>> This is even more recent, and on point...
There is so much wrong with that graphic, from an analytical point of view that one hardly knows where to begin. But there almost nothing factual or reasonable about it.
It requires a presumption that the Bush tax cuts didn't increase revenue, which we know they did, and it ignores the positive effect that it had on the economy. While it is possible the Bush Tax Cuts actually had some net cost associated with them, if they did it certainly was nowhere near what this graphic suggests. (It also ignores the fact that the "Bush Tax Cuts" became the "Obama Tax Cuts" when he signed the extension into law).
But this is what happens when amateurs start doing things they aren't qualified to do: they end up with meaningless results that reflect their point of view better than they reflect the facts.
The design of the chart is intended to convey, "Look, there would have been no deficit without Bush policy" -- not to really present what deficits look like year to year. This, of course, is silly -- the presumption that we didn't have a recession in 2001 or that we would not, or conceivably might not have responded to 9/11. And it of course presumes that Bush was the cause of the economic downturn, which is directly attributable to Clinton, Dodd, and Frank. |
