If you look at the figures a little closer you will see that the numbers for 2009 are a buget estimate. These are numbers that CBO has published. I included the numbers from the previous administration as a comparison.
I feel obligated to remind you that the banking meltdown was concocted and implemented on Clintons watch. Clintons administration did more to damage the economy than Bush did. Why do people feel the need to blame Bush for EVERYTHING.
OK. Lets look at that. Which figure is he going to half of. 2008, which would be great, or 2009 which would still be almost double the 2008 numbers?
I planned on being a millionaire by the time I was 40. Reality has a way in intruding on the best laid plans. MY biggest concern is where will the money to do all of these things come from.
I could ask the same question -why do some people insist on giving Bush a pass on everything?
First of all look where we were in 2000 a $234B surplus. That was gone with 2 years. I don't deny the numbers the reason the deficit numbers are high, what I am saying is Obama had a damn good reason to do what he did
because the alternative was a collapse of the entire US economic system.
If you look at 2009 and 2010 there is a 600B difference meaning the deficit is already projected to drop from 1800B to 1258B and the number is already projected to drop next year by another 300B. Obama promised to cut the deficit by half by 2013, if the numbers hold up as projected he will do exactly that.
The Bailout was a necessary evil, if we had done nothing we would have been looking at a Great-Depression style scenario.
The Banking problem, it was
Gramm-Leach-Billey act which repealled Glass-Stillwell, Just Look at the names of its authors...
Phil Gramm R-Texas
Jim Leach R-Iowa
Thomas Biley R-Virgina
All three of them are Conservative Republicans, and it was a GOP Congress in 1999.
The voting roll call is here, look who actually voted for the POS. It was overwheming passed by the GOP, with only 1 GOP senator and 5 GOP congressmen voting no. Frankly even if Clinton had vetoed it his veto would have been likely overridden. It was the liberal wing of the Democrats that largely voted no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png
In short:
1. GOP sponsored Bill
2. Passed OVERWHELMING by a GOP controlled Congress (both houses)
3. Signed by a Democrat.
So You are wrong top assign the Banking crisis to Clinton alone. The Gramm-Leach-Billey Act was pushed through by the GOP. I agree that Clinton shouldn't have signed it, but it wasn't his bill (nor the Democrats) the fault is at least shared. Even if Clinton had vetoed it, judging from the lock the GOP had on congress there was a very strong chance it would have passed via a congressional override.
I agree with OTG and Bones.
Obama has been too accommodating with the GOP and they have used that against him. He needs to remind them that he's the boss.