Bush-Obama Spending Chart

    Newer Older

    Preys UPS, millerium arkay, and 14 other people added this photo to their favorites.

    View 17 more comments

    1. pudge 32 months ago | reply

      "Both stimulus bill were Bush bills"

      Um. No. You're completely wrong. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was not introduced into the House until January 26, 2009, after Obama had taken office.

      You're probably thinking of TARP, which is a completely different thing. While I was against TARP, it wasn't really spending, in that it was effectively a loan, and most of it was paid back.

    2. a1newman 32 months ago | reply

      The fiscal year begins October 1 and therefore a portion of 2009 was Bush from a revenue and expenditure basis but the majority is Obama and each incoming president can decide not to spend all that was budgeted. That is why I stated earlier "The average deficit under this administration is over $1 trillion while Bush did not have any full year above $0.5 trillion." 2009 was not a full Bush year. Budget is not as critical as actual revenue and expenditure.

    3. Ryno2424 32 months ago | reply

      ... You just went full retard. They don't go into office until the year after the election year. Please just shut the fuck up.

    4. tommyguy63 32 months ago | reply

      All graphs that don't start with 0 on the vertical axis are misleading. Statistics 101.

    5. tommyguy63 32 months ago | reply

      Bush's spending in 2008 includes TARP (which was a loan, not actual spending). Obama's supposed drop in spending in 2009 doesn't include spending the payback of TARP funds.

    6. CerebralStud@MO_Univ_S&T 32 months ago | reply

      all it takes is one dumbass, color-blind left winger to stir up all of his companions.

      www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/03/The-Obama-Budge...
      ^^^^
      one google search for equally opposing bias on the deficit situation.

      lets face it; the finances were bad, then obama made it worse trying to be robin hood and not truly understanding how this country gets money... annnnnnnd forgetting that SOME people have to WORK for a living and that letting people live off of welfare and buy drugs and booze with their money that comes from the pockets of middle-class americans is just plain wrong.... People who ACTUALLY work for money have to take drug tests TO GET A JOB and these idiots are making enough off of MY tax dollars to sit on their ass and do nothing. SCREW raising my taxes for the middle-class, why dont we START enforcing the idea that "you get somewhere with hard work and dedication" and STOP letting hooligans run around our towns and inject money into the drug and alcohol industry; frankly, i would rather not pay taxes that stimulate negative/unnecessary growth; however, I would GLADLY spend that money on helping our education system get back on track (if it was ever on track to begin with) or possibly new technology for energy crisis, water crisis (YOU NAME IT... plenty wrong with our direction of "energy independence" anyway), trans-continental high-speed rail network......
      HONESTLY it doesnt take but half of a brain to recognize that we live in a terribly corrupt government focused on using the american people as a crutch to prop its spending up on; the reality is that the government should be FEARING and COWERING from the citizens here who ultimately outnumber them roughly 800,000:1 (probably worse than that if you want to look up real numbers).... the point is, the USA was built on conquering new frontiers and established a dominant role in the world by achieving greatness through technological advancement that allowed for aggressive economic expansion and profits because the way we do business changed from pony express to next-day-air mail service.
      we hold the key to unlocking the true potential as a nation by allowing people to pursue any education of their choice; this harbors inspiration for many aspiring students and professionals and gives us a cutting edge vs. the rest of the world where class and money is the sole influence of peoples' futures.

      TO: US Gov't
      The way to recovery is breaking the next technological boundary.
      FROM: Common Concerned Engineering Student Who Uses His Brain and Common Sense To Make Decisions (not my wallet [like you guys])

    7. a1newman 32 months ago | reply

      @Ryno2424 - 2009 started 10-1-2008 and ended 9-30-2009 so what don't you understand?

    8. fayth.sims 32 months ago | reply

      @ perpetual newbie - PRES. Obama did not take office in 2008. It took office in 2009. January 20, 2009 to be exact.

    9. jerryinohio 32 months ago | reply

      @perpetual newbie - I fear YOUR conclusions are wrong. The Democratic Congress -- (note the "ic" on the end of Democrat, which is the proper name of the party .... please use it), -- did not take office until January 2007, and the country was still operating under budgets passed by the Republicat Congress and signed into law by the Bush Administration. (Ooops, did I incorrectly and inappropriately refer to the Republican Party?!). Second, as usual, Republicans operated under faulty math and under-handed accounting practices by not accounting for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, just to name two "oversights." Third, Pres. Obama did not take office until January 2009 or propose any budgets that had any effect until at least 2010, at which time proper accounting was implemented to track cost of the wars and to account for the stimulus program, which helped fix the problems Bush created and to stop the country from slipping into an outright Depression. The country was operating without any approved budget due to the financial disaster that the Bush Administration and Republicans created because of their profligate spending and continual and unnecessary war-mongering.

      Why is it the Republican Party is so fiscally irresponsible? They just never seem to be able to manage the economy. You can look back over recent history and see that there's less federal spending, lower deficits and lower taxes under Democratic Presidents than Republicans. Even the so-called "sainted" Ronald Reagan drove deficits through the roof and proposed budgets with tax increases several times, so don't try to tell me he was in any way better. I've lived through several Republican administrations dating back to Nixon (another failure) and who also espoused "trickle-down" economics. The Republicans' tired old "economic" theories have NEVER worked -- NEVER in recent U.S. history. And oh by the way, overall, more total jobs get created under Democratic Presidents too . . . . even under President Obama, who has presided over an addition of more than two million new jobs since taking office as opposed to the 750,000 jobs being lost PER MONTH when Bush left office.

      P.S. Note to Republican Speaker Boehner: WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Or at least, WHERE IS THE LEGISLATION that might have any impact on job growth?

    10. VolFanInHawaii 32 months ago | reply

      This chart is mostly bogus beyond 2009 and not supported by the very data that is available from the resource list in the chart (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/hist.html). The file from Table 1.1 (Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2016) on the reference source of data exposes the actual data to date and the estimate data for the next couple of years - please pay particular attention to the rows of data for the years 2002 and beyond and compare them to the chart. It's funny how the spending numbers in the chart align very closely to the Total Outlays in the spreadsheet until 2009 and then the chart does not match the spreadsheet at all - not even close. In particular, note the nearly ONE TRILLION DOLLAR increase in the DEFICIT (that means spending more than taking in) in the Total Surplus or Deficit column beginning in 2009 in addition to the increase in spending/outlays by SIX HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS in the first year of the current administration.

      Furthermore, note that during the first two years of the previous administration, there was a surplus that became a deficit over the following six during a time of war and recession, but at it's worst, it was less than ONE-THIRD of the actual deficit in the first year of the current administration.

      The best way to start an argument is by being right.

    11. a1newman 32 months ago | reply

      This chart is for spending only not deficit and therefore it is not entirely wrong. The part that is wrong is to identify all of the 2009 year as Bush. The Bush proposed budget was for 2009 but actual outlay amounts which are recorded here are mainly under Obama as 2009 started 10/1/2008. Actual expenditures can be controlled by the President.

    12. taramavery 32 months ago | reply


      Congressional impact on spending is almost always just a few percentage points to one side or the other of the Presidential budget. Basically, whether Congress is Democratic or Republican, the budget they end up agreeing on never falls very far from what the president proposes. This is why these figures and graphs matter.

      I would submit however, that the problem is not best thought of in terms of how much spending there is. The government could spend a lot more money and we could be much better off. It's how the money is spent, and whether or not we have the political courage to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to make them foot their fair share of the bill.

    13. tribalogical 32 months ago | reply

      "Um. No. You're completely wrong. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was not introduced into the House until January 26, 2009, after Obama had taken office."

      True, that bill was "introduced" after Obama took office. 6 days after. Are you saying it was crafted and written in a single week? BIlls like that take months and months of committee and preparation process.

      And are you saying that what was introduced was also signed into law? No. It was the beginning of negotiations. At the time, we were free-falling into a sinkhole that was threatening the next great depression. I'm personally quite glad for the stimulus. I also think it wasn't enough. It should have been longer, and larger.

    14. jba85 32 months ago | reply

      I love how the graph doesn't include the first year of Bush, and then gives him credit for Obama's first year's budget. It would be uglier for Obama supporters if this graph actually showed a true representation of the facts. Oh, and that would entirely reverse the percentage changes, if we take account of the ratio of change to time-in-office. Bush increased the deficit over 8 years, whereas Obama has been cooking it up twice as fast in half the time.

    15. Bob R (San Diego) 30 months ago | reply

      Interesting how the republicans want to forget that Bush's final budget deficit was $1.45 trillion (he added $1.45 trillion to the public debt his final 12 months in office, through jan 20 2009). Bush threw two unprovoked wars, an unfunded Medicare D, and cut taxes (revenue) TWICE when we already had a deficit. So Obama takes office with a $1.5 trillion systemic deficit, of which $500 billion is interest on the debt, at the height of what economists concur was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

      Sounds like Obama has done pretty damn good, considering what he inherited. In the past 12 months, through Nov 1 2011, Obama has added about $1.2 trillion to the public debt (figures from treasury dept "debt to the penny" website). So Obama has already cut the Bush deficit.

      The GOP has essentially signed a pledge not to balance the budget. The supercomittee has entertained plans by the Dems and the GOP. The GOP plan cuts $1.5 trillion over ten years, and the Dems' plan cuts $2.3 trillion. Given that the GOP's most aggressive deficit cutting plan only cuts 1/10th of the deficit, you must agree their pledge to Norquist means they are prohibited from balancing the budget.

      Throw those bums out of office!

    16. hew565 29 months ago | reply

      What I get from reading some of the "facts" presented here, by everyone, is that Republicans/Democrats spend our money too freely, without much thought as to how that DEFICIT spending affects the US economy. So we should remove all Republicans/Democrats from office, i.e., removing those who #occupywashington.

    17. Faceplant2012 29 months ago | reply

      fiskteam24 - amazing insight, I'm using that... : )

    18. The_Anti_Fox 29 months ago | reply

      Another Repug who doesn't remember the President has VETO power - or the power to instruct the AG to take it to Court. Poor misguided Repug. I suggest you review the powers of the President and remember the words of G.W. Bush "the buck stops here"

    19. Moderate4Honesty 22 months ago | reply

      Democrats had majority control of the House and, with help of 2 Liberal independents, the Senate in 2007 and 2008, the Bush could not do anything without them saying yes. But your trying say it was all Bush's and the GOP's fault for the huge spike in 2008 and 2009. Bush never signed off on the 2009 Budget as he repeatedly said it was to big. Obama signed off on it after he took office then the Left blamed the huge spending increase on Bush. Estimated spending is not actual so they are only guesses not factual.
      At least try to be honest on the facts. I hate when the Left or the Right try to distort information to prove their cause.
      We need to stop blindly siding with one party or the other, the best people for the job screw party ties. Listen to the candidate speeches even when they speak to organizations you hate. Get the panderers out and stop expecting government to take care of you. All the government should do is allow us the chance to succeed not take care of those who are Physically and Mentally able to take care of themselves. Nothing you get in is truly free, you will pay for it, be it taxes or lose of liberties.

    20. evilvsevil 17 months ago | reply

      your all stupid and wrong because not one of you can make it simple clear complete and honest much less unbiased version of recent spending. you say you want whats best but i think you all want what you want which is more for your team and therefore more for you. and that is less for everyone.
      A comprehensive review will show that spending has gone up and up and up and up every year while revenue has just gone down. does it really matter why and what for. spending goes up because whoever is in power now has access to receive funds from the tax base of americans to be distributed to their kind of people and policies.
      this will only continue as long as their are two parties as long as there is no campaign finance reform or exclusion of lobbyist as long as corporations are people as long as the people have no real vote or real education on any specific issues only a choice between two leaders both approved by the cia /nsa one a good cop growing the economy only to be harvested by a bad cop expanding our sphere of influence through geopolitical warfare.
      you can hash out the gambling debts and vex yourself about where the money went and who's fault it was but ultimately we are gambling the kids tuition money at the local casino and using the credit cards to try to win it back.

    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts