(10-02-2010 08:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When the democrats took over congress in 2007, the national debt was $8.7 trillion. In less than four years with that democrat-controlled congress, the national debt has increased by nearly 55% (or $4.8 trillion) to $13.5 trillion. And democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility? Really, Boston? Really?

Yes, actually. Although the graph below starts in 2009, you can basically see the numbers you cite: a baseline deficit around of $500-600 billion, which spikes to maybe $1.4 trillion thanks to the worst economic crisis in decades, TARP (which has cost little in the end (as shown)) and the stimulus.

You still haven't explained to me how the policies of the Democratic Party are responsible for anything more than a sliver of the projected deficit in future years.



And, yes, I read your lengthy response the first time I posted this graph. After reading it again, none of the issues you raise -- even if some of them are interesting -- change the fundamental conclusions illustrated in this chart: Care about fiscal responsibility, vote Democrat.

(10-03-2010 12:09 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  You still haven't explained to me how the policies of the Democratic Party are responsible for anything more than a sliver of the projected deficit in future years.

Neither I nor anyone else will ever be able to explain it to you, not because it's not true but because you're simply not open minded enough to comprehend.

(10-03-2010 12:09 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(10-02-2010 08:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When the democrats took over congress in 2007, the national debt was $8.7 trillion. In less than four years with that democrat-controlled congress, the national debt has increased by nearly 55% (or $4.8 trillion) to $13.5 trillion. And democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility? Really, Boston? Really?

Yes, actually. Although the graph below starts in 2009, you can basically see the numbers you cite: a baseline deficit around of $500-600 billion, which spikes to maybe $1.4 trillion thanks to the worst economic crisis in decades, TARP (which has cost little in the end (as shown)) and the stimulus.

You still haven't explained to me how the policies of the Democratic Party are responsible for anything more than a sliver of the projected deficit in future years.



And, yes, I read your lengthy response the first time I posted this graph. After reading it again, none of the issues you raise -- even if some of them are interesting -- change the fundamental conclusions illustrated in this chart: Care about fiscal responsibility, vote Democrat.

Funny thing is that a budget is made up of *far more* than:
a) economic downturn;
b) TARP;
c) stimulus;
d) Iraq and Afgahanistan;
e) tax cut implications.

Yet your chart ascribes *all* the deficits to them.

Don't you find it just a *tad* deceptive that *no* other components of the overall budget are shown?

Stop printing what appears facially to be one thing, but is objectively.

Funny thing that the chart did *not* include the massive ballooning of Medicare/Medicaid as a factor, nor the fact that Obamacare does nothing to help that factor, nor the fact that Obamacare actually most probably helps ballon that out even more.

Funny thing that the chart blindingly seems to assume that the entire budgetary issues are made up of only those 5 components..... If one were cynical enough, one might conclude that the chart was specifically constructed to ignore that salient fact that the budget is made up of *far* more components than those 5 single, solitary, and unique componets.

Funny that your chart includes many knee-jerk political issues *except* for those that hurt the Obamacare nation....

Interesting that such a learned econ person such as yourself would overlook these salient inentional omissio.... (errr.... "oversights") as to the *huge* lack of integral components in your chart relative to the much larger number of components that actually go into the budget.

Btw, and on a side note, it seems odd that the figure for the deficit for 2011 is included at all, since the Democratic Congress doesnt seem to have the intestinal fortitude to even pass a budget. Quiz for you: how many Congresses have ever failed to pass a budget prior to this one?

Odd thing to do in front of an election, eh?

(10-03-2010 12:32 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  Don't you find it just a *tad* deceptive that *no* other components of the overall budget are shown?

Of course the budget includes other things, tanq, and they appear in the graph, in the line labeled "Deficit without these factors." "These factors" are the five items shown (economic downturn, Bush-era tax cuts, war, stimulus, and TARP). Without these factors, the budget would be approximately balanced. I don't find that deceptive at all.

(10-03-2010 06:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Neither I nor anyone else will ever be able to explain it to you, not because it's not true but because you're simply not open minded enough to comprehend.

This is rather uncharitable toward me, Owl, especially on a Sunday. I don't see how you can accurately assess my degree of open mindedness.

I believe I should preserve these periodic insults in my signature. Let's see...

(10-03-2010 04:03 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  This is rather uncharitable toward me, Owl, especially on a Sunday. I don't see how you can accurately assess my degree of open mindedness.
I believe I should preserve these periodic insults in my signature. Let's see...

I'm usually uncharitable when someone tries to p!$$ on my leg and tell me it's raining.

You are correct in that I can only assess the open-mindedness reflected in your posts rather than you personally. If you want to argue that you are really an open-minded guy despite the posts, I cannot dispute that. But if you want to argue that your posts exhibit open-mindedness, then you need to start by addressing in a rational way the specific issues raised in this thread by tanq or george or me or a number of other poster.

I'll bite with 3 things that just don't match up in my rather simplistic, apparently unpublished (at least in economics) mind:

1. I thought all CBO estimates had the Bush era tax cuts disappearing after this year. Why are they still there and still expanding as if the revenue is still being foregone?
2. How is an economic downturn still a valid element in the future, especially 10 years? Hell, how is it even valid now? Just because you took in less revenue (taxes) than was projected doesn't (IMO) justify it as a category. But once you've missed the revenue, are you going to continue to say, "Well, before the recession, we were projecting $XX trillion in revenue, so if we're not going to hit is it in the future, it must be because of the downturn." Um, most governments cannot get their revenue estimates right within plus-minus 5% most years (it seems - I'm probably exaggerating a touch), due to a wide range of factors, so why is this even in there?
3. And as previously noted, how are the Iraq and Afghanistan wars straight line ongoing expenses, especially when combat forces (higher per soldier costs) are now effectively out of Iraq (yes, still over 50k remaining) and Afghanistan drawdown purportedly begins next year? Those costs will certainly be going down.

(10-03-2010 07:00 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I'll bite with 3 things that just don't match up in my rather simplistic, apparently unpublished (at least in economics) mind:

1. I thought all CBO estimates had the Bush era tax cuts disappearing after this year. Why are they still there and still expanding as if the revenue is still being foregone?
2. How is an economic downturn still a valid element in the future, especially 10 years? Hell, how is it even valid now? Just because you took in less revenue (taxes) than was projected doesn't (IMO) justify it as a category. But once you've missed the revenue, are you going to continue to say, "Well, before the recession, we were projecting $XX trillion in revenue, so if we're not going to hit is it in the future, it must be because of the downturn." Um, most governments cannot get their revenue estimates right within plus-minus 5% most years (it seems - I'm probably exaggerating a touch), due to a wide range of factors, so why is this even in there?
3. And as previously noted, how are the Iraq and Afghanistan wars straight line ongoing expenses, especially when combat forces (higher per soldier costs) are now effectively out of Iraq (yes, still over 50k remaining) and Afghanistan drawdown purportedly begins next year? Those costs will certainly be going down.

Good luck getting answers. I asked the same questions earlier and they were ignored. I don't think Boston is interested in rational discussion, hence the "closed-minded"/"uncharitable" exchange above.

I think the answer is that the numbers have been fabricated based upon some truly bizarre methodology and assumptions. But without more explanation of the methodology and assumptions, I can't confirm or deny that.

(10-03-2010 04:03 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(10-03-2010 12:32 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  Don't you find it just a *tad* deceptive that *no* other components of the overall budget are shown?

Of course the budget includes other things, tanq, and they appear in the graph, in the line labeled "Deficit without these factors." "These factors" are the five items shown (economic downturn, Bush-era tax cuts, war, stimulus, and TARP). Without these factors, the budget would be approximately balanced. I don't find that deceptive at all.

So you would agree that I could *include* Afganistan/Iraq, TARP, stimulus, and Bush tax cutes "below the line" to hide them (as they have doen for the Obamacare effects, in order to "hide" or mask them), then include the massive overdrafts incurred by Obamacare "above the deficit line" in order to unmask the effects of those.

Yep. Funny that they chose not to do that.

Deceptive as hell, imo.

Glad to know that those costs are just nameless "other things that we shouldnt care about", and that you are apparently okay with that charade. Or you are okay with type of masking. Whatever....

In short, your chart studiously hides those effects (among others), and prominently puts forth those things to make a knee jerk reaction on the highlighted portions.

So yes, based upon those factors, I would rapidly surmise that this chart was very carefully designed to highlight some sh..., err.... "stuff", while very carefully pulling a tarp (pun intended) over other "stuff". I find it very telling that you do not see this.

Just read the title of the graph. It screams "bias".

Any takers on applying the question from the OP to the current administration?

Quote:Gripped by disease, unemployment and outrage at the police, America plunges into crisis


America’s persistent political dysfunction and racial inequality were laid bare this week, as the coronavirus death toll hit a tragic new milestone and as the country was served yet another reminder of how black people are killed by law enforcement in disproportionately high numbers. Together, the events present a grim tableau of a nation in crisis — one seared by violence against its citizens, plagued by a deadly disease that remains uncontained and rattled by a devastating blow to its economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...story.html

(05-30-2020 10:48 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:Gripped by disease, unemployment and outrage at the police, America plunges into crisis
America’s persistent political dysfunction and racial inequality were laid bare this week, as the coronavirus death toll hit a tragic new milestone and as the country was served yet another reminder of how black people are killed by law enforcement in disproportionately high numbers. Together, the events present a grim tableau of a nation in crisis — one seared by violence against its citizens, plagued by a deadly disease that remains uncontained and rattled by a devastating blow to its economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...story.html

We have 40 million black people in the USA. 235 of them were killed by police last year, the vast majority under circumstances whether the officers' actions were completely justified. That is not sufficient to justify the rhetoric about law enforcement officers killing black people. Mistakes happen, but that also happens with black, white, and brown police officers and with black, white, and brown civilians. Statistically, the rate of occurrence of all of them is simply very low.

That is not to say there is no problem. There is a lot of work to be done on all sides to find common ground. But let's keep it in perspective.

(10-03-2010 12:09 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(10-02-2010 08:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When the democrats took over congress in 2007, the national debt was $8.7 trillion. In less than four years with that democrat-controlled congress, the national debt has increased by nearly 55% (or $4.8 trillion) to $13.5 trillion. And democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility? Really, Boston? Really?

Yes, actually. Although the graph below starts in 2009, you can basically see the numbers you cite: a baseline deficit around of $500-600 billion, which spikes to maybe $1.4 trillion thanks to the worst economic crisis in decades, TARP (which has cost little in the end (as shown)) and the stimulus.

You still haven't explained to me how the policies of the Democratic Party are responsible for anything more than a sliver of the projected deficit in future years.



And, yes, I read your lengthy response the first time I posted this graph. After reading it again, none of the issues you raise -- even if some of them are interesting -- change the fundamental conclusions illustrated in this chart: Care about fiscal responsibility, vote Democrat.

Does it not seem a little disingenuous to somewhat dismiss the cost of 'economic downturn' in 2008, in 2020?
Does it not similarly seem even more disingenuous to continue to assign tax cuts implemented between 2000 and 2008, in 2020?

At some point, doesn't the current Congress (both parties) own these things?

I'd also take some issue with how Bush Tax Cuts in 2000-2008 have somehow GROWN from 2008-2020. It seems someone is using some strange accounting there... likely simply looking at the activity now being taxed at a lower rate having expanded... but that is precisely the point of a tax break... to encourage an activity. You do more of it because it costs less to do it. Without the cut, you don't get the same growth of the activity.

Where is the ACA in this?

Finally, I'd look at the amount assigned to 'economic downturn'. That seems to be a wholly fabricated number as it seems it continues forever with no change. That's not a downturn and if it is, where is the 'recovery'.

Seriously, this looks very contrived and lacking in any actual accounting reality. I'm not blaming Democrats but not Republicans here... but this is just not at all factual

(10-03-2010 12:09 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(10-02-2010 08:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  When the democrats took over congress in 2007, the national debt was $8.7 trillion. In less than four years with that democrat-controlled congress, the national debt has increased by nearly 55% (or $4.8 trillion) to $13.5 trillion. And democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility? Really, Boston? Really?

Yes, actually. Although the graph below starts in 2009, you can basically see the numbers you cite: a baseline deficit around of $500-600 billion, which spikes to maybe $1.4 trillion thanks to the worst economic crisis in decades, TARP (which has cost little in the end (as shown)) and the stimulus.
You still haven't explained to me how the policies of the Democratic Party are responsible for anything more than a sliver of the projected deficit in future years.

And, yes, I read your lengthy response the first time I posted this graph. After reading it again, none of the issues you raise -- even if some of them are interesting -- change the fundamental conclusions illustrated in this chart: Care about fiscal responsibility, vote Democrat.

A chart, full of assumptions and prepared by a "progressive" think tank, is hardly objective evidence.

As far as democrats and fiscal responsibility, please explain how the proposals by Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren or AOC are fiscally responsible.

This generation of democrats isn't the past democrats.