I'm having trouble reading the graph ~ are the numbers supposedly cumulative or stand alone? ~ that in itself makes a HUGE difference ~

Sooz

I was looking into the graph and it's info. I believe the following is where bob got the graph. I have cp'd some of the article. I would have to look into it more to determine if I agree or not.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

What's driving Obama's unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
• President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
• President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

• 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.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama's budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

The figures for 2009 include Georgie's 2009 budget plus the appropriation bills not finished before Obama took office, plus funding of the Bush wars, TARP and the bailout of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac (enacted under Bush), and of course, tax revenue went down drastically due to the economic downturn at the end of Georgie's blunder years.

George spent ~ $21 trillion during his 8 years.

Right, the article says that 2009 can not be counted as it's both Bush and Obama's doing, just as 2001 could not be counted as Bush's.

[I couldn't edit my post so I deleted and this is the edited version ~ Sooz]

Good find, Katy ~ but I'm still having problems with the numbers ~ several "Obama program" amounts do not take into account cuts elsewhere ~ for instance, the TARP funds that are starting to be repaid now ~ also, I'm not sure how gwb "tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers" IF you include his massive tax cuts that only benefited the "upper-income taxpayers" ~ Obama is NOT "continuing the trend", he is merely letting the tax cuts expire via the "sunset clause" gwb used to get the tax cuts passed ~ I also believe that Obama had virtually no other choice but to spend dollars given the dire national economy ~ obviously, so much of this is interpretation-dependent ~ to me, it's just VERY murky ~

Katy, I can understand gwb not getting "credit" for the 2001 surplus he inherited from Clinton ~ but gwb certainly ran thru those dollars as well ~

Sooz

Looks like my meter shows

sooz, they can play with their numbers all they want. Bush was not small government. He did do the tax breaks for the wealthy. They continued to give no bid contracts to companies that "lost" millions like Halliburton and to waste funds paying companies that did not do the jobs like after Katrina. Maybe the question should be who did the most wasteful spending. So far, Obama has had the expense of the wars and the bail outs as started by Bush, plus the programs he needs to push forward.

And let's not forget the MEGA dollars that "went missing" coincidentally about the same time Paul Bremer left Iraq ~ ~ but you nailed exactly why it all looks so murky to me, Katy ~

Sooz

These kids are up at 05:30.. their schedules and physical activities are impressive...

I thought they were up at 04:30, Bob...lol...and I didn't mean that to sound like I was criticizing them. Same thing has happened at several of his speeches.

If America owes China a $100 Billion, it's America's problem. If America owes China $2 Trillion, it's China's problem. China has a problem...

(I heard that in an interview on TV last night)

A lot of people seem suddenly stressed by Obama's spending but they quickly forget what he's spending the money on - fixing the mess left behind by the previous administration, perhaps? Also, it's a question of "how" that money is being spent. Instead of the one-way-straight-out-the-door spending of the Bush years, Obama is actually investing in the future of American citizens by making such things as healthcare, education and a cleaner environment accessible to everyone instead of a few who happen to have money. Twenty years from now, if Obama is successful the impact of what he encouraged and brought forward will become the standard by which American society will be measured. It's easy for the media to punch out numbers because it sells, but it doesn't give the whole picture.

correct. the defecit in 2009 is projected to be between 15 and 25% due to Obama's policies. that means that $1.5T is all Bush, baby.

i caught someone repeating this horsesh(*t on another board. Obama will not even beat Bush's FIRST TERM in his first year. not even close.

just out of curiosity, Bobs, where did you hear this? i am always interested in the origin of rumors.

The chart, I believe, is from the WaPo using official numbers.
The propagandized interpretation is from the usual right wing sources to clear the Bush boy from any wrong doing and lay it all at Obama's feet.

That graph is the CBO graph... here are some more sites... Have you guys not been listening to the amounts of money that have been spent on this bailout?

Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he's adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama's first term.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-trillions-dwarf-Bushs-dangerous-spending.html

Or you can go directly to the CBO estimates... http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10296/TablesforWeb.pdf

Last month CBO estimated that total federal spending, without the changes Obama proposed in his budget, would be just under $39 trillion over the next 10 years. It also estimated that if Congress adopted the president's budget, spending would increase to more than $41.7 trillion over the same period. As a percentage of the economy, CBO figured that federal spending would rise from 22.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) under current law, to 23.7 percent under Obama's budget proposals.

CBO specifically estimated the "total effect on outlays" of Obama's budget as an increase of $2.7 trillion compared with what's called for in current law. So by CBO's figuring, spending would go up $2.7 trillion, not down $2.2 trillion. That would make Obama's claim a nearly $5 trillion whopper.

Even the administration's own projections don't suport Obama's extravagant claim of a $2.2 trillion spending cut. His Office of Management and Budget projected that Obama's budget would produce $42.2 trillion in total outlays over the next 10 years. That's only $431 billion more than CBO's later estimate. However, Obama's OMB comes up with a much higher prediction of where spending would be without the president's budget. OMB figures "baseline" spending of $43.4 trillion. Compared with that, OMB figures that Obama's budget would represent a reduction of more than $1.2 trillion. But that's still nearly $1 trillion short of the figure Obama claimed.

Obama may have confused his deficit figures with his spending figures. Earlier he said that the projected deficit is "$2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in." But even that is disputed. It's true that OMB projected a $7.1 trillion, 10-year deficit under Obama's budget, and a $9.3 trillion deficit if current policies continued unchanged. That would amount to a $2.2 trillion improvement. But congressional budget experts don't agree with that. CBO projects a $9.1 trillion deficit under Obama's budget, and a $4.4 trillion deficit under current law. In other words, CBO figures Obama's budget would make the deficit $4.5 trillion worse, not $2.2 trillion better.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/obamas-health-care-news-conference/

I am sorry, it appears that I did make an error.. when I stated that Obama has spent more in 2009.. than both Bush's, I meant to say committed to spend more this year.. of course the spending committments are based on a 15 - 20 year payoff. Still, the debt is overpowering when you look at the numbers.

Wasn't it Cheney who said deficits don't matter? Just asking....

the chart is undeniable. that is not what i was referring to.

Bobs- Bush nearly doubled the national debt in his term in office. i know that we ALL expect more from our presidents than that. but why now? why is this an issue NOW?

And I would care what Cheney said for what reason? I lam-blasted Bush/Cheney over their spending as well.. please do NOT mistake me for a Republican, I am, and have always been a Libertarian. I lean a little liberal for the Libertarian party, but I agree with them about 90% of the time. With Bush (Macro will back me on this.. he was there on the old site), I called Bush a spender like drunk sailor on R&R in Hong Kong.. Well. sorry, with Obama, I feel like that drunk sailor, in Olongapo City, getting screwed.. and I do NOT mean sex! Any ex-service folks that have been in that wonderful village of sin will know exactly what I speak of!

Like I said... just asking. I'm not debating your stand on the issue. I'm simply pointing out that the ones who are screaming the loudest about Obama's spending are the ones who were behind their leaders who said deficits don't matter. So why do they all of a sudden matter now?

Macro, I am not sure exactly what you are saying.. you mean it was not OK for Bush to spend like he owned his own printing press, but it is fine for Obama to do raise the ante by 400%. Where is all this money coming from... not from the mint? We are spending faster than a press can print it. Why would I not be concerned now? When are people going to learn.. THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DO IT! THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SPEND MONEY EFFICIENTLY, THE GOVERNMENT IS MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT RUN A LEMONADE STAND!

Macro, I am not sure exactly what you are saying.. you mean it was not OK for Bush to spend like he owned his own printing press,

i can't remember a single time in the last 8 years that conservatives discussed this issue PUBLICALLY, Bob. now it is all i ever hear about. why is that?

but it is fine for Obama to do raise the ante by 400%.

please, let's not exaggerate. the 2009 Budget submitted by Bush was $3.1T. the 2010 budget submitted by Obama was $3.6T. that is not 400%. that is not even 40% higher. that is 15% higher. if you are talking defecits, Bush's 2009 defecit will be HIGHER than Obama's. i can virtually guarantee it.

Where is all this money coming from... not from the mint? We are spending faster than a press can print it. Why would I not be concerned now?

calm down. my question was not why you should not be concerned now. in fact, i don't believe that i even asked about you. i asked why this didn't seem important in 2008. i think i know the answer. the answer is that a supply sider is in office. agree or disagree?

ps- i disagree that social security is broke. it is not currently even UNDERFUNDED. will it be in the future if it is not changed? yes. but that is not at all the same thing.

underfunded means that i may have to get by with less money. broke means i am out of luck. SS is not broke, and in my estimation, it never will be.

oh- and cash for clunkers should not be on that list. it was a very successful program in design, and very cheap compared to the rest of that list.

I deleted a repetition of the "factcheck" info.

I just love this stuff. It's a joke, right?

I'd like to start off with the word "Seriously...," but I can't. Looking at this stuff, I can't tell if someone ate some numbers and then barfed. This has to be the most obfuscated bunch of supposed "information" I've seen in a long time.

The only reason there is money for SS is because they play with the accounting.. they (meaning Dems and Repubs) have been stealing that fund blind for years. If I kept the books on my projects like Congress keeps the books on that program, I would be busting big rocks in small rocks in some federal pen right now! SS is existing in todays money, not money that was being paid in when the workers outnumbered the retirees by a large %, it should have been taking that money and making (according to their estimates) 2-3%. Fact is, all that money was spent... and not on SS.

On the budget, you are talking the 2010 budget.. but look at the CBO estimates for the carry over amounts that go out to 2019. That is money being spent and moved to future year payouts. Look at that graph that I posted.. it is factual in the amounts.. look at the CBO graph that I linked to.. yes.. 400%, give or take a trillion $$$

On the clunkers for cars.. why not include it, it is another program that was thrown out there before it was thought our. I can tell ya, the folks that were driving real "clunkers" would not be able to by a new car with a $4,500 kick.. according to Edmonds.com... the fed ended up paying out an average of $24,000 per new car purchase generated by the program according to CNN Money. http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm . I can not talk for other places, but a number of dealerships in Dallas have gone under because they could not hold off the banks when Uncle Sam did not pony up the funds in a timely manner. Some dealers are still waiting. Many dealers refused to participate after the first couple of months..

Leaving aside the program's dubious environmentalist claims (you didn't qualify for a rebate if your old car's mpg was too high, and so on), I think it's likely that we'll look back on Cash for Clunkers as at best, unnecessary, and at worst, a bad idea. Conor writes that the speed with which the money was spent makes this an effective stimulus. From the standpoint of basic Keynesian economics, you certainly don't want your stimulus money spent in a relaxed manner. But the speed with which the C4C money was spent could also be evidence of its needlessness.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/08/was_cash_for_clunkers_a_success.php