Conservatives have practically killed and buried this story, but E.D. Kain, just now wiggin' out, asks, "Am I missing something here? Isn’t this years [sic] deficit owned by the Bush administration? Don’t the war expenses bring these numbers much higher?"
Ah, yeah ... you're missing something ...
A quick check around would have turned up the Heritage Foundation's post on the graph, which accompanied this article: "Deficit Projected To Swell Beyond Earlier Estimates."
The Heritage report is here. It answers E.D.'s question:
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.But do check out the Obsidsian Wings post. The author's getting attacked like a seal in shark-invested waters (via Memeorandum).
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.