Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the graphs shown in the OP are wrong, why has nobody tried to present facts to debunk them? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the facts represented in the pictures in the OP are inaccurate.
There's a different between wrong and misleading.
Your chart is misleading.
Another misleading chart is one just posted comparing deficits under bush vs deficits under Obama (not caused by Obama's policies).
Quote:
The fact that some of you people are completely incapable of condemning this type of irresponsible spending is laughable, and case in point that some on the right refer to President Obama as your messiah.
You are still missing facts - or ignoring them.
Obama's spending represents 5% of the 3.6 trillion budget.
Wrap your head around that.
Are you doubling down on the crazy pills?
You are not even remotely correct.
"You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.
The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.
And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. “We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,” Pelosi said in 2007. “That’s fiscal irresponsibility.”
Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.
“We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. “But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.”
At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama’s spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congress’s remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.
The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to “connect the dots” — that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. Obama’s current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And that’s before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan."
There's a different between wrong and misleading.
Your chart is misleading.
Another misleading chart is one just posted comparing deficits under bush vs deficits under Obama (not caused by Obama's policies).
Incorrect - the CBO analyzed Obama's budget...
"In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade." Bush vs Obama Deficit - washingtonpost.com
You didn't read the CBO's statement at the Washington Post's link, did you?
"You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.
Those deficit numbers don't include the cost of the wars, for one thing.
The previous administration had them paid for with emergency supplementary bills, so they did not appear to impact the deficit.
That doesn't mean the wars were free, as your deficit numbers want to believe.
Of course lowering our debt and deficits is a good thing.
But targeting Obama for spending is ignorant of reality and simply parroting talking points.
"In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade." Bush vs Obama Deficit - washingtonpost.com
You didn't read the CBO's statement at the Washington Post's link, did you?
Oh my, there's a lot you need to learn, it looks like.
Obama's budget.
Sure, it is Obama's budget.
But he didn't create medicare, for example.
Again, his spending represents roughly 5% of that budget.
He spends 5% and you want to give him credit for 100% of what the government spends.
As if he should have abolished social security and medicare (for example).
There's a different between wrong and misleading.
Your chart is misleading.
Another misleading chart is one just posted comparing deficits under bush vs deficits under Obama (not caused by Obama's policies).
You are still missing facts - or ignoring them.
Obama's spending represents 5% of the 3.6 trillion budget.
Wrap your head around that.
Considering only those initiatives where the checks have been cut right? So basically, even though the stimulas has been appropriated and approved, you aren't counting that money because they haven't wrote a check yet. We haven't even BEGAN to discuss the cost of his healthcare bill.
Your argument is basically on par with. Sure, we are going to spend the money, and write bad checks, and have proposed and working on approving the outlays... but since the checks havn't ACTUALLY bounced yet, you can't count them.
Those deficit numbers don't include the cost of the wars, for one thing.
The previous administration had them paid for with emergency supplementary bills, so they did not appear to impact the deficit.
That doesn't mean the wars were free, as your deficit numbers want to believe.
Of course lowering our debt and deficits is a good thing.
But targeting Obama for spending is ignorant of reality and simply parroting talking points.
So your answer is, blame somebody else and then expect something to happen?
You are making this partisan, not me.
Obama made the claim in his campaign to reduce the current debt by half within his first term. He is on the clock now, I am looking at him to make these things happen.
Instead, when I bring up the fact that his promises are faltering, the immediate response is "DID YOU SEE BUSH!".
Considering only those initiatives where the checks have been cut right? So basically, even though the stimulas has been appropriated and approved, you aren't counting that money because they haven't wrote a check yet. We haven't even BEGAN to discuss the cost of his healthcare bill.
I am counting what has been spent.
You want to count the entire 3-4 year cost.
And you now want to count legislation that has not been passed.
The healthcare bill won't add to the deficit, according to the CBO.
Any other non-existent legislation you would like to add to Obama's tally to try and make your point?
Quote:
Your argument is basically on par with. Sure, we are going to spend the money, and write bad checks, and have proposed and working on approving the outlays... but since the checks havn't ACTUALLY bounced yet, you can't count them.
My point, again, is that your chart is misleading and you are confused.
Obama's spending is a small portion of the budget.
Its really simple and its reality.
I suggest you come to terms with it.
So your answer is, blame somebody else and then expect something to happen?
You are making this partisan, not me.
Obama made the claim in his campaign to reduce the current debt by half within his first term. He is on the clock now, I am looking at him to make these things happen.
Instead, when I bring up the fact that his promises are faltering, the immediate response is "DID YOU SEE BUSH!".
Seriously?
It would help your argument if you knew what you were talking about.
But if you did, you wouldn't be trying to make this asinine argument.
I'll try to help you out.
Obama says that he'll cut the deficit in half.
Well guess what, there won't be another TARP (700 billion) or auto bailouts.
current deficit: 1.4 trillion
If you take 700 billion+ away from that?
Gee, that is half.
Amazing.
Guess its not so far-fetched, as he can hit that number without making spending cuts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
