The Bush Deficit

In: Politics US Economy

26 Jul 2011

Why we have a debt problem:

image

11 Responses to The Bush Deficit

Avatar

Speedmaster

July 26th, 2011 at 6:26 pm

A comment and a question.

Comment: tax cuts are not costs.

Question. Does the tab for Iraq and Afghanistan accrued since Obama’s inauguration go under Obama or Bush in this accounting?

Avatar

8===D

July 27th, 2011 at 12:07 am

without a reference for the values cited it could be entirely incorrect… and likely is biased political propaganda

Avatar

Charles H Nadler

July 27th, 2011 at 1:00 am

Tax cuts are costs, when they represent a transfer of wealth. Bush transferred wealth from the middle class to the upper class. He did it by raising taxes on the middle class and giving that money to the upper class by a tax cut. If you don’t understand that, then you have never seen a slush fund hidden by a deficit. In which case, you could never be an auditor, because you are too gullible.

Avatar

Speedmaster

July 27th, 2011 at 7:15 am

I still believe a tax cut is not a cost. If I work less and bring home less money I have spent nothing. I have reduced my income, but have spent nothing additional.

Avatar

neversink

July 27th, 2011 at 7:32 am

Look.. I voted for Obama, but this chart says absolutely nothing except the propaganda it is. If you are afraid to intelligently criticize Obama and make up ridiculous comparisons, then you deserve the Republicans, because you have fallen to their level of deceit.

First, Obama kept the same policies as Bush when it came to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore t has become his policy.
Secondly, he initiated the second TARP bailout of the banks. Therefore he shares the blame here, too.
Third, he kept Bernanke, Bair, Geitner (all members of George W Bush’s cabinet.) What does that say to you???

You fail to include the ultimate tax that Obama’s policy of Quantitative Easing put on the middle class and poor, while giving the wealthy the chance to double and triple their money in the stock market. Bernanke’s policies of QE I & QE II is the ultimate tax because it caused inflation and devaluing of the US Dollar making basic products, particularly food, much more expensive for Americans. Worse, it has caused the rise of food and other resources in poorer regions of the world, such as Africa and South America and Asia. This has caused distress upon billions of people. QE is a policy change created by the Obama administration you haven’t included in your biased charts.

To compare policy changes is ridiculous, because much of what Obama is doing is sanctioning Bush’s policies. I wish your chart really told a true story, but unfortunately it is one obfuscating piece of propaganda.

Avatar

Dustin

July 28th, 2011 at 12:08 pm

Here’s the White House’s version. Pretty much the same thing:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

Avatar

Dick Fitzwell

July 29th, 2011 at 3:18 pm

Tax cuts are not a cost. Only spending can increase debt.

I would love to hear a rational explanation of how letting taxpayers keep more of their money actually costs them money.

Avatar

Dustin

July 29th, 2011 at 4:45 pm

The debate is about inequality. I have no deductions and pay my fair share at ~%30. Writing loopholes into the tax code so some companies pay <%10 is wrong (in my opinion). The debate we should be having is whether we think that's fair — not whether it's a "cost" or not.

Avatar

Dustin

July 29th, 2011 at 4:50 pm

Think of it this way: they are taking money out of my pocket and giving it to the companies through tax breaks. Make sense?

Avatar

Brian Cragin

July 31st, 2011 at 5:47 pm

I want to point out the time frames.

The money for Obama is “09-17 (incl. projections)” Not sure what the projections include, but it certainly couldn’t be the NYT guessing what Obama will spend in an 8 year term.

If we calculate a rate of currently spent money we get Bush at 633 billion per year of presidency and Obama at 480 billion.

In an 8 year span for Obama that would be 3.84 trillion at current rates.

I think Bush numbers are still artificial in that after 2001 any party that held the presidency at that time would have went to war with some country. Perhaps not to the degree Bush did (Iraq) but something.

In the end I think these guys wind up spending about the same amount of money in the same periods of time.

Avatar

RJS

August 7th, 2011 at 10:07 pm

Tax cuts are not costs. Really? I could have sold Arbusto at $100. Today it trades for $20. That is not a cost.

This is why we are in trouble.

Comment Form

What is Chart Porn?

An addictive collection of beautiful charts, graphs, maps, and interactive data visualization toys -- on topics from around the world.

  • دیجی کالا: I agree with you and was really interesting chart. [...]
  • frontierlawns: Very nice article, thanks sharing with us, Please contact us, Snow Removal, Landscaper, Lawn care a [...]
  • iipfoundation: I would have to agree with you wholeheartedly. [...]
  • slflegal: Very nice article, thanks sharing with us, Please visit our website, The Shofstahl Law Firm, L.L.C. [...]
  • themedicalcenterfordiabetes: Very nice article, thanks sharing with us, Please visit our website, Diabetes, Endocrine and Thyroi [...]