It isnt that simple when you present the numbers otherwise bashing Democratic Presidents is the easier thing to do. And let Obama finish his term, the chart will include him as well, spending amidst severe recession to jumpstart the economy is the idea of bad debt here and never the moronic policies like cutting taxes amidst a war.
Yea right, you could have done some research before writing such long commentaries, facts are also important.
I didn't dispute the numbers, I put them into context. perhaps that was a bit much. Reagan had to deal with a severe recession, you didn't mention that. We just went $2T in the hole and generated $0.5T of economic activity. That has already passed I don't need to wait for end of his term.
You lack intellectual integrity to use a chart like that which assumes that all previous entitlements, loss of revenue from a stock market bust and recession, increase in revenue from tax cuts in 2003 (non static models), and all the rest of the budget are somehow irrelevent. I should not say you lack integrity, the chart maker does, you lack sophistication to want to use it. religion and idealogy- two sides of the same coin.
You said entitlements are going to be the reason for the ballooning deficit, what context are you talking about. And you didnt mention how the deficit kept climbing under Reagan and continued under Bush. And here is a chart with Obama included.
For the last 8 years, entitlements lead to 10% increase in deficit, so to say that entitlements are going to the reason for unsustainable deficit is not an acceptable argument. And if you want to continue claiming it, just support it with facts and figures and I will gladly accept your assertion. The problem with your comments is that all of them are based on your partisan assumptions to make the other side look bad without any consideration for reality.
It's in the chart, why does it need mentioning? Your new chart is again biased, your authors just can't help themsleves can they? Notice how the line at the right is all red, a subtle attempt to give all the new debt Bush's name. Notice how you give Obama only a small part of the sudden ramp up? Very dishonest... he was the sole owner of stimulus and he turned unspent money and leftovers from bailout into stimulus. Of the Approximatly $1.5 Trillion spent very quickly, he owns 2/3 of it and not the small fraction you have indicated. Very very dishonest. 2000-2009 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html Human Resource spending 2000: 1.1T, in 2009: $1.9T Defense 2000:$295B in 2009: ~600B Human resources are education, health, SSI, unemployment, etc. Increase in Human resources in 9 years is $800 billion, which is more than the entire defense budget in 2009, let alone an increase! yet there are idealogical idiots out there for either reasons of stupidity or for dishonesty want to say that defense and tax cuts are the prime drivers of deficit. The tax cuts didn't even kick in full until 2003, the exact numbers are open to debate because as even Obama knows, tax cuts can spur activity and actually generate revenue. That's why Obama proposed tax cuts as part of stimulus, and opposed increases. I could equally well make a pie chart showing the entire deficit due to social spending incrreases, it's all a matter of what you choose to call part of the deficit and what isn't. Honest people look at the entire budget though. I give up hermit, you just lack the firepower....sorry
Illogical argument. You're saying, "entitlements over the past 8 years only caused a 10% increase in debt, so to say that future exposure from entitlements will be greater than the past decade is false." Entitlements such as SS, Medicare and public pensions have a risk profile akin to a short options position. Like a call option that's moving from far OTM to far ITM, the cost of entitlements increases each day. What you and many other fools don't understand is that a pretty big portion of those "Reagan deficits"-ignoring that Congress back then was as Demo as it is today-was on INTEREST expenses. What were Treasuries yielding during Reagan's first term? One would shudder at how big these Obama deficits would be if the Treasury rate component was 12% across the curve.