- New York Times: Policy Changes Under Two Presidents
This chart of new costs versus savings under Presidents Bush and Obama is really striking. The total cost of Obama's new policies comes to $1.44T. Bush's? $5.07T. Just his tax cuts alone cost more than Obama's policies, at $1.8T. Once you figure in two wars, TARP, and the stimulus, we're talking about a great deal of money indeed.
- Wikipedia: States Rights Gist
CSA Brigadier General States Rights Gist, born in 1831, had a father who felt very strongly about politics. His family, from South Carolina, called him "States." He died at the Battle of Franklin, in 1864.
- Library of Congress: Soldier’s Joy
This tune has been played on nearly every instrument known to man since at least the late 1700s, which is as far back as historians have traced it. The version with lyrics dates only to 1957, when Jimmy Driftwood wrote them. Nearly every version that I've heard has been instrumental. Courtesy of the LoC, you can even hear a 1938 recording of Albert Gore and his band performing it at the National Folk Festival. If you're not familiar with Gore, you'll at least know of his son, Vice President Al Gore.
Published by Waldo Jaquith
Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Charlottesville, VA, USA. more »
View more posts
Well, that is if you think that tax cuts “cost” anything.
(And people think Bush was some sort of arch-conservative…)
1. What estimates are you using to evaluate ObamaCare? The official estimates are grossly optimistic.
2. Tax cuts don’t cost anything.
The obsession with tax cuts has cost the Republican Party it’s soul. They can no longer govern a real country.
You’ll have to ask the Times—I’m not evaluating 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.
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.
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.
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.
Good Lord I am tired of that word.
True, it’s epic boring now.
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.
I. Publius, did I touch a nerve?
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. :)
Didn’t Obama claim on the campaign trail that he would end the war in Iraq by March 31 2009 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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…) ;-)
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.
Well, now I’m quite sure that you’re not understanding.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
Comments are closed.