Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one 'graph'

[Tx4obama]

Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph

What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.

To relate this specifically to the debt-ceiling debate, we’re not raising the debt ceiling because of the new policies passed in the past two years. We’re raising the debt ceiling because of the accumulated effect of policies passed in recent decades, many of them under Republicans. It’s convenient for whichever side isn’t in power, or wasn’t recently in power, to blame the debt ceiling on the other party. But it isn’t true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews&fb_source=home_multiline

[arcane1]

1. Isn't this graph basically "predicting" the next 6 years of Obama?

How can anyone possibly predict that? :shrug:

[Tx4obama]

2. Because ...

those numbers are based on what the bills/policies that have already been passed will cost.
The graph is a snap shot of what the policies will cost as of now.
It does not of course, include any costs of policies/bills that could/would be passed in the future.

[AnnaLee]

3. Yes, it is the projection (current best estimate)

[Glimmer of Hope]

4. That incompetent POS will come back to bite us forever.

[Tx4obama]

5. Ed Schultz just showed the CHART on his show! :) n/t

[blue neen]

6. Bookmarking.

This is a great reference material. Thanks! :)

[eomer]

7. What about the cost of continuing the Bush policies?

If I understand the graph correctly, the cost of continuing the Bush tax cuts isn't reflected on Obama's side because it was not a policy change.

Similarly the cost of continuing the war in Afghanistan isn't reflected on Obama's side because it was not a policy change.

Can someone confirm my understanding or else correct it if it isn't right?

It that is correct then this is an intentionally misleading presentation of the situation. Why would it be fair to not show the cost of continuing bad policies? Obama and Congressional Democrats in 2009/2010 had nothing to stop them from reworking the budget. They needed only 50 votes in the Senate and could not be filibustered for changes they could have made in a budget reconciliation bill. And stopping a war doesn't even require any action by Congress - President Obama could do it just by ordering it done.

There was no excuse for the inaction during 2009/2010. It seemed more like Obama and Congressional leaders were trying to run out the clock by playing footsies with the Republicans. What they should have been doing was seizing the opportunity to fix things while they could. So, sorry, no free pass from me.

That said, the "deficit crisis" and "debt ceiling crisis" are fake, manufactured crises, so the framing on which the article is based is a false rightwing framing to begin with.

[joshcryer]

8. It's not misleading, it's accurate. You can't technically blame Obama for something he didn't do.

However, I do agree that the chart is wrong for not including the results of the Bush tax cut extensions in this, because the extensions were signed by Obama, and he should own up to it. Afghanistan is another story, though. He's getting the money from that from the overinflated defense budget, and taking effectively funds from Iraq and giving them to Afghanistan. Had he simply left Iraq and Afghanistan, he could earn points for dropping the deficit even lower, however, he campaigned that he would ramp things up in Afghanistan, so, there's that.

[eomer]

9. Yes I can and do blame him. Strong Democratic leadership would have fixed Bush's worst policies.

Instead of playing bipartisan footsies they should have played "we've got a mandate" hardball in 2009/2010.

I do blame Obama and Congressional Democrats. They voluntarily did nothing when it was within their power to fix it.

[Tx4obama]

10. Here's a NEW graph

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

[Vattel]

11. You are correct. the chart is complete bullshit.