The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2006
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    803

    Default Truth about Obama paying for Bush's war.....

    I have seen several people blaming Bush NOT paying or putting HIS wars in the budget. Therefore, the massive debt under Obama is NOT really Obama's fault. Like normal, it was Bush's fault.

    This really made no sense to me. Now the truth is that Obama has NEVER had an actual budget.

    So, I tried to do some research. Looked on Snopes, did several searches. I did find articles from LEFT or Liberal sources, but nothing from a balance source.

    This is the closest I came to, but it IS a Blog, an opinion piece.... IF someone has UNBIASED info on this, please post it. NO moveon.org crap tho. Lets talk FACTS!!

    I call BS on the claim that some of you have made that Obama's Debt is because he HAD to pay for Bush's war. Obama's debt is because of HIS policies!! Obamacare and stimulas, EACH will cost more money than the War, for example.

    Obama spends in the TRILLIONS, the Iraq war cost $120 Billion a year. Not chump change, but even IF Obama had to pay the entire war (which I do NOT believe), that would not make much of a dent into counting for Obama's debt, would it???


    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fac..._iraq_war.html




    The Facts
    To help me adjudicate this question, I turned to Robert Hormats, a managing director of the financial firm Goldman-Sachs, who has made a detailed study of the financing of American wars in his book, The Price of Liberty. According to Hormats, it is true to say that Bush is unique among U.S. presidents in failing to raise a nickel in extra taxes to pay for the cost of the Iraq war. On the other hand, previous wars were only partially funded by extra taxation, and all resulted in a considerable increase in the national debt.

    By Hormats' calculations, 25 percent of the costs of the Civil War were met by taxes. The proportion rises to 33 percent in the case of World War I, and 45 percent for World War II. President Truman, who did not like borrowing, ensured that almost all the costs of the Korean war were funded through increased taxation. It is difficult to give a precise figure for the Vietnam war, as increased taxes came mainly toward the end.

    World War II was easily the costliest war in American history, gobbling up 45 percent of America's gross national product. In addition to levying income taxes on everyone earning more than $600 a year, the government raised the rest of the money through war bonds and deficit financing. The federal debt ballooned from 52 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 1940 to 120 percent by the end of the war, the highest in history.

    In relative terms, the Iraq war has been fairly cheap by historical standards, costing about $120 billion a year or around one per cent of GDP, compared to 45 percent of GDP for World War II. In absolute terms, however, the Iraq war is the "second most expensive war" in American history after World War II. According to Hormats, it has been financed largely through the issuing of treasury bonds, 40 to 45 percent of which have been bought by foreigners.

    The Pinocchio Test
    Hillary Clinton is correct in pointing to Bush as the only American president to fail to increase taxes to pay for a foreign war launched on his watch. On the other hand, with the exception of Harry Truman, most previous presidents only partly funded the wars they launched. Clinton has exaggerated the case against Bush by skating over this fact. One Pinocchio.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    4,955

    Default

    So, every time you refuse to believe facts, you're going to open a different thread trying to get people to agree with you? Do you understand on budget and off budget?


    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us...dget.html?_r=0
    "As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

    For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.

    Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt."

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...ighing-the-ir/

    http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3612

    http://costofwar.com/

    "Another obstacle to estimating the true costs is that many of them are buried in other government accounts and therefore don’t show up in the direct appropriations for the war. Further, some war-related spending has been pushed out of the government altogether and is borne by private parties. But just because it doesn’t show up in the government ledger doesn’t mean it isn’t a cost—it means only that someone else pays it. For example, the failure to provide adequate budgetary support for the Veterans Health Administration has forced many veterans to buy private medical care. While this reduces government spending, there are no real savings for the country. Similarly, relying on the National Guard and the reserves to help fight the war removes hundreds of thousands of workers from the civilian labor force, imposing real costs on the economy as a whole—not to mention on the men and women who are suddenly called to active duty, and on their families.

    Finally, we should point out that the procedure used by the administration to fund the Iraq war was chosen deliberately in order to deflect close attention. The administration has requested nearly all the money for the war in the form of “emergency” funding, which is not subject to standard budget caps or vigorous scrutiny. Emergency funding is intended for genuine crises, such as Hurricane Katrina, where the utmost speed is required to get the money to the field. The continued use of this emergency procedure—five years after the war began—is budgetary sleight of hand that makes a mockery of a democratic budget process."
    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...stiglitz200804

    "The events and policies that pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama’s making. If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $18 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019.[1] The stimulus measures and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time."
    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849
    Last edited by Beentheredonethat; Jan. 1, 2013 at 01:26 PM.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2006
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    803

    Default

    I have just seen several people (you included) say that, but when I looked, I found VERY little info stating it.

    Your NY Times link doesnt work......

    Lets just say that a Trillion of Obama's debt is Bush's (again, I dont really believe that), that would be LESS than 20% of Obama's debt. Not exactly what I would call Obama's debt, BUSH'S.

    That means, the debt under Obama's term is 80% Obama's, not quite a tiny percentage, is it?

    As far as your Medicare paragraph, have you missed what Obamacare will do to Medicare and paying Dr's? I just thought that was strange, bashing Bush while Obama is taking that to all new heights.......


    4 members found this post helpful.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    4,955

    Default

    This is the whole NY times article. You, of course, will believe what you want and twist the facts to suit you.

    Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise
    TWITTER
    LINKEDIN
    SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
    PRINT
    REPRINTS
    SHARE

    By JACKIE CALMES
    Published: February 19, 2009
    WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

    Blog

    The Caucus
    The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
    More Politics News
    The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.

    But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax.

    Even with bigger deficit projections, the Obama administration will put the country on “a sustainable fiscal course” by the end of Mr. Obama’s term, Peter R. Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said Thursday in an interview. Mr. Orszag did not provide details of how the administration would reduce a deficit expected to reach at least $1.5 trillion this year.

    Mr. Obama’s banishment of the gimmicks, which have been widely criticized, is in keeping with his promise to run a more transparent government.

    Fiscal sleight of hand has long been a staple of federal budgets, giving rise to phrases like “rosy scenario” and “magic asterisks.”

    The $2.7 trillion in additional deficit spending, Mr. Orszag said, is “a huge amount of money that would just be kind of a magic asterisk in previous budgets.”

    “The president prefers to tell the truth,” he said, “rather than make the numbers look better by pretending.”

    Recent presidents and Congresses were complicit in the ploy involving the alternative minimum tax. While that tax was intended to hit the wealthiest taxpayers, it was not indexed for inflation. That fact and the tax breaks of the Bush years have meant that it could affect millions of middle-class taxpayers.

    If they paid it, the government would get billions of dollars more in tax revenues, which is what past budgets have projected. But it would also probably mean a taxpayer revolt. So each year the White House and Congress agree to “patch” the alternative tax for inflation, and the extra revenues never materialize.

    Nearly $70 billion of the just-enacted $787 billion economic recovery plan reflected the bookkeeping cost of adjusting the alternative tax for a year.

    The White House budget office calculates that over the next decade, the tax would add $1.2 trillion in revenues. But Mr. Obama is not counting those revenues, and he is adding $218 billion to the 10-year deficit projections to reflect the added interest the government would pay for its extra debt.

    As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

    For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.

    Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt.

    He will also budget $273 billion in that period for natural disasters. Every year the government pays billions for disaster relief, but presidents and lawmakers have long ignored budget reformers’ calls for a contingency account to reflect that certainty.

    More Articles in US »A version of this article appeared in print on February 20, 2009, on page A17 of the New York edition.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2011
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    HAHAHAHA this is classic...... The dems have had control of congress for the first two years obama was in office and they NEVER passed a budget, they still havent passed a budget yet. 4 years without doing their jobs,,,

    AND WHY WOULD THEY????? They love the last Bush budget that keeps rolling over every year. It contains the massive spending from 2008.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    3,405

    Default

    Delusion is free ......Shermy....just keep opening your own topics that will work when the facts state otherwise..


    3 members found this post helpful.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2011
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stolen virtue View Post
    Delusion is free ......Shermy....just keep opening your own topics that will work when the facts state otherwise..
    Now your "delusion" posts are growing tiresome.... yawn


    4 members found this post helpful.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    4,955

    Default

    Facts. Yawn. DOES require reading and comprehension, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat View Post
    So, every time you refuse to believe facts, you're going to open a different thread trying to get people to agree with you? Do you understand on budget and off budget?


    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us...dget.html?_r=0
    "As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

    For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.

    Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt."

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...ighing-the-ir/

    http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3612

    http://costofwar.com/

    "Another obstacle to estimating the true costs is that many of them are buried in other government accounts and therefore don’t show up in the direct appropriations for the war. Further, some war-related spending has been pushed out of the government altogether and is borne by private parties. But just because it doesn’t show up in the government ledger doesn’t mean it isn’t a cost—it means only that someone else pays it. For example, the failure to provide adequate budgetary support for the Veterans Health Administration has forced many veterans to buy private medical care. While this reduces government spending, there are no real savings for the country. Similarly, relying on the National Guard and the reserves to help fight the war removes hundreds of thousands of workers from the civilian labor force, imposing real costs on the economy as a whole—not to mention on the men and women who are suddenly called to active duty, and on their families.

    Finally, we should point out that the procedure used by the administration to fund the Iraq war was chosen deliberately in order to deflect close attention. The administration has requested nearly all the money for the war in the form of “emergency” funding, which is not subject to standard budget caps or vigorous scrutiny. Emergency funding is intended for genuine crises, such as Hurricane Katrina, where the utmost speed is required to get the money to the field. The continued use of this emergency procedure—five years after the war began—is budgetary sleight of hand that makes a mockery of a democratic budget process."
    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...stiglitz200804

    "The events and policies that pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama’s making. If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $18 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019.[1] The stimulus measures and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time."
    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849


    3 members found this post helpful.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    3,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noms View Post
    Now your "delusion" posts are growing tiresome.... yawn
    Your lack of facts are really funny . I see a lot of Jon stewart in what you post as facts.....My 15 year old knows when she reads Faux News and it is funny....


    1 members found this post helpful.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun. 25, 2004
    Location
    Carolinas
    Posts
    4,284

    Default

    It is late and I am tired so will provide this link for your research. Congressional Budget Office , if there were budgets for 2009-2012+ it should be here.
    "Never do anything that you have to explain twice to the paramedics."
    Courtesy my cousin Tim



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep. 18, 2000
    Location
    Tatertown, KY, USA
    Posts
    1,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noms View Post
    HAHAHAHA this is classic...... The dems have had control of congress for the first two years obama was in office
    More lies

    http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/20...s-for-two.html


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Obama 2012
    By RedMare01 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Nov. 7, 2012, 09:25 AM
  2. Obama 2008 versus Obama 2012
    By Daydream Believer in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: Sep. 6, 2012, 09:53 AM
  3. Joplin and Obama....
    By Shermy in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: May. 31, 2011, 02:24 PM
  4. NAIS -THANK YOU OBAMA!!!
    By Cielo Azure in forum Off Course
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Feb. 8, 2010, 08:43 PM
  5. Horses for Obama
    By andy825 in forum Off Course
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: Oct. 26, 2008, 11:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •