I actually think that chart is absolutely correct for what it shows - CBO estimates of future deficits.
Of course, what it doesn’t show (which the chart in the OP does), is what is driving those estimates. If you remove, for example, the Bush tax cuts, the deficits drop quite a bit - I believe around 30%. Any other policy changes (CPI change to SS, tax reform, etc) would also change those projections.
The Democrats controlled the Senate until the 2004 elections. Both wars and the Bush tax cuts happened with the Dems in control of the Senate. It seems odd to me how many people on this MB can’t seem to remember that.
Note that the initial estimates in that report assume the 2001 tax cuts expire (they didn’t) and that the Iraq & Afghanistan wars were not included at all.
You might recall that there was no filibuster available on either tax cut bill as they were both “jammed through” under reconciliation. You may also recall that the second vote was 51-50 with Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. I believe the first got around 10 Democratic votes, short of the required number to overcome a filibuster (had one been available).
As to the wars (Iraq in particular) that ground has been well-trod, and needn’t be tread again today.
The Democrats have devolved themselves, abased themselves, into a menshevik, three legged Blue dead dog that won’t hunt, a “business friendly”, “centrist” Clintonista monstrosity, prostituting a proud tradition for corporate campaign donations. It worked, and now a considerable portion of the Democratic Party is nothing more than Republican Lite.
As for the debacles you mention, I hasten to point out that we radical lefties were right on those, three for three. often in the face of scorn and derision. It seems odd to me how many people on this MB can’t seem to remember that.
It wasn’t their idea, the Democrats just caved in as they always cave in. They weren’t in control; they aren’t ever in control. They aren’t capable of it. They never rise above the status of “speed bump for the Republicans” regardless of how many are in office at the moment.
Take that up with Ravenman. He did the calcs based on who controlled what. I just corrected a mistake he made. If he wants to come in and move his goalposts, that’s up to him.
Who cares? The point is that most of the debt was racked up by Bush. Pubs argue that Obama/Dems are as responsible for this-- in raw numbers, not in comparible years in office. The graph linked to in this thread show otherwise.