GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Bush Deficits vs. Obama Deficits

by

Here’s a nifty graphic originally created by the Washington Post. (h/t – Heritage Foundation)

And by “nifty”, I mean completely scary and mind-boggling!

Obama Lied, the American Way of Life Died!

Paraphrasing Eva Peron — “We are ALL Government Workers Now”.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. See, that’s the entertaining part; despite the libbies who post here screaming that Bush increased spending and cut taxes, the size of the Federal budget deficit dropped rather drastically from ’04. In other words, while Bush was spending more and allegedly taking in less, his budget overdraft was getting smaller.

    Isn’t that amazing? It’s like tax cuts actually increase government revenue or something. All those crazy economists, including the Obamamessiah’s own, say the same thing; it’s just that the Obamamessiah’s know they’re wrong because it contradicts the Obamamessiah.

  2. Even by the super-optimistic White House estimates, the best Obama deficit is still worse than the worst Bush deficit.

    But it’s OK for Obama to bankrupt the country, because he has a nice smile and says the right things about LGBT people.

  4. The time will come when all America is familiar with that graphic and it seals the doom of the Obama presidency.

    The time is not yet, of course. It’ll come later, when foreigners won’t buy our bonds, the dollar is destroyed and no longer “the world’s reserve currency”, and the cause is obvious in retrospect.

  5. I want to pre-emptively dispose of a few points the Obamoonies have attempted in previous discussions of this graph.

    “Oh but FY2009 is Bush’s! Obama inherited it!” – No, he didn’t. By custom, FY2009 should have been Bush’s; but the Democrats in Congress deliberately held up the budget bill until this year, so it could be Obama’s. And instead of cutting the FY2009 budget and deficit, the Democrats added hundreds of billions to them – calling it “stimulus”, remember? Obama owns it.

    “Oh but Bush kept a good deal of spending off-budget, so his deficits were bigger than your stupid Heritage graph says.” – I will let Heritage respond to that:

    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.

    Although Bruce already noted the last bit (that it’s a WaPo graph).

  6. Amazing, until the democrap Congress took over in 07 Bush and the Repub Congress were reducing the size of the deficit at the same time two wars were being fought. With a democrat Congress and a democrap President, there’s red ink for miles and miles. Anyone with eyes knows that Pres Bush didn’t leave Obama a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. He left at most a 600 billion deficit (and the additional two hundred billion of that deficit for TARP and bailouts were spent with Obama’s Ok). So at the least Mr. Obama is TRIPLING the deficit and will double the national debt in six years in absolute terms. Mr. Bush did not double the national debt in his eight years in office. Obviously Mr. Obama didn’t think Mr. Bush was doing all he could to bankrupt America, so he has rushed full speed ahead to do so. The only sad part is that I don’t know that McCain would have been better. McCain and Obama are economic illiterates, although Gov Palin would be strong deficit fighter, the constant negativity from the press might be insurmountable by now, if their favored and deified candidate had lost.

  7. This graph is clear and it does not cloud the truth. The Washington Post did not print it on the front page. There was no “CBO and White House Show Different Size Deficit” headline. (I tried to be journalistically neutral in that mock headline.) The chart shows that the Obama message of cutting the deficit in half by 2012 is a mere feint. Even under the White House rosy scenario, the Obama deficit never pares back to the worst deficit of the Bush years.

    The Washington Post is to be congratulated for the chart. The editors of the Washington Post, however, chose not to make front page news of where the economy is headed.

    And yet, this weekend, they chose to front page, above the fold, a really lousy story/opinion piece about the effectiveness of water boarding at Gitmo.

    Agenda journalism. It is no small part of our national crisis.

  8. If the projected budget deficits come to pass, will they really have any effect on the typical Obama supporter? Some Obama supporters I know (the true, blue kind) are public employees and are in jobs that are virtually recession-proof while others are so socially liberal that they are willing to endure economic hardship as the price for not electing a Republican. And everyone seems to think “Well, economies are cyclical and we’ll just have to grow out of the Bush Recession.” Yes, the projections are scary but to us and not to them.

  10. #9, Peter H:

    Why does Gay Patriot draw such a low level of talking points robo-commenters? Is the gay left so whacky that the littleletterpeople is all they can find to contaminate the site? In my opinion, arguing substance is good for both sides. Here, one rarely is challenged by the logic of the left.

    Oh, I know that the current left is is more about adoration than substance, but somewhere there has to be someone who doesn’t come out of the chute in full snark overdrive.

  11. The time is not yet, of course. It’ll come later, when foreigners won’t buy our bonds, the dollar is destroyed and no longer “the world’s reserve currency”, and the cause is obvious in retrospect.

    Exactly, ILC.

    As I’ve stated in the past, the Chinese are not especially eager to torpedo our economy, given that feeding our consumption is what allows them to keep their population employed, so they’ve been rather generous in giving us credit, aka buying our bonds. But at some point, their return on investing with us will be so minimal, due to the payback being in vastly-deflating dollars, that they will cut their losses and run. They will, in the current colloquialism, “go Galt”, and be glad to do it.

  12. #10 – “Why does Gay Patriot draw such a low level of talking points robo-commenters?”

    Heck if I know, helio. But when you compare our robo-posters to the ones you find on DU, HuffPo etc., they seem like Rhodes scholars.

    “Is the gay left so whacky that the littleletterpeople is all they can find to contaminate the site?”

    DING!! We have a winner! 😉

    “Here, one rarely is challenged by the logic of the left.”

    Boy, that’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Nobody ever equates liberals with logic. They seem confused by it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  13. Dunno, Chuck seems pretty civil. So I’d not include him in the ‘loony’ left.

    Scotland’s a close second.

    My recent favourite has to be Amy though “I can’t believe all you self hating homosexuals voting no on 8! How dare you!”

    Priceless.

  14. In my opinion, arguing substance is good for both sides. Here, one rarely is challenged by the logic of the left.

    heliotrope, true on both points. Arguing substance would be great… except that many of our persistent, non-capitalizing friends don’t seem ‘available’ for rational conversation. Too often, they make “points” which are so crazy, so out of touch with reality, so incoherent or discom’bob’ulated, so juvenile, so much of a “change the subject” or “shoot the messenger” nature, that giving them a response of dismissive contempt is morally appropriate. I don’t like it when they’re given abusive personal invective as a response, but, in such cases, neither do I feel moved to stick up for them, as I might for someone whom I know deserves better.

  15. Back on this deficit / dollar destruction topic:

    Some of you will recall that I’ve been pushing the sage commentary of Peter Schiff lately. As an investment broker he’s not so hot… but boy is he able to apply and explain the economic concepts of the Austrian School, in layman’s terms. And Austrian School theories explain the present crisis. Go to his website and view a couple of his recent video clips: http://www.europac.net

    Along similar lines, let me recommend the economic writings of Howard Katz. I don’t endorse everything Katz says. He’s a cranky old man. Cranky old man tell you what they really think. Some of it will be weird, and some of it will be spot-on. Katz’s economic opinions are worth considering. Like Schiff, Katz is an Austrian School guy and puts it in layman’s terms. Here is his latest article, “Cash is Trash”: http://www.kitco.com/ind/katz/mar302009.html

  17. “Why does Gay Patriot draw such a low level of talking points robo-commenters?”

    Look at the graphic. If you were a leftist, how would you defend that?

    Unless his objective is to bankrupt the country, there’s no way you can.

  18. Bruce: Paraphrasing Eva Peron — “We are ALL Government Workers Now”.

    Does this mean we can expect The Snob to come out on the balcony to sing that wonderful classic “Don’t Cry for Me Indonesia?”

    (Also starring Bill Ayres as Che Guevara.)

    Sorry, couldn’t resist. 😉

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  19. Well, since no one else from the left has spoken, I’ll put in my 2 hundred trillion cents. I’m sorry if anyone is disappointed, but I cannot defend the future deficit projections.

    I can almost excuse the extremely high deficit for this year if the assumption was that this was a one time thing to “stimulate” the economy. And since the administration is assuming that this will work, and the economy is supposed to improve, then by a minimum of two years, we should be back to deficits at or below the previous deficit level. Doesn’t look like that will be the case.

  20. #18 funny Peter, and I love that song.
    You all know I hate the press more than the Democrats because they enbable them to do their dirty work.
    Obamateleprompter should be called on his “we are going to cut the deficeit in half” crap. It only takes 30 seconds for a reporter to say” Mr President, you take a deficeit from $400 B to $1.9 Trillion then you cut it back to $800 B in 4 years and you call that cutting it in half????????But the boobs and morons in what’s left of the free press are too dumb to call him or any of his crooked cabinet on it.

  24. Notice also how the deficit was on its way back down to nothing under Republicans from 04 through 07, but more than tripled when Democrats first budget kicked in, and notice also how Obama and Democrats are planning their spending so that it will appear, in the 2012 election cycle that they have been cutting the deficit, but as soon as the election is over they start going back up again.

    Is it impossible for them to be honest about anything?

  26. I don’t know what all of you are so concerned about. Obama said he was going to go through the budget line-by-line and cut wasteful spending…

    …just as soon as he, Michelle, the White House Chef, and 500 government employees get back from Europe.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/obama-london-visit-uk-g20

    Good news though–instead of spending a lot of taxpayer dough on expensive gifts for the European leaders Obama is going to meet, they’re going to have a crate of region 1 Flubber DVDs handy.

  27. #24: I was noticing that just as this was posted. Hopefully we’ll have a republican leader by then with the balls to yell screaming through the streets about all of the lies from now until then.