CHART: Who Really Caused The Deficit?

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2011
158,171
72,855
2,330
Native America
By Sahil Kapur

This week Republicans will attempt to move the national political conversation back to a familiar theme with a series of attacks on President Obama over the national debt. The GOP released a web video Monday bashing his “broken promises” on the deficit and previewed a major speech Tuesday by likely presidential nominee Mitt Romney on the issue.

Divorced from context, the numbers are uncomfortable for the President and are ready-made for pointed partisan attacks. Under Obama’s watch the national debt has risen from roughly $10 trillion to $15 trillion, a record high. But to what extent are his decisions while in office to blame? The answer: very little. The vast bulk of the debt is the result of policies enacted during the Bush administration coupled with automatic increases in federal spending and decreases in tax revenue triggered by the economic downturn.

Those are economic facts of life known to experts but that often gets lost in the political debate (and which Obama’s opponents are willing to obscure). So with the GOP’s push to return the deficit to the center of the political conversation, here’s quick reminder of the basic facts that you may have forgotten.

As the chart below reveals, the main drivers of projected deficits over the next decade are the wars of the oughts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts and the so-called “automatic stabilizers” — unemployment insurance spending, lower tax burdens — built into existing policy to combat economic downturns. Recovery measures by Bush and Obama caused a short-term spike in deficits but have mostly phased out and thus represent only modest fractions of the national debt.

deficit-causes.png


The numbers, which come from the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, assume national policy as of a year ago would be renewed. Thus, they don’t reflect expected peace dividends from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or revised economic growth projections, and it assumes the Bush tax cuts will be renewed in their entirety — something President Obama has vowed will not happen, after he accepted a two-year extension of all the rates late 2010. But they broadly demonstrate that existing debt and projected deficits aren’t largely a consequence of Obama initiatives.

Since just after Obama’s victory, and with greater fervor since reclaiming the House, Republicans have used deficits and debt (the aggregate of accumulating deficits) as cudgels to attack spending on social programs. But their calls for fiscal responsibility mask an agenda, enshrined in a number of GOP budget measures, that’s aimed at slashing spending on programs for the poor and elderly, increasing defense spending, and cutting taxes on the rich — a platform that would dramatically alter the scope and size of government services, but reduce deficits and debt slowly. Obama’s budget proposal is projected to yield lower deficits over the next decade than the GOP alternative.

After agreeing to significant cuts in domestic spending in several legislative deals last year, President Obama and Democrats have insisted that further efforts to improve the nation’s fiscal outlook include new revenues. The GOP has balked at this demand, and as a result, Congress has gridlocked and isn’t expected to resolve any significant tax and spending issues until after the November election.

Chart by TPM’s Clayton Ashley

How Bush-Fueled Deficits Continue To Haunt Obama (CHART) | TPMDC
 
CHART: Spending, Taxes, And Deficits Are All Lower Today Than When Obama Took Office

Our guest blogger is Michael Linden, Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Federal spending is lower now than it was when President Obama took office. I’ll pause to let you absorb the news.

In January 2009, before President Obama had even taken the oath of office, annual spending was set to total 24.9 percent of gross domestic product. Total spending this year, fiscal year 2012, is expected to top out at 23.4 percent of GDP.

Here’s another interesting fact. Taxes today are lower than they were on inauguration day 2009. Back in January 2009, the CBO projected that total federal tax revenue that year would amount to 16.5 percent of GDP. This year? 15.8 percent.

One last nugget. The deficit this year is going to be lower than what it was on the day President Obama took office. Back then, the CBO said the 2009 deficit would be 8.3 percent of GDP. This year’s deficit is expected to come in at 7.6 percent.

Obamabudgetchart.png


The fact is that Obama inherited a disaster of a federal budget. Eight years prior, when President George W. Bush took the oath of office, there was a $281 billion surplus. By the time Obama was sworn in, he was facing a $1.2 trillion deficit. Inconvenient though it may be for conservatives (especially those who are running for president), the truth is that spending, taxes and the deficit are all lower today than when President Obama took office.

CHART: Spending, Taxes, And Deficits Are All Lower Today Than When Obama Took Office | ThinkProgress
 
By Sahil Kapur

This week Republicans will attempt to move the national political conversation back to a familiar theme with a series of attacks on President Obama over the national debt. The GOP released a web video Monday bashing his “broken promises” on the deficit and previewed a major speech Tuesday by likely presidential nominee Mitt Romney on the issue.

Divorced from context, the numbers are uncomfortable for the President and are ready-made for pointed partisan attacks. Under Obama’s watch the national debt has risen from roughly $10 trillion to $15 trillion, a record high. But to what extent are his decisions while in office to blame? The answer: very little. The vast bulk of the debt is the result of policies enacted during the Bush administration coupled with automatic increases in federal spending and decreases in tax revenue triggered by the economic downturn.

Those are economic facts of life known to experts but that often gets lost in the political debate (and which Obama’s opponents are willing to obscure). So with the GOP’s push to return the deficit to the center of the political conversation, here’s quick reminder of the basic facts that you may have forgotten.

As the chart below reveals, the main drivers of projected deficits over the next decade are the wars of the oughts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts and the so-called “automatic stabilizers” — unemployment insurance spending, lower tax burdens — built into existing policy to combat economic downturns. Recovery measures by Bush and Obama caused a short-term spike in deficits but have mostly phased out and thus represent only modest fractions of the national debt.

deficit-causes.png


The numbers, which come from the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, assume national policy as of a year ago would be renewed. Thus, they don’t reflect expected peace dividends from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or revised economic growth projections, and it assumes the Bush tax cuts will be renewed in their entirety — something President Obama has vowed will not happen, after he accepted a two-year extension of all the rates late 2010. But they broadly demonstrate that existing debt and projected deficits aren’t largely a consequence of Obama initiatives.

Since just after Obama’s victory, and with greater fervor since reclaiming the House, Republicans have used deficits and debt (the aggregate of accumulating deficits) as cudgels to attack spending on social programs. But their calls for fiscal responsibility mask an agenda, enshrined in a number of GOP budget measures, that’s aimed at slashing spending on programs for the poor and elderly, increasing defense spending, and cutting taxes on the rich — a platform that would dramatically alter the scope and size of government services, but reduce deficits and debt slowly. Obama’s budget proposal is projected to yield lower deficits over the next decade than the GOP alternative.

After agreeing to significant cuts in domestic spending in several legislative deals last year, President Obama and Democrats have insisted that further efforts to improve the nation’s fiscal outlook include new revenues. The GOP has balked at this demand, and as a result, Congress has gridlocked and isn’t expected to resolve any significant tax and spending issues until after the November election.

Chart by TPM’s Clayton Ashley

How Bush-Fueled Deficits Continue To Haunt Obama (CHART) | TPMDC

The tax cuts & wars were a debt BINGE. A lot of that money went out of the US; it will take decades to regain the lost revenue. State taxes, fees, costs, and assessments went up to cover the Federal cuts but state & local governments cannot tax as efficiently.
 
Put Democrats in charge of the Nation's checkbook, and look what happens:


Democrats took the GOP’s last deficit of $162 Billion and ran it up to $1.4 TRILLION

9 TIMES the amount of the last GOP deficit

Republicans control Congress
2000 290 Billion SURPLUS
2001 127 Billion SURPLUS
2002 157 Billion
2003 374 Billion
2004 413 Billion
2005 319 Billion
2006 248 Billion
2007 162 Billion
Democrats control Congress as of Jan 2007
2008 455 Billion
2009 1,400 TRILLION
2010 1.300 TRILLION
2011 1,300 TRILLION

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office offers a prognosis: "Under the president's budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020." Interest payments would quadruple.'

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/edito rials/ct-edit-buffett-20100329,0,7563220.story


Interest payments are 9% of our budget right now. Do you know what will happen when interest payments become 39% of our budget, per Obama's plan?
 
Put Democrats in charge of the Nation's checkbook, and look what happens:


Democrats took the GOP’s last deficit of $162 Billion and ran it up to $1.4 TRILLION

9 TIMES the amount of the last GOP deficit

Republicans control Congress
2000 290 Billion SURPLUS
2001 127 Billion SURPLUS
2002 157 Billion
2003 374 Billion
2004 413 Billion
2005 319 Billion
2006 248 Billion
2007 162 Billion
Democrats control Congress as of Jan 2007
2008 455 Billion
2009 1,400 TRILLION
2010 1.300 TRILLION
2011 1,300 TRILLION

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office offers a prognosis: "Under the president's budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020." Interest payments would quadruple.'

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/edito rials/ct-edit-buffett-20100329,0,7563220.story


Interest payments are 9% of our budget right now. Do you know what will happen when interest payments become 39% of our budget, per Obama's plan?


How dare you, you should be ashamed of yourself for pointing this out, it's simply non-progressive! YOU NEED TO SPEND SOME TIME IN THE REEDUCATION CAMP! :)
 
I thought deficits were really good and stimulated the economy?

Is Krugamn wrong in the trillion column -- again?
 
hmmm...as fiscal year 2009 was proposed by Bush, that doesnt look very good on his record does it?

he swings he misses

Put your big boy pants on and accept responsibility for once.:

President Obama Signs FY 2009 Omnibus Budget Bill
Written by Michael Wero
Friday, 13 March 2009 14:29

http://www.nnwo.org/index.php?option=com_content &view=article&id=66:president-obama-sign s-fy-2009-omnibus-budget-bill-&catid=35:fy20 09&Itemid=45

'It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.'


Obama signs massive, 'imperfect' spending bill - politics - White House - msnbc.com



'Feb 26, 2009
OBAMA 2009 BUDGET PROJECTS DEFICIT OF $1.75 TRILLION

President calls for fiscal responsibility and hard choices, but not yet.

Washington, DC - President Obama’s $3.5 trillion 2009 budget will spend money today and burden taxpayers for generations. Under the Presidents proposal, spending will increase to nearly 35 percent of GDP, far from the historical norm of 20 percent, and the deficit will soar to 12.3 percent of GDP, levels not seen since the height of World War II.'

http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/obama -2009-budget-projects-deficit-of-175-trillion
 
Last edited:
Who Really Caused The Deficit?

The real answer?

The Low Life Motherfuckers who sit in the so-called US Supreme Court:


Legal Obedience


by Walter E. Williams


"Another, perhaps more egregious example of the Supreme Court's impairing contracts came during President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, when the government nationalized gold and made it a felony for any American to own gold. Not only was gold ownership made illegal but it nullified all "gold clauses" in private and government contracts. Writing contracts in gold was a way people protected themselves against government theft, namely inflation. The Supreme Court upheld federal nationalization of gold and nullification of gold contracts in the famous Gold Clause Cases

.
 
I'm always amazed the way these liberal idiots correlate directly dollar for dollar tax cuts adding to the deficit. Spending ads to the deficit not tax cuts. Tax cuts increases economic activity, and increase revenues to the government for the most part, or at the very least break even. We need tax reform not more taxes
 

Forum List

Back
Top