Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit

[+DieChecker]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html

Perhaps the single most badly portrayed article on American political economics I have ever seen.

He forgot to put under the 5.07 Trillion for Bush = 10 years and under Obama the 1.44 Trillion = 2 years. Bush 500 Billion per year. Obama 720 Billion per year.

Notice also that He includes, "And defense" in the "wars" entry. Obama I suppose is not paying for Defense? And Obama has not extended the Bush tax cuts. Extending the cuts was an Obama policy.

This guy is a Propogandist idiot. And the Washington Post should consider getting rid of someone that publishes such tripe.

[ninjadude]

I think you missed the title of the graph "POLICY CHANGES UNDER TWO PRESIDENTS". That kind of makes your arguments moot.

[George Ford]

It's all moot. The commies played the long game and are about to win!

[Startraveler]

He forgot to put under the 5.07 Trillion for Bush = 10 years and under Obama the 1.44 Trillion = 2 years. Bush 500 Billion per year. Obama 720 Billion per year.

Not sure what figure you're looking at but the one I'm seeing clearly says "F.Y. 2002-09" and "F.Y. 2009-17 (incl. projections)".

[WoIverine]

We should be seeing numbers in the negative with Obama, not added debt regardless of how much it is. Adding a projected 1.44 Trillion for his tenure equals 16 years of double fail. We've got to get spending under control.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Spid3rCyd3

[questionmark]

We should be seeing numbers in the negative with Obama, not added debt regardless of how much it is. Adding a projected 1.44 Trillion for his tenure equals 16 years of double fail. We've got to get spending under control.

We all know that, and in fact it takes no genius to know that you cannot spend twice as much as you collect in taxes forever. The problem here is: Where do we save? And just cutting down the Social Security administration does not cut it, especially as the government constantly had its fingers in the Social Security till taking out money for other purposes.

[WoIverine]

We all know that, and in fact it takes no genius to know that you cannot spend twice as much as you collect in taxes forever. The problem here is: Where do we save? And just cutting down the Social Security administration does not cut it, especially as the government constantly had its fingers in the Social Security till taking out money for other purposes.

Wonder how much the Russians would give us to buy back Alaska. Meh, probably not much.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Spid3rCyd3

[questionmark]

Wonder how much the Russians would give us to buy back Alaska. Meh, probably not much.

Depends, do they have to take Palin or do we keep her?

[+DieChecker]

Not sure what figure you're looking at but the one I'm seeing clearly says "F.Y. 2002-09" and "F.Y. 2009-17 (incl. projections)".

It's still ridiculous Startraveler, How can they project till 2017? They cannot even project into 2014, based on what has happened between 2008 and 2011. The numbers in Obama's column simply are ridiculous and have basically already occured. So that leaves us with what??? That there will be No fiscal Policy Changes in the next 6 years?? I notice no other "Savings" in Obama's column.

Edited July 31, 2011 by DieChecker