What's Causing The Deficit
-
>>I was talking with my doctor the other day about longer life for humans. He said life span hadn't really changed only that we are keeping sick people alive longer.>>
Maybe you should find another Doctor, Steve. Dr. Demento isn't really an MD, you know.
Re-read what you said he said.
-
I stop by to find some new ways to disparage the Weeden pick, and you suck me in with this topic. Well played, heck.
I'm sure it wont surprise you that I have several problems with this thread. Here's a few:
1) "Policies from Bush administration projected to be main source of future deficits"
Oh dear. This is painful on multiple levels.
The first and most obvious is that there is no good reason to stack these specific policies on top of all the others when making the chart. Couldn't we just as easily fill the chart with Social Security or Medicare? We could easily swap out the wars for ACA. The "main source" of future deficits should be the "main" expenses of the budget, no? The graph doesnt depict that.
The second is that all of the policies listed are Obama policies too. The "Bush tax cuts" expired in 2010. Then they were passed again, after Bush left office, and signed by Obama. And Obama has campaigned on keeping 75% of them permanently. How are those still Bush's fault in 2019?
The third is the game of what the budget would look like "but for" the economic downturn. I understand the argument that Presidents shouldn't be blamed for deficits attributable to reduced revenues during a recession. But that graph blames at least a quarter of the 2019 deficit on the economic downturn. That doesnt work. Why not throw in the lost revenue from the downturn of the late 80's? And I don't recall any democrats adjusting Clinton's fiscal performance to take away the increased revenues caused by the tech boom.
Applicable to each of these points is that at some point the president has to accountable for the budget. It can't all be his predecessor's fault forever. He has to deal with the cards as they were dealt. If he can't or chooses not to, he shouldn't be let off the hook. Bush isn't president anymore. By the time that chart ends, there will be voters who weren't even alive to see his first presidential campaign.
2) As I recall it, Bush never proposed a SS mandate. He proposed that people be given the option to redirect a portion of their SS taxes into a private account. Your "gotcha" doesnt seem to be based on reality.
3)
As for Greece, their problems have far more to do with being in the Eurozone than with spending.
Really, "far more"? I'm not sure I see that you can even get to "more" based on the facts. Greece would have more options if it hadnt adopted the Euro, but they would all be ugly brutal options. You'll notice that the majority of Europe is doing MUCH better than Spain or Greece, despite their adoption of the Euro. That's because the root cause of the problems in those countries is fiscal. The solution would be clearer without the Euro, but they would still be in much worse shape than the rest of the continent, and in fact wouldve hit rock bottom much sooner - just ask Argentina.
Now if you have any good insults for Weeden, I'm all ears.
-
I stop by to find some new ways to disparage the Weeden pick, and you suck me in with this topic. Well played, heck.
I'm sure it wont surprise you that I have several problems with this thread. Here's a few:
1) "Policies from Bush administration projected to be main source of future deficits"
Oh dear. This is painful on multiple levels.
The first and most obvious is that there is no good reason to stack these specific policies on top of all the others when making the chart. Couldn't we just as easily fill the chart with Social Security or Medicare? We could easily swap out the wars for ACA. The "main source" of future deficits should be the "main" expenses of the budget, no? The graph doesnt depict that.
The second is that all of the policies listed are Obama policies too. The "Bush tax cuts" expired in 2010. Then they were passed again, after Bush left office, and signed by Obama. And Obama has campaigned on keeping 75% of them permanently. How are those still Bush's fault in 2019?
The third is the game of what the budget would look like "but for" the economic downturn. I understand the argument that Presidents shouldn't be blamed for deficits attributable to reduced revenues during a recession. But that graph blames at least a quarter of the 2019 deficit on the economic downturn. That doesnt work. Why not throw in the lost revenue from the downturn of the late 80's? And I don't recall any democrats adjusting Clinton's fiscal performance to take away the increased revenues caused by the tech boom.
Applicable to each of these points is that at some point the president has to accountable for the budget. It can't all be his predecessor's fault forever. He has to deal with the cards as they were dealt. If he can't or chooses not to, he shouldn't be let off the hook. Bush isn't president anymore. By the time that chart ends, there will be voters who weren't even alive to see his first presidential campaign.
2) As I recall it, Bush never proposed a SS mandate. He proposed that people be given the option to redirect a portion of their SS taxes into a private account. Your "gotcha" doesnt seem to be based on reality.
3)
As for Greece, their problems have far more to do with being in the Eurozone than with spending.
Really, "far more"? I'm not sure I see that you can even get to "more" based on the facts. Greece would have more options if it hadnt adopted the Euro, but they would all be ugly brutal options. You'll notice that the majority of Europe is doing MUCH better than Spain or Greece, despite their adoption of the Euro. That's because the root cause of the problems in those countries is fiscal. The solution would be clearer without the Euro, but they would still be in much worse shape than the rest of the continent, and in fact wouldve hit rock bottom much sooner - just ask Argentina.
Now if you have any good insults for Weeden, I'm all ears.
I stop by to find some new ways to disparage the Weeden pick, and you suck me in with this topic. Well played, heck.
I'm sure it wont surprise you that I have several problems with this thread. Here's a few:
1) "Policies from Bush administration projected to be main source of future deficits"
Oh dear. This is painful on multiple levels.
The first and most obvious is that there is no good reason to stack these specific policies on top of all the others when making the chart. Couldn't we just as easily fill the chart with Social Security or Medicare? We could easily swap out the wars for ACA. The "main source" of future deficits should be the "main" expenses of the budget, no? The graph doesnt depict that.
The second is that all of the policies listed are Obama policies too. The "Bush tax cuts" expired in 2010. Then they were passed again, after Bush left office, and signed by Obama. And Obama has campaigned on keeping 75% of them permanently. How are those still Bush's fault in 2019?
The third is the game of what the budget would look like "but for" the economic downturn. I understand the argument that Presidents shouldn't be blamed for deficits attributable to reduced revenues during a recession. But that graph blames at least a quarter of the 2019 deficit on the economic downturn. That doesnt work. Why not throw in the lost revenue from the downturn of the late 80's? And I don't recall any democrats adjusting Clinton's fiscal performance to take away the increased revenues caused by the tech boom.
Applicable to each of these points is that at some point the president has to accountable for the budget. It can't all be his predecessor's fault forever. He has to deal with the cards as they were dealt. If he can't or chooses not to, he shouldn't be let off the hook. Bush isn't president anymore. By the time that chart ends, there will be voters who weren't even alive to see his first presidential campaign.
2) As I recall it, Bush never proposed a SS mandate. He proposed that people be given the option to redirect a portion of their SS taxes into a private account. Your "gotcha" doesnt seem to be based on reality.
3)
Really, "far more"? I'm not sure I see that you can even get to "more" based on the facts. Greece would have more options if it hadnt adopted the Euro, but they would all be ugly brutal options. You'll notice that the majority of Europe is doing MUCH better than Spain or Greece, despite their adoption of the Euro. That's because the root cause of the problems in those countries is fiscal. The solution would be clearer without the Euro, but they would still be in much worse shape than the rest of the continent, and in fact wouldve hit rock bottom much sooner - just ask Argentina.
Now if you have any good insults for Weeden, I'm all ears.
Yay!! Tupa! I thought you were dead.
Okay, let's go.
First of all, I don't love this graph either. I don't know why you make a graph of future deficits without including entitlement spending or defense spending. The point of the graph is to show the nuts that "Obama spending" is not the main driver of the long term deficit. And it isn't, as I'm sure you know. If you want to say that the ACA is a driver of future deficits you'd have to contradict the CBO, or point out how he recently pulled some of the cost savings to not scare elderly voters before an election. But to say that the ACA is going to cost the same as the wars so you might as well swap them out doesn't hold up so well. Clearly there are cost savings and taxes associated with the ACA, whereas as no savings or revenue were ever dedicated to pay for the wars. That was just borrowing, plain and simple.
As for your second point, I just had this argument in the office with people who trotted out a similar graph from the NYT. In my mind, Obama is on the hook for the Bush tax cuts from the moment he re-ups them in 2010. It doesn't matter so much that they're not what he wanted, especially when you consider that in his perfect world he still keeps most of them. He's also on the hook for Afghanistan spending from the moment he walks in the door, and especially from the moment he escalates.
As for counting the recession's effects in the out years, I don't see what the problem with that is, other than that no one really knows what the economy will be like in 2018.
As for Greece, we're talking around the same thing. Swap out "far more" for "more" or whatever you like. I'm talking about their problems being the severity of the crisis. Having them devalue and hit rock bottom sooner certainly would have been preferable to whatever is coming next. Lord knows what that is.
More later.
-
CBO's numbers and CBO's opinion of ACA have been two different things. And I'm not a big fan of counting ACA's net rather than gross impact, given the insane amount of budget gaming that went on. But that's an argument for another time, i guess.
Here's the problem with counting the effects of the recession in 2019: at that point it isnt some unexpected economic downturn that we could not have planned for. More than a decade after Lehman, politicians cant use a bad economy as an excuse anymore. If we are expecting the economy to be that slow, we have to deal with it. It's not a surprise, it's the new normal.
On Greece, yes, again, the Euro is part of the problem. But Romney is absolutely right that they had and are having a fiscal crisis. His economists believe that too, regardless of what Frum says, because all economists believe that. The solution is harder to come by because of the Eurozone, but the problem is real - fiscal meltdowns aren't a myth. The irony is that democrats are quick to realize this when they are warning of the doom Boehner is bringing with his debt ceiling showdown, but they think it's fiction when Romney is warning that it is something we need to be aware of.
-
I have don't have a problem with most of that, but I think what Frum's post is more about is the relentless and careful duplicity of Mitt Romney. The way he forms a sentence is enough to make the sleaziest mall lawyer take pride.
And yet we still agree that Romney was by far the best choice of the bunch. I would have prefer Daniels to Romney as well, though that was never in the cards.
As for the recession, I think we'd probably agree that while this may not be the new normal, it's certainly where we're going to be for a while, and no matter who is elected. You can't paper over our problems anymore.
Okay, what's next? You going to stick around for a while?
How about your belief that gay people should sit on their hands and not act on their attraction, or their love for another person? Have your libertarian leanings weaned you off that awkwardly squared circle yet?
-
after all of Heck's spin while he tests bs that might get more votes for the eggsucking, slimesnorting, racist fascist ObaMao...
This graph tells more of what we need to know.
-
Say, here's some great info that Heck won't want you to read.
Bad for getting Obamao more votes, you know.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
http://dailybail.com/home/comparing-federal-deficits-bush-vs-obama.html
-
after all of Heck's spin while he tests bs that might get more votes for the eggsucking, slimesnorting, racist fascist ObaMao...
This graph tells more of what we need to know.
-
What kind of graph has a y-axis scale that alternates between 2 and 3, lol
And that bothers you because.....?
WSS
-
Thanks for the links CalFox.
So who is paying Brownie to blog for Prez Peace Price?
******************************************************
Well, is heckofaneggsuckingbrownie was in Ohio - I think he'd be blogging for $$$$ on Sherrod Brown's behalf.
Sherrod Brown is, btw, more of a slimeball by far... than even Dennis Kucinich.
Whoever he blogs for - I think it's dirty money.
-
WoodpeckerWhat kind of graph has a y-axis scale that alternates between 2 and 3, lol
*************************
Yes, Woodpecker, by golly, it does. I hadn't even noticed it. I had to get up and close a window,
it was open a bit - and a heck walked by...er... I mean skunk walked by....so I got on the computer
for a little while, since I started thinking about finishing my fiction novel the next time we get a downpour
in the late evening.
But, back to your typical avoidance of the SUBJECT matter, what kind of a woodpecker doesn't realize
that despite that, it doesn't change the conclusion that is drawn? If it were consistent at three gradients...
the effect would be a bit more dramatized compared to 2's, yes? Same conclusion?
Why, oh why, can't you ever muster the nads and smarts to contribute an actual opinion on the subject matter?
Dang. I haven't even had breakfast yet, and we have to cut hay, get the garden re-tilled after I plowed it for the first time,
get the 14 acres of soon to be soybean fields ready, and shoot groundhogs.... and do the dishers after lunch and
get a bunch of peat moss the neighbor gave me over to our garden and start planting plants into the garden from the greenhouse
and .....etc etc. If Heck had a pet hamster, that hamster surely could contribute at least a tiny bit of relevant posting.
So far, you got nothin.
You think the deficit numbres will be different? @@
-
I have don't have a problem with most of that, but I think what Frum's post is more about is the relentless and careful duplicity of Mitt Romney. The way he forms a sentence is enough to make the sleaziest mall lawyer take pride.
And yet we still agree that Romney was by far the best choice of the bunch. I would have prefer Daniels to Romney as well, though that was never in the cards.
As for the recession, I think we'd probably agree that while this may not be the new normal, it's certainly where we're going to be for a while, and no matter who is elected. You can't paper over our problems anymore.
Okay, what's next? You going to stick around for a while?
How about your belief that gay people should sit on their hands and not act on their attraction, or their love for another person? Have your libertarian leanings weaned you off that awkwardly squared circle yet?
I have don't have a problem with most of that, but I think what Frum's post is more about is the relentless and careful duplicity of Mitt Romney. The way he forms a sentence is enough to make the sleaziest mall lawyer take pride.
And yet we still agree that Romney was by far the best choice of the bunch. I would have prefer Daniels to Romney as well, though that was never in the cards.
As for the recession, I think we'd probably agree that while this may not be the new normal, it's certainly where we're going to be for a while, and no matter who is elected. You can't paper over our problems anymore.
Okay, what's next? You going to stick around for a while?
How about your belief that gay people should sit on their hands and not act on their attraction, or their love for another person? Have your libertarian leanings weaned you off that awkwardly squared circle yet?
Yours and Frum's criticism of Romney sounds an awful lot like criticisms of Obama 2008. He was all things to all people - telling you exactly what you wanted to hear while rarely ever actually saying anything. To critics, it's sleazy. To supporters, it's great politics. To me, it's all the same.
Yes, the economy has long-term problems. My point is that they aren't an excuse anymore. Surprise downturns are an excuse for bad budgets. Slow growth that is projected 5-10 years in advance is not. Reality needs to be dealt with, not used as an excuse.
I'll be in and out. Work doesnt make stopping by easy, but there are enough slow spots that I'll be around.
My political beliefs havent changed my religious ones. Every person on the planet is born with the natural inclination to sin. Every single day every one of us has to choose whether or not to follow those instincts. I dont envy those who are constantly tempted to sinful sexuality, but as hard as I try (and I've tried hard), I can't find a way to read the Bible to approve of homosexual sex. As for the politics of it, I lean slightly towards gay marriage, but only slightly and only because I dont think the government should discriminate. I don't think policy should be designed to enforce religious views, but I am pretty confident that government support of homosexuality will increase the number of people who engage in homosexual sex, and I'm sympathetic to people opposed to proactive government policies that will increase sinful behavior. Ideally, government would get out of the marriage business. But that's not happening, so the discrimination card pushes me just left of center on the issue.
-
Thanks for the links CalFox.
So who is paying Brownie to blog for Prez Peace Price?
******************************************************
Well, is heckofaneggsuckingbrownie was in Ohio - I think he'd be blogging for $$$$ on Sherrod Brown's behalf.
Sherrod Brown is, btw, more of a slimeball by far... than even Dennis Kucinich.
Whoever he blogs for - I think it's dirty money.
******************************************************
Well, is heckofaneggsuckingbrownie was in Ohio - I think he'd be blogging for $ on Sherrod Brown's behalf.
Sherrod Brown is, btw, more of a slimeball by far... than even Dennis Kucinich.
Whoever he blogs for - I think it's dirty money.
He's obviously on the Obama payroll. Who else is always here pushing the party line? Who has all the answers um Obama talking points?
And where did DaveS come from?
-
WoodpeckerWhat kind of graph has a y-axis scale that alternates between 2 and 3, lol
*************************
Yes, Woodpecker, by golly, it does. I hadn't even noticed it. I had to get up and close a window,
it was open a bit - and a heck walked by...er... I mean skunk walked by....so I got on the computer
for a little while, since I started thinking about finishing my fiction novel the next time we get a downpour
in the late evening.
But, back to your typical avoidance of the SUBJECT matter, what kind of a woodpecker doesn't realize
that despite that, it doesn't change the conclusion that is drawn? If it were consistent at three gradients...
the effect would be a bit more dramatized compared to 2's, yes? Same conclusion?
Why, oh why, can't you ever muster the nads and smarts to contribute an actual opinion on the subject matter?
Dang. I haven't even had breakfast yet, and we have to cut hay, get the garden re-tilled after I plowed it for the first time,
get the 14 acres of soon to be soybean fields ready, and shoot groundhogs.... and do the dishers after lunch and
get a bunch of peat moss the neighbor gave me over to our garden and start planting plants into the garden from the greenhouse
and .....etc etc. If Heck had a pet hamster, that hamster surely could contribute at least a tiny bit of relevant posting.
So far, you got nothin.
You think the deficit numbres will be different? @@
Woodpecker
*************************
Yes, Woodpecker, by golly, it does. I hadn't even noticed it. I had to get up and close a window,
it was open a bit - and a heck walked by...er... I mean skunk walked by....so I got on the computer
for a little while, since I started thinking about finishing my fiction novel the next time we get a downpour
in the late evening.
But, back to your typical avoidance of the SUBJECT matter, what kind of a woodpecker doesn't realize
that despite that, it doesn't change the conclusion that is drawn? If it were consistent at three gradients...
the effect would be a bit more dramatized compared to 2's, yes? Same conclusion?
Why, oh why, can't you ever muster the nads and smarts to contribute an actual opinion on the subject matter?
Dang. I haven't even had breakfast yet, and we have to cut hay, get the garden re-tilled after I plowed it for the first time,
get the 14 acres of soon to be soybean fields ready, and shoot groundhogs.... and do the dishers after lunch and
get a bunch of peat moss the neighbor gave me over to our garden and start planting plants into the garden from the greenhouse
and .....etc etc. If Heck had a pet hamster, that hamster surely could contribute at least a tiny bit of relevant posting.
So far, you got nothin.
You think the deficit numbres will be different? @@
How am I supposed to take this data seriously if it's not even presented correctly? It really hurts its validity. Can you at least give me a link to where you found it?
-
so why isnt the president focusing on jobs like a laser? he is campaigning...... why bother right?
-
-
-
sausage link? I can post a map to your local Bob Evans or Cracker Barrel.
You had no comment on three links I already posted. Why a fourth?
So you can diss some syllable in the link?
I usual do post them - I forgot.
-
sausage link? I can post a map to your local Bob Evans or Cracker Barrel.
You had no comment on three links I already posted. Why a fourth?
So you can diss some syllable in the link?
I usual do post them - I forgot.
sausage link? I can post a map to your local Bob Evans or Cracker Barrel.
You had no comment on three links I already posted. Why a fourth?
So you can diss some syllable in the link?
I usual do post them - I forgot.
I realize you don't understand how statistics work, you've made that very clear. Try to follow this, thaydata was presented in a way that makes me question its validity. How can I double check it? By viewing the source where you found it. That's why I want a link. If you can't even provide the link, I don't see how I can take that graph seriously.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login