CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:65
Arguments:47
Total Votes:73
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Why blame Bush for extreme spending when Obama breaks record with 1.47T? (47)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11164) pic



Why blame Bush for extreme spending when Obama breaks record with 1.47T?

Add New Argument

Obama is going to score all new records for deficit spending and debt accumulation.

The administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion.

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion from 2001 to 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion in one year.

President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.

President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.

President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.

Side: Crazy Spending
4 points
Side: Because Bush created that number
4 points

So you are blaming Obama's spending on Bush. Typical.

So, did Bush sign the health care bill. Oh, yeah, Bush signed the stimulus bill as well.

At some point this administration has to take responsibility for itself. It's also not even close to accurate. Consider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush—to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well.

Obama has been on history's biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010.

Mr. Axelrod claims the pork-laden stimulus package has been a success. But Mr. Obama told Americans that if it were passed, unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%. It is now 10%. The president also said it would create 3.7 million jobs, 90% of which would be in the private sector. By Mr. Obama's standards, the stimulus failed miserably.

Bush vs Obama

Many Obama defenders claim that the numbers in the graphic do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplements (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post

Here is a question?

If Bush policies were disastrous, as Obama claims, then why is he continuing them?

Supporting Evidence: Wall Street (online.wsj.com)
Side: Because Bush created that number
1 point

No, Bush didn't sign the health care bill that will cut the deficit 1 trillion over the next 20 years - instead he started a war in a country that didn't attack us, passed tax cuts while the country was in 2 wars and Medicare Part D all with borrowed money

the TARP bailouts of AIG, Bear Stearns, GM, Chrysler, Fannie and Freddie, Citigroup, Bank of America, American Express, Discover, etc happened under Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

"Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson"

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/of-course-that-implies-he-had-principles/

unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%

"An estimate of what the economy will look like if a policy is adopted contains two components: a forecast of what would happen in the absence of the policy, and an estimate of the effect of the policy. As I’ve described, our estimates of the impact of the Recovery Act have proven quite accurate. But we, like virtually every other forecaster, failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy, and the degree to which the usual relationship between GDP and unemployment would break down.

By February 2009, before the Recovery Act was passed, unemployment was already over 8 percent; and by June, before the Recovery Act could have had much of an impact, it was 9½ percent. That is, our projection turned out to be wrong even before the Recovery Act had a chance to get off the ground, which is about as clear-cut evidence as one could imagine that the problem was in our assessment of the baseline, and not in the effects of the Act." - Romer http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/ files/microsites/100901-National-Press-Club.pdf

While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post

If you actually read the article it refers to, you'll see that the projected deficit then (March 21, 2009) was 1.8 trillion - the actual deficit for 2009 ended up being nearly half a trillion less than that

2010 was even better than that: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69E54M20101016 (also see the 2011 projection)

Side: Because Bush created that number
3 points

If Bush policies were disastrous, as Obama claims, then why is he continuing them?

Because Obama doesn't know about the special red button underneath his desk that erases the '00-'08 policies Bush forced down our throats, to use the popular neoconservative phrase.

/snark

The problem is, you aren't responding to the CPBB's graph. Here's the full article, in case you find HuffPost intolerable:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id;=3036

Alas, more than likely, you will criticize Obama for ending Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy, even though it will drastically reduce the yearly deficit. But you must be one of those guys who think that tax cuts on the rich increase revenue for the government via expansion of the economy. If so, then there is simply no point in arguing with you. Just keep watching Fox Business.

You're still here? Ok, simply put, you are blaming Obama for a "record" 1.47T deficit, when the graph clearly shows that the great recession (which reduces revenue), widespread Bush-era tax-cuts (which we must wait to vote to end), and wars (which will be political suicide to end) are the main reason why the deficit is so high.

Also, I'm not quite fond of your opinion on the Recovery Act. Most conservatives overlook that within the "stimulus package" there is the largest tax cuts for middle-income households (sounds too conservative to believe in, right... right?) and instead complain about mythical pork-barrel commitments like the railway connecting Los Angeles to Vegas (claimed to be debunked even by your own Chris Wallace). Furthermore, economists widely argue for the necessity of an increase in government spending for a country in a recession. I don't think you advise your doctor on how to best treat a wound. You just know that he probably shouldn't use a sledgehammer (like tax cuts for the rich, ha!).

And It is only reasonable that the extent of the stimulus will be commensurate with the depth of the recession. So your point that the stimulus package is the large the country has ever seen isn't too effective when every one around you knows that this recession is the second worst this country has ever seen. Sure, it's no Great Depression, but our population was only 92 million then, too, was it not?

It seems like this is a tired and debunked conservative talking point. Highly effective, though, in inflaming the base.

In my opinion, you should blame Bush more so than Obama, since his policies contribute more to the deficit that Obama, even if you count only his non-repealable policies (the war and the tax cuts). But really, people, it's the economy. Blame that on whomever you wish...

Side: Because Bush created that number
3 points

And the Obama health care bill wasn't forced down our throats.

along with the Stimulus Bill. Oh, please.

I did respond to the CPBB article, and the Heritage Foundation article did include the War and Tax cuts with the deficit compared to Obama spending.

But you must be one of those guys who think that tax cuts on the rich increase revenue for the government via expansion of the economy. If so, then there is simply no point in arguing with you.

It is called supply side economics. Read a book.

I'm not quite fond of your opinion on the Recovery Act

Well, Congratulations.

there is the largest tax cuts for middle-income households

Not only is Obama cutting the largest taxes for middle income households, but it is spending more than Bush. It is in the Heritage Article.

By the way, I am not conservative. I am libertarian.

Side: Because Bush created that number
ontologicsec(15) Disputed
2 points

It is called supply side economics. Read a book.

"Trickle-down" economics is only effective when the nation faces a lack of supply. Only the most ideologically closed-minded person would look at a recession and neglect to see a lack of demand. But yeah, I saw the Laffer curve on Glenn Beck, too. Too bad it's only really applicable to third-world countries.

By the way, I am not conservative. I am libertarian

Libertarians are the most economically conservative bunch in American politics, so your distinction in this debate is pretty irrelevant. But I know you urge people to call you libertarian rather than conservative. I went through my own Libertarian phase in high school... read Ayn Rand, actually paid attention in my Macroeconomics class, frequently took the limited government position in my AP Government class. It was actually a pretty popular position, because you could act like you knew how free-market economies worked and argue in favor of prostitution and marijuana at the same time. Good times...

Side: Because Bush created that number
1 point

Finally someone on this site who knows like I do that lower taxes work.

Side: Because Bush created that number

We still have almost a 10% unemployment rate, a still volatile housing market, an unstable stock market and nearly all of the states running up multi-billion dollar deficits. What is this mindless spending accomplishing? Some might say 225,000 jobs. Those were temporary census jobs and those were cut in June. The wars cost $1.05 trillion. http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

Obama spent the cost of the Iraq war with his stimulus package. and he tops this total with his health care package. And now he wants another stimulus package? I think not! He wants to tax his way to wealth? We can't afford new taxes in this economy. No more!

Side: Crazy Spending
ontologicsec(15) Disputed
2 points

Why do you assume that people are spending more when the deficit increases? There are two sides of the table. One expenses, the other revenue. Do you not expect that a GREAT recession would cause a GREAT reduction in revenue for the government?

Going on a diet when you're starving is not a good idea.

Side: Because Bush created that number
1 point

I'll meet you half way and say they both suck ;)

..................................................................

Side: Because Bush created that number
1 point

bush is the whole promblem we were fine with clinton and then happhead red neck bush comes along and startes a useless war and cuts taxes for weathy what an iditiot and cheated on the the ection

Side: Because Bush created that number
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
2 points

We were fine with Clinton?

You know how high taxes were in the 90's? people were very discontent with democrats in the 90's. There was a Republican tsunami in the senate.

useless war?

since when was oil ever useless? When is our national security useless?

There is no proof that he cheated in the election. If there was, the Supreme Court would not have put him in power.

Side: Crazy Spending
ontologicsec(15) Disputed
1 point

So the highly disputed war in Afghanistan and the highly unpopular war in Iraq doesn't count.

And high taxes to balance the budget also doesn't count.

I see, this is a fair debate indeed.

There is no proof that he cheated in the election. If there was, the Supreme Court would not have put him in power.

Just wanted to quote this argument based on the claim that the SCOTUS is infallible, lol.

Side: Because Bush created that number
1 point

Just to add my observations, Bush made a number of expensive commitments that Obama must continue to support to this day, which only adds to his portion of the deficit, secondly we just came out of a major market collapse and no matter what president we had, they'd still have a lot of debt from it.

Side: Crazy Spending
1 point

This doens't quite go with debate but just wanted to let people know what our current President is doing behind our backs.

It is an insult to the American people that the Administration chose to make an appointment of this scale during a congressional recess. So much for their promises of transparency and openness.

Dr. Berwick, an advocate of government rationed health care, was nominated by the President to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on April 19, but Democratic leaders in the Senate have not even scheduled a hearing on his nomination. The public deserves to know how Dr. Berwick will handle an agency that spends over $800 billion in taxpayer money, but it is clear the President wants to keep his views and agenda hidden from the American people.

The President is right that ‘Washington games’ are being played with this nomination—but he’s misidentified the players.

Side: Crazy Spending
ontologicsec(15) Disputed
1 point

Just read this article:

Beck, Fox & Friends take a trip down health care misinformation lane

From the article:

In fact, Berwick was explaining that we are currently rationing care. In the interview with Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick acknowledges that the current health care system already rations care and that the question for the future is how best to do it.

Indeed, insurance companies already ration care. The insurance industry has already admitted that it currently uses cost benefit analyses to determine health care coverage. In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Wellpoint chief medical officer Dr. Sam Nussbaum told co-host Steve Inskeep that "where the private sector has been far more effective than government programs is in limiting clinical services to those that are best meeting the needs of patients." Former CIGNA senior executive Wendell Potter testified in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that "insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick" and that insurers "dump small businesses whose employees' medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected."

Side: Crazy Spending
1 point

And if there is a government health care plan, and when resources are thin and revenue is low, they will not ration care. What about the billions wasted on medicaid and medicare fraud?

Side: Crazy Spending
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

I don't listen to Beck and TV media or need to to get my information about the implications of the insurance bill, or the fin reg bill, and pray to god there won't be a crap and trade bill. All that is, is Big brother getting more of their hands on money. I attend a monthly business meeting and talk with business people in my community Business owners anywhere from 5 to 100 employees and we discuss what we are doing and what we are seeing. Every single one of them says the same thing they are confused about all of what Washington is throwing down on business and for small business to try to make sense of a 2500 page bill is not easy. So with all that being said private sector is holding back from hiring or advertising and holding onto cash so that they can stay in business because they are worried about the political climate and uncertainty about new regulations. The timing of all of this during a bad recession is making it worse and keeping things slow. Honestly we don't know the full implications of the Insurance bill, and neither do the politicians who passed it without even reading it. So knowing that we have to put our trust in the FED scares the hell out of business. When business is unsure about the the true cost and we are only relying on in hopes that the big GOV has done a good bill you can see why private sector right now is freaked out.

Side: Crazy Spending

"The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/

Supporting Evidence: Cato Institute (www.cato-at-liberty.org)
Side: Because Bush created that number