Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph (from NYT)

[ps1074]

[blue neen]

1. Excellent.

It would be wonderful if we could see that graphic in some of the newspapers in our area.

That won't happen, however. They are all owned by Richard Mellon Scaife. He wouldn't want the "masses" to know the truth.

[dreamnightwind]

2. So Obama is not contributing to deficits with the wars?

I get that the graph says "policy changes", but it's wrong to not have any deficit contribution assigned to Obama for the wars. Way wrong. And if you want to only consider "policy changes" (not an appropriate condition IMHO, you should get dinged for continuing policies too), Obama led a huge escalation of the Afghan war, and started a new and expensive military action in Libya.

I support the concept of clarifying to people the relative contributions to the deficit of Bush and Obama. The chart just has some fundamental flaws. The truth is on our side, no need to fudge things, which only raises a BS alarm in people who might otherwise be influenced by the actual facts, which are still in favor of Obama when compared to Bush's fiscal policy.

[Major Hogwash]

5. Don't like that one? Try this one on for size.

This one from last year is from the wonderful and talented Rachel Maddow, who else?

[dreamnightwind]

14. I always liked that one

Have never drilled down to see how it holds up. Rachel, one of my favorites, is not above partisan presentation of selective info, I've seen it many times from her. When I get time maybe I'll read up on this chart.

I love simple graphics that tell the origins of the mess we're in. I'd like for them to be real, not just the left's version of how groups like Heritage use charts to lie about things. So that's where I'm coming from. The truth is on our side, we should stick to it.

[joshcryer]

6. It's actually from the NY Times as linked on Ezra Klein's blog, and yes, they're including the wars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

What needs to be understood is that the ramp up in Afghanistan was covered by the pull down in Iraq. Obama technically did not submit any new budget to pay for what was otherwise paid for (though yes we all can agree that had he simply pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan the debt would be lower, but we're talking about policy action; that is, action that he took, not action that he didn't take).

[dreamnightwind]

13. Why?

"What needs to be understood is that the ramp up in Afghanistan was covered by the pull down in Iraq. "

Why? The pull down in Iraq was signed off on by Bush, yet the ramp-up in Afghanistan was Obama's idea. Seems disingenuous.

Look, I get that the Repubs are the debt criminals. Let's put that info out there in a way that stands up to the close scrutiny the right-leaning media will give it. It should be indisputable (it is, in fact, just needs to be presented that way). I don't think these graphs hold up to that standard, they can be dismissed as partisan.

[boppers]

3. Was wondering when it would show up here.

Obama didn't end the costs of wars.
Or the tax cuts.
Or the bailouts.
Or medicare drug benefits.
Or the stimulus.

I'm an Obama supporter, (see sig), but continuing bad policy results in more bad policy.

[joshcryer]

7. Failing to end bad policy is not the same as inacting bad policy.

Here, 2012, we get the Congress and get a super majority in the Senate (fantasy I know). The Senate and the Congress unilaterally pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and end the Bush Tax Cuts and tax loopholes.

Pow, everything is reversed. Fantasy scenario though.

[boppers]

9. *enacting eom

[dreamnightwind]

12. I like it, but

it also assumes that "we" want to do those things. I do, you do, so far so good. But look around at the elected reps calling themselves Dems. How about them? I didn't think so. For the most part they seem to believe in the same policies, just a little bit less so than the mad-dog Repubs.

You're correct that enacting policies is not the same as continuing them. It's not blameless, though, and at least some of the responsibility for the policies goes to those that continue them. I would make an exception if the "continuer" was fighting like hell to cease those policies, otherwise our guys are on the hook for these things too.

[MrDiaz]

4. This is

misleading, because Obama escalated these wars when he became president, and he also resigned BUSH TAX CUTS, which in turn made them the OBAMA TAX CUTS.

[joshcryer]

8. Yes, I would put the 2 years of extended Bush Tax Cuts on Obama's side.

But they are pithy in comparison to the rest and the basic graphic stands.

Actually, now that I think of it I'd add the ramp up in Afghanistan, too, which was one of Obama's campaign pledges.

[Dawgs]

11. I can't believe I'm actually going to do this, but I disagree.

I can't say how the wars would have gone, but the Bush tax cuts would have never have been started under President Obama. This chart shows which President CAUSED the individual debt problems. Putting blame on President Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts is fair, but I don't think it's fair to add it to this chart - at least not in the way it's currently presented.

If it was me, I would add a middle column showing which Bush programs are still adding to our debt problem. The extension of the Bush Tax cuts and the costs associated with Bush's two wars would fall under this column. It would show that Obama just extended something that Bush and his supporters were happy with when he was President, but blame Obama for now.

[lunatica]

10. thank you!

It's truly amazing and sickening how the Republicans shape perception.