deficit on Jan 17, 2009: $1.44 T (10.2% of GDP)
Friday, May 13, 2011
Deficit Now Lower Than When Bush Left Office
The federal deficit is certainly a problem, but here's something interesting: the present federal deficit is now lower than it was at the conclusion of the Bush II presidency:
today's deficit: $1.38 T (9.2% of GDP)
deficit on Jan 17, 2009: $1.44 T (10.2% of GDP)
deficit on Jan 17, 2009: $1.44 T (10.2% of GDP)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Yes, on a monthly basis the craziness started under Bush. However, on a yearly basis it's not even close.
I believe the end of Bush term deficit (driven by the band bailouts) was a mistake. However, the scary thing is it has remained just as high under Obama and is projected to remain just as high under Obama.
In 2006 the Dems gained control of congress. All money bills originate in the house. The house drives government spending, taxing, and deficits.
In 2008 the dems won control of the house, senate and pres. One could just as easily say the deficit spending started with the election of a democratic house and was added upon by a demo control of the house, senate, and pres after 2008.
The massive deficits are much more strongly correlated to demo control than rep control of government.
The same can be said for the proposed budgets. Rep Ryan's vs Obama's. Obama's has dramatically higher deficits.
Except the Ryan's budget has absolutely no chance of passing.
Ryan's budget also has a host of very unrealistic assumptions -- Krugman in particular has been diligent about ferreting them out -- so it's hard to even know what his numbers mean.
"Except the Ryan's budget has absolutely no chance of passing."
True, as long as the Dems control the Senate and the WH. Which is consistent with massive deficits due primarily to the Dems unwillingness to control spending and the reps unwillingness to raise taxes.
If the public sees it this way the dems will be out in 2012 and spending will be cut.
> If the public sees it this way
> the dems will be out in 2012
> and spending will be cut.
History suggests otherwise. Rs only complain about the deficit when they're not in the WH, and forget about it when they are. See James Fallows at http://is.gd/TR6Nk0
That was before the "tea party". No rep can win a primary if they do not cut spending.
My senator Bennett lost because of the tea party and his bailout votes.
But Bennett was from one of the most radical states in the country. Most Americans do not share its views, and any Republican will move to the center once they win a primary. I'm very skeptical that Rs can make much of a dent in the deficit by wholesale hacking away at spending.
Just watch who votes to cut spending and who doesn't. The public is going to notice and will vote in 12.
Here is a fun tool to play with.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=324
I cut spending 30% across the board and raised personal and payroll taxes 20%.
Let me know how you balanced the budget.
Except about 70% of the public doesn't want cuts in Medicare. Even Republicans have been backing away from such cuts in the last 1-2 weeks.
"The recent Reason-Rupe national telephone survey of 1,200 adults found that over 74 percent of Americans say the federal government should have spending cap that prevents it from spending more than it takes in during a fiscal year. Sixty-four percent of Democrats support implementing a spending cap, as do 76 percent of independents and nearly 85 percent of Republicans."
http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/17/74-percent-of-americans-want-a
Post a Comment