I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
Oranjeman ·
Jul 26, 2011 at 7:05am
This can't be right, can it?
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| © 2012 Silent Cal Productions | Help • About • Contact • FAQ • Code of Conduct • Terms & Conditions • Privacy • Store • Site Map • DMCA |
Comments :
May '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
"[Y]ou cannot logically argue that we absolutely must reduce deficits, but that we absolutely must also preserve every penny of those tax cuts."
Yes you can. Every person and every organization expects to earn less and spend less when the economy goes south. Why should the US government be different?
Knuckleheads.
Dec '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
The first obvious error is including the Bush tax cut as expenditure, as they increased revenues. They were not a net loss. More to come.
Dec '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
The Obamacare costs are no where near realistic. Food stamps and unemployment checks are a huge expense. Afghanistan was the "good" war supported by Obama and escalated by him, should not be counted against either
May '11
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
Wow, that is the first I noticed also. That chart is sure some propaganda. Health care seems an awful small number for 1/6 of the economy. Where did that chart come from?
Aug '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
One of the sources for the chart is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an entirely 'non-partisan' group... I promise. They say so themselves. Just go to their website and see for yourself.
Jul '11
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
I just love charts like this. I have watched corporate weasels kill off good managers with a good looking chart that misrepresents information by showing data in such a simplistic format that nobody questions the basic assumptions.
In this case the problem is that you are comparing a known (the cost of Bush era policy) against a future unknown (the cost of Obama era policy projected into the future based on the policies implemented so far).
In this case the incorrect assumptions are:
1) The current administration will not make any policy changes that will change costs for the time stated.
2) The current estimate of future costs is valid. Since many government policies are actually the creation of governmental structures that have yet to determine the fees for their area of responsibility the validity of this number is questionable.
3) That a tax cut is actually a cost. A tax cut is a reduction in revenue not a cost.
4) That items under Bush do not influence items under Obama. Mainly the TARP program started under Bush should generate revenues recognized under Obama. This will tend to overstate the Bush costs and understate the Obama costs.
Nov '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave.
May '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
Only Obama, the supposedly great orator, could have the Audacity to try to sell this line (in last night's speech):
"In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts..."
It's been said before, but Washington really does live in such a bizarre alternate reality that to them:
This chart is basically making the same assumptions. Of course something is missing.
Not only that, but Obama basically validated most of Bush's choices by continuing "Bush's" wars, increases in discretionary spending, and additional Medicare programs.
If Obama really cared about the debt, he'd be UNDOING many of Bush's policies. This post is not a defense of Bush. I'd love to see Obama push to repeal the Medicare drug benefit, for example!
Edited on Jul 25, 2011 at 11:10pmMar '11
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
The Bush administration did expand the budget deficit more than any administration before it had and more than the Obama administration has yet in 2 years. But this graph misrepresents the situation.
The first thing that strikes you is the hyper-optimistic, inaccurate account of the cost of the Obama health care program, which has already cost more than expected.
Next, the 2009-2017 "projections" line is pretty irresponsible because it takes into account only the spending that "new" programs generate, not the wider fiscal situation federally with programs on autopilot. Moreover, are we to assume Obama will pass no other spending from 2012-2017 if re-elected? Really?
We could count TARP and the 2008 Stimulus under both Presidents because both Presidents supported it. Bush should be held accountable for passage, but it's not as if, had Obama been in office in October of 2008, we wouldn't have spent this money.
Where is cost of the war in Libya? (granted, not anything like Iraq and Afghanistan, but just saying there are costs associated). From where comes the $126b in Defense spending "savings" under Obama?
All told, this graph is incomplete and dishonest.
Nov '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the graph is exactly right on: Bush and the rest of government added to the deficit 3 times as much in 8 years as Obama has in 2 years plus projections. So what? Were any of us in favor of the spending under Bush? Were we not critical of his big government Republicanism? This is not Bush versus Obama. I know Obama and the left would like it to be, and they continue to frame the rhetoric that way: "Don't blame me, I inherited this mess."
In fact, this is the economy versus big government. And in that fight Bush and Obama both, to one degree or another, sit in the opposing corner.
Oct '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
As mentioned, the fact that tax cuts are included as spending is absurd.
But what the left refuses to realize is that the tea party is running against Bush Republicanism as well as Obama-ism.
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
I would caution anyone from accepting pretty much anything that comes out of CPPB. Having said that, one of the major conservative criticisms of Bush was the way he expanded the size and scope of government.
So I'm at a complete loss as to what we're supposed to say in response to this graph: "Oh, since Bush sent us headed toward a cliff, let's not be upset at President Obama for pushing us off the final precipice."? Come again?
Jun '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/runaway-spending-tax-revenue
May '11
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
Who said Bush's spending policies were good? If this chart is accurate or not, I have no idea, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Oct '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
Congress is the primary driver of spending; a president is reduced to a cheerleader unless he has majorities in both houses of Congress, or if he's willing to veto every budget and force a shutdown (see how well that worked for Bush the elder).
I would like to see the chart redone to show spending when both houses are held by the same party. I'd also like to see a side by side comparison between G.W's first three years vs. Obama's first three years.
Mar '11
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
Having now taken the time to read the NYT piece from which the graph comes (the NYT based the graph on data from CBO and CPPO, but doesn't cite specifically which data, nor why they chose to exclude the various other CBO data that can be graphed to show long-term structural problems), and the James Fallows piece in the Atlantic which, disingenuously, suggests that the debate isn't partisan, its just about how tax cuts destroy the economy through debt: my initial reaction is only cemented.
Moreover, both pieces fail to make a distinction between budget deficit and structural national debt--both of which, not just one, are problems.
Perhaps, had these authors read Yuval Levin's latest at NRO, they might have been sufficiently educated about the subject to inform their readers instead of misleading them.
Feb '11
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
This is NEW policies. Obama hasn't had that many new policies other than health care. What is misleading about the chart is the rate at which Obama's administration has increased old policies. He has found Bush's expansion of government useful. (Thus making Bush yet another useful idiot.) That is not found in the chart and hence does not begin to give a realistic picture.
Jun '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
Fake John Galt: ...
3) That a tax cut is actually a cost. A tax cut is a reduction in revenue not a cost.
...
Just for completeness' sake, we must realize that the tax cuts were cuts in tax rates. A tax cut might reduce revenue -- and usually does in the near term -- but it might increase revenue also. It's really hard to measure.
To put it another way, the calculation of the so called deficit of tax cuts in the chart is based on a simple static model, which is bunk.
Bush actually raised taxes if you talk about revenues in the macro point of view. I say that if more tax revenues come in that that is raising taxes. Let's simply look at revenues for the Bush years -- did they go up or down?
It doesn't matter if Bush lowered tax rates if the revenues increased. If Bush did nothing else than dance with a hula hoop and revenues increased then I say that is raising taxes. Revenues are the only measure to be interested in.Then the only difficulty is to show the connection of tax code legislation to future revenue stream.
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
You won't find me defending the Bush record on this. But Fallows' argument really needs line-by-line examination. For example:
He's arguing that things that are not, in fact, "automatic" are--at least by implication, because he's subsuming the clause under "things over which policy makers have no control."
Looking at "policy changes" as the key variable is also misleading--not changing a policy is as much a policy as changing it.
I could go on and on noticing all the ways this analysis misses the point, and I'm sure others will, but the key point is this: The people who are now in Congress and the White House are responsible for fixing this. Who else, exactly, has the power to do it?
Sep '10
Re: I Feel Like Something Must Be Missing Here
Imagine that there is a third president on this graph. He(she) does nothing but maintain the current policies. He stays the course in Iraq and Afghanistan and he keeps domestic spending at current levels. On this graph he will appear to be the most frugal of presidents since there are no changes in policy and subsequently no bars to look at. At the same time spending will continue at its current, high level and the deficit continues to spin out of control. Is he/she the best president? According to this graph yes.
If you are concerned with spending you need to look at spending. Don't be side tracked by clever arguments using a selective sample of the data (which is what this is).