Obama Inherited The Big Debt From Bush - And Response (10)

  • Thursday, August 5, 2010

Recently, a great deal of concern has been expressed over our deficits. Letters usually blame President Obama or the Democrats for the debt, but fail to address the underlying reason for our staggering deficits: President Bush’s and the Republican party’s tax cuts for the rich and our two wars.

We did not enter into a deficit at noon on 1/20/2009, rather we inherited it from Republican policies. They accounted for over $ 500 billion in 2009 deficits, and will account for almost $ 7 trillion from 2009-2019. Were it not for these two disastrous policies coupled with the economic downturn, we would have a manageable debt and be close to a balanced budget.

When President Clinton left office he handed a budget surplus of $127 billion to President Bush. If we had continued with his economic course, Clinton predicted we would be debt free by 2010.

The tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year are set to expire in December 2010. These cuts affect a few people. If we eliminate them, we can pay down our huge budget deficit. If we don’t, we shouldn’t complain about the debt. This is our choice, if we want peace and prosperity.

Sandy Lusk
Signal Mountain

* * *

Just want to clarify something. The Democratic Party has controlled both houses for the last six years. Since they have taken over the Presidency, along with keeping control of both houses of Congress, the debt and unemployment are escalating at a record rate. This cannot be disputed. Please use a little common sense and look at reality.

PS. The last term of Bush was a lame duck term. He was practically powerless, and Democrats had complete power his last two years.

Joe Blevins
Guild, Tn.

* * *

Sandy, Sandy, Sandy…

Your pandering to the wealth-envy crowd just makes me sad.

Yes, Bush and the Republicans spent like drunken Democrats for 8 years. I will not dispute that fact.

You imply, however, that the tax cuts were ONLY for the rich. I guess that is why they call this the “opinion” section. Facts need not apply.

As I recall, the tax cuts (if you can call it a cut to someone that gets back more than is withheld) were across the board. I will almost bet that if you look at the percentage reduction in the tax rate, the “poor” people got a larger reduction than your hated “rich” people did. This amounts to yet another hidden social program. Too bad it was done by a Republican, or I bet you would like it.

Getting rid of unnecessary spending on social programs would greatly reduce the financial burden placed on us by the vote-buying morons in Washington. I would also like to see how much we could reduce the size of our government by simplifying the tax code. It may even serve to reduce the number of people moving money outside of the US to escape an onerous tax system. Imagine how much economic growth we could see by allowing all of that capital to be infused into our economy. Just think of the social programs you could afford to have….

Robert Harvey
Chattanooga

* * *

The Democrats didn't take control of both houses of Congress until 2007. A bill does not become law until the President signs it.

How many spending bills did President Bush veto? Zero.

Most of our deficits are the result of two wars and the Bush tax cuts which favored the wealthy.

Had President Obama not acted quickly to reverse the economic downturn, we'd be in even worse shape than we are now.

It is unbelievable that the Republicans want to continue the tax breaks for the wealthy and the corporations which will explode the deficit even more.

Mary Lane
Chattanooga

* * *

When President Bush left office the total debt was $5.7 trillion - within the first 18 months of President Obama's term in office the national debt soared to over $13 trillion - Just do the math. All revenue bills must begin in the U.S. House of Representatives. It's time this administration take responsibility for its outrageous spending. All the discussions about tax increases will not cause individuals and business to hire anybody. The "Blame Bush" tactic is running out of steam fast.

Joe Bryant

* * *

How is it that facts and economics escape you people? Let’s look at the numbers.

At end of the fiscal year for the government, which is September 30, the national debt was..

$8.5 trillion in 2006
$9.0 trillion in 2007
$10 trillion in 2008
$11.9 trillion in 2009
$13.4 trillion as of today. It could hit $14 trillion by the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

Considering that the Democrats took over Congress, which spends money, in January 2007 the national debt has increased by almost $4 trillion dollars since then. It has increased by $1.5 trillion just since the Obama regime took over. We are not in debt because of tax cuts. We are in debt because of spending. The Republicans spent too much money from 2001 until 2006. The Democrats have spent themselves into insanity since 2007.

You never, and we have never historically, gone into debt by cutting taxes. I know facts are easy to ignore or a poor education could be to blame, but when Reagan cut taxes in the face of the Carter Recession the economy exploded in growth. And please don’t reference Bill Clinton and his promises. He also promised to be faithful to his wife, and we saw were that led.

Johnny Franks

* * *

In reality, Mr Harvey, the poor, as you refer to those of us earning less than $250,000.00 a year, never saw a single tax cut under Bush Jr. Instead, we were required to pay a higher percentage of tax, to income, than one of those folks you seem to insist we are envying. Those earning over a quarter of a million dollars a year had their tax lowered to the lowest percentage in my lifetime. If you recall, even Warren Buffett spoke about his secretary paying more in taxes than he did.

Those of us earning less than a quarter of a million dollars a year got our first tax break in over 13 years when Obama took office. He reduced our taxes as he promised he would do. Naturally, the Republican side of the aisle tried to stop our tax reduction. They are the party of "No" after all. I thought it comical that the Republican party, the stalwarts of low taxes for everyone, opposed a tax cut for middle income America. That really demonstrated what they stood for to me.

The Republican side of the aisle succeeded in defeating, this week, a bill this week which would have helped the responders of 9-11 with their arising health problems. The reason they voted against the bill had nothing to do with having the money to pay for the bill. That is what they have been telling everyone. The real reason they voted against the bill is because there was a clause within the bill that would have closed a tax loophole. This loophole allows corporations and individuals to use a foreign address to escape tax liability. I wonder how many folks around here, working for TVA or Unum, or any other employer, are able to take advantage of that loophole?

The Republicans lost control of the Senate and House in January of 2007. They actually took control under the Gingrich Revolution. Remember when Wamp was elected? We were promised term limits. Every single Republican elected that year promised that one to us. Worked well didn't it? Fact is, they seem good at promising the sky and delivering absolutely nothing.

I quit the Republican party when Dole was nominated to run for President. That is when the extreme right took control of the party. The Jon Birch society, the religious hardliners, and the KKK are all well represented, and dominating the platform within the party now.

Like yourself, I would love to see a flat tax with no deductions. Let everyone pay the same percentage, regardless of their income. With the social security system, do away with the $120,000.00 cap on payments into the system, or at least increase the cap to a more viable amount. We needn't hold our breath waiting on this to happen though.

The Republican party has done a great job of "demonizing" the poor of our society. They prey on the greed we all possess. They also prey on the Hispanic, Muslim, and African American scare. Has the Republican party ever once proposed, and passed, a bill that would improve our society? No, they are too busy trying to protect the elite of our society. Call it "rich envy," or whatever you wish, but the last time I checked, America is made up of people within many different income groups, education levels, and ethnic backgrounds, and the folks in Washington are there to serve each one of us.

Rod Dagnan

* * *

It always amazes me that people continue to harp on the Bush deficits--and yet no one ever mentions the horrendous costs encountered by this nation during and after 9-11 or after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, either.

There is never a mention of the massive federal financial aid distributed to New York, the federal relief funds for victim's families and residents, federal loans to aid small businesses injured by the attack, and federal costs for rebuilding of the Pentagon.

There is never a mention of the necessary increases in our military preparedness and the extensive rebuilding and expansion of military equipment and supplies that saw little attention during the Clinton administration. And no one ever seems to calculate the overhaul in personnel and equipment required after 9-11 by the military, TSA, FEMA, Immigration, FBI, CIA, Border Patrol, Homeland Security, support given to airlines to aid their survival, increased security costs at critical infrastructures across the nation, necessary internet security upgrades, and other essential expenditures not encountered by either Clinton or Obama.

There is never a mention of the massive costs in the Katrina and Rita recoveries, either. Katrina alone was initially calculated to cost more than four years of the war.

Actually, for a U.S. president to leave office with a mere $5.7 trillion dollar deficit in the face of these never-before grave and massive circumstances was pretty darned good in my book, especially when you include a hodge-podge of other expenditures tacked on by a Democrat-controlled Congress. And yet liberals, in their ongoing "Blame Bush" lock step, tend to totally ignore any and all issues that actually involved saving this country and the lives of its people in times of national crisis.

This also made me wonder why so many liberals writing opinion pieces tend to avoid acknowledging those crushing issues that precipitated such massive spending in the first place. Many experts contend that liberals tend to be emotional voters and that conservatives are more practical. But were there other reasons for their failure to recognize simple financial realities when comparing causal events and deficits?

And then I took note of a recent Zogby International survey published in Econ Journal Watch and everything immediately fell into place. No wonder conservative arguments fall on deaf ears. The survey disclosed that self-identified liberals and Democrats did badly on questions involving basic economics.

"Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians?," asked Daniel Klein in an article published in the Wall Street Journal titled: Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics. "According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101," reported Klein.

So how did these six ideological groups do overall in the Zogby test? The report continued, "Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26." In other words, the liberals flunked.

Perhaps conservatives and liberals can now simply step back and appreciate why they will never see eye-to-eye on economic policies--or on presidential term deficits, either.

Mya Lane

* * *

Sandy, where did you get the $127 billion surplus that Clinton left when he "left office?"

The U.S. Treasury shows that Clinton started his presidency with a deficit of $4.6 trillion and left in 2001 with a deficit of $5.7 trillion. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf.

Also, at Answers.com, you will find the following:

"How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

“For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed: $152.3B from Social Security; $30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund; $18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund; $15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; $9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund; $8.2B from Military Retirement Fund; $3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds; $1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund; $7.0B from others.

"Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit. ($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit)."

Jim Ashley
jashley@epbfi.com

* * *

With respect to administration spending and the resulting insurmountable debt, Obama is Bush on steroids.

Bill Holt
Chattanooga

* * *

Mr. Franks, it’s convenient that you left out what the national debt was in 2001 the year President Bush took office—or for that matter in 1981, the year Reagan took over. If you recall, in 2001 the rationale Bush gave to cut taxes was because there was a surplus. Later as the economy suffered, he proclaimed that tax cuts were needed to help the sagging economy. Seems like tax cuts cure all ills.

You might want to do some research before you accuse others of not knowing the facts or lacking an education. The national debt tripled under Reagan’s watch, and before you start saying it was due to spending maybe you can explain why he rolled back the tax increases over 40 percent afterward saying it was to reduce the deficit. There was an excellent op-ed piecel, on-line in the New York Times by his former budget director David Stockman last weekend, titled “Four Deformations of the Apocalypse” that gives great insight on this subject. And no, Stockman is not a liberal, but a staunch conservative, and a realist.

So before you criticize President Obama for trying to fix the mess he was left, and I believe most Americans remember what a disaster that was thrown in his lap, maybe you should do a little research of your own and not rely on the usual cast of characters you see on a particular news channel.

If you remember:

First there were the tax cuts because there was a surplus.
Then we were attacked and the Afgan war began.
Then Bush cut taxes. Cheney declares that “deficits don’t matter.”
Then we invaded Iraq. Bushes says "he tried to kill my Daddy."
Then Medicare part ‘D’ was signed into law right before the election with no way to pay for it.
More tax cuts in 2005 and 2006.
2008 Bush pushed through a 700 billion bailout the rescue the sagging economy.

Don’t blame President Obama for trying to fix our country. We’ve already tried it your way.

Steven Perry

Opinion
Democratic View On Top State Senate Issues - March 27, 2024
  • 3/27/2024

Gov. Lee reveals $797M of new spending, but withholds funding for legislature’s voucher proposals View the Lee Administration’s Budget Amendment — The Lee Administration made its last revisions ... more

UTC: Cradle Of Coaches
  • 3/27/2024

Given recent events, the UTC Athletic Department should put up a billboard or start a marketing campaign with the following message: "UTC: Cradle of Coaches" Michelle Rogers more

Education: A Brighter Future For All
  • 3/26/2024

Education is one of the critical pillars of the American dream, providing hope and opportunity. Our organization has worked hard to shape education policy because it invites innovation and encourages ... more