Obama v. Bush

[Seshmeister]

I don't think you are going to see this graph on Fox News



Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph

By Ezra Klein
From the New York Times

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg?uuid=qZC izrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ

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.

To relate this specifically to the debt-ceiling debate, we’re not raising the debt ceiling because of the new policies passed in the past two years. We’re raising the debt ceiling because of the accumulated effect of policies passed in recent decades, many of them under Republicans. It’s convenient for whichever side isn’t in power, or wasn’t recently in power, to blame the debt ceiling on the other party. But it isn’t true.

[Dr. Love]

I think sadly this graph underlines Bush's ability to get his way and Obama's ineffective approach more than anything.

[Nitro Express]

Whoever put that chart together doesn't understand basic accounting. A tax cut is not a cost. You don't spend a tax cut so it would never would show on the income statement. It may reduce the overall income but it is not an expenditure.

[BigBadBrian]

A sad trend: :(

Increase in Federal Defict spending by DAY, in Billions

Clinton: approx .5

Bush: 1.6

Obama: 4.1

[Seshmeister]

Ah very good Brian...

[Seshmeister]

Whoever put that chart together doesn't understand basic accounting. A tax cut is not a cost. You don't spend a tax cut so it would never would show on the income statement. It may reduce the overall income but it is not an expenditure.

Semantics, it's not rocket surgery to understand cutting taxes for the richest 1% lowers your revenue so in effect costs you. If your wife gives up her job you don't think 'well that's only a theoretical cost'.

Are you in the richest 1%?

[Jagermeister]

A little more detail and accuracy can be found here.


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

[Jagermeister]

Again same story here.

http://www.cafetax.com/2010/09/20/bush-vs-obama-spending-the-truth/

You guys really should look into both sides of this issue instead of just posting meaningless graphs for fuck sakes.

[Seshmeister]

A little more detail and accuracy can be found here.


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

If that sinister organisation told me grass was green, I would assume I had gone color blind...

[Jagermeister]

It doesn't matter where you look the facts are still the same.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

[Seshmeister]

The point of the original post was that you are now paying for the stuff Bush did. Whether you are paying for it while Obama is president is irrelevant.

For example you'll be paying to look after thousands of Iraqi vets for the next 50 years.

The UK only paid off the money the US lent us to save Europe from the nazis a couple of years ago.

[Jagermeister]

The point of the original post was that you are now paying for the stuff Bush did. Whether you are paying for it while Obama is president is irrelevant.

For example you'll be paying to look after thousands of Iraqi vets for the next 50 years.

The UK only paid off the money the US lent us to save Europe from the nazis a couple of years ago.

That's true and if something isn't done now we will be paying even longer for the money Obama is spending. Now I don't think it's fair to blame Bush for the war. We had to do something. The only regret I have is that we didn't take oil as reparations for that mess. If we would just do that we would be looking good.

[Seshmeister]

I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone say they didn't blame Bush for the war before.

[Guitar Shark]

Striking, isn't it?

[Jagermeister]

Well look what the hell were we supose to do? Tuck our tail between our legs? Can't BLAME the guy for doing what was right for America at the time. I can still remeber where I was at when it started. I wasn't upset about it at all. Now I also didn't think it would last 10 fuckin years.

[Guitar Shark]

Are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan?

[Jagermeister]

Both. Afganastan was an after thought as far as I am concerned. If we had not had troops in Iraq to begin with Afganastan would have been a tougher sale. At any rate blaming Bush for the war(s) just doesnt hold water for me. If you want to Blame him for something it should be his failure to move on the economy late in his presidency which is why I voted for Obama in the first place. Again biggest mistake I ever made. :(

[FORD]

A little more detail and accuracy can be found here.


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

"Accuracy" is one word that should never be used to describe a propaganda factory like "The Heritage Foundation".

[Jagermeister]

"Accuracy" is one word that should never be used to describe a propaganda factory like "The Heritage Foundation".

That's just not true. It doesn't really matter what the source is the facts are still the same. I have read at least 8 articles today and they paint the same bad picture. What I have found is you have to be careful when they say things like " I didn't include this or that in Obama's numbers" Well WTF does that mean. Did we spend the money or didn't we... Same with the Iraq war. Damn right those numbers should be included under Bush.

Really very intersting stuff.

http://american.com/archive/2009/september/making-bush-look-like-a-piker

[Jagermeister]

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12212

OK you know we Republicans like to ram this deficit down Obama's throat and we should but it really doesn't matter to me who is at fault as long as it gets fixed. That right there is some bad shit.

[FORD]

That's just not true. It doesn't really matter what the source is the facts are still the same. I have read at least 8 articles today and they paint the same bad picture. What I have found is you have to be careful when they say things like " I didn't include this or that in Obama's numbers" Well WTF does that mean. Did we spend the money or didn't we... Same with the Iraq war. Damn right those numbers should be included under Bush.

Really very intersting stuff.

http://american.com/archive/2009/september/making-bush-look-like-a-piker

The BCE deliberately kept their stupid wars "off budget" because they didn't want the people to know how much money they were wasting on that pointless shit. Obama put them back on the books, so naturally it would appear he was spending more money, though in reality that wasn't the case. It was a good move on his part, but not the move he should have made, which would be to END the stupid shit, and spend no more money on it at all. And then audit the Hell out of the BCE, Blackwater, Halliburton, etc. and reclaim every wasted dollar possible - like that whole ridiculous story about literal pallets of cash being dropped into Iraq and "disappearing". The BCE needs to personally be on the hook for that money. Seize their assets and use the "war on terra" laws to do it, since it allows for assets to be seized in the name of "homeland security"

[Nitro Express]

Comparing Bush to Obama is like comparing which two turds smell worse.

Honestly. Nothing is getting fixed and only getting worse because BOTH sides blame each other while both take care of themselves and let the rest of us get screwed. The public are being fucked up the ass with two dicks. A donkey dick and an elephant dick. There is no real difference between the Democrat or Republican party. Bush gave everything to the banks and Obama gave everything to the banks.

[Va Beach VH Fan]

and Obama gave everything to the banks.

And the vast majority of that cash has been paid back, no ??