The $106 Trillion deficit

[Junior]

Most conservatives I know did not like Bush because of his spending.

 

Now, if you are talking about the "come to Jesus" moment for the Republicans in Washington, then I agree.

 

Yea, it isn't like conservatives put up billboards asking if people missed GWB.

 

Oh wait.... they did.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Most conservatives I know did not like Bush because of his spending.

 

Now, if you are talking about the "come to Jesus" moment for the Republicans in Washington, then I agree.

 

Yea, it isn't like conservatives put up billboards asking if people missed GWB.

 

Oh wait.... they did.

 

 

 

Hmmm....now....do you really think that was put up by run of the mill conservatives or do you think that was put up by some political action group?

[BigRedBuster]

Most conservatives I know did not like Bush because of his spending.

Which conservatives did you know?

 

George W. Bush remains popular among conservative Republicans (72% approve of him) despite his low overall approval rating. Meanwhile, moderate and liberal Republicans are as likely to disapprove as to approve of the job he is doing, and Democrats of all political orientations hold Bush in low regard. [December 2008]

http://www.gallup.co...pport-bush.aspx

 

 

I know a lot of conservatives that supported a lot of what he did but did not support his fiscal policies.

[carlfense]

I know a lot of conservatives that supported a lot of what he did but did not support his fiscal policies.

I sure don't remember many complaints from conservatives while he was in office . . .

 

Subsequently, I remember a lot of howls about "Bush blaming."

[BigRedBuster]

You should have been on the board I was on when he was in office. It was dominated by conservatives and we were constantly complaining about him. In fact, I know several of the people on that board registered independent mainly from issues from the Bush years.

[Someone]

When the original article wants to score political points instead of being truthful and factual, people sometime make false assumptions about what it is saying.

 

Here are some facts that are missing from the article.

 

The "president’s position that $4 trillion in deficit reduction would basically solve the problem for now" comment is refering proposed deficit reduction over the next 10 years.

10 years[/url], bringing total deficit reduction to $4.3 trillion.

 

The projected deficit over the next 10 years, according to the REPUBLICAN Senate numbers that the article links to, projects either a 6.3 trillion or 7.0 trillion deficit in the next 10 years.

 

If the article was fair and balanced it might read this way:

 

"$4 trillion? Try $6.65 trillion, the average of the 2 estimates. That’s $6,650,000,000,000. Even the lowest, extremely conservative estimate comes in at $6.3 trillion; the highest is over $7 trillion."

 

If the article overstates that GAP between WH and GOP estimated deficits by 4400% (that is 44 times more than the actual gap is) then the FACTUAL data should soften the statement below, since the challenge is 44 times less difficult that origninally assumed.

 

 

"Based on this article, it would appear our economy is facing a much stiffer challenge in the future than has been indicated by some ten year CBO projections."

 

 

UPDATE: Fiscal YTD number show a 26% reduction in the projected deficit this year. If those numbers hold, we would need a 4.X Trillion solution to stop the deficit.

 

Yes, if you only look at the first ten year period of the GOP deficit projection, the apples to apples numbers are about $4T to $6T or $7T. the way the article presented the information is a little dishonest in that regard. However, I will stick by the statement that we face a stiffer challenge than what the CBO is predicting and what the Obama WH seems to be relying on. $4T up to $6.5T is still a huge increase and large difference. 163% or $2,500,000,000.00 machts nicht, I don't think those figures are anything to poo poo under the rug. I also still stand by the thought that these bozos in DC should be using a longer timeline than ten years. The anticipated Medicare increases and large numbers of new retirees will have a detrimental effect on the deficit and much of this starts being realized after that initial ten year window. If we know it's coming, why cut off projections at only ten years and use that partial information as a basis for spending more money than we have?

 

A trillion dollars is almost impossible to comprehend. When you are looking at having to cut $4T or $7T or $100T, I do not believe you can start on that process soon enough. Those are just unfathomable numbers.

As I stated, the Fiscal YTD numbers out this week show that the deficit for this year is running 26% below what was projected. If you lower the tainted, bias Republican Senate projections by 26%, you will see that the SPECIFIC CUTS/CHANGES offered by the White House are almost bring the 10 year projected deficit to $0.

 

Yet I don't see you endorsing the either the White House plan, or any other plan. Rather, you seem content to complain that leaders would govern.

[carlfense]

You should have been on the board I was on when he was in office. It was dominated by conservatives and we were constantly complaining about him. In fact, I know several of the people on that board registered independent mainly from issues from the Bush years.

Polling of conservatives when Bush was in office and now (when his popularity amongst conservatives is increasing) seems to contradict your anecdotal observations.

[BigRedBuster]

So????

 

I made a comment about "conservatives I know".

[carlfense]

So????

 

I made a comment about "conservatives I know".

Why so defensive? I've no doubt that what you're saying is completely true. I'm just pointing out that the bigger picture looks to be quite different than your experience.

[Someone]

The facts speak from themselves.

[TGHusker]

You should have been on the board I was on when he was in office. It was dominated by conservatives and we were constantly complaining about him. In fact, I know several of the people on that board registered independent mainly from issues from the Bush years.

Polling of conservatives when Bush was in office and now (when his popularity amongst conservatives is increasing) seems to contradict your anecdotal observations.

Perhaps Obama's bigger spending makes Bush more popular in comparison. I also know a lot of conservatives upset wt Bush's economic policies. While the Tea Party movement became a visible organization during Obama's first term, the seeds were planted under Bush.

[carlfense]

Perhaps Obama's bigger spending makes Bush more popular in comparison. I also know a lot of conservatives upset wt Bush's economic policies. While the Tea Party movement became a visible organization during Obama's first term, the seeds were planted under Bush.

We judge that both of those claims are wrong on the facts.

 

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

 

That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

http://www.factcheck...inferno-or-not/

 

Again . . . conservatives were awfully quiet about that upward trend line (not to mention turning a surplus into a massive deficit) when Bush was in office. After Obama was elected . . . shockingly! . . . it was suddenly an enormous issue.

[JJ Husker]

 

I sure don't remember many complaints from conservatives while he was in office . . .

 

Subsequently, I remember a lot of howls about "Bush blaming."

 

 

And there aren't a lot of howls about Obama blaming now?

[carlfense]

 

I sure don't remember many complaints from conservatives while he was in office . . .

 

Subsequently, I remember a lot of howls about "Bush blaming."

 

 

And there aren't a lot of howls about Obama blaming now?

That's carries quite the different tone, doesn't it?

 

Still funny.

[carlfense]

Regarding that 30 year projection . . .

Take the budget. Politico reports that “White House chief of staff Denis McDonough privately met with more than a dozen Senate Republicans who outlined their view of the budget picture over the next three decades instead of over the 10-year window.”

 

The political calculus behind this is clear: The budget deficit looks much worse over 30 years than it does over 10, lending urgency to Republican efforts to cut federal spending. But the implied confidence in the government’s powers of prognostication is extraordinary.

 

Consider the budget projections of just the past few years. In 2001, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the government would wipe out its debt in 2006 and be $2.3 trillion in the black by 2011. But after a recession, the Bush tax cuts, 9/11, two wars and the financial crisis, the reality was rather different: We were $10.1 trillion in the red.

 

Projections can go awry over even much shorter time periods. Between February and May of this year, the CBO revised its deficit estimates down by $600 billion over the next decade.

 

If we can’t get 10-year, and even one-year, projections right, how can anyone possibly believe that 30-year projections will be worth the paper they’re printed on?

http://www.washingto...big-government/