Leonhardt: America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making (Bush, not Obama, is responsible for

[lindisfarne]

deficit).

Good facts to throw back at those who claim Obama is responsible for the current state of affairs (of course, they won't listen to facts).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html
The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.
...
Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

[Xipe Totec]

1. I'm sure this is news to people somewhere outside DU...

:evilgrin:

[Sensible321]

2. Business Cycle - hmmm

Are we talking about the economic crisis which was the direct result of the Clinton/Summers to tear down the protections FDR put in place? Bush continued this short-sighted trend, of course. The CBOs projected surplus was BS, though the regressive Bush tax breaks for millionaires and 'capital gains' made this much worse.

The bailout was a sham under Bush and continues to be. The only people who should have been bailed out were people worth less than $one-Million who lost their life-savings / pensions. To the rich and investors who chose to 'play the market' and lost - 'tough cookies'.

Regarding the 'too big to fail' banks, watch this video, "Money as Debt," on how banking works:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544

It presents several alternatives to the current system which can be researched elsewhere.

[tech3149]

3. Feel free to bash Clinton if you must

Just remember that this is a crisis that has developed over decades. Clinton was far from perfect, but was the best option at the time. By the same token Obama is not the representative I would hope for. I think you can boil it down to that simple platitude "follow the money"! As long as big money can twist the arms of elected representatives, through whatever means, we will be victims of the powerful.

We'll never change that relationship until we balance the influence of money with that of informed voters.

[Sensible321]

4. I Agree Entirely

Didn't mean to pick on Clinton exclusively - Bush was far, far, worse. Clinton gets stuck in my craw because he was a Dem who inspired Hope while thoroughly screwing us.

Historically, the turning point was Reagan - very inspirational to many and horribly destructive to the lives of working people. Mirror in UK with Thatcher - think 'strikebreaking'.