Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Recap on History of Budget 13

The Democrats are engaging, once again, in economic revisionism. They want us to believe that the budget surplus was increasing when Bush took office, and that the increasing deficits are his fault.

In fact, the surplus was decreasing when Bush took office in 2001. The Fiscal Year 2000 budget had a surplus of $236 billion. That was the high water mark. The FY 2001 budget, passed in 2000 -- before Bush took office -- had a surplus of only $128 billion. The first budget passed when Bush was President, FY 2002, was pushed into deficit primarily by the recession (which he inherited, as Obama is inheriting a recession) and the cost of 9/11.

Now, the deficit did balloon significantly under Bush. It went up to over $400 billion. He and the Republicans spent way too much. But in Bush's second term, it was reigned in significantly, down to $162 billion for FY 2007, the last budget from a Republican Congress. The very first budget from the Democrats, FY 2008, more than doubled the deficit, to over $400 billion.

And now the projected deficit is triple that, to $1.2 trillion. Some think it will be as much as $1.6 trillion or more. This is ten times the last Republican budget deficit, and four times the current deficit.

I am not blaming the Democrats specifically. I am, rather, saying simply two things: first, that the surplus was decreasing when Bush took office; and second, that the President is not primarily responsible for the budget anyway: the Congress is. The Republican Congress was to blame for massive deficits in Bush's first term, and the Democrats are to blame for the massive deficit of FY 2008, and for much of the massive deficits to follow.

Oh, and no, Bush and the Republicans are not primarily responsible for the current recession, either, but that's another story.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Recap on History of Budget

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, and no, Bush and the Republicans are not primarily responsible for the current recession, either, but that's another story.

    I laughed my butt off when I heard Bill Clinton say that the whole mortgage crisis needed to be handled right away (or some such language). I think he meant to say "The mortgage crisis I created needs to be handled right away."

    So that's one part of it.

    I'm interested in reading your thoughts on what the other causes are? Unions (part of it), greed (the greed of the few on Wall Street who've contributed to job losses), etc, all play a part.

    • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

      The cause of the recession is multifaceted and pretty much everyone except for Ron Paul is to blame. :-)

      • While I only weigh in around 2.5 on a 5 point Rand scale, I did find this notable:
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html [wsj.com]
        • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

          I've never read Atlas Shrugged. Maybe I should.

          Or maybe doing so will stop me from reading anything else ever again. [southparkstudios.com]

          Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical. But, then, I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I will never read again!

          • You can safely go with a cliff notes version.
            While Rand critiques (an arguably distorted form of ) socialism well,
            her atheism is a bore and her grasp of sexuality is bizarre.
            • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

              I am thinking of reading King's Dark Tower series soon. I don't read much fiction at all. I am very selective. I think the last fiction novel I read was when I re-read Lord of the Rings when the movies came out. Maybe there was something in there I am forgetting.

              I have done a few fiction novels as audiobooks though. Holy crap ... 52 hours?! Unabridged Neal Stephenson (Diamond Age) was only 18 hours!! That's insane.

              • I know it doesn't amount to much as an anonymous opinion on the internet, but the Dark Tower series was one of my favorite pieces of fiction I've read in quite some time. It was (unknown to me at the time) unfinished when I started reading it. And there was the unpublished seventh book left when I finished the sixth. And I thought, I hope he doesn't die before finishing the series.

            • by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

              I meant, Atlas Shrugged is 52 hours, not Dark Tower.

          • by mgessner ( 46612 )

            Atlas Shrugged IS worth reading -- she has liberalism and its destructiveness nailed down very well.

            I agree with the other poster who said her atheism is boring, but the sex wasn't too bad :)

            She was very much well ahead of her time.

            More than once since Hussein Obama was elected have I mentioned to someone that it feels like Atlas Shrugged coming to fruition.

      • The cause of the recession is multifaceted and pretty much everyone except for Ron Paul is to blame. :-)

        No question many causes & lots of blame to go around. But if anyone could explain one good reason why we are putting two of the individuals most responsible, Franks & Dodd, in the position of being in charge of fixing things I'd really appreciate it.

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.

Working...