Feeds: Email, RSS & Twitter

Get Our Videos By Email


8,300 Unique Visitors In The Past Day


Powered by Squarespace


Search The Archive Of 15,000 Videos




Hank Paulson Is A Criminal - Pass It On

"The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme"

Get Our Videos By Email


Bernanke's Replacement: Happy Hour In Santa Cruz

Must See: National Debt Road Trip

"Of Course We're Not Going To  Payback the Chinese."

Dave Chappelle On White Collar Crime

Carlin: Wall Street Owns Washington

SLIDESHOW - Genius Signs From Irish IMF Protest

SLIDESHOW - Airport Security Cartoons - TSA

Most Recent Comments
Cartoons & Photos
« NATIONAL DEBT WATCH -- Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data | Main | Ben Bernanke The Bubble King »

Comparing Federal Deficits: Bush Vs. Obama

chart comparing federal deficit under bush vs obama

Source: CBO -- More detail inside.

In the first independent analysis, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget will rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow $9.3 trillion over the next decade.

Graphic courtesy of the Washington Post.

Two short comments: the numbers have already worsened since this graphic was produced in March, and the Obama administration is on the same prescription meds as AIG execs.  Take a look at 2013-2019.  Holy rosy scenario.



     Email to a Friend



Subscribe to RSS headline updates from:
Powered by FeedBurner

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (21)

This is our future...get used to it. Like Obama said..."The people have spoken".....
May 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterAin't Bullshittin'

Did he really say that? Maybe he misunderstood. Maybe we should clear our collective throats and speak a little louder. I doubt if he'll hear us even then...but I intend to be heard. One way or another.
May 15, 2009 at 7:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames H
If they haven't already done so, the worst that will happen for now is that some idiot WH reporter will ask Robert Gibbs to explain this discrepancy between the WH and CBO estimates. That's all. Big scandal, big whoop, big nothing. Neither the reporter nor the utterly dispicable Press Secretary will give a rat's ass about what this graph means.

(BTW, am I the only one who wants to do very un-Christian things whenever I hear Robert Gibbs speak? And while we're on the subject, am I the only one who thought his response to the Rick Santelli question a while back sounded a tad scripted? And why the hell did he have a paper copy of the housing bailout with him at the lecturn? It's almost as if he KNEW he would be asked about Rick Santelli and that he would have the chance to hold that thing up in the air like a flea-market peddler hawking the latest advamcement in stain-removal. And there's no way Gibbs thought of that coffe/tea joke on the fly. Didn't happen that way. Then again, this is the same administration that threatened some of the Chrysler bondholders (ahem...Mr. Rattner) with public excoriation through the press. Gibbs is a real piece of work alright. Whatever happened to that cup of coffee he offered to have with Santelli, anyway?)
May 15, 2009 at 10:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames H
They decided to serve piss and vinegar instead of coffee. Rick decided to pass up the offer at that point.
May 15, 2009 at 11:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterAin't Bullshittin'
Apparently I just invented a new word, "dispicable." But in my book, Robert Gibbs is both despicable and "dispicable" because "dispicable" is a level of despicable that only a WH press secretary can achieve.

@AB, I'd say the Piss N' Vinegar Café has been in full swing of late. I imagine Santelli and I would disagree on a whole bunch of things (McCain), but he's the balls. 'Cause he ain't never bullshittin' -- unlike that unofficial govt. spokesperson, Steve Liesman. I still can't believe Santelli is on the air. I guess it was a toss-up between ratings and GE's need for welfare checks. Maybe he'll run for Congress or something -- can you imagine Rick Santelli having one of his episodes on the House floor? To paraphrase the great walstreetpro2, I'd be Googling that shit on YouTube all the time. Fire up the popcorn, honey, Santelli's in the House!
May 16, 2009 at 12:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames H
Fun and games continue:

"The administration has reclassified prior month expenditures related to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA- also known as TARP). Consistent with statutory requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act and EESA, TARP purchases are now being accounted for on a net present value basis, taking into account market risk. Accordingly, budget outlays have been reduced and direct loan financing activity correspondingly increased by $175 billion." (Monthly Treasury Statement through April 30)

Isn't this great? Because our TARP "investments" are risky, over-priced pieces of crap, we've reduced the budget deficit!
May 16, 2009 at 6:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames H
Rick Santelli needs to be shot. I am speechless of the hypocisy of him and his loser teabagging (such an appropriate name) breathern.
May 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered Commenterrush
This is B.S. The People have not spoken, they have been misled by the one-side destructive media biased! What Barrack is doing is foolish and shows his lack of experience in the important matters that require knowledgeable people. We need help. We need to get this mad man out and/or stop him by all means. We need the gain the balance one again of powers to stop this crazy fool.
May 27, 2009 at 1:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterM
this is the exact same chart with exact same layout and graphics as the foundry AKA Heritage Foundation.
This is right wing extremism through propaganda.
Look and see 4 yourself
Jul 6, 2009 at 11:06 PM | Unregistered Commenterranger

Cool your heels...the chart is from the Washington Post...anywhere else you saw it jsut borrowed it from them...

I repeat...it is from the liberal Washington Post.
Jul 6, 2009 at 11:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterDailyBail
This chart isn't even real, it's "projections", that haven't happened, so how does it prove anything? If the info from 2009-on is just educated guessing, then how can anyone find this information relevant? When I googled "Obama deficit vs Bush deficit", this chart was the only information I could find for several pages, (all on one-sided conservative websites), which is pathetic because it's such an obvious ploy to spread misinformation as broadly as possible. Nice try, but all you're winning are idiots who don't know how to read a graph & you're offending the rest of us who really want the FACTS--- as in things that have actually already occurred in real time-- not just in our imaginations. Please.
Nov 5, 2010 at 12:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeanette H.
jeanette...i agree with you...if you take the time to check out the site you will see i attack both parties...i am 1 person running this site..i can't take the time to do extensive write-ups for more than a few stories per day...
Nov 5, 2010 at 2:37 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Jeanette, the 2010 deficit is reported to be 1.3 Trillion. (CBO looks to be just about right, WH estimate just shy of 1.2 Trillion).

The chart above is from right-wing hypocrites, sure, but it's still way too optimistic, actually. Like this guy, he's in fantasy land: http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/2010/10/25/whats-really-behind-that-1-3-trillion-deficit/ He says if the economy were better and we weren't spending so much propping it up, the deficit would be a lot smaller. Can't argue with that. But the spending is mostly structural and the CBO is factoring in a "recovery" in their estimates.
Nov 5, 2010 at 3:03 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
How many of these prior Presidents had to save Wall Street from crashing?

Detroit from folding?

All this under the guise of free enterprise...he should have let both institutions sink, but Republicans/Big Business couldn't save the game from falling off the table and somehow convinced the Dummycrats to sign on for the ride.
Nov 29, 2010 at 2:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterDarrell
Any chart that exonerates George Bush (PoppaDoc or BabyDoc) is a Goddamned Lie!
Nov 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM | Unregistered Commenterprofnasty
Deficit Re: War Debt. Anyone who volunteers for the US Military ought to be considered a traitor. It is paranoia and visceral hatred/greed which has killed America. The new 'america' is a Zomby State. It is not a 'bubble economy' it is a 'tumor economy'. Just sit back and watch the rich enjoy their newfound trillions. In the next life they will choke on their money. Sew to the wind, reap to the whirlwind. Amen.
Nov 29, 2010 at 2:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterprofnasty

bush and obama are both fiscally irresponsible...obama's numbers are worse because tax receipts cratered...both love to spend taxpayer bucks borrowed from future generations...
Nov 29, 2010 at 11:52 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
There are a few things to consider.

1- The 2009 fiscal year actually started in October 2008. So the bulk of the 2009 spending was already placed into the budget months before Obama was inaugurated. So fiscally, it actually looks like this:

2- The growing deficit has more to do with lowered revenues than increased spending. Those lowered revenues come from the Bush tax cuts (which Obama tried rolling back on the richest Americans but was blocked by the GOP) and the economic downturn (which happened under Bush but isn't Bush's fault).

3- It's important to note that the Bush tax cuts didn't just lower revenue the year they were enacted. Every year these tax cuts are extended they keep adding to the deficit. And the more the GOP fights Obama's jobs plan, the longer revenues will remain suppressed (in fact, the GOP is COUNTING on this).

4- These are numbers aren't adjusted for inflation so it's unfair to say "Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined." The numbers are higher because the economy is larger and there is more currency in the economy.

Nov 22, 2011 at 12:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames
plenty of flaws in the chart, major piece of dishonesty; think, was Bush's presidency 7 years or 8? I think he was in there 8 years. FY2009 hang around Bush's neck. the deficit was largely caused by huge shortfalls in tax collections because of Bush's GREAT RECESSION. and his unfunded wars and tax cut.. fact is we are still realling from what bush did to this country. Even Cato (hardly a left leaning group) hangs FY2009 on Bush.

"While this might make sense to a casual observer, (to hang FY2009 on Obama) it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began Oct. 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while President Bush was in the White House. "


Dec 8, 2011 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered Commenterbuzzards27
The 2009 Fiscal budget was decided in October 2008, which is not only 3-4 months before Obama took office, it was one month before he even won the election. Also, the main cause of the rising deficit is the recession, which resulted in trillions of dollars of lost revenue. Here is a more honest look at the cause and effect.

May 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterWilliam C

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.