• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama's Deficits in Pictures

    UPDATE: This graph is now over one year old. For up to date information see this post: The Truth about Obama’s Budget Deficits, in Pictures

    UPDATE: Chart revised 5/14/2010

    Releasing his budget this Monday, President Barack Obama told the American people:

    We won’t be able to bring down this deficit overnight, given that the recovery is still taking hold and families across the country still need help. … Just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children’s future to pay our way today, it would be equally wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century.

    But not only does President Obama’s budget fail to reduce deficits “overnight”, his budget actually moves them in the opposite direction. President Obama’s budget would:

    • Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
    • Borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
    • Leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion in as late as 2020;

    The chart above compares the President’s budget deficit projections to the Congressional Budget Office’s budget deficit projections under current law. In other words, the policy changes embodied in President Obama’s 2011 Budget puts our country $2.5 trillion deeper in debt by 2020 than it other wise would be if current law were left unchanged.

    Now the President is apparently arguing that his trillions of dollars in additional deficit spending are needed to “invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century.”

    This is statement goes to the core of the fundamental difference between leftists and conservatives in this country: liberals belief economic growth comes from wise investments by government experts; conservatives believe that economic growth stems from  millions of Americans having the freedom to make their own economic decisions everyday.

    President Obama’s bailouts, massive stimulus spending, and other dangerous interventionist policies (some of which began in 2008) have made Americans less economically free. The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom analyzes just how economically “free” a country is, and this year America saw a steep and significant decline, enough to make it drop altogether from the “free” category, the first time this has happened in the 16 years we’ve been publishing these indexes. The United States dropped to “mostly free.” As the Index shows, lack of freedom has a direct, negative effect on job growth. It should be no surprise that President Obama’s policies have taken us down the path to fewer jobs and record deficits.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    145 Responses to Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama's Deficits in Pictures

    1. Al, New Orleans LA says:

      We hear the president saying almost daily that thanks to Bush policies public debt is so high.The echo chamber for Mr. Obama includes the likes of James Kwak at the "The baseline scenario" blog. He supports his arguments using a publication from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Can anyone with knowledge debunk these people? Is this another liberal myth? How can I fight liberals making these arguments?

      • John says:

        Stop the bull. You can not change history this is a fact both bush's drove this country to a cliff and we will not get over it in one night with filbusters since this president been in office and the games if you paid attention. This president or any president who come in with this high debt could not even spend a little before it was driven off the edge. Now we the voters created this stupid congress paying these new elected republican officials for months with no plan of JOBS and continue the same thing. We are so gullable we believe the tea party is a totally different party nothing more than the REPUBLICAN WEALTHY BASE. It's a fact. WAKE UP AMERICA you and the additon to buying elections is killing this country. Are we ever going to stand up for what is right or continue status quo! What idiots! No wonder China is taking over!

      • Lishus says:

        Three Charts to Email to Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law | Truthout http://www.truth-out.org

      • kris says:

        why do you have to fight liberals? wouldnt it be better to get to the truth of the matter and start from there. we each have a point of view and some is opinion, some if factual and the sources need to be checked as well.

        • Andy says:

          What Conn Carroll is advising is to stop Obama’s whining and fingerpointing by 1) getting him the hell out of office and 2) not only continuing fiscal policies of the last 30 years but actually doubling down on them… because you know, it’s not really borrowing or deficit spending if you never put it in the books, right?

    2. Pingback: Where Are The Jobs, Barry? » Blogs For Victory

    3. Pingback: Past Deficits vs. Obama's Deficits in Pictures | The Foundry … | Daily Hot Topic

    4. Pingback: On the road to fiscal catastrophe « Appalachian Conservative

    5. Dave Murrow Escondid says:


      Obama criticizes Bush for spending too much (Pharmacy Bill etc). But doing more of the "bad" thing that Bush did is going to make it even worse. Like saying Bush injected poison into the economy. Therefore the solution is to inject more poison into the economy.

      Another Irony:

      Obama voted yes to all of the Bush spending.

      Yet Another Irony:

      Obama says the Bush tax cuts were not "paid for". In reality tax cuts don't have to be "paid for". They bring additional revenue to the government. Tax cuts pay for government spending. Ironically Obama needs to figure out how to pay for the tax increases because they will cause less revenue to the government. Obama must admit (though it would be painful) that allowing the rich to get richer will also allow the poor and the middle class to get richer.

      Such are the hang-ups for a hardcore socialist


      • Math Man says:

        "In reality tax cuts don't have to be "paid for". They bring additional revenue to the government."

        LOL. I think you have it backwards. Tax CUTS decrease revenue.

        • loony says:

          no, because a percentage of that money is collected in taxes at the cash-register.
          did you not finish basic economics?

          • boboloony says:

            Reduction in Federal Income tax reduces federal revenue. Taxes at the cash register may increase the revenue the State through sales tax, if people spend more; but the State Government does not share this with the Federal Government. Is your proposal that they do? Perhaps the federal government should impose it's own sales tax to balance the budget. Lets see, avg. state sales tax 8% plus new federal sales tax 8% = 16% at the cash register, that ought to encourage the economy.

      • Craigo says:

        Dave, very well said

        • Hugh Bris says:

          "Allowing the rich to get richer", which we have done, has not made the poor or working class any better off. The top 10% has consumed a larger and larger portion of the economic pie, while real median wages have been virtually stagnant for nearly 30 years. So as GDP continues to increase (and always has historically) and with taxes actually at historic lows, the people getting squeezed out of their share of the wealth pie is everyone BUT the top quintile–so the conclusion to be drawn is this: it MAY be true that lower taxes are beneficial to the economy, but this does not translate to a wealth in the pockets of "regular" Americans.

      • Ivan says:

        Taxes must be very very high before their drag on the economy exceeds the revenues they bring in. Hard to believe that, with rates low by the standards of our history and by comparison with other countries, we're anywhere near that point. The Laffer curve had some validity, but the assumption that we're far to the right side of that slope requires a leap of faith and ignoring evidence.

    6. Dusty, Indiana says:

      So much of the ideological battles that rage in this country comes down to economics. The Left is convinced that nearly every problem under the sun can be fixed if they have more of our money and divvy it up as they see fit.

      Those of us on the Center-Right MUST do a better job of articulating and defending the free market. This article explains in greater detail how we can do just that: http://rjmoeller.com/2010/02/the-economics-of-mer

    7. RogerD Henderson. Nv says:

      It is so obvious that in 2009 when the marxist took control of congress and the marxist press was demonizing President Bush that the deficit grew. The marxist press can say that the buck stops here for President Bush but not for the marxist obama. Why is that?

    8. Pingback: How Obama’s new 2011 budget fails the poorest children in two ways « Wintery Knight

    9. Pingback: Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    10. Jim Oshust, Salt Lak says:

      A slight majority of the voters elected an Harvard educated, elitist with both ultra liberal and socilaist inclinations in all he does. It is a cross the nation will have to bear for at least another 2 & 3/4 years. During which we will be under constant threat from Islamic terrorists, economic downturn and a deterioration of our health care and military prominence. I am concerned that President Obama may harbor a deep emnity, probably sumerged in his psyche, toward white America and a disturbing desire to embrace those who evidently want to do us harm. His apparent disregard of Israel. If this were true we wil be about to enter the decline of our great nation.

      • ron says:

        Only two modern day presidents doubled the national debt during their terms in office. One was Ronald Reagan and the other George Bush Jr. They both did it the same way. Massive mindless tax cuts followed by runaway spending. One on phantom wars and the other on two real wars that were carried off the books. Both also promised to do something about entitlement spending but did nothing. The only president to leave a surplus was Clinton who promised a tax cut but decided not to after getting into office. Who knows what Oboma would have left if he had not inherited the largest financial disaster of modern times.

    11. John J. O'Neill says:


      Anytime you need to rush a bill through the House and the Senate then it says to me there is something underhanded at work. You know full well that the American people don't want this bill and like the Marxist that you are you don't care and your going to follow there teachings and ram it through. Belibe me when I tell you are already a lame duck president and if you don't believe me just that other idiot Jimmy Cater. Wake up and feel the pulse of the American public.

      One Nation Under GOD the Christine one if you don't know with Liberty and justice for all.

    12. christian says:





      THANK YOU,


    13. John says:

      People need to realize that the bulk of the deficit incurred in 2009, (George Bush' last budget) was the result of EMERGENCY SPENDING. Obama and the liberals have convinced America that this is the new deficit benchmark and have decided they can run deficits that large every year and just say hey George Bush did it! EMERGENCY SPENDING.

    14. Ann, Dallas says:


      What was the EMERGENCY??

    15. Pingback: Blather. Wince. Repeat. » Blog Archive » I Won’t Be Calming Down Any Time Soon

    16. Raymond, Bangor, Mai says:

      "President Obama’s bailouts, massive stimulus spending, and other dangerous interventionist policies (some of which began in 2008)"

      Really? How can this be. Obama was elected in November 2008, but wasn't inaugurated until January 2009. Since Bush was still president until January 2009, I don't see how you can blame Obama for any policies that began in 2008. Do you?

      • Lynda Deming says:

        Sure we can. Do you recall the "Office of the President Elect"?

        You may also recall that akaObama was sitting in the US SINate in 2008 … scratch that. He wasn't sitting anywhere. He was crisscrossing the USA campaigning to be king.

    17. Tony, Aurora CO says:

      Remember it was the policies of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama of putting pressure on Fannae Mae & Freddie Mac to give loans to those who can not afford it that caused the financial mess in 2008. They scored political points off of the whole mess because the president was a 'Republican'. Bush had nothing to do with Fannae Mae & Freddie Mac other than the bailout package. GWB signed it, they caused it, blamed GWB for it and scored all the political pts they needed to win due to the ignorance of the American voters. Look at the mess we are going to be in by 2013. :(

    18. Less, Houston says:

      Those charts have gone round the world several times over, and are worth far more than a thousand words.

      Would be AWESOME if:

      You could put last year's and this year's in a flash thingy so we could see the projected v. actual of 2009 compared to the projected v. actual now – it's really illuminating to look at the two next to each other.

      We're really not all that bright out here! Me want pretty pictures and blinky graphics!

    19. OrangeOrangeRed says:

      if the deficit never exceeded 500 billion under bush, how did the national debt rise 4 trillion dollars under 8 years of bush? your numbers dont add up.

      "tax cuts don’t have to be “paid for”. They bring additional revenue to the government."

      how has that worked out? 8 years of bush to get it right and he nearly doubled the national debt. myth busted.

      same with the idea of wars bringing prosperity, post ww2 was a fluke, the rest of the industialized world had torn itself apart and we were the last ones standing, we cant just flip the "we're at war" light switch and expect money to start raining out of the sky.

      if you're afraid of "Islamic terrorists", you are a coward. These arnt super spies, they dont even have basic warfighting competency, theyre just basically rednecks. A handful of them got lucky, ONCE and thats it, every other attempt has been a miserable pile of failure- shoe bomber, underwear bomber, that guy who tried to ram his car into an airport etc. failures which only need basic police work to counter.

    20. Matt says:


      An economic deperession?

      @The Article,

      First, I think it's disingenuous to cite your own, obviously partisan, site as a source for a 'freedom index' and then talk about it as if it actually has any credibility.

      Second, talking about the deficit as if policies act instantly and have no future consequence is silly, how much of the deficit under Obama is actually deficit caused by funding of a war, a worldwide recession and other policies which may have greater responsibility under Bush rather than Obama.

      I'm not saying "Oh it's all Bush's fault". I'm saying that you can't measure a presidents deficit by date, rather, by the policies they have actually enacted.

      "This is statement goes to the core of the fundamental difference between leftists and conservatives in this country: liberals belief economic growth comes from wise investments by government experts; conservatives believe that economic growth stems from millions of Americans having the freedom to make their own economic decisions everyday."

      That's not true. You are confusing Liberal/Conservative with Totalitarian/Libertarian. You can have a libertarian liberal whom believes in economic freedom as much as you can have a conservative libertarian. Same with totalitarian.

    21. Jerry, Vancouver, WA says:

      Interesting that the deficits rise significantly when the Democrats took

      control of our nation's checkbook in Jan 2007. The only time we had a surplus

      was with a Republican Congress in charge. Time to vote out the Tax and

      Spend Democrats.

    22. Jeff, NY, NY says:

      Actually Jerry, deficits rise significantly when Republicans are in charge of the checkbook. The LAST time the national debt actually decreased was in 1966 when Eisenhower was President. Check it out for yourself.

      BTW, your boy Ronald Reagan nearly tripled the debt during his presidency. Just for the sake of historical accuracy.

    23. David, Denver, CO says:

      Jeff from NY,

      Are you that blind that you can't see the trend in the chart during the mid-late 2000's while the republicans had congress and how it DECREASED the deficit?

      Clearly you cannot read basic grade school bar charts.

      It's no wonder that so many people support such pathetic policy. They just don't understand.

      Lets see your chart for the Reagan years too Mr. smarty pants. But remember, the horizontal line is called the "X" axis, and the vertical line is called the "Y" axis. Understand?

    24. Pingback: Abject Failure Of Obama’s Presidency – Part 2 « Grand Rants

    25. Pingback: Paul M. Jones » Blog Archive » A VAT Is Coming

    26. Pingback: Mr. Conservative » Here Come the Taxes

    27. Ken Ridge, Des Moine says:

      By using off-budget items (especially contributions to Social Security), the graph understates the actual deficits over the past 8 years. According to the CBO, the actual "on-budget" deficits were:

      2002 -317.4 billion

      2003 -538.4 billion

      2004 -568 billion

      2005 -493.6 billion

      2006 -434.5 billion

      2007 -342.2 billion

      2008 -641.9 billion

      2009 -1,550.60 billion

      It's disturbing to see Heritage use this form of "double counting," especially since Social Security hasn't been part of the unified budget since 1990.

    28. VRW Conspirator says:

      Um..Jeff..NY,NY…say a lot just knowing your home town…

      Eisenhower was a Republican…and wasn't in office in 1966…that was Johnson after Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Check your own facts, Eisenhower would have been 1956.

      But Ike did lots of great things…like he outlawed ALL social services for illegal immigrants…and guess what…in a 4 your period he cut the number of illegals in this country by HALF…they self-deported back to their home country…and new illegal immigration over the same time period was also cut in half.

      Imagine what the USA would be like if 5-10million illegals all WENT home…imagine the surpluses in Medicare, Education, Welfare, etc. if illegal immigration was cut in half and half of those here left…and the other half was BANNED from working and receiving any Federal funds for ANY reason…

      here in my state…we have about 3 million illegals…about 400000 of which are school age children on which we spent 15,000 per year….which costs us 6 billion a year…the Federal government provides 8% of the education budget of every state…so just in my state…the Fed is kicking in 480 million…eliminate Fed services for illegals and you would see 10-25 Billion just off Education savings. Medicare costs are many multiples of that, as are housing/Welfare payouts

      see what you get with MORE government….MORE deficit…get rid of the services that people SHOULD do for themselves…like education and healthcare…and not only would we balance the budget but Obama would have his pound of flesh to pay for healtchare for the 8-12 million REAL (legal) Americans that can't afford it.

      Less border traffic would also mean greater efficiency from Border Patrol agents and less drug trafficing worries and less terrorism worries because it would be EASIER to find them, since they couldn't HIDE in the illegals crossing the border.

    29. Eric, Phillipsburg, NJ says:

      When my niece is 20 it’s gonna be 2028. If America stays around ’til 2028, it’s going to be deeply in debt. Remember why this country began, it was because our founding fathers wanted freedom of religion & freedom of choice and government. This country is new & a project. Who knows if it’s going to be around for 1000+ years as the European countries are. But that’s where we’re headed, just like Western Europe. But we’re not European, we’re Americans! Can you say U.S.S. or United Socialist States? President Obama is absolutely putting this country down the wrong path with his domineering spending. It makes me figuratively sick with all his bail-outs and Democratic spending. I can’t truly tell you if he’s going to be re-elected (I can’t see into the future), but wouldn’t you not want him to be back in office because of him being such a spender & forgetting about us & our children? I’d of course elect the Republican not because of anything but that man (or woman, Sarah Palin?) easing the spending. I choose to be a Libertarian.

    30. Pingback: Nation's soaring deficit calls for painful choices - Page 2 - Political Wrinkles

    31. Bill Cincinnatti Ohi says:

      Raymond, the democratic congress and senate did not pass the 2009 budget until after Obama was elected. The did a continuing resolution to allow BO to sign the monstrosity budget into law with 8000 ear marks that he promised to do away with. For this bill he said it was a bill left over by Bush. Bush did not get a shot at that budget bill because the congress withheld the bill.

      Yea we can blame BO since he signed the bill.

    32. rick auburn californ says:

      Show us when the last time a Republican president lowered the deficit or national debt!

    33. Gary, Phoenix says:

      Shame on Heritage for showing Bush's on-budget debt (not actual debt) to Obama's projected total actual debt. Like Bush's cost of gas for his car vs Obama's total cost of car ownership. Makes for a pretty one sided chart.

      Bush added 6 tril total to the debt in 8yrs (5.8-11.9). With no change in tax or spending policy another 7-8 tril would be added in the next 10yrs (about the same per year). But with Bush tax cuts expiring, war spending going down in Iraq, TARP now revenue positive and loss projections droping fast, stimulus spending ending next summer and GDP growth higher than expected, we will see annual deficit and projections, drop like a rock over the next 3yrs.

      Remember the Democrats are the fiscal converatives. Only 14% of this nations debt has come from Democratic administrations and the last one produced a surplus. Thats right 86% of our debt came from Republican administrations.

      Economic growth is always higher under Democrats and stock markets returns higher which add to revenue and reduce debt. They are the masters of the economy and masters of capitalism.

      On bailouts: Obama did not add any new companies or industries to the bailout. All bailout campanies got their first check from Bush.

      On Stimulus spending: Regan had his own stimulus spending program and it was larger. But it mostly went to defence contractors which is one reason it was slow to work. But he boosted goveronment spending by almost 95% in the 80's. And so did Bush. It was the buildup for the Iraq war in late 02 and early 03 that finally got us to positive job growth in late 03 his 32nd month in office and spending under Bush grew by about 80%…..Clinton 28%.

      The Stimulus turned the economy from a growth rate of -6.5 to +2.2 in just 6 months and to +5.6 in just 9. A 12 point turnaround that economists will still be studying 100 yrs from now. And that Heritage will not be able to explain.

      Much the way Heritage cant explain why the economy went down when taxes were lowered in late 80's and why the economy went up in 90's with tax increases. Or when taxes at their lowest in 6 decades we saw the worst economy since the 30's last decade. Only 3 years of job growth in past 10. Best years under Regan taxes were 50% for anyone earning over 200K.

      Every move the economy has made in the last 30 years contradicts Heritage and yet they are still here and people still believe this Republican supply side stuff.

      • rich8049 says:

        I dont understand. You keep talking about the presidents. I thought it was congress that held the purse and made the budgets and spending. How about re writing your piece with who controlled the congress during the times you mention. I did not do it so i dont know the answer, but was curious. just by your long piece above i would say you deliberately left that fact out to diss on repub presidents. can you do it again with the budget folks.

      • Jonathan says:

        Gary, Obviously you are a partisan liar. There never was a budget surplus during the Clinton Years.

        Help yourself to a little truth. It may help wash out that dirty mouth.

        fake clinton surplus http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

        "Much the way Heritage cant explain why the economy went down when taxes were lowered in late 80's and why the economy went up in 90's with tax increases." I can explain that easy one, the internet bubble swelled and filled the coffers with easy money, which faded away thanks to uncontrolled Democratic spending.

        Your moronic rant says The Heritage Foundation can't explain, last I checked this was not The United States of Heritage that was responsible for explaining or record-keeping of jacshit.

    34. Jesse, Minnesota says:

      "liberals belief economic growth comes from wise investments"

      Liberals know that belief is a noun and not a verb.

    35. Q. Wm., Arkansas says:


      During Clinton's presidential tour the budget showed a surplus every year and the economy boomed into record levels. Did a flaming liberal balance the budget? Not hardly. Unlike the media, I would give credit to the conservative Congress of that time. The dollar remained strong and stable under Clinton and our markets flourished.

      But during the presidency of Bush the 2nd, each years budget was blown into historic deficits causing uncontrollable market volatility and rapid decline in the dollar's value. A true conservative would use the veto power to vanquish such deficits. Personally I'm convinced that Bush and his Skull and Bones family are self-conceited, unwitting patsies of the fascist branch of the Zionist movement.

      Dick Cheney, a former director of the CFR and CEO of Halliburton, convinced Bush into bankrupting America in order to help their occult masters, the invisible Elders of Zion, achieve the goal of eradicating Islamic power and securing Israel and their future messianic kingdom of Jerusalem.

      The Zionist program is an occult concoction of religious fanaticism and twisted genius. They plan to sacrifice America's super power status by draining our blood and credit to eradicate any and all Islamic threats to Israel.

      By virtue of their occult control over all the World's Central Banks and using Old Testament prophecies as a script, the Elders of Zion are actively weakening both the Islamic World and America in order to achieve their fanatical, messianic dream. Their New World Order will arise out of chaos. The Zionists view America as their sacrificial lamb. I say to hell with their religion!

      Obama is just another unwitting patsy surrounded by Zionist advisors like Timothy Geithner, Rahm Immanuel and many others. When Obama fields questions about our crumbling economy, he reminds me of a deer in the headlights. Like Reid and Pelosi, he obviously has no comprehension of the principles of monetary science. That explains his ignorant selection of Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary. Talk about hiring a fox to guard the henhouse; Geithner was the President of the private Federal Reserve Bank of New York which funded all of the Bush/Cheney deficits and doubled our national debt. The fact is that Geithner and his Zionist buddies made huge profits putting America further into debt. Instead of going to prison as a traitor and a tax cheat, Geithner was rewarded by Obama with a promotion to the Cabinet. I find that incredibly amazing. Now the plan is to create even more debt. And now we have the largest single year deficit in history.

      Those Elders of Zion are very clever. They have apparently pre-ordained the collapse of the dollar. They did it before to the German mark prior to World War II resulting in the economic chaos that gave rise to Hitler, another Zionist/Fascist patsy who frightened the Jews out of Europe and into Israel in accordance with the Zionist program. These are facts, not theories.

      My advise to all of you amateur investors; Swap those worthless paper promises for American Silver Eagles and learn to grow a garden. And please don't accuse me of anti-semitism. I have Jewish blood in my family and they are just as victimized by Zionism if not more.

    36. T MAN, MICHIGAN says:

      This is no suprise that the most liberal radical President of the United States has cut defense, increased the role of the Federal Gov., set into motion more reductions of free will and liberty, President Obama is a pawn of a New World Order , one world socialist Gov. – I hope all you folks enjoy your hope and change especially you liberals who think your getting what you want, ENJOY WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN. –

    37. NS, Austin says:

      Of course Obama's deficits will be larger than the previous deficits. Someone needs to explain to you people that a deficit CARRIES forward. So unless we make 11 trillion in 3 yrs that Bush spend, it will add to what Obama NEEDS to spend now to help the sinking economy.

      Where were you people when Bush was spending like a democrat? Now we're screwed.

    38. Ron, Itasca, IL. says:

      Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and

      the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic

      Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as

      well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend

      with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush

      somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009,

      though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely,

      passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack

      Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus

      spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

      And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that

      very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he

      signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's

      remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

      If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the

      last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five

      years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that,

      Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes

      Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything,

      he inherited it from himself.

      In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I

      voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since

      January 20th.

      There is no way this will be widely publicized,

      unless each of us sends it on!

      This is your chance to make a difference.

    39. Pingback: Voluntology: » Taxes, Deficits, Democrats and Obama!

    40. Jake Scott says:

      @ Gary in Phoenix, where exactly does your research come form that "86% of our debt came from Republican administrations"?

    41. Jake Scott says:

      Hey Gary in Phoenix, it's me again. You say that the last 30 years of economy has proven Heritage wrong. However, if you look at the fine print of the chart, it reads: "Sources: Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget." Are they run by Heritage as well?

    42. Kay Dawn, Texas says:

      Tell you what folks…Just go ahead and get all the republicans back into office and we'll see how everything is running is a few years. Something tells me you will all still find something to complain about. And for all you blue-collar republicans who are just scraping by, who are so hot under the collar, don't expect your rich party-cousins to throw you much of a bone. They share fewer of your ideals than you might think and are a lot more like what you call 'limousine liberals' than they would admit. Maybe you can ask one of them to lend you his 7-series when need to make that trip down to the unemployment office to collect your check, after in a completely unregulated financial / oil / medical / etc industry all your jobs are out-sourced to whatever country that can provide the most inexpensive labor or goods.

    43. Keith, Texas says:

      Kay Dawn, Texas, outsourcing is not done by Administrations of either party. It is caused by over regulation, a dis-functional income tax system and the resulting trade deficit. Companies must be able to compete in world markets and cost is a factor in there decision as to where they conduct business. Take a trip to El Paso, just over the border in Mexico you can see many major manufacturing companies that previously were in the US. Oh what a difference a few miles can make. You can only over tax, over regulate and vilify companies for so long. Then they leave.

    44. Pingback: The Unemployed Need Jobs Not Stimulus – BrakeBlog

    45. Ralph, Ann Arbor, Mi says:

      I don't really expect President Obama to do anything different than his predecessors. There is not a soul in this Country that has lived within its means in the last 30 years.

    46. Pingback: China Warns Against Finger-Pointing; Obama Points Finger Anyway; Obama’s Budget Reduction Lies | W DE WEB

    47. Pingback: China Warns Against Finger-Pointing; Obama Points Finger Anyway; Obama’s Budget Reduction Lies | theworldnet.info

    48. Pingback: Rahm Says We’re Righted, Jim Says We’re Back, but the Pictures Don’t Lie.

    49. muggleduffy, Atlanta says:

      Heritage ignores the fact that rapidly-rising interest costs — one of its “culprits” behind rising outlays — result in significant part from the tax cuts and other fiscal policies of the Bush era . The tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accounted for over $2.6 trillion of our national debt by the end of 2008 and, if continued, will add another $7 trillion in debt by 2019. In that year alone, about $450 billion of our interest bill will stem from those two policies. It is disingenuous to tar interest as a “fast-growing” spending program while ignoring which policies — including tax cuts — account for that fact.

      Heritage admits that it understates the cost of the tax cuts by omitting their impact on rising net interest costs. “On the other hand,” Heritage asserts, “the original CBO scores of tax cuts have been underestimates because they excluded all supply-side feedback effects and overestimated the GDP between 2008 and 2011, which made all revenue and tax cut projections appear larger.” That convenient justification, however, misses the boat. We know that the tax cuts led to higher borrowing and larger debt-service costs. We do not know that they led to extra economic activity (or that they would have a positive effect on economic activity if made permanent). In fact, analyses of so-called “dynamic scoring” of tax cuts have found that: 1) such estimates generally come close to the standard estimates;[11] 2) stimulative effects may appear strong in the short run but tend to dissipate over longer horizons; and 3) most importantly, as both CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation have concluded, large tax cuts financed by borrowing can harm the economy over the long term rather than help it. [12] In short, there is no reason to ignore the enormous debt overhang that the Bush tax cuts caused and plenty of reason to be skeptical of their economic benefits. Including the interest costs, the Bush-era tax cuts account for over $700 billion — or nearly 55 percent — of the deficit projected for 2019 under current policies.

    50. Robert, Atlanta says:

      Do you have a graph comparing the deficit under Clinton to the one Bush created?

    51. Rich, St Louis says:

      a movement's got to get organized to expel obama from office – even he knows he's a one-term president, but he can do a lot more damage in the next 2 and half yrs

    52. Ken says:

      The White House is not finalizing a budget before the election. Why? Because they don't want you to know how badly your are going to get taxed amongst other things. This admins/congress' spending is just absurd. I cannot spend like this in my private life. There should be a Federal Constitutional requirement that a Budget be balanced plain and simple. And that that budget must be passed before a set date, period.

      I cannot borrow a nickel as a small business. In fact, its the opposite. My credit card company lowers my limits anytime I actually make a large payment. I pay to bring it down and re-use the credit. They deny it. I go for six months and try it again forgetting what Bas_ards they are and then they do it again. So effectively that cuts my cash by 2X. It makes it 2X harder to manage things each time.

      God forbid I try to get another card as a business owner.

      The Congress needs to be replaced with SOUND Fiscal monetary policies not spend, F;in spend, and spend. It's ludicrous and destroying all businesses except big ones I guess. They can get BILLIONS, not repay it, then get more after BK. F YOU OBAMA AND YOUR CRAP POLICY.

    53. Rob, Columbus says:

      Just so you remember, the bailout was President Bush's harebrained scheme………

    54. Pingback: UCCRC: UCRCC News Update | Union County Republican Central Committee

    55. Blair, Edmonton says:

      @NS (Austin) – Um, no… Deficits are the one-year budgetary shortfall. DEBTS carry forward.

      Bush did a lot of things wrong, but for the critics out there who deride him for turning a ~100B surplus into a ~450M in 8 years, what's the response to the Democratic congress who took a ~150B deficit and turned it into almost $1.5T in two years? What was the deficit that the Republicans inherited in 1994 (Clinton's second year in office) vs what they left the Democrats with 12 years later?

      I really don't know the answer to this question, so if any knows where I can find this information I'd like to know… this article has a chart showing deficits by President. Is there a similar chart out there that deficits by control of the House (Republican, Democratic, or split)?

    56. Blair, Edmonton says:

      My apologies… I meant 1996 for Clinton's second year of office. My mistake.

    57. Pingback: Home – The Daily Bail | The Ruthless Truth blog

    58. Pingback: White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit - NotInKokomo.Com

    59. Pingback: Putting An End To The Theft From Future Generations | novatownhall blog

    60. Jeff, Orlando says:

      Keep in mind also that 2008 would have been the first budget the democrats had control of after they took over of the congress and the senate. I know Bush was involved also but it skyrocketed after the Democrats took control.

    61. Richard Bolin Nashvi says:

      I will not wait 100 years to cry out for my FREEDOM damn them all for selling me and mine into slavery>Identured servatued= slavery! 40 cents of every dollar i send to washington leaves our nation.I QUIT! i am on strike in nashville tn living homeless and getting everyone i can to do the same.Join the fight for freedom at wfawparty.com

    62. Carl Fisher says:

      First of all the debt is only 14 percent Democratic really Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid….practically every federal entitlement program and only 14 percent where did you actually get this from the Center for American Progress. Okay time for a reality check Social Security was never in a lock box it was used as an offset this is the C.B.O projection in actuality. They also are required to publish deficits net of Social Security surplus but that money is certainly not being held onto and saved please don't be so naive. Also, no war (Reagan peace dividend) resulted in military scale backs and lowered interest rates complimented with lagged benefits (e.g. research takes time) from sound fiscal conditions in the 80's spurred the growth in the tech sector in the 90's producing more employees meaning more TAX REVENUE meaning more potential offsets. Find one hole in this argument.

    63. Kevin Leeds, Millers says:

      I would like to see a chart showing annual deficits going back to the 70's and which party controlled the house and senate. I believe it would be illustrative of the core differences between the parties

    64. Allentown, PA says:

      Many commentators here are misinformed on who's fault the debt is. The President doesn't write any spending bills, the congress does! The President can request and work with those in congress to get his desired legislation to pass but ultimately congress has the power over the purse. Congress can even override a veto by the President. To those claims that Reagan tripled the debt, well congress is actually the one who tripled the debt, research who had control of congress. Those who claim that Clinton created a budget surplus, research who had control of congress, the name Gingrich might give you a hint. Also if I remember correctly Obama was a senator before he became President, the senate is part of the congress, and they write the spending bills. So even if you want to blame Bush, which I don't disagree with, you have to blame congress also and Obama since he was part of that congress. Also I remember that Obama said during the 2008 campaign that Congress used "His" ideas for the TARP bill. You can watch that comment on YouTube. Bush increase the debt by $4.7 trillion in 8 years, Obama is on pace to smash that record. On another hand, the hated Bush's tax cuts brought in record revenue, I know liberal sites claim thats a false statement but you can read the actual numbers at usgovernmentrevenue.com, so tax cuts weren't the problem it was spending. But all this talk about $5 – $10 – $13 trillion deficits is nothing, the real deficit including unfunded obligations is estimated at anywhere from $40-70 trillion dollars which exceeds the total net worth of all assets in America.

      Here's my solution

      1. Cut the federal income tax all together, our government doesn't really need the income tax, you can replace it with a consumption tax if you still want the riches money. This will leave us with more money in our pockets thereby increasing our tertiary spending which helps our economy.

      2. Cut the capital gains tax to a flat 5% permanently. This will bring back investors to America.

      3. Cut the Corporate tax rate to a universal 10%. This will help rid us of all kinds of corruption in Washington. No more bills for any parties corporate interests, no more favors or bailouts. And no more lobbyists.

      4. Cut federal jobs across the board to a basic minimum, defund most of the ABC bureaucracies and close them for good.

      5. Sunset social security and open the door for a more productive retirement investment in the private sector. This would keep our obligation to those retired and those close to retirement but it will also allow our future generations to invest in their own retirement in a way that best works for them.

      There you have it, a more productive United States of America.

    65. Pingback: Sen. Bennet collects school supplies while helping crush kids with debt

    66. Philo says:

      Looking at the chart and considering the size of the national debt now(8-26-10),

      I don't understand why the Bush years don't reflect the actual amount of the debt today.

      It seems as if we went from 3 trilllion to the 11 tillion without having accurate deficits. Why is there this disparity?

    67. Ann says:

      Obama was essentially correct when he said he inherited a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion. Though the budget deficit for 2008 was a then-record $458.6 billion, the CBO issued a projection in January 2009, just days before Obama took office that the budget deficit would reach $1.2 trillion that year, before the cost of any new stimulus plan or other legislation was taken into account.

      If you compare the 2010 and the 2011 budget graphs, the 2011 graph looks a lot better.

    68. t says:

      Don't forgot

      Congress passes the budget a presidents approves


      Democratic Congress 1960..1995 ~4T to debt

      Republican Congress 1996..2007 ~1.2T to debt .1T/Year

      Democratic Congress 2008..2010 ~3T in just three years

      Note when congress is elected in 2006, they are in office in 2007, but

      they don't control the budget until 2008.

      Looks like a Democratic Congress is death to our system,

      Current level are way above and beyond what

      In Obama case he added 800B to the budget in Jan/2009 as a democratic party special favors. Normally parties don't make major changes to an already passed budget.

    69. Stephen, Oregon says:

      For a somewhat more informative, and definitely more F&B view, check out the history of our debt here:


      - US has 3rd lowest debt of G8 nations currently

      - Debt as equated to the "Total Debt owned by the Public" was ~80% in 1950, and is ~70% in projections for the next 3 years.

      - Gross debt as percentage of GDP shows us at 100% right now, along with most western economies

      - Most worryingly, all of Asia is reported at having their Gross Debt figure at ~40%.

      The most alarming trend is not the cause of the current debt (increase in debt trend started with Reagan, actually, and was accelerated by Bushes and now, also, Obama) – rather, it's that we as a country have given away our means of production to Asia.

      The best thing that all the naysayers, tea-baggers and Heritage wonks could do would be to stop berating our current president and focus on buying American. Everyone shops every week, and continually brings home Chinese crap – designed in US perhaps, made in China, and profiting US businesses that are allowed to send their goods production overseas. We may not be able to pass laws to "buy american" but we sure can start doing so of our own volition.

      Look at the bottom line – if you buy cheap goods every year made elsewhere, instead of purchasing items made here, you are supporting the downfall of our economy by reducing jobs here. It has less to do with immigrants taking them than ourselves giving them away because we shop at Walmart. Next time you are there – I challenge you to find a US made hammer or kitchen utility. If you find it, it will only be after spending a long time looking. I found the exact same selection of Asian made goods in the UK – another victim of short-sighted, business boards of directors who found it expeditious to export jobs while importing profit.

    70. Pingback: The dumbing of America.. - TDR Roundtable

    71. Susan - California says:

      I'm confused. I recheck everything these days. And your chart is either confusing or completely incorrect. The deficit in 2008 it was $10,024,724,896,912.49, …..in 2007-$9,007,653,372,262.48, ….. in 2006-$8,506,973,899,215.23, …..in 2005-$7,932,709,661,723.50.

      In 2000 the US outstanding debt was $5,674,178,209,886.86.

      I am in marketing and understand how figures can be manipulated.

      But this is wrong and basically unethical. Incorrect information does more damage to our country than the deficit!

      From a research fanatic, do your homework.

    72. Pingback: Rolling national debt onto credit card earns 13 trillion rewards points

    73. leo gerweck says:

      The largest deficit in history (constant dollars) occured in 2009. Budget and TARP was developed by Bush, signed by Bush and enacted in 2008 (to Sept 30, 2009)- so let's be honest about it – when you publish your charts. Also note that 75% of all accumulated debt (again constant dollars) since WWII occured under Repbulican Administrations – I know you're man enough to note this if you were aware of it – and I'm sure you will check it out. Also note when People screamed at FDR to stop spending in '38, uneumployment, etc shot up, the economy began to falter. The massive deficit spending during WWII finally finished pulling us out of the Great Depression (following 12 solid years of Republican Administrations – as pretains to the present collapse, which Obama has stabilized). Be honest, it's important for the country's sake.

    74. Scott, North Potomac says:

      It would help if most people on this thread understood the difference between the National Debt and Annual/Projected Deficits. This chart shows actual and projected deficits, not the total National Debt.

      Here is an example of the difference: suppose you want to spend more money this month than you bring home in income. This situation is called a "budget deficit". So you borrow (ie; use your credit card). The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. If not paid off immediately (you are actually given a grace period) you have to pay interest on your debt.

      If next month you don't have enough money to cover your spending (another deficit), you must borrow some more, and you'll still have to pay the interest on the loan.

      If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don't have any money left over for anything else.

      This situation is known as BANKRUPTCY, something America is headed for.

      Thus the monthly amounts in the example above are akin to our yearly deficits, and the sum of those annual deficits are our National Debt.

      America pays interest on that huge debt (now over $250 billion every year) and now the Treasury is having trouble finding lenders! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518438.stm)

      Here is a graph depicting the budget process too: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/)

    75. Frank Augustine says:

      When Obama took office, the 2009 budget had pretty much been set by Bush. So you are comparing future Obama deficits (with the exception of 2010) to past actual deficits. And Obama's 2010 deficit was only slightly higher than Bush's 2009 deficit. So its not quite a fair comparison.

      If Republicans dominate the 2010 election, and Obama decides to work with them as Clinton did in the 1990s, and the health care bill is repealed, it could be turned around. Unlikely, but possible.

      I don't like Obama; he was inexperienced and naive when he took office as well as opposing traditional values, and he's only getting worse. But the 2009 deficit, caused I think mainly by the TARP bill, was Bush's. And I think that bill was as nearly as bad as the stimulus bill by Obama in as much as it rewarded bad business practices.

    76. Pingback: Peoples Press Collective | Colorado Politics | MIchael Bennet collects school supplies while helping crush kids with debt :

    77. ciao says:

      Shouldn't we talk about the incredible drop caused by the GOP in 09? Obama's projected budgets are all a result of that.

      The fact that it lessens over the next 5 years is amazing, and assuming that your prediction will have any meaning about 6+ years is also just childish. We all know how fast the world is changing. Whatever the projection for 2016 and beyond is just make believe. The world, the country, and the changing elections will see to that. Is one of the reason the debt begins to grow again due to more Bush era legislation coming to fruition? I am sure of it.

    78. bgbgll says:

      You forget to mention the 1.3 trillion deficit Bush left Obama as he exited and kept war expenses, for instance well hidden. . When he ended his term, he left a $1.3 trillion deficit and a projected 10-year shortfall of $8 trillion.

    79. Gary Davis, Indianap says:

      Jim Oshust's comments are interesting. Who among us would refuse the opportunity to attend Harvard if we had the chance? Does coming from a modest multi-racial background make one an "elitist" as Jim claims Obama is? There is no evidence that Obama favors non-Caucasians over Caucasians. If anything, his being from a multi-racial heritage may make him more understanding of all sides of any racial debate.

      When we speak of "the economy", let us focus on Middle America. What possible other presidential candidate on the horizon has a better grasp of the issues facing average Americans–and not just large corporations–than Obama?

    80. Robert Gentz, Hering says:

      Check out national debt by US Presidential terms. Can go back to 1778.

      Review of CBO, etc data reveals fron 1978 thru 2005:

      Party Federal Spending Federal Debt Gross Domestic Product

      Democrat +9.9% +4.2% +12.6%

      Republican +12.1% +36.4% +10.7%

      Since 2001, even with record low inflation, US federal spending increased by a massive 28.8% with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7%, nearly twice the growth in GDP resulting in the largest budget deficits in US history.

      By any measure, there was an explosion in government spending in both the defense and non-defense categories. With two unfunded wars, defense spending increased 61% in constant 2000 dollars. But "big government" domestic expenditures also got a lot bigger during the Bush administration. Socialist/welfare state spending increased by 32% in 2000 dollars from what it was at the end of the Clinton administration. Medical care up 54%. Food and Nutrition Assistance up 43%. Social Security payments up 19%. Public Assistance up 17%. Housing assistance up 12%. Federal Student Loans and related programs up 129%.

      George W. Bush, with the same Republican Congress Clinton had, was the first US President since John Quincy Adams to not veto a single bill during his first term and not until the Democrats took control of Congress did he use the veto 44 times.

      From the massive increases in farm subsidies, defense and education, the Republicans have clearly demonstrated that "limited government" is not in their vocabulary and from their worn out rhetoric, they have no plans to deal with the debt other than to steal Social Security and starve Medicare, both self-funded programs that do not belong to Ceasar.

      Clearly, Republicans are the undisputed champions of deficit funded prosperity

    81. Pingback: The stark reality of our national debt | Radio Vice Online

    82. Pingback: Where are the hard questions for Congresswoman Schwartz? « NOT Allyson Schwartz

    83. L. E. Stevenson, Ric says:

      Deficits are caused by Congress and not the President.

    84. Blucorsair, Ohio says:

      Obama is the most expensive president in world history after only 18 months! I now know why the TEA Party was created and why they're doing so well. Watching James Carvill and the Democrats get called out on the carpet for accusing Bush of spendind $3 triilion on the Iraq war was comical. The (CBO) Congessional Budget Office final tabulations for the Iraq war including expenditures to the end of 2010 was $709 billion! A $2.3 trillion lie like that changes a few things. Obamas first priority should have been the economy and not a health care bill that nobody wants! …(Eight years of Bush is still cheaper than eighteen months of Owebama)

    85. B J Egeli says:

      Your chart of projected debt relies on the Bush Tax Cuts being continued and is therefore very suspect. If the "wealthy" have to pay the old tax rate, then the debt will be nowhere near your projection, and if a proper level of domestic projects are started in time, then there may be no debt.

    86. Will Davenport, Geor says:

      Let us all remember that we cannot just take historical figures for republicans and democrats debts at face value. The platforms of republicans, whigs, independants, and democrats have shifted many times throughout history. You cannot just assign blame because of the label. This would require a lot of research that many are not willing to do. I am a republican because in general I agree with the platform of the republican. I do not agree with everything because I am not blind, but I have to vote for who I think will do a better job. For example, I voted for Perot because I believed that we needed someone with business sense at least near the head of our country in order to get a handle on the actual mechanics of how to reduce the debt. I thought that a successful busnessman could do that.

      I am all for reducing the number of illegal immigrants in our country. They are a drain on our assets with little to no influx back into our economy. I am all for someone coming to our country legally and becoming a productive member of the workforce. We have grown and become enriched in that manner throughout history.

      I am concerned about the debt and the deficit. The debt is at a certain amount and the deficit is by how much that amount grows every year. It is starting to spiral out of control. Why do we not cash in on the debts that are owed to us by other countries over the years. Oh yeah, that is because past administrations (both parties) forgave those debts. Well today no other country is going to forgive our debt. We have to take control of it.

      If I were the man (president), the first thing I would do is go through the budget line by line, every item would need to be justified. In the end I would probably cross off every amount for pickle research, customer satisfaction research, grants for evaluating this and that. How many millions do we waste on stupidity because the congressman are lining the pockets of those that elected them. I would then publish the debt in as plain of a language I could and make it available for every american to see exactly what I wanted to spend or cut alongside the proposed budget from congress so that every person could be educated on what efforts were being made to reduce spending. Use the pressure from the people that put them in office to force congress to step up to the plate and put the country back on track.

      I am extremely concerned about social security. I do not believe that it will be around when I reach that magic retirement age. I am here to say that I would almost prefer that the government just give me every dime that I put into it and keep all the interest they have gotten so far. I just want what I have contributed over the last twenty years, which by the way is right about $172,000. They can keep all of the rest. I will control my money and plan for my retirement. But that will never happen. They will just keep my money and I will keep paying into the kitty and in the end I will see only a fraction of it, if any at all. I believe that it should be illegal for the government to loan any money from the social security coffer to any other government agency. It should be illegal for that money to have any other purpose than exactly what is was created for. To provide for a retirement income for those that contributed to it.

      I am also in favor of a flat tax. Fund government programs and defense on a tax on what we consume not what we make. In the end it will provide the same amount but will require much less red tape to take care of and keep track of. I know a lot of IRS bean counters that would be unhappy about this because they would no longer have a job but such are the breaks. This would also eliminate people getting more back in tax returns than what they payed in. I am tired of getting less because of my tax bracket because my tax dollars are distributed to others. If you really wanted then you could have a yearly tax refund for anyone that made below some level of income but they could never recoup more than what they spent. All of the rest of us would just pay the flat amount on what we spent and leave it at that.

      We are becoming a lazy society and an uppity one. we believe that we must make more than our parents and that our government needs to ensure that we do. well here is the reality. The poulation is growing and the resources are dwindling. In reverse we have to accept the fact that we have to do more with less and less. We have to conserve and plan and hedge for the future for what it may be. The constitution allows for the government to tax me but not to rob me. The constitution tasks our government with defending me and my rights not to disregard them and trounce on them. Consider that our defense is manned by volunteers. My government needs to consider that the declaration of independance outlines that the power lies with the people. If the people are ignored or if the government continues to disregard the will of the people then it can and will be overthrown and a new one put into place. We do that with our vote vice our rifles these days thank goodness. But on the reverse side we as a people need to understand that our government is and should be limited. We have to express our desires to our represenatives and if they do not do what we want then vote them out at the next election. We need to inform ourselves and take accountability for the state of our union. The government is our shield that protects us and the constitution is our sword whereby we get what we want. Too long we have ignored our responsibilities and now we are paying the price. If we do not step up then that price will only get higher.

    87. Bob Boogie says:

      People get confused about the National Debt and budget deficits. The National Debt has gone up under every administration since it started. Budget deficits are higher spending than the projected budget. There are things that can happen out of your control that can cause you to spend more than you plan to. You can budget to only spend $40 next week and then have a flat tire and end up having to spend much more. You would be causing a budget deficit.

      Under Clinton for example, during a time of peace, we had budget surpluses, which means they spent less than they projected to spend. National debt still went up.

      Under Bush, the United States was attacked and Putin gave intelligence to Bush that Sadam was inspired by that attack. Therefore you have two emergencies that you could not have planned for in your budget.

    88. steve says:

      Please consider the following question and hypothetical.

      Assume the Bush administration had remained in office in January of 2009. What would conservatives have proposed to prevent unemployment from hitting 9.5% just 6 months later? Could they have? Could anyone have at that point?

      And –

      What would've happened if, in January, 2009, we cut spending on everything other than the military?

    89. Pingback: The Political Maturity Of A Democrat, Sipping Slurpees & Driving Cars Off Cliffs — ExposeTheMedia.com

    90. Marconi, Melbourne says:

      Reagan's deficits exceeded everything before him. In fact the 780 billion to 2.1 trillion is the worst ever increase in the national debt.

      Bush's did the same, and was the second worst.

      So I suppose it is fair to blame it all on Obama, and for good measure show a graph that extends a few years past the longest possible tenure for him.

      We get it, he is black skinned

    91. john says:

      Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion.

      Health care reform costs $1 trillion.

      Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

      President Obama bailed out the banks.

      Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.

    92. Tomzax Northampton, says:

      Maybe you should run that chart back a few years. Maybe it would be helpful to see what George jr. did to the surplus he inherited; what he did to revenues with his massive tax cuts for those who need them least; what he did to spending with an unpaid for, unnecessary war in Iraq; etc. The statistics are clear, those without jobs, the poor, the rich, the middle, the economy, the country has done far better under Democratic regimes than Republican for the past 80 years. Why so-called rational financial types cannot look at the facts and arrive at this conclusion is a mystery. George was one of the few presidents to leave office with the stock market averages lower than he started, 8 years earlier. The only other one was also Republican. I have yet to see an analysis that shows Republican results that compare favorably to Democratic results.

    93. John says:


      "Obama says the Bush tax cuts were not “paid for”. In reality tax cuts don’t have to be “paid for”. They bring additional revenue to the government. Tax cuts pay for government spending."

      -Sometime people speak and it doesn't matter how CONTRADICTING to the reality. Maybe YOU can provide us with reality of Bush tax cut. IF that bring in paid for government spending then why OUR government spending increase ?? And for the cold reality, you have NO freaking money if counting the debt into the equation. It never stop to amaze me the logic or lack there of the Heritage Foundation. You point to your own posts to support your own case. It's just like Fixnews. And for the Republicans to call fiscal conservationism is a joke. Just look at the Reagan & Bush presidency national debt.

      Look at historical table. or here http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/hist.html or here http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/his

      Reagan 1982 1,137,315 to 1989 2,867,800, what is the percentage there?

      As percentage of GDP 35.3 to 53.1.

      President Bush

      2002 – 6,198,401 to 11,875,851 or by GDP 58.8 TO 83.4


      As for reduce the debt, I proposed cutting Congress benefits. Let them pay for their own healthcare that are being paid by the government, especially the Republicans since they always say government healthcare is bad but they NEVER get off it. Cut farm subsidies, cut government subsidies, cut government coverage for healthcare, cut defense spending to the same level as the Chinese, Russia,

    94. John says:


      "Jerry, Vancouver, WA on February 5th, 2010 at 12:24pm said:

      Interesting that the deficits rise significantly when the Democrats took

      control of our nation’s checkbook in Jan 2007. The only time we had a surplus

      was with a Republican Congress in charge. Time to vote out the Tax and

      Spend Democrats."

      You DO know that president Bush had VETO power right? Does he know how to use it? Did the Democrats physically pin pres. Bush down and make him sign it? Do you know to pull up the vote count to see what the Republicans vote on those spending? Do you know how to read the national debt chart?

    95. John says:


      Blucorsair, Ohio on September 28th, 2010 at 2:33am said:

      Obama is the most expensive president in world history after only 18 months! I now know why the TEA Party was created and why they’re doing so well. Watching James Carvill and the Democrats get called out on the carpet for accusing Bush of spendind $3 triilion on the Iraq war was comical. The (CBO) Congessional Budget Office final tabulations for the Iraq war including expenditures to the end of 2010 was $709 billion!"

      Tea Party ?? Did they register themselves as a separate party or they are STILL Republicans calling themselves Tea Party?

      So let me see if I get this right, you'd rather spend upward of $400 BILLIONS for Iraq with no REAL Evidences of WMD because you love the Muslims but wouldnt' spend that money at home in the US??

      U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs

      So far, Congress has given Bush $604 billion for the two wars, with about $412 billion spent in Iraq, according to CBO, which is Congress' in-house budget analyst. In Iraq alone, the United States is spending about $11 billion a month, with costs escalating.

    96. John says:

      I am curious with the heritage website playing with the date of the post. It changes between Feb 5th, 2010 and Nov 2010.. If you couldn't be honest about when people voice their opinion then what are you good for?

      "Will Davenport, Georgia on February 5th, 2010 at 12:24pm said:

      Let us all remember that we cannot just take historical figures for republicans and democrats debts at face value. The platforms of republicans, whigs, independants, and democrats have shifted many times throughout history. You cannot just assign blame because of the label. This would require a lot of research that many are not willing to do. I am a republican because in general I agree with the platform of the republican."

      So what you are saying is that it's all right for the Republicans to PRETEND like fiscal conservatives but spending like crazy?? BTW, platform is nothing without the action!!! After all it's lips service.

      Reagan, Bush run up the deficits more than many Democrats. Dont' hear the Heritage with their esteem UNBIASED complain *chuckle*

      • Conn Carroll Conn Carroll says:

        I have no idea what you are talking about. The date on this post has always been February 2010. If at anytime you visited the site and it said November then that was probably a temporary software glitch. We have never edited the date on this post ever.

    97. John says:

      Conn Carroll,


      "Conn Carroll on February 5th, 2010 at 12:24pm said:


      I have no idea what you are talking about. The date on this post has always been February 2010. If at anytime you visited the site and it said November then that was probably a temporary software glitch. We have never edited the date on this post ever."

      What I mean is the date of the replies. On my system which is Nov 16, it show your reply back in Feb 5th. You sure didn't post this reply back in Feb 5th.

      It is likely a software glitch but since you guys know about it now, please fix it.

    98. John says:

      "steve on October 17th, 2010 at 11:46pm said:

      Please consider the following question and hypothetical.

      Assume the Bush administration had remained in office in January of 2009. What would conservatives have proposed to prevent unemployment from hitting 9.5% just 6 months later? Could they have? Could anyone have at that point?

      And –

      What would’ve happened if, in January, 2009, we cut spending on everything other than the military?"

      Or you can go back and ask the conservatives of the crash of 20001. The stock market was tanking for years and didn't bottom out until 2003. That hasn't take into consideration of unemployment numbers. You can ask them "Is it Bush's fault?" I remember asking many of them and the answer was that it's not, the president can't control the economy. It's the cycle. But as the economy pick back up, they contribute to pres. Bush.

      As for the military spending, I am wondering with our nation spending hundreds of billions and can't win a bunch of donkey weapon in Iraq for years, what does that tell you?

      The majority of us agree that the banks cause this crisis, I haven't seen ANY bills by the Republicans to curtail the banks!!! They keep saying they need more times. 3 years in, almost 4 years, they have NO bills. And remember Paulson, a Republican, walk in with 3 pieces of papers asking for 700 BILLIONS. Did the Heritage oppose?

    99. Pingback: Monetary Insanity | The Scott Daily Post

    100. Charlie, San Francis says:

      When Reagan took office in 1980, the National Debt stood at about $1 trillion. Here's what happened over the next 18 years:

      1980-88– Reagan total debt increase 3 trillion [300% -- 40% per year]

      1988-92– Bush 1 total debt increase 2 trillion [200%] — 50% per year]

      1992-2000– Clinton total debt increase 1.5 trillion — [150% -- 20% per year]

      2000-08– Bush 2 — total debt increase 4 trillion [400% -- 50% per year]

      When Clinton left office the Federal Budget was in surplus and Greenspan and others were worried that future budget surpluses would

      result in paying off the National Debt too fast. Then came the Bush 2 tax cuts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were paid for with borrowed money, and finally Bush's Great Recession that devastated tax revenues while necessitating huge spending increases to stabilize the banking industry and to stimulate the economy to prevent the country slipping into another Great Depression. Furthermore, interest that must be paid on the additional $10 trillion of debt accumulated mostly during Republican administrations pre-Obama made it increasingly difficult to achieve a balanced budget.

      Recent and projected budget deficits could add another $10 trillion of Federal Debt by 2020 unless some serious deficit reduction is accomplished. With likely increases in interest rates, by 2020 we may be paying $1 trillion in interest on the Federal Debt.

      On the other hand, had the Federal Budget surpluses that were

      achieved and were projected at the end of the Clinton administration been realized, we might have by now reduced the Federal Debt back down to $1 trillion or less. Then we probably could be maintaining a balanced budget now and into the indefinite future. The end of the Clinton administration may well have been a tipping point, and Bush 2

      tipped us in precisely the wrong direction. We may now be permanently

      screwed in an economic sense.

    101. Jake says:

      It never ceases to amaze me at how poorly informed the average conservative is compared to the average democrat.

      Maybe its because the only reason to even be conservative is to not only take advantage of, but to defend to the death one's ties to The Church, Wall St, Insurance, Big Oil, Big Pharma, or some Energy Co.

    102. Pingback: Top Ten Foundry Posts of 2010 | The Conservative Papers

    103. Pingback: Pelosi now more delusional than ever | Liberty Scout

    104. David, China says:

      I'm confused about something –

      You say 'the chart above…', but the chart above doesn't compare anything…I think you're referring to the link above that paragraph which takes us to a 'table' that gets closer (Obama's Budget…)…

      But even so, last year's to this year's difference (-7107, to -9086) gives us -1,979, not 2,500 (2.5trillion in 2020…) as you state…and the 'chart above', that is most visible, shows a total deficit of ~1.25T; hard to understand how that is 2.5T 'more' than the deficit would be otherwise…unless the projections were that we would have a 1.25T surplus?

      Where are you getting the 2.5T number? Please clarify.

      If it's a matter of both the 'chart' (this page) and the 'table' (link) being annual deficits, then what's missing is the total…i.e., what's the total cumulative deficit/debt? And what percent of the total economy? It would be helpful to see the chart for deficits going back to Clinton (surpluses, right?), and Bush I, and Regan…a little more history would help.


    105. Scott , Los Angeles says:

      This chart is meaningless propaganda… Shame on "The Heritage Foundation."

    106. Pingback: Behold Obama’s mighty 775 million budget cut! | RedState

    107. Pingback: Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2011 DMN

    108. Allen Wilson says:

      We had a financial meltdown. It takes a lot less effort to walk a level path than having to dig ourselves out of a hole created by wrong headed leaders. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan admited to congress that his lifelong theories of derregulation were proved wrong by the need for bailouts of our biggest banks and insurance company at the end of G Bush's terms in office. See this in person in the last 10 minutes of a Frontline special "The Warning". The working class, with some 7 to 10 percent of the nation's wealth cannot be expected to roll over and play dead after layoffs and being thrown out into the street without medical insurance. The Financial Sector is responsible for the problem, and of course wants to blame deadbeat homebuyers. I hope they do not get away with the scam.

    109. Alex, Boston says:

      Debt when Bush left office… $10 Trillion (and change).

      Current debt under obama… $14 Trillion (and "change").

      Bush's increase = about 5 trillion in 8 years…

      Obama's increase = about 4 trillion in 2 years…

      Why does everyone feel the need to make excuses for one side or the other? The fact is, the debt has increased by $4 trillion under Obama… in two years! Bush is no angel either, but for the love of God I wish people would see the numbers for what they ARE instead of what they're FOR.

      If you gave your child $50 and told him to make it last for the week, would you give him more if he spent it in a day?

    110. Louis, new jersey says:

      I may not know much of what the world is going on cause you know I'm only 13. But as i took onto the years of my teen, which i just turn 15 days ago, the curiosity of politics and how the work. As far as I'm concern I'm seeing the economy being push down upon weights of debt and unemployment. For one thing is that i don't see the point of the illegal immigrants escaping over here anymore with all the problems we have and we think they should know better but they don't. There are so many problems to deal with already and now them! We can't blame anyone for the problem we're in because we you guys voted the people into office. Congress are made up of OUR people and president are chosen among OUR people. Its like fighting amongst our self when we blame a president for the mess we're in when its like blame a stranger on the streets. George w. bush did what he thought was best for our country,even if we thought it was a stupid idea that he agreed upon i think he did it for a reason. Everybody is too much in something, well in the situation with Iraq i think he was just being too goodie goodie, i not saying we shouldn't have but if we can't run properly why give . We could give every single one of our pennies but what would that solve, we would be in debt. Even though it seemed we are giving them our money (Iraq) we're probably giving them some other countries' money that we can't pay back. After 911 God forbid anything like that ever happens again we use a lot into security measures in the united states but has that worked, no, where did we ever go wrong. We put so much into it yet so little came out, Is it our people or the equipment?There are too many lazy people out there, Not saying I'm not one ( cause i am). There are a lot of hard workers out the that make cash fair and legal yet other people lie and deceive others. Now Obama is spending the hard earn money on something unreasonable things. There are people out there that should be listen to but there are millions of us out there and do you think every turn in life is gonna go your way. We can't listen to every single one of them. The congress made some very bad decisions and trust me I'm not siding with them but they are the same as us, we are the same blood and born on the same ground. We voted them into office and i think its not fair for us to blame someone for we can not handle our country. Choose wisely next time instead of blaming people. Read all of the choices then if you can't choose don't choose. Statistics may tell us right from wrong but it doesn't matter unless we use that information. Do you let a simple chart tell you how hard you work, No! But there is a define line between lazy and being strenuous. People out there work sweat and tears over some money just to get by everyday and night and doesn't want to deal with this political stuff. I can't say i know about work but i do what ever i can to help out with my family restaurant everyday. I work side by side with them(Its a family own), where ever possible, or a least most when I'm not dealing with homework. Its very aggravating to come home every day to hear about the things that gone wrong in the country and still manage your life. The people we elect into office shouldn't be someone that has just went to school and ace test on it but should be someone that has worked sweat and gore with people of the people their representing. To know what your people most want for them. To know that someone that you can count on and know whats best."When we lose trust in the government, nothing gets done"- i read somewhere. I think this quote really tells us of how we had lost connections of where our governments makes choices and really blame them but can we really? We need to be more interactive in the government so we can't blame the government for what went wrong because there will be no error. we will take control, But that is big and people out there wants to lead simple life when people could be doing the tings in life that makes them happy. I don't care if you smoke drugs but if your become a bad influence of people it becomes a problem. The main question is where do we get these crack or meths, we get it from our own backyards, most of us think they sneak it over the border but more of it is being grown here. Why do we start, its because of the situation we're in. Pier pressure doesn't matter as long as if they never started. Tell me, if a person never started gum would they have suggested it to a friend, exactly. We have to kill all the plants first and stop wasting so much on teaching our kids these things and they will be forgotten. The government has to step up and we have to step in. Nothing more is that simple. So why don't we? Theres no better time then now.

    111. Pingback: Conservative News from Conservative Bloggers » Blog Archive » Behold Obama’s mighty $775 million budget cut!

    112. Pingback: Michele Bachmann Tax Day rally draws small crowd - Expedite Trucking Forums

    113. Dan Buckles, Calif. says:

      The interest on the debt is on 6% of the budget. As the economy gets better, unless you are Republican, more tax revenues will be taken in and the debt will come down. It's all negative when Democrats are in office and when Republicans are in office it's deficits don't matter. You can play games with reducing the deficit, taxes, and regulations, but until we get our trade deficit under control we will continue to have more problems.

    114. Pingback: Political Thread - Page 1061 - Fires of Heaven Guild Message Board

    115. Pingback: Democrat’s Bewildering Energy Policies Will Shove America into a Depression

    116. Pingback: Am I losing my mind or am I just stressed? - Meditation Techniques for Beginners | Meditation Techniques for Beginners

    117. Ronny Reagan says:

      The solution to this crisis is quite simple actually: everyone just needs to break out their bongs and get to work duhh.

    118. James43147 says:

      Just decreasing the deficit has no effect on eliminating the national debt. To pay off the national debt we would have to run a surplus for many years, or balance our budget until the gdp grew to the point that a 13 trillion dollar debt was much less of a percentage of the gdp. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would go a long way toward making a dent in the deficit, though to balance the budget we would have to have an altruistic moment from our politicians which will never happen, they continue to put their friends interests before those of the country.

    119. Guest says:

      You do realize when you post material written the way it is posted here, it is difficult to "belief" you know what you are writing about. Specifically, "This is statement goes to the core of the fundamental difference between leftists and conservatives in this country: liberals belief economic growth comes from wise investments by government experts; conservatives believe …"
      What do you mean by,"This is statement…"?
      Also, if it is "believe" for the conservatives, why is it "belief" for the liberals? "… liberals belief economic growth…" vs " conservatives believe …"

    120. PruufReader says:

      I'm not reading all the comments to see if this has been mentioned, as the error still exists. The chart has the year '10 where it should have '19. Fix it please.

    121. Proacman says:

      Two things are obvious from the graph above. One, that neither the Republicans nor Democrats have any answers to the budget problem. And two, Clinton wasn't such a bad President after all, was he?

    122. Zee says:

      I believe all you republicans are missing a huge point. George W. Bush LIED to start two wars. Obama is trying to fix an economy ruined by a MORON!

    123. Pingback: How much debt did GWB add? the truth - Page 12 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

    124. Meech Lynn says:

      You guys are failing to notice the jump from 2008 to 2009 because….?

    125. Josh says:

      eisenhower was the last president to run a budget surplus ever. He was a Republican and the united states had an export surplus note that our federal debt increases exponentially from the early 60's when we wereimporting more thant we exported and had a democrat in power until now. Republicans and Democrats are both at fault and any one who talks about lowering the defecit is an idiot because the it is the debt already acrued that needs fixed.

    126. Sam says:

      you hypocrites forgot to include the $850 million given to the financial institutions in 2008

    127. Haber says:

      thank yo for sharing

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.