Let the numbers speak for themselves. Here is my version of the CBO’s Federal Budget chart. I’ve added the year and colors for those that comprehend better visually. Redish hues stand for Republican numbers, blue for Democrat, and purple for the hybrid government of a Republican president with a Democratically controlled congress.
I would like to point out a few trends in the chart above.
- Yes, GWB inherited a surplus. Any president would have had a surplus after serving during the biggest economic and technological boom of the century. The internet boom was a wonderful thing. The bust, not so much.
- Notice that despite 9/11 and its obvious financial impact, the deficit was steadily decreasing beginning in 2004. Republican economic policies were working. We were on our way back toward budget surplus. PResident Bush decreased the budget every year starting in 2004,with the exception of 2008.
- What happened in 2008? A $300B tax credit has a way of skewing your averages. So does a Democratically controlled congress.
- What happened in 2009? Well, Obama took over and quickly embraced Rahm Emmanuel’s “take advantage of a crisis” mindset. Sadly, many of the proposed budget requests won’t impact us for several years. It was designed that way. Sure, the CBO projects that the deficit will decrease through 2012, but it will never “improve” to even the worst levels of the prior administration
Let’s look at another chart:
Do you see what I see? At the peak of the internet boom we were at virtual unemployment, a rate around 4%. Terrorists helped change that in 2001, but again — despite 9/11 — employment figures continually decreased under Republican leadership. Then the Democrats took over. The housing bubble, a bubble created by liberal policies, finally burst. Hank Paulson scared Congress into giving him $700 billion dollars, and to this day we still have no idea where all of that money went or whether or not it actually made a difference. Sure, we are told that it did, but there is zero data to back it up. Show me direct correlation between the bailout and any improvement in our financial markets.
How high will unemployment go? How low will our deficits drop? At what point does China say “No credit for you!” What will it take to teach people that you cannot help the unemployed by punishing the employer? The 2010 mid-term election could be the most important election America has ever faced. Our financial future depends on it. The scale of these problems is something America has never experienced. In one single year “trillion” has become the new “billion.” Once upon a time “trillion” was a massive number used to describe stars or micro-organisms. Now it is sadly a standard term of reference in the Obama administration.
UPDATE: The purpose of my post is to provide a comparison of the Bush and Obama administrations. I can (and probably will) provide additional charts with a longer time frame for those that feel it is important. But my point is to provide data to liberals that shows how much worse Obama is making things. Yes, GWB spent too much, but does that give Obama carte blanche to take it to an entirely new and previously unforeseen level? I don’t think so.
UPDATE 2: Here is the chart for US unemployment statistics back to 1948. The highest ever was under Reagan’s first term.The largest ever decrease in the unemployment rate was under Reagan’s presidency. However, it should be noted that he took measures to reduce the unemployment rate by lowering taxes and stimulating the economy. Obama is doing the exact opposite. Therefore I think it would be foolish to think that Obama can repeat Reagan’s legacy.
[...] some beautiful charts that show where things have been recently. Check out his whole article on the deficit and take a look at these [...]
Blaming Barry for the purple years is brilliant, way to go.
Dan, that’s not my point at all. I’m blaming Bush and the Democrat-led Congress for the purple. Perhaps you should read it again, this time for comprehension? Thanks for visiting and taking the time to comment.
It would be interesting if you could out what party had just been elected where there is a spike in the unemployment chart from 1948. I really can’t wrap my head around the real numbers. President Obama has had us all going. I feel ashamed, to say the least.
**If you could insert the party above where there is a spike**
Why do they have to pick a party? It’s a joke. The organizers of their convention put forward that their goals were to big right-wing republican candidates. All their bashing is against the Democratic Party.
Instead of looking at the party, look at the policies. It’s just this simple, we have to drastically cut spending. We need to revisit all areas of the budget. We should return to what the constitution granted the federal government to govern. Get rid of unions. Phase out Social security over 20 years. Open up competition and establish good tort reform. Phase our Medicaid and Medicare over 15 years. Let the states go back to elect Senators. A never vote for any politician that hasn’t run a business. Get rid of the old bureaucracy. Eliminate corporate and business taxes. Then Free our education system from the government monopoly.
Excellent article Paulie! Too bad most of our countrymen don’t understand what really happened over the past ten years, but instead get their news/info from the likes of MSNBC or CNN. It really sickens me how people can place blame on Bush for the economic problems in this country. We really need to pay closer attention to Congress, especially with that tyrant Pelosi.
I will definitely suggest this for stumbleupon.
Hey, what happened in the Presidencies going back to 1948? Looks like those damn Dems deliberately decreased unemployment just to win votes! Nice graphic!
Did you miss the part where the entire economy collapsed in August of 2008. You forgot to mention that. I understand your unhappy with the way things are going but its your own fault. You supported Bush then, and your trying to defend it now. You weren’t paying attention then, but now your trying to pass the buck. Your not a fiscal conservative, your a non-compassionate fake conservative. Im so tired of you fake Tea party people who stand for nothing but the hatred of a Black president. Your a sore loser, and your small glimpse into unemployment and budgets are only used to try and further your fault beliefs and not divulge any real truth.
Nice try.
1) I didn’t vote for George Bush either time. And before that I actually voted for Clinton both times. So you are woefully inaccurate already.
2) Our collapse in 2008 was not due to George Bush. It took thirty years to come to a head and was exacerbated by the housing bubble. Wall Street is largely to blame, as are BOTH parties.
3) I was paying attention back then, but I had other priorities at the time.
4) What does race have to do with any of this? I despise Barack Obama’s policies because he is 100% liberal, not because he is 50% black. Apparently in your world a person is not able to disagree with a bacl person without being a racist.
I suggest you get your liberal head out of your liberal butt and do some research. It is sad that you are able to vote while being so uninformed.
So many people speak about the “economic collapse of 2008″ as if it was the worst. We have had far worse times in my life time. What about 2002? What about the 1990′s when my retirement account and my children’s college education savings accounts were halved (and never recovered). I remember the gas crises. I remember struggling to find a job in 1977-1978. I’ve seen far worse times. We survived by cutting spending. The government needs to reduce taxes, cut spending and balance the budget.
*sigh*
1. If by liberal you mean neo-liberal, then yes. The Recession was caused by neo-liberal policies. It doesn’t matter what party it was sense they shared the same policies regarding NINA Loans, Credit Default swaps, Collateralized Debt Obligations, and all the rest. Republicans however take blame since they are the loudest free marketers of the two parties. THE RECESSION IS NOT AN ACCIDENT that no one saw comming. IT IS THE PRODUCT OF SHITTY SHITTY POLICY. Yes Wall Street is hugely responsible, but they’re just fucking animals, and this is the way animals behave. The job of the federal government is to chill them niggas out.
2. Barack Obama came in on the ass end of that policy and was asked to clean up the mess.
3. Cleaning up a recession requires spending money. You don’t cut spending in a recession.
4. The deficit has obviously grown accordingly as we attempt to stave off depression, but also as we attempt to invest in our future (education, healthcare, roads, alternative energy).
5. Spending money is a good investment. So chill the fuck out.
“3. Cleaning up a recession requires spending money. You don’t cut spending in a recession. ” — TJ
If this is true, then why not create a 10 Trillion dollar TARP fund? The economy would get better ten times faster using your logic.
Hell, why stop there. Let’s have a 50 Trillion dollar bail out fund and just give everyone $162,000 and let them go crazy. By your reasoning, the recession would be over by next week and we would all be living the high life.
Welcome to the real world, where tax cuts, not penalties spur job growth in companies both large and small. More jobs equals more tax revenue which translates into less deficit spending. It’s been proven over and over, but you libs just can’t grasp the concept.
TJ is so ignorant of economic policy that it is hard to even know where to begin. “Investing” in education? WTF are you talking about? The government schools have been “investing” a shitload of money in “education” to the point that they are now spending more than private schools. And we still have crappy results in “public” education.
Spending money is a good investment???? Perhaps but not on the kind of vote buying, union bailout crap that is going on with this government.
What a tool.
help me understand this guys, how is it according to that chart that the entire federal budget is less than the defense budget?
Look nobody has this right. Its clear from reading the only person who has any clue of economics is TJ. However Economics have two main schools of thoughts and just like the republican vs democrats it just and opinion. All I know is we saw growth during the 40′s through the 60′s that was unprecedented, and I doubt it will ever be repeated by another country. This growth and expansion was all fueled by the liberal policies of one FDR.
Now the funny thing about this unprecedented growth was that it occured when the individual tax rates on the wealthiest Americans was 90% until ’61 when another liberal (Kennedy) lowered that top bracket to 70%. And the funny thing about all of this is; if you look at the public opinion polls Americans felt that the Tax system is fair.
Now times change and new policies should be put into place, but Neo-Con policies are just as bad as socialist policies. Starting with Uncle Ronny in the 80′s, a wave a deregulation has flooded across the United States. Politicians from both parties embraced this and finally in 2008 it came to a head and the markets realized that they need to correct. There is a balance between a well regulated market and a completely free market, and this balance constantly shifts. We just need to be aware.
Now the problem with the Tea Party and these constitutional fundamentalists is you HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS!!!!. I REPEAT YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!!!! Nowhere does it say the government has a specific job. Nowhere does it say that congress can’t make a law. No where does it say how to run this country. It just guarantees people certain rights that the government cannot take away. However the government has since the 1790′s seen fit to limit certain freedoms as certain times. (see Aliens and Sedition acts)
Now for those of you who have read the federalists and the anti-federalist papers you should understand that the constitution was not meant to be a static document. The constitution is a living breathing document that has to be changed for the times we live in. It’s not perfect, but its adaptable. That’s what makes the constitution and this country great.
Reagan had the largest decrease in unemployment in history? Really? I find that impossible to believe considering this little period of time in the US you may have heard of called the Great Depression. Unemployment was reduced significantly by increased spending and increased taxation on the rich–things Obama has proposed, but only one of them has come to being (increased spending, no tax increases have occurred yet.) So, at the very least, you were dishonest in presenting the facts. Also, I note you deliberately ignored things like the deficit when Reagan was in charge (went up dramatically, and the budgets proposed by him and the budgets approved by Congress were within 3% of each other). I note that, under every budget passed by Bush, there was a deficit when the last two (the only ones you chose to present) passed under Clinton were surpluses. Strange that you would put it that way, almost as though you intended to neglect to mention that. I wonder why?
One last thing: referring to Barack Obama as Barry is highly disrespectful. George W Bush had the nickname, that he approved of and existed prior to the 2000 election, of Dubya. Barack Obama has, over the course of his entire adult life, insisted that he not be called Barry. It’s pretty disrespectful to use that nickname when he has asked people who actually know him not to use it.
Thanks for visiting and taking the time to comment. Despite our obvious differences of opinion I truly appreciate the dialogue.
1) The largest since 1948 was under Reagan. If I wanted to talk about all of US history I would have included a different chart. I chose to include this chart to reflect life after WWII. We all know about the depression. I assume that you think FDR was the greatest president ever and ended the depression. I am of the mindset that he extended it. I am NOT dishonest in presenting my facts.
2) I didn’t ignore the deficit, but I will gladly write another article to discuss that if you like, since Barry has taken the concept to entirely new levels.
3) I started with the last Clinton year to SHOW the fact that there was a surplus when Dubya entered office. I assume you think Clinton created it and you probably give him credit for the great economy when in fact that little thing called the Dot Com Boom created the jobs and revenue. My point was to show that GWB started with a surplus and then spent too much. I also would like to point out that after the bottom in 2004 the deficit was trending back toward surplus until the Democrats took over and started spending (with Dubya’s approval of course). You can’t factor out TARP, which most rational people thought was a horrible idea You still can’t ignore Barry’s massive projected deficits. In other words, I’m not neglecting data.
4) I have better names for the presider, but I try to keep my blog rated PG. Would you be upset if I called him “Barack-O?” Think about it. Have you answered yet? I’m betting the answer is yes. Well, “Barack-O” is a nickname I picked up from an old black man that is a staunch support of Mr. Sortero. Tell you what; I’ll start treating our president with respect when he starts treating ME with respect. I won’t hold my breath.
I do think FDR was the greatest president ever. And I sure you have a litany of reason’s why was a terrible president. But the fact is, Social Security has been great for America, and fixing SS is easy you just eliminate the wage cap (ask Warren Buffet, which I’m sure you denounce as an evil liberal because he believes he should pay more taxes). By the way, the reason the great depression continued was because a conservative congress wanted to cut back after two years of spending when the country needed 3-4 years. And those estimates come from conservative economic historian John Steele Gordon.
On your second point about Clinton I do think he was great president because he was able to balance our budget. I don’t disagree that the dot com boom was largely responsible for this growth. But if it wasn’t for the government, the internet and the underlying technology wouldn’t existed. The internet came about mostly through Military research and University grants which are largely funded by the government (I’m sure there were private foundations that gave grants to Universities to study this, but it was mostly the government).
Your other point in the paragraph about TARP is completely off base. I’m sure within your group of friends you think TARP was a bad idea. But in my group of friends and 90% of economist agree that TARP prevented us from entering another depression, and it was probably a good idea. And at the end of the day it only cost the Tax Payers around $89 billion. Yes that is alot of money, but I would be willing to throw $100′s of Billions of dollars into the economy if it would prevent another depression.
Now I’m not ignoring Obama’s projected deficits or anything of the sort. I do view those as important issues that we need to figure out. But I tend to view the deficit as long term issue. The economists at Moody’s investments also feel the same way. Now I know Moody’s has lost a lot of credibility, but they’re one of the few groups who take the trouble to perform 30-50 year forecasts. The more immediate concern in America is Job growth. Unfortunately the Private Sector isn’t willing to hire any new employees because the economic outlook is grim. However the Government can provide and incentives to hire workers through stimulus packages.
Now I’m sure you would rather have the government cut taxes and everything, but Tax cuts are the worst form of stimulus for an economy. I’ve attached and article from Moody’s (I know) http://endtheecho.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/moodys-on-economic-stimulus-package/ which shows that other than direct payroll tax cuts, tax cuts are a horrible form of stimulus. My question for you Paulie, is do you know why that is?
Now I’m sure I making a generalization here, but most conservatives believe prvate companies aren’t hiring because they aren’t sure what there tax position is going to be. I work in the Finance Department of a fortune 500 company, and Taxes are the least of anyone’s concern. and by the way America has one of the lowest effective tax rates on corporations. Yes, Corporate taxes start at 39%, but most companies only pay 10%-20% of the pre-tax income to the government. Just as an FYI to all readers pre-tax income is what you have leftover after you pay everyone.
And your final point, Obama treats every American with respect. He doesn’t denounce conservatives as morons or a fring group. He would stand up for the rights of the smallest minority. And he hasn’t done anything to you other than push his agenda. And if I recall he was elected because Americans favored his agenda over John McCain. Now as far deserving respect, he is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Maybe you disagree with the man holding that title, but I will always respect the position. I didn’t agree with GWB, but I treated him with respect because I respect the office he held. And as much as my friends all wore their “Not my President Shirts” I still defended the office of president.
Now I’m sure I’m coming off as a little condescending in some of my points. But you’re whole thesis of what you wrote is to try and paint Obama as a terrible president and that he is responsible for where we are. He is not, nor is GWB or Clinton, GHWB, or Reagen. The real responsibility lies on each and everyone of us as Americans who demand something from our government, but are unwilling to pay for it. We as Americans allowed our corporations to run amock, our government to go unchecked both democrats and republicans. But you want to know something. I’m not afraid of the future. Why? because I’m only 21 and as my generation and our “Liberal” view come of age this country will be whipped back into shape.
I look forward to hearing back from Paulie.