Whose Debt Is It? It's George W, Bush's

Who's Responsible For The Debt?
Overwhelmingly: the GOP and Bush, a fact the vast majority of the right simply ignored for the past eight years. Leonhardt lays out the facts that Glenn Reynolds and his fellow partisans keep denying:

David's bottom line:

Quote :

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

It is not Obama's debt - or, rather, he owns about 10 percent of it. It's Bush's. And like everything Bush did, he left the wreckage for others to handle after he left the stage. And the bribing, war-making, spending and borrowing didn't even win him any durable popularity. They sold this country, its reputation and its treasure for a one-off re-election.

While I make no excuse for Bush running up debt you fail to see that Obama has doubled all the debt Bush racked up in 8 years and he's done it in less than 11 months!

Artie60438 wrote:

Who's Responsible For The Debt?
Overwhelmingly: the GOP and Bush, a fact the vast majority of the right simply ignored for the past eight years. Leonhardt lays out the facts that Glenn Reynolds and his fellow partisans keep denying:

David's bottom line:

Quote :

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 peObama's Stimulus/Health Care/rcent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

It is not Obama's debt - or, rather, he owns about 10 percent of it. It's Bush's. And like everything Bush did, he left the wreckage for others to handle after he left the stage. And the bribing, war-making, spending and borrowing didn't even win him any durable popularity. They sold this country, its reputation and its treasure for a one-off re-election.

You have GOT to be kidding! Obama's Stimulus/Health Care/Cap & Trade policies (if adopted) will bankrupt this country. Obama only cares about WELFARE and HANDOUTS, and that will be his one-term legacy.

The way Obama & the Dems are doing I wonder if there will be a country left to fight for come election time.

I say we throw all the bums out and start over.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Obama only cares about WELFARE and HANDOUTS, and that will be his one-term legacy.

Keep dreaming. There isn't one Republican capable of defeating him if an election were held today.

Passion wrote:

While I make no excuse for Bush running up debt you fail to see that Obama has doubled all the debt Bush racked up in 8 years and he's done it in less than 11 months!

As has been stated before, the 2009 budget was drafted under the Bush Administration. 2009 was "year 8." The final Bush budget deficit (prior to the stimulus package) was $1.3 trillion.

The only part of this year's deficit that rightly "belongs" to Obama is the stimulus package.

So to be anywhere near to be being correct, your statement should say that "Bush doubled all the debt that he racked up in 7 years... in his last year in office."

The budget for 2010 will be Obama's first budget. That's a frickin' fact, no matter how much you try to spin it.

Scorpion wrote:

The budget for 2010 will be Obama's first budget. That's a frickin' fact, no matter how much you try to spin it.

George Bush's budget, which by the way, was approved by the current Democratic Congress, has been blown out of the water by Obama and the same Democratic Congress, which approved the Welfare and Handouts policies.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

The budget for 2010 will be Obama's first budget. That's a frickin' fact, no matter how much you try to spin it.

George Bush's budget, which by the way, was approved by the current Democratic Congress, has been blown out of the water by Obama and the same Democratic Congress, which approved the Welfare and Handouts policies.

Nope. Bush's 2009 budget was passed by the last Congress when Dems had a much narrower majority.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

The budget for 2010 will be Obama's first budget. That's a frickin' fact, no matter how much you try to spin it.

George Bush's budget, which by the way, was approved by the current Democratic Congress, has been blown out of the water by Obama and the same Democratic Congress, which approved the Welfare and Handouts policies.

The stimulus package added roughly 400 billion to this year's deficit. Bush's contribution was 1.3 trillion. Add in the stimulus package and it brings us to 1.7 trillion. I agree that's a whole lot of debt, but it's disingenuous to pretend that it's because of President Obama.

What exactly, are the "welfare and handouts policies" that you keep going on about? Do you have something specific that you object to?

Scorpion wrote:

What exactly, are the "welfare and handouts policies" that you keep going on about? Do you have something specific that you object to?

AIG, Citi, General Motors, Stimulus No.1, ObamaCare (if it is adopted) and the fact that over 43% of the children in this country are fed with Food Cards. It's tax the rich and hand it over to the lazy.

Yeah. Those out of work starving kids just need to get a f**king job.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

What exactly, are the "welfare and handouts policies" that you keep going on about? Do you have something specific that you object to?

AIG, Citi, General Motors, Stimulus No.1, ObamaCare (if it is adopted) and the fact that over 43% of the children in this country are fed with Food Cards. It's tax the rich and hand it over to the lazy.

Yeah, well the financial collapse occurred under Bush's watch. So did the "bailouts." I guess we found out what happens when a "free market" system is allowed to do whatever the hell it wants without any meaningful oversight.

I don't think that this administration had any good options regarding GM either... I don't think that there is any question that the entire infrastructure that supports the auto industry in this country would have collapsed if no action was taken. Ford didn't take any government money, but fully supports the help that its competitor received, because Ford's own future depends upon the survival of the same companies that supply GM.

The "Stimulus package" also contained one of the biggest tax cuts in our history. Did you oppose that as well?

I'd like to know why you oppose what you call "Obamacare." The last time I checked, the CBO was projecting a decrease in the deficit if health insurance reform passes.

I agree that it's unacceptable that 43% of the nation's children are being fed with "food cards." But you certainly can't blame Obama for the fact that poverty exists in our country, at least not yet. It sounds like you favor cutting the food stamp program. We have an extremely high unemployment rate. Are you saying that all the workers who lost their jobs are lazy? Should we let the children of impoverished people starve? Is that what you're advocating?

I know of a family on food stamps, that bought a brand new Toyota earlier this year, at payments of $375 a month. As long as you are making payments, they do not consider the car yours, and it does not count as an asset for food stamp elegibility. The father works full time at $9.50 an hour. They get $410 a month in food stamps. If you can afford to go out and buy a new car with payments of $375 a month, plus the higher plate and insurance costs, you do not need $410 a month in food stamps.

Tiger1 wrote:

I know of a family on food stamps, that bought a brand new Toyota earlier this year, at payments of $375 a month. As long as you are making payments, they do not consider the car yours, and it does not count as an asset for food stamp elegibility. The father works full time at $9.50 an hour. They get $410 a month in food stamps. If you can afford to go out and buy a new car with payments of $375 a month, plus the higher plate and insurance costs, you do not need $410 a month in food stamps.

So in other words, if this guy is working full time, he's only making $19,000 a year. Probably doesn't even have benefits.

That's well below the poverty level for a family of four. How many kids does he have?

Yeah, let's really put the screws to him and make it so he has to drive a old beater around too. Let's make sure that the poor don't have any assets at all while we're at it, eh? Doesn't matter if you're working or not, if you're poor, and can't feed your family,we will decide what you can and can't afford.

And that's assuming he and his family are perfectly healthy, free of any injuries, disabilities, or ailments, and in no need of regular doctor visits or prescriptions, which will be expensive even if he does have benefits.

What were the terms of the loan, since you seem to be privy to so much of this individual's personal information? Was it some tricked out, top of the line Toyota? Or a standard with a shitacular loan and little down?

Top of the line Toyota. Family gets medicaid. They had a nice newer used car that was paid for. He lost control of it, and it was totaled. The insurance company paid them for it. Plenty of money to get a newer used replacement. Put the money down on the new Toyota, which cost $25,000. They get the earned income credit. Got $6,000 last year. They got a big screen TV. Family of 4, parents and 2 kids. No one on meds. IMO, financially irresponsible, and getting government handouts.

Tiger1 wrote:

They get the earned income credit. Got $6,000 last year. They got a big screen TV. Family of 4, parents and 2 kids. No one on meds. IMO, financially irresponsible, and getting government handouts.

Yeah, well the "$6000 that they got last year' must have been their tax refund because the EIC was capped at $5028 last year. See for yourself...

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040a.pdf

For some reason, you don't seem to grasp the concept of the "Poverty Level." You can't raise kids properly making $9.50 an hour. The children need good food and adequate health care, or it's going to cost us all much, much more in the long run.

What do you expect them to do with the refund? Save it? From what I've read, they can't, because that would count as an asset and get them thrown out of the food assistance program. Maybe they spent some of the money on the car loan as well. How would you know?

IMHO, people who work for a living deserve to have a decent quality of life. The EIC is designed to incentivize work for those mired in poverty, and this family is a prime example of why it's such a great program.

There is nothing "financially irresponsible" about claiming the tax credits that one is entitled to... that certainly is not a "government handout."

In my opinion, what somebody does with their IRS refund is their own business, not yours. I'm hoping that you're not friends with these people, because friends aren't supposed to harbor such ill will towards each other.

Scorpion wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

They get the earned income credit. Got $6,000 last year. They got a big screen TV. Family of 4, parents and 2 kids. No one on meds. IMO, financially irresponsible, and getting government handouts.

Yeah, well the "$6000 that they got last year' must have been their tax refund because the EIC was capped at $5028 last year. See for yourself...

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040a.pdf

For some reason, you don't seem to grasp the concept of the "Poverty Level." You can't raise kids properly making $9.50 an hour. The children need good food and adequate health care, or it's going to cost us all much, much more in the long run.

What do you expect them to do with the refund? Save it? From what I've read, they can't, because that would count as an asset and get them thrown out of the food assistance program. Maybe they spent some of the money on the car loan as well. How would you know?

IMHO, people who work for a living deserve to have a decent quality of life. The EIC is designed to incentivize work for those mired in poverty, and this family is a prime example of why it's such a great program.

There is nothing "financially irresponsible" about claiming the tax credits that one is entitled to... that certainly is not a "government handout."

In my opinion, what somebody does with their IRS refund is their own business, not yours. I'm hoping that you're not friends with these people, because friends aren't supposed to harbor such ill will towards each other.

I harbour no ill towards anyone, but if someone can afford to go out and buy a new car with hefty payments while they are getting public assistance, there is definately something wrong. If people are getting public assistance, they should also be required to have financial counseling, to help them improve their situation. The $375 a month car payment could have been used for better things.

Tiger1 wrote:

I harbour no ill towards anyone, but if someone can afford to go out and buy a new car with hefty payments while they are getting public assistance, there is definately something wrong. If people are getting public assistance, they should also be required to have financial counseling, to help them improve their situation. The $375 a month car payment could have been used for better things.

Like what? It would be great if they could save some money, but the current asset limit rules don't allow it. Doesn't seem like these folks need any financial counseling. They seem to be doing fine, given their circumstances.

What needs to be changed are the asset limits. Did you know that in Indiana, a family even has to spend down their IRA in order to qualify for assistance? That's just wrong, and any financial planner would certainly advise against depleting retirement savings.

http://www.retirementsecurityproject.org/pubs/File/RSP-FoodStamp_4.pdf

Quote :

Food Stamp Asset Tests Discourage Saving and are Outdated

Research suggests that asset limits on Food Stamps and other means-tested programs discourage saving among moderate- and low-income workers. There are two ways in which this can happen:

• While receiving Food Stamps, families do not save because saving would disqualify them from receiving monthly benefits.

• Working families who might expect to rely on Food Stamps or other assistance programs at some point do not save because doing so would disqualify them in the future (or they think it would disqualify them).

Those moderate- and low-income workers that do not avoid saving in the first place are penalized by either ineligibility for Food Stamps or by having to spend down assets in order to qualify. Rather than encouraging people to save and rewarding those who do, asset limits do just the opposite.

So I ask you, given the rules for participation in the food assistance program, what could this family do differently that would satisfy you?

Scorpion wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

I harbour no ill towards anyone, but if someone can afford to go out and buy a new car with hefty payments while they are getting public assistance, there is definately something wrong. If people are getting public assistance, they should also be required to have financial counseling, to help them improve their situation. The $375 a month car payment could have been used for better things.

Like what? It would be great if they could save some money, but the current asset limit rules don't allow it. Doesn't seem like these folks need any financial counseling. They seem to be doing fine, given their circumstances.

What needs to be changed are the asset limits. Did you know that in Indiana, a family even has to spend down their IRA in order to qualify for assistance? That's just wrong, and any financial planner would certainly advise against depleting retirement savings.

http://www.retirementsecurityproject.org/pubs/File/RSP-FoodStamp_4.pdf

Quote :

Food Stamp Asset Tests Discourage Saving and are Outdated

Research suggests that asset limits on Food Stamps and other means-tested programs discourage saving among moderate- and low-income workers. There are two ways in which this can happen:

• While receiving Food Stamps, families do not save because saving would disqualify them from receiving monthly benefits.

• Working families who might expect to rely on Food Stamps or other assistance programs at some point do not save because doing so would disqualify them in the future (or they think it would disqualify them).

Those moderate- and low-income workers that do not avoid saving in the first place are penalized by either ineligibility for Food Stamps or by having to spend down assets in order to qualify. Rather than encouraging people to save and rewarding those who do, asset limits do just the opposite.

So I ask you, given the rules for participation in the food assistance program, what could this family do differently that would satisfy you?

They could have got a house for a lot cheaper than half of their rent, for starters. That $6,000 used as a down payment for a house would have got them a starter home. 2nd, $410 in food stamps a month,minus the $375 car payment and the extra cost of insurance and plates. You go add it up. Bottom line, they are getting a new car for free because the taxpayers are covering their groceries.

Tiger1 wrote:

They could have got a house for a lot cheaper than half of their rent, for starters. That $6,000 used as a down payment for a house would have got them a starter home. 2nd, $410 in food stamps a month,minus the $375 car payment and the extra cost of insurance and plates. You go add it up. Bottom line, they are getting a new car for free because the taxpayers are covering their groceries.

Yeah, well I have "added it up." After withholding and payroll taxes (Social security and Medicare) they're bringing home roughly $1200 or so a month. It would be the height of irresponsibility to purchase a home of any kind, even if they could find somebody to give them a mortgage. BTW - They really shouldn't qualify for a mortgage. That kind of lending is part of what got us into the sub-prime mortgage mess in the first place.

What happens if the father loses his job? They could sell the car fairly easily, or worse case, it could get taken away by the bank. But it's one thing to have one's car re-possessed. It's quite another to default on a mortgage and lose everything, including their down payment. IMHO, your idea is asinine.

And if you can't see the wisdom in providing food and medical assistance to a family that is clearly below the Poverty Line, then I don't know what to say to you. It's not like this father is a "lay about." He goes to work every day to support his family as best he can... They qualify for assistance because they are poor, period.

I honestly don't know why you have a problem grasping that simple fact.

Scorpion wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

They could have got a house for a lot cheaper than half of their rent, for starters. That $6,000 used as a down payment for a house would have got them a starter home. 2nd, $410 in food stamps a month,minus the $375 car payment and the extra cost of insurance and plates. You go add it up. Bottom line, they are getting a new car for free because the taxpayers are covering their groceries.

Yeah, well I have "added it up." After withholding and payroll taxes (Social security and Medicare) they're bringing home roughly $1200 or so a month. It would be the height of irresponsibility to purchase a home of any kind, even if they could find somebody to give them a mortgage. BTW - They really shouldn't qualify for a mortgage. That kind of lending is part of what got us into the sub-prime mortgage mess in the first place.

What happens if the father loses his job? They could sell the car fairly easily, or worse case, it could get taken away by the bank. But it's one thing to have one's car re-possessed. It's quite another to default on a mortgage and lose everything, including their down payment. IMHO, your idea is asinine.

And if you can't see the wisdom in providing food and medical assistance to a family that is clearly below the Poverty Line, then I don't know what to say to you. It's not like this father is a "lay about." He goes to work every day to support his family as best he can... They qualify for assistance because they are poor, period.

I honestly don't know why you have a problem grasping that simple fact.

You obviously do not get my point on this. I am all for helping those who need it, but I don't think that the taxpayers should pick up someones grocery tab so they can go out and buy a brand new car.
Speaking of the new car, on your example of a house loan, what financial institution in their right mind is going to give a car loan of $375 a month to someone with that low of an income? Their rent alone is $700 a month plus utilities.

Poor people shouldn't have nice things!!

That's B.S. Heretic.