Bush-Obama Deficit Chart

    Newer Older

    millerium arkay, Rick Farris, and 13 other people added this photo to their favorites.

    1. LessBread 43 months ago | reply

      Bush administration seeks $245B for wars, Associated Press 2/2/2007.
      [www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16944672/ns/politics/t/bush-administ...]

      "The Bush administration will ask for another $100 billion for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year and seek $145 billion for 2008, a senior administration official said Friday."

      "The spiraling war spending - up from $120 billion approved by Congress for 2006 - is largely to replace equipment destroyed in combat or worn out in harsh conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan."

      Bush signs bill funding wars into 2009, CNN June 30, 2008
      [articles.cnn.com/2008-06-30/politics/bush.supplemental_1_...]

      "The supplemental spending bill provides nearly $162 billion in war funding without the restrictions congressional Democrats vowed to put into place since they took control of Congress nearly two years ago."

      Study Criticizes Bush Approach to War Funding, Calls for Changes, Washington Post December 26, 2008
      [www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/25/...]

      "The report also rapped the Bush administration's paying for the wars through borrowing, rather than tax increases and spending cuts. That approach, it concluded, will lead to interest costs through 2018 that range from about $70 billion to as high as about $700 billion, depending on how much of the war funding came through bond sales."

    2. Doug's 'Loaf Stickers and more... 43 months ago | reply

      @ fmj3mj3 - Thanks for pointing out the graphs on the Heritage site.
      Unfortunately they used some trickery in their graphs.

      RE: the first graph on the link you provided:
      #1- A political point, but a true point: The budgets graph is on the original Proposed budget.
      Proposed budgets are starting points in a negotiation. No party to that negotiation expects the original proposal to be the actual budget.
      #2 - The graph makes no note of the Bush tax cuts. Bush himself asked for those tax cuts to be temporary. Because leaving them in long term made no sense. Leaving them in long term leads to graphs like the ones posted on the link you provided.

      Re: The second graph on the link you provided:
      1st - they faked the "current day" line on the graph. They placed the current day line in the future in 2012. And they faked the line from the extremely low levels of tax revenue that we have right now (relative to GDP) to link it up to the 30 year average of 18%.

      2nd - Note: Taxes right now are lower than the 30 year average. Taxes right now are lower than they have been since 1965 according to that graph. (Lower than since 1950 in fact.)
      Lowest tax revenue in 50 or 60 years!
      No wonder we are projecting deficits!

      And still many are screaming for tax cuts. Even though it appears from this graph, published by the conservative "think tank" Heritage, that what we have is a Revenue Problem, not a spending problem.

      3rd Point about the 2nd graph:
      They've included Social Security on the spending side of the graph.
      But they haven't included Social Security on the revenue side of the graph.
      We all pay $ into Social Security when we work. We take out of social security when we retire.
      How can we take anyone seriously who inflates a problem by willfully ignoring part of the puzzle?

      BTW: Keep your eyes out for this stuff folks. Often in the media and on the floors of the House and Senate, you will see Social Security lumped in with medicaid and medicare, without any consideration for the Revenue Stream of all of us contributing directly to Social Security.
      Social Security is not a so called "Entitlement" program.

    3. fiskteam24 43 months ago | reply

      Congressional Budget Office, January 2001, as Bush takes office: “The outlook for the federal budget over the next decade continues to be bright... The favorable budget outlook for the next 10 years builds on a period of budget surpluses that is already historic… From 2002 through 2011, CBO projects rising surpluses under current policies. Total budget surpluses, by CBO’s estimates, would grow from about 3 percent to more than 5 percent of GDP, and on-budget surpluses would climb from over 1 percent to more than 3 percent (see Table 1-2). Under current policies, total surpluses would accumulate to an estimated $2 trillion over the next five years and $5.6 trillion over the coming decade, and would be sufficient by 2006 to pay off all publicly held debt that is available for redemption.” 
      - www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2727&type=0& sequence=2

      Congressional Budget Office, January 2009, two weeks before Bush leaves office: "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP."
      - cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=196

    4. pudge 43 months ago | reply

      This graph (and the other about spending) is a big lie: FY 2009, the $1.4 trillion deficit, is Obama's. Bush did submit the budget, but it was much smaller, and he never signed it into law: Obama did. Bush wouldn't because it was too big. Normally, yes, the FY 2009 budget would belong to the outgoing President, but in this case it was signed by the incoming President, and nearly $800 trillion was added to it by the incoming President.

      And the stimulus, which was passed by Obama, was also included in FY 2009. You're trying to say Obama gets credit for the stimulus working (even though your evidence in your other graph doesn't causation, it just shows correlation), but giving the cost of the stimulus to Bush!

    5. pierrepforest 43 months ago | reply

      According to the chart it went up in 2010. When the republicans took the house.

    6. Billy Bob of Ohio 43 months ago | reply

      Obama took office in 2009 the election was in 2008

    7. TheMaddGreek 43 months ago | reply

      Bush created 911 and it really doesn't matter what anyone of us think! We are run by G20 and the planet is doomed so buckle up and enjoy the end Game!

    8. TheMaddGreek 43 months ago | reply

      I dare you all to watch and carefully analyse 911 loose change, We were attacked from within not by afgani's or iraqi's! Follow the money! Our Gov. is a Criminal enterprise like no other!

    9. 3sticks 43 months ago | reply

      Budget deficit? We don't have a budget, how is this even a valid?

    10. pudge 42 months ago | reply

      3sticks, you're right, but there is a deficit, even if not a budget deficit: we still have expenditures and revenues. Obama did sign the FY 2009 budget, though ... even though this chart says Bush did.

    11. diesel is the answer 42 months ago | reply

      Your chart is wrong 2009 1.79 trillion and 2010 was 1.71 trillion

      Jan 21st 09 -10 and jan 21st 10-11

      Since taking office Obama has run the debt up 4.1T and Bush was at 4.88 T over his 96months in office.

    12. stevenashers82 41 months ago | reply

      @perpetualnewbie ... the debt went up because of Bush's war and tax cuts (spending 1.3 Trillion a year on wars, and lowering taxes.... = less jobs + huge deficit) .... then again because of his 700 Billion dollar bailuout which he forced Obama to take on. Your attempt to deny the obvious is laughable. That's like saying I went outside and saw a tree, then I saw a squirrel come from the tree.... trees make squirrels. Please continue with that logic, the Republicans and Tea Party need more brainwashed and uneducated inbred folks to vote for them. Yee haw buddy!

    13. shirleyfly 40 months ago | reply

      Bush also kept the cost of the wars "off the books" and Obama decided to be honest with the figures. . .

    14. Award Realty 38 months ago | reply

      WHAT A HILARIOUS GRAPH ! Where is the purple and blue in 2007 & 2008 ?
      Democrats are in POWER in 2007 ( HOUSE and SENATE ) then 2008 the HOUSE and SENATE and then KING Obama and the democrats had full power of all 3 branches of government and smashed through HUGH spending capabilities, YES in 2008 and 2009 THE BLUE spend more more more on Stimulus and GREEN bail outs. Yet graph still shows RED !!!???!!! Haha
      Maybe the graphic artist's for this graph had dyslexia when they colored and placed the big cool arrows.

      I emailed this to myself so I can show everyone this standard left wing media joke that is imposed on the U.S.A. population by most media outlets.

      occupy a job or self made business.

    15. hyphenv8 38 months ago | reply

      If you hate Obama, fine, but the truth still stands, the guy isn't doing such a bad job given the circumstances. Oh and yes, I voted for "W". I'm not some loon who doesn't want to face the facts about our economy either. If you look at your local politician FIRST, you'll see that's where most of our problems begin NOT the White House. They merely respond to request via our politicians who call themselves speaking on our behalf. Now, if you consider the role of corporations (they're people too - ludicrous) that's another issue that needs to be corrected.

    16. rockstarphotos 33 months ago | reply

      So does it matter who's running the white house or congress? You can't have both and still make your point.

    17. Moderate4Honesty 32 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 Budgets are not real budgets 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.

    18. loughnut 30 months ago | reply

      bombs missiles troop movement and still did not come close to what Obama spent. just look at the chart democrats ran it in 2008. and the big spike was 2009 Bush was gone. then look at blue deficit did not start going down i 2011 and 2012 it went up.

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