The Most Fiscally Irresponsible President In The History Of The Republic
And who would that be…it’s George W. Bush, of course. The nation’s is at its highest percent of the GDP since WWII (57% of GDP), mostly due to Bush’s tax policies.
Specifically, 40% of the fiscal deterioration we’re seeing — the single largest contributing factor — can be attributed to Bush policies. Another 12% comes from Bush’s financial rescues, while 20% are the result of the economic crisis. What’s President Obama’s share? Just 16% of the total, most of which is the result of new spending that was necessary to prevent a depression. Indeed, blaming Obama is backwards: “[P]roperly accounted for, the deficit actually goes down when you compare Obama’s budget proposals to current policy, not up.”
Where were the teabaggers when Bush was pushing through his tax cuts or his unfunded wars? It still infuriates me that no one ever talks about whether we can afford wars ($3T right now for Iraq and Afghanistan) but there is all sorts of pearl-clutching and rending of garments at spending a much more modest $1T for universal health care.
The WaPo writes about Obama’s no new tax pledge and wonders if he can keep it. They uncover this humdinger of a quote:
“There’s no question in my view that Bush was the most fiscally irresponsible president in the history of the republic,” said David M. Walker, the comptroller general under Bush who now advocates for deficit reduction.
Are we really surprised that this happened with the team of failed businessman George W. Bush and Dick “Deficits Don’t Matter” Cheney?
Tags: Bush's Fubar Economy, Deficit
Mike Castle raised money for George Bush and work for his election to the office of President…TWICE! He voted down the line for Bush’s wars and economic policies. That’s all I’m saying.
C’mon Jason, he’s fiscally responsible because he voted against the stimulus. Republicans tell us this all the time. I don’t remember – how did he vote on the bailouts?
4 years from now the same math will say it’s Obama who is most irresponsible and the Dems will point and say it was because Bush made him do it.
My Point: economies are cyclical and Presidents shoulder disproportionate credit and blame in booms and busts.
% of GDP going up: because spending up? because GDP down? Both? It’s just economics.
Where were the teabaggers when Bush was pushing through his tax cuts or his unfunded wars?
At home, lying on the couch, drinking beer and hating Arabs.
John,
It’s not just cyclical. Bush pushed through unfunded tax cuts. The loaded the tax cuts so that most of the money drain wouldn’t show up until later. You can see that on the graph. Bush pushed 2 wars and tax cuts with no way to pay for them – Obama has promised to make his plans deficit-neutral.
People like John Young and Mike Castle think George W. Bush was the victim of economic cycles. That kind of supper judgement and insight is fine for someone like Young, but can we really afford to elect someone who thinks that to the office of US Senator? I think not.
Jason,
I am not least bit a victim. The desire to blame is a powerful one. You are certainly free to call my opinion a supper judgment, but the reality of economic cycles is empirically true.
You see if you look at table 7.1 here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf
you will see that in 1950 the % of debt to GDP was 94.0%
Now as I see it, that is post WWII, and Harry Truman was President and a Democrat. Again, my point, or supper question now is: Harry Truman is the most fiscally irresponsible President in the History of the Republic?
The hyperbole is just that. Economic cycles create dips and spikes.
My post only seeks to apply forces beyond the presidency to our economic woes. In no way are my posts an endorsement of President Bush’s term in office whatsoever.
Jason330, do actually believe that skewering people with labels like “people like” is additive to discourse? The is no truth to your statement, as you do not know me at all, yet you proclaim it as if you understand who I am or how I feel. Quite an ignorant point of view.
John,
Do you truly believe WWII was cyclical? Truman is not the most fiscally irresponsible president – the trend was down (see the graph above). When Bush became president the trend was down because of Clinton’s stewardship of the economy and it went up because of unfunded tax cuts and unfunded war. Indeed you can see the upward trend when Reagan became president, which headed back down under Clinton and on the train up again after Bush II became president.
1950 is five years post WWII and the numbers suggest that Truman was extremely responsible. Of course I do not think Truman was the most irresponsible President as I also do not hold that view of Bush nor Obama.
The power of the purse is vested in the House or Representatives, not the Presidency.
I am making a single point: Presidents are assigned causal blame and credit when in fact they deserve neither.
I guess I touched a nerve. John, your poor judgement and economic insights are interesting to me only in that they reveal a kind of thinking that we cannot afford in our elected officials. Get it?
There is no rational defense of George Bush’s economic policies, so I am not interested in “discourse” where it involves me engaging with your fantasyland pretending and excuse making.
I’m only interested in avoiding allowing that type of faulty thinking to gain elective office. However, if you started by saying something like, “To be sure, George Bush was horrible” it would signal to me that you did not have tumble weeds blowing around in your head and I might be a little more interested in “discourse.”
Well, I guess it is true in your case: I can’t fix stupid.
Translation: Jason has kicked my ass. John, admit that Bush sucked and you’ll have a happier life. Lay down that burden.
Only an addled mind would draw such a conclusion. It appears you cannot even read this morning. More coffee?
Lots of economic data (with charts!) that shows the effects of economic policies here.
You guys are feisty this morning.
I have forgotten how fun it is kicking dim-witted, Bush loving ass on Sunday morning.
Here’s a truth exercise for you Jason330: find one, just one comment supporting George Bush from me. If you find a single comment from me stating GWB was a good president, I will bow before you. If you cannot, you will apologize for being an unrepentant blog terrorist?
Up for the challenge?
The truth is the truth. I have never indicated support for Bush. Criticism of Obama is not support for Bush, BTW. I haven’t done that either though.
Why sure. After you take up my challenge. Simply stop trying to cover for Bush with your jibber-jabber and admit that he sucked as a preface to whatever wingnut economic theories you care to propose.
Can you do it?
I could, but that requires assigning attributes to a person in advance of an argument that may or may not be supported. In other words, to do that is to personalize the argument away from the issues inside the argument. That is what humans did before we evolved. Now, we aspire to rational issue based discourse. You see, by you calling my theory “wingnut”, you are trying to suggest to the DL readership that I am a radical right wing republican. This is simply not true. Actually, you will find in a comment search that I actually voted the only progressive in the election: Ralph Nader.
If you tried a bit harder Jason330, you might lose your identity politics and find something more substantive: that people can ave different beliefs from you and they are not the enemy, or a wingnut or “people like” anything…
Now, let’s see if I can preview your response: “See I kicked you ass again.”
sad. weak.
Come now John. Don’t be so thick. Unless you are prepared to lap up and guzzle Obama’s bilge water, swish it around lovingly in your mouth, and spit it in the face of anyone daring oppose Dear Leader then you’re not welcome round this echo cave. Just ask a real liberal named Donviti how that works.
I miss DV already.
I actually voted the only progressive in the election: Ralph Nader.
Well, there is the proof of support for George W. Bush and his wacko economic theories.
LOL John and anon. Conservative/Republican economic policies benefit a small minority while putting a world of hurt on the rest of the country and even the world. What I’m still trying to figure out is how the Republican elite convince people that their policies work when all evidence shows that they don’t.
Yes, anti-choice “progressive” Ralph Nader, who help get George W. Bush elected.
John,
So, no then. You can’t do it. And for the record dummy, it isn’t identity politics, it’s reality. Accept reality if you want to be taken seriosuly. Bush was horrible.
That’s what gets me about you wingnuts. You strive to be seen as hard headed realists – but you fail the easiest tests of partisanship.
You see John, as numski demonstrates, the preferred practice here for fellating Obama when “Conservative/Republicans” like you dare question their tripe is to slurp down the bilge until they are so full of it they can projectile vomit it on you. This blog adds about as much value to teh “discourse” as an email daisy chain of 6th tier flunkies working for the WH Propaganda Czar.
Anon,
Simple question for you. Was George Bush a horrible President?
Oaky then.
John – one can make the argument that there is a cyclical nature to deficits. We increase government spending during bust cycles and cut it during booms. This is fine. However, both Reagan and Bush 2 decided that deficit spending during booms was even better. Just wrap it in the term “tax cuts” and everyone is happy.
While you are technically correct that the HoR controls the purse strings, you are clearly ignoring the way things really work in the 20th (and now 21st) century.
You are in rare form today, J.
John, I don’t necessarily disagree that economies run in cycles, but, imo, what Bush did (through his unfunded tax cuts and wars) created this cycle. So… perhaps the economy would have cooled, but would it have crashed? I don’t think so.
Bush sucked and that’s a given! However comparing 8 years of Bush stats to 8 months of Obama stats is skewed.
Unstable Isotope
“Bush pushed through unfunded tax cuts.”
LOL you’re funny!:) Did you protest and return the tax cut in your paycheck. Didn’t Obama cut payroll taxes or was that just a loan and we’ll have to give it back in April?
Cash for clunkers was being responsible?
Bushed was F’ed up because he had too many dead brain cells caused by years of drinking. I am not a fan for Teach for American buy I am sure Wendy Kopp could have produce a better candidate than Bush.
“You see, by you calling my theory “wingnut”, you are trying to suggest to the DL readership that I am a radical right wing republican.”
John chill , DL are good people! They are still hung over from Obama’s victory! Republicans are still throwing sand in the sandbox and haven’t realized the democrats left the box.
Nemski
“What I’m still trying to figure out is how the Republican elite convince people that their policies work when all evidence shows that they don’t.”
Why not unblock Mike Protack’s IP address and I am sure he’ll produce evidences. 😉
Buh buh buh buh but Buuuuush!!!! Whaaaaah.
Yeah Bush sucked. Obama’s much worse, if you care about substance like John.
Putting Obama sprinkles all over Bush’s turdsicle may make it tasty to you zealots.
Thinking people know better.
Idiot,
This post is about Bush. (Check out the headline moron) Hence my comments. Try to keep up.
4 years from now the same math will say it’s Obama who is most irresponsible
This just boggles the mind.
There had been plenty of analysis of where the deficits come from (and there will be more shorty, I’m sure) and it seems pretty clear to me that John doesn’t understand how this math works. David Leonhardt took an ,a href=”4 years from now the same math will say it’s Obama who is most irresponsible”>outstanding look at this some months back. Outside of the stimulus it is hard to see where they are adding to the deficits. Other than letting Bush-era tax cuts remain in place and not paying for the ongoing wars, it is hard to see what it is that he is planning that will add to the deficits. EACH of the health reform bills out there pays for themselves.
Certainly economies are cyclical, but cycles of boom and bust are caused by something — sometimes that is something the government controls (wars or cheap money) or something they don’t (oil embargoes). GWB has the distinction of starting with a healthy surplus and a plan to reduce long-term deficits and ending with a massive economic crash, massive deficits and all derived in large part from Republican fiscal policies.
“This post is about Bush.”
Exactly dingus. Half of your half assed blog is about Bush as reason for every Obama fuckup stumble miscalculation or other failure.
I can’t chug down swill and certainly if I did I could never do it fast enough to ever keep up with your Obama spunk guzzling.
UI: Progressive, only rue single payer candidate, if you believe Nader got Bush elected you fail to address the Gore defectors. Why couldn’t Gore get their votes?
J330: keep calling me thing I am not, it still does not make them true, just you more and more disingenuous with each post.
LG: you may be right and I think it reinforces my idea that causal relationship to Presidency is not true…perhaps correlative to party is closer to true…..
Pandora: true, but then Did FDR create the mess that Truman inherited making him the worst ever by correlating DEBT to GDP by %. In fact DEBT to GDP# for FDR was over 100% during WWII. Both Democrats. Again, I question the causal relationship that is the premise of the post.
I have not offered one judgment that Bush was good or Obama is bad, but unless I do, I have no “blogcred” with J330…..
I wonder if I’ll sleep well tonight?
not.
Kilroy: Of course DL is good people, that’s why I like commenting here, J330 is a bit of a toad today though, calling people things they are with a the moral superiority of an unelected King.
Nemski at 10:36: spot on.
Cass, every day we stay at war is on Obama no? He said he would end Iraq?
Still waiting……
I want to Thank UI for unlocking all my posts today, I am still stuck in persona non grata land here for posting…..
People defected from Gore because Nader convinced them that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Do you really think that we would be in Iraq if Gore had been president?
Yes, I wish we would have single payer. Do you think a President Nader could have gotten that? Really?
As far as the budget goes, it’s the president who proposes it and the Congress ratifies it. Bush’s biggest domestic policy initiative was tax cuts.
Kilroy, I barely noticed Bush’s tax cuts, I’m not rich enough. I think we should restore balance in our tax system. I would like it to be more progressive.
Let me be clear, I voted for Nader, I never said he was a a perfect candidate. He was a better choice than Obama or McCain for me.
I was closer to Obama, but his rhetoric was not hitting me as it was many others. I find it interesting to watch Dems pile on his DOMA, DADT, Afghanistan, Gitmo decisions as betrayals on certain levels….
Personally, I think he is doing a pretty god job so far.
Progressives are very impatient. They had 8 years of Bush and want a reversal right away. I’m with them there.
UI: Shame on Gore for not being convincing enough. No other reason. Can’t say Nader had no right to run or make his case….and no we would not be in Iraq if Gore were President.
Also, no Nader would not have gotten it, but he would be fighting harder than Obama.
He did say he would end Iraq. And there is a timetable for that which they are currently on track for. It is slower than what he campaigned on, but there is an end date. I’m waiting to get on my high horse about promises not kept until that date.
But that doesn’t have much to do with whether Bush was the most fiscally irresponsible President tho.
no, just how much $$ parties assign to their Presidents for economic blame….how many $$ are to be attributable to the slowness of the timeline? The opposite (how much would it cost if we withdraw too fast) can be argued and that is my whole point……
The slowness of the timeline is dictated by 1) the Status of Forces agreement negotiated with Iraq and 2) you do not move brigades overnight. By syncing up withdrawal with the SOFA, there is additional expense which you could get a rough number for by the chart that I referred to. But you are still talking about Bush-era policy — and now we are just arguing if we bug out or if you do so in some orderly fashion. You can be fiscally responsible and just bug out or you can try to leave with some stability behind you. The is probably the Project Manager in me speaking, but I’d rather they drawdown in a way that does not give the wingnuts fodder to agitate for a longer stay.
just how much $$ parties assign to their Presidents for economic blame
I dunno… how many Republicans blame Carter (rather than the GOP House) for the late 1970s economy?
Mrs Isotope wrote:
This is completely bass-ackwards. President Bush pushed through tax cuts, period. It is the spending which followed which was partially unfunded.
In every private situation, whether individual or corporate, spending in excess of income is considered to be a problem of over-spending, and is met, at least in part, by trying to cut costs; anything else is considered irresponsible. Why is it that my friends on the left seem to see this backwards where government is concerned?
Oh, wait, you don’t, at least not entirely. The spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, that you consider to be fiscally irresponsible, but the deficit beyond that — and if expenses for Iraq and Afghanistan were zeroed out, we’d still have run a deficit in FY2008, President Bush’s last full year, because we spent too much on domestic programs.
Mrs Isotope wrote:
Have you actually calculated them? I did, and for tax years 2006 and 2007, my family saved $12,905 in federal income taxes, compared to the tax bill we’d have had by running my 2006 and 2007 income through a tax year 2000 Form 1040.
And we’re not wealthy. I run a concrete plant, and my wife is a registered nurse. We are working class.
President Bush pushed through tax cuts, period. It is the spending which followed which was partially unfunded.
Bush signed the budgets and the debt limit increases every year. If he was unhappy with Congress’s failure to cut spending he could have vetoed it or at least put up a fight. Instead he proposed new unfunded spending and never proposed any funding for his spending plans.
Dana,
Bush did not cut any spending. Yes, his tax cuts were unfunded. Republicans for years have been telling us that we could have something for nothing. Why do you think they keep telling us that tax cuts pay for themselves? They don’t and you can see the results on that chart.
John,
Kucinich was also a single-payer advocate.
Perhaps I should ask my good friends on the Delaware Liberal if they supported President Obama’s stimulus plan? After all, it added $787 billion to the national debt all by itself. If we pass some version of socialized medicine, something that I know y’all support, you can count on adding yet another trillion to the debt. You calim that these are good things, but whether they are good or not, it is inescapable that they are exactly what you have claimed President Bush to have been: fiscally irresponsible.
Republicans don’t mind spending money to bomb other countries yet pitch a fit to spend money to help the American people.
Yes, I support the stimulus, otherwise we would have gone into a real depression rather than just a very bad recession (simple Keynesian economics). We’ll be cleaning up after Bush for many, many years.
It is entirely true that President Bush, and the Congress, spent way too much money. But spending comes after taxation — or at least, it should — and we should not spend more than what the people are willing to pay in taxes.
I’d point out that both candidates in 2000 ran on large tax cuts; George Bush ran on larger ones than Vice President Gore, but Mr Gore ran on tax cuts as well. Last presidential candidate I can recall to run on raising taxes was Walter Mondale in 1984; he carried one state.
The public voted for tax cuts. And, in 2008, Senator Barack Obama ran on, you guessed it, tax cuts for the middle and lower classes!
Yes, it’s true, Obama gave the biggest tax cut in history.
Why should we only spend what the populace is willing to pay in taxes? Why not tax based on what the populace demands in the way of services?
No reason, obviously. The answer depends on what you consider most important. With Republicans, it’s greed, and so they want to spend as little as possible on anything except national defense, in which case they couldn’t care less how much is wasted.
In fact, President Obama’s campaign website is still accessible, and here’s what he promised on taxes:
The Obama Tax Cut Calculator, which still displays on the page, no longer works, but it used to enable you to plug in your income, answer a couple of questions regarding family status, and then compare your taxes under his plans with those of Senator McCain's; if you made $100,000 or less, you usually came out better under the Obama plan.
The guy you championed promised to cut taxes. Along with that, he initially promised about $200 billion per year of additional federal spending, before the economic crisis hit. An d now, on a site which fired Donviti for being insufficiently partisan for the Democratic Party, you are supporting a president who has come up with massive new spending, wants to spend much much more on health care, who still ran on tax cuts — yet you are criticizing President Bush for being fiscally irresponsible! That’s so hysterically funny, and you probably can’t even see it.
I have a blockquoting error in my previous comment that the system won’t let me fix, claiming that it is marked as spam. But the only link in it is to Barack Obama’s old campaign website.
Guess which president signed the biggest capital gains tax cut in history?
Clinton?
Geezer wrote With Republicans, it’s greed, and so they want to spend as little as possible on anything except national defense, in which case they couldn’t care less how much is wasted.
National defense and . . . well . . . travel vouchers.
It is been shown time and time again that the last three Republican Presidents have not been fiscally conservative. It’s time to stop pretending otherwise.
The public voted for tax cuts. And, in 2008, Senator Barack Obama ran on, you guessed it, tax cuts for the middle and lower classes!
So using this bit of logic, the public also voted for the structural deficits that came with these (especially BushCo) tax cuts. Which means that all of you with your hair on fire now about deficits need the STFU. Because the public, you know, VOTED for this.
And hey — Barack Obama did lower taxes! A thing you spent a great deal of time telling people over here that he would not do. In fact, I think that you had an action item to come back in August or so to remind us of that promise. Although the tax cuts were done straightaway. One more instance of your radio handlers pretty much leading you down the garden path.
Republicans had 8 years to run the economy according to their economic theories and they did. What did we get in return – the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Republican economic theories are completely discredited. Why should we listen to anything they say? The ironic thing is they’re still pushing the same busted ideology – tax cuts for the rich (don’t even give me that spending cut crap, every single Republican in the Senate voted for an “alternative” economic stimulus – even bigger tax cuts for the rich than Bush gave) and more deregulation.
Actually, Nemski…
I would say that the first President Bush was at least somewhat fiscally responsible. He did sign the budget deal that raised taxes to close the deficit.
BTW, we already tried the draconian spending cut route – it was tested by Herbert Hoover and it was what help make the Great Depression as horrible as it was.
Delaware Dem, don’t you know that you are suppose to blindly agree with me?
I know. And I failed on two counts, for I also praised a Republican. My programming must be failing.
Drink some more of this and all will be better.
Unstable Isotope
“Kilroy, I barely noticed Bush’s tax cuts, I’m not rich enough. I think we should restore balance in our tax system. I would like it to be more progressive.”
Not rich enough implies you’re rich and want more! I agree re: progressive tax.
Dana
“And we’re not wealthy. I run a concrete plant,”
Conrete plant dam, I make concrete shoes on the side. Jason, you’re about a size 10 🙂
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 18 October 2009 at 1:16 pm:
Unstable Isotope
“Yes, it’s true, Obama gave the biggest tax cut in history.”
So how did he funded it ?????????
Comment by nemski
“Delaware Dem, don’t you know that you are suppose to blindly agree with me?”
🙂 nemski you’re almost as good as Jason! With Jason and Donviti getting the AX I guess you’re next on the food chain!
How long do you people plan on blaming George W. Bush for Obama’s profligate spending?
The biggest capital gains tax cut in history was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1978 (cut from 39% to 28%).
Context anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#FY2009
I have seen that wikipedia page before and it is an awesome indictment of GOP economics based on empirical fact.
Of course, they will conveniently blame all the bad numbers on Congress.
Comment by Rhymes With Right
“How long do you people plan on blaming George W. Bush for Obama’s profligate spending”
I’ll give it until 01/20/2010 then Obama look out!
Comment by anon on 18 October 2009
“The biggest capital gains tax cut in history was signed by Jimmy Carter in 1978 (cut from 39% to 28%).”
Yea it was a bumper year for peanuts and he wanted to capitalize but his accounts were in blind trust. 1978 wasn’t that a mid-term election year?
RWR’s comment doesn’t make much sense to me. George W. Bush will always be blamed for the spending in his administration. What Obama does or doesn’t do will not mitigate Bush’s blame for his own spending.
And I would say that Obama’s spending in cleaning up Bush’s mess is also Bush’s spending.
Hey Delaware Dem, can I repeat that?
It takes a long time to clean up the spending mess, that’s for sure. Clinton spent his whole term cleaning up after Reagan/Bush. And DD, if you look at the wikipedia link that John Tobin provided, G.H.W. Bush doesn’t look very fiscally prudent.
Obama’s tax cuts are paid for by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
Way earlier in this post anon wrote “You see John, as numski demonstrates, the preferred practice here for fellating Obama when “Conservative/Republicans” like you dare question their tripe is to slurp down the bilge until they are so full of it they can projectile vomit it on you. This blog adds about as much value to teh “discourse” as an email daisy chain of 6th tier flunkies working for the WH Propaganda Czar.”
this is the part I don’t get. If folks find DL unsatisfactory, why do they remain and litter it with their posts?