Cost of the G.W. Bush Administration: $11.5 trillion

[Scam of God]

Link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To put this in a bit of perspective, World War II cost an estimated 1.6 trillion dollars for everyone involved in the fighting altogether at the time, according to what I've read (anyone with a more accurate source can correct me). Adjusted for inflation, that's roughly $15 trillion. In other words, Bush has spent only one-fifth less than the entirety of those nations which fought the Second World War.

Please, Republicans, don't ever lecture us about 'fiscal discipline' again.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would probably rather have had the Great Society again instead of Bush. To its credit, it would be cheaper.

[Scam of God]

     I would probably rather have had the Great Society again instead of Bush. To its credit, it would be cheaper.

And more useful. At least the Great Society benefited some historically-discriminated minorities. What has Bush's Caligula-like treasury busting benefited the nation?

[opebo]

What has Bush's Caligula-like treasury busting benefited the nation?

It benefited his constituency, Einzige, and they're the only ones who matter.

[© tweed]

What has Bush's Caligula-like treasury busting benefited the nation?

It benefited his constituency, Einzige, and they're the only ones who matter.

towards the end the superrich began to get seriously injured as well by the financial collapse.

[opebo]

towards the end the superrich began to get seriously injured as well by the financial collapse.

No, they cannot be injured.  You see, if everyone is your slave, it doesn't matter if you have 100 million or a billion.. the position at the top of the ape-heap is the key.

[Aizen]

towards the end the superrich began to get seriously injured as well by the financial collapse.

No, they cannot be injured.  You see, if everyone is your slave, it doesn't matter if you have 100 million or a billion.. the position at the top of the ape-heap is the key.

what if you beat them with a baseball bat. can you injure them that way?

[opebo]

towards the end the superrich began to get seriously injured as well by the financial collapse.

No, they cannot be injured.  You see, if everyone is your slave, it doesn't matter if you have 100 million or a billion.. the position at the top of the ape-heap is the key.

what if you beat them with a baseball bat. can you injure them that way?

Your suggestion does appeal to me, Aizen, and it is a lovely fantasy, but how often is a society upended?

I can assure you that you cannot get near to the elite no matter how hard you try, particularly if you are holding a baseball bat.

[JSojourner]

What has Bush's Caligula-like treasury busting benefited the nation?

It benefited his constituency, Einzige, and they're the only ones who matter.

Once again, Opebo hits it out of the park.

A relative emailed me the other day saying that "the country club is much better off because of George W. Bush".  She meant to say "country" but the subconscious is quite a thing, no?

[Beet]

"True, a big part of that number reflects the government's purchase of securities that may actually yield a profit one day. "

The debt will yield a profit one day? That is simply delusional. It's based on the notion that somehow the old, over-inflated market values will return "when the economy recovers". Except that the old, over-inflated market values were based on debt in the first place. So basically the only way this bad debt will "yield a profit" is if more bad debt is generated.

What bunk. I supported the initial bailout to stabilize the markets and get a handle on the situation. But what the government needs to do is to start recognizing losses, the sooner the better.

Oh yes, and Bush will go down in history as the President who presided over the downfall of America, although to be fair he was a clueless idiot, and it is Mr. Greenspan who should have known better (and mayhap he did).

Edit: Though I am afraid to say, but is true, most of the visible deterioration will likely occur under Obama.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected a cumulative surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Bush used that as justification for his tax cuts (we can have our cake and eat it too).

On January 19, 2001, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64
On January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08

It's expected to be at least $12 trillion 2 years from now, instead of a $128 billion national debt. Great job, Bush!

[paul718]

Are you guys blaming Bush and the Republicans for spending on 9/11 recovery, Afghanistan, Katrina recovery, and Wall Street bailouts?  I'm curious to know how many Democrats opposed him on those expenses. 

[Beet]

Are you guys blaming Bush and the Republicans for spending on 9/11 recovery, Afghanistan, Katrina recovery, and Wall Street bailouts?  I'm curious to know how many Democrats opposed him on those expenses. 

I opposed both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Katrina was a gnat economically. By the time the Wall Street bailouts became an issue, it was far, far too late. To be fair, the bubble started in the second half of the Clinton administration; if Greenspan and Bush had allowed an ordinary correction, we would have had a medium-sized recession somewhere between the severity of the 1991 recession (light), and the 1982 recession. Of course that would have meant some Republican losses in the 2002 off-year cycle, and a more difficult re-election for Bush in 2004. The problem with modern democracies is that the needs of tommorrow's election, combined with the limited lifespan of our CEO's and bureaucrats, guarantees economic policy directly primarily toward the short term.

[opebo]

The debt will yield a profit one day? That is simply delusional. It's based on the notion that somehow the old, over-inflated market values will return "when the economy recovers". Except that the old, over-inflated market values were based on debt in the first place. So basically the only way this bad debt will "yield a profit" is if more bad debt is generated.

No, debt is not bad if it is 'paid back', even if that is just with printed money.  We have gone through this before Beet - the first depression was eventually followed by increased asset values.  How?  Printing money in enormous quantities.

But what the government needs to do is to start recognizing losses, the sooner the better.

What the hell difference will 'recognizing losses' make?  You simply have to make economic activity occur again. 

Oh yes, and Bush will go down in history as the President who presided over the downfall of America, although to be fair he was a clueless idiot, and it is Mr. Greenspan who should have known better (and mayhap he did).

Edit: Though I am afraid to say, but is true, most of the visible deterioration will likely occur under Obama.

Oh please.  There is no need for this - we're having a depression, a deflation.  This is entirely a phenomenon created by bad State policy enforcing a certain kind of behavior on the masses.  We can simply change these policies, just as has been done before.  The solutions are right there in the history books, and there is no need to accept a 'downfall' just because of a psychological phenomenon.

[The Duke]

Do I really have to be the one to point out that the lion's share of that cost comes from Social Security and Medicare?  And that when Bush tried to talk about making entitlements solvent, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress scurried like roaches when the light comes on?

[paul718]

To put this in a bit of perspective, World War II cost an estimated 1.6 trillion dollars for everyone involved in the fighting altogether at the time, according to what I've read (anyone with a more accurate source can correct me). Adjusted for inflation, that's roughly $15 trillion. In other words, Bush has spent only one-fifth less than the entirety of those nations which fought the Second World War.

Please, Republicans, don't ever lecture us about 'fiscal discipline' again.

No, the U.S. government spent $11.5 trillion.  The only item of spending I can see attributed solely to Bush and the Republicans are the two tax cuts, which totaled $2 trillion.  If you want to include Iraq, give it another trillion.  $3 trillion is too much, but the idea that Bush/Republicans own $11.5 trillion of the debt is crazy.

[opebo]

Do I really have to be the one to point out that the lion's share of that cost comes from Social Security and Medicare?  And that when Bush tried to talk about making entitlements solvent, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress scurried like roaches when the light comes on?

No, none of the $11.5 trillion mentioned in this thread was from Social Security or Medicare. 

Also, of course these programs are perfectly solvent, as is evidenced by the fact that millions of checks are paid every month.  What Bush proposed was to do away with these programs (i.e. 'privatize' them), not to make them solvent.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Please, Republicans, don't ever lecture us about 'fiscal discipline' again.

I feel like this is all I ever post anymore;

Bush ≠ the Republican Party

Naw, they basically are. Republicans are holding up Holder's nomination because he didn't promise to not investigate the Bush administration.

[Matt Damon™]

Please, Republicans, don't ever lecture us about 'fiscal discipline' again.

I feel like this is all I ever post anymore;

Bush ≠ the Republican Party

You're right. Now it's those wonderfully fiscally disciplined types like Palin, Huckabee or Jindal.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Also, of course these programs are perfectly solvent

LOL.

I feel like this is all I ever post anymore;

Bush ≠ the Republican Party

True, but he was the leader of our Party and we are being held accountable.

As everyone knows I am generally a supporter of the 43rd President and I am lampooned for it.  That's fine, it's life.  I believe he deserves a defense, as he accomplished some positive things, and certainly isn't the only culprit for many of the challenges we face today.

I am deeply concerned and embarrassed by the lack of fiscal discipline practiced while my own Party was in control of the White House and Congress.  The Republican Party forgot what the word "deficit" meant, and some leaders even tried to make us believe that large deficits were healthy.  As I have stated before, we believed we could have our cake, eat it too, and then reach into the future and eat our grandchildren's cake.  We deserve the wrath of history for these actions.

HOWEVER, one must note that the biggest long-term fiscal problem we face concerns entitlement programs.  Would we have expected a Republican Congress in 2002 to raise retirement ages or lower benefits.. and still be re-elected?  Bush had to promise to create a brand new benefit for Prescription Drugs in order to get elected in 2000... and, unfortunately, he kept that promise.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also, of course these programs are perfectly solvent

LOL.

I feel like this is all I ever post anymore;

Bush ≠ the Republican Party

True, but he was the leader of our Party and we are being held accountable.

As everyone knows I am generally a supporter of the 43rd President and I am lampooned for it.  That's fine, it's life.  I believe he deserves a defense, as he accomplished some positive things, and certainly isn't the only culprit for many of the challenges we face today.

I am deeply concerned and embarrassed by the lack of fiscal discipline practiced while my own Party was in control of the White House and Congress.  The Republican Party forgot what the word "deficit" meant, and some leaders even tried to make us believe that large deficits were healthy.  As I have stated before, we believed we could have our cake, eat it too, and then reach into the future and eat our grandchildren's cake.  We deserve the wrath of history for these actions.

HOWEVER, one must note that the biggest long-term fiscal problem we face concerns entitlement programs.  Would we have expected a Republican Congress in 2002 to raise retirement ages or lower benefits.. and still be re-elected?  Bush had to promise to create a brand new benefit for Prescription Drugs in order to get elected in 2000... and, unfortunately, he kept that promise.

That would have been a lot cheaper if it hadn't favored Big Pharma over the taxpayers. The ironic part about Republicans talking about how much trouble Social Security will be in is that Bush screwed up every other part of the federal budget so bad that Social Security is by far the most fiscally strong part of the entire federal budget.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

That would have been a lot cheaper if it hadn't favored Big Pharma over the taxpayers.

I suppose it would have been cheaper if we screwed those eeeevil pharmaceutical companies, limiting the amount of research and development that they can do, which causes more people to die quicker, which causes even less prescription drug costs.