Click on a Pretty Flower
Forget-Me-Nots
Remember to Donate Monthly
Sponsoring FReepers will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today
Posted on 07/19/2011 1:32:37 PM PDT by rhema
What if, over the next decade, the federal government spends as irresponsibly as President George W. Bush did?
Compare two things: the 2012-2021 federal budget as proposed by President Obama in February (and as scored by the Congressional Budget Office in April), and the actual average spending level from 2001 through 2008 as a fraction of Gross Domestic Product. We'll keep the CBO's predictions of revenues and GDP untouched so that only spending differences are compared.
The CBO scored Obama's proposed budget as costing $46.2 trillion over 2012-2021, or 23.5% of GDP on average. Since the CBO expects $36.7 trillion in revenues over that time frame, the 10-year cumulative deficit would be $9.5 trillion. That is the Obama plan, and the only one he has put in writing this year.
For President Bush's numbers, we can use the White House Office of Management and Budget numbers (Table 1.2). Federal spending under Bush, from 2001 through 2008, varied between 18.2% and 20.7% of GDP, and averaged 19.6% of GDP.
Now we can do a simple ratio calculation. If we were to spend at the Bush rate (19.6% of GDP) instead of the Obama rate (23.5% of GDP), total spending over 2012-21 would be $38.5 trillion instead of $46.2 trillion.
That is a $7.7 trillion difference! Here is a table, to make the comparisons easy.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
And then consider Bush was dealt 9/11 and all the spending that instigated plus the Iraq War that took down the insane Saddam, his sons and grandchild.
Obama has not had a 9/11 and he promised to end Iraq.
How much is a trillion dollars?
Well, the best example I have ever read puts it this way:
If you were to spend a MILLION (20 years’ income for the average American) dollars a DAY going backwards, when you arrived at the birth of Christ, you would only be at 3/4 trillion. To spend a trillion (again, at a million dollars a day), you would be at the battle of Thermopylae (made famous by the movie “The 300”).
And that is a SINGLE trillion dollars — at a million dollars a day!
What if, over the next decade, the federal government spends as irresponsibly as President Obama did?
Answer: Do in months what would have taken years for Bush to do.
But there is no way to fault him for expenditures resulting from 9/11. From rebuilding the armed forces, the combining of all national defense and intelligence programs under one umbrella, these were for the most part, proper and necessary.
Bush turned the spigot on full blast. Obama tore the top open and poured out the contents.
Isn’t it Congress who authorizes spending???
What’s being left out is the difference between how investors/business owners feel about sticking their necks out during each administration. Could make a significant difference in the numbers.
bookmark
RINO Bush opened the Spigot BUT only to 2006,The African-Commie knocked Fire plugs down with his bus.
Stop with the facts, you`ll get in the way of those who call Bush a liberal! :] The point of the article that some can`t seem to grasp is that Bush gets called a big-spender who put Obama in a corner, but we`d be in much better shape if we were at Bush-era spending levels. Unfortunately, the American people never blame Congress for overspending because they like `their` guy. This mentality has spawned those who complain but don`t dare fire someone they like on a personal level, someone they feel close to cuz he`s from `their` part of the world.
Bush Ping
and the actual average spending level from 2001 through 2008 as a fraction of Gross Domestic Product.
///
one year (2003?) Bush ran a budget surplus!
if not for 9/11, Katrina, and Iraq,
it would have been even better.
spending increased enormously in 2007, under Reid and Pelosi.
If we simply went back to 2006 levels, that would be better than anything the “gang of 6” or McConnell is suggesting.
right now, i’d be VERY happy with 2006 levels.
Comparing all three: Revenue - Spending = Surplus/-Deficit
Year____Revenue____Spending___Deficit__%_Change_from_prior_deficit
2000____2,025.2____1,789.2____236.0____88.0%
2001____1,991.1____1,863.2____127.9____-45.8%
2002____1,853.1____2,011.2____-158.1__-223.6%
2003____1,782.3____2,160.1____-377.8__139.0%
2004____1,880.1____2,293.0____-412.9____9.3%
2005____2,153.6____2,472.2____-318.6____-22.8%
2006____2,406.9____2,655.4____-248.5____-22.0%
2007____2,568.0____2,728.9____-160.9____-35.3%
2008____2,524.0____2,982.5____-458.5____185.0%
2009____2,105.0____3,517.7____-1,412.7___208.1%
2010____2,162.7____3,456.2____-1,293.5___-8.4%
2011____2,173.7____3,818.8____-1,645.1___27.2%
One can see that although spending increased every year under Bush, in 2005, 2006 and 2007, the deficit was reduced from the prior year’s deficit because revenue growth outpaced spending growth.
It’s most distressing to note that the deficit for 2011 is greater than the total of corporate and individual income tax - for the year 2008 !
Obviously, the 2009 results produced a growth in the deficit of almost $1 trillion in that one year, which put the deficit on a whole new level.
Since government revenue does not appear to be rising by a trillion any time soon, Federal debt will grow by 1 to 2 trillion every year until the Federal government comes to the realization that is has to cut it’s spending back to about 2002 or 2003 levels.
Higher tax rates will simply drive whatever little investment is done in American companies overseas (practically none is done now), making the economy stay in a “tanked” mode.
Another thing lost on everyone is that Bush spent less in his budgets than the ones congress eventually passed.
Also, the competitive aspects of his prescription drug plan actually lowered drug prices.
By that reasoning Clinton dumped 911 and all the collapsing financial crookery during the 90's(stock market/real estate bubbles/fraud, ponzi-schemes, etc.)on Bush(surplus my azz).
Not to mention an unprecedented amount of natural disasters(Florida/New Orleans hurricanes, Midwest flooding, CA. fires, etc.)in which the left demanded unlimited funds(for "the children and elderly" of course)...much of which was squandered and stolen by the same loud mouths who demanded Bush be more "compassionate" towards the needs of the "poor".
These people are really good at talking out of both sides of their face(not to mention their arse).
Liberalism is truly a mental disorder, and dangerous to the future of America.
spending increased enormously in 2007, under Reid and Pelosi.
Don't forget the housing mortgage mess that Dodd and Frank, Fannie and Freddie, caused. IIRC, Bush and even McCain were warning about that...and were ignored.
Bush wasn't perfect but was a helluva lot better than what we have today.
I like the population analogy myself. There are 6.93 billion people on Earth. It would take a little over 144 Earths for the human population to get to one trillion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.