RE(3): Monthly Treasury Statement
To All,
The standard argument against:
is being fought again by libs in the comments section of Obsidian Wings. Von is 100% correct. The numbers from Bush's years are ACTUAL numbers and come from the 'Monthly Treasury Statement'. These numbers are actual expenditures - not budget projections. In fact BusHitlers budgeted deficits were generally FAR HIGHER than the actual deficts. Regardless, the Monthly Treasury Statement includes the annual war supplimental. That site is an exceptional resource. It is located at:
Use the September reports to get full Fiscal Year data.
And, yes, without the FY2007 war supplimental we were looking at a deficit of about $70 Billion. You can see the DOD splurge on receiving the supplimental.
And, the total cost of the war has been about $100 Billion/year. A cost President Obama has elected to continue.
And, Bush had a role in the FY2009 bloat. But had nothing to do with the 'Emergency Stimulus Bill ($860 Billion) nor any of the other 'emergency' spending that occured after January 19th (more auto and bank bailouts). He is responsible for TARP - which never was completely obligated (and will not be) and is now being paid back (at least in part). Will President Obama's 'Stimulus' be paid back. Nope. Splitting the blame will actually be fairly simple. Bush - TARP. Obama - Everything else. We will, however, have to wait till someone breaks it down. We have to wait to see if the banks are stupid enough to keep enslaving themselves via TARP bailout cash. I think it is clear they are staying far far away from the TARP Baby.
And, at what point in the Bush Presidency was there ANY talk of defaulting on Treasury debt or inflating our way out of paying it?
And, the evil BusHitler warned us in 2000 and 2004 that Social Security was heading into the red by 2008/09. And, yup, it shore is bubbas.
4 comments:
A few points:
1) From Day 6 of 7th grade civics class, the Congress controls the purse strings. Blame the record deficits in 2006 and 2007 on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and the Democrats who control Congress.
2) There was no talk of currency collapse during the Bush years because it was not an immediate danger then. With the deficit swollen to four times its previous size during the first MONTH of Obama's presidency, currency collapse is suddenly imminent.
3) The "Bush v Obama" argument is pointless. Both parties are overspending by many orders of magnitude. The American economic machine that lifted the entire world out of poverty is doomed unless it returns to the principles that made it what it is -- TINY government, low taxes, and minimal regulation. If the government growth and attendant taxation continue, the gravy train is over.
4) I still have not figured out why "those Bush numbers are ACTUAL" is a valid argument against anything. The Obama numbers are projected; and from experience we can assert that since the government will overestimate growth and understate expenditures, the actual deficits in those years will be far worse than the projections. So the actual numbers, when we look back, will probably be a lot LESS favorable to Obama than that chart shows today.
Amiable brief and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you seeking your information.
Nice fill someone in on and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you on your information.
Do you accept guest posts? I would love the opportunity to submit an article to boghieonyoursix.blogspot.com about traumatic brain injury as it pertains to the military. Let me know, thanks.
Chelsea
Please reply to ctravers@caremeridian.com
Post a Comment