Bush Economic Recovery Policies Cut Deficit in HALF
Many thanks to GP reader John for reminding me to post on this topic.
John points out the biased media scoffing on Bush’s promise to half the deficit by 2009 (here and here).
AP/CBS News - Dec. 2003: “President Bush’s goal of cutting in half a projected $500 billion federal deficit within five years is being dismissed as too timid by conservatives, unachievable by analysts and laughable by Democrats.”
CNN – Jan. 2004: “Like a cowboy-boot wearing David Blaine, President Bush has promised to perform an amazing feat of prestidigitation: he’s going to saw the whopping federal budget deficit in half in just five short years.
But some observers warn the budget proposal he will submit Feb. 2, which will include projections of a greatly reduced deficit by 2009, will be little more than smoke and mirrors — unless he and Congress can show a lot more fiscal discipline than they have recently.”
Um, Bush has met the goal…three years early! But where are CBS and CNN on reporting that milestone?
*crickets chirping*
It is quite amazing that the Reagan and Bush 43 tax cuts have both been proven to stimulate economic and job growth. Yet, Nancy Pelosi promises to repeal the tax cuts if the Democrats with the House. Remarkable and scary.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
31 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yeah… taking Clinton’s record of submitting four balanced budgets IN A ROW to the Congress, turining that into deficits, and then bragging about cutting the deficit you created in half is some accomplishment.
And to think… all poor Bill Clinton has to show on his record is those four measly balanced budgets.
Comment by Anonymous — October 11, 2006 @ 10:58 pm - October 11, 2006
Anon in #1,
John Kerry promised to do the exact same thing . If Kerry were president, and had accomplished this goal, what would you say then?
Comment by John in IL — October 11, 2006 @ 11:46 pm - October 11, 2006
#1 – Actually, Nonny, it was the GOP-led Congress that threatened to override any presidential veto of deficit-reduction pieces of legislation. Slick Willie had to go along to get along.
So…who exactly ELIMINATED the deficit? CONGRESS.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 12, 2006 @ 12:03 am - October 12, 2006
Wait a minute. Clinton’s responsible for Kim Jong Il, but then the Republican congress is responsible for Clinton’s balanced budgets. Clinton is responsible for 9/11, but Bush is to be applauded for cutting a bloated deficit in half.
Which is it because it can’t be both. Either the Republican controlled congress through most of Clinton’s presidency was responsible for both the good and the bad, or Clinton was. And Clinton left office in 2000. At what point can we expect the new administration to actually take responsibility? Maybe when the next administration is in power?
Comment by Just A Question — October 12, 2006 @ 1:02 am - October 12, 2006
P.S. Trickle down economics has been proven to… not trickle down.
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
Comment by Just A Question — October 12, 2006 @ 1:05 am - October 12, 2006
#4
Nah. Lord BJ isn’t responsible for anything.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 12, 2006 @ 1:35 am - October 12, 2006
John…
Fixing SOMEONE ELSE’S mess is something to brag about. Fixing your own mess is not.
Comment by Anonymous — October 12, 2006 @ 1:44 am - October 12, 2006
Wait a minute. Clinton’s responsible for Kim Jong Il, but then the Republican congress is responsible for Clinton’s balanced budgets.
That is because the Agreed Framework in fact is not a treaty; it’s basically a diplomatic memorandum of understanding. It was never submitted to Congress, it was never approved by Congress, and the simple fact of the matter is that there is no way it would ever have passed in the first place. It is simply the Clinton administration outsourcing its diplomacy to the most gullible anti-American boob on the planet — Jimmy Carter.
Clinton thought he had prevented North Korea from making nuclear bombs by having them lock up their already-available plutonium. But I guess no one ever told him — especially Kim Jong Il’s buddy Bill Richardson — that plutonium’s not the only element out of which you can pull an atomic reaction.
The DPRK was more than happy to lock up their plutonium in exchange for massive economic aid and a blind US eye towards their actions; they merrily proceeded to enrich uranium instead, and their bomb-building program proceeded apace.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 12, 2006 @ 2:10 am - October 12, 2006
As a Republican who is fed up with the spend and borrow policies of the GOP Congress and the Bush Administration, I think it’s only fair, Gay Patriot, to point out that the deficit President Bush has cut in half is a deficit created by the drunken sailor spending habits of the GOP Congress, aided and abetted by a no veto White House.
Comment by Ashley Hunter — October 12, 2006 @ 3:24 am - October 12, 2006
#8
In other words, diplomacy didn’t work.
Does anybody else remember the 2004 debate where F.You Kerry said that we should hand over nuclear material to Iran to appease them?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 12, 2006 @ 5:11 am - October 12, 2006
It’s Clinton’s fault. You know this entire Mark Foley affair is the result of the example of sexual permissiveness set by the Clinton White House. I read on the Drudge Report that Monica Lewinski hosts hair-and-makeup parties attended by Jeff Gannnon and Mark Foley. Needless to say, she role-modeled an indiscriminate sex life while teaching them to look their best.
Of course, the MSM ignores this story!
Comment by JonathanG — October 12, 2006 @ 9:27 am - October 12, 2006
Steven Slivinsky of The Cato Institute puts this in perspective (H/T Frank IBC)
“Although the deficit is certainly smaller, it’s not because the White House and Congress suddenly have a newfound respect for spending discipline. Federal spending grew in excess of 7 percent this fiscal year. That’s faster than the expected growth in GDP of 6.5 percent. Besides, the federal budget is chomping on 20 percent of GDP. It consumed 18.5 percent of GDP when George W. Bush was inaugurated. And unfunded liabilities of entitlement programs continue to grow. Remind me again how this is progress?”
Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 10:58 am - October 12, 2006
Better news than expected. The economy is humming along, even with a war. However, even the guy from the WSJ said (NPR 20061011) that the deficit WILL be going up again.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 12, 2006 @ 2:52 pm - October 12, 2006
Food for thought:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 12 Oct 2006 at 07:45:43 PM GMT is:
8,549,941,410,862
The estimated population of the United States is 299,682,483
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $28,530.00.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.64 billion per day since September 30, 2005!
How do we get out of that mess?
Comment by keogh — October 12, 2006 @ 3:48 pm - October 12, 2006
How do we get out of that mess?
Get rid of all the liberal democrats and their wasteful ineffective social programs, pare back government to its constitutional mandates, privatize social security, end medicare, and the throw out the regulations that hold back economic growth.
Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - October 12, 2006
I suppose the typical leftard would propose massive tax increases and huge military cuts to reduce the debt. So, I checked out some countries that have chosen to do that. The US Debt is about 64% of GDP. Sweden’s debt is nearly 200% of GDP. Japan’s is more than 150% of GDP. France, which has crushing taxes has a public debt at about the same as the US.
Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - October 12, 2006
Come on V The K,
You know as well as me that Bush and the republican congress have done nothing but spend spend spend.
Spending is not a political party thing its a stay in power thing
Comment by keogh — October 12, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - October 12, 2006
And I have criticized the Bush Admin unceasingly for its spending and I have criticized the congressional Republicans for their earmarks and for monstrosities like the Highway Bill. Unlike some people, I’m not a silly partisan shill. I call it as I see it.
Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 8:04 pm - October 12, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly deleted for conduct violating our commenting policy.]
Comment by Michael — October 12, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - October 12, 2006
If we had a Senate made up of 33 Rick Santorums, 33 Tom Coburns and 33 John Kyls (and one Ted Kennedy for comic relief) and a House with 435 Bobby Jindals… we’d have that deficit down to zero in no time.
If, on the other hand, we had 100 Ted Kennedies and 435 Nancy Botoxis… we would be so screwed.
Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 8:10 pm - October 12, 2006
Actually, you don’t even need that… you just need ONE Democrat in the White House and–voila!–budget balanced! FOUR YEARS IN A ROW!!!
Comment by Anonymous — October 12, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - October 12, 2006
#21 – Nonny, we can’t AFFORD to have a RAT in the White House for 4 years.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 13, 2006 @ 12:26 am - October 13, 2006
V the K in #20: If we had that many Santorums and Coburns in charge we’d have a daily call to mandatory prayer and it wouldn’t be safe to be gay or bi.
Comment by Ashley Hunter — October 13, 2006 @ 12:28 am - October 13, 2006
If you’re that worried about having a daily call to mandatory prayer and it being unsafe to be gay or bi, Ashley, vote with the party that OPPOSES Islamic fundamentalism.
That ain’t the Democrats.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2006 @ 12:43 am - October 13, 2006
#23 – Actually, Ashley, both the House and Senate open their sessions with prayers from their respective chaplains.
And as far as it being unsafe to be gay or bi, just look at how the Drive-By Media is treating Mark Foley. He’s been called pedophile, “unsafe around boys” and other epithets that the left usually (and incorrectly) associates with everyday conservatives.
So far you’re batting 0-2, honey.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 13, 2006 @ 1:19 am - October 13, 2006
#23
How hysterical can you get?
Comment by TGC — October 13, 2006 @ 2:08 am - October 13, 2006
#23 — You just keep that tinfoil packed real tight in your sunbonnet to ward off the mind control rays. When the extermination squads come, you can hide at Kevin’s house.
Comment by V the K — October 13, 2006 @ 8:31 am - October 13, 2006
I’m glad V the K brought up the debt to GDP ratio. That measure is a much more accurate way to define to amount of debt we have. It shows the scale of our debt not just some debt clock clicking off big scary numbers. Right now our economy is growing about the same rate as our national debt is. A larger economy means that our ability to pay off a larger debt remains the same. If we are bankrupt, why would anyone be lending money to us at bargain basement interest rates? Also, the debt to GDP ratio is no where near historical highs. The lowest it was in recent years was in the late 70s. If you are old enough to remember, those weren’t the best of economic times.
Politicians love to scare people with debt numbers (and those evil foreigners who own part of it). Here is a good example:
Sound familiar? It is from Ronald Reagan in 1964. Change billions to trillions and it sounds like the same doom and gloom rhetoric that you get from today’s politician. Forty plus years later after Reagan spoke those words and I’m still waiting for the collapse of our economy. What do we have now? Near record low interest and unemployment rates, productivity levels the rest of the world envies and a standard of living no one could even think about in 1964.
Comment by John in IL — October 13, 2006 @ 10:43 pm - October 13, 2006
liars and cowards, oh my!!
Comment by your fucking mother — October 13, 2006 @ 11:19 pm - October 13, 2006
The other thing is, people always running around in a panic about how much of our debt is owned by countries like China, and their claims that China could somehow call in its debt and bring about the Apocalypse. Pure scare talk. Supposing China and the other foreign debt owners did call in their debts. And suppose we said, “Frak you, you communist bastards, we’re not paying.” What would happen? Nothing. Lots of countries have reneged on their debts, and the World Bank (financed by US) just ponies up more. It would be no different with the USA.
Comment by V the K — October 14, 2006 @ 9:41 am - October 14, 2006
Oh, looky here. The Dow closed Friday with an all-time high, and Monday’s forecast looks good as well.
All together now: “IT’S ALL BUSH’S FAULT!”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 15, 2006 @ 2:52 pm - October 15, 2006