The Money

[bobover3]

"Go Actually find out what "Total Revenues" were and what "Total Expenditures" were and post those two sets of numbers.
IT tells a very different story. But be careful you get all the spending because not every president spent "on budget"...
Notoriously, GW bush financed two wars and the Prescription Drug benefit "Off-budget" and didn't count those as "spending" in his official numbers.

Plus, the first year of any President's term is the previous president's spending."

Dave, your wish is my command. I took a look at the White House Office of Management and Budget Historical Tables, Table 1.1. (See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-...T-2012-TAB.pdf) This reports annual receipts, outlays, and surplus/deficit, including both on-budget and off-budget amounts. Here are the totals you requested (including both on and off-budget) -

Figures in $Millions, cumulative for each President -

Jimmy Carter (1978-1981 budgets) - $257,709 Deficit
Bill Clinton (1994-2001 budgets) - $62,904 Surplus
George Bush (2002-2009 budgets) - $3,546,539 Deficit
Barack Obama (2010-2013 budgets) - $4,807,376 Deficit

The 2011-2013 figures were estimates provided by the Obama White House, likely to be less than actual.

Contrary to Milkman's post, Carter did not have a surplus in any of his budget years.

Obama's four-year deficit exceeds Bush's eight-year deficit. That includes both on and off-budget amounts.

Bill Clinton had a small eight-year surplus attributable to the financial bubble of the late 1990s. When people stopped making speculative profits on dot-com stocks and flipped real estate, that surplus vanished.

During Bush's peak war years of 2005-2007, the deficit grew smaller each year.

Those are the White House figures.

[moi621]

Continuing unfunded wars and not the spill over debt from Bush is the answer after 3 years.

And of course the continuation of basic NeoCon economic policies.

Moi
Only A Progressive Tax Code Will Get Us Out Of This Economic Hole

[Dave]

I can't take a look at that many numbers until next week because of family matters. (two birthdays)... (Mother's hearing aids)...
Nothing serious but I won't be able to devote the time to doing any numerical analysis.

MOI has it right.
Bush cut tax revenues and paid for two wars off-budget.
Obama faced not only reduced revenues from the Bush Tax Cuts but reduced revenue thanks to the economic downturn.

I know I can prove that with the numbers but not this week coming up.
Hell, I'm retired from all that stuff and it is work.

[moi621]

I can't take a look at that many numbers until next week because of family matters. (two birthdays)... (Mother's hearing aids)...
Nothing serious but I won't be able to devote the time to doing any numerical analysis.

MOI has it right.
Bush cut tax revenues and paid for two wars off-budget.
Obama Continues Off Budget Military Adventurism.
Obama faced not only reduced revenues from the Bush Tax Cuts but reduced revenue thanks to the economic downturn.
Obama failed to increase revenues to off set deficits in his spending.

I know I can prove that with the numbers but not this week coming up.
Hell, I'm retired from all that stuff and it is work.

Dave, you forgot the part I inserted in red .

[bobover3]

It seems obvious that Bush was affected by the Bush tax cuts.

He was also affected by the recession that began March, 2000, during Clinton's last year. Despite the wars, Bush's deficits went down from 2005 to 2007, when the wars were at their peaks. That's because the economy was flourishing. So Moi, the wars don't excuse Obama because their cost decreased under Obama, while Bush ran much lower deficits with both wars full on. His deficit was very large his last year because of the financial crisis.

Re taxes, Obama and the Congress of Reid and Pelosi are all about spending. Common sense should tell you that more spending without more revenue leads to big deficits. But Obama had to worry about re-election, and tax increases, especially on a financially distressed people, are highly unpopular. So they made an issue of taxing the affluent. But every serious economic analysis has shown that the extra taxes raised that way would be negligible. That means Democrats plan to raise taxes on the middle class if Obama is re-elected. That would be the only way to raise enough to pay their ever-increasing bills. "Tax the rich" was just a placeholder to keep the issue alive until they could come after the middle class with impunity. The economy may well be worse in 2013 than now, but they won't care. Remember what I'm saying: if Obama is re-elected, Democrats will try for a middle class tax increase in 2013. The arithmetic demands it. They only want to spend more. They can't get that much money from a few rich people. So the middle class is it, regardless of widespread financial pain.

[Dave]

Dave, you forgot the part I inserted in red .

I would never post those lines in red and I don't believe they are true.

[moi621]

Dave.
Did Obama continue the military adventurism?

Has he raised revenue to pay for his Uganda expedition?

The truth is before you like the pieces of a puzzle. Which version of the truth do you want.
It is all how you assemble the pieces. To paraphrase Garak, Star Trek DS9
I say start with the corners. Obama is a continuation of NeoCon economic theory.
NeoCon Economic Theory. Sort of like Trickle Down with a little more thievery. Special interests and such.

Moi
Just The Truth, Dave. Just the Truth.

[Dave]

MOI,
What you did in that post was put words in my mouth that never existed there. You don't "quote" and then augment the quote.
If you edit my text like that again, I will come after you with a hatchet. Now don't go sending me all sorts of messages about contrition, just don't do it again. You want the last word, then go ahead and say it. Just don't make like its my words.

[Riverwind]

OK lets calm down and get back on topic.

River

[A-1]

The topic is MONEY,,,

The Democrats are Tax and spend,

The Republicans are BORROW AND SPEND...

Which makes more sense?

[bobover3]

A-1, let me wake you gently. The Obama Administration has borrowed more than any other in US history. Democrats are about spending, period. They don't care how they do it - tax or borrow both good - so long as they spend. Republicans - when they've got their game on and aren't playing by Democrat rules - are about limiting spending responsibly. That's why liberals think they're greedy and mean.

[moi621]

The topic is MONEY,,,

The Democrats are Tax and spend,

The Republicans are BORROW AND SPEND...

Which makes more sense?

WRONG !

The Democrats and Republicans are NeoCon economist.
Unbalanced budgets, unfunded military adventurism and a fear of taxing "job creators" their due.
The Democrats no longer tax and the Republicans spend equally irresponsibly. NeoCon. Get it?

Now if you just determine who has profited from this combined, bipartisan NeoCon economic disaster
Please share. Someone profits. A 1%, (not A-1%) gets richer.
It should not take a conspiracy theorist to "get it".

Moi
Why Don't Liberals Favor A Progressive Tax Code.