View Single Post
  #162  
Old 05-29-2011, 01:36 PM
dellinger63's Avatar
dellinger63 dellinger63 is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 10,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
And some are so blinded to disliking Obama they dismiss the reality of our financial situation and not only what got us here, but what is costing us big in borrowed money and interest payments over now and years to come.

It sure as hell wasn't Obama.

Bush more than doubled our national debt in 6 years. Obama kept us out of a depression, using a necessary stimulus package that most say wasn't even enough as the recession is a slow recovery.

The stimulus packages cost are a tiny part of our national debt obligation - the cost of which most is already gone, and will be even more so within 2 years - while the borrowing with interest to pay for the Bush debaucle of credit card charging and giving away our revenue is more than half, and is with us for years.

Hard to spin reality. Calling Obama the big spender for domestic spending (which he has cut, including Medicare, although discretionary is only like 16% of our budget) and stimulus - both comprising only a tiny portion of our debt obligation - is ludicrous and not supported by any facts.

The below chart clearly shows how tiny the cost of the stimulus and bailouts were, and how terribly expensive and disastrous increasing spending while cutting our revenue was - because we had to borrow that money with interest, and we are paying it back to China and others forever.

It's the dark gold on this chart that is borrowed money, with interest, that is increasing over time. Thank you, George W. Bush. You didn't even give us a kiss. And yes, Obama should have allowed the tax cuts to expire, so we could already be paying this off. That is essential - that we regain that revenue stream.

That is the threat to our grandchildren. Blaming it on "Obama spending!" is simply false.

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures



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 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.


http://blog.heritage.org/?p=4210
Reply With Quote