Skip to comments.Bush Accomplishments [Budget 2001-2009]
Posted on 01/16/2009 8:01:30 PM PST by lonestar67
Limited the overall size of the Federal Government by restraining non-security spending, simultaneously focusing on key priorities and limiting non-security spending growth to 3 percent, slightly above the rate of inflation.
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehouse.gov ...
I think the key points are these:
discretionary non security spending was held to less than 3% per year-- from 2001-2009. Saying Bush is worse than Clinton is misleading because Clinton cut defense which is not a conservative funding strategy. Bush did hold the line on spending and I think Paleo cons are deliberately cooperating with the Marxists on hiding this from the public.
Bush implemented earmark reforms last year and for the new year. Bush did reduce the deficit down to a less than 2% level of GDP.
The bailout could yield a profit for the government when it is paid back. That is what happened the last time a major bailout like this was done.
Does the senior prescription drug benefit figure in there somewhere? It’s huge.
That's not a small thing.
There is a discussion in the document on page 19:
The key excerpt for me was:
“Projected costs of Part D are lower than originally estimated. Projected net Part D
spending between 2004 and 2013 is approximately $240 billion, or about 38 percent lower, than
originally projected. This decrease is due in part to competition among private plans encouraged
by the Administration. Average Part D premiums in 2008 are 40 percent lower than original
I personally do not think a prescription drug benefit was avoidable as part of medicare. I think Bush implemented a cost control system based on competition that will make it a model for solving future insolvencies in other programs. The program is already coming in under budget projections from its original founding.
The last bailout was much smaller, in relative terms, however. And the last bailout was made back when the culture was to pay such things back. In our handout culture we have today, the bailouts have as much chance of being paid back as I have of running the Boston Marathon in under 2.5 hours.
Good lord people. Give it up. He has been an unmitigated financial disaster. The government will not be making any money on the toxic assets its overpaying for. Be realistic.
We got there primarily by increasing spending on homeland defense, the war on terror, and restoring legitimate funding to our military cut by President Clinton.
For most of his administration the budget was running ahead of schedule to reduce the debt.
At present planning in 2009, the budget will still turn positive in 2012 and begin to again reduce the national debt.
There are a number of reforms implemented by Bush that prevented the Debt from climbing much more due to unregulated spending programs.
No it won’t but the banks will be liable for the funds loaned. They will make up the funds in other investments.
Could I also urge that you give up because I will not.
Similar things were said about the Savings and Loan crisis during the 1980s.
Once again, the naysayers were wrong and America’s financial system was not only restored but it flourished.
We have immediate indications of this in seeing the dollar rise in the midst of this financial crisis. Naysayers have predicted [hoped for because they hate this country] that the dollar would be abandoned as a currency. Moreover, the Chinese would abandon our treasury notes. The same thing again was said of Japan the juggernaut in the 1980s.
All of this naysayiing was false.
In fact, let me be perfectly clear.
Every single catastrophic prediction of the economic end of the United States has been proven diametrically, and exponentially wrong.
Have you lost all sense of reason? Sorry, but you can't just keep adding debt upon debt upon debt and expect there to be no problems. Comparing this issue to the savings and loan problems in the 1980s is specious reasoning, at best, and as for current devaluation of the dollar, the dollar is being saved by the fact of general devaluation (note: the yuan is starting to tank, as well), not by some magical ability for the US dollar to defy the laws of economics.
No, we're most likely not going to see the latest gazillions in bailouts ever paid back. We're going to eat it, and move on. To my knowledge, nobody's predicting the catastrophic end of the US economy. But it does come time to face facts that even the US economy is only so big, and only so much able to absorb stupid economic decision-making before it reacts against the stress it's put under.
Well yes, people who understand economics at least somewhat agree with you. People who don't blithely assume that the lucky rabbit's foot of the American economy is simply going to magically get around all of the unprecedented stress and stupidity with which it has been assault for the past several years, all because "it's never broke before!"
And we got there by spending like crazy. Next someone will come up with pork was not really pork. Sell the BS, some where's else. I'm not buying.
In Bush’s last business day in office(today) the taxpayer plunked another $20 billion into Bank of America and backstopped $120 billion in bad loans...to save them from a dumb acquisition they made...ONLY 3 MONTHS AGO! Bush provided no leadership in economic or domestic policy from day one.
More hyperbolic Bush bashing.
Bush warned beginning in 2002 that Fannie Mae needed more restraint and regulation in lending. Warnings were issued repeated along with specific recommendations for reform.
Barney Frank and others scoffed and mocked these suggestions and blocked their implementation.
I am still curious to know. At what point do any of the naysayers have a burden of proof? There are no empirical examples of catastrophic debt crises swamping the United STates.
The national debt exploded under Reagan. Democrats made exactly the arguments we see in this thread. Guess what? They were flat out wrong.
It is possible for the economy and budget to move in a positive debt reducing direction by 2012. How do we know this?
Because the US economy has done this literally dozens of times.
But no. This time is special. It really is the end. It is the absolute end and all of us are going to just scratch one anothers eyes out and starve to death rather than contribute to a productive growing economy. Its time for everyone to reach that consensus.
Additionally, if I can ask another question . Once we all agree that its completely over, then what.
Do we climb back into our Y2K bunkers? What exactly is the plan once we convince everyone that we are doomed.
There is no empirical evidence for these claims but they must be accepted . That sure is great debating position.
Oh yeah— a wimp like his dad was.
More silly nonsense.
Bin laden is hiding in a cave because Bush is not a wimp.
Saddam is dead because Bush is not a wimp.
Zarqawi met a 500 pd JDAM beecause bush is not a wimp.
Charles Taylor was removed from power because Bush is not a wimp.
More than 500,000 of America’s finest volunteered to fight for the man who is not a loser and not a wimp.
You bang away mindlessly and anonymously at a keyboard because you are free to do so. Bush kept you and your keyboard from being vaporized by people who know what a paper tiger is.
You like real men who rape women like President Clinton?
You are free to do so because President Bush is not a wimp.
Such petty pathetic insults.
Any chance you will develop a back bone in the near future and defend the character of your President?
Its a poor debating point to attribute to me beliefs or comments I didn’t make. You proclaimed Bush to a good fiscal manager. I disputed that, because it is self evident to almost everyone who follows such issues. All other comments you make above about my beliefs are wrong, I didn’t make em, so knock it off.
Good grief. Apparently you were the one that kept slipping that little line into Bush’s speeches ... you know, that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong”.
“Bush provided no leadership in economic or domestic policy from day one.”
That statement is demonstrably false.
Can you handle that?
Fundamentals include things such as:
a healthy work force
an educated work force
an infrastructure capable of delivering goods
a reliable system of communication
And yes, America has some of the best fundamentals in the world on that question.
Its absolutely true. Demontrate his accomplishments in economic or domestic policy.
Did you read any of the material provided as the subject for this thread?
I am going to guess the answer is no.
Did Bush advise and recommend on no less than three occasions 2002, 2005, and 2006 that Congress should adopt tighter controls on Fannie Mae [that’s a government entity that provides a huge number of mortgages]? He actually did do that.
President Bush reduced Congressional earmarks by 18% in 2008.
President Bush dramatically reduced tax rates by 2003. A failure to keep these tax cuts will lead to an average taxpayer increase of $1800 a year by 2010. President Bush pressed for Social SEcurity reform but was rejected by conservatives—so don’t worry Social Security is going to be fine.
Bush provided an economic stimulus check for all taxpayers in 2006.
Would it help if President Bush came to your house and balanced your checkbook for you?
Its bad form to respond to yourself but it has been a long day of the quest.
I have spent the entire day trying to find someone who bashes Bush that knows what they are talking about.
Its pretty clear than no such person exists. Basically, they know stuff because “everybody says it.”
Confronted with substance, they show an incredible resilience to simply ignore and demand.
Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR interned thousands of people engaging in complete deprivations of liberty but are now revered as absolute Presidential Saints.
Bush saves the nation from any further terrorist attacks and he is reviled as the most odious Hitleresque person.
Bill Clinton rapes and sexually assaults women and leaves the White House with double the approval of President Bush.
Fiddling while Rome burned, warned, how stupid, the man was president, he did not do ++it!!!
Bump to what you said.
Wow, Bush recommended changes to Fannie and Freddie in 2002. Didn’t get done, did it? And Republicans controlled House and Senate. That’s leadership?
He reduced earmarks by 18% in 2008? Wow. To what level? From the obscene rate of growth they experienced in his prior 7 years?
His efforts in social security reform where laughable inept. He couldn’t get a majority of votes from congressmen in his own party. Good leadership? The money is not going to be there to pay the benefits because those living today won’t make the hard decisions.
Economic stimulus cheques? Are you kidding me? That is your definition of success? It was a cynical political ploy with no redeeming or lasting benefits. Have you parlayed your $500 into something worthwhile? The interest on this stimulus costs us $30 billion in interest per year forever.
He should have fired Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
My point is, he warned. Congress failed to act against the good ole boy system.
Can I ask what will undoubtedly seem like another stupid question?
Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States?
Can you tell me who is charged with the budget? Good news, it is but one of the three branches that makes up our government here in the United States.
You won’t have to read long to figure this out.
Better news. Even though President Bush is in the . . . [want to guess which branch. . . go ahead ]
The executive branch. He has I have noted in previous post which you apparently did not read, used his executive powers to limit Congressional spending in areas such as earmarks and regulation enforcement.
If you are looking for a dictatorship— which I must admit requires much less thought on the part of the citizenry— could I recommend Cuba.
Fascinating sarcasm but unfortunately, your claim was “no leadership.”
Thanks for trying to read some of the document.
yes, cut back to 14,000 I think, but still a historic number. LOL,
And don't print such childish and stupid statements such as have you read the constitution.
There is that little part about protect and defend the borders, which he was a complete buffoon at!
Too bad that was not the question to which Bush was referring. He specifically mentioned things like the banking system, not the health of the workforce and the capabilities of rail and internet.
President Bush has also conceded that he thinks we have to sacrifice the free market system. He has so little grasp on this situation ... it is actually quite sad.
He should really put you on the payroll as a spokesperson or, at least, a guide at his museum. Your unwavering devotion is impressive.
How many vetoes did W use in eight years?
Bush’s social security plan was a good one and was well explained. The Congress chose to reject the plan. That is their fault and again if we had an informed citizenry, the Congress would be held to account.
Instead, intellectual laziness says that President Bush should have forced the Congress to do the right thing, There is no point at which Congress is accountable for their Constitutional duties.
You ignore the massive Bush tax cuts.
Again, keep in mind, the President has ZERO obligation to provide any leadership on the question you are asking. That is NOT his Constitutionally asisgned duty. Commander in Chief— now there is a duty.
Nonetheless, Bush provides impressive economic leadership. Clinton only reduced spending by cashing in our military. That did not do us any good.
No, my claim, despite your continued mistatements, is he was a fiscal disaster. A failure in ecomomic and domestic policy.
Unfortunately, all Americans are the losers.
What??? President Bush campaigned for his second term on reforming SS and then, after winning, made 2 or 3 speeches on the subject and let it die. The lack of leadership from this man is staggering.
Its thoughtful of you to patronize him like that but what is sad is your pretending to know better.
The banking crisis emerged and President Bush took action at a far quicker rate than any of his European counterparts or International agencies. He also organized the international groups on this question. They still are trying to catch up with the US on this point.
It is possible that Paulson gave bad advice. I am not convinced of that but this total omniscience God like view of citizen predators who think the President controls every aspect of life . . .is actually quite sad.
The man had eight years in which he could have ordered the attorney general to prosecute the miss-management of Fannie and Freddie. On what day did he do it???
Do you specialize in non sequitirs?
And not one of those represented by Clinton's approval numbers is a conservative member of this forum. Your argument is ridiculous. You are comparing the people here that have problems with Bush with those that support Bill Clinton.
Please don't resort to the finest tactics of a liberal in an argument. It is not attractive.
He did order his US attorneys to investigate voter fraud.
A couple of them did not. He fired them.
How did that turn out?
Of course your right because you have repeated your claim three times.
You never had any evidence for your claim but that is how this game works isnt it?
You keep repeating yourself.
I say, look at the evidence. You repeat yourself. I ask you to respond to the evidence.
I mean its really working rather well wouldnt you say?
Unfortunately, it becomes more than a little obvious that the metric of a good leader is speach.
That is about to bite us in the butt.
That was not the question?? When did he order the investigation of Freddie and Fannie???
He did not. He should have.