//
you're reading...

Debt

Cause of US Debt Explained in Short Video

The election is already over and here I stumbled onto a video I found which explains better than any other source exactly what policies are causing our enormous national debt.  I already was aware of the facts, but this lays them out well.  You may be surprised which political party’s policies are primarily the cause of the national debt.  Watch the video below.

George Bush almost single-handedly turned a projected six trillion dollar budget surplus into a 6 trillion dollar deficit from 2002-2011 (as the video demonstrates).  One might argue that the 25% reduction of revenues due to the economy is more complicated and can’t simply be blamed on Bush.  Fair enough, though I think one could easily argue that the economic crash was caused in large part due to deregulation of the financial sector via the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act which was a true conservative regulatory move among other things.

Then there was the stimulus which accounts for a fraction of what has been added.  Conservative talking heads love to point out that the debt has grown by 4 or 5 trillion since Obama took office but they never explain which of his policies actually have created this new debt… and that’s because they can’t.  Obama’s policies have not created more debt.  Inform your friends.  Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter.

About Justin McAffee:
Justin is the publisher The Nevada View, which has earned the recognition in the Washington Post’s “Best State-Based Political Blogs,” as well as being awarded the “Most Valuable Blogger Award” by the local CBS affiliate in 2011. Follow him on Twitter @McAffee

Discussion

18 Responses to “Cause of US Debt Explained in Short Video”

  1. Interesting how the video tries to blame the some of the deficit on the Bush tax cuts. The EGGTRRA was signed into law on June 2001 and created in 1999. The reason why it was created in the first place was to give the assumed surplus back to the people by cutting every single tax bracket.

    And guess what, everyone thought it was a good idea. By the time it was signed into law a recession was already underway. The projections still stated that the tax cuts wouldn’t occur large debt over the next 10 years.

    Then September 11, 2001, the security of America was changed. Huge amounts of spending went into changing how America was kept safe. Sure you can blame this spending on Bush but as a people, we decided that this was the correct course of action.

    Then came the Iraq invasion. Say what you will now, but in 2003 47-60% of Americans supported the invasion. So we went to war, which costs money (lots of it). As soon as Americans started to discover that the war was retarded, we wanted to pull out. But by doing so we would not only make enemies of the people of Iraq but also leave them devastated without the possibility of returning to livable conditions (think of Africa). So we had a responsibility to build Iraq back up and leave on good terms. This cost even more money.

    We would all like to point fingers at Bush for causing the debt, but really we should blame A) Retarded Terrorists, B) Ourselves for supporting a stupid war, or C) None of the above because how were any of us supposed to know how to react to the first major attack on American soil in over 150 years.

    Posted by Anny Ommus | November 26, 2012, 2:20 pm
    • You can apologize for the massive deficit spending all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is where the debt came from. It isn’t the “policies of tax and spend liberals” like Republicans try to claim every election cycle. It’s an honesty check.

      Posted by Justin McAffee | November 26, 2012, 2:29 pm
      • You have been crushed in this debate, McAffee. Squashed flat. “Left” as the roadkill your attempts at debate usually end up as!

        You remind me of the iconic image of the little mouse (that’s you, btw), middle finger extended, as the eagle (that’s everyone else, btw) – talons extended and swooping in with deathly attitude – is almost upon ‘you’. You have your spare, hollow and vacuous moments of defiance, but we all know what happens to that mouse, don’t we?

        IF your aim is to lose every debate you begin, you’re on your way, chief!! Far too many debates you begin don’t even rise to the level of anyone’s time to respond.

        Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 26, 2012, 5:06 pm
        • You are a total idiot, which is why you THINK you have won any debate. But this is like arguing with my 6 year old daughter… it’s pointless.

          Posted by Justin J. McAffee | November 26, 2012, 5:08 pm
          • It’s funny that you two think you’re both so different. Both of you are just pointing fingers at each other without looking at how the facts and figures you both come up with, relate to the time and place they come from.

            All you both continue to say is “Look this party passed this and now it is bad” or “This party blames the other party and they are wrong”. You both never realize that most of what is passed is a bipartisan effort. Not even when a party had majority in both houses did every one in that party vote on party lines.

            Sure this is where the deficit comes from. But presenting it this way is like presenting how we won WWII by only showing the number of deaths that occurred on each side. Sure you could extrapolate that we won because we had less deaths, but the real reason couldn’t be further from the truth.

            Its simply presenting facts and figures with no context.

            Posted by Anny Ommus | November 27, 2012, 12:16 pm
  2. Exactly what I expected… just a vain attempt to confuse the issue. For example, your 1st point simply argues that the projected surplus doesn’t account for economic changes or spending changes. Really? Boy, it takes a genius to figure that out. That’s exactly what the video explains. The economy accounts for 25% of the loss to the surplus. The rest is spending. You can blame circumstances all you want… bottom line is that you are a hypocrite because you point fingers at Dems for spending when it was actually Republicans in charge of Congress and the WH for 6 years of the Bush years. You freely admit George Bush spent money to address an economic downturn… yet you fault Obama for doing the same. Hmmmm, a bit inconsistent to say the least.

    In reality, you are incapable of looking past Democrat and Republican, Conservative and liberal and seeing the facts for how they are.

    Posted by Justin J. McAffee | November 13, 2012, 6:12 pm
    • Thank you for the evasive and superficial non-reply I expected. Thank you also for NOT placing forth ANY rebuttal counter-arguments – as there are none.

      The economy, as amply explained, was undermined by liberal politicians and their minions in TWO main phases during the Clinton Administration’s 90s – dumping it on their ‘strawman’ Bush43 with the lies piled on by the lapdog lamestream media.

      The mortgage corrosions sponsored by liberal politicians and their minions caused the ’2007 -forward’ economic collapse for which today’s liberal politicians and their minions seem to have no clue or inspiration to solve. A ‘bump’ in the 2009FY spending representing the ‘stim-u-less’ became – as no federal budget has been produced since – a ‘new normal’ in annual overspending. This blows out Bush43 deficits (about 140B in the 2008 FY budget) by almost TEN TIMES, sponsored by the Obamaunists.

      The usual liberal cop-out “you can blame circumstances all (I) want” – more than sinks your non-response. “Circumstances” explained – and placed ‘in-denial’ by you in your response – were driven by liberal politicians and their minions in the 90s and beyond to rot out the national economy for the 2008 electoral political ‘gain’ – all ready to dump on an honorable man and a great leader (compared to the current empty-suit, Obama) Bush43; arranging the ‘strawman’ to take the fall for proven liberal corrosions.

      Anyway, I received the lame, bogus pap you and your blog are noted for and this was not unexpected. Looks like I can keep my other 35-40% of other information available for further propaganda like this CAP video and commentary from you.

      Thanks for playing. There won’t be any consolation prize for you – just trillions more in debt and forfeited economic improvement for all of us.

      PS: Before you get argumentally thrashed in historical economics again, I suggest you get a copy of “Reckless Endangerment” by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner. She = a primary financial business and economics editor at the New York Times. NO ‘right-winger- is she! HE = hip-deep in the mortgage crisis as a government auditor and advisor to the different congressional committees sorting out the basics of the rubble liberal politicians and policies placed domestic and international financial markets in with the ‘crash’.

      Try and take off your ‘liberal propaganda tin hat’ before you get embarrassed like this again! Or, better yet, NOT!!

      Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 14, 2012, 11:25 am
      • It’s difficult to argue with someone who keeps making broad unsubstantiated claims. “liberal Clinton policies”? Really? Which ones… see that’s your problem. You make unsubstantiated claims, and use those as the basis of the rest of your argument. That’s called “begging the question.” If you’ve been to college, go back and read your logic text book. If not, I suggest you get an education. And it’s not exactly possible to respond to every baseless claim you make. But here’s a few general ideas you must of either forgot or don’t comprehend.

        It’s the private sector that held most of the toxic mortgage assets… the share that Freddie and Fannie held were miniscule in comparison.

        Why was Glass-Steagal repealed? You claim Clinton signed it. That is true. However, why? It was part of a conservative deregulation mentality sponsored by congressional Republicans. Clinton was real good at playing a conservative Democrat. Look at the free trade NAFTA agreement for example. That is a deregulation conservative economic policy.

        You freely admit Bush is at fault for the spending. Then you blame liberal economic policies he had to “correct” as the reason. Then you go back to saying Democrats are at fault for spending. Dude, you are all over the place. LMAO

        Posted by Justin J. McAffee | November 14, 2012, 11:58 am
        • The arguments advanced can not be and have not been refuted, as they have not been by you or the CAP.

          Your flailing and dancing is very entertaining as you dodge and flail away.

          The claims are specific in the TWO areas of economic rot born in the economically bogus Clinton-era and dumped on an honorable man and fine POTUS – Bush43. That you dodge and weave is expected and that I made you do that is very satisfying.

          Glass-Steagal does not become law without Clinton signing it. Did he know the havoc it would wreak, who cares??

          Fannie / Freddie ‘bought off’ on years of ‘bad paper’ and the guidelines for which they ‘bough off’ were rotted and corroded by liberal politicians and minions beginning in the 90s. Fannie / Freddie weakened the guidelines as time went by as liberal politicians and their minions attacked anyone who believed and argued that someone buying a home should be able to afford the mortgage. This is FACT and illustrated vividly in the book recommended. Take your ‘tin hat’ off and learn something!

          The ‘bump’ in spending and when it happened is something you accept, as your non-argument illustrates. Federal budgets used to be in the 2.6+/-Billion level and then – without a budget from liberals to show ‘The People’ where the money is spent – goes to 3.4+/-Trillion as a ‘new normal’.

          It IS “not exactly possible to respond” to my arguments, this is correct. It IS because you are on the wrong side of this lesson in historical economics. In court, I ‘move for summary judgment based on a vacant case by the defense’ against you!

          On to the next dollop of your non-arguments as you retreat and retreat…!

          Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 14, 2012, 1:13 pm
          • I began the argument with the video, therefore I am the prosecution. Your “defense” is a joke. But have fun in your delusional world. Don’t forget to take your meds though.

            Posted by Justin J. McAffee | November 14, 2012, 2:03 pm
          • McAffee @ 2:03pm:

            You actually have a – single – point. Congrats.

            My ‘client’ has a strong case and your ‘evidence’ and further argument on behalf of yours is sorely impotent.

            Without any counterargument – in support of this bogus ‘evidence’, I move for a ruling of ‘summary judgment’ for lack of a prosecutorial case.

            Thanks again for NOT having any argument to advance. Although I suppose pimping a video which is now in tatters barely meets what could be called ‘evidence’ in this ‘case’. Might as well have had “Mad Magazine” proffer your case, LOL!!

            The CAP video is the ‘joke’ and the ‘prosecution’ has been shredded.

            Too bad I can’t ask for sanctions and professional punishment for this waste of bandwidth! The embarASSment of the ‘prosecutor’ will have to do.

            Case closed!

            Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 14, 2012, 2:31 pm
      • It’s also quite comical that you blame “Clinton era” economic situations on liberals, but cite the problems that private corporations were to blame for:

        “With the many reasons from the Clinton era for which the first round of economic rot was dumped onto Bush43 (dot-com bubbles bursting; corporations by the dozens like ENRON, Aldelphia etc revealing massive accounting frauds and other economic crimes in the 90s; ‘book cooking’ by financial firms and major banks in the 90s to falsify more wealth and value than they earned; airline security weakened in the 90s and thus opening the door for the national economic destruction resulting from 9/11″

        Those are all things that cry MORE REGULATION not less… and yet one of the cornerstones of conservatism is that less regulation will lead to better economic conditions. I’m laughing out loud right now at you.

        Posted by Justin J. McAffee | November 14, 2012, 12:23 pm
        • Thank you for making my point FOR ME, McAffee!!

          The Bush Administration warned and efforted greater oversight and strengthened guidelines – as liberal legislators perp-walked bankers into hearings and ACORN etc sued and sued for loans for those who could never afford them and liberal politicians and their lap-dog lamestream media demonized Bush43 in the most vile terms – for stronger loan-approval guidelines from Fannie / Freddie as liberal politicians lied and threatened and used the poor as ‘human shields’ for ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice’ and all else to break the housing market.

          Liberal politicians and their minions rotted out the mortgage economics of America. And as the ‘bad paper’ was approved by F & F became ‘mortgage backed securities’ (as bankers had to find SOME KIND OF VALUE for all this crap ‘paper’ = the sales went international and when the crash came; nations were driven toward bankruptcy (Iceland. Ireland, GREECE – hello, New Zealand and so forth. ALL at the efforts of liberal political motives which made hundreds of millions of the globe’s citizens POORER.

          Thanks for making my point(s) FOR ME!!

          You should look in the mirror and laugh at HIM!!

          Read the book! You don’t have a chance without it!

          Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 14, 2012, 1:24 pm
          • You’ve written pages of words, and yet you’ve said nothing… NOTHING that disputes the claims made in the video. You’ve only attempted to explain why those steps taken by Bush that created the debt was necessary.

            You are trying to mitigate the claims of the video by passing off blame for all the circumstances on liberals (9/11, bubbles, mortgage crisis) which you’ve failed to present adequate evidence to support these claims… you’ve just made the claims.

            Therefor the state bar should look at disbarring you for malpractice.

            The video itself provides a clear and direct answer to what government policies led to the debt (accounting for 25% of which was caused by economic factors). Arguments about why those policies where implemented may be relevant… but even your reasons are wholly hypocritical. Since when is creating debt a reasonable conservative answer for solving economic problems? Since when is creating enormous debt excusable for any reason if you are conservative? I didn’t know that was in your party platform.

            Posted by Justin J. McAffee | November 14, 2012, 3:53 pm
          • Denial of the facts and refusal to even be educated on the issue seems a classic hallmark of today’s Obamunist liberal.

            Historical, forensic economics and a superior knowledge base simply swamps the “‘ya’ didn’t say nuttin’” response of yours.

            Feel free to lie in denial of the history of the TWO avenues of Clinton-era economic rot during a liberal Democratic’s term(s) AND the beginnings of a longer-term campaign to rot out mortgage economics in America; which became a global wealth destroyer when the trap was sprung just before a presidential election cycle.

            McAffee, you are simply becoming comical now = all this ‘ya, well, duh, ya didn’t say nuttin’ flopping and spinning until you made yourself dizzy.

            It was my pleasure to place you there!

            Have a nice day!

            Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 15, 2012, 8:23 am
    • Funny how I notice the large difference in debt caused by Bush DURING the war of Afghanistan, and then we see Pres. Obama’s side which is raising the bar on “high debt”. Yet here you are defending him and saying “In reality, you are incapable of looking past Democrat and Republican, Conservative and liberal and seeing the facts for how they are.” Who is the real hypocrite?

      Posted by Gajeel R | May 1, 2013, 3:00 pm
  3. Let’s take this bogus CAP presentation apart point by point, then summarize!

    1) We “began with a 6 trillion dollar surplus”:

    There were never ANY kind of actual financial surpluses at the end of the Clinton era. Liberals have considered and sold this canard, as the CAP video does, as ‘money in the bank’!! There were PROJECTIONS of surpluses going forward by the CBO, BUT, only if the same or better economic conditions of the Clinton era stayed in place or improved.

    This presentation tells you that “the CBO can not predict the future”, but in fact this IS exactly the first canard of what they want you to believe – that there was in place a 6T surplus based on CBO projections Nothing is further from the truth than there was a 6T ‘surplus’.

    McAffee! To illustrate this point, let’s say you make $50k/year. Go ahead and shout from the rooftops that you, McAffee, “have a $500K surplus during the next 10 years”! See if ANYONE would take you seriously! THAT’s how bogus this CAP / McAffee position is!

    As with the national finances, liberals did not consider expenditures and unforeseen circumstances (the first economic crash from 90s Clinton-era rot under Bush43, 9/11 and its aftermath; the second liberal-effected economic crash emanating from Clinton-era policies and actions under Bush43 etc); of which the Clinton-era had dozens of instances of economic rot ready to dump on Bush43. What if, McAffee”, you get sick or lose your job or otherwise ‘slide sideways’; as the ‘land-mines’ of economic damages from the 90s affected the Bush43 terms? Having no REAL ‘surplus as money in the bank’ to begin with, McAffee, where does that leave you??

    Liberals sell the canard that the economy was great and solid in November of 2000, but turned to recession-level quality in Spring of 2001. NO economy turns that fast. This is unvarnished liberal propaganda designed to prop up a false narrative of a successful Clinton-era economically. In fact, both rounds of recession-inducing events were developed and began within the Clinton era – affecting Bush43 entering and Bush43 leaving the scene.

    With the many reasons from the Clinton era for which the first round of economic rot was dumped onto Bush43 (dot-com bubbles bursting; corporations by the dozens like ENRON, Aldelphia etc revealing massive accounting frauds and other economic crimes in the 90s; ‘book cooking’ by financial firms and major banks in the 90s to falsify more wealth and value than they earned; airline security weakened in the 90s and thus opening the door for the national economic destruction resulting from 9/11 which also opened the door for the two wars which followed – among many more 90s economic corrosions liberals blame on Bush43, the ‘strawman’.

    THIS lie by the CAP bends the graph’s curve down to at least a flat line, soon to bend down due to economic rot inspired and executed by liberal politics and politicians.
    xxx

    2) Bush Tax Cuts:

    This initial response to the first round of Clinton-era economic corrosions of the Bush Tax cuts helped immensely in beginning the recovery of the economy. Of this, there is NO doubt at all. It increased tax revenues greatly and supported job growth and wage increases until the mortgage rot begun in the 90s caused the collapse of 2007.

    Later, when the other Clinton-era economic time-bombs exploded by enactment of (Glass-Steagal(sp) signed by Clinton; liberal rotting of the lending standards of Fannie & Freddie from 1995-2007 destroyed mortgage economics AND the corporations like AIG, which F/F depended on to ‘insure’ the loans WITH TACIT GOVERNMENT BACKUP – and effectively explode government expenditures in 2008-2009; the last Bush43 budget which spending included TARP and the ‘stim-u-less’ just before Obama took office.

    THIS is the bogus line of Obama ‘growing government slower than any POTUS since Eisenhower. The FY2009 budget, TARP (signed by Bush and mostly repaid) and the negotiations for the ‘stim-u-less’ demanded by a Democrat-dominated Congress and presented by a Treasury Secretary (the Democrat Hank Paulson) and the FED chairman (the money-printer Ben Bernanke) to Bush43 to “save the American Economy” – resulted in a 2009FY (Bush43′s last budget used in Obama’s first year as POTUS) at about $850Billion above any previous annual expenditure in the Bush43 terms. THIS one-time ‘bump’, especially due to the Democrats refusal to make a budget since, has resulted in a ‘new normal’ baseline at the 3.3T/annum spending level – with annual budget deficits at 3X-5X the Bush43-era average deficit levels.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/setting-the-tax-record-straight-clinton-hikes-slowed-growth-bush-cuts-promoted-recovery
    xxx

    3) Reduction in revenues:

    With the Clinton era economic land-mines and liberal-based bad actors rotting out Fannie / Freddie from the 1995 beginnings through to 2007 when the trap was sprung – tax revenues to the government were then greatly reduced as millions of jobs were lost and/or downsized. The economic explosion and subsequent ‘tsunami’ was the direct result of Clinton-era liberal politicians and policies which Bush43 tried to stop (Bush43 administration warned Fannie / Freddie and Congress SEVENTEEN TIMES in his two terms of financial instability and bad policies which DID result in the implosions of mortgage economics in America); but could not in time for the 2008 election cycle. In the four years of Obama’s presidency, revenues have remained stable – with 1.1-1.4Trillion annual deficits in borrowing making the difference. Obama economic ‘policies’ have resulted in negligible tax revenue raises at all, thus the steady >1T budget deficits.
    xxx

    4) Two wars in the Bush43 era:

    Two wars using the SAME EXACT REASONS 90s liberals like the Clintons and many liberal politicos used when demonizing Iraq during Clinton’s teo terms.

    Liberals helped VOTE to begin both wars; voted to PAY FOR these wars every time asked and when Bush43 left the scene continued to PAY FOR operations; expand ‘Patriot Act’ provisions to include actioning against American citizens at the government whim; used intelligence assets from the Bush43 era Obama lambasted as a senator and candidate – to find OBL and snuff him – and as we are finding out today – renditioned prisoners and ‘secret CIA prisons’ in Libya may have been the reason the consulate was attacked and the first ambassador in three decades was killed.

    Not much changed at all economically until Obama pulled American forces from Iraq UNDER BUSH43′S TIMELINE and took the savings and just included it in general spending. BUT, after all, how would we know if this is true If there are no budgets from the Obama / Reid people to tell us where our money is going. Until proven wrong by government budget – Iraq hundreds of billions of spending was not ended, just moved to other general spending.

    5) Department of Homeland Security:

    Voted in by both parties in response to the 9/11 attacks. Supported and funded by both parties. IF liberals have a problem with this agency, they should try to eliminate it.

    Freezing the ACP propaganda presentation at 2:57 or so – showing the graph:

    “Bush Spending” continues on the graph as deficits long after Bush and his budgets left the scene. The line goes into greater deficit spending because it appears Obama deficits are just placed under Bush43′s name!! BUT, since Obama / Reid produce NO budgets – maybe liberals think keeping Bush’s name from the 2009-present fiscal years on the graph – that Bush43 is still spending government money? LOL!!

    Bush’s last budget ended his time with government debt of about 10.3Trillion, give or take. Obama and his assorted spending have the nation at around / over 16Trillion. This is cold, hard math liberals want to spin with CAP presentations like this. Just not producing a budget does not place this 6+Trillion increase in Bush’s name. Take responsibility, liberals!!

    (Obama’s Policies): OR, as refer to it “placing a pillow over the face of the American economy” by doubling gas and oil-product prices; skyrocketing food prices; depressing American energy availability while investing American public debt in other nations to produce FOR us (Brazil etc); regulations which kill millions of jobs; ObamaCare which has resulted in layoffs in hundreds of companies just after Obama’s re-election and SO MANY MORE DOMESTIC ECONOMIC ATTACKS by this president certainly HAVE resulted in greater deficits, highest unemployment and less Americans employed and future economic miseries – DO contribute to less revenues.

    Anyway, consider this in the spirit of “(liberal) lies get halfway around the world as (conservatives’) truth is tying its shoelaces. This presentation is false from the first word and is something Joseph Goebbels would applaud.

    This represents about 60% of my accumulated argument against this piece of garbage. I’ll “leave some powder dry” in anticipation of fact-based and rationally interpreted counterargument.

    Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 12, 2012, 3:31 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] of things Congressional, The Nevada View offers an explanation of the components of the national debt in a short video.  More on the Fiscal [...]

Post a Comment

Connect with Facebook


two − 1 =

SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEVADA VIEW