Obama Vs. Bush On The Deficit In One Simple Graph
Submitted by Dan Weymouth
Alan posted the National debt chart yesterday. Here is another chart that shows Bush vs. Obama on the issue of debt, via Ezra Klein.
What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 Liberaland
7 responses to Obama Vs. Bush On The Deficit In One Simple Graph
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
MV December 13th, 2014 at 19:53
Poor chart, poor presentation…poor use of statistics. If tax revenues increase after a tax cut occurs….then only a statist would claim that the tax cut ‘cost’ revenues.
ALSO – Obama’s regulations on power generation, coal, ObamaCare – has burdened business with untold costs not shown in the charts, and has led to businesses closing up shop…some go out of business, others move off-shore to escape the high taxes and high regulations.
The chart included Bush’s Medicare Part D costs, but somehow managed to leave off the far greater costs of ObamaCare…and the costs continue to grow!!
OTOH – the TARP costs were repaid …except for the Obama supported GM costs, that cost the taxpayer about $30 Billion, and will never be repaid. (Funny, I didn’t see those costs put on Obama’s side.)
AND – how much of the War on Terrorism ARE legitimate… Remember that both wars were started with BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT….so both sides bear some responsibility. Only those totally opposed to ANY efforts to attack Osama bin Laden and totally opposed to removing Saddam Hussein can claim to say that they are not responsible for those costs…but they are also saying that they are willing to surrender to terrorists and not hold terrorists responsible for attacking the US.
MV December 13th, 2014 at 20:53
Poor chart, poor presentation…poor use of statistics. If tax revenues increase after a tax cut occurs….then only a statist would claim that the tax cut ‘cost’ revenues.
ALSO – Obama’s regulations on power generation, coal, ObamaCare – has burdened business with untold costs not shown in the charts, and has led to businesses closing up shop…some go out of business, others move off-shore to escape the high taxes and high regulations.
The chart included Bush’s Medicare Part D costs, but somehow managed to leave off the far greater costs of ObamaCare…and the costs continue to grow!!
OTOH – the TARP costs were repaid …except for the Obama supported GM costs, that cost the taxpayer about $30 Billion, and will never be repaid. (Funny, I didn’t see those costs put on Obama’s side.)
AND – how much of the War on Terrorism ARE legitimate… Remember that both wars were started with BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT….so both sides bear some responsibility. Only those totally opposed to ANY efforts to attack Osama bin Laden and totally opposed to removing Saddam Hussein can claim to say that they are not responsible for those costs…but they are also saying that they are willing to surrender to terrorists and not hold terrorists responsible for attacking the US.
Jonathan Peddicord July 11th, 2015 at 12:36
If both wars had Bi-partisan support, why were the Democrats trying to strip the funding for the Iraq war through legislation?
Which is why Bush raided the SSI fund to pay for the wars.
MV July 13th, 2015 at 01:31
Sounds like leftist talking points…talking about ‘raiding SSI funds’ to pay for wars.
Look at the votes in Congress that passed the authorization to use force for both Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at the AUMF for Irag – and it listed 23 “Where As” reasons (all proven true at that time, none have been proven wrong since then.) Unless you want to get supporters of terrorists a pass, taking them out was the correct thing to do. (But then again – there were people opposed to going to war with Japan after Pearl Harbor. Maybe they wanted to surrender??)
If you look at the US Treasury web site (google “National Debt to the Penny” – ) – look at the Bush deficits year to year….(and how much they went up when Democrats took control in 2007). Then look at the year to year deficits under Obama. Obama gets credit for the 2009 deficit, since the budget wasn’t passed before Obama took office, and then Congress larded it up with the Stimulus BIll and lots of other pork. Obama will have added more debt to the overall national debt than the past 43 Presidents COMBINED. (BTW – any/every year that there is a deficit – essentially ALL ‘excess’ Social Security moneys taken in (what is left over after sending Soc Security Payments to senior citizens) is then borrowed for spending everywhere. EVERY Congress (and President) has allowed SS ‘funds’ to be taken from a non-existent lock box. BUT – the Treasury web site ( http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current ) – shows debt, including what was borrowed from Social Security. So y our talking point about Bush ‘raiding SSI funds’ is trivial compared to Obama raiding SSI funds AND printing trillions of dollars of funny money and doubling the national debt.
Please drop the thread if you are a troll. Feel free to engage in an HONEST discussion if you want more information on how I came to my conclusions. I can defend them….and explain them …to an honest individual seeking truth….but I don’t have the time to waste dealing with a progressive troll. Hopefully you are not a troll.
Jonathan Peddicord July 11th, 2015 at 12:41
Obamacare cost?
Obama’s Health Care Plan Reduces the Deficit
Critics who blame Obama’s health care plan for the increased spending seem to believe that not implementing the plan would be free, and compare the costs of the plan to zero. But in fact, Obama’s health care plan was implemented largely done to curtail spending and bend the cost-curve downward. So while the plan does include upfront costs, it also cuts spending elsewhere (and ideally would use revenue from the intended rolling back of the Bush tax cuts to help fund the plan). The CBO analysis is clear on this issue: Obama’s health care plan would reduce the deficit.
According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with the manager’s amendment would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $132 billion over the 2010–2019 period. In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits if all of the provisions continued to be fully implemented.
Jonathan Peddicord July 11th, 2015 at 12:43
So do you just use your personal opinion based on Faux News reports or are you just too lazy to actually research it all, using Non-partisan sources?
I’m thinking you are just to lazy to do your own research and have no idea what a Non-partisan sources actually looks like.
MV July 13th, 2015 at 01:21
I don’t know if you are a leftist troll who spouts talking points and doesn’t want to get confused with facts, or someone asking serious questions. (I was chatting the other day with someone who fit into the second category…and I pointed out some places to check facts. We had an interesting discussion, and he was willing to accept that there is a lot that main stream news doesn’t cover.
You have posed on a long ago thread ….I don’t want to waste time with a troll….but if you want to engage in adult discussions ….let me know.