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.
4 comments:
Liberals are generally devoid of any semblance of linear logic. After all, their miseducation beat that concept out of them on week one of government kindergarten, when they were forced, by their government agent "teachers," to share something that they owned with another "pupil."
Why else would they still cling to a long-discredited form of government (Marxism) that failed to rack up even one single success in the last century, despite the efforts of thousands, and the murders of millions?
However, once in a great while, a mere handful of them are able to recall something that was present in their pre-government school days, and causes them to experience a brief, if fleeting, epiphany.
This is one of those instances.
Better late than never, I guess.
Never-mind that many of us saw this current insanity coming 28 months ago.
-Dave
Thanks Dave ...
Many of us Conservatives were none too happy with Bush and the Republican party for its profligate spending. Is it any wonder that we are really unhappy with the democrats and Obama for spending that would make a drunken sailor embarrassed?
Tax cuts created, as they always do, more tax revenues, but instead of paying down the debt and doing only that which the federal government is responsible for the Congress and the President decided to buy votes with more programs that only make us slaves to the state.
It is interesting to hear Obama state we are out of money when that is the ultimate of creating more taxes. Taxes always create a retrenchment of business, sales and every other economic indicator. More taxes require more taxes ad infinitum. If the healthcare disaster sees the light of day you will be taxed because you do not have healthcare and you will be taxed on healthcare benefits.
I sometimes wonder what it is about human beings that cause us to keep repeating the same mistakes as if there is going to be another outcome. I just do not understand the logic that states that if I steal from the producers to give to the non producers that that will create more production from the producers. It is a zero sum game that will trends quickly to more deficits as producer scale back to protect their intellectual and skills property, which thankfully governments have not figured out how to steal yet.
It also creates a negative "multiplicative factor of money" in economic terms for the same money is chasing the same survival aspects instead of being spread out throughout the economy.
I would posit to Dave that it is not linear logic, which does play a part, but the ability to extrapolate ideas to their ultimate conclusion that plagues most Leftists. The classical Liberal at least would have understood some of the trade offs necessitated by some of this. It would be a rare Leftist who actually did a cost/benefit analysis or even attempted a decision tree or flow chart processing of ideas and their ramifications.
It is what you get when you have poor scholarship being produced by colleges and a general dumbing down of the education system. Emotional pap replacing intellectual rigor. It is why you will rarely see more than name calling from the Left.
That is "right" Dennis. I wan't pleased with Bush and the Democratic congress that went along with the Republican Bush in the spending spreee. But, in 2007-2008 I was still naive. I have been absorbing and taking notes on these projected charts since last year and again this year in all the congressional hearings, I was shocked. I really wonder if any Democrat is doing what Obama asked-find common ground. In this case, side with the country- stop the deficit spending that you and I would insist on were it our own household.
Post a Comment