The Foundry

312 Responses to “Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures”

1. Amber L, Kansas City, MO on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

   Thank you. This only justifies the outrage. I wish we could get this into mainstream media. (sigh) In the mean time, I’ll be sure my Tea Party Protest sign lists this in big bold print. Thank you!

2. Franklin’s Locke on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

   This spending is going to bankrupt our nation and just be a complete waste, because that is what the government does.

   http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/

3. Rocky, Boise ID on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

   Lets please clear up part of the record. The biggest expense of the government by far is the department of defense. The costs of the multiple wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been huge. Now let me mention a little detail that most of you don’t know. The Bush administration was not including the costs of those wars in their budget! They would propose the funding as “emergency” or “supplemental” funding bills so that they could avoid including them in the official budget to make it look better. Obama is changing that to get rid of the phony accounting tricks and bring accountability to the budget. Yes, it makes the budget look much worse right off the bat because we’re including that in the numbers now, but the plan is to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq to cut some of that out of control spending. That will reduce the budget expenditures.

4. NYC on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

   I just felt a need to point out that current spending is significantly less than the 20-40% of GDP spent during WWII. And this spending wouldn’t have been necessary if the last guy didn’t break the world.

   And for those who believe WII brought us out of the Great Depression, how did it do that? Spending.

5. gsmcneal on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

   Where in the Washington Post chart did the $700 billion in TARP funds get allocated to? ‘08 or ‘09?

6. Peter,Wa on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

   Rocky,
   You are talking about the budget which is made up at the beginning of the year as a projection. It is true that the Bush administration did not include the supplemental war costs here. These figures in the chart, by contrast, are the actual totals for all spending and income and do include the war spending.

7. egoist on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

   As bad as this all is, I’m sure there’s so much “off-budget” hidden away that we will never know of. On the positive side, with all the talk of ’sustainable’-you-name-it in the culture, we will be whacked in the face with the harsh reality that nobody wants to lend us the money.

8. George, Lititz, PA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

   I reject the two bars that indicate a surplus for 2000 and 2001. This is rewritten history by friends of the Clinton administration. It never happened. The U.S. federal debt went up every year including those two. Those data points are fictitious.

   See for yourself” by going here:
   http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
   and here:
   http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

   The debt went up each year. There was no $236.2 billion surplus. NEVER HAPPENED.

9. apb on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

   If the gummint used GAAP accounting, the picture would be far bleaker than the above.

   Deficits are one thing – what is the picture of total unfunded liabilities based on the newly-bloated bureaucracy? As for our NYC friend – what was the spending for? All the new homes, applicances, autos, and home products for the returning GI’s and families. Obama’s spending is to build up gummint bloat – not even close.

10. Paul in Denver on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    The first bullet point lists Bush’s 700 billion dollar blunder yet the chart shows a debt of 400 billion. What’s up with that? For really shocking numbers add the Medicare debt to these spending sprees. That jumps the debt to $60 Trillion.

11. Ice Nine, Reno on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    NYC wrote:
    “And for those who believe WII brought us out of the Great Depression, how did it do that? Spending.”

    Actually, it did that not by spending but by a quantum leap in productivity, increased productivity being the classic cure for recessions.

12. dave, boston on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    The biggest expense is medicare medicaid at 682 billion for 2008. The military is second at 613 billon and SS is third at 612

13. Candidus, from the Bar of Solitude on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    “The Bush administration was not including the costs of those wars in their budget!”

    Fair enough, but spreading a trillion or so “off-budget” war spending over the previous seven years changes the graph less than you might think.

14. Ardsgaine, FL on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Amber: WaPo is pretty mainstream.

    Rocky & NYC: The $1 trillion is new spending. It’s in addition to whatever Bush was spending, on or off the books. I’m not a cheerleader for Bush, but no one can deny that government spending is making a significant jump in Obama’s budget.

    As for WWII getting us out of the Depression–it wasn’t the spending that did it. It was the fact that FDR, suddenly realizing that he needed industry to fight a war, rolled back many of the controls that had been imposed on them over the previous ten years. Wars do not improve one’s finances, as the past eight years ought to show. Wars drain resources from productive use. They do not produce wealth, they destroy it; and they destroy people, who are the source of all wealth. That’s not to say they should never be fought–sometimes there is no choice–but war is never good for the economy.

15. Ring, Oh on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Rocky, let’s also be clear, Obama included the costs of the Iraq war at the spending levels during the surge. This means that instead of including it at usual annual rate of $100 billion a year, he put it in at $200 a year as it was in the year of the surge. While he may only spend $100 billion on the war, he can send say $50 billion to some socialist waste and still claiming he is saving money as he didn’t spend the whole $200 billion. This is partly why he is claiming his budget is saving money. He’s lying, his administration admitted they have some dodgy accounting on the Iraq war costs.

    Also, since the Iraq war is costing about $100 billion a year, how can it be the biggest costs we have? The cost of the Iraq war is dwarfed by Obamas spending, and that’s without deducting the costs that would have been spend on the armed forces even if they were not in Iraq. Those costs don’t go away when the war ends.

    While Bush may not have put the cost in the budget, he still had to pay for it, either through taxes or by adding to the deficit, so while it may account for a difference in the budget, at the end of the day, the chart is still correct, and Bush still had to pay out the money, and despite doing so, he managed to keep hold of the budget (compared to President Teleprompter). Obama, trying to paint himself as honest by putting it in the budget, used it to lie and cheat some more money away from the taxpayer and into his own projects.

    You are showing your own dishonesty in attempting to paint this as the reason that Obamas numbers are far worse when the real reason is simply that Obama is pouring gobs of money into his socialist programs.

16. Ring, Oh on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Oh, and NYC, WWII brought us out of recession by drafting and killing thousands of men, as well as spending money on tangible assets like planes, guns and bullets, not by spending it on re-sodding lawns or building dog parks, the NEA, or investigating the pooping habits of the white tailed goat.

    Obama is actually making Bush look good as far as speaking, intelligence and spending goes. At least he knew how to prevent the crappy economy of the last few years from plummeting to earth. Perhaps Obama should go get some advice.

17. Pepitsg, Calgary AB on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Obama just inherited all these from the Bush administration hid from everyone all these problems to the very last minute….He should be put to trial for economic sabotage

    Just go back to the inauguration day and see how Bush’s facial expressions summed it all up. He was dead scared as far as i’m concerned for he knew that his mistakes(?) will make him the worst President the US ever had…

    Don’t blame Obama for spending too much, blame his predecessor or the people behind the US Economic collapse. Obama had to do something that he never saw coming when he took office. At least he’s doing something. What are you doing America? Getting huge bonuses? losing your houses, jobs? Is that the American spirit?

18. Ross, TN on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    “Lets please clear up part of the record. The biggest expense of the government by far is the department of defense. The costs of the multiple wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been huge”

    Let’s please clear up the record a little more. You’re wrong. First, Social Security is the U.S. government’s biggest annual expense, not the DoD. Second, each one of the bailout/stimulus plans individually exceeded the DoD annual expenditures (including the costs of the wars.) Third, each of those bills exceeded the ENTIRE COST of the war in Iraq so far (which sits around $650 billion.) Even with a conservatively estimated shortfall of $1.75 trillion for FY ‘09, that’s almost 3 times the entire war in just one year. The war is only a relatively small part of what was added to the national debt under Bush and it’s well less than what Obama will add in his first year alone. By the way, Obama’s promisd additions to the debt already eclipse the entire amount added to it under Bush’s 8 years (and before you pull out the “Obama inherited a recession” crap, so did Bush.)

    “I just felt a need to point out that current spending is significantly less than the 20-40% of GDP spent during WWII.”
    And I just felt the need to point out that no, it isn’t. U.S. GDP is ~$14.2 trillion. Obama’s proposed budget is $3.5+ trillion, not even counting the bailouts/stimuli. That’s 24.6% before counting the other multiple trillions authorized for bailouts/stimuli. The U.S. gov’t will easily spend 30% of GDP in 2009, if not closer to 40%. Typical for the U.S. is more like 18-20%. 40% is more typical of countries like France (you know, the ones that see unemployment numbers like we have now in good years.)

    “And for those who believe WII brought us out of the Great Depression, how did it do that? Spending.”
    A gain that was artificial and temporary. Yes, technically speaking, the GDP rose, but it wasn’t on goods that increased quality of life (though they increased the length of some and decreased the length of others.) The increase in production output was primarily for goods needed for the war. The drop in unemployment had a lot to do with the millions that were drafted as well as those put to work stateside producing weapons. However, there was no real gain in consumer spending, etc. until after the war. Not too many consumers were buying the B-17 Flying Fortresses or Sherman tanks that accounted for the increase in GDP. Real recovery to consumers didn’t come until the rapid transition towards private industry after the war.

    “Where in the Washington Post chart did the $700 billion in TARP funds get allocated to? ‘08 or ‘09?”
    I would assume neither, since it isn’t part of the budget. If it were it one, I would hope that it would be ‘09, considering FY ‘09 started Oct 1, 2008.

19. dan on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    The other thing which is misleading is that government tax revenues are way way down (due to the poor economy which began last year) which contributes to this number in a big way. In fact I’d venture to say it’s the main reason this number looks so large

    Now, it’s one thing to argue that when we know tax revenues are going to be down, maybe we shouldn’t spend as much. And this may be correct. But I rarely see the revenue side of the puzzle discussed, only gripes about the spending. The spending has been on the increase for years now.

    Leaving that aside, I also wonder how much of the first year deficit is legacy.

20. Joyce Keel, Dora,Ala on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    As time goes by, the financial budget may be the
    least of our worries. When
    government takes over the
    banks, health care, increases
    taxes, and dumbs down our
    education, we will already
    have handed back to gov’t
    what we have held in our
    hands for awhile.

    Comment: Yes WW11 brought us
    out of the depression. From
    1932, Roosevelt could not do
    it, but he gets all the credit. When the defense
    plants closed, we had a recession, and have been having them about every 10
    years. Nothing has changed.

21. Bella, CA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Thank you, Rocky. Your insight really helped me read the article in a different light. I actually did know that from a research project, but I’d forgotten.

22. Jessica, San Diego on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Yes, let’s cut military funding because the defense of our country is absolutely “out of control” spending. Nevermind that we’re spending billions to bail out banks and financial institutions that helped put us in this mess in the first place. Oh, and let’s not forget all of those pet projects that our trusted leaders have inserted in to the stimulus package. That’s not at all out of control. But the military? PSH!! And, about all of the Bush blaming (some of it justified), let us not forget that the lending practices that began this decent started with the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. So be sure to give credit where credit is due.

23. Thomas B, Virginia on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Boise Rocky: There is a very old saying that is now applicable to America: “No-one fights the top dog-until he’s grown old and feeble.” For the past 20+ years, America has been the top dog; but now, we are losing that strength. As a military brat, where both my parents served for 20+ years and are now retired, and several acquaintances I know are working jobs as top civilian defense contractors (a.k.a., they have insights into the defense budget that no-one else has), I feel safe in saying that you are a flaming nut. If you had bothered to actually look past the surface instead of begging for, and eating, the leftist propaganda crap the MSM tries to force-feed us, you would have noticed that many of the people who hate us now have technology, in various military fields, that is fully the equal or SUPERIOR of American tech. Both China and Russia have new jet fighter/bomber models that are fully the equal of the F-15. Iran is rapidly coming up to speed with new kinds of missiles, small arms, body armor, and other artillery/guerilla weapons and equipment. For God’s sake, Mexican drug smugglers now have various kinds of hand grenades, armour-piercing HE rounds, high-quality body armor, and specialised training in law/customs/police evasion (in short, they are now mercenary, drug-focused armies instead of smugglers).

    America has had military tech superiority for so long that we have forgotten it is not a God-given right; if we want to keep ourselves alive, we need to spend that money to keep our tech a cut above the rest. Of course we are spending a lot of money on defense-it’s the only !@#$%^& way America going to stay alive, you idiot!

    Unfortunately, Obama and his mess of incompetents have decided that it costs too much to keep our soldiers alive. Example; all the current military analysts agree that we HAVE to replace the old F-15’s with F-22’s in order to maintain air superiority, the defining factor of modern warfare-specifically, we need at least 381 f-22’s, with replacement parts for 50-80. Obama has only authorized 183, with replacement parts for 20.

    In short, Obama is saying that Americans are too costly to be kept alive. He also seems to hold an active contempt for the military, not a good trait in a Commander-In-Chief: his act of only authorizing 183 F-22’s is the money equivalent of saying, “Fine, I’ll give these whinos their fancy toys in the hopes that they will shut up.”

    It would seem, given his recent actions, that Obama is a delusional, narcissistic jerk who is so wrapped up in details, he’s incapable of any form of perception.

    Finally, Boise Rocky, the troops are only being pulled out of Iraq because they are now being sent to Afghanistan. If you had paid attention, you wouldn’t have made that horsehockey statement about how we’ll now see reduced spending because we pulled the troops out.

    Oh, and NYC: you are correct that WWII brought us out of the GD by spending. However, the WWII spending was focused on things like infrastructure-business investments; you may not have seen the numbers and names for the exact recipients of Obama’s stimulus package, but I have-only about 10% of the money was given to non-Democratic, non-liberal people and organizations. The rest was “donated” to people and organizations who had given money to the Democratic candidates of the 2008 elections. Also, Obama himself was the personal, direct recipient of 7.7 million of that stimulus money; Hillary Clinton was the personal recipient of 30+ million; and Obama’s Chief Intelligence Offer was recently raided by the FBI; the FBI found tens of thousands of dollars in his house, bribe money THAT HAD COME OUT OF THE STIMULUS BILL MONEY.

    Not only is Obama incompetent, it also seems he’s a liar and a hypocrite; I seem to recall some promises like “Neither I nor my administration will accept any pork money”.

    America is starting to die, and not enough people choose to see it-even fewer choose to fix it.

24. Lockestep, Maryland on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    To Rocky: Absolutely unclear on your comment. The 2008 budget shows social security, not defense, is our #1 line item. Looking at the Obama proposal, you see defense spending falling, and the “other” category rising, over the next four years.
    Obama’s projections also include a huge carbon tax. Without it another half a trillion in debt gets added in to this ugly picture.

    Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Summary_Tables2.pdf

25. Brett_McS on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    “And for those who believe WII brought us out of the Great Depression, how did it do that? Spending.”.

    No. By sweeping away the New Deal regulations.

26. Honey, KY on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    One person/administration is not the cause, they just take over the problems from before and add to them. All are sure they know the best way to handle things, but when they get there realize there isnt much they can do. You cannot blame Obama for 50 years of bad management. But he is not the Messiah and cannot fix it either. There is only one government that can fix anything and everything, It is NOT human, greedy, self serving or oppressive, and is not run by imperfect humans.

27. RationalNotRhetoric on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    I swear you can lead a Conservative to the facts, you just can’t get them to think!

    Look at the pictures and read the story!! Notice W came into office with a Budget Surplus??? W like Reagan and his Dad before him ALL spent more and accumulated more deficit than all the Presidents before them combined!!

    W and Cheney are both on record stating “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

    W’s Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil quit his post as a result of this spend like a crazy man GOP mentality that evolved through Reagan.

    Yet with a Democrat in office we were able to eliminate the deficit spending that is so a part of the GOP “do as I say not as I do” platform.

    Now Obama walks in and has to address the worst Economy assumed since the Depression and the America haters come out hoping for failure???

    So when Reagan was inaugurated and the Stock Market plummeted the next day, were you all making up racist names for him? When it took a full year for the market to recover were you using racist pet names for him?

    When Reagan spent more than all previous Presidents combined to jump start the Economy were you all attacking him with racist pet names? When it took almost 4 years for the Economy to recover, were you all attacking him with racist pet names?

    If you want to know who is responsible for this mess, look in the mirror and remember that you have been voting for a party that talks the virulent talk but stays away from walking the walk.

28. jim, chicago on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Interesting presentation. Another interesting presentation would be to take the money spent by the previous administration, all of it mind you, include the costs of private contractors in Iraq, covert operations etc, and add it into the last admins budget. We should also look at Obama’s budget, and take some of the infrastructure spending that has been made a high priority, and spread some of it out over the last 8 years, when it should have been spent (levee’s, schools, alternative energy. etc. We would be looking at an entirely different picture on both sides of the coin. One of my history professors used to say, “There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics”

29. A Conservative, United States on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    “What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending.”

    Duh.

    Are you people forgetting that YOU elected all the critters in Congress that create these lovely plans? When was the last time you told your elected representative what you thought? Do you even know who they are?

    This isn’t the time to argue, it’s time to step up to your responsibilities and take back your power as a citizen. That’s the only hope we have left.

30. gary, illinois on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    I see the chart “forgot” to show the $5 trillion in projected surpluses for the 2000-2009 period? You remember that surplus, it was the rationale for Bush’s tax cuts.

    ‘00 and ‘01 surpluses were under Clinton, not Bush.

    Most of the ‘09 deficit is also Bush’s, since it’s his budget until October 1 (with the exception of the stimulus money being spent this year).

31. JackT, Florida on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Waaaaaahhhh… If everyone would stop wathcing CNN and buying the products that sponsor mainstream media; the media would have no power in electing officials. Yes. CNN elected Obama, so blame them!

    You can’t wait to vote again, now, can you?

32. tim in vermont on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    “And for those who believe WII brought us out of the Great Depression, how did it do that? Spending”

    Yeah, but the difference is, after the war, all of new govt employees, aka “soldiers”, and the vast majority of defense contractors were sent home to get jobs or find other productive things to do with their new factories. When does that happen with Obama’s spending? Answer, never. He is creating a permanent class of govt employees in the hopes of creating a permanent majority.

33. tim in vermont on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Not to mention the economic benefits of winning a war, which are absent here too. I think we are embarking on a reverse WWII, whe Europe and the Euro are going to come out on top, and we are going to be poorer people for decades.

34. Realist, Midwest. on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Yeah, right. Keep believing what the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation puts out as fact. Fact: Obama has inherited the biggest deficit of any president in American history. (Adjusted for real dollars, and inflation.)Obama must now prime the pump, to get us out of a multi-pronged mess left over from the Bush crowd, and seven years of Repub control. They chose to look the other way and ignore the financial chicanery going on right in front of them, while the income gap between the very wealthy, and real workers, grew to unprecedented levels. Their only prescription for every ill: take two tax-cuts for those already wealthy, and call me in the morning. The income gap is one trend that the corporations, and conservatives, see no problem with. However, without an economically viable, job-working, spending middle class, there can be no economic recovery. Look—Bush and the Repubs would not even acknowledge that America was in a recession until about five months ago. Remember this?…”The fundamentals of the economy are strong”. This falsehood was flouted by the Bush Administration, Republicans, and conservative pundits throughout the news media, while we were actually headed over the abyss. The surest way to insure our nation plunges into the worst depression we have ever seen, is to keep listening to the propaganda spewing conservative cranks. It was the ultra “free market” ideologies of groups like the American Heritage Foundation, that got us into this mess. No matter how you skew the graphs, or the facts, Bush never included the military budgets in his spending projections. Obama is including those expenditures. It is also important to differentiate between the cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, and the Pentagon budgets. (Two very different budgets, and different costs.). Beware of those that would like to re-write history. FDR saved our hind-ends. And, he did so while fighting two wars. People approved of what FDR was doing, because he was elected three times. Now, let’s see…What was going on before FDR took office? Hmmm….Economically, it looks a heck of a lot like what was going on before Obama took office. Keep listening to the conservative, “free market’ idealogues, and we’ll be back to Hooverville, or worse. Worried about deficits? Who is’nt?! But, how will we ever pay down debt in America, if we can’t get our spiralling economy going again? Nothing says misery like NO JOBS, and no hope. Conservatives always cry crockadile tears over deficits. Everytime good government agencies are cut, (Say, for instance, FEMA, Medicare, education, and for that matter, the local fire dept.) that can go to more tax breaks for those already wealthy, and more tax cuts for mega corporations. Wise up!

35. VLY, Illinois on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Now go back and do it again with the real numbers – not excluding wars that cost money or disasters that cost money, etc.

    Or go into the proposed budget and remove those factors.

36. Emalee, Cedar Hills on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    The US Constitution seperates States responsibilities from Federal responsibilities. One of the few responsibilities of the federal government is defense. Social issues like welfare, social security, health care, etc are not in the pervue of either the states or the federal government. When congress and the president cut spending on defense and increase spending on social programs, they are stepping on the toes of those who are responsible for said programs.
    President Obama needs to pay attention to what he is responsible for, and leave the economy to those who really affect it: the consumers and business owners.

37. RationalNotRhetoric on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Reported today…

    Orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured goods and new homes sales both rose unexpectedly in February.

    The Commerce Department said Wednesday that orders for durable goods — manufactured products expected to last at least three years — increased 3.4 percent last month, much better than the 2 percent fall economists expected.

    It was the first advance after a record six straight declines and the strongest one-month gain in 14 months.

    YES in the midst of all this rhetoric and subjectivity, we see the first advance in durable goods orders in 14 months!! Way back into the W administration when the economy was tanking!!

    It didn’t start the day Obama was inaugurated, it started a full year before he took office!!

    In the midst of all this rhetoric and anti American sentiment flowing from the Conservatives, the Market had it’s largest 2 week gain in 70 years and durable goods orders and home starts are on the rise.

    So you Cons just keep up your childish rhetoric, the rest of us are going to wash off the stench of 8 years of W and get this Country back to where it was financially and internationally when Clinton handed over the reigns to W.

38. mike baker Dallas Center on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Now, make a chart using the same numbers, comparing a Democratic-controlled Congress to a Republican-controlled Congress. Meanwhile, conservatives should find a polite way to tell their Democrat freinds,”…told ya so.” It’ll come in handy in the next several years.

39. Ross, Bradenton, Fla on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    By our constitution, the business of the federal government is to maintain a stranding army(armed forces), make international treats and policies(by the president for approval by the senate), regulate tariffs(international trade), print a uniform currency(based on the gold and silver standards), and regulate interstate commerce.
    The latter is the problem. The interstate commerce law was never intended to be used for social engineering(public(government)schools, busing, healthcare, public housing,food stamp, etc), nor wealth distribution(welfare,etc).
    The main purpose was to keep states going to war with each other for setting up tax booths(as with our national borders with Mexico and Canada) at their borders to collect all kinds of user taxes from businessmen trying to conduct business in a third state.
    The founding fathers never intended us to be a welfare/socialist state, but one of “life, liberty, and the pursue of happiness” through the sweat of our brow, entrepeurship, and limited interference by the government. There should be no federal governmental social agenda. If a state wants it, it’s their business.
    Therefore we need to demand that the Interstate Commerce law go back to its original intent and remove the unethical and dangerously abusive laws that limit our liberties as free citizens.
    Like Reagan, I believe the US government should be governed by a balanced budget and a line-item veto for the president. I have also come to the conclusion of no amendment be added to a bill unless it is fully debated, especially add-on “pork bill amendments”. The numbers speak for themselves. Batuimus

40. George, Lititz, PA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    RationalNotRhetoric incorrectly wrote:
    “Notice W came into office with a Budget Surplus???”

    gary, illinois incorrectly wrote:
    “‘00 and ‘01 surpluses were under Clinton, not Bush.”

    The reality is that there were no surpluses in 2000 and 2001. These are contrived numbers.

    See for yourself by seeing the actual numbers here:
    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
    and here:
    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

    From 9/30/1999 to 9/30/2000, the federal debt went up by $17,907,398,271.43.

    From 9/30/2000 to 9/30/2001, the federal debt went up by $133,285,202,313.20.

    From 9/30/2001 to 9/30/2002, the federal debt went up by $420,772,553,400.10.

    There was NO SURPLUS in that period. We always had a deficit.

41. bandit84 on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    RationalNotRhetoric:

    “The Commerce Department said Wednesday that orders for durable goods — manufactured products expected to last at least three years — increased 3.4 percent last month, much better than the 2 percent fall economists expected.”

    This is either the result of the natural cycle of a recession, or it is because of something Pres. Bush did. The Dems say this is still Bush’s economy, but you then claim that it is Obama’s recovery. SORRY, YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. And besides, the stimulus bill recently passed has NOT even been implemented.

    “YES in the midst of all this rhetoric and subjectivity, we see the first advance in durable goods orders in 14 months!! Way back into the W administration when the economy was tanking!!”

    So, like I said before, it must have been something Bush did.

    “It didn’t start the day Obama was inaugurated, it started a full year before he took office!!”

    No it didn’t. If we are actually starting to come out of this recession, it will NOT have been because of Obama. As difficult as it is for you to admit it, we WERE in a recession when Bush first took office. There was NOT a surplus when Bush took office.

    “In the midst of all this rhetoric and anti American sentiment flowing from the Conservatives, the Market had it’s largest 2 week gain in 70 years and durable goods orders and home starts are on the rise.”

    Let me say it again . . . THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH. It is absolutely impossible for Obama to have been responsible for the “recovery” you seem to think we are in.

    Have a good day.

42. dave, boston on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Funny, here’s a blog post (admittedly conservative) about the Clinton surplus myth

    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    Of course in my case I lost about 20% of the money I invested in my 401k money in 2000. (You know, in that wonderful Clinton economy. What was even more wonderful is the place I worked for didn’t do matching funds because they were in the toilet. I know it’s an annecdote but not everything was peachy.)

43. bandit84 on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    gary:

    “‘00 and ‘01 surpluses were under Clinton, not Bush.”

    There WAS NO SURPLUS WHEN CLINTON LEFT OFFICE! NONE!!!!

    “Most of the ‘09 deficit is also Bush’s, since it’s his budget until October 1 (with the exception of the stimulus money being spent this year).”

    You guys can say this all you want, but it doesn’t make it true. Have you asked yourself why the budget was not voted on last year? Let me tell you. Much of what is in the budget bill for 2008 (just passed) was in the bill last year. President Bush told Congress (Dem controlled) that if it made it to his desk, he would veto it. Pelosi decided at that point to hold it over knowing in her mind that she would have a Democrat as President and she would be able to get all she ever wanted passed.

    So . . . IT WAS NOT BUSH’S BILL, as much as you folks continue to say. Continually repeating a lie does not make it true.

    Have a good day!

44. bandit84 on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Thank you, Dave from Boston.

45. jerry louisiana on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Rocky needs to look at the numbers again. Then; he needs to clarify real numbers. What the grat one has encluded is not real. Rocky has been sucked into the Obama mania circle.

46. LJ, Michigan on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    And, FY 2009 began… in October 2008. Under… *gasp* President Bush. Bush ran a deficit to fund an unnecessary war. Now, the economy is in the tank. And, short run, if our country is to be saved (or, at least, its banking system and finances), we have to accept horrendous deficits. If we are to move forward with real investment in the future, we have to accept some short- to mid-term deficits to get the economy GROWING again. Sure, these deficits are ugly. But CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE. What does our country look like without these expenditures? Easily double-digit unemployment. Probably for years. Little opportunity for leadership in technologically driven manufacturing. No health care safety net and rapidly rising costs for those with insurance. So, yes, tough decisions have to be made. And, it seems like the appropriate choice is pretty clear if we want to have a strong future as a nation.

47. Dennis, Idaho on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    So Obama inherited debit from Bush and He from Clinton….and on and on back to Washington and the revolution. When is someone going to stop blaming the past administration and stop borrowing from the future generations. You cannot pay your Visa with Master Charge and Master Charge with American Express. You will never get out of debit only go deeper in debit.

    We need a balanced budget amendment. If you haven’t got it you cannot spend it. I know that will require tightening our belts and doing without many of our entitlements and comforts. The government was never intended to take care of us from cradle to the grave. Each of us must take responsibility for our own actions and decisions. The right to “pursue happiness” is no guarantee that we all will attain that goal.

48. DS, KS on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Umm, on stating the deficits included the wars… they didn’t. The wars were not included in the deficit.

    Unless you could of course explain how people didn’t know how much the war actually cost at the time if they could have just looked at the budget, the deficit, and done the simple math. Unfortunately all of the numbers were skewed, and there’s no way you can change simple fact, especially simple facts of such huge magnitude.

49. katablog, KS on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Would appear to me that we need more than Tea Parties. Each and every day the O administration gets more and more bold about their road to Marxism and Socialism. Just when you think you can’t be more shocked – the O administration proves that’s simply not true.

    Yesterday’s “suggestion” that Geithner be allowed to take control of ANY business that “jeopardized” the US Economy was a flat out grab for power that we’ve never even imagined before. And the liberals were all up in arms over the US Govt listening into a few phone calls that originated overseas!

50. Max, Washington D.C. on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    When Bush took office the debt was 5.7 trillion, when he left office it was 10.7 trillion. He added 5 trillion to the debt, not 2.5 trillion.

51. Judithod, St. Paul, MN on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Dan makes an on-point comment about tax revenues. They’re going to be down based on 2008 earnings and down even further based on 2009 earnings. Many of those whom Obama enjoys categorizing as “the rich” are now jobless or have taken pay cuts and their incomes from dividends and interest payments have decreased. And of course, there are fewer and fewer bonuses from which to reap taxes! Would anticipate that contributions to charities will drop, thanks to Obama’s plan, and who is going to pick up the slack there? More federal entitlement programs?

52. Darth Vader on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    ugh ,republicans.

    why dont you all move somewhere nice and far away ,like the surface of the sun ?

    hurry up and be quick about it!

53. Glenn D. Taylor Sr Wilmington, NC 28411 on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Listening to shawn he directed me to your Foundation. Thanks to him and your work those sleezes would have already worked their magic.
    How do I join your foundation? We need someone or enity to talk to. I looked around to see who I cold contact to tell of my anger at washington and the congress and the house. They should stop this money give away immediately! The budget of Housein has not been passed yet. If any one voting for his budget should be pointed out to be a traitor because he is trying to give all our values of this land I love to the United Nations. The hand writing is on the wall. He has all or most all our money to play with under the guise of getting the economy moving again. What about all that money he has given those banks, still nothing moving. Geiger works for Obama so when he was asked yesterday he told the congesswoman No but today at the meeting he said it would not be a bad Idea to change our currancy to world currancy. NNNNOOO!!! This guy Obama is a loser. He is trying to convince the Congress and House to hurry up and give him all this power. I often think of Hitler when I look at him. Tall,slim,goodlooking,and a gift for the spoken work to make people do what his voice wants them to. And to top it off, there is not any body to stop him. They all want to be a part of this giant agena. Sen Dodd should be called before Congress about his act. He didn’t just walk in pick up the bill someone left on the table,made his additions so all those people at AIG could get their bonuses. I wounder how much kickback he was supposed to get over that. I would say that Peosee and Mr B was standing right there beside him. Thank you for letting me get this of my chess, but it isn’t going away until that @#%$*#@ is Impeached!Done,glenndonna@att.net

54. cnc, michigan on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Bush spending doubled national debt from $5 trillion to more than $10 trillion in eight years of budgets. This averages more than $600 billion/year for eight years. The chart does not accurately reflect this debt increase. The chart does not accurately reflect this increase which calls into question the reliability of the entire data set.

55. Jim on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Beyond a handful of liberals dutifully suggesting that the Bush years don’t include war spending and the Obama figures do… is there a definitive source for that? I’ll gladly accept it as true, you know, with a good source. No offense.

56. Mike, Kennesaw on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    All,
    Seems everyone is looking at this picture wrong. It is not a condemnation of President Obama’s budget deficit. It is a picture of a government gone wild with spending, starting with Bush and a slight Republican majority Congress. The Democratic equality and then majority in the Senate started in 2004, the House went to a Democratic majority in 2006 and even further in 2008.
    While the President recommends a budget and can veto a budget, CONGRESS writes the laws that authorizes the budget.
    As a conservative, I was not pleased with a lack of Republican Congressional support for President Bush’s attempt to get Social Security reorganized to become solvent. I was not pleased with the passing of a new entitlement program cover prescription drugs during his Presidency.
    But it is time to stop looking backwards, as President Obama so often lectured during the campaign, and look to the future. The government should do, just as I am doing in my personal budget, cut spending and get my financial house in order.
    As far as I am concerned, the Democratic Congress owns the 2008 deficit and, if they pass the current Obama budget, he and they own that too, with all it’s deficits.

57. Zack, Fort Worth on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Darth Vader,

    There’s a reason you died in the Star Wars saga. It’s because you suck. Get off this thread unless you have something constructive to say.

    That being said, I’ll follow my own advice and get out of here .

58. Lynn B. DeSpain on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    I watched Mr. Obama’s speach the other night, and nothing has changed! Asked a direct question and he dances. When giving an explaination, feathers come out his mouth. When giving comparisons, his ‘poop’ smells just like anyone else’s ‘poop’!
    Hozro

59. Cascajun, USA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Don’t miss the colossal battle of the deficits: Chimpy-Bush McHitlerburton vs. Hopey Change Yes We Can!

    SUNDAY ONLY!!

    GET YOUR TICKETS NOWWWWWWWWWWWW!

60. Dede, TN on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    I am sooo confused! I read this article right after I searched about the National Debt and found this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/29/couricandco/entry4486228.shtml

    It matters who is writing the article.

61. Tardis, New York on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    What about the $227 billion borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund? The real budget deficit for Bush is closer to $789 billion.

62. Peter, MI on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    When will people learn that anything done now will effect us in 10 years, and anything done 10 years ago will effect us now? The economy doesnt react on a dime, it takes time. The housing market crash, caused 10 years ago by policy made then. So to think that Obama or Bush caused any of this is probably wrong. As for Obama spending more then Bush, the only way to know for sure is to do the research yourself and stop trusting everything you hear and read. The best source of information is the person who was in charge or is in charge now. Ask them yourself, if you have the courage.

63. Dicebucket, Texas on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Yo, RationalNotRhetoric!

    Here’s some homework (can you say H-I-S-T-O-R-Y?)for you to peruse:

    On September 30, 1999, a prophetic New York Times article included this early warning: “Fannie Mae has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.” The article, recognizing the risks of this policy, warns:”In moving…into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporations may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

    In other words, the bright idea of flooding our credit markets with mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford them was the brain-child of the Clinton administration – George Bush happened to be the governor of Texas at the time.

    To read the entire article, Google (including quotes) “NYT 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending”

    Five years later, during a 2004 Congressional hearing on improvement to regulatory structures for Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae, Democrat congressmen poo-poo a regulator from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (“Oh-Fey-Oh”) who is recommending immediate new regulations to guarantee against a future calamity. Democrats refuse to allow the consideration of more regulations. Afterwards, Bill Clinton is shown stating this: “The responsibility Democrats have is resisting efforts by Republicans in Congress and by me to put some standards and tighten up a little bit on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

    Google (including quotes) “2004: Dems Fight Regulations on Fannie, Freddie During Illegal Bookkeeping Hearing”

    On September 18, 2008, an interim CEO of Fannie Mae promises the Congressional Black Caucus that “Fannie Mae is determined to keep tearing down the barriers to deliver on the American Dream.” In other words, he promises no let-up in issuing more and more sub-prime loans to people who cannot afford them.

    Google (including quotes) “Blog: Fannie Mae and Congressional Dems”

    On September 25, 2008, Michelle Bachmann presents a succinct wrap-up of the genesis of today’s world-wide financial catastrophe.

    Google (including quotes) “Bachmann: How Did We Get Into This Mess? “

    The Obama bunch did NOT “inherit” this calamity. It is a matter of public record that THEY CAUSED IT while successfully blocking all efforts (even those of our previous Democratic president) to prevent it!

    We are now facing the likelihood of an unprecedented catastrophe in world-wide financial markets. In the U.S., it’s time for the 8-year long hissy-fit temper tantrum on the left in response to the failure of Al Gore’s bid to be president finally to be put to bed. Citizens should forgo their pleasure of repeating made-up attacks at either party, and instead make a serious effort to discover the actual facts, and work to pull together, not split apart, the citizens of this country. We are all going to need each other in the not-so-distant future.

64. gary, illinois on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    George, Lititz, PA wrote-

    The reality is that there were no surpluses in 2000 and 2001. These are contrived numbers.

    bandit84 wrote

    There WAS NO SURPLUS WHEN CLINTON LEFT OFFICE! NONE!!!!

    According to the chart at the top of this very page, there were surpluses in both 2000 & 2001. It’s right there in the far left column of the chart, first year listed, $236.2 billion surplus in 2000.

65. Duane San Ramon ca on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Granted war is never a good thing but when they bring it to our soil, we must defend our selfs. We are now the laughing stock of the world due in part to the knot heads that are running the country. Other countries are tell Obama to slow down but he’s on a power grab and want’s sociallism in this country, and big HUGE GOVERMENT s we can all stop paying our house payments. The great one will save us all. Actually he’s sending strait to hell

66. Mongo, Baltimore MD on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    In response to Rocky from Boise, ID on March 24th:

    The defense budget, including the money spent in Afghanistan and Iraq, is a pittance compared to the money spent on entitlement programs (ie – social security, welfare, etc.), which make up 60% of our total annual budget.

67. Ralph W. CA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Where can I find the exact link directly to this Washington Post article?

68. borabus,North Carolina,USA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    How do I get one of these paid responder jobs for bARRY oBAMA like post rebuttals on anything about him,attack the other person,right democraps…

69. Diemaker, Mi. on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Fellow Michiganders on this post…allow me to educate you. The only job the federal government can create is a government job. You and I pay the salary for this government job which produces nothing, and worse, takes a job away from the private sector. Every tax dollar Washington spends is one less dollar in the private sector. By further stifling the private sector, which is what the disputed budget chart shows, Obama is not helping you or me. Wise up and fight the spending. This monsterous blunder won’t do what they say it will.

    BTW…Steelhead time…after contacting reps to oppose budget, of course.

70. Ken Miller, Blacksburg, VA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    In saying that Bush and Obama share the responsibility for the 2009 budget, you forget one thing. Congress bypassed Bush on the issue by not passing its real budget until Obama got in office. Slam the man for the things he screwed up, but the 2009 budget isn’t one of them.

71. bruno coltri on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    does any one know when or where there will be any of those “tea parties” in chicago? id like to attend!

72. BW Texas on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Thomas B wrote: “Also, Obama himself was the personal, direct recipient of 7.7 million of that stimulus money”

    Where is the proof?

73. Joe Schmoe on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    After WW2 we had the ONLY manufacturing game in town. How is that going to happen this time??

74. 123455 on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    “President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.”
    —

    So… the difference between “Republican” and “Democrat” is about 35%?

    I think your party has abandoned its values.

75. SFerber, Lexington, KY on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Once again…what is this? junior high? No? the it must be the Heritage Foundation..which I used to think was legit.

    Listen.. I don’t know much about accounting, but I know a little about comparing.

    We’re comparing the Bush deficit to the Obama deficit, right?

    Then may I suggest you start with Bush’s 2009 proposed budget of $3.1 Trillion.

    Then show that Bush’s 2009 Budget 10 years out. Then add in:
    1. The actual estimations of the war costs
    2. The war costs for more than 1 year.
    2. the $216 billion to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax
    3. The financial rescue money spent under the Administration
    4. A reasonable estimate of future financial rescue money
    5.The calculation needed to factor in the revised 2008 4th qtr. plunge in the GDP.
    6, the cost of making all – all Bush’s tax cuts permanent ( Bush used revenue figures
    as though all his tax cuts expire.

    Please start with that and then tell us what see.

    And I’m not even going to address how one budget depletes while the budget begins to restore.

    So the writer of “Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit ” was able to see Obama’s gimmicks and overly optimistic estimations and yet none of Bush’s??

    Partisan deceit, or intellectual deficit ? You decide.

76. RealityMan on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    What I don’t understand is why people vote for their own demise. We knew this was going to happen but all you heard, “Everyone is mad at the Republicans so this is a way to get back at them… maybe this will be a lesson to them.” Yeah, whoever voted for the President sure taught them a lesson. Actually, they taught their kids a lesson: You will be in debt for life because I was such a genius to vote for the guy. Great Job!

    So what did we learn people? C’mon… what did we learn??? When you vote on feelings and trying “to set history” rather than voting on experienced candidates who have done something in their lives further more than just writing a book… you get this.

    And stop telling me you inherited the budget and that you had no part of it! Of course you did. You were a Senator, remember?! You were on the filibuster list that Chris Dodd’s used to threaten the Chairmen of the Committee should the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 come into the Senate. Yeah, but you didn’t have anything to do with the current problem. Thanks, but I spit the Kool Aid out during the Bush Administration.

    What I find hilarious is that this President is so gung ho about controlling everything, why didn’t he decide to control things before?

77. julius octavious , the universe on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    I hear all of you guys and women speaking about whose fault it is for the debt, whose spending how much and you guys seem to be pretty upset. Well, I would say that people here who are liberal or all the way to the left who are on this website should be glad that they have just implaced, if they voted for him, President Obama into power because know he’s going to spend all of your money! Oh, but wait, there is no money! He’s using money from your great-great-great-great grand children to fix the problem that he or former President Bush didn’t need to fix. They should have just let the markets figure out the problem instead. Now I also hear about people talking about WW2 on this website and how we spent money to get us out of the Great Depression. History Lesson for you guys. We had no money to spend during the time in Great Depression. War started and soon America went into the war. That created jobs for many Americans. That then gave the govt. a source of income to use. Another source of income that they used was war bonds. In the end of this history lesson, I hope you learned two things; One, the govt. actually sold a product to earn money; and Two, we actually used money that we had at the time. There is one thing though that is good about Obama. He cares about education and by education we can learn a very important lesson stated by former President Theodore Roosevelt” If you know your history, then you know your future.” Know about this debt thing again. A friend of mine once told me you can’t compare pumpkins to apples because they’re two complete different things. It’s like this topic. Bush’s spending and defecit to Obama’s spending and defecit. They’re two complete different things. President Obama is having a hard time right now with this crisis and economic freefall. Former President Bush dealt with war on terror, beginnings of a crisis, and a lot more. The two presidents had to go through different things in their presidency so you really can’t compare the two. They’re not in the exact situation and coming with different solutions. You can’t compare the two together.I guess that is all for now. I’ll talk another time.

78. im conservative on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    I’m starting a revolution against these tyrants!!! who is with me?

79. Dave, California on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Folks, we should not be surprised here. Obama came to the table with no management experience worthy of a Board for any major corporation in our country, let alone the largest corporation in the world. We see precisely what he campaigned on: rhetoric, and more rhetoric. All he knows how to do is campaign and make the rounds, as evidenced by his (lack of) executive leadership skills. So, let’s stop bickering about what he’s doing for goodness’ sake, he’s doing exactly what we said he was going to do during the election season, he’s living up to our expectations. The thing to do now is point out this fact, and begin campaigning *for* his replacement rather than only against him.

80. Jim, Ohio on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Food for thought :

    Regarding taxes – who spends wiser, me spending my money or a politician who would take my money and spend it on other people

    The rich getting tax cuts – if they buy a 3rd home or a yacht, who builds and maintains those items

    Government spending – of the thousands of current spending programs can anyone name a few that are performed well and cost effectively

    Does anyone believe that Nancy Pelosi has your best interest at heart

81. John on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Can’t wait till 2012. However, let’s start voting the Democrats out of office in 2010.

82. BobH2010 (Houston) on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    And after WWII we were the only nation left with an intact manufacturing infrastructure that allowed us to become the “manufacturer to the world” for the next 10 – 15 years, rebuild our economy, and pay down our debt. We have no manufacturing base now….and everything we’re doing will assure that continues.

83. RealityMan on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    SFeber,

    Look at the graph and read the update and clarifications again. The graph shows the actual numbers of the Bush Administration when he left office and the planned estimate of Obama. Reason being is that Bush and Obama both share the numbers of FY 2009. This is why the accounting is planned for 2009 forward.

    From what I’m seeing is that people are looking at this as Bush vs Obama rather than being “outside the parties”. Start researching and looking at both objectively vs. subjectively. From what has happened in the last 60 days, would you suspect that there has been more spending from Obama than Bush. Of course. So we don’t need a picture to tell anything we don’t already know. Both are responsible for spending a lot. But if you’re implying that Bush’s Administration deficit would surpass Obama’s Administration Future Deficit (after hearing what has happened in the last 60 days)… I guess our discussion would have to stop here, because I can’t talk to you.

    But, in all truth, it’s the Congress that does pretty much everything. They are the ones who have the power to tax and spend (according to the US Constitution). From the last 60 days and the amount of fascism and narcissism I’ve seen, there seems to be no Constitution. But from what I’m gathering you want to talk about parties so I thought I’d leave this little tidbit regarding the last couple of years:

    In 2006:
    1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high
    2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon (which is what it is now)
    3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%
    4) the DOW JONES hit a record high–14,000+
    5) American’s were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!…

    But American’s wanted “CHANGE”! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes–
    we got “CHANGE” all right.

    In the 2007:
    1) Consumer confidence plummeted
    2) Gasoline went to $4 a gallon & climbed
    3) Unemployment moved up to 5.5% (a 10% increase)
    4) Americans began seeing their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars and prices started dropping
    5) 1% of American homes were in foreclosure
    6) $2.5 trillion dollars evaporated from Consumers stocks, bonds, mutual fund investment portfolios.

    But you don’t here about this stuff in the Media. So what do people look at? They look at administrations. Pretty pathetic. The President has one Pen, but Congress has many. It’s time to become an Independent and start looking at things objectively. They’re both screwed up (Republicans and Democrats).

84. Connor on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Read the “UPDATE:” part. The war costs ARE included. The data is from the Washington Post.

    “And for those who believe WII brought us out of the Great Depression, how did it do that? Spending.”

    Keynesians predicted that the private economy would go into a recession after WWII because the large government budget deficits would be eliminated and so many men would be returning from the war jobless. Instead, as government deficits receded, private consumption and investment boomed. Resources were no longer allocated to producing munitions and instead were devoted to production of typical consumer goods and services.

    There is no evidence that the living conditions during WWII were better than the years before. War is hell, for any country. The only reason why the economy improved after was because deficits went down.

85. antiDave on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    RationalNotRhetoric,
    You are sucked into the GOP vs Dem argument. Our country needs to decide what philosophy we want ur leaders to follow.
    We are hearing straw man arguments from both sides. The fact of the matter is we are all conservatives with our own money. Ever read “Who Really Gives”? Couple liberal harvard professors sliced and diced it every way they could, and libs are more than conservative, they are stingy with their time and money. Rather let the government do the work apparantly, yet hold themselves out as the party of the poor.

    Some people think the issues of today are different, however, that is not true. Human nature has not really changed since recorded history and probably long before.

    The philosophy set forth in the Bible and our constitution are the roadmap to peronal and national prosperity. Our founders warned of this very thing, and we have been self indulgent.

    The hangover is coming, but Obama just ordered 10 trillion shots of tequila on my kids tab, so you may as well get one, eh comrades?

86. Ring, Oh on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Amazing how for the last 8 years Democrats have screamed at the modest deficits Bush created like they were enslaving their generations of their ancestors despite Bush reducing the deficits in 3 of the last 4 years in office. Now that Obama is going to triple it, they are all nonchalant about any kind of deficit unless they can blame Bush for it.

    Suck it up, you were warned what Obama was like, you were just too easy to fool. Even the folks you were so quick to quote as backing Obama during the campaign have changed their minds, instead illuminating his incompetence and dereliction of duty.

87. Zach, Minnesota on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Obama seems to have duped the people who voted for him. It is funny. Let us say that you have a huge credit card debt. How are you going to fix it? Oh I have a great Idea. Lets Spend more money and then borrow money from others to pay off this debt.

88. Wirenut, OH on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    I have worked in the public for much of my working life and I can tell you that people with a chip on their shoulders or having a power-trip will fall and with that being said, Obama will fall along with his cabnet.

    Its a shame that we all have to suffer financially for the rest of our lives. Yes Bush had his faults, but he spent wisely and I would rather see our money being spent for our freedom. Obama will spend our money to disarm this great Country and support food stamps at a cost of $20 billion. I don’t see how food stamps will stimulate our economy.

    They say Obama has an IQ of a high value, I’m not seeing it. Personally, I think the media just but that in so he would get votes for the sake of history, this man has no common sence.
    This man has created a monster that effects our lives, our childrens lives and their childrens lives.

    Also, why in the heck are they spending our money to control/stop all of us from planting our own fruits and fegetables. Did you know that if you plant such things, you are considered a farmer. They want to import our foods, bad idea!
    Outside of having a power-trip, I don’t see the reasoning behind all of this mans useless spending.

    All of you Democrats wanted “change”, you got it. Thank you vary much for voting for socialism, for being a one-sided cabnet and for destroying growth.

89. Family Resources on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Judging by my research it appears that what we are witnessing here is the controlled demolition of the worlds debt based economic system, ending The Old World Order.

    Once the work of Anti Christ (Obamanation?) has done its duty, we will then see the last, the shortest yet more horrific of all The Creation Perfection Cycles called “Ethics” begin.

    After the process is complete we will then see the new heaven and new earth “New World Order” that the seer of The Book of Revelation and The true Christ had foretold.

    Prepare your hearts, many earth-suits will perish in the coming storm only to return later in bodies of light to rein with The Chosen one.

    If you wish to better understand this point of view; http://www.focusonrecovery.net/

    Family Resources

    or just copy; focus on recovery traditional family resources
    then paste into a web browser

90. Chas, Swingstate OH on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    I am saving this graphic. Unless we stop this administration, they will always find a crisis and always want to spend money. I think Obama and CBO projections are underestimated.

91. Andrew, Cali on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Dear everybody:

    Cite some sources or shut the hell up.

    Love,
    Andrew

92. Danton, Catskill mtns on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    “….the rest of us are going to wash off the stench of 8 years of W and get this Country back to where it was financially and internationally when Clinton handed over the reigns to W.”

    Yeah,right..you have a short memory,my friend,(or should I now call you Comrade?)

    The only stench around here is the aroma of dead bodies deposited by Bill & Hill in their quest for absolute power.
    How many people did they have murdered, or discredited, or abused by the IRS on their directive?

    Or the stench of tainted monies delivered by the bag-man Gore?
    Remember:the Ashram payoff; illegal funds by a sitting president,yes ILLEGAL according to the CONSTITUTION.
    BTW: an ashram is a temple;usually Buddhist.

    The stench of corruption/treason by way of the loopholes created by Clinton and company that gave missile technology to the Chinese, who undoubtedly have or will share with their allies or lackies e.g.:N.KOREA!!

    Or the stench left behind by Jamie Garelick of the 911 Commission.
    (btw,she’s a DEMOCRAT)
    Jamie got her payoff from the gov’t agency making huge bonuses on the sub-prime mtgs….where was your outrage then?

    Bush got his orders for sure; from the big boys who really run this dog & pony show, but so has Obama.

    If you want the truth check out infowars.com..infowars.tv…additionaly
    I’d suggest larouchepac.com.

    Mr.Larouche warned of economic collapse in 1996…he was a candidate for POTUS…Bush Sr. had him jailed.

    And you talk about stench?
    AMERICA WAKE UP!!

93. Danton, Catskill mtns on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Please people, check out populist lawyer Gary Fielder’s seminar at the Univ of Colorado (online & streaming),entitled:”The Gig Is Up”.
    Mr.Fielder is a political atheist, having no axe to grind politically, and we need to share knowledge with each other.

    Heaven help us

94. Randall in Washington, D.C. on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Any of you outraged about the Madoff Ponzi scheme? News flash!!! Obama makes Madoff look frugal!! Obama is running the ponzi scheme of all ponzi schemes.

95. Pete on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Obama lost the right to claim ‘inheritance’ when he doubled down on stupid.

96. Vicki on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Obama’s deficit overflowing with blood, sweat and tears.

97. Chris, Boise on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Doesn’t Congress have say in what is spent? We all point to the President and either blame him or applaud him for what happened during his administration. We fail to point out that Congress is part of that too. President Bush had a Democratic Congress the past two years and yet everybody screams at how he spent the money. Didn’t Congress help? By contrast some applaud President Clinton for reducing the deficit (actually in real accounting terms he never had a surplus during his administration). If I remember right Congress was controlled by the Republicans. Either way you look at it both parties are to blame for the spending. I am disatisfied with both.

98. PuckU, PA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Of course Barak double down, to clean up the mess left behind by Bush and his corrupt administration.

99. PuckU, PA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

    Thanks, RationalNotRhetoric

    Well said!

100. Jefroks on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     PuckU, PA:

     Well said! Youre name matches your point of view. Bush did have some mess, should we say dirt in the living room, your Idol wants to clean it, instead of just simply wiping it off, he bought from the grocery all the cleaning materials and not satisfied with it, got himself a nice load of Chips and Snacks and offered to buy the entire grocery including the land and the owner. Does not make sense, right?

101. Debra, Cary, NC on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Only half of the TARP money was spent in 2008. The other half is being spent by Obama in 2009. Obama is bankrupting America. When I first read the budget and saw that he is doubling foreign aid, enacting cap and trade, and raising taxes during a recession I knew we were in trouble.

102. Barry, CA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     This article does not seem accurate to me. The Bush deficit was already projected at $1.2 Trillion by CBO in January: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/07/national/main4703856.shtml

     The deficits are not just due to spending, they are due to a severe economic recession that has slashed government revenues. In addition, to keep our financial system from collapsing and leading to a depression, 100’s of $billions in bailout money are being spent. This is Obama’s fault? The current economic and financial fiasco all started on Bush’s watch.

     The deficit is also higher because Obama eliminated accounting tricks that Bush used to hide the size of the deficit: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html

     You claim Bush added $2.5 Trillion to our debt. That is wrong, Bush added about $5 Trillion and nearly doubled it. Check here http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/22/rahm-emanuel/5-trillion-added-national-debt-under-bush/ and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#History

     Finally, you link to an article that claims the Bush tax cuts were successful. They were not: Employment growth during Bush’s 8 years was one of the worst in history. In real dollars, the stock markets went down, as did real wages. Labor force participation declined. GDP growth was anemic. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011102301.html

103. Juan, IL on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     We didn’t just start out with a surplus, we entered with a deficit because of Bush, and what do republicans do? they blame Obama, and ” President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.” i don’t see whats wrong with that i am in favor of progressive taxation. it seems republicans like to pass blame for the failures of Bush’s era

104. Frank, TX on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     First off, I voted for Obama because I thought his progressive tax ideas were a more fiscally responsible plan than the GOP alternative. So I am very unhappy with this budget.

     That being said… Bush inherited a strong economy, with a modest budget surplus. He immediately stopped collecting tax money from the wealthy, and drove the budget into a large deficit. And the reasons he cited for his massive deficit? People who live in caves halfway across the world.

     After 8 years of Bush wrecking the economy, Obama has inherited the worst economy in our lifetime. His spending is required (according to many experts at least) to prevent the collapse of the entire world’s financial systems.

     So to offer a straight comparison is I feel, somewhat disingenuous. These administrations aren’t in a vacuum. Both can share the blame for the budget, both can share some part of any recovery, and both were and will continue to feel the effects of what Clinton did in office.

     One president had huge budget increases that were quite literally driven by fear of cave-dwellers. Another president has had massive budget increases driven by economic collapse across the entire world.

105. john in rural PA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     How much land and fire power do I need to declare my independence and leave this one-world-unholy union?

106. Miguel, Sacramento, California on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Realist out of the Midwest talks of “good government” agencies like “education” among others being targeted by evil conservatives. He/she clearly hasn’t been around during California’s “stimulus plan” which has been going on for years now, with the result of destroying our once-4th most powerful economy on earth, by targeted over-taxation, over-regulation, etc. I speak as a one-time ardent democrat, artist and art teacher here in Sac as we call our town. I’ve seen, in schools, a wholesale waste beyond imagination which has resulted in massive destruction of our once-great education system here. Kids knowing just where the buckets are to catch the rain coming through the roof is casual. This is mild, very mild as an indicator, the much greater problem being the state mandating the destruction of truly great programs to be replaced by cheaper, useless non-functional, pc programs. In my district in a Sac burb, 1/3 of the graduates graduate OUTSIDE of our normal high schools. Every school board in the state is run out of Sacramento’s giant buildings full of bureaucrats who control most of our abject edu-failures, mandated by edu-criminals at all levels of our corrupt, power-hungry Cal governments.

     What’s best for the kids isn’t even in the equation, much less the answer. No amount of ‘more money’ can save this sickened monster, but more money can buy a lot of votes from my corrupt former party’s functionaries, to keep the edu-criminals in business as long as other people’s money flows.

     Wherever my former party has control, education is destroyed, along with wrecking the economy, the family, the economy and the people’s prosperity, except for criminals. Detroit’s 47% illiteracy rate, vast crime, government corruption (jailed mayor), 10,000 unsolved homicides and huge ‘government services sector’ is emblematic of America’s future under democrats.

107. Bill on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Note the two key words “actual” and “projected”. Bush wrecked our economy through reckless spending and complete lack of discipline (not to mention borrowing trillions from China and the Saudi’s). It’s going to take a minor miracle to recover from this mess, so I suggest people like you sit back and give this all time to work. The only way to get out of it, is to spend our way out of it to give our economy the kick-start it needs. So stop the whining and help us recover from the mess you supported.

108. Em on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid..all programs that help citizens to stay afloat in a country where money is the one God and anyone who doesn’t make huge amounts somehow lacks morality.
     What happens to the money from these programs? Does it go Swiss secret bank accounts? No, it’s SPENT. Every dollar given to middle and lower income people –or spent on their behalf–goes to buy goods and services. If any is banked, it is loaned out again to people who want loans to buy houses, cars, etc….. talk about kick-starting the economy….!!!
     So how come the good republican right wingers swallow the bunkum about these programs hurting the country and contributing to the downfall of the country?
     And how come they manage to ignore the fact that the Democrats have not had control of congress in quite some time. Even 51 votes in the senate will not overcome a presidential veto.
     Propagandists for the corporations and corporate right wing media have spouted garbage for so long that un-thinking people will accept any of it and think it’s dessert.
     And the hatefulness of the right wingers is so disgusting…many of them write as if they would be more comfortable living in Communist China or Taliban controlled Afghanistan….. When some 21st century Timothy McVeigh carries out some breathtakingly destructive act against our country, then we’ll see who is proud of being a hate-monger……

109. old construction worker on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     ‘Bill writes:
     The only way to get out of it, is to spend our way out of it to give our economy the kick-start it needs.’

     Yep. Just like Michigan has been doing for the last 30 years. That’s a program we can all get behind. Spend and tax your way to prosperity.

     Steve B

110. Waldo, Smoky Mountains on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I believe we are near the final stage where the people learn they can vote themselves riches from the National Treasury, Change We Can Afford, Change We Need, Hope you have your garden all planted and plenty of barb wire to protect it.

111. Judy, Washington on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I’ve read so many articles about Obama and his doing just the opposite of what he told the people he would do. 11 promises (or more by now) already broke.

     Please go to WeThePeopleCongress.org to get enlightened on what’s going to happen in the next few months. There is actually a real direction the WeThePeople Foundation has created. There will be an assembly of 150 delegates (3 from each state) that will assemble to give the people direction according to the Constitution. It doesn’t get any better than this!

112. American Sharecropper, Arizona on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Lacking any other feasible alternative, I refuse to pay for this insanity. What is the proper moral response to this? Stop paying income taxes altogether and risk prison time? Reduce my income dramatically and learn to barter? Move to another country knowing that as bad as it is here, it’s worse elsewhere? I no longer believe the voting process will “change” anything, when we have a class of citizens with no vested interest in voting away their free money. Our government has willfully and arrogantly broken the only Social Contract is has with the citizens and the sovereign states, the Constitution. What are we to do when our own federal government is the largest criminal on the planet?

113. John Nimtz on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Good question, Sharecropper.

     When our government has grown too big for its britches, and acts outside of the constitution, what is the recourse of the citizens? Hmmm, what could it be…? And why is my finger twitching?

114. Mister Snitch, Hoboken on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Scary, ain’t it?

115. william few brunswick ga on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Remember this just counts the DEFICIT it does not count the taxes collected.

116. John Lawless Roanoke, VA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Does anyone know where I might be able to obtain a higher resolution version of th deficit graph in this post?

     I would like to use it on a tea party sign on Wednesday.

117. DR, DC on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     PLEASE NOTE: THIS CHART IS A LIE

     I am a conservative — but a huge reason for the difference is the Bush numbers do not include: SOCIAL SECURITY, IRAQ WAR, FEDERAL TRUST IOUs — which Obama now includes.

     PLEASE POST A REAL CHART! (Including all those costs)

     We as conservatives are now being told that Obama is more honest and that is a reason for the increase in the deficit — please lets show that honesty in the numbers is not an excuse — you will still see that Obama is ballooning spending

118. Conn Carroll on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     We can’t correct every inaccurate comment in this thread, but this comment by “DR, DC” is just so laughably wrong it merits a note. The chart does most definitely include social security, Iraq, Afghanistan, and all other federal spending.
     It is a Washington Post produced chart. They are sometimes wrong, but not this time. If “DR, DC” wants to pony up some actual OMB or CBO data to back up his outlandish claims, we’ll respond again.

119. Ben, Washington state on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Can we get a graph that shows spending alone without taking into account taxes collected?

120. Dave, Orlando on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     What the graphic does not include is the social security IOUs, but on the other hand, that is just a debt by the government to the government, so it is not really a debt at all. Also, Bush really had no control over that. In fact, he tried to reform social security, but the Dems blocked it. So if you want to blame someone for the IOUs, it’s not Bush, but rather the Dems.

121. Jeff, Seattle on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I would love to see a chart showing what Bush’s or another Republican’s projections for 2009+ would have been knowing the current recession we are in. I’m guessing very similar to the one above. Or, show a graph showing the budget as a whole compared to Bush. Not just the resulting deficit. The Budget that Republicans put forth as a response to Obama’s was a total joke. But, even THAT one resulted in a huge deficit. The deficit graph comparing administrations is misleading because GDP was not SHRINKING until now.

122. Mark, Arizona on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     You do realize that the FY2009 budget was prepared, approved, and signed by the Bush Administration, right? That the TARP package was prepared by and signed on October 3rd 2008 by President Bush, right?

     You need to remove FY2000 from ‘Bush’s deficit’ because that surplus was from the Clinton Administration’s budget. You also need to move FY2009 to ‘Bush’s deficit’ because that budget and debt has his signature at the bottom.

123. Mark, Arizona on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     >>“inherited Bush deficits” (which aren’t Bush’s at all — they are from the Democratic Congress that’s controlled spending for the last two years), he hasn’t said anything about the [...]

     You mean the Democratic congress elected in November of 2006 to a majority margin of 50.5% to 49.5% in the Senate and 54.3% to 45.7% in the House? The same congress that did not take office until January 4th of 2007, just one month before the Bush Administration issued it’s FY2008 Budget? The same congress that was hit with more Republican filibusters in a single year than in the previous 4 years combined?

     You honestly expect me to believe that in less than one month, a Democratic congress dictated the entire FY2008 budget to the President, who then nicely obliged and issued it on February 5th, 2007?

     FY2001 through FY2008 are entirely under the watch of the Republicans. FY2009 is under the watch of both the Bush Administration and the slightly Democratic Congress.

124. Mark, Arizona on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Supplemental War funding totals-> This does not include interest. Note that it does not include things like long term medical coverage or replacement of equipment, nor does it include the size of the DoD Budget. Also, this is strictly supplemental funding for the Wars, approved after and separate from the Budget.

     FY2003: $54.4
     FY2004: $92.1
     FY2005: $58
     FY2006: $100
     FY2007: $70
     FY2008: $190
     FY2009: estimated $83.4

     Ok, now lets look at the US Budget Deficit numbers, these are the numbers in the Budget and do not include the supplemental values given above which are separately appropriated by congress.

     FY2003: -$377.6
     FY2004: -$412.7
     FY2005: -$318.3
     FY2006: -$248.2
     FY2007: -$160.7
     FY2008: -$454.8

     You can look up both of these data sets at the Congressional Budget Office website: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.shtml

     Total Debt for each year:

     FY2003: -$432
     FY2004: -$504.8
     FY2005: -$376.3
     FY2006: -$348.2
     FY2007: -$230.7
     FY2008: -$644.8

     Clearly the Washington Post graph does not match the totals, but does match the budget deficit. So the answer is No, the Washington Post graph does not include the cost of the wars.

125. chuk los angeles,CA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Dear Rocky, of Boise ID writes:
     The Defense BUDGET is exactly that. What do you think that Defending our nation is separate from the rest of the machinations and spending to run our country? Defense spending is based on money that is BUDGETED FOR THAT. You dont just throw money around as your friend has been doing AND btw, that war budget is included in the graphs moneys coming from several funds.
     Its all in there and read it and weep – looks like our good orator just talked himself into a single term.

126. Dave F – Chicago IL on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Thomas B said, “Both China and Russia have new jet fighter/bomber models that are fully the equal of the F-15.”

     The F-15 is a fighter that was developed in the late 1960’s and first produced in the 1970’s. China has not one single aircraft carrier. The U.S. spends more on it’s military than every other nation in the world COMBINED, and last year alone spent $300 billion (BILLION, with a “B”) just on cost overruns alone. I don’t quite understand what you’re worried about. Have you seen the F-35? It’s light years ahead of an F-15.

     “Iran is rapidly coming up to speed with new kinds of missiles, small arms, body armor, and other artillery/guerilla weapons and equipment.”

     So… they’ve got the equivalent of our 1950’s and 1960’s technology? I see no reason to be shaking in my shoes.

     “For God’s sake, Mexican drug smugglers now have various kinds of hand grenades, armour-piercing HE rounds, high-quality body armor…”

     Most of which comes from THE UNITED STATES. Thanks to all the “you can’t infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights even the tiniest bit” folks out there, we have plenty of morons willing to sell machine guns, assault weapons and yes, hand grenades to anyone willing to pay for them. Guess who that includes? The Mexican drug gangs.

     Where are the intelligent conservatives that actually think about this stuff? And I’m not even close to being liberal, by the way (though surely, because I’ve dared to speak the truth, I’ll likely be labelled as one by most here merely because the pejorative is easier to ascribe than to think about the truth).

127. Terry Abilene, Tx on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Some blame Bush while others blame Obama. Either way, government spending is out of control and sooner or later the American people (Democrates and Republicans) will have to pay the bill. You think its bad now. You haven’t seen anything yet.

128. Dave, Outer Space on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Welcome to the third world USA!

129. Jimmy, Virginia on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I like how you fail to mention that Bush added 2.5 trillion to the deficit when it was completely unnecessary. He didn’t have to do it. You also fail to mention that Obama is adding the 4.9 trillion because the economy is in a recession.

     Obama IS increasing the deficit because he is trying to clean up the mess that Bush made.

     Bush DID increase the deficit because he started a fucking war.

     So lets see here. Obama spends money to get broken country (that he inherited) out of economic recession.

     And Bush spends money to start pointless war where human lives are lost. Bush’s spending contributed to DEATH!! Yet a large number of people voted for Bush because he was against abortion. Yet Bush never made abortion illegal, did he? He just used that argument to get votes.

130. Brady, Miami on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     The thing that is wrong with all this is it is trying to seperate Obama and Bush as if they were truely opponents. It’s not about left or right.. Its about freedom vs tyranny. This simply divides the country to be conquered by Globalists that simply pose on both sides. Both Bush and Obama are working tword the establishment of world government. By having staged, false opposition, when one puppet is too unpopular to be used anymore they simply swap out to the opposition and use the momentum to continue the same overall agenda.

     If obama was truely against bush, we would be seeing a roll back of all the unconstitutional and illegal activities that took place under bush. We would see no immunity for warrentless wiretapping. We would see prosecution for torture. We would see the repeal of the patriot act, the restoring of posse comitatus, ending the real ID act..

     But we see none of that. He never was who he posed to be.

     We won’t be leaving Iraq.

     We won’t stop delving deeper into a police state.

     We won’t see the economy get better.

     We are looking at two managment teams, bidding for control of slavery incorperated. When we look at debates, we are not looking at the full spectrum of choice, but a narrowly defined range of views that fit into the overall agenda of aligning to subjugate free humanity under total control.

     There is a war on for your mind.

     http://www.infowars.com

131. Glen in Texas on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     How much of the projected deficit reflected above is attributed to the financial bailout, which has already surpassed $2 trillion and likely to reach $8 trillion?

132. George, Lititz, PA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Rocky, of Boise ID incorrectly wrote:
     “Lets please clear up part of the record. The biggest expense of the government by far is the department of defense.”

     Entitlements are the biggest government expense. Medicare/medicaid and Social Security each outspend the military.

133. Dave, SoCal on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     At the end of WW2 ours was the largest creditor economy, had unprecidented manufacturing capability, and exported oil. We are now the largest debtor nation, make almost nothing, and import most of our oil.

     In real terms, WW2 was paid for by 1960. We have no propect of ever re-paying the current debt, nearly all of which is leveed against taxpayers to provide services never intended by the framers of the constitution.

134. Charlie Pruner, Illinois on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Get info here and educate the misguided.

     http://www.wethepeopleofillinois.com/

135. Charlie Pruner, Illinois on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     http://www.wethepeopleofillinois.com/

136. Nathan W. Seattle, WA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Hello folks,

     Please stop the bickering about things that make no difference. We already have the deficit and a recession. We should all focus on now and what to do now. I don’t like the war as much as anyone. I agree with the war in afghanistan. I don’t agree with the one in Iraq. Yes there are a lot of bad people out there. Can we be the world police? The answer is no. Let’s clean up our own mess first. Clean up our fiscal policies and minimize government waste. I think anyone liberal, conservative, dem, rep, ind, whatever will agree with that. What security has the wars brought us? Maybe more maybe less it’s hard to say. But we seem to have poked the perverbial stick in the bees nest. As Americans we should be united on some simple and honest goals. I am all for debate, but I am also for some intelligent debate. Rather than throwing around some figures, charts and opinions that mean little or nothing. Maybe try solving some problems rather than pointing fingers. I do not support the Democrats or the Republicans, but rather the certain people who make them up. Hopefully with support and feedback from the American people we can all get things back on track. Let’s strengthen America for defense instead of offense using intelligence and technology. Build up the manufacturing sector and stop importing so much technology. So many Republicans it seems want to destroy the American manufacturing sector. If you destroy that you destroy America. We will not be able to defend ourselves without our manufacturing infrastructure. That is the only reason we are not part of Germany or Japan right now. My two cents

137. Hong/ Northern California on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I usually don’t talk politics at work but for some reason the very subject of government spending came up. I am going to print this for my co-worker. I got into a much heated discussion on this really topic and she insisted that it was President Bush. I knew better so I went in search of the truth to enlighten her so thank you for the article.

138. Joe the Plumber, SoCal on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     This is sort of pointless – of course there are massive budget deficits under Obama. We’re in a recession – this is how Keynesian economics work. Bush (to his credit) did the exact same thing at the end of his term to help deal with the economic crisis – if anything, Obama’s continuing his policy. No economists outside of Cato are seriously suggesting we do anything differently.

139. Marcus.. Flagstaff AZ on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Bush set the course, I do not know what would be the correct course of action for obama, mabye we should talk to Clinton, 00 01! I like those numbers on the chart above!!

140. chauvinistpig, Gosportopia, IN on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Clinton was able to take credit for the 00, 01 years but it was a real, living, breathing CONSERVATIVE congress that enable the responsible spending during those years. It is the only time since Reagan that there has been a conservative power affecting policy in Washington.

141. Kay, Green Valley on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     You Republicans could have done something about this if you presented the American people with better candidates. You all voted for McCain which was a vote for Obama so suck it up. You might want to concentrate on getting some quality candidates to run against Obama in the next election rather than sitting around feeling sorry for yourselves and complaining.

142. Greg. Spokane Wa. on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I am so confused. I voted for Obama because I thought that Bush did a terrible job. But if Obama is going to do an even worse job, well I am seriously worried.

     At least though, I will wait till the end of four years. I just wish that there were not so many biased people reporting the news(left and right), so that I could trust in what people are saying more.

143. mike t on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Fuzzy math guys. ON January 20th, Obama inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficiet. He has added 600 billion to it. Then look what he does over the next 4 years. Looks to me that he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

144. doogle on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     D*mn George Bus….er….Barrack Obama!

145. Jen on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I’ve studied the things that cause nations to fail: the warning signs, the events that start snowballing into bigger and bigger problems. Some of them are happening now.

     Obama’s economic stimulus package is not building up the economy because it requires taxes to do so. Essentially, it requires taking money from individuals and businesses in order to put money into different jobs. This means that in a time where people are already strapped for cash, they’ll have even less to pay the bills. Businesses will have to cut back more jobs in order to pay the taxes that are supposed to create more jobs in a very inefficient way.

     At the same time, all those tea parties will hurt the economy as well if they take off. The government needs money to operate, so it will have to raise taxes on those who are still paying taxes. If the government doesn’t have enough money to operate, it fails. It stops working for us. Let’s face it, we need our government to do all the things that we as individuals can’t do.

     What will bring the economy back is the rise of a new industry. The economy rises and falls with the boom and bust of various industries. In the past it was textiles, then railroads, then steel, then cars, then computers. We need something else to take off that will actually create new jobs in a new market instead of recycling the same limited funds. THAT is what will save our capitalist society, NOT a stimulus package. Until then, we have to hold out hope for good innovators to come along quickly and learn to be frugal and savvy with our finances as our nation’s leaders keep trying to shift money around.

     Historically, what brought us out of the Great Depression was WWII. The New Deal created some jobs, but it wasn’t until Europe demanded our services that the US got back on its feet. New jobs are the answer, not the tax-based ones that the government is creating, but a revival in the private sector.

146. Gary Ollila, Virginia Beach, VA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     . . . Of course the Heritage Foundation conveniently leaves out the fact that since fiscal year 2009 began on October 1, 2008, the largest yearly deficit projection (the one for 2009) is partially a result of that 750 billion TARP bailout that took place during the Bush Administration.

     One must wonder why the Heritage Foundation feels compelled to be so disingenuous in its reporting.

147. Jeff, Gulf Breeze on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I bet this has a lot to do with it.

     http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html?_r=1

     I’d like to see it all computed the same.

148. Adam, SF, SD on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Gary Ollila, Virginia Beach, VA
     TARP was approved by Congress. Who voted for it in Congress? BHO and the rest of the Dems you love so much. They’re all part of the problem. Now that BHO is in charge it’s even more out of control.

149. Kevin, NJ on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     . . Of course the Heritage Foundation conveniently leaves out the fact that since fiscal year 2009 began on October 1, 2008, the largest yearly deficit projection (the one for 2009) is partially a result of that 750 billion TARP bailout that took place during the Bush Administration.

     One must wonder why the Heritage Foundation feels compelled to be so disingenuous in its reporting.
     —————————————
     I thought the Congress voted for the $750 Billion TARP fund. Wasn’t Obama a Senator at the time? Didn’t he vote for it? But he has no responsibility for it, right?
     Does Congress vote for the budget? Did they vote for the 2009 budget? Wasn’t Obama in the Congress at that time? Did he vote for the budget? But again, he has no responsibility for it, right?
     I’m just trying to understand how our government works.

150. Abigailadams on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Truth in numbers – follow the accumulated debt for each during their presidency; we have Obama for four years regardless, so right before the elections do the calculations for yourself. Right now, Bush spent added an average of $55,000,000,000 per month to the overall debt; Obama is averaging $155,000,000,000 per month to the overall debt.

     All numbers include all spending and revenue; Sorry, Obama loses because the democratically controlled Congress does the spending now. I certainly didn’t see him veto anything; neither did Bush.

151. Jim, Charlotte on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Actually read the posting which states that the graphic is from the Washington Post.

152. mk3872, Philly on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     That is quite a leap there that you took by just include $600B for health care even though this has not been passed nor has it been costed out yet!! LOL!

153. American withcommonsense on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Darth Vader writes:
     ugh ,republicans.

     why dont you all move somewhere nice and far away ,like the surface of the sun ?

     hurry up and be quick about it!

     Darth

     Darth,

     I will pay for a one way to ticket for you and all your delusional liberal friends to fly to France, Russia, China, etc, your choice, let’s see if you like living in countries where all of your income goes for taxes, etc, (I’d also like to see if you can open your yap and voice your opinion over there like you do now) you’ll fit right in!!!

     YOU (and the rest of your clueless party) are the biggest reason we are in this mess!!!! Stop spending all of our money on your socialist agendas and maybe we might actually be able to survive!!!

154. Mike, sarasota, FL on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I’m a 40 year old, white, male, former Republican who voted for President Obama and don’t regret it one bit.

     I’ll take a SELF-MADE man over a SILVER-SPOON dork like W any day of the week. I’m now a registered Independent and have deduced there are now 2 kinds of Republicans:

     1) Millionaires; 2) DUPES

     I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Half of the so-called “Republicans” on this website can’t even spell. I decided to drop the GOP forever after:

     1) LewinskyGate (a fake scandal if ever there was one); &
     2) BushCo (TM) – those chicken-hawks will go down in history as the single worst administration in the history of this country.

     You might want to wake up, smell the coffee and get your info somewhere else besides Rush, Hannity, Beck & Savage. The reason why? Those “entertainers” are EACH paid over $100M in contracts to “carry water” (lie to you DUPES) for the GOP.

     Wake up you dupes, wake up…..

155. abdulwodood location in the Afghanistan on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     i am wodood i like all of the u s presedents and i am so poor and tow years ago talliban killed my father and my father was with the us forse and now i want to come there how i can do the us forse did not help with me

156. Fred …PA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

     Here is all you need to find out what Bush spent during his presidency. Just put in the years he was president to find out the real truth in his spending. You thought Clinton and Reagan were spenders? Nothing compared to Bush Sr.

157. Chris, Phoenix on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I chose to read this article because I wanted to see comparisons of Bush vs. Obama, and ended up feeling the same sick feeling that the last elections brought to my life.

     First, I am an independent. I typically vote for the smarter guy, or if I don’t like either (Kerry vs. Bush) I voted for neither.

     I have two points to make.

     First, concerning the “Clinton Surplus”, I may be wrong, but the numbers they are talking about are not against the actual deficit, they are against the projected growth of the deficit. So (not using actual numbers, way to lazy to go get those) the projected growth of the deficit for Clinton was say 5%, but when he left office, it had only grown 2%. If you extract his years by themselves, he did create a surplus, however if you add in the existing deficit, then technically no, there never was a surplus. One thing for sure, no one can argue he did not spend less and do more than any Republican for 30 years.

     Second, at what point do we learn how to compromise. Is our country so clearly divided? That we actually hate and ridicule anyone who doesn’t think the way we do? Does your community no longer matter?

     To me, a patriot questions government not because of who is in charge, but rather the content of the changes being made, and the actions of people instituting them. No one should argue G.W. did a bad job, its clear he did. However, throw in Congress for the blame. Seems to me, like we need to come together to solve this crisis, meet in the middle. If we cant do that, then we are destined to fail. No matter how much or little we spend on anything.

     We are grossly divided, and as an American, that is just sad.

158. Chris, Phoenix on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Oh, and one more point. If what Obama is doing is so wrong, then what SHOULD he do?

     Let the banks fail, let the auto industry fail? We are talking millions of jobs lost, and unemployment raising astronomically if we did nothing.

     So to you conservatives, check that, you Republicans whats your plan?? If I recall, McCain thought our economy was sound. He was right, if you are in the top 5% of income.

     So, if you’re going to complain about Obama, I have two things to say:
     1. Be sure to have your own idea for consideration.
     2. Now you know how the rest of us felt when G.W. was driving, and to take a page from G.W.’s book, “…deal with it! We don’t care about what you think!”

     So buckle up Republicans, Socialism has got you by the throat! But us normal people will continue to call it, digging out of the hole we should never have driven into too.

159. Matthew J from Texas on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     It takes money to make money. It may be more money but its being better spent for the right things.

160. Patrick Kelly Troy New York on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     The 236.2 surplus for 2000 is a Clinton surplus. The surplus for 2001 is a result of the more draconian aspects of Bush’s economic plan not having been yet adopted. Bush entered the White House with a mild recession possible on the horizon and with the federal budget in surplus. He proceeded to squander this away in the next eight years leaving the economic disaster that Obama inherited. Obama’s deficits are the result of the disastrous Bush presidency, but don’t worry the dishonest argument that informs the Foundry’s analysis will probably win out and in four years we will have the Republicans back in office to resume their leadership in marching the country into the ranks of underdeveloped world.

161. Brian, NY on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     To the people harping on DOD spending… POUND SAND. About the only jobs you don’t benifit from DOD spending are teaching, retail, and tourism. If you work in any manufacturing or tech sector, you have probably benefited directly or indirectly from Defense spending. DARPA is directly responsible for a huge percentage of the innovation that goes on in our country. I work for a MEMS design house and we deal with dozens of companies that use defense department rewards to come up with new innovative products. Things like night vision sensors that can be used by fire departments to find people and locate hot spots in smoke filled buildings. Or sensors that can record the stresses on bridges and other structures, reducing the risk of another bridge collapse. These innovations were paid for by DOD spending, so before you go spewing your non-sense about how much we spend on defense, you should look into how many families that money is supporting, both directly and indirectly.

162. Rachel T, Colorado on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Thank you for illustrating the deficit. The Obama spending is mind-boggling, and I don’t know how our country will manage to crawl out from under the landslide.

163. Kari-Farmington, MN on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     This is why I HATE politics! NO WONDER nothing gets done. the Rep’s attack the Dem’s and the Dem’s attack the Rep’s! If you simplify all the issues, we all probably do want the same outcomes! It’s clear to me that we are going the wrong way with the budget! Sure it stemmed from Bush, but Obama is not helping! Stop blaming who “started it” and start thinking of ways to make this country better! Media, people, websites, etc are ALL biased these days and for someone like me who hates listening/reading about what the rep’s think about that and what the dem’s believe about that – AHHH stop already! Can someone out there just print facts without distorting it to make your point seem right??? It would be a lot more cut and dry if media wasn’t behind a certain party! Don’t tell me they aren’t because they are! So many people like me give up on politics because it is SO hard to get to the facts – all you have left is to listen to someone’s opinion and everyone is usually biased anyway! It’s really too bad, but politics have turned me off to learning more about current issues, etc. I just ABSOLUTELY HATE the childlike bickering between the parties – get over yourselves and put the country first so our children/grandchildren etc can be proud to talk about our county and its history!

164. Tim J. Minnesota on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Bush started out with money. Obama started in the hole.

165. charles P. New York on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Well you know I’m sick of people blaming bush for the bailouts and the deficit, because first off obama was perfectly aware of what he was walking into and he voted for the bailouts. Also the stimulus was 100% his fault and that was more than the bailout.

166. Belinda, Los Angeles on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     “Bush started out with money. Obama started in the hole.” What? So you’re saying that the economy tanked because of President Obama? So it wasn’t Bush’s policies that reversed Clinton’s 2 billion dollar surplus into a 10 trillion dollar deficit? Jindal (R) of Lousiana had no problem handing out President Obama’s stimulus checks, masquerading them as his own.

167. Emil G, Florida on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     It is interesting that 05,06,07 were showing a rapid trend towards zero deficit even with the start of the surge in Iraq in early 07.

     Had it not been for the sub-prime collapse and the resulting 700 Billion TARP (of which roughly half was distributed in 08), I would think that 08 would have shown a much better numbers. For exmaple: 08 shows around a 415B Deficit, of which 350B were the TARP.

     Also note that the TARP is supposed to be paid back by the banks once they become profitable again. I read on the WSJ that 68B have already been paid back.

     Question: Does the 08 Deficit also include the 85B bailout/takeover of AIG? And could this asset be sold later on to recover this money?

     Please correct me if my observations or assumptions are wrong.

     Thanks

168. Tim, Ohio on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     A variety of flaws mar the numbers in this article. I’ll point out the most obvious.

     This claim is demonstrably false: “President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.”

     The US government’s accounting years run from October 1 through September 30. President Bush is responsible for spending after October 1, 2001. According to treasurydirect.gov, the national debt on October 1, 2001 was 5,806,151,389,190.21. The national debt on September 30, 2008 was 10,024,724,896,912.49.

     This is an increase of 4.2 trillion dollars, not 2.5 trillion dollars, not even including the spending that happens in fiscal year 2009.

     When the facts are wrong, I don’t stick around for the conclusions.

     See the facts for yourself right here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

169. Eturnal on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     @ George, Lititz, PA

     The links you posted show the National Debt which has continually increased over the years. This chart is talking about the National Deficit, which is the annual budget. The years you reject simply say the government was earning more than it was spending; it doesn’t say that during those years we reduced the National Debt. You need to think of it in terms of your personal budget. If you’re spending more money each month than your income can sustain, you have a personal budget deficit.

170. Dan on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     It is funny to watch conservatives all of a sudden worried about deficits. Where was all this outrage in 2000-2004 when Bush was taking funds out of our Social Security Trust fund to try to make his debt look lower. Also, whoever keeps saying there was no budget surplus in 2000 please stop – you are obviously not looking at the difference between the gross debt and the public debt. Noone uses gross debt figures when discussing our national deficit because it is just plain stupid – intragovernmental debt, etc. The debt we have to really worry about is what we owe foreign countries, etc – the public debt.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

     So, Bush DID take an over $200 billion surplus and make it into a $477 billion deficit in 4 years. These are just facts. He also tried to be tricky by moving funds over from the Social Security fund – many times…

     He increased spending on not just defense and homeland security and also education and transportation. He introduced layers of big government in areas they never existed before – see FEMA’s structure before and after – and under that new structure we encountered one of, if not the worst natural disaster in US history.

     So – we in our lifetime actually experienced something that is not supposed to exist and cannot possibly work – big government conservatism. Cutting taxes and increasing spending – how does that work without creating huge deficits? And it did – and everyone can see the figures now…and our economy tanked..so what is the argument?

     Also – someone made the usual, extremely tired trickle down argument of “when a rich guy buys a yacht who builds it and maintains it?”

     True enough but when you give more money to lower or middle class people what do they do? They spend it. Where do they spend it? Walmart, Kroger, etc, etc. What’s the difference? Lower class people actually spend almost every dime of it and spend it within our domestic economy.

     Rich people spend lots of money and also horde lots of money – giving more money to bankers. And no offense to anyone in that industry here but I have lots of friends who work in the banking industry who tell me this all the time…bankers are not that smart. They know how to do one thing – move numbers around but big picture thinking is not really their bag. And if you do not regulate them – say for instance give them the ability to buy and sell peoples mortgages and debt with no regulation (30:1 ratios, etc – the whole derivative market) you are playing with fire. And when you play with fire..

     Also don’t forget rich people also horde money in ways that doesn’t benefit the US economy at all (not even US bankers) in offshore accounts – recent estimates put that figure close to $800 billion.

     Trickle down economics doesn’t work – it creates a boom or bust cycle in our economy. The boom is great but it is short lived and somewhat artifical- the bust well is where we are today. Remember we even had two years of serious recession in the late 80s so even the so-called Reagan prosperity still created a bust…

     Big government conservatism is not supposed to exist – it is not something that can be understood. My whole point in this response is that all of this supposed outrage from the right about deficits could have done us a lot of good between 2000-2004. Instead all we got was cheerleading…and now we get all this criticism about deficit spending?

171. JB on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     This chart should be grouped with this image:
     http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/barack_obama_laughingstock.html

     Then posted all over America.

172. Dan on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Only if you include this image as well…

     http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php

     Facts just aren’t quite as scary are they?

173. Juicebox on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Laugh, if you are dumb enough to blame everything on one person (President) then look at what happened when Clinton left and Bush came in. The last eight years were a disaster and it is currently taking a lot of money to get out of that disaster. As mentioned the chart does NOT accurately show the deficit decline during Bush’s terms so please don’t believe every picture/word you see on the internet.

174. Stuart, Denver on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I just read through these. My favorite: Ross, from TN, 3/09. Anyone agree with me that the anti-Obama camp presents the persuasive arguments? Has Obama lost the intellectual high ground he thought he’d claimed during the campaign? Is this administration playing defense? Maybe it’s just time we’re seeing this president for what he is: an empty suit. PS I’m an anti-Bush democrat who voted for McCaine, how rare is that?

175. Dan on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Again I ask – please, PLEASE tell me where all this “concern” over the deficit was in the years 2000-2004 where spending was largely increasing while receipts, due to all the tax cuts, were drastically decreased. At least in the current scenario there is some talk of increasing receipts by raising certain tax brackets. Also, there is talk of finally cracking down on tax evasion, etc which would also increase revenue. That, even if we don’t agree with it, seems to at least make some level of sense.

     It is as if in 2000-2004 noone gave a damn about making any sense whatsoever. We were going to increase spending, start wars and decrease everyone’s taxes? To pay for the war we were told to just go shopping? We would even steal from the social security trust fund to pay for tax cuts????

     We really could have used some more of you deficit hounds back then – many of us were jumping up and down trying to get someone to listen but all we got was cheerleading and talk about how you were going to spend your stupid $600 tax rebate check on a new DVD player or something.

     I wonder how many people now would gladly refund that $600 check to have about 30% of their 401K balance back?

176. charles P. New York on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Were all going to die with this deficit.

177. Billy Alaska on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I’m sorry but you can’t exactly blame Obama for the stimulus package. The whole reason that was necessary was to try to fix many of the financial problems that past presidents had contributed to, including Bush. Even if you argue that the stimulus bill was too much money, we were slumping into a depression and some action was required. Much of the money in that bill has been needed for some time, but previous presidents instead contributed to the deficit with national defense and avoided fixing financial problems.

178. Danny on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     So are we just deciding to forget that a lot of this deficit that people are so outraged about is actually money that previously wasn’t accounted for in the budget due to accounting trickery?

     http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html?_r=2

     So the price of trying to be more transparent and open with the American people about how this money is spent is to be labeled a Socialist? I am glad to finally see all the real numbers, aren’t you?

     So ask yourself this question: what possible political gain do you get from reporting the numbers truthfully and thus showing a huge deficit? I can’t think of one – can you? We of course know the political gain you get from hiding the numbers – you get to spend money however you want with no accountability (see the last 8 years). I personally do not favor that kind of accounting – or “leadership”.

     So with no political gain that leaves it as being done because it is the right thing to do…and then have to live with all of the new born “deficit police” on the right…

     What a weird country we live in…

179. TheChosenOne, MD on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     You bunch of right wing dim wits. No wonder Sarah Palin is the voice of the conservative movement. If having brains were illegal, you guys would never see the inside of a jail cell.

180. AMC/NYC on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Judging from all the comments, these numbers can’t be considered reliable.

     For example, the Medicare unfunded liability?

     The April 2008 Medicare Trustees Report states:

     The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7 trillion in today’s dollars! That is more than seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax increases, large benefit cuts or both.

     Medicare D, Bush’s program, as of 2008 contributed $17.2 trillion in unfunded liability. The poor open-ended entitlement design favored profits to pharmaceutical & insurance companies, but burdened the tax payer with additional unplanned debt.

     Now, lwt’s talk “spending”

181. BW, SF on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Sure, war spending is included in the Bush numbers, but are they not included in the projected numbers? Doubtful.

     A. It’s been 10 months. Give the man a chance.
     B. You can’t ever go by “projected” figures. It’s like trying to look into a crystal ball.
     C. Obama won’t be president in 2019. A LOT CAN CHANGE FOLKS.

182. connie, washington state on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     President Bush left with a $700 billion deficit. I wonder if that was part of the TARF money of $700 billion, 50% of which was left for Pres. Obama. What happened to that? After 7 months in office, Pres. Obama had added $1 trillion to the deficit. The stimulus was not working, unemployment is rapidly rising, and the clunker project did not work. I think this was not the proper way of running our economic crisis. There are explosions of waste, government expansions, and expenditures not properly directed for economic growth.

183. peanut, OH on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     On August 19, 2009 BW, SF wrote:
     Sure, war spending is included in the Bush numbers, but are they not included in the projected numbers? Doubtful.

     A. It’s been 10 months. Give the man a chance.
     B. You can’t ever go by “projected” figures. It’s like trying to look into a crystal ball.
     C. Obama won’t be president in 2019. A LOT CAN CHANGE FOLKS.

     Answer to “A”: Sir, spoken like a true Democrat. In the first 60 days Washingtons Joke was in office he spent $2.6 trillion of your dollars. Thus making our bill with the friendly PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA larger than what it was with the Bush Administration. ONLY 10 months? Sir you are like 2 months ahead of yourself thus telling me you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
     Answer to “B”: Sir, I suggest you write your Congressman and Senator as well as your legislators in California, a STATE THAT HAS SURVIVED ON “PROJECTED” figures longer than you and I combined have been alive. The Fed’s have survived on “PROJECTED” figures since 1700. Don’t believe me read your history books.
     Answer to “C”: Sir the next election after 2012 is 2016 NOT 2019. Experts are “projecting” that if Washington’s Joke of a president does NOT change HIS strategy soon we are going to be in for one heck of a rude awakening. Not that anyone gives a tinkers darn. The man, and again I use the word loosely, scares the living heck right out of me.

     I have a feeling this man is only going to need 4 years to ruin this country more than what it is.

     Every time he opens his big mouth he puts his big foot in it.

184. John H – MS on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Why do conservatives have so many issues with telling the “whole” truth and why do their sheep follow so blindly?

     Fact – 2009 federal budget year looks like the following:
     * 1st Quarter: October 1, 2008 – December 31, 2008
     * 2nd Quarter: January 1, 2009 – March 31, 2009
     * 3rd Quarter: April 1, 2009 – June 30, 2009
     * 4th Quarter: July 1, 2009 – September 30, 2009

     So 2009 deficits include about 4 months of continued piling on
     from the former administration.

     A few example your article fails to mention for your 2009 figures, TARP ($700 Billion), AIG ($150+ billion), Iraq/Afghanistan ($136 billion)….

     I’d also LOVE it if conservatives actually took any responsibility for the current mess that’s forcing the need for record deficits. It’s as if Obama came into office without 2 wars, without an economic meltdown well underway, without the need to fix health care system because costs per person are projected to increase by another 100% in the next 6 years… likely to hit nearly 20% of GDP. The countries you guys like to make fun of have better health care results (BY FAR) and spend have as much once their systems are in place.

     Discredited, historically disastrous free-market-will-fix-everything lies continue to flourish to the benefit of whom? READ YOUR HISTORY!! Doing nothing fixes nothing. Doing nothing didn’t do so well at the end of the Hoover administration when the feds did basically nothing waiting for free market to fix everything for almost 2 years – our economy collapsed and we ended up in the Great Depression. The end of the 19th century (Gilded Age) wasn’t much better with free market boom and busts at such a pace that the periods accomplishments were to create such a disparity in wealth that these rich and powerful ruled the nation despite whomever was elected. PLEASE, right wingers, go back and read up on the Gilded Age and convince me that period should be the goal of our nation because we’re in a Gilded Age now and all you seem willing to do is nothing.

185. E Johnson, Colorado on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     We should have voted for McCain… in 2000! Then maybe we wouldn’t have had 8 years of “spending like a drunken sailor”; maybe wouldn’t be burning money in Iraq and maybe wouldn’t have grossly deregulated the banking industry? Unfortunately McCain’s nomination was torpedoed by Bush lies just like the economy has been.

     Look at a chart of national debt or deficits over time… why do our modern “conservatives” always make them MUCH bigger… they certainly aren’t fiscally conservative. The debt trajectory we are currently on was started during Bush II (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html). The current blame game is deceitful at best. At least Obama is trying to FIX things instead of succeeding in BREAKING everything. Lets pray he does succeed instead of trying to insure he fails.

     Wasn’t it Reagan who said “deficits don’t matter”??? Today’s “conservatives” are either HYPOCRITES or FOOLS. I want to consider myself conservative but labels are more meaningless than ever.

186. Bob California on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Anyone trying to DEFEND OBAMA’s INSANE SPENDING is a person either in severe DENIAL of what many warned would happen if OBAMA WAS ELECTED or one of the many people who bought homes knowing they could NOT afford them if the interest rose on thier ADJUSTABLE MORTGAGE and then CLAIMED THEY HAD NO IDEA?????

     PLEAZZZZZZZZZZZE . OBAMA, REID, PELOSI – YOU PEOPLE VOTED THEM IN AND NOW YOU WILL LIVE WITH THIER MESS LIKE THE REST OF US until 2010 and 2012 when they get their butts kicked out of office

187. Bob California on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Democrats in Denial – Keep drinking the KOOLAID PEOPLE, maybe it will continue to make everything look rosy and bright. Lets all hold hands now and sing.

     Obama is making JIMMY CARTER look like a great president and I never thought I would EVER SAY THAT about JIMMY CARTER.

188. Todd, Washington on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Projected Obama deficits only reflect the extent of the mess his predicessors got us into. Only history will tell the true story.

189. David, Washington DC on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Regardless of where you got the figures from, I checked the cbo budget figures and you’re comparing apples and oranges: FY 2008 is 459 for the TOTAL DEFICIT and FY 2009 is 1587 for the TOTAL DEFICIT – 1720 is from the FY 2009 ON BUDGET DEFICIT and ignores the FY 2009 OFF BUDGET surplus. One might almost think you did this on purpose. I won’t bother commenting on the rest of the article.
     http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/budgetprojections.pdf

     Secondly, while you do say “that Obama has already HELPED quadruple”, gee, you could be more clear that the majority of the 1587 is from Bush, n’est-ce pas? Oh yes, you do say something vague about that in your update at the end of the article, after everyone has already been twisted.

     Third, the stimulus package was necessary for such a deep recession – I know you disagree. In fact, in addition to the talked up tax cuts, RR and W both employed dramatic increases in spending to get us out of their recessions, minor by comparison, but they just didn’t know when to stop the stimulus from spending or tax cuts.

190. David, Washington DC on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Clarification on my previous post: When I say “their recessions” referring to RR and W, I mean the early 80s and early 2000s recessions which they got left with, but I am not blaming them for these recessions.

191. Jay, Cleveland on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Where was the tea party eight years ago? Too late! Now it just looks like a bunch of republicans disguised as libertarians . If you really cared about government spending your tea party should have started a long time ago.

192. Merrill, Loveland, CO on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     B. Hussein Obama makes GW Bush look like a genius.

     Sure there is no tax increase to pay for all of the irresponsible spending on the part of the democrats (currently) in power.

     Let’s just leave BO’s debt to our children. After all they can’t vote.

     So much for hope and change.

193. LOL on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Okay, now Lets compare Bush to Clinton.

194. Political Science Major on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Comparing Bush to Clinton.. Funny.. Clinton was one of the most successful in reducing the nation’s debt.

     He had it down to 4 Tr. and when Bush came in office… it jumped to 14 tr.. something is wrong here..

     Obama just got in office give him a couple of years. He is trying to undo what Bush has done..

     Read more facts and you should find out.

195. Deborah Hawaii on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I guess for me it is even worse because I believe that 911 was a false flag operation so that we could go into Iraq for the oil and construction contracts such as Halliburton (Cheney). In other words so that the rich can get richer while our children and citizens die and we pay for it.
     The war on terror is a made up “enemy”.
     We need to demand that Obummer keep is promise and pull out of Iraq and Afganistan, if we are to have any hope to recover,
     Watch the Obama Deception and Join the Movement
     AUDIT AND END THE FED

196. Deborah Hawaii on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     More people die yearly from an allergic reaction to peanuts than die from terrorist attacks.
     Watch Endgame and Terrorstorm.
     Wake up America before we become a third world country if it is not too late

197. Christian, Fort Worth, TX on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Phrase found several times here: “Bush started…Obama doubled/increased/accelerated” Maybe recognition that these trends in many cases started with Bush will help stop the chorus of, “Obama is destroying the fabric of our country, our way of life, etc.” Both are guilty of overspending–is spending money we don’t have OK (Bush), but spending more money we don’t have un-American and socialistic?

198. Aaron Kostuch, Milwaukee, WI on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     If some of you think this is some partisan Heritage propoganda: Please feel free to watch the movie I.O.U.S.A It was made by Americas Accountant General. The man that actually did the books and has the exact figures. It shows what all of this means and includes his future estimate of Obama’s spending eventually collapsing the government under the weight of its own debt. WAKE UP!

199. Ann on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Not one of you conservatives were brave enough to speak out against Bush while he was in office. You were cowards. You were cowards from your couches. You have now found your nerve and you unleash it on the one person that threw himself into the gap to stop it from expanding. He said he would. He said it would not be easy. He said he may not always get it right. He was honest.

     You are some very fickle and disloyal people and you’ve deserted him now when he needs us the most to back him and back his play against the senate and congress and our own parties.

     You are all great modern Americans; not a pioneer spirit amongst you.

200. Ann on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Conservatives. I feel your pain. What’s your solutions?

201. George Fulmore on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Federal Debt and President Obama
     When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the federal debt stood at $10.626 trillion. As of September 10, 2009, the debt was at $11,784, about $1.15 trillion or about 10% higher than when he took office. Sean Hannity and others continue to say that President Obama has “doubled the deficit in one year, quadrupled the debt”. What they are alluding to, but not making this clear, is the increase in the annual federal deficit, which can be compiled by finding the start and finish numbers between October 1 and September 30 (which is the federal fiscal year). The last year of George W. Bush finds the annual deficit to be about $1.17 trillion. That year ended on September 30, 2008. By January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama took office, the total U.S. federal debt has risen another $500 billion, from about $10.124 to about $10,625 trillion; thus, President Obama entered fiscal year 2008/2009, mid-way, already $500 billion into the annual federal deficit.
     Statements that President Obama has “doubled the (annual) deficit” are lies. They are simply not true. And any statements that imply that Obama has significantly increased the total federal debt are also untrue. In fact, the biggest contributors to the total federal debt would be President Ronald Reagan, who doubled the debt during his eight years in office, from about $1.6 trillion to over $3.0 trillion, and George W. Bush, who nearly doubled the debt, raising it from about $5.5 trillion to $10.625 trillion over his eight years.

202. Ben Fielding on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I trust Wikipedia and the US Government for accuracy. Shows that Bush years were more damaging than the last 4 presidencies combined. Bad Bush. Bad.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

203. Spencer on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     The sad truth is this. Obama won everyone over with his smooth words, but he doesnt know what he is doing. he is a good intentioned man, who has a lot of socialist ideas. He is proving by his actions (i.e. 4 times the national deficit, working to pass a health initiative that forces people to get healthcare, dumping even more troops into battle than bush did despite promising to pull out, etc) that he will say whatever people want to hear, but then do what he wants. He wants to FORCE people to pay for healthcare. That is rediculous. You look closely at what he has done since he got into office and what he had promised when he was running, and it is resemblent of hitler, who saw a struggling country, promised to get them out of their recession, and then when he got power, showed that he would keep all those promises he made but not in the way he had made it seem(i.e. he promised a universal healthcare system that turned into a completly different proposal once he got into office that will destroy the market in healthcare and create a ton of lost jobs if it passes but would give the gov’t more power. You also look in history as to how we came out of WW2 as a world power, and the fact is China is in that same position now. If things dont change soon, we will find ourselves in a dangerous position. People need to get involved and start making educated political desicions instead of just listening to the sly tongue of a socialist.

204. Maximus on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     The war in Iraq is the cost of our energy hunger, we invaded that country to secure our energy needs for generations to come. Because us americans freak out if gas goes up by a couple of dollars. I wonder what arab country they will invade next ?

205. Nathaniel Cogburn, Asheville NC on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     A very wise old man once said; “Never underestimate the power of idiots in large numbers.” I never understood the power of that statement untill America voted president Obama in office. A man so committed to turning around this country around from its path leading into a sure depression would logically triple the national debt in just two months. Also it would be logically ingenious to raise taxes on working class Americans to promote a stronger spending habits and thrift among voters. In order to promote bigger spending to grow the economy Obama decides to take borrowed money any hand it to the people who shafted voters to begin with. At least Bush had enough common sense to hand money to voters in the form of stimulus funds (which were taxable and did circulate money through our government and local economies) and economic spending increased by 15 percent as a direct result of the relief from government oppression. God knew what was coming when the bible gives the prophecy of the “rich” oppresing the poor. “Vote for CHANGE!!!”…..because that’s all we will have by the time Obama gets done. I think America should have kept our Money, Votes, and Common sense and let Obama keep the “change.”

206. G19 Atlanta on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Sorry, but I see no blame here toward congress and the dems have had complete control of the purse strings since 08.

207. Joseph, Michigan on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Did you guys already forget this:

     http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/12/politics/main605544.shtml

     First the democrats criticized bush for spending, now the republicans are criticizing obama. All of you are biased.
     Second, Fact: FDR spent his way of the depression by spending on government programs for factories and bridges, the hoover dam and construction. That’s what Obama is trying to do.
     Third: Fact: Bush spent money but in the wrong way, on an illegal war.
     Fourth: NCLB goes against the constitution, because it withholds money from THE STATE so that the federal government can have their way for education but under the constitution it is clear that it is the state’s power to run their public schools

     Conclusion, don’t be a hypocrite, don’t criticize obama for spending when Bush did the same. If you want to criticize Obama, then do it on his promises.

208. Greg P, Silverdale WA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Check http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

209. BJS, Chicago on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Here’s the true facts of who has historically put us into debt (hint: it is the party that starts with an “R”):

     http://tinyurl.com/ydofb5b

210. smithonpolitics-com on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     This article lies by omission. President Bush’s budget didn’t include war spending; Obama’s does. That accounts for the massive increase in the deficit. The other part, stimulus, has saved this economy from disaster. So the choices were 1) stimulus, or 2) near-depression. We made the right choice. We will get the deficit under control in time. In pursuit of a partisan message, try being honest, “heritage” foundation.

211. Jim on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Another broken campaign promise by Obama, what a surprise?

     Maybe he can apply his Nobel Peace Prize Winnings toward the debt.

212. Dave WV on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Here’s one for you math geniuses. Remove all deficit spending (see below for some examples) created during the Bush years taking us back to Clintons last budget. Then start anew as if Bush never existed. Remove from Obama spending anything associated to Bush created unfunded deficits, such as medicare, two wars, no child left behind, and two tax cuts and make up a pretty little graph. I bet it would look dramatically different.

213. Conads, Brooklyn on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     It is poor research indeed to throw out a bunch of numbers then, cite a blog as your source. A blog that doesn’t bother to cite it’s own sources. Seems to be the norm on this site. Might as well repeat what some drunken blowhard spouts at your local watering hole at closing time.
     And to George, Lititz, PA and everyone else decrying the falsehood of a Clinton administration surplus: there’s a difference between the federal debt and a budget deficit/surplus. Nobody will argue that there was a federal debt under Clinton. It’s true, there has always been a federal debt… but there was a budget surplus… a damn big one. Now that surplus that Bush inherited could have went to pay down the federal debt. But we all know that he didn’t… he sunk it into a pointless war in Iraq.
     Anyway, please stop citing blogs as a legitimate source… they aren’t.

214. Scott, Charlotte on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     WV – Well, I guess I’m not a genuis like you are. You mention two wars, one of which the current President once called the “War of Necessity.” Ever since Obama was elected, he has been backpedalling on that Campaign theme, likely because of pressure from Left-Wing geniuses like yourself, who blame everything wrong in the world, on George Bush. And WV, as you try to rewrite history, can you go ahead and delete that we were attacked on 9/11. Oh, I bet you “the genius” believe Bush and Cheney were behind the 9/11 attacks.

215. Brendt Sedesky, Isanti, MN on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     To NYC yes WWII got us out of the Depression by spending but they spent money on things that we need and gave millions of people jobs that had purpose instead of paying one group of people to dig a ditch and another group to fill it in. We need to stop throwing money on things that dont stimulate the economy

216. Victor, Florida on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Jay, Cleveland on Aug 31 asked “where were the tea parties 8 years ago?”

     They at Ground Zero, the Pentagon and other places across the USA helping recover from the terrorist attacks.

     How quickly you forget…

217. Victor, Florida on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Jay, Cleveland asked on Aug 31 “Where were the Tea Parties 8 years ago?”

     They were at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and other places across the USA helping recover from the terrorists attacks.
     How quickly you forget…

218. Ike, Texas on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Nine months ago, the George Bush Financial Crisis, as historians are now aptly calling this debacle, loomed heavy and dreadful over all of us. It is an epic achievement that President Obama, in a mere nine months, has tamed this rampaging collapse, and done so with great statesmanship, with a cool hand, and well thought out polices. The return of Positive GDP growth in Q3 2009 is a watershed event, and President Obama deserves the highest accolades for his tenacity and unwavering leadership through this darkest crisis. Of course, this is one step of the many steps which are needed to get back to real prosperity. There is no doubt that we will soon be blessed with the same success in jobs creation, health care reform, etc. God Bless President Obama.

219. Adam on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     A year ago it was blame bush, look what bush did, But this man coming into office is the messiah(remember)?, So where is Michael Moore now?
     Hmm Bush golfed 24 times in his entire term (Michael Moore)Obama has golfed 24 times this year (wheres Michael)? Bush created a 1.85 trillion dollar deficit in 8 years(Michael Moore) Obama has spent 1.75 in his first year in office.
     Come on now!!
     For everyone that thought that he was going to great, well guess what he is. (for himself)
     Remember the old saying….the laws are for the law abiding citizens. Well the cash for clunkers is for the tax paying citizens.
     Why not help people down in Louisiana with the extra money that you had from the presidential campaign? Ohh thats right Mr. Obama has only gone there for 4 hours. But Bush was hated on for years because of there not being money ready ohh but wait Mayor Nagen blamed bush for Nagens spending spree on himself.

220. Adam on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     As far as the health reform, I happen to like the fact that if I get bit by a rattlesnake in the middle of florida, that a chopper will get me the antivenom from across the country in a matter of hours as apposed to having a heart attack and waiting in line for 48 hours to be seen by the doctor.
     So dont blame the Health care companies. When the electric scooter that is on tv will cost you nothing and charge medicare insurance 7000.00 for a machine that cost 1000.00 Hmm go figure.

     Way to look out for us Mr. Obama

221. Dave WV on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     @Scott, Charlotte-Being the genius you say I am, I’m willing to forego any expense for the Afghan war, if you’re willing to concede the others, such as tax cuts, Iraq, and no child left behind as deficits that the current admin must deal with. And then we have inflation to consider also. If you do not concede, you’re rewriting history.

222. Brock on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I suspect the economy will start moving again in late 1Q10 and unemployment will begin dropping significantly shortly therafter. Why? Because the stimulus is being spent exactly the way Frank, Pelosi, Obama planned it. They wanted to keep people suffering as long as possible, before pulling a rabut out of the hat and having them “clearly” responsible for “saving” the economy.

     Manipulating, deceitful, hateful, party hacks. And the sad thing is the idiots who voted for them and are out of work will worship the ground they walk on next year. Watch it happen….

     I disliked the republicans. At least their desire for keeping the US business friendly was a step in the right direction.

     I loathe the democrats. Their desire to subjugate everything to their will, will ruin the US for a generation, if not permanently.

223. Eric on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     @Brock
     I do not pretend to be some genius that works for the government or something, but you sound a little paranoid.

     It is sad how many people blame things on the first person who comes to mind(president).
     Many times it is not their fault.

224. Dave_C, Portland on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I’ve read the first 100 comments and I think some perspective is needed. Are Americans REALLY ready for the spending to stop? I’m guessing not. You all say you want it, but are you really ready for massive bank failures, who knows how much unemployment, loss of your retirement savings, a large increase in violence, etc?

     Let’s face it, it doesn’t matter who became President. The same outcome would have occurred, so spare us with the political rhetoric. Your two parties are “tax and spend” and “borrow and spend.”

     And the spending HAS worked. That is, if artificially propping up the system is your definition of the word. Personally, I wish they’d cut off all the bailout spending immediately and let us take our medicine quickly so we can rebuild this country. I’m prepared….I think.

     The outcomes are:
     1. Hyperinflation
     2. National default
     3. WWIII

225. BHO on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Has this been updated for November 2009 anywhere? Can we keep a running update?

226. Lexi Bond on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     NATIONAL DEFICIT: the amount the US government went over budget for a given fiscal YEAR by spending more than income/taxes. National deficits are added to the National Debt.

227. J on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Everyone on this board is whining and crying like babies. You went crazy with your credit cards bought flat screens,cars and then went crazy with mortgages. Then the banks took more risks. Now everyone comes down from the high life and now has to deal with economic reality like the rest of the world. And they want to blame the government for keeping it artificially afloat. If the government didn’t bail out these companies then the US would be in a depression.And if Obama wasn’t spending like crazy then employment would be at 20% and the country would be failing even more. US spent like crazy for years above livability and now the chicken is coming home to roost. You didn’t want to spend too much on taxes.Okay,then the government piled up debt. You didn’t want to pay too much on oil. The government spent more on that. And the list goes on.

     The jobs aren’t there because they were outsourced. US doesn’t have the productive industries to pull them out. Instead a bunch of non-productive industries like investment banks. We won’t end the wars because we want to but because there won’t be anymore money to fund these wars in a few years. So its time to suck it up and deal with the problems instead of prolonging them.

228. Beatle, Fla on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     To all you Obamanuts who say he ‘inherited’ this mess I have A newsflash for you:
     He didn’t ‘inherit’ it.!! He asked for the job & got it.

     So now he needs to put up or shut up.

     If he can’t do what he promised, then he should stand down & let us get somebody else to at least try.!!!

229. blintz, tx on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     the previous administration (Bush) was driving the car off the cliff and ya’ll are blaming the current admin (Obama) for turning the wheel too much, too quickly

230. susan, lexington, ky on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     The Heritage Foundation is now an absolute joke.

     Bush & Co. pillaged our – Our Treasury, our Agencies, our Military, and worst of the lives of our sons and daughters in Iraq.
     With every tax cut, rebate, waiver, endless corporate giveaway – the President was well aware of the future exploding Medi-care, he was well aware of our rapid decline in competitiveness, crumbing infrastructure, well aware of falling revenues
     When the GOP says “We spent like Democrats” – that’s what they want
     you to believe. Truth is they managed to gut the federal gov’t -our federal dollars and they have close to nothing to show for it – except the depletion of American standards as far the eye can see.

     the $3.1 trillion budget submitted to Congress by President Bush is a race to the bottom & speaks for itself:

     - cuts funding for teaching hospitals.

     - freezes medical research.

     - the Pentagon would get a $35 billion increase to $515 billion for core programs, with war costs additional
     - $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ( 2008 was almost $200 billion).

     - Bush’s budget contains no war costs beyond 2009

     - 25% cut of the Department of Transportation.

     - 3% to Health and Human Services.

     - almost $200 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid over the next 5 yrs.

     - cuts a $302 million program that gives grants to children’s hospitals to subsidize medical education.

     - eliminated a $300 million program for public health improvement projects would be eliminated.

     - grants to improve health care in rural areas would be cut by 87%.

     - Center for Disease Control’s budget – a 7% cut,

     - a budget freeze for The National Institutes of Health, which funds health research grants.

     …just to name few…8 yrs. -a broken economy, broken wars, broken agencies, broken trust.

231. Chris, Los Angeles, California on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I think that what is most disturbing is that in this article you fail to mention the fact that the projected deficit for the year which was established before Obama took office was 1.4 trillion. You also get the numbers wrong the current deficit is around about 1.6 trillion. That means that it is about 200 billion more than initially projected. That 200 billion accounts for President Obama’s stimulus package. So to be honest, Obama has NOT quadrupled the deficit; he’s barely even gone off the projected venue. You don’t have to believe me, these are Conservative columnist Bruce bartlett’s assessments.

232. Rod Los Angeles on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     President Obama and his administration have without question created the biggest spending frenzy ever….ok..but that is done…now what? How about we stop spending and start cutting? But where do we cut? How about a program that has not cured cancer, not helped a starving citizen, not gave health care to the needy….NASA.. this is the biggest waste of money. Billions every year has been spen on this and nothing but velcro and tang have come from it. Another little tid bit.. all there work is duplicated…yes we do the same projects and spending in our Air Force..

     Now as far as a President goes…Obama speaks well..however, he has spent more time going to other countries than working on the one he was elected to. He promised like so many Electees.. that he would bring our troops home immediately…he has not..he also is sending another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan…hellooooo doesn’t anyone notice we not only are in a war that nobody wants….but now we are fighting two wars….what happened to ..”I was always against the war”….apparently that meant he is against war unless he declares it…..

233. R Montalvo on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     “President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.”
     These may indeed be accurate. Do they however take “the rule of 72″ into account whereby the dollar needs to be doubled over any seven year period to maintain true purchasing power? If not (as I imagine they do not), then you are looking at the same dollar amount seven years down the line as you just experienced the previous 7 years. In other words, no change in spending.

234. Marcel Arizona on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     It seems weird to me that people don’t research the fact. No, they blindly belief what others are saying. Then they will know the real truth about the National Debt.
     First, since 1981 the Republicans added over 8 trillion dollars to this debt. Bush Jr. is responsible for over 5 trillion. Reagan and Bush Sr. are responsible for the rest. This leaves the Democrats (Clinton and Obama) with over 2.8 trillion dollars added to the Debt.
     Also Bush left Obama with a 700 Billion dollar Bill that was passed under Bush’s Presidency. At the end of 2008 a bill was passed by the House and the Senate for the bailout of Wall Street. It was implemented in 2009 under Obama’s Presidency. So far, Obama has added 700 billion dollars to the debt.
     It’s seem to me that the people who blame Obama are blind. They turn their blind eye towards the truth. When they realize this, hopefully they will change their way before it is too late. There is so much negativity and lying going on that this society will fall like any other society. This is one of the signs of a failing civilization. Each great civilization has fallen. With all this negative attitude, much more negative attitude is created.
     I don’t agree with most of what Obama is doing, about 85%. I just want people to know the truth about current issues. The Democrats and Republicans don’t want YOU to know the truth. That is their way to control the American people. You talk about Freedom. Neither party is showing the Freedom that we need. I don’t feel the freedom. Neither from Republicans nor the Democrats.
     Do the research? Find out the facts?

235. Marcel Arizona on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Sollution: Let each party (Republican and Democrats) pay back what they added to the national debt. Over 8 trillion dollars for the Republicans and over 2.8 trillion dollars for the Democrats. The parties are the ones responsible for this reversable “hole” they made. Blame Obama and all the other Presidents who significantly added to the debt. Let’s start at 1981 under Reagan’s Presidency.

236. Marcel Arizona on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Where were YOU when the debt reached 10 trillion dollars in 2008? There is no way to recover from that. Unless we have the people responsible for the debt. Republicans will have to pay over 8 trillion dollars (From 1981 till now). Democrats will have to pay a bit more than 2.8 trillion dollars. Do the math? Do the research? BTW Bush passed a 700 billion dollar bill for the bailout of Wall Street at the end of 2008. Now Obama got stuck with this bail out. So when people say Obama added 1.4 trillion dollars to the deficit. Wrong? He added a little than 700 billion dollars so far. It is also always easy to blame the new person for everything that has happened. Obama is not the best President and has a lot to learn. He got stuck with a huge national debt, a terrible economy (mostly created by Republicans), and so on. Be a man, own up to what YOU (Democrats and Republicans) have created??? There is now way out of this situation. If you know how, tell me. So far nobody really has come with a real solution. Once people realize they are greedy, selfish, and blind, maybe then it will be possible to save this civilization. If not, this civilization will fall like any other civilization. Stand up, be a man/woman and own up to your mistakes (Democrats and Republicans). Open your eyes and realize what you are doing.

237. Marcel Arizona on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Debt responsibility since 1981:
     Republicans: 8 trillion dollars (Bush alone added 5 trillion)
     Democrats: 2.8 trillion dollars
     Face the facts and learn the truth.
     By the way Bush left Obama with a 700 billion dollars bill to bailout Wall Street.

238. Marcel Arizona on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Actually when Bush took office, the debt was 5 trillion dollars. In 2008 the debt was 10 trillion dollars. Face the truth. Face the facts. Bush added 5 trillion.
     He also left Obama with a 700 billion dollar bill to bailout Wallstreet.

239. Marcel Arizona on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     There is no way an economy can be ruined within a 9 month period. This takes years. And those are Bush’s years. But still many people blame Obama only. Face the truth. Face the facts. Republicans and Democrats are to blame.

240. Jeff, Columbus on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Since Obama was sworn in as a Senator on January 4, 2005, doesn’t he himself carry some of the responsibility for this “inherited” debt?

241. MG. on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     It’s histerical to watch the Democrats flee from Obamas mediocre attempts at an economic recovery. It’s kinda of like leaving a drunk in charge of a Bar! The numbers above reflect the cost of the war for George W. Bush. However, one gentleman earlier made reference too WWII, pertaining to spending and bringing us out of a recession! What he forgot was that we actually won that war and that the price tag was never put on the Democrats. The war costs for the Democrats eminent defeat in Afghanistan has not been tallied up for the Obama administration either! We may not have a country left after the war or Health-Care, but it will be fun listening to their excuses. America has finally awakened!(10.2% UNEMPLOYMENT on the books and 14.4% off the books is unacceptable) Obamas poll numbers continue to drop like a rock and justifiably so!

     MG…(“We asked for it and we got it, Toyota”!!!)

242. Channon Holiday, Denver, CO on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     While it is correct to say that Bush and Obama share responsibility for the 2009 budget, that is incomplete.

     From CBO’s January 2009 budget report, released on January 7, 2009: “The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO currently projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion…”

     So, $1.2TT is Bush’s.

     Further, a SIGNIFICANT amount of the forecast deficits for FY2010 onward are due to decreased tax revenues as a result of pre-Obama Washington wrecking our economy.

     Whether you attribute that to former Goldman Sachs employees working in the Bush Adminstration, former Goldman Sachs employees working int eh Clinton Administration, or former Goldman Sachs employees writing Phil Gramm’s terrible deregulation legislation, it all happened before Obama.

243. JSG on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Typical conservative “Lying with Statistics”.

     Instead of talking about the Deficit… why not talk about the National Debt? You know, that thing GWB doubled, and how he outspent every past US President COMBINED?

     And let’s also not forget how Bush/Cheney cooked the books by keeping their eight years of failed wars out of their deficit figures by using “supplimentals”. Unlike the “Fiscal Conservatives”, Obama isn’t trying to hide his spending- all the war funding is right there in his budget.

244. Dave, Banning on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I would like to add that the great drop from positive in 2000 and 2001 to negative in 2002 thru 2003 is in a great part due to rebuilding a military that had been negelected by the Clinton administration. Bush had to pay the bills that had been ignored for eight years, plus late charges and interest fees. Just like any other bill, they will come due and they will cost more if not paid on time. The 2003-2005 costs were basically for “up-armored” vehicles. All that R&D and testing doesn’t come cheap. Democrats, who were responsible for ignoring military needs prior to Bush, were the loudest and most strident whiners about the military not having “proper” protection. Late in 2004 and years after were the costs of natural disasters and caring for those who were left homeless.

     I am curious, what would the budget of the Bush years look like had there been no 9/11 and no Katrina and Rita. Democrats sure took Bush to task for things they should have been taking care of while they were off playing politician instead of fulfilling their duties as world leaders they were elected to be.

245. RLV Phila.Pa. on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     All this blaming Bush for this Deficit,he is responsible for some of it.But we also voted in a Democrat congress in 06 and the Democrats losing the war in Afghanistan is America’s loss & we will be attacked by terrorist again on our soil.Protecting the American people is on the bottom of Obama’s list.The American people have made poor choices before and it has caused us to have major problems,like what happened December 7th,1941.This deficit is the fault of the American voter.

246. rick taylor salem va on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     “A lie that is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies” Alfred Lord Tennyson

247. Corrupt Government on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Let us look @ the FACTS: something Karl Rove knows very little about, FACTS.

     $1.4 TRILLION US DOLLARS are the deficit of Republican/Conservatives 2000-2009 as it was the Republican-WHIGS that FAILED America again, history repeats itself with NO lesson learned. Bush/Cheney & Republicans of all THREE houses & Henry Paulson/Ben Bernanke GAVE $350 BILLION US DOLLARS of $700 BILLION to their PALS in the FAILED corporation BAILOUT.

     Incompetent, YES, Republicans have very little to say about their failure, just as Ronald Reagan’s incompetence as a President and pretend knowledge of understanding ECONOMICS, “trickle down” effect. The ONLY thing that trickled down was Accountability & Responsibility, those were passed on to us and our great grandchildren, the Republican tax breaks burden.

     If Republicans are so proud of being fiscally sound and hawkish, why did we the AMERICAN TAXPAYER end up paying for the FAILURE of CORPORATE big business & Wealthy TAX BREAKS that cost us $2.2 TRILLION US DOLLARS in 2002? As a matter of FACT: Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison & John Cornyn of Texas voted in FAVOR/YES for that Corporate & Wealthy SOCIALIST project!

     Where were the OUTCRIES THEN?

248. MG. from Cincinnati on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Please, don’t confuse those poor Democrats with the facts. It makes all of those broken campaign promises about change and ending the war, look even worse! Does this by any chance include Obamas new Afghan war expenditures or their more recent 1.2 Trillion dollar spending bill? Maybe we can bail-out Greece while were at it!

     MG.

249. Joe, Dallas on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     The current deficit is not due to money spent by Obama, but mainly due to Bush Bailout and 20% drop in tax revenues caused by the recession. If Obama does not spend a single penny, we still be in debt over the next decade for 17 trillion, due to large amounts of debt incurred by prior administrations, interest rates on those debts, and the lack of tax revenues by a the most serious recession since the great depression. In addition, expenditures such as health care are expected to increase, since no action had been taken by prior administrations to curtail cost. So please,keep the facts straight. The fact that the debt is under Obama, does not mean is due to Obama.
     The day Obama walked into the white house, our country had 11 trillion in debt, the worse recession in over 50 years, the largest goverment expansion ever, a drop in exports over the past years of about 3%, and the worst political climate in generations.
     The least the republicans should do is help clean up this mess, Do not be blaming everyone for their fiscal insanity.

250. John, DC on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     WHY ARE YOU STILL HIDING THE LINK TO WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE THIS GRAPHIC CAME FROM???????????????

251. Christopher on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     @John, DC – RE: WaPo Link:

     It’s there. First paragraph, third sentence.

252. Kevin, Denver on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I can’t determine from reading this whether the writer is intentionally trying to mislead his readers on the cause of the deficit or whether he really doesn’t understand it himself. This part is just ridiculous….”given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious.”
     The stimulus package was spread out over multiple years and barely is 15% of the current budget deficit, so the author of the piece was only off by 350% or so. Nice work.

253. Karl, MN on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     For the real story behind these numbers, see Figure 1:

     http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-16-09bud.pdf

     Most of the future deficit is due to Bush-era tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic downturn. Very little of it is from the stimulus, TARP and Fannie and Freddie.

254. Reggie, CA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     ‘00 – ‘08 depict Bush digging us into a hole. ‘09 – ‘16 depict Obama climbing us out.

     Which do you think is more difficult?

255. Darketernal on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     These graphs are too single narrowed out, If Bush brought financial devestation then why is Obama blamed for having to clean up his mess? Its the same like saying ‘if i set your house on fire , then its your fault for the costs for rebuilding that house,

     No

     See it differently, if Bush didn’t create such a huge big mess in the first place then Obama wouldn’t have needed to take expensive measures to clean up that mess to begin with. This is a form of corrupted reversed logic that completely disregards the outrageous spending , remember the economic crisis started under bush, in other words this is already proof that bush has send America into bankrupcy.

256. Outraged on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     It occurred to me that though the President submits a budget, it is actually the Congress that authors and approves all spending bills. Since there is no line-item veto then the President’s power is somewhat limited in what he can accomplish concerning budget reduction. Therefore, the Congress should be held accountable for our burgeoning, rather exploding, national debt. Obama, while he may bask in the glory of his legacy “healthcare reform” is nothing more than a stuffed suit. He should, however, pay a political price in the 2012 election. Of more urgent importance is the congressional elections of 2010. It is time to replace the spendthrifts in Washington, who apparently believe that our tax dollars are similar to a credit card with no limits and thus feel no compunction about their disastrous habit, with people who understand that the dollars they are spending come from individuals and families. These people, no matter which label they affix to themselves (ie. Republican, Democrat, TEA Party, etc.) MUST be fiscally conservative and understand that they bear full responsibility for their votes and actions.

     The time for change is imminent. The message that must be sent in the 2010 election must be crystal clear–if you waste our money you WILL be held accountable, and that message must be delivered in a manner where there can be no misunderstanding. They must be soundly defeated in unmistakable numbers.

257. George Fulmore, Concord, CA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     The REAL truth about the federal debt is what the debt has been from, not for. The REAL truth is that the bulk of our federal debt comes from our wars and our military. Under George W., his wars were NOT in the budget, nor was a ton of “supporting” stuff spent on the war. All of this was considered “off budget”. Thus, the reported budget deficits in the chart of this article would be doubled under George W. if the “off budget” items were included. They DID get included in the borrowings of the government and the TRUE debt for the year.
     To learn more about how the wars and the military have caused the bulk of our debt, visit the following link: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

258. Fred Patton, Oklahoma on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     You know the military gets paid whether they are at war or practicing every day. The use tremendous amounts of ammunition and jet fuel training. All you hear is the cost. The government employees get paid the same whether they are working or in the coffee shop. FBI CIA DOE on and on. The government is a money pit.

259. Caroll, Georgia on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     March 24, 2009 Rocky, Boise ID wrote: That the numbers for the Iraq and Afghan war are not included in the budget and were counted as emergency or supplemental spending. It is obvious he did not read the entire article with updates. because it states unequivocally that costs of those wars are included. By 2019 the CBO estimate projects about a third more than the White House estimates. The WH continuously skews the figures in their favor. The interest alone will destroy this country and our way of life.

260. I’m Not The Silent Majority Anymore on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     “If Bush brought financial devastation then why is Obama blamed for having to clean up his mess”?

     I see it differently. The financial meltdown was caused by the Democrats “pushing” home ownership to people who couldn’t afford it. The initiative started under the Clinton administration.

     Here is the PROOF in THEIR WORDS, NOT MINE – and you won’t see the mainstream media picking this up:

     http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/07/democrats-admit-financial-crisis-caused.html

     Copy this link, save it in your favorites, email it to all your friends. Any time you hear the same old looking back “Bush bashing”, send it to them and everyone you know and they know. Get involved. In 2010 drag 10 friends with you to the polls. No longer will the “silent majority” of this country be silent anymore.

261. Bill – Scranton on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     How much of Obama’s deficit is interest on Bush’s deficit?

262. Alan, Oregon on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     OMG, you people are amazing. Wake up. Read real (validated) information. The propaganda machines are churning and you’re being duped.

     Just think for yourself, once you do that – then I’ll respect your opinion.

263. Kris, Houston area on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I’ve read a lot from the beginning, Thomas B-Virginia- March 25 of 09,, his last statment was “America is dying”, that really resonated with me. He is right, is any one else taking notice? At this point is blaming our current state at either president have of any real value? Whats the point in that? How about we instead look for solutions! As you read my thoughts you’ll find my thinking is strongly on the conservative Repulican side, however I’m finding lately that the whole current political realm so needs a face lift / shall we say. If I were to go independent, that would be detramental. So in sticking to my values, I am stuck staying Republican.

     So, to start off with, our current president needs to be removed, and all of his admin. however that should happen. Our president obviously likes socialism, in every fasion possible, let him and ALL those who are like minded go to France or Russia. He could have a taste of communism in Russia. Socialism is not far from communism.

     Our American people need to wake up and go back to values that have been so badly lost. People need to realize they are worth respecting themselves, if you’ve made some mistakes, so be it, you blend in with the rest of us. But we can come back to where right is just right, and wrong is just that, wrong, nothing in between. Some true accountablilty would be a good thing. I like, well love the America of the past. The values we had back then is what I’m talking about, and I’m not an over the hill fart.

     obama seems to think that all nations need to be equal to each other, including the country he is president over. What foul thinking is that? Thomas B of Virginia also said that we need to spend money, a lot of money if we are going to stay safe and secure as a nation. obama is not willing to do that.

     “Not the silent majority anymore” from Dec 30// I’m definatly with you!!!

     Carol in Georgia wrote that the White House always scews the $$ to their favor. All politicians do that. I strongly dislike the democrates, however even the Republicans do that. Thats what I mean about the whole political realm needs a face lift, that would have to be the Republicans to do that if they want my vote! It seems to me that this president and his admin may be sending us to bankrumpsy so we will be dependant on the goverment, which is what they so despratly want. Oh, by the way, did I mention socialism?

     There is too much to read here, I am not willing to read all of this, that means not many will read what I have here either, so there is no point in going on. (Sorry about my spelling)

     1 more thing to say. Seek first Gods Kingdom and His Rightiousness, all will be given to you. I’m obviously paraphrasing. That would be a great place to start with. Who ever has ears to hear, let us lead by example. Let us lovingly shake our envirment up tremendouly!!

264. Haven Mankin,Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     This week many are saying that government stimulous doesn’t work when you pull money out of the private sector (massive taxes or printing dollars) and then claim to put it back in again…it is a wash. Government is growing jobs now but where do they get their money for payrolls? You can NOT give Obama a pass by throwing mud on Bush; let’s get back to free market capitalism and get government out of our lives.

265. Jack, ATL on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     the numbers aren’t biased, they just don’t reflect the fact that massive government deficits were a fait accompli by the time Obama took office in January. would the republicans really not have passed a stimulus package in some form? even if it were tax cut based, they would have tried to stem the job losses with government money. they wouldn’t have sat back and waited for the unemployment rate to hit 14 percent, teachers laid off, state’s having trouble funding medicaid, etc. the republicans are responsible for the necessity of spending the money in the first place because of their idiotic free market fundamentalism. turning wall street into a casino (literally) is not supported by free market ideology, yet these idiots continue to delude themselves by continuing to block an effective financial regulatory regime. greenspan recently said that he could’ve clamped down on the bubble early on, but that we would have had a poor economy–one with 10 percent unemployment. This so-called genius must not realize that we’ve now taken on 1 trillion in Fed obligations, 800B in stimulus, 700B in bailouts, and we STILL have 10 percent unemployment. All you republicans loved this guy, now you have nothing to say about him. he presided over the whole disaster, but not without help from Clinton’s destruction of Glass Steagall (acceding to a Republican congress and Greenspan) and Bush’s subsidies for mortgage downpayments.

266. Emo, ATLANTA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Pepitsg, Calgary AB:

     No on is interested in the wrong headed opinions of a Canuck. You dont know the first thing about what is happening here in the US. It was the easy money policies of the Fed 2002-07, that caused the economic collapse, not Bush.

267. John, Danielson,CT on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     “Don’t blame Obama for spending too much, blame his predecessor or the people behind the US Economic collapse.”

     Obama gets some of the blame but most of the blame is reserved for folks like you who elected this radical, socialist, inexperienced young man to office.

268. Milo, NC on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I knew it all along. I was appalled at Bush’s reckless spending, but it pales beside Obama’s. Like all socialists, he loves to spend money that doesn’t belong to him.

269. steve, usa on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     your picture is so false, misleading

     so in bush budget did that include the two wars? answer is NO
     did it include the 750B bank bailout? answer is NO

     By the way just those to get us oover 1 trillion dollars?

     OBAMAs budget did take these into account – thank god someone is truethful as we are spending freaks republicans and dems alike and first step is to recognize the problem — thank you obama

270. ComSenz, in Cincy on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Liberals will always go for the Socialist garbage.
     Obama will suck National Defense dry to pay for his Nanny state.

271. Graham, CA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. Presenting the raw budget data without explaining and describing the need for that spending is like operating on a patient without explaining the necessity of the surgery.

     It is amazing how quickly we all forget as the DOW hovers around 10000 how close we came towards the end of the Bush era to a complete international economic meltdown. However you think we got to that state Sean and BIll will tell you it was Fannie and Freddie and there is indeed plenty of blame to go around.

     Criticizing the President and Congress for running large deficits in an effort to save the economy is like chiding the fire department for wasting water as they put out the fire in your house.

272. John, Burlington NC on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Per the CBO, the budget deficit for 2009 was over 1 trillion dollars 2 weeks BEFORE Obama was even sworn in. Additionally, due to massive population changes, (the baby boom generation beginning to retire-going from their peak earning and tax contributing years, to a drain on the treasury), things were going to look very bad for any president taking office at this time. I believe we will see some entitlement adjustments after 2010 which should moderate this bloody scenario, but the bottom line is this-we saw this coming. And the best we could do facing this population bomb was to exacerbate it to the fullest by increasing entitlement spending, and war expenditures, all while giving the largest tax cut in human history during the Bush years.

273. Keith, VA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     You neglect to adequately account for how Obama is spending large amounts of stimulus to negotiate us out of a financial meltdown that Bush presided over. There must be some way to put that into your graphs.

274. Roused on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Short memories people.Bush took office(with the aid of the Supreme Court),and proceeded to spend,spend,spend.He turned a surplus into a deficit in less than a year.1 stinkin year!!!!He oversaw a ill advised war, the collapse of our lending institutions,the collapse of the housing market,Enron,job losses,and everything else that went wrong.I might also add 6 of his 8 years Republicans controlled both houses(since 1994?).Yet somehow it`s Obama`s fault?…And the Tea Party?Are they about what`s right,and wrong,or about right wing politics?Since they NEVER protetsted under Bush I assume it was the $ amount they protest,and not the fact Bush spent much more than he had,and created the biggest deficit to date!.So….where`s the “Conservative” in “right wing politics”?We must be talking about conservative religous views,because I can`t even remember the last fiscally conservative President we had.Either party.Before you assume….I DID NOT vote for Obama.I think it`s time we stopped calling politicians Conservative if they aren`t.And they aren`t.Nixon,Reagan,Bush,and Bush were not conservative.Not even close….So do I need advice from the same people who oversaw the collapse?No…from the people who just stood by,and did nothing?No……The hypocricy is amazing!The previous administration destroyed the economy with the aid of both houses,and somehow these wing nuts here never even mention it.Why?Because they voted for it,supported it,and loved it.After all he was a Conservative…..yeah rite……

275. DesertRat on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     People reading the numbers obviously don’t use too much critical thinking skills. The deficit expansion from both wars, the stimulus bill, expanding Medicare coverage, and other programs under Bush are factored into the deficit numbers under Obama. The economic crash, very significant in size, has also greatly reduced the amount of tax revenues expected which also had a huge impact on the size of the deficit.

     President Obama did not create the situation he is faced with today, and granted he hasn’t done anything except make it worse (arguments can be made about the economics behind a stimulus plan, but I’m not an economist so I’ll leave that to history). Anyone attributing the current state of our economy to Obama is not doing them self or their country any good by ignoring the truth. As long as we lie to ourselves and allow politicians to play us against one other the real problem will never be solved. BOTH parties exploit their power to fleece the taxpayers as much as they can get away with.

     Stop allowing yourselves to get played by one party or the other for as long as they have you “on their side” both sides will win and we will all lose. My fear is this country is already too undulation to understand what is happening, and politicians are too entrenched in the current system of corruption for change to ever take place without a total collapse our of government.

276. Bushobama on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Bush got a good start point from Clinton, but he lose IRAQ war and owe over a $2.5 trillion dollers, so he is not a good US president. Obama got a awful point from Bush, we need give him time to finish his president jobs before commenting him. But Bush is a really loser as a US president, and he is a nice guy for China and India.

277. Doug, Bayfield, CO on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     When you consider that President Bush inherited a $250 billion annual budget surplus and then handed off to President Obama a trillion dollar annual deficit you get an indication as to where and when we went wrong. Your budget analysis for 2009 shares the responsibility between Bush & Obama whereas the CBO (in a report I obtained on your web site) indicates that 1.186 trillion of the deficit is attribted to the Bush budget and 228 billion to the Obama budget. That’s huge! Obama has spent his first year in office attempting to FIX the problems and deficits he has inherited from the previous administration. This is not exactly what we were hoping for when we chose Obama to lead our country in necessary reform. It only angers me more each day when I think our country more than doubled the national debt during this time period. As you do your budget analysis you should create a separate column for spending that is designed to stimulate our broken economy. Unfortunately, a situation like this requires a step back before you can proceed forward. The size of this step is proportionate to the size of the problem, which, in this case, is HUGE! Realisticly, the poor folks of our country and the middle class (however you would like to define it) will not be able to solve this problem with their financial resources. They have been “milked” out of all excess funds. Perhaps the wealthy and large corporate interests who have benefited over the years in America’s “land of opportunity” will be willing to accept the burden of responsibility. We could all look at it as a “Thank-you” to America. Yes, we need to strive, once again, for a balanced budget. It’s all about two simple things, increase revenue and decrease spending. Make the hard decisions but don’t “sacrifice” the middle class and poor or the important social issues of our time. We can’t put off at least some level of health care reform and we need to deal with the long term entitlement deficit projections. We can’t keep ignoring the problems. They only continue to get worse. And yes, get behind the current administration. President Obama is not responsible for these problems. Instead, help him “fix” the problems by sharing your ideas. We have been successfully divided in this country. As a result, we are subject to being “conquered”! It’s all happening from within. But…..it’s not quite over yet.

278. sb on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     two sides to every deficit. no mention of the massive fall off in revenue due to the massive unfunded tax cuts and massive job destruction thanks to Bush and his economic polices.

279. Tomm, Wisconsin on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Some critics charge that the new policies pursued by President Obama and the 111th Congress generated the huge federal budget deficits that the nation now faces. In fact, the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.
     The deficit for fiscal 2009 was $1.4 trillion and, at an estimated 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was the largest deficit relative to the size of the economy since the end of World War II. Under current policies, deficits will likely exceed $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011 and remain near that figure thereafter.
     The events and policies that have pushed deficits to astronomical levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the Presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
     While President Obama inherited a bad fiscal legacy, that does not diminish his responsibility to propose policies to address our fiscal imbalance and put the weight of his office behind them. Although policymakers should not tighten fiscal policy in the near term while the economy remains fragile, they and the nation at large must come to grips with the nation’s deficit problem. But we should all recognize how we got where we are today

280. Phil, NH on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     to Rocky in Boise…

     Health and Human services AND Debt Service are BOTH larger than the Department of Defense! Educate yourself!

281. Eric, Ohio on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I think everyone is trying to give either administration too much credit for being able to control the spending of congress. If you combine the two and look at the market performance, you can easily point to when things changed. No one gives either credit for the stock market climbing to over 14,000 before the democrats took over one of the congressional houses. 10,000 -> 14,000 is a great economic success. Then we had to create a public panic run on the market by not having proper oversight of lending habits. A ticking time bomb many were aware of combined with an orchestrated fear campaign. The democrats knew they could not win with a successful economy in war time. So, a 5,000 point drop in the market was needed. This was chosen to happen. They had to create the panic to get a democrat in the white house. Not saying either administration did all they could to reduce the size of government (neither has). Just saying the public should be allocating a large portion of their anger towards congress. Spending, appropriations controls, earmarks, graft, etc. Spread the investigation. I wish Reagan would have gotten the line item veto so the pork and payoffs could be eliminated from the base bill spending.

282. gaveuphope on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Where did you get your numbers, 10 billion a month for a war lasting 8 years is more than 400 billion alone. Not mentioning the 880 billion as the guy was leaving with all that money at the very end of his term. If he didn’t pass the bailout to know where, he wouldn’t have got the cash for his buddies at the banks, who didn’t need it because everything was made up just to take as much cash as they could. Evil men from 2000-2008 Don’t believe a word you read ever again! THIS IS PROPAGANDA AND NOT FACTUAL!

283. jimmy37 on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     It would be more instructive to see the DEBT numbers, as these numbers are not as easily manipulated with accounting tricks. Of course, these numbers don’t include the current SSA debt which is huge.

284. KBAVinc, Arizona on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     This may be unimportant to many of you, but keep in mind that it is Congress that passes the spending bills for the President to sign. At no time during the Bush Administration did the Republican Party have a super majority, so although they held the purse strings, they had to negotiate with the Democrats to get the War funded. You can also see in the charts where the Bush tax cuts kicked in. From Jan 2007 on, the Democrats have had control of the purse strings. Granted, Bush had to sign the budgets into law to support the surge in 2008, and since, even with the tax cuts in place, we’ve had more pork barrel spending and Congressional travel than ever before contributing to this oncoming train wreck.

285. Mace on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I have a Graph to share with the group. This graph is based on the actual TOTAL numbers released by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt ( http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm ). The graph displayed on this page is a joke. I will copy this prior to posting. If this does not post on this site, I will copy this to 10 other sites with a link to this site. The Federal Government REALLY needs to look at Republican ‘trap sites’, they seem to be popping up everywhere.

     Actual Graph –> http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

286. sandy shores on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I keep seeing people who blame bush but really the economy was great for his first six years. It was the reason he got voted in for his second term.
     If you couldnt find a job durring the first six years Bush was in office you didnt leave your house. People were making money like crazy durring the first six years of bush administration.
     Bush did try to fight fannie mae and freddie mac but the democrats LIED and said its fine there is no problem to blame bush for that shows you havent been paying attention.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

     What ever bush left behind in laws that the democratic majority wrote as bills and bush did not sign cannot be blamed on bush but on Obama.
     Clinton may have lowered the defacite but at the same time he did force banks to make the bad loans we are suffering today.

287. sandy shores on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Tomm face the facts people arent going to work hard to give you their money communisum has always failed and always will. We are the second if not first highest taxed country in the world did it ever occure to you washington needs to learn how to count? it is not a fact the tax payers need to pay more it is a fact our government needs to stay in a budget that fits our big fat taxes we already pay.
     Time for real change vote them out. the Democrats have proved over the last three years they do not know how to count and the people are sick of the democratic spending.

288. M. Carranza on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     What should have been done for the masses destroyed by the last admin.? Is there a way to help Americas people without spending even more money? Is this not pretty much a play on words???

289. M. Carranza, Virginia on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Wrong Phil N.H.. You do some research and break down the health and human services and their costs. War is costly to include the need for health and human services..

290. M. Carranza, Virginia on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Yes, let’s look at Congress. Term Limits.

291. Allen E. Shaw Dayton, Ohio on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Figures lie and liars figure. It may be ok for people setting in the budget office to toss these figures around, because they understand the complexity of compounding interest and other items that are not obvious to those of us out in the boonies that don’t have that first rate knowledge.
     You attempt to frighten people when you really understand the necessity of increased spending to solve problems.
     These are not President Bush or President Clinton problems these are problems brought on by a long term spending spree that has taken place. When times were good we reduced taxes and did not pay down the debt the way we should. Two wars, expensive war material cost, floods, other natural disasters and an attempt to make people whole, many time better than they were before the disaster.
     Let’s stop blaming the Politicians and start blaming the people that want everything and not pay for anything. Better roads – No Taxes or fee. Better Rail Transportation – No taxes or fees. (STOP TELLING THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THEY CAN HIRE A PROFESSIONAL ARMY AT A $1,000,000 A SERVICE MAN AND FIGHT WARS ALL OVER THE WORLD) AND NOT PAY ANY TAXES OR FEES. HOW MUCH IS THE BUDGET GOING UP FOR ALL OF THE MEDICAL CARE THAT THIS MODERN WAR IS GOING TO COST.
     In summation this is a national problem brought on by foolish people that want to blame anyone but themselves for the problem that they are in. Short sighted and maybe a little greedy and it seems to me while claiming to being so willing to do their part always complain when asked to help someone who has less (30,000,000 medically uninsured citizens) I hope you understand that all of us need to wake up!!!

292. Lovely_Lisa on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     There is one glaring problem with blaming the 2009 deficit on Obama. That budget was signed into law by George Bush in 2008! Nice try guys. And that same budget created structural deficits of 8 Trillion dollars over 10 years, because no one figured out how to pay for the 2 wars, the new department of homeland security, the Medicare Plan D or had a strategy for making the current Medicare and Social Security plans cash flow positive and solvent. This was all left to the next guy, in addition to the piss poor economy. GW was a terrible conservative, but all of these “born-again conservative” Republicans who were in the house and senate between 2001 and 2004 are the biggest hypocrits in the world because they set the ball in motion. If they had stayed the course with pay-go, the national debt and deficits would have been far lower.

293. ann kitay fulton, tx on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     At 73 I have trouble with my memory sometimes but seems to me I recall hearing on Fox news that Pres. Bush called in Pres. elect Obama for conference BEFORE he signed the bailout because Pres. Obama would inherit whatever was to come. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think not.

294. Mike Piltoff on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Have you ever heard of ROI (return on investment)? Bush/Chaney had no investment strategy for America, it was all about protecting the old guard contractors (war machine) and big oil. Anyone see any WMD on Iraq lately? Thats why we wnet right? wrong see above for why we went. WAR has no ROI.. Education, Infrastructure rebuild in USA, Investment in technology, and heath care cost reduction that lowers workmen’s compensation that allows things to be built here again all have ROI. Chaney talked lowering taxes for ROI but Obama is putting taxes to work in areas of ROI. Its all he can do, it’s a mess. We need to spend wisely ie: spend where there is ROI

295. Galen, Baltimore MD on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Can you explain this one?

     President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.

     I just went over to the Treasury Debt site and entered in 1/22/2001 and 1/22/2009 (from the day Bush took office until the day he left office). According to those numbers the debt was $5.72 Trillion when he took office and $10.62 Trillion when he left office. Isn’t that a $4.9 Trillion increase in the debt?

     Can someone please clarify?

296. Chicago, Illinois on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     So what you are saying is that Bush is responsible for the huge deficits in 2009. And yet the Tea Partiers are blaming it on Obama. Looks like things will get better once we get past the effects of over spending during the Bush years. And health care reform is projected by the CBO to bring down the deficit in 10 years. It is obvious the anger is purely partisan – where was the outrage when the Republicans were spending out of control?

297. David Bronx on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     You conservatives have spent 8 years defending Bush. It didn’t take Bush but a year and a half to bring about a deficit. Then he started that war in Iraq based on nothing and you all supported him. The current deficit is in great part due to Bush’s two “tax refunds” of $300 and then $600 as well as the Iraq war and Afghanistan wars.

     You’re very good at lying and spinning. Bush left a horrible legacy of overspending and deficits and left us with a nice fat IOU to China and maybe you constituents like to believe your lies but not all of us do.

     Bush left us with a WMD (W’s Maddening Deficit) and now you want to blame it on the man who has been in office for a year!

     Conservatives do not provide a civil society. They provide a society where gun owners and big business reign supreme and that’s all you’ve ever given this country.

298. IsAnyoneSurprised? on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     What else would we expect from someone who is paying back all his supporters. More handouts please …

299. IsAnyoneSurprised? on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Maybe you need experience before being elected president? Duh. Someone should have explained that to the gullible masses before they cast their vote. Yes we can (ruin this great nation). Just put a complete amateur in charge …

300. IsAnyoneSurprised? on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Chicago politicians are renowned for their integrity … LOL

301. Roger, CA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     So Bush’s final deficit was, either 1.85T or 1.75T, depending on whether the WH or CBO numbers are correct, looking at the numbers for 2009. Of course everyone is aware that a Presidents first year in office, 2009, was budgeted by the last administration, yes?

302. Zack, USA on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     A better graph of the current deficit adjusted and attibuted in parts to the war, the bailout, and tax cuts.

     http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/02/deficits_past_and_future

     It is also worth pointing out that while the graph did jump this year the predicted deficit is trending downward which is the right direction now that spending is fully attributable to the current administration and congress.

     Ignoring the current administration (as it is hard to analyze current events) We can see large increases in deficit under previous administration. Yes there were attacks on the US but none worse than those performed by our own representatives. Where is the accountability?

303. Drew Vachon..Melbourne,Florida on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I am so tierd of dems vs repub’s,,to me I see my government (whatever party) has become more and more corrupt and disfunctional.Playing games,demonizing each others ideas,not working togather AT ALL!! I honestly belive President Obamas intentions are good. And has tried to reach out to republicans,,but how do you begin to work w/ someone who is so stubborn??? It seems republicans would get more of what they want if they would just begin to work w/ the president and democrates. With that said, people see what is going on,whether or not they stand up and protest our gov’s actions is another thing. Thanks

304. Gordon Gunderson on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I was hoping this article would clarify or undermine Obama’s repeated statement that Bush left him a deficit of over a trillion. Is he referring to 2009 or what? 2008 is “only”$400B”. What is Obama talking about and if wrong, how does he get away with it? We lay conservative need a lot of statistical help in this data-manipulative obama period.

305. Dave NC on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     As Jay Rockefeller said THEY WRITE THE BUDGET. They being Congress. The Bush deficit didn’t explode until the Dems controlled Congress. Also Obamas and this Congresses Debt in 3 years will be more than total debt than every years debt added up together

306. Vic – FL on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Dave NC; check your facts. The Dem congress didnt make any major budget decision or had time to do anything damaging in the litte time they had. Nothing impacting in that way even came before them. What they were saddled with (and why they were voted in in the 1st place) correcting tthe mess they were left with (as Obama and the new Dems were). Same policies that crashed the economy in the late 20’s (that New Deal/Dems/new middle class/smal biz growth had to fix) and almost did it again in the 2000’s Follow the bouncing ball. “Ray-Guns” gets in and deficit spends us to death, finally realizes tax cuts aren’t the way and raises them 3 times, but still manages to triple the ND. Buh Sr follows, quadruples the ND. Clinton: balanced budget and surplus. Bush Jr, back in debt again (over a $trillion). People – just follow the bouncing ball!

307. Ben, Va. on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     VIc, FL: The public school system, as is its purpose, has “taught” you well. Let me at least attempt to correct you a bit…

     “Same policies that crashed the economy in the late 20’s (that New Deal/Dems/new middle class/smal biz growth had to fix)…”

     –Oh, sorry, but FDR only continued more of the same actions of his predecessor, Herbert Hoover (raised taxes, started public works projects, extended loans to firms in need…the same things Obama wants to do now). This is a quote from Roosevelt advisor Rexford Guy: “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.” And, according to his treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., the ND didn’t fix anything: “We have never made good on our promises…after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot!”

     “Ray-Guns” gets in and deficit spends us to death, finally realizes tax cuts aren’t the way and raises them 3 times, but still manages to triple the ND.”

     –This is just embarrassing. The economy expanded under Reagan, and it didn’t happen with tax *raises* either. You know that. The source of his deficit was through increased defense spending, which ultimately helped defeat the Soviet Union…handed a nice little “peace dividend” to Clinton, too; and reduced defense spending (along with a thrifty–for a while, anyway–Republican congress) led to a budget surplus. You’re welcome.

     Mike, Sarasota, FL: (LOL) You call yourself a fiscal Conservative and a social Liberal, but a proud Obama voter…wouldn’t that make you at least a HALF-DUPE? You’re as much a “former Republican” as the Sun was a former planet.

308. Ben, Va. on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     P.S. Criticizing Bush’s outrageous spending, in order to defend Obama’s waaaaaaaaaaaay out-of-his-mind spending, is like yelling at the wife for burning dinner, but sparing anger at the kid who burned down the whole dang house!

309. David, NJ on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Maybe if Bush worked on creating jobs instead of giving more money to the rich and lowering their mortgage interest rates, Obama wouldn’t have to work so hard trying to fix everything in one year.

310. Patrick, Ohio on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     The primary cause of Obama’s deficits are the fall in tax revenues that has attended the worst economic downturn since the Depression. The cost of wars also does not help. Conservatives love to hype the fact that we are at war when it serves their purpose. We are at war. Wars cause deficits. As for his Obama’s stimulus plan. It was compose of at least 25% tax cuts. Conservatives like tax cuts. In the economic downtun of 2001, they ran a $400 million deficit composed of tax cuts. The tax cuts are still in place. If John McCain were elected, he would have followed a course that would have resulted in deficits no smaller than Obama’s. The only difference is that we wouldn’t have to listen to hysteria about the deficit.

311. Laura Novak, Ontario (from Wisconsin) on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     I try to hear both sides of every story but I have quite a difficult time finding non-biased conservative analysis. What is so hard about JUST BEING HONEST for once? You mention Obama boosting anti-poverty spending without paying any attention to the why, could it have anything to do with the Great Recession? You mention the bail-outs without admitting the necessity of them. You mention the start up costs of health care reform without mentioning Obama proposes to pay for that, so it won’t effect the deficit and in fact, the CBO says it will reduce our projected deficits. I am beginning to believe the truth really DOES have a liberal bias since I can’t find honest discussion from the conservative side. Jeepers.

312. Dan, Kansas City on March 24th, 2009 at 10:20am said:

     Nice way to mislead with deceptive color-coding that indicates Bush is only responsible for the Blue years and Obama for the red. The budget is submitted one year ahead, therefore, 2009 is Bush’s budget deficit.