Talk:2009 United States federal budget

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Untitled

How does the multi-trillion bailout figure into this? vroman (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That impacts the 2010 budget. This budget was submitted and passed at the beginning of 2008. TastyCakes (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The graph showing actual revenue and spending was very useful up to 2009 in showing the discrepancy between projected and actual. Unfortunately, it continued the lines representing "actuals" beyond 2009, which are actually projections. The narrative associated with the graph was OK, but I felt included too much attribution to President Bush. For example, the "Bush budget" was approved by Congress, as was the subsequent spending. These results should be attributed to the overall federal government, and not just the president. If the chart were re-inserted without the projections from 2009, and the accompanying narrative more purely descriptive and little more balanced about how far off the original federal budget was as a means for helping to explain our deficits in that period, this would be a valuable addition to this article. DocGov (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also point out, the FY2009 budget was not passed in 2008, as would have been the customary practice. Tired of battles with Bush, the Congress used a Continuing Resolution in Sept 2008 to punt the budget process 5 months, until after a new President would be in the White House. This an interesting historical precedent. The Wiki should reflect that the FY2009 budget was signed into law on March 11, 2009 by President Obama. If there are no objections, I'd like to include that information, with resources, in this article. DocHolliday (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to point out that after the Democratic Party assumed control of the House in the 2006 mid-terms, and thusly complete control of Congress, they never acted on a budget submitted by President Bush, nor did they ever produce one of their own; instead for 2 years, until Bush was safely out of office, they used what are called 'Continuing Resolutions' to fund the government. As the Senate has gone back to this practice under Obama of not producing a budget for the past 2 fiscal years, and instead seem to intend to pass Continuing Resolutions until the 2012 elections are over, explaining what Continuing Resolutions are and how they are being used since 2006 would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.164.27 (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

It would also be helpful to point out that after 8 years of failed Republican/conservative economic policies, George Bush crashed not only the US but the entire global economy in the great Bush Crash of 2008 which of course led to the Republican Recession which still persists today. Anyone who believes in facts and reality can see this quite clearly. The Republicans had the House, Senate, and Presidency from 2001 to 2007 and as we know from history this is the worst thing that can happen to America. The last time Republicans had the House, Senate and Presidency all at the same time was from 1921-1933 and that of course led to the Great Depression. They had it again from 2001-2007 and it led to the largest crash since the Great Depression. That's not a coincidence. That's the power of right wing economic policies at work. So yes the $1.4 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT was on George W. Bush's watch and this wiki should reflect that. Conservative propagandists need to stop taking out "Submitted by George Bush". This was Bush's budget. This is what he left President Obama. @kingharperfail if u need to find me. Sorry I don't have a wikipedia account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.24.97 (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's noted in the first sentence of the article that Bush submitted the budget. ... discospinster _talk 04:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi discospinster thx for the quick response. Could you please add "Submitted by George W. Bush Submitted to 110th Congress" in the top right box. That really should be there. It's there for every other year if you toggle through the years either forward or backward. It used to be there but unfortunately conservative vandals keep removing it on this page. There's no reason for it not to be there. It would be consistent with every other budget year. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingharperfail (talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The labels in the infobox were wrong and that's why it wasn't showing up, it wasn't conservatives who were removing it. I have fixed the labels so the information displays correctly. ... discospinster _talk 01:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be pointed out that the budget that President Bush submitted to the Nancy Pelosi controlled House was much different from what Congress presented back to President Bush and they would not negotiate. The budget was actually signed into law by President Obama and that information is not showing up in the infobox, even though it appears in the infobox when you look at in edit mode. President Obama had the opportunity to reject the bill and did not.Scottca075 (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Social Security Spending

The FY2009 Federal Budget shows Social Security Mandatory spending to be $944 billion. In fact, it is $644 billion. Reference: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/tables.pdf Hagenjr (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the graph to match this change. Tom Hopper (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deficit

The actual deficit requires a source. I changed the table back to the estimated deficit until this can be provided. Sleepeeg3 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Percetages to keep things uniform

On some of the years, we have a heading called "Total Receipts" and then we have percentages "of" after each entry total (see: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget). Total receipts followed by percentages is vastly more useful than raw numbers. In fact, a percentage "of" should be included after every number so we can see immediately how much of the budget is consumed or generated for each entry. Changes to include percentages would show uniformity across all pages of likeness also. Dwdallam (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]