DEY TOOK OUR JEERRRBBBSSS

Status
Not open for further replies.
strawman

strawman

It's an interesting way to look at it. The chart shows the spending that has occurred due to changes during each presidency - so they're putting the ongoing costs for those programs that continue today in bush's column if he was the one who first enacted them (even if Obama had to act to continue them).

It really demonstrates, though, that policies a president makes have far-reaching effects, and that few policies actually help during their presidency.

For instance, we won't see the positive or negative results of Obama's job efforts well into the next term and beyond. Whoever is president then will take the accolades if they work, and push the blame on Obama if they don't, just as Bush did with Clinton, and Obama did with Bush.

I think, though, for this chart to be truly useful, one would have to chart at least a few dozen presidencies in inflation adjusted dollars.

Portrayed incorrectly, it could certainly feel a bit like propaganda - Obama could certainly have worked to end the tax cuts, stimulus, and even pulled back on war spending when the democrats had congress and the white house if they thought that Bush's policies were bad for the country.
 
Espy

Espy

I believe that they since most of the Healthcare stuff doesn't go into effect until 2014 they aren't including those numbers either.
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

What where you saying about yer jorbs?

http://www.politicususa.com/en/jp-morgan-middle-class?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: politicususa/fJAl (Politicus USA )

In a recent report in a JP Morgan memo to their investors from Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer he says, “US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP.” Cembalest continues to explain why corporate profits are so strong while the rest of the working class are feeling the pinch, “reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in margins.” 75% of the increase in profit margins directly correlate with the reduction in workers’ wages.
Click to expand...
 
strawman

strawman

Ha! So, in 8 years Bush spends 5 trillion, and Obama spends 1.5 trillion in 3 years? I'd say, year for year, they're pretty close.

Further, the projections of bush's spending at year 3 were much rosier than the reality. While many people are optimistic about the health care cost projections, I suspect when the rubber meets the road there's going to be a gap thats going to have to be filled with something.

In other words, they are still comparing apples and oranges. (bush's actual costs against obama's projected costs - try comparing the costs as projected by the CBO on bush's year three with the costs as projected by the CBO on obama's year three)

I still would like to see them do this for every president since the 70's, though. I would be surprised if bush didn't top everyone else, but it would still serve to get some perspective - even if bush topped everyone else, how does Obama compare to prior presidents? Is it really ok to compare Obama with Bush, or should we be holding him to a higher standard?
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
The war costs are a bit tricky. For one I don't think that the 1.5 trillion number is correct, and god knows if anyone actually can figure out exactly how much they cost. Second the obama administration mad multiple increases to the appropriations to the war in the realm of ~300 bil. Do you blame Bush for that or Obama.

Also, really what CAN you blame the president for? Starting a war, yes. But many other costs are brought about by congress, NOT the president. In a large part of Bush's time it was a democratic congress, and in a large part of Obama's its been a republican one (or at least republican enough to stop any spending.)
 
Tress

Tress

Necronic said:
The war costs are a bit tricky. For one I don't think that the 1.5 trillion number is correct, and god knows if anyone actually can figure out exactly how much they cost. Second the obama administration mad multiple increases to the appropriations to the war in the realm of ~300 bil. Do you blame Bush for that or Obama.

Also, really what CAN you blame the president for? Starting a war, yes. But many other costs are brought about by congress, NOT the president. In a large part of Bush's time it was a democratic congress, and in a large part of Obama's its been a republican one (or at least republican enough to stop any spending.)
Click to expand...
Ew. Nuance. That's no fun.
 
B

Bmerritt212

It's not true.. Look at the non partisan CBO Projections - the actual reports rather than the NY Times interpretation.. in Jan 2009 (when Obama took control) vs Jan 2011 (after 2 years of his term)...

Projected debt went up by 3.8 T in 2 years

Jan 2009...
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf

Page 23
3.1 T in projected new debt

Jan 2011...
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf
Page 14
6.9 T in projected new debt..

(With respect to the NY times, where does Obama's renewal of the Bush Tax cuts fall? Bush or Obama? Big O signed the law, but there's nothing on his side of the chart for them.. Or how about the war costs.. Even though Big O is keeping them going, the NY Times attributes them to Bush..)
 
Eriol

Eriol

I thought that just per-year spending is up? Revenues, I have no idea. I remember in another thread there was a bunch of stuff about spending as % of GDP, but what about the raw per-year numbers of revenue vs spending? That would be seem to be numbers you couldn't really fudge too much, though as "not an accountant by far" who knows if it even CAN be that simple?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top