Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its updated projections for the 2014 federal budget. CBO reports the 2014 deficit at $492 billion, just shy of a half a trillion dollars. However, this estimate should be taken with a heap of salt: It is arguably misleading to the extent that the operations of mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs), are improperly accounted for in the budget. Without that distortion, both spending and the deficit in 2014 would be higher by about $85 billion.
Not all that bad seeing how we are recovering from Bush's economic disaster. His deficit in
was 962 billion in 2009. Only his first year in office was the deficit less than 400 billion. From to 2007 the accumulated deficit was 4.08 trillion.
Under Clinton there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000.
The deficit under Obama has been shrinking. Good news. Maybe, just maybe we will survive the disaster inflicted on the US economy during the first 9 years of the 21st century.
And did he make it better by turning a surplus into a deficit. No, he did not. He
Look at the numbers, the numbers are falling.
Helping the rich only compounded the problem.
I am amazed how many of the average folk want to protect the
rich at their own expense. Simply amazing and the rich are laughing all the way to the bank.
Bush had the deficit down to about $180 Billion by 2008, then the financial crisis hit and TARP was passed. That increased the deficit to about $440 billion. Then Obama got into office and passed his Stimulus plan and the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. It is being incrementally reduced and was at about $500 Billion in 2013, still more than it was at when Bush left office.
Just showing comparisons, just showing comparisons. Bush's legacy will be one of disaster in 100 years. When you speak about an issue that began in his time in office that still impacts us today it is legitimate to mention him.
Yes, you and I got a few coins tossed to us, but the rich were given many dollars. This was primarily through lowered capital gains taxes, lowered the tax rate on dividend income.
These tax cuts, touted to be great for the economy has not proven to be as advertised.
The rich got the highest proportion of income tax cuts, 4.6%. Most everyone else got 3%. Capital gains taxes and dividend taxes were reduced for everyone equally. These changes did not take effect until 2003. The law was passed mid-2003 and made retroactive for the entire year. So people would see the results when they filed their 2003 taxes, or 1st quarter of 2004 and beyond.
So what happened?
In Feb 2003 the S&P 500 was at 841; in Feb 2008 it was at 1,330, a gain of 58% over 5 years. Annual rate of 11.6%. That's great news for anyone with a 401k. There was no major stock market corrections during this time. CTB, you are an investor, I know you know this.
The GDP growth rate shot up from 1.5% first quarter 2003 to 3.9% first quarter 2004. Subsequent quarters saw 4.1%, 3.9%, 3.0%,
then hovered between 2.9% and 3.1% every quarter until first quarter 2007, when Dems took control of the House, when it dropped to 1.2%.
Since Obama took office we have seen only two quarters with GDP
growth above 3.0%. The tax cuts on the upper 2% were removed in 2013. GDP promptly dropped from 3.1% to 2.0%, then dropped to 1.3% by mid 2013. Average GDP the last year of the Bush tax cuts--2.8%; average GDP the year after cuts removed--1.7%.
I don't know about you but I'll take a consistent GDP of around 3% during the Bush years over the roller coaster ride of GDP that rarely touches 3% we've had with Obama and his increased tax rates on the wealthy.
You forgot to factor in the crash of 2008 and how much that took out of 401K's and investments in other accounts. Most of that gained from 2001 to 2007 was lost. That was under Bush you remember. A lot of people knew it was coming including Bush administration. They hoped the bubble would not pop until after he left office, but as we know it popped while he
was still in office.