Supply-side economics v2.0 and that $20T deficit 63M Americans think belongs to Obama.

[ffr]

So, you are a GOP representative in the 115th United States Congress, put there by 63 million Americans (the minority ) who want you to lower that, according to RW M$M, Obama deficit.

Your Republican president wants to spend $1 trillion in infrastructure work over 10 years and spend on a surge on military hardware. What do you do?

It's in the Supply-side playbook from the 1980s! You decrease the 'burden on businesses' by lowering their taxes, decreasing public safeguards and cut enforcement agencies that police polluters.

Sound familiar? Supply-side economics was also the basis of Reaganomics. Reagan:
1) lowered corporate taxes & those in the highest income tax brackets: check
2) increased military spending: check
3) cut federal agencies that policed polluters: check



Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Whereas, if we were to use the President Clinton economic model, this is what was actually forecast by the CBO in 2001; a net surplus of $5.9T, enough to make the United States a creditor nation. Just sayin.

Instead, we see in yellow the cost of Bush and GOP policies eating all the surplus PLUS adding $6T in debt on top of that, gifting $11.9T in debt to Obama by 2011 and an economy losing 600K jobs per month, in the deepest recession since the great depression.

[Pantagruel]

1. Great charts

and explanation, debt and spending will grow as an issue, be ready with those charts and you might want to add this one:

https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/presidential-spending

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

2. There you go again...

using your fact and logical thinking. The Rs hate that sooooooo much.

[progree]

3. Obama's full 8 years - national debt up 88%, but lots of that was to reverse the Bush crash

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] National Debt in Billions of Dollars
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Public IntraGov Total
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]1/20/2009 6,307 4,320 10,627 Obama inaugurated
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]1/20/2017 14,404 5,544 19,947 Trump inaugurated
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]% Increase 128% 28% 88%

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]Public: debt held by the public. Intragov: Intragovernmental debt

# URL: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=20&startYear=2009&endMonth=01&endDay=20&endYear=2017

In comparison, G.W. Bush increased the national debt by a slightly lesser 86%. However that increase in debt was totally unnecessary and pointless -- the last 4 years under his predecessor (Clinton) were all years of budgetary surplus. Bush quickly returned us to budget deficits and debt accumulation via massive tax cuts, 2 wars (one based on lies about weapons of mass destruction), and the Medicare Part D drug benefit (which was written by and for the insurance and drug companies and forbid Medicare from negotiating prices with the drug companies!!) -- all of which were totally unpaid for (unlike Obamacare which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office -- the official arbiter of the fiscal cost of legislation -- scores as creating a slight 10-year surplus through cuts elsewhere and to a wide assortment of fees and taxes). Whereas the debt increase under Obama was to stop the plunging economy he inherited (4.3 million jobs lost in the last 10 months of the Bush admimistration) and to get the economy pointed in the right direction.

[Sherman A1]

4. Thanks for posting

Great charts

[progree]

5. Some righties say that the last Bush deficit was less than $500 B, and Obama's 1st was $1.4 T

Some righties telling you that Obama doubled the last Bush deficit, from less than 500 B$ to more than a trillion dollars?

They are trying to make you think that the last Bush year was Fiscal Year 2008. Actually, the last Bush budget (FY 2009) contained a projected deficit of $1.2 Trillion. Fiscal Year 2009 covers 10/1/08 - 9/30/09 -- the last 3 2/3 months of the Bush Administration plus the first 8 1/3 months of the Obama administration. The budget for FY 2009 was signed into law by Bush. It contained a projected $1.2 trillion deficit according to FactCheck.org:

Shortly before Obama assumed office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office {on January 7, 2009} projected that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 would be $1.2 trillion ( http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/MainText.3.1.shtml ). {Bush left office and Obama assumed office on January 20, 2009 at noon}

The fiscal year ended on Sept. 30, 2009, with the deficit at $1.4 trillion. But only some of that was Obama’s doing. We conducted an exhaustive study of the spending bills Obama signed for that year, and concluded that Obama can be fairly assigned responsibility for a maximum of $203 billion in additional spending for fiscal 2009. Others put the amount lower: Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion.

[ffr]

6. Yes, my dear Watson. Elementary. Republicans are awash in spend and spend deficits.

Great at getting elected. Terrible at governing.

And for any republican to state they are the party of fiscal conservatives is a laugh in their face joke. Fool me once...