Who's to Blame for the Deficit Numbers?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Would you accept a conservative think-tank website? I don't think so. So why do you expect everyone else to accept a liberal think-tank?

Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan think tank.

Should we try and find another nonpartisan think tank that you would accept as truly nonpartisan and strictly factual?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How about the Brookings Institute?

Deficit: What Caused It, Why It Matters

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Would you accept a conservative think-tank website? I don't think so. So why do you expect everyone else to accept a liberal think-tank?

Center for American Progress calls themselves a nonpartisan think tank.

Should we try and find another nonpartisan think tank that you would accept as truly nonpartisan and strictly factual?

Fixxored.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it's rather easier simply to say that something is biased, rather than to demonstrate exactly how it is biased.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think it's rather easier simply to say that something is biased, rather than to demonstrate exactly how it is biased.

Please don't derail this topic.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think it's rather easier simply to say that something is biased, rather than to demonstrate exactly how it is biased.

Biased? Maybe. Flawed? Definitely. We are talking John Podesta here, are we not?

Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Located in Washington, D.C., the Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Citing the significant number of its staff and former staff that have been appointed to positions in the Obama Administration, Time magazine recently declared that there is "no group in Washington with more influence at this moment in history."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah but that's the same lazy argument isn't it - lets not look at what is being presented, but rather who is doing the presenting.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Would you accept a conservative think-tank website? I don't think so. So why do you expect everyone else to accept a liberal think-tank?

Center for American Progress calls themselves a nonpartisan think tank.

Should we try and find another nonpartisan think tank that you would accept as truly nonpartisan and strictly factual?

Fixxored.

Bill, we don't need think tanks to tell us that the numbers went south when Bush was in office and looking at his key policies - two wars, huge tax cut for the wealthy, and expansion of Medicare without the money to pay for it, all contributed to the growing deficit. Bush followed the same economic philosophy of Reagan - believing that the deficit is not an important issue as long as the economy continues to grow. I'm sure you are familiar with Reaganomics.

[alienlovechild 75]

Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan think tank.

That's not what the CAP website says:

"American Progress’ mission in California is to advance and support a progressive national policy agenda and lay out our vision of a progressive America. The initial goals of the California office are to: 1) broaden American Progress’ policy development by drawing on ideas from California, a state often at the leading edge of progressive policy; 2) develop relationships with and actively engage influential audiences who shape the public and policy debate; 3) broaden awareness of American Progress and our progressive vision to help build a robust progressive movement beyond the beltway; and 4) expand American Progress’ donor base to ensure that we are building lasting institutional support for progressive change."

http://www.americanprogress.org/aboutus

That nonpartisan ####### is for tax purposes so they can claim 501 c3 status as "charities".

How about these nonpartisan organizations:

Alabama Senate Conservative Caucus for Educational & Leadership Found Anniston AL USA --

American Conservative Film Festival Inc. Shepherdstown WV USA --

American Conservative Union Foundation Alexandria VA USA --

Conservative Agenda Project Washington DC USA --

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Obama's 09 deficit exceeds all eight years of Bush red ink

By: Mark Tapscott

Editorial Page Editor

08/25/09 3:08 PM EDT

How much is President Obama boosting federal spending? The Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl puts a little perspective on the numbers made public today:

· This year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household. This spending is not just temporary: President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President Bush.

· The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.

· The 2009 budget deficit will be larger than all budget deficits from 2002 through 2007 combined. More than 43 cents of every dollar Washington spends in 2009 will have been borrowed.

· One would expect the post-recession deficit to revert back to the $150 billion to $350 billion budget deficits that were typical before the recession. Instead, by 2019, the President forecasts a $917 billion budget deficit, a public debt of 77 percent of GDP, and annual net interest spending of $774 billion.

· The White House projects $10.6 trillion in new deficits between 2009 and 2019—nearly $80,000 per household in new borrowing.

· None of these estimates include the cost of health reform.

· The White House underestimates future budget deficits by trillions of dollars by (1) assuming that discretionary spending will be frozen to inflation for the next decade, (2) assuming that cap-and-trade revenues will be available to finance a Make Work Pay credit (the House-passed bill allocates those revenues elsewhere), (3) assuming health care reform will be deficit-neutral, and (4) assuming certain tax increases that are unlikely to be enacted.

There's nothing here that refutes what the Center for the American Progress' report states. The Deficit didn't just appear on the Right's radar after the election as many Right Wingers would have us believe. The OP explains why the Deficit so high and how it got there. No Right Wing Think Tank can refute Bush's legacy to the current size of the Deficit, nor the amount of his contribution.

[alienlovechild 75]

There's nothing here that refutes what the Center for the American Progress' report states.

It said 40% was attributed to Bush and Obama gets 15% of the blame so far. Obama's off to a real crappy start so it's highly possible he'll outdo Bush in being fiscally irresponsible as the CBO has already repeatedly warned. The CAP supports all the crazy Obama spending so it kind of a laugh to say they have any credibility. Of course they'd sell their own mothers if it would increase spending for their pet projects.

The Deficit didn't just appear on the Right's radar after the election as many Right Wingers would have us believe.

The evil that Obama does lives on after him. Hopefully, he'll be gone by 2012 if we aren't all gone by then.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's nothing here that refutes what the Center for the American Progress' report states.

It said 40% was attributed to Bush and Obama gets 15% of the blame so far. Obama's off to a real crappy start so it's highly possible he'll outdo Bush in being fiscally irresponsible as the CBO has already repeatedly warned. The CAP supports all the crazy Obama spending so it kind of a laugh to say they have any credibility. Of course they'd sell their own mothers if it would increase spending for their pet projects.

The Deficit didn't just appear on the Right's radar after the election as many Right Wingers would have us believe.

The evil that Obama does lives on after him. Hopefully, he'll be gone by 2012 if we aren't all gone by then.

Let me ask you this. It is widely understood that under Reagonomics, the Deficit is not a major concern - and given that 40 percent of the current Deficit was from Bush's policies, why are Right Wingers all up in arms over the Deficit now and not back then? Where were the teabaggers in 2006?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Obama's 09 deficit exceeds all eight years of Bush red ink

National debt when Bush took office: $.5.5 trillion

National debt when Bush left office: $10.5 trillion

Total red Ink under Bush:........... $.5.0 trillion

Obama's 2009 projected deficit:..... $.1.5 trillion

Falling for obviously fuzzy math:.... PRICELESS

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Obama's 09 deficit exceeds all eight years of Bush red ink

National debt when Bush took office: $.5.5 trillion

National debt when Bush left office: $10.5 trillion

Total red Ink under Bush:........... $.5.0 trillion

Obama's 2009 projected deficit:..... $.1.5 trillion

Falling for obviously fuzzy math:.... PRICELESS

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Obama's 09 deficit exceeds all eight years of Bush red ink

National debt when Bush took office: $.5.5 trillion

National debt when Bush left office: $10.5 trillion

Total red Ink under Bush:........... $.5.0 trillion

Obama's 2009 projected deficit:..... $.1.5 trillion

Falling for obviously fuzzy math:.... PRICELESS

0.625 trillion a year for every year bush was in office.

obama - 1.5 trillion in one year. fuzzy math indeed!