Waldo Jaquith

Well, that is if you think that tax cuts “cost” anything.

(And people think Bush was some sort of arch-conservative…)

Posted by Michael on 25 July 2011 @ 5pm

Two points:
1. What estimates are you using to evaluate ObamaCare? The official estimates are grossly optimistic.
2. Tax cuts don’t cost anything.

Posted by Hans Mast on 25 July 2011 @ 5pm

The obsession with tax cuts has cost the Republican Party it’s soul. They can no longer govern a real country.

Posted by Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh on 25 July 2011 @ 6pm

What estimates are you using to evaluate ObamaCare? The official estimates are grossly optimistic.

You’ll have to ask the Times—I’m not evaluating anything.

Tax cuts don’t cost anything.

That’s the logic of a layabout—the very parody of a welfare queen, now that I think about it. If I quit my job, it costs me my salary. That income is gone. Ditto for tax cuts.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 25 July 2011 @ 6pm

I’m surprised that since Republicans have had their come-to-Jesus moment on federal spending, they never talk about repealing their Medicare Drug Benefit. Oh those were heady days weren’t they? When Karl Rove was creating the enduring Republican majority… Good times.

To think we may yet have the opportunity to promote the longest serving governor in Texas history (and GW’s successor) to higher office. We can rekindle the magic once more. It is nothing but sunshine and roses for America.

Posted by tx2vadem on 25 July 2011 @ 10pm

What is it with atheistic Democrats who love to toss around the phrase “come to Jesus” every chance they get? This must be the latest, greatest thing on facebook. Like the word “epic” in 2010. It’s a more than a little sad.

Posted by I. Publius on 25 July 2011 @ 10pm

Should Obama secure a second term I would be interested to see this graph updated in 2016. Given eight years my gut says that the difference will be negligible.

Posted by Duane Gran on 26 July 2011 @ 7am

Like the word “epic” in 2010.

Good Lord I am tired of that word.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 26 July 2011 @ 7am

True, it’s epic boring now.

Posted by Steve Vaughan on 26 July 2011 @ 3pm

I liked that word when Faith No More used it.

In all fairness, projecting out a budget 6 years in advance is almost an exercise in futility. Especially when it’s based on policy changes? What constitutes change? Shouldn’t the Patriot Act and creation of DHS fall someplace under the Bush years? Nothing about the EPA? SCHIP? I don’t have numbers or an answer. I’m just saying that graphic seems more than lacking.

Posted by grs on 26 July 2011 @ 8pm

I. Publius, did I touch a nerve?

Posted by tx2vadem on 26 July 2011 @ 8pm

Should Obama secure a second term I would be interested to see this graph updated in 2016. Given eight years my gut says that the difference will be negligible.

Only if Obama stops some of the Bush spending (e.g., the two wars). Otherwise, we’d need to do a whole lot of debt ceiling raising before he could actually gin up the money to spend another $3.2T. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 26 July 2011 @ 10pm

Didn’t Obama claim on the campaign trail that he would end the war in Iraq by March 31 2009 ?

Posted by Tom on 27 July 2011 @ 1pm

The are the Obama tax cuts now since Obama signed to extend them. That and the war costs are part of his administration now, not Bush’s.

Posted by jm on 27 July 2011 @ 5pm

Didn’t Obama claim on the campaign trail that he would end the war in Iraq by March 31 2009 ?

I can’t remember if he ever gave a date certain, but he did repeatedly say that he’d end that war, as I recall.

The are the Obama tax cuts now since Obama signed to extend them. That and the war costs are part of his administration now, not Bush’s.

This is a tally of the costs of presidents’ policy initiatives. Both of those were Bush’s policy initiatives. That’s very different than the cost of each president’s budgets. We’re all familiar with that. Neither the wars nor the tax cuts were President Obama’s initiatives.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 27 July 2011 @ 9pm

Sorry, but calling it ‘initiatives’ doesn’t cut it. They spend money or they don’t. Right now Obama can approve spending money but blames it on someone else.

We need more responsibility and less blaming.

Posted by David on 27 July 2011 @ 9pm

Sorry, but calling it ‘initiatives’ doesn’t cut it. They spend money or they don’t. Right now Obama can approve spending money but blames it on someone else.

I’m not sure that you’re understanding: this is simply another way of looking at the data. It’s neither good nor bad—it just is. Surely you can understand that it is useful to look at the price tag associated with presidents’ initiatives?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 28 July 2011 @ 7am

Waldooooo is right. I too thought, “Huh? Shouldn’t these be more spread between the two?” But then I noticed that the graphic was showing “Policy changes” and Obama has (basically) been Bush on a bunch of issues.

(And people think Bush was some sort of arch-conservative…) ;-)

Posted by Michael on 28 July 2011 @ 8am

I guess it’s always Bush’s fault.

Truman – The Buck Stops Here.
Obama = The ‘duck’ starts here

Obama could’ve vetoed the tax reduction continuation and he could have ended the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, and even closed Guantanamo Bay but he didn’t. His choices, his costs, well our costs and our childrens.

Posted by David on 29 July 2011 @ 10pm

Well, now I’m quite sure that you’re not understanding.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 30 July 2011 @ 9am

Obama signed the bill to extend the Bush tax cuts, thus they are now his policy and his tax cuts. All he had to do was not sign the bill. Bush’s tax cuts expired, Obama signed them onward – his policy from when he sign it.

and I guess all Soc Sec spending is attributed to FDR and Medicare/Medicaid to Johnson even though subsequent Congress’s and Presidents have increased the costs enormously.

Posted by david on 6 August 2011 @ 9pm

and I guess all Soc Sec spending is attributed to FDR and Medicare/Medicaid to Johnson even though subsequent Congress’s and Presidents have increased the costs enormously.

Attributing spending to the presidents who put those policies into place, all Social Security spending is attributed to FDR and Medicare/Medicaid to Johnson. Now you’re getting the idea. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 6 August 2011 @ 10pm

Yes, but its a uselss idea. The spending should be attributed to those who actually spend it. All SS shouldn’t be attributed to FDR because it was subsequent admins and congress’s that raised its costs. Likewise today’s tax cuts belong to those who passed them – including Obama.

Posted by david on 7 August 2011 @ 12pm

You might not like it, but that doesn’t make it useless. I like it just fine, and I find it useful, as do others. (That’s why the New York Times chose to publish it.) It answers the question of “whose idea was this?” There are two (and probably more) ways of looking at spending: who spent the money, and who instituted the policy to spend that money. Both are interesting and useful in different ways.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 7 August 2011 @ 2pm