Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 07 Jul '09 22:48 / 1 edit
    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

    "President Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama's budget deficits in context of President Bush's

    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% faster that inflation. President Obama would double it.

    -President Bush became the first President to spend 3% of the GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending to 20%.

    -President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President would continue that trend.

    -President Bush persided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which President Bush and Obama share responsibility for a 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.

    Many of Obama's defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do.
    While Bush did not fund the wars through emergency supplements (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 from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.

    Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly deliniate 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. President Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility begeinning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama's budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years"

    Of course, many left wingers would question the source of this material. All I can say is, we will visit this in 4 years and know the truth. So what say you? Are the numbers correct? If not, provide sources that dispute these numbers please.
  2. 07 Jul '09 23:32
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

    "President Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 i ...[text shortened]... ? Are the numbers correct? If not, provide sources that dispute these numbers please.
    There's at least one inaccuracy in this analysis: Bush and Cheney gave tax cuts to the rich, whereas Obama plans to raise taxes on the rich and address corporate tax loopholes. Thus, Obama is in a much better position to address the deficit. Yes, there's increased domestic spending under Obama but this spending is largely worthwhile plus it's been necessitated by the Reagan-Bush caused economic crisis.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Jul '09 00:05
    Originally posted by karnachz
    There's at least one inaccuracy in this analysis: Bush and Cheney gave tax cuts to the rich, whereas Obama plans to raise taxes on the rich and address corporate tax loopholes. Thus, Obama is in a much better position to address the deficit. Yes, there's increased domestic spending under Obama but this spending is largely worthwhile plus it's been necessitated by the Reagan-Bush caused economic crisis.
    Bush gave tax cuts to everyone, not just the rich. I didn't and don't like those tax cuts. I thought and think they were reckless. But let's not pretend that only the rich got tax cuts.
  4. 08 Jul '09 00:23
    Originally posted by sh76
    Bush gave tax cuts to everyone, not just the rich. I didn't and don't like those tax cuts. I thought and think they were reckless. But let's not pretend that only the rich got tax cuts.
    Okay, fair enough -- they were across the board tax cuts, although they had the effect of increasing the gap between rich and poor. By comparison, Clinton instituted progressive taxation in 1993, increasing taxes only on the rich and giving most people a tax cut. Obama plans something similar to what Clinton did.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Jul '09 00:45 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by karnachz
    Okay, fair enough -- they were across the board tax cuts, although they had the effect of increasing the gap between rich and poor. By comparison, Clinton instituted progressive taxation in 1993, increasing taxes only on the rich and giving most people a tax cut. Obama plans something similar to what Clinton did.
    I agree with that. I wouldn't mind seeing a return to the Clinton rates.

    I also like the idea of the payroll tax picking up again at $250,000; especially since I'm a looong way from having to worry about that.

    Although, to be 100% accurate, Clinton didn't "institute" progressive taxation. Progressive taxation was the standard long before Clinton was President.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    08 Jul '09 00:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    Of course, many left wingers would question the source of this material. All I can say is, we will visit this in 4 years and know the truth. So what say you? Are the numbers correct? If not, provide sources that dispute these numbers please.
    Why don't you go looking for a think tank that disputes these figures yourself? If you are genuinely interested in the topic you would have done that already.
  7. 08 Jul '09 03:03
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

    "President Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 i ...[text shortened]... ? Are the numbers correct? If not, provide sources that dispute these numbers please.
    very good stuff whodey. heritage.org is a good site w/good info. the left does not know what to say when the proof is in their face
  8. 09 Jul '09 02:31
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    very good stuff whodey. heritage.org is a good site w/good info. the left does not know what to say when the proof is in their face
    The Heritage Foundation is a propaganda outlet that received significant funding from Richard Mellon Scaife.
  9. 09 Jul '09 02:33
    Originally posted by karnachz
    The Heritage Foundation is a propaganda outlet that received significant funding from Richard Mellon Scaife.
    Like I said, I realize that there would be responses such as this and all I can say is that we will find out very shortly. Therefore, we can revisit this thread in 4 years and see who has the handle on the truth.
  10. 09 Jul '09 02:42
    Originally posted by sh76
    I agree with that. I wouldn't mind seeing a return to the Clinton rates.

    I also like the idea of the payroll tax picking up again at $250,000; especially since I'm a looong way from having to worry about that.

    Although, to be 100% accurate, Clinton didn't "institute" progressive taxation. Progressive taxation was the standard long before Clinton was President.
    Perhaps my wording was ambiguous, but I meant to say that Clinton instituted one specific instance of progressive taxation, rather than the concept of progressive taxation. Certainly, Clinton was in no position to institute major paradigm shifts in liberal economic policy; he took office with a record low approval rating of 51% and raised it to 66% over his eight years in office.

    As you suggest, progressive taxation has been around for some time. It was advocated by liberal Thomas Paine, who was perhaps the most influential of the US's Founding Fathers. Since then, its adherents have included Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Progressive taxation was instituted most significantly in the New Deal era beginning with FDR's presidency.