Obama v. Bush

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Seshmeister
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    • Oct 2003
    • 35755

    Obama v. Bush

    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




    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
    ROTH ARMY SUPREME
    • Jan 2004
    • 7833

    #2
    I think sadly this graph underlines Bush's ability to get his way and Obama's ineffective approach more than anything.
    I've got the cure you're thinkin' of.

    http://i.imgur.com/jBw4fCu.gif

    Comment

    • Nitro Express
      DIAMOND STATUS
      • Aug 2004
      • 32942

      #3
      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.
      No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

      Comment

      • BigBadBrian
        TOASTMASTER GENERAL
        • Jan 2004
        • 10625

        #4
        A sad trend:

        Increase in Federal Defict spending by DAY, in Billions

        Clinton: approx .5

        Bush: 1.6

        Obama: 4.1
        “If bullshit was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” - George W. Bush

        Comment

        • Seshmeister
          ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

          • Oct 2003
          • 35755

          #5
          Ah very good Brian...

          Comment

          • Seshmeister
            ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

            • Oct 2003
            • 35755

            #6
            Originally posted by 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.
            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%?

            Comment

            • Jagermeister
              Full Member Status

              • Apr 2010
              • 4510

              #7
              A little more detail and accuracy can be found here.


              Comment

              • Jagermeister
                Full Member Status

                • Apr 2010
                • 4510

                #8
                Again same story here.



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

                Comment

                • Seshmeister
                  ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                  • Oct 2003
                  • 35755

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Jagermeister
                  A little more detail and accuracy can be found here.


                  http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/
                  If that sinister organisation told me grass was green, I would assume I had gone color blind...

                  Comment

                  • Jagermeister
                    Full Member Status

                    • Apr 2010
                    • 4510

                    #10
                    It doesn't matter where you look the facts are still the same.

                    Many are wondering what President Obama will say about reducing the debt tonight in his State of the Union speech. Jeffrey H. Anderson of The Weekly Standard takes a look at the national debt under the leaderships of both Obama and former President George Bush, and argues that in the long run, Obama should be held more accountable.


                    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.

                    Comment

                    • Seshmeister
                      ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                      • Oct 2003
                      • 35755

                      #11
                      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.

                      Comment

                      • Jagermeister
                        Full Member Status

                        • Apr 2010
                        • 4510

                        #12
                        Originally posted by 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.
                        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.

                        Comment

                        • Seshmeister
                          ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                          • Oct 2003
                          • 35755

                          #13
                          I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone say they didn't blame Bush for the war before.

                          Comment

                          • Guitar Shark
                            ROTH ARMY SUPREME
                            • Jan 2004
                            • 7579

                            #14
                            Striking, isn't it?
                            ROTH ARMY MILITIA


                            Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
                            Sharky sometimes needs things spelled out for him in explicit, specific detail. I used to think it was a lawyer thing, but over time it became more and more evident that he's merely someone's idiot twin.

                            Comment

                            • Jagermeister
                              Full Member Status

                              • Apr 2010
                              • 4510

                              #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...