Bush Deficits vs Obama Deficits

[Shady]

This is a great graph, illustrating the astronomical debt that Obama's "hope n change" is going to dump on America.

*This image contains fiscally explicit images*

PIC

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.

President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.

President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.

President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The sad part is, this is absolutely no surprise.

The Berkely types are getting exactly what they voted for: Trudeau.

[Pliny]

Next comes inflation and then wage/price controls.

[GostHacked]

The fact that was missed about the budget being the way it is.... bailouts!!! Some on Bush's watch, some on Obama's watch. And who is really to blame? Neither really, because overall America as a whole is at fault for being in the position it is in (regarding economy and budgets)

[Shady]

The fact that was missed about the budget being the way it is.... bailouts!!!

You're completely wrong. From the link I posted...

Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You're completely wrong. From the link I posted...

Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016

The Yankees love debt. Just ask BC! Its good for the economy!

[bush_cheney2004]

The Yankees love debt. Just ask BC! Its good for the economy!

That's how the Americans financed WW2 and the Cold War.....who's your Daddy now?

[GostHacked]

You're completely wrong. From the link I posted...

Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016

You can't set aside 2009. It is part of it. If you ignore it, then you are doing yourself and others a disservice. Because those numbers are based on the previous adminsitrations actions as well as the current. Also there has been a downtrend since 2001, all budgets are under the line. But you never even bitched about that ONCE when Bush was in office.

You want to ignore 2009 because Obama and Bush played a part. You ignore it because it may make your guy (Bush) look bad. But after 2009 you have no problem singling out Obama. So yes, you are ignoring the bailouts fact to make Obama look even worse for the next year.

[punked]

Ohhhhh boy pictures!!!! You guys ever notice the Republicans can't do anything with out pictures? Remember when they tried tell us how much a Trillion dollars was with a graph of how high it would stack? I never got that. I know how much a trillion dollars is I don;t need it stacked. I don't care how high it stacks.

[WIP]

This is a great graph, illustrating the astronomical debt that Obama's "hope n change" is going to dump on America.

*This image contains fiscally explicit images*

PIC

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

I wouldn't expect unbiased information from corporate shills like the Heritage Foundation, and it looks like I was not disappointed! I have three objections to your presentation of Bush deficits vs. Obama deficits:

1. When the previous administration sets programmed spending in place (like that prescription drug plan for example); the next administration has to carry the costs of these programs in their budget forecasts even if they are able to scrap the program on day one -- which is almost a total impossibility.

2. The Obama Administration is presenting a more honest budget that includes projected costs for war spending and INCREASING medical costs of injured and disabled veterans returning from the war zones. Bush's budgets were on par with Bob Rae's budgets here in Ontario, which tried to hide as much of actual deficit numbers as possible, by off book financing.

3. A health care plan sponsored by the government means that the federal government is assuming costs that had to be covered by employers and private citizens previously. Personally, I think that Americans would have been better off if the new government cut the insurance companies out of the picture completely, instead of proposing compromise solutions that enable them to continue profiting from managing a system that rewards executives who deny the most medical coverage. Regardless, these insurance and hospital costs had to be payed through high insurance premiums; so the average employer or employee's tax increase could be more than compensated by a reduction in health insurance premiums.

The solution to America's budget woes will be easier now than five or ten years from now, but it is going to require ending the overseas empire of military bases and carrier fleets (many of which are used to secure access to oil) and billions spent each year for new toys from the defense contractors. One way or another, the empire is coming to an end, and the U.S. is going to have to end its dependence on oil and let foreign nations look after themselves. It's even debatable whether the withdrawal of American presence would make the world safer or less safe, but I'll leave that another time.

[bush_cheney2004]

The solution to America's budget woes will be easier now than five or ten years from now, but it is going to require ending the overseas empire of military bases and carrier fleets (many of which are used to secure access to oil) and billions spent each year for new toys from the defense contractors.

But no cuts to the actual social programs that cost far more....natch.

One way or another, the empire is coming to an end, and the U.S. is going to have to end its dependence on oil and let foreign nations look after themselves. It's even debatable whether the withdrawal of American presence would make the world safer or less safe, but I'll leave that another time.

The "empire" has never been larger....dream on.

[eyeball]

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008.

This doesn't include the cost of the wars he started.

[bush_cheney2004]

This doesn't include the cost of the wars he started.

The wars are cheap compared to how much Obama wants to blow.

[WIP]

But no cuts to the actual social programs that cost far more....natch.

And what portion of those social program costs are made up of Medicare/Medicaid spending, and Social Security? How do you propose cutting these costs? Even Reagan, Bush I and Bush II couldn't take that risk. What portion of rising domestic spending is being spent on the War On Drug costs? -- building new prisons, hiring more police and federal agents. Would a Republican president dare to end this war on the homefront to save the costs of that burden to the taxpayers? (not to mention the erosion of civil liberties to fight this war) What about the increased medical costs of veterans, that will keep on growing after the last American soldiers come home from Iraq and Afghanistan -- who's going to make the cuts to veterans' medical care?

The "empire" has never been larger....dream on.

So was England's empire after WWII, but everybody besides Winston Churchill knew it had to be given up.

[bush_cheney2004]

And what portion of those social program costs are made up of Medicare/Medicaid spending, and Social Security? How do you propose cutting these costs?

The same way you propose cutting defense spending.

Even Reagan, Bush I and Bush II couldn't take that risk. What portion of rising domestic spending is being spent on the War On Drug costs? -- building new prisons, hiring more police and federal agents. Would a Republican president dare to end this war on the homefront to save the costs of that burden to the taxpayers? (not to mention the erosion of civil liberties to fight this war)

The ramp up in US incarcerations was bolstered by Clinton, as was welfare reform.

What about the increased medical costs of veterans, that will keep on growing after the last American soldiers come home from Iraq and Afghanistan -- who's going to make the cuts to veterans' medical care?

Yes....cuts cuts cuts...must balance the budget Canadian style like Chretien/Martin.

So was England's empire after WWII, but everybody besides Winston Churchill knew it had to be given up.

That was your Empire....what happened?

[Shady]

You can't set aside 2009. It is part of it. If you ignore it, then you are doing yourself and others a disservice. Because those numbers are based on the previous adminsitrations actions as well as the current

Fine, include 2009. And add an additional trillion dollars on top of the $4.9 trillion Obama's already projecting. Either way, he's going to rack up more debt then all previous President's combined, and his spending and economic policies are completely irrepsonible, and absolutely disasterous.

you are ignoring the bailouts fact to make Obama look even worse for the next year

No, you're completely wrong. The bailouts are included in the current years budget. There are no bailouts projected in Obama's reckless budgets from 2010 to 2016.

Ohhhhh boy pictures!!!! You guys ever notice the Republicans can't do anything with out pictures? Remember when they tried tell us how much a Trillion dollars was with a graph of how high it would stack? I never got that. I know how much a trillion dollars is I don;t need it stacked. I don't care how high it stacks.

How about instead, you acknowledge the deficit issue, instead of a strawman.

This doesn't include the cost of the wars he started.

You must mean the wars Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein started.