This chart pretty much says it all. But for a fuller explanation, see this story at Talking Points Memo.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions
This chart pretty much says it all. But for a fuller explanation, see this story at Talking Points Memo.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Comments are closed.
Whoa! I didn’t see a line for “failure of Congress to reign in spending” on that chart!
This illustrates why “tax cuts!” without saying what spending you will cut is a gutless campaign tactic. Successful, though. A mainstay of Republicans for 32 years.
**This illustrates why “tax cuts!” without saying what spending you will cut is a gutless campaign tactic.**
This shows why Democrats will always go along with Republicans to enact tax cuts…but will fight tooth and nail against and never allow any real spending cuts.
A mainstay of Democratic politics for….Forever.
Where should they cut, Lou? Real cuts, I mean, not NPR and overhead projectors.
**Where should they cut, Lou?**
EVERYWHERE!
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” – Benjamin Disrael
I found the chart nearly incomprehensible and at this point I don’t really care where the blame goes. I just want us to stop charging everything like college students with their first credit card.
DK – I think there was an error on the labels for your chart. The 2003 tax cuts wre very unusual in that they had a definite sunset, and they ended in 2010. However, the Obama Administration chose to request that they be re-enacted, it passed the Democratic-controlled Senate (which just rejected Obama’s budget 99-0) and Obama signed the cuts into law.
Shouldn’t they be labeled the Obama Era tax cuts?
@C.E.: You know that’s (at best) half-true. Obama would gladly have gotten rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, but the Republicans wouldn’t hear of it.
**Obama would gladly have gotten rid of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, but the Republicans wouldn’t hear of it.**
Leadership at it’s best!
Didn’t he have some veto power?
Why didn’t he accomplish this when the Dems controlled All of congress in his first 2 years?