy.

The White House has already revealed many of President Obama's proposals to raise taxes on the rich that will be in his 2016 budget, due out Monday.

Among them: A plan to increase investment taxes and get rid of the so-called "trust fund loophole" in the estate tax.

The idea is to help pay for other measures aimed at helping low- and middle-income families. They may also be used to help pay for increased government spending.

Calling for higher taxes on the rich has been a feature of every one of Obama's budgets since 2009. Remember the Buffett Rule? That would have imposed a minimum 30% effective federal tax rate on the very wealthy.

That one and most others didn't get very far, but that doesn't mean Obama's push hasn't been effective.

Under Obama, the average federal tax rate paid by the top 1% of households has gone up more than 6 percentage points to an estimated 33.8% today, according to the Tax Policy Center.


What ignorant victims of 'tax-the-rich' campaign speeches are usually unaware of is that the US has been 'taxing the rich' to the upper limit almost constantly since the invention of the IRS.
 
Back
Top