In contrast, President Bush and his allies in Congress never even attempted to replace the revenue lost as a result of their enormous tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were deficit-financed, which increased the national debt and resulted in greater interest payments on that debt, as already explained.

These figures make clear that costs cannot be the real concern of lawmakers who oppose the House health care legislation and yet supported the Bush tax cuts. Their position seems to be that showering benefits on the wealthiest five percent of taxpayers and leaving the bill for future generations is preferable to making health care available for all at a much lower cost and paying that cost up front. That demonstrates a different set of priorities than most Americans have, but it doesn’t demonstrate much concern about costs.

That man has got to be incarcerated.

Who george bush?

So much logically wrong with your conclusions. First off, the house writes the spending bills, not the president. Second, Bush 41 didn't cut taxes, he raised them. Third, most of the Bush 43 tax cuts didn't go into effect until well after the deficits leveled off and started dropping. Fourth, even with lower taxes than the Clinton years, the government was setting revenue records during the Bush 43 administration. So it wasn't a lack of taxes that was the problem, it was excessive spending.

And the obvious bias question, why does the chart stop where it does?

And the obvious bias question, why does the chart stop where it does?

Because the paper wasn't high enough to account for the added deficit.

Because the paper wasn't high enough to account for the added deficit.

You're right. This year's deficit would dwarf all the others.