The Deficit Graph

August 23, 2010 By

This will go viral today

As I wrote in 2007, when I was arguing for the impeachment of George W. Bush: even the NY Times admitted in 2006 that tax receipts were at record highs and were lowering the deficit.

That’s what happens when everyone is working because businesses aren’t being taxed to death, or because they simply are too uncertain about the future to hire folks.

Filed Under: Bush Bad?, Dumb Democrat moves
About Elizabeth Scalia
← Older Comments
  • P. Buchta

    Hi Jeff:

    I didn’t state specifically where the tax receipts came from. You’re right. As you’ve mentioned most of the tax receipts didn’t come from the actual sale of the property. I was referring to the fact that many more people were employed in the real estate and banking industries as a whole. These people paid taxes and spent a great deal of borrowed money. Money indirectly borrowed from the government, and then they speculated with it after it was all gone. Mismanagement is the main point to mention here. The Bush tax cuts were not off set by taxes or forced reductions in government spending. Therefore once the banking industry could no longer sustain the derivatives ponzi scheme, the whole house of cards came tumbling down and personal income tax revenues shrank drastically. Probably the bank regulators and underwriters should have had more say in who should be able to afford what. Instead you had mortgage companies, real estate salesmen, loan officers, bankers and investment companies who knew how to beat the system and pass the debt along and make it virtually invisible. They knew what they were doing all right since no one was keeping an eye on them. Investment banks, you gotta love them guys. Don’t trust ‘em though, not one bit.

  • Pingback: Catholic News Headlines August 23, 2010 « Catholic News

  • dry valleys

    G. K. chesterton and Dorothy Day on economics

    As a matter of fact I dislike his heirs & successors, such as Philip Blond (or maybe someone like Dreher), as much as the neoliberals do. But I am just wondering whether anyone thinks about whether your ideas all sit comfortably together. Surely the majority of commentors here would be far less solidly aligned in partisan terms than I am.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Last Sphere: You’re simply regurgitating liberal talking points.

    Last Sphere: And as I quoted (almost verbatim) {several times, without attribution} from the Craig Steiner site …

    Heh.

    In any case, using your adjusted numbers (which are due to small supplemental appropriations), it still means Clinton ran a surplus and started the process of paying down the government’s public debt, a goal that is still desirable and achievable.

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    “Just to be clear, the 2009 budget was the Bush Administration’s final budget.” -Zach

    That’s baloney. Obama put in a supplemental. He put in that disasterous stimulus in 2009, or don’t you remember. Obama owns this budget and this failing economy.

  • Doc

    C’mon folks, Zach is just reinforcing the little known fact that the sign on Obama’s Oval Office desk reads, The Buck Stops in Crawford, TX.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Manny: Obama put in a supplemental. He put in that disasterous stimulus in 2009, or don’t you remember. Obama owns this budget and this failing economy.

    The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added about $185 billion to the fiscal year 2009 deficit out of a deficit of $1.4 trillion. Much of the deficit is due to radically reduced tax receipts due to the recession. Importantly, the stimulus is temporary in nature, but there are long-term structural deficits projected forward, especially if the Bush tax cuts are extended.

    Last Sphere: I’m completely guilty. So?

    To reduce the risk of intended irony, you might avoid accusing others of “regurgitating talking points” while regurgitating talking points.

  • archangel

    Baleen… the national debt is NOT the issue. Your methods of analysis are trite and hackneyed. Defecit spending is not in and off itself bad, depending on what is being spent on and how it is being paid for over time.

    You rank those presidents (conveniently omitting others) as all increasing the Federal debt. You still CONVENIENTLY ignore (or are ignorant of the fact) that it is CONGRESS who INCREASED that debt. You libs like your “king-blame” game way too much.

    Every prsident must sign or veto the budget provided. But for those three presidents, those budgets would have blown out the national balance sheet of that time.

    OBAMA has ALLOWED THIS CONGRESS TO DO JUST THAT. So as politely as I possibly can be, I humbly ask you and Zach to either START TELLING THE TRUTH, LEARN SOMETHING OTHER THAN YOUR LIBERAL TALKING POINTS, or just plain don’t parade your ignorance as wisdom.

    TIA

  • Jeff

    Is anyone getting the feeling that no one is flying the plane lately? Every time I see him galavanting around playing golf, convinced of his own brilliance but heedless to the free fall we are in, I see an empty chair in the cockpit in my mind’s eye.

  • archangel

    He does less damage on the golf course…

    Anything that takes the pen out of his hand.

  • SPQR

    You admission that you wanted to impeach GW shows that you are a kook, whose opinions on any issues should be ignored or dismissed by any rational person.

    [Um...did you READ the post about impeaching Bush? Try reading it first. -admin]

← Older Comments