Please note - Red (negative) numbers mean less congressional budget dollars (lower taxes, more money in American pockets) while blue numbers mean higher taxes and less money in American pockets.

If you are surprised that Bush pushed for smaller government and Obama wants the opposite, you haven't been paying attention.

No, the bush tax cuts were unfunded - that means the government took in a lot less money but didn't make cuts in spending elsewhere to make up for it.

So you can cut taxes to 0 if you want (and by your analysis that means "lower taxes, more money in American pockets"), but that only means much higher taxes in the future to pay back all the extra borrowed money and additional interest.

Can you even balance your own checkbook? Do you think spending with a credit card means more money in your pocket? Really, this is so basic...

Those American pockets are of about 400 influential families... Your Reaganomics defense has been proven to fail over and over again.

So supporting a select, non-appointed, few to run and influence government is okay... To support a democratic, voter-appointed government is somehow evil...

okay

"JustThinking" - you're forgetting that this graph wouldn't look this way had Bush shrunk his budget as much as taxes were cut. You make it sound like Bush had a small budget (lol).

Republicans are like my wife: they love to spend money, but they don't seem to appreciate that somebody has to pay for what they buy.

Bush spent (Medicare D, 2 wars) money on big government projects while cutting taxes. This created huge deficits with out any mechanism to pay them down. This is not related to smaller government by any means.

Bush... smaller government? Are you kidding? Are you dumb?

You must be thinking about what it used to mean to be a Republican. Bush ain't no Republican, he's one of those folks that took over the party from the far right fringe and turned it against itself, leaving us with a clear One Party system of governance in this country.

Now we have to listen to all the BS on tv abstracting current ideas against Bush-era ideas as if that was somehow beneficial and justified, given that Bush is now one of the possibilities of how America works.

Bush should have never existed. His policies were a function of the will to harm America as a source of individual strength in the world on the part of individual Americans so that we can all live inside of system that functions like a command and control state being perfected in China.

Repugnants and Demogods have become the enemy of progress. Declare your independence and own your life before its too late. If you are a W2, you are a modern day slave, no matter how much you are paid to pacify your opinions and will power.

Enough of Osama BL... enough of fighting meaningless wars... anyone wanna fight to destroy America (besides ourselves, since we are already doing that quite well) let them come to our soil and experience the holy terror of a nation that can not be defeated because of the will of free individuals to protect freedom AT ALL COSTS.

@JustTrollin1 Nice Trolling Troll!

What most people don't realize is that yes, we got a tax cut from Bushy; but, who was paying for our wars overseas? We BORROWED billions of dollars from...China, among a few other countries. Who really owns this country? We had a surplus when Clinton left office. Maybe China will run a candidate for president next election...they can certainly afford one. ;-)

Um...they did

Billions of dollars relative to FY2010 (Inflation)

Uh, Chuck, they labeled the vertical axis: billions of 2010 dollars.

Bah. It wasn't labled earlier. They must have edited it after I posted.

Or maybe you could have assumed. I want to know why it looks like it was saved in the lowest possible quality from Paint.

This is amazing!

Let me try...

If only this graph sent me a cheque for $500 dollars, it would be easier to understand.

(I'm going to the mailbox now.)

No its the total cost of the bill.

So the tax cuts by Bush (Inflation adjusted - also called real terms) have cost the US about $1.4 Tn and $0.4tn.

Unfortunately what this graph doesn't describe so well is if this was a collect hit or not. $1.4 Tn over 9 years is $155 Bn per year. Even then we don't know if interest etc. is accounted for.

Any graph or statistic is generally slightly disingenuous. However what is blatantly clear and cannot be argued with is that tax cuts during a war are totally stupid and that no matter what this graph doesn't tell you it does make it clear that Bush tax cuts could have paid for the senate health care bill.

Another way to look at it is that the US debt would be about $1.8 Tn less were it not for Bush cutting taxes during a useless war that is making the US unpopular and increasing US enemies worldwide. Factor in the cost of the war and US debt could be about 30%-40% less than it is now. Say thanks to the GOP.

This country cannot take care of its people. History has already proven that glaringly. Social security is in shambles, deficit is in numbers we could never really understand, and lastly look at the MA state health plan. The state is almost bankrupt with bernake saying that its not bankrupt, it just needs more money.(thats politician speak for yes were going bankrupt) I have a wonderful idea. Instead of spending our way out of debt, how about we save our way out of debt. I don't like the idea that my money that goes to pay for the interest in our public debt to be alloted and used by some guy in california who chooses not to work and hang out in the streets all day.Yes they will be the beneficiaries of this health bill. Along with every other person who has lost their job because we were to stupid to realize that legislation in effect now has forced our jobs overseas and left us high and dry. Here's the scoop....the jobs are gone, the money in our pockets is dwindeling, and our government is going to raise our taxes in a year just to keep from drowning in even more debt because of their short-sightedness in giving healthcare to everyone. Look at other countries that have universal health....they run to the states because it takes about a year to get an appointment at the doctors office. You want proof ask anyone who lives in those places. They don't like it anymore than I do here. But hey americas new motto is if it's free it's for me. Be very careful what you ask for...you just might get it. deregulation is an option for healthcare. At least try that first. if it doesn't work then we try universal health. I should be able to buy a policy in any state not just mine own. create competition in the health industry for our hard earned dollars, not a rote system of payment, or all it would do is force the few doctors we have out of our country along with the jobs.

congrats on tuning in to FOX news. do you have any new or factual information, maybe you're just pulling a colbert?

"Look at other countries that have universal health"

Ok..

1. The US pays more for health care per capita than any other industrialized nation.

2. The US pays more as a percent of GDP than any other industrialized nation.

3. The US receives relatively poor health care in comparison to these countries.

US rankings:

a. Infant mortality - 33rd

b. Life expectancy - 38th

c. Preventable deaths - 15th

d. World Health Organization comprehensive health care ranking - 37th

4. The current US health care system has failed to insure 45.7 million Americans or about 1 in 6.

(1 in 3 under the age of 65 were at least temporarily uninsured from 2007-2008)

5. The US is the only wealthy industrialized nation without universal health care.

The only 2 other industrialized nations without universal health care are Mexico and Turkey

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Sources:

COST:

1. Per Capita

http://www.expatriateruminations.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/HealthCareSpendingPerCapitaLarge.jpg

2. % of GDP

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5813a5.htm?s_cid=mm5813a5_x

3. US Health Care Rankings:

a. Life expectancy 38th

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

b. Infant mortality 33rd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

c. Preventable deaths 15th:

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

d. WHO comprehensive ranking 37th:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

4. UNINSURED:

45.7 million Americans uninsured (1 in 3 under the age of 65 were at least temporarily uninsured from 2007-2008)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/04/uninsured.epidemic.obama/

5. Developed nations with universal health care:

Summary

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/9/18277/26800

Actual report (pdf)

http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2009doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00000B6A/$FILE/JT03259332.PDF

John-yeah lets try deregulation, since it has worked so well in other aspects of life. Lets see we deregulated the banks and insurance industries, where did they get us. We deregulated our food industry now we have really cheap unhealthy food that is making our population sicker than it ever has. Nothing has come good of deregulation. there is way too much greed out there for it to work. Libertarianism is like communism it looks good on paper but it just doesn't work.

I love the way the brainwashed-by-Fox keep telling us how all the rest of the civilized world hates their health care and they are flocking here to take non-existent jobs and be gouged by health-insurance companies and then denied coverage.

John Rivera, do you even know anyone in Canada or Europe or Japan?

Sorry, but the vast majority of the Canadians, the British, the French, the Germans love their health-care systems. And this lie about long waits to get an appointment is just that, a lie. A blatant, out and out lie that the insurance companies tell you to frighten you.

Why do you continue to let giant corporations give you marching orders on how to destroy your own interest while making them fatter?

John Rivera. I asked my friends in France. They said they were quite happy.

John Rivera. I asked my friends in the UK. They said they were much happier with NHS than the for-profit insurance scams we have running over here.

John Rivera. I asked my recently immigrated Japanese friends. They said American health care is ridiculously expensive, even with full benefits from their jobs.

John Rivera. I asked my immigrant friends from Italy. They said, even with the backwards @!$%# that goes on in that country, health care is not as @!$%#ed up as it is in the USA.

John Rivera. I asked my friends in Trinidad and Tobago. They said while they may not have the same standard of care, they are a country with rampant impoverishment, and were just happy that health care costs don't eat more than 10% of their income.

John Rivera. I'm afraid you are completely misinformed, or perhaps you don't really know anyone who lives overseas. Do I have to tell you what my Canadian friends said, or do you want to guess?

Ok guys lets start here, I was born in Germany and live in the UK so I know about our health care.

I have NEVER had to wait longer than a week even for a trivial appointment. Our hospitals are quite reasonable and well equipped thank you very much. I do not know a single Brit or German who has ever run to the US for health care.

I don't and would never claim that our system is perfect but at least I can go anywhere in the UK and get health care no matter what. If you, Mr. John Rivera, want to pick apart our health care system then do it some place else. You can take your exorbitantly over priced health care and shove up your butt. I'll take our universal health care over yours thank you very much.

The simple truth is that unless you trust your government, in these times that is proving quite difficult, you will pick them apart no matter what they do. Also if there is a necessary product or service then you will be ripped off for it and far more so by industry trying to make a profit rather than government inefficiency. If you deregulate water pricing and allow any company to get a complete monopoly what do you think will happen. Your health care system is no different. You need it and they know it, they know you will pay whatever they want because you have no alternative. A necessary good should always be provided by government, yourself or have a public option to prevent you being screwed out of all your money. If you can't see that then I feel truly sorry for you.

If your health care providers had to meet certain minimum criteria and were not allowed to make more than a given profit then maybe you could brag about your health care system. As it is now and until the afore mentioned date arrives do not deride our system when you obviously have no experience of it.

What gets me the most about all this is how in general the people who would benefit most from a public option are the most against it. Laughable stupidity - apparently trying to help people is a plot by the rich... You people amuze me, but some of you, a la John Rivera, also piss me off when they chatter on about something they know nothing about.

Mike....... Bravo!!!!

No the Bush tax cuts cut taxes on almost all income brackets including the poorest however they vastly favored the highest income earners.

Ah but did you take into account all the sick people who could get back to work?

No graph like this will ever be complete.

There are lies, damn lies, statistics and graphs.

Uh...I'm not sure what you mean by that. The only reason two have impact on the "budget" and the other is an impact on the "deficit" is because of what the graph is trying to represent. If your budget is $2000 a month and you spend $4000 a month, you have a budget deficit. If you stop getting cable and eating out and reduce your costs by $500, you still have a deficit of $1500. Your spending cuts have decreased your deficit (bar three) but the deficit is still there. In other words, YES, cancel the cable and stop eating out, but you still have to pay rent, heat, electricity, etc. At this point you have two choices. Eliminate the cause of the deficit (tax cuts/lack of income, get a second job) or live on the streets. There isn't any other way to balance the budget.

The third bar represents the reduction of the deficit because it can't represent anything else. It isn't a budget shortfall therefore it has to be a deficit reduction. The only way to represent it differently would be if it were creating a budget surplus.

That's not true. The tax cuts primarily when to the people who actually pay taxes. This upper 2 percent is that group.

@tkwelge - I never knew that the top 2% of Americans payed that much tax... Maybe you have some reasonable evidence of how much of all US taxes is paid by the top 2%. Don't forget most of them dodge quite a lot of taxes. Feel free to post a link.

It would appear to me that those earning under 95% of income pay as much or more tax than those in the top 5%. Maybe you feel that the richest 2% cannot manage without a tax cut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States

Yeah, let me help you with some math there, genius. And your link will suffice quite well. Go ahead, scroll down to the section headed Progressive Nature. Oh, here, I'll give you a link, sweetie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#Progressive_nature

Now look at that big chart at the bottom of the section. No no, not the bottom of the page. Just the section.

Now look at the first two rows, one labeled Top 1% and the other labeled 95-98%. Now, just look at the federal share, since we are talking about federal income taxes here. I know it's hard, but remember when you add two numbers, you must line up the decimal places and carry your tens.

34.4

20.8 +

---------

55.2!!

Now if you remember your lessons on percentages, you would know that 50% represents 1/2. So there, we see that the top 5% paid over half of all taxes.

Since the original objection was that the tax cuts went to the wealthy, it would only seem to follow that yes, they would, simply because they are the ones paying the most (defined as greater than half) taxes.

Another curious thing to note there. Look at the bottom 50%. They pay almost zero taxes. Why should they get a tax cut? They aren't paying anything, yet they overwhelmingly benefit from the taxes paid by others.

I hope everything is clear. You can thank me now. Next week's lesson will be in logical fallacies, specifically post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Perhaps, but the top 5% has 80% of the money. so 80% of the money is only paying 55.2% of the taxes.

Yes, that's certainly the stirring Reaganesque argument I heard from my conservative baby-boomer dad all while I was growing up. The problem is that this graph is another example of how Conservatives' actions don't match their words. The deficit grew under Bush - just like it grew under Reagan. Bush also increased the size of the government and made it more intrusive into people's lives. So at this point, "Government is the problem not the solution" is little more than spin.

Republicans aren't libertarians. This graph is amazingly misleading. I don't recall a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit. That projection for the healthcare bill is also misleading as most of the costs won't occur for a few more years. Any idiot can raise taxes, which is the only way that the healthcare bill could pass muster. Oh yeah, and creative accounting to game the CBO, and cutting parts of the bill into other bills to hide the costs, etc etc. Yes, bush was full of it, but don't let ye be blinded to your own stupidity. Government is the problem is a perfectly good argument from a perfectly defensible philosophy. I think you are deluded.

@tkwelge - yes any idiot can raise taxes and this is normally a good idea during a war or when you cannot afford your outgoings and you're not willing to reduce them.

Government is only the problem as long as the people elect them therefore it is not the government that is the problem but the voters. Therefore the American people are the problem in the US same as the Brits are the problem here in the UK.

@tkwelge, this graph does not show a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, it shows the effect on the budget. In other words, the Bush tax cuts (1st round) cost 1.4 trillion dollars in revenue. There's a lot more to the budget than the Bush tax cuts, for example the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which were paid for by supplementals throughout the Bush years and were never counted toward the deficit. Now that they are on budget, they show the deficit as it truly is.

Any idiot doesn't have to raise taxes. They can simply let the Bush tax cuts expire and let the ship right itself. The Health care bill will only help in that regard.

That supreme court decision had nothing to do with campaign donations. It was about whether or not a corporation (in this case a non profit corporate entity) had the right to produce a movie expressing an opinion too close to election time. Under mcain feingold, the government could literally ban a 2000 page book about zombies because the words "hillary sucks" appear on the very last page. What part of this has anything to do with campaign contributions which are still restricted. Nobody can donate directly to a campaign except in very limited amounts. You must use a PAC and it must report where every penny came from. None of this was changed by the recent supreme court ruling. Hope that cleared things up for you. :)

I question the 'non-profit' corporate entity part of your statement, but even leaving the non-profit, it is still a huge boon for any corporation. A fictional work can change the names. But now if you got the cash you can by the ads for the politicians and call it free-speech, only now they won't have the tag at the end "This message brought to you buy Citizens for Professional Liar Number 117".

I am sorry but if a corporation has all the rights of a US citizen the when a corporation commits a crime it should be punished under the same laws as a citizen, and should pay taxes as a citizen. Corporations should not be able pick and choose from the bill of rights and ignore the rest of being a US citizen.

If you were dozing off as you were driving home one night and ran someone over OSHA would not come out and give you a fine, odds are you would be looking at least a little jail time and a loss of license. But when a company f***s up and kills or maims people they pay a fine and keep on going. In some situations they even know the risk to their empoyees/consumers and consider the possible public outcry and fines to be worth the cost savings. You try that in a manslaughter trial, "I knew i would have to spend 6 months in jail and lose my license if a ran that red light but went ahead and hit the pedestrian anyway".

@sinrtb

What in God's name are you blathering about? The Supreme Court ruled that the restriction two weeks before the election was unconstitutional. Everything you are rolling on the floor moaning about in your post could already happen, as long as it was two weeks out.

There was nothing in the decision about donation limits, or disclosure. God you leftists are such suckers for a convenient lie.

I am so sick and tired of people who don't pay taxes whining about giving a tax cut to the people who do pay taxes

Amy:

Why do you label my complaint a "whine"? Is it because you can make it seem less legitimate if you confer that name to it>

More importantly, why do you assume that I pay no taxes. As a middle to lower-middle wage earner, the percentage I pay in taxes is higher than many very wealthy persons and corporations.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of the economic winners whining (yes, I can use that term, too) about supporting the system that rewards them so richly.

You might pay a higher percentage in taxes, but I'm sure that the benefits you receive are much higher as a percentage of your income also. Bill gates might drive on the public roads, but his taxes pay for the building of more roads than he alone could possibly drive on. Of course, in your hear, I'm sure that you're still right.

Dear Amy,

Glad to see that you know everyone who whines about tax cuts and everyone who pays taxes to be able to make that comment. It never once occurred to me that no-one with a low income job struggling to make ends meet might get annoyed that someone who earns bucket loads of cash may not need a tax cut as much as a poor earner in a job. Fortunately however you know that these people don't whine, its the people without a job who whine. All must be well.

With much love

Mike

(A foreigner who loves to support those not as fortunate as himself by helping provide them an education and the possibility of a productive career in the future - maybe even one where they pay taxes and support me short term should I lose my job - perish the thought).

ps. As a foreigner I am not a drain on US resources so your opinion cannot include me - I am providing an example from my own country,

It achieves that gain due to creative accounting meant to game the CBO. THe CBO has to evaluate the bill as it stands. They don't count potential cost overruns, or pieces of the bill peeled off into separate bills. The CBO posts huge caveats at the beginning and end of that report. THis graph also doesn't count the stimulating effects of the tax cuts (if you believe in that sort of keynesianism) that might of increased revenue higher than it otherwise would have been. I mean, if OBama can claim to have saved millions of jobs, why can't the republicans claim that tax cuts pay for themselves? THey are both statements impossible to verify scientifically.

Actually your comment is not quite true. If the bailout keeps someone in government in a job then it is verifiable - not desirable, but it is verifiable.

I am incidentally against Keynesian economics - most times it has worked in the past it was associated with a war. As a pacifist I don't much like war.

Remember those tax cuts and the stimulus checks we all got? Bush said we could or should all get DVD players with that money.

I was so excited to be able to enter the vast world of Hollywood.

Sadly when a letter came telling me I wasn't getting a check I had to go back to playing with my friends that I made out of cereal boxes.

I hope everyone that got a DVD player is still using it.

Speak for yourself. While this bill is not perfect (no bill ever is), it is light years better than doing nothing. Thanks to the Party of No it has been watered down from what Progressives would have prefferred, but half a loaf is better than none.

And the money is the issue, along with health care equity and control of the insurance castastrophe. If you believe the Tea Party crap, than you might conclude that people aren't for health care reform. But if you believe in democratic elections then you have to conclude that people are for it. That's what President Obama and the majority of Congress were elected to do.

There are other alternatives besides obamacare or NO. You people just don't listen to the alternatives.

Ray, you're making some pretty big assumptions in saying that because people voted in a Democrat, people want Liberal ideas pushed through. While this isn't the place for the argument, it can easily be argued that Bush lost this election more than Obama won it, and that the Obama largely won due to moderate support, meaning that his supporters aren't automatically going to latch onto Obama's ideals.

Either way, you are blind to the fact that people genuinely are not interested in this bill as a whole. Only 4 in 10 Americans approved of healthcare reform at the close of last year (I haven't seen quantifiable, unbiased poll numbers since then), and regardless of who helped them garner that opinion (Tea Party movement, your so called "Party of No", or whoever), they are the American people and they are the people who are effected by this bill and who are supposedly represented by their elected governing officials. You want a view of people's stance on healthcare reform? There it is, right in the polls.

You also forget that super-majorities were in place when all this reform started, so I think it's very accusatory to say that Republicans were the death of the whole thing from the start. There are plenty of democrats out there who thought this reform was too drastic an attempt and altogether bad for the nation. As you've said, it's been adjusted and modified and, essentially, bastardized dozens of times for the sake of garnering votes and approval, and in reality almost no one is happy with the bill at this point.

Before he lost his MA seat, Obama didn't give the slightest concern about Republicans or where they stood on the matter because he could do whatever he wanted with the bill as long as he had Democrat super-majority support. He wasn't able to capitalize on his advantage, and now that he lost his majority, he is suddenly all about "teamwork" and "crossing party lines". Bullocks, he could make the same argument against himself a few months ago. This bill was drafted without any concern to Republican opinion, and as such, even with extensive modification, it probably won't make everyone, or perhaps anyone, happy. If Obama actually wants to get this reform done, he needs to start over, listen to everyone, and stop acting like he's some kind of Liberal champion one day and bipartisan savior the next. No one buys it, and the polls show it.

Why are so many americans opposed to the bill? Might it be because they get their "news" from sources who misrepresent what the bill actually says? Odd that people are in favor of each actual provision of the bill... but opposed to the bill itself. Polling is suspect. I recently responded to a poll that asked (I am NOT making this up)

"Are you in favor of Obama's socialized takeover of healthcare."

I agree - it is odd. I also suspect that people don't like the whole bill because it DOESN'T include a public option. If you are required to by insurance I think you should have a choice that doesn't make more money for the insurance companies.

IF we compare the Busha and Obama deficits, there is no comparison, obama is the bigger borrower. SO what's your point?

tkwelge - yes and no. Bush signed legislation expanding medicare and medicaid that was unfunded. Ok it goes a long way into the future but the cost adds up to approx $34 Tn. if I recollect properly. Obama hasn't spent that yet.

It would be nice to know how the US intends to fund its deficit before it keeps spending though.

Well, when you give people money, yes, you must rely on trust of business. The governement will never be able to completely create this false world of 100 percent government guaranteed trust, and in many cases it actually makes things worse. You want to control the actions people make with their own money or the money that has been entrusted to them. The cost of sarbannes oxley is 2 million per corporation just to COMPLY. That's 2 million dollars per company that isn't going towards pleasing customers or rewarding investors.

We have much more power in the free market than we will ever have in the pluralistic world of government politics. Our individual votes mean much less to the government than the money I have means to Chevy. We're not handing power to "big business" but the people. You seem to think that the government is this entity which is supposed to control people's private property, hopefully for your (or at least SOMEBODY'S) benefit. In most cases, the government simply represents the interests of loud pluralities. As governments reach more into economic matters, less and less agreement can be had, and majorities are replaced by pluralities. In such an environment, democracy is an illusion, as governments cease to be able to please the majority, simply because of the political maneuvering of strong elites who play the pluralities against eachother. The idea that government is a protector of YOU personally makes it possible for this elitist pluralism to take hold. Hence the massive dissatisfaction in America in the government, even though these politicians seem to be winning election after election by perceived majorities.

Sorry dude flawed analysis. Your money matters as much to chevy as your vote does to the government. Neither give a rats ass as long as there are enough voters/buyers to keep them in power/profit.

You get to exercise your free will if you spend your own money but you don't have more influence over a company. You gain, potentially, more control over your life or at least the illusion of control.