akuma587 said:
Bush's 2009 Budget was around $3.1 Trillion FYI, and that does not include the $700 Billion in TARP funds. If anything, Obama has DECREASED the budget from what it was the year before. So...spending has actually decreased. Assuming Obama adopts these $17 billion in cuts from the $3.44 trillion that passed in Congress, his 2010 budget will be in the $3.27 trillion range. That is $53 billion less than Bush spent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget The President's budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2008. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:
|
A few things.
One, is the 2009 budget was to try and temporarily fix the economy. I was against TARP from the beginning, and criticized Bush for it.
But there is a huge difference in a onetime market correction spending plan, and a long term plan that will spend those dollars every year. Here are some numbers from the Whitehouse:
Debt Held by the public as a % of GDP:
2008: 40.8%
2009: 58.7%
2010: 64.6%
2011 – 2019: Between 67.3% and 65.6%
Also, the best figure to use for sustained spending under Bush, would be 2008 (as 2009 has spending that would not exist under Bush in 2010). In 2008, the deficient was 459 Billion. The lowest estimated deficit from 2009-2019, is 533.
Also, those above statistics are from the Whitehouse, and almost every economist feels they are grossly optimistic.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Summary_Tables2.pdf
With the governments plan, they tell us in 2019, we will be 7 trillion more in debt then we are today.
Why should our long term plan be to increase the problem, and not to fix it?
