Obama Owns This Economy
Posted by cann0nba11 on February 4, 2010
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. 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. Red 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. (remember that one, the disaster he inherited but never whined about?) 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.
UPDATE 3 (Nov 2013): I’ve updated the deficit chart to reflect actual numbers. Remember, the CBO can only make projections based on the data and assumptions provided by the White House. As we can see, they were a bit optimistic a few years ago, the downward deficit is much slower than predicted.