On August 31 2012 04:46 DreamChaser wrote: I am a part of the Republican party but i have to say this years election will be a joke in trying to choose between romney and Obama. But the scary thing is that Romney might actually come close which clearly shows the American majority at large.
I don't think Romney will win. I don't know why practically every election is so damn close, but regardless of anything, I don't think Romney can win without serious corruption involved. Not saying Obama is a great guy, but ehh I'd prefer him to Romney tbh. Just the prospect of the Republicans seriously considering banning abortion across the board in the past week is scary to me, among other tenets and conservatism of the Republican platform.
The reason that elections are so close is tied in to the way americans seem to think about politics. Whole parts of the nation vote for 1 party because they have always voted for that party and not for the person or ideas at the time. The fact you can accurately predict the votes in the majority of states at any point in time shows this. There are only a few swing states that decide elections.
Because including them is as valid as including any bit of government spending or taxation that you do not like. The bush tax cuts and wars no more contributed to the increase in the deficit than any other portion of government spending and taxation (or lack thereof). It is just throwing something into the graph to throw something into the graph. No different than putting in social security or medicare or welfare spending or the EITC. It is completely arbitrary.
Erm, I thought your question was how can the change be attributed to them, and my answer was that it could be that the change is not due to them but their impact is now fully felt. If your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence.
There's no reason why their impact wouldn't be fully felt until recently. If anything, the economic downturn would make the tax cuts less significant.
The original source also says this:
Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).
I don't see how you can explain the current spike in deficits on policies that have been in place for years prior to the spike.
Ok, so we're back to the original argument. Again, I haven't looked at the numbers, but it's perfectly plausible that a previously "good" economic situation allowed to partially "compensate" for the losses due to the wars and the tax cuts. Imagine this super-simplified scenario (it doesn't get more simplified than this :D): the wars + tax cuts = -6. Positive economic situation = +5. In this case, deficit = -1. Now the wars + tax cuts = still -6, but the now negative economic situation = -3. In this case, deficit = -9. You now "feel the full impact" of the wars & tax cuts (obviously the impact was the same previously, but now there's nothing to mitigate it). (I obviously took the numbers/proportions out of my hat as an example). There could be other reasons, I haven't looked into it, but the good economic situation probably "shielded" the budget from the impact of the tax cuts and the wars to a certain amount until 2008.
If the only thing that is changing is a good economy to a bad one then a deterioration in the economy should be your answer.
Your answer to what? The change, yes. The sole reason the deficit is this big, no. The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit.
On August 31 2012 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Again, you can no more blame the tax cuts and wars as a 'natural -6' any more than you can blame any other government spending or failure to tax as a natural -X.
You keep changing the argument. I already answered this. "If your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence."
The reason the deficit exists is the cumulative result of all tax and spend policies. That includes all taxes and all expenditures. You can't single out specific ones as the cause.
Are you even reading what I'm writing?! Nobody is saying they're the only cause. They're simply being singled out and analyzed as one of the factors. Like I already said, "if your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence".
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The reason the deficit changed from a recent low of $160B in 2007 to where it is today can only be explained by changes in the economy and changes to government tax and spend policy.
I already answered this. Nobody is saying that the tax cuts and the wars are the independent variable responsible for the change. Why do you keep making that argument? "The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit" and the factors contributing to the deficit.
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Advocating that some policies should be changed is a different argument and not the intent of the original source. The source was blaming the deficit on the wars and tax cuts.
The original source points to four factors that contributed and/or are projected to contribute to the deficit: the economic downturn, the financial rescues (limited impact), and Bush-era policies of tax cuts and wars. You can read it here.
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Moreover, the original article blames future deficits on tax policies the Bush administration never made. The Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010 - you cannot blame their extension on an administration out of office!
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010.
Again, the Bush tax cuts and wars contribute to the deficit in no manner that is any different from any other tax cut or spending program that already existed. There is no cause to include them in the graph other than 'you want to.'
The report answers a claim. As written in the first paragraph,
"Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years".
It is therefore specifically interested in policies, and even more specifically in the policies that have been enacted more or less recently (during the Obama and Bush administrations) and that have had a considerable impact on the deficit. Turns out that the Bush policies that were mentioned are the ones that had the biggest impact. Therefore, the report presents its data to show that without those policies, the deficit would be much lower.
Addressed on p. 9 of the report: "In short, we did not include the costs of the prescription-drug program in this analysis because we could not estimate those net costs with the same confidence that we could estimate costs, based on CBO analyses, for other Bush-era policies — namely, the tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan".
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The article is also not saying that the Bush tax cuts and wars were included for arbitrary reasons. They are arguing that the Bush tax cuts and wars are responsible for the deficit.
If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
Heck just look at the title of the article:
Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
The word driving implies cause.
The Bush tax cuts and the wars are among the causes of the deficit. Since the report is interested in the recent policies that had the biggest impact, they came out on top.
The entire methodology the article is using is wrong.
You can't arbitrarily take a portion of spending or tax cuts and declare them 100% deficit financed. You need some valid logical reason to do that. The article does not give one.
On August 31 2012 04:46 DreamChaser wrote: I am a part of the Republican party but i have to say this years election will be a joke in trying to choose between romney and Obama. But the scary thing is that Romney might actually come close which clearly shows the American majority at large.
I don't think Romney will win. I don't know why practically every election is so damn close, but regardless of anything, I don't think Romney can win without serious corruption involved. Not saying Obama is a great guy, but ehh I'd prefer him to Romney tbh. Just the prospect of the Republicans seriously considering banning abortion across the board in the past week is scary to me, among other tenets and conservatism of the Republican platform.
The reason that elections are so close is tied in to the way americans seem to think about politics. Whole parts of the nation vote for 1 party because they have always voted for that party and not for the person or ideas at the time. The fact you can accurately predict the votes in the majority of states at any point in time shows this. There are only a few swing states that decide elections.
Yes, thank you. Why do Americans not see this?
Because your news is so biased from both sides its hilarious for anyone watching from the outside?
On August 31 2012 04:46 DreamChaser wrote: I am a part of the Republican party but i have to say this years election will be a joke in trying to choose between romney and Obama. But the scary thing is that Romney might actually come close which clearly shows the American majority at large.
I don't think Romney will win. I don't know why practically every election is so damn close, but regardless of anything, I don't think Romney can win without serious corruption involved. Not saying Obama is a great guy, but ehh I'd prefer him to Romney tbh. Just the prospect of the Republicans seriously considering banning abortion across the board in the past week is scary to me, among other tenets and conservatism of the Republican platform.
The reason that elections are so close is tied in to the way americans seem to think about politics. Whole parts of the nation vote for 1 party because they have always voted for that party and not for the person or ideas at the time. The fact you can accurately predict the votes in the majority of states at any point in time shows this. There are only a few swing states that decide elections.
Yes, thank you. Why do Americans not see this?
Because your news is so biased from both sides its hilarious for anyone watching from the outside?
it is also a cultural thing, and the catholic faith plays a big role as well for the conservatives.
On August 31 2012 09:19 Souma wrote: It's not hilarious, it's depressing.
So true. It is basically cliche to say that there is something seriously wrong when a satire/comedy show, like the Daily Show, is more insightful than most news programs. But that's all most of us have left, the ability to laugh at ourselves. Hopefully the world enjoys watching the fin de seacle that is the USA.
On August 31 2012 04:46 DreamChaser wrote: I am a part of the Republican party but i have to say this years election will be a joke in trying to choose between romney and Obama. But the scary thing is that Romney might actually come close which clearly shows the American majority at large.
I don't think Romney will win. I don't know why practically every election is so damn close, but regardless of anything, I don't think Romney can win without serious corruption involved. Not saying Obama is a great guy, but ehh I'd prefer him to Romney tbh. Just the prospect of the Republicans seriously considering banning abortion across the board in the past week is scary to me, among other tenets and conservatism of the Republican platform.
The reason that elections are so close is tied in to the way americans seem to think about politics. Whole parts of the nation vote for 1 party because they have always voted for that party and not for the person or ideas at the time. The fact you can accurately predict the votes in the majority of states at any point in time shows this. There are only a few swing states that decide elections.
Yes, thank you. Why do Americans not see this?
Because your news is so biased from both sides its hilarious for anyone watching from the outside?
it is also a cultural thing, and the catholic faith plays a big role as well for the conservatives.
Catholicism's role in conservative thinking is not what it once was, especially in terms of political representation. Evangelical Christian denominations are proving to be more effective campaigners and are able to call on a sort of fervency that US Catholicism just doesn't have anymore. Consider also the large numbers of Hispanic Catholics who are likely to forego religious considerations for liberal immigration and minority platforms.
On August 31 2012 09:19 Souma wrote: It's not hilarious, it's depressing.
So true. It is basically cliche to say that there is something seriously wrong when a satire/comedy show, like the Daily Show, is more insightful than most news programs. But that's all most of us have left, the ability to laugh at ourselves. Hopefully the world enjoys watching the fin de seacle that is the USA.
I still believe in you guys! I wouldn't want to live in America anytime soon, but still ...
On August 31 2012 04:50 kwizach wrote: [quote] Erm, I thought your question was how can the change be attributed to them, and my answer was that it could be that the change is not due to them but their impact is now fully felt. If your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence.
There's no reason why their impact wouldn't be fully felt until recently. If anything, the economic downturn would make the tax cuts less significant.
The original source also says this:
Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).
I don't see how you can explain the current spike in deficits on policies that have been in place for years prior to the spike.
Ok, so we're back to the original argument. Again, I haven't looked at the numbers, but it's perfectly plausible that a previously "good" economic situation allowed to partially "compensate" for the losses due to the wars and the tax cuts. Imagine this super-simplified scenario (it doesn't get more simplified than this :D): the wars + tax cuts = -6. Positive economic situation = +5. In this case, deficit = -1. Now the wars + tax cuts = still -6, but the now negative economic situation = -3. In this case, deficit = -9. You now "feel the full impact" of the wars & tax cuts (obviously the impact was the same previously, but now there's nothing to mitigate it). (I obviously took the numbers/proportions out of my hat as an example). There could be other reasons, I haven't looked into it, but the good economic situation probably "shielded" the budget from the impact of the tax cuts and the wars to a certain amount until 2008.
If the only thing that is changing is a good economy to a bad one then a deterioration in the economy should be your answer.
Your answer to what? The change, yes. The sole reason the deficit is this big, no. The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit.
On August 31 2012 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Again, you can no more blame the tax cuts and wars as a 'natural -6' any more than you can blame any other government spending or failure to tax as a natural -X.
You keep changing the argument. I already answered this. "If your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence."
The reason the deficit exists is the cumulative result of all tax and spend policies. That includes all taxes and all expenditures. You can't single out specific ones as the cause.
Are you even reading what I'm writing?! Nobody is saying they're the only cause. They're simply being singled out and analyzed as one of the factors. Like I already said, "if your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence".
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The reason the deficit changed from a recent low of $160B in 2007 to where it is today can only be explained by changes in the economy and changes to government tax and spend policy.
I already answered this. Nobody is saying that the tax cuts and the wars are the independent variable responsible for the change. Why do you keep making that argument? "The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit" and the factors contributing to the deficit.
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Advocating that some policies should be changed is a different argument and not the intent of the original source. The source was blaming the deficit on the wars and tax cuts.
The original source points to four factors that contributed and/or are projected to contribute to the deficit: the economic downturn, the financial rescues (limited impact), and Bush-era policies of tax cuts and wars. You can read it here.
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Moreover, the original article blames future deficits on tax policies the Bush administration never made. The Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010 - you cannot blame their extension on an administration out of office!
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010.
Again, the Bush tax cuts and wars contribute to the deficit in no manner that is any different from any other tax cut or spending program that already existed. There is no cause to include them in the graph other than 'you want to.'
The report answers a claim. As written in the first paragraph,
"Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years".
It is therefore specifically interested in policies, and even more specifically in the policies that have been enacted more or less recently (during the Obama and Bush administrations) and that have had a considerable impact on the deficit. Turns out that the Bush policies that were mentioned are the ones that had the biggest impact. Therefore, the report presents its data to show that without those policies, the deficit would be much lower.
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Why not replace wars and Bush tax cuts with interest payments,
Not a policy.
agricultural subsidies, alternative energy subsidies, GM's NOL gift, the TSA, the Homeland Security Department, the PATRIOT act,
Not as big an impact.
and Medicare Part D?
Addressed on p. 9 of the report: "In short, we did not include the costs of the prescription-drug program in this analysis because we could not estimate those net costs with the same confidence that we could estimate costs, based on CBO analyses, for other Bush-era policies — namely, the tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan".
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The article is also not saying that the Bush tax cuts and wars were included for arbitrary reasons. They are arguing that the Bush tax cuts and wars are responsible for the deficit.
If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
Heck just look at the title of the article:
Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
The word driving implies cause.
The Bush tax cuts and the wars are among the causes of the deficit. Since the report is interested in the recent policies that had the biggest impact, they came out on top.
The entire methodology the article is using is wrong.
You can't arbitrarily take a portion of spending or tax cuts and declare them 100% deficit financed. You need some valid logical reason to do that. The article does not give one.
The article looks at the policies enacted under the Bush and Obama administrations that have individually had the highest impact on the deficit, and they look at the impact they have had and will have. It turns out that the policies with the highest impact are the Bush tax cuts and the wars. The article proceeds to show that by adding the costs of these policies, the next in line (the recovery measures) and the economic downturn, you basically get the entire deficit. Are you contesting the numbers, or are you simply unhappy that the policies with the highest impact were enacted under Bush? If that's the problem, you should blame Bush, not the article.
There's no reason why their impact wouldn't be fully felt until recently. If anything, the economic downturn would make the tax cuts less significant.
The original source also says this: [quote]
I don't see how you can explain the current spike in deficits on policies that have been in place for years prior to the spike.
Ok, so we're back to the original argument. Again, I haven't looked at the numbers, but it's perfectly plausible that a previously "good" economic situation allowed to partially "compensate" for the losses due to the wars and the tax cuts. Imagine this super-simplified scenario (it doesn't get more simplified than this :D): the wars + tax cuts = -6. Positive economic situation = +5. In this case, deficit = -1. Now the wars + tax cuts = still -6, but the now negative economic situation = -3. In this case, deficit = -9. You now "feel the full impact" of the wars & tax cuts (obviously the impact was the same previously, but now there's nothing to mitigate it). (I obviously took the numbers/proportions out of my hat as an example). There could be other reasons, I haven't looked into it, but the good economic situation probably "shielded" the budget from the impact of the tax cuts and the wars to a certain amount until 2008.
If the only thing that is changing is a good economy to a bad one then a deterioration in the economy should be your answer.
Your answer to what? The change, yes. The sole reason the deficit is this big, no. The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit.
On August 31 2012 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Again, you can no more blame the tax cuts and wars as a 'natural -6' any more than you can blame any other government spending or failure to tax as a natural -X.
You keep changing the argument. I already answered this. "If your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence."
The reason the deficit exists is the cumulative result of all tax and spend policies. That includes all taxes and all expenditures. You can't single out specific ones as the cause.
Are you even reading what I'm writing?! Nobody is saying they're the only cause. They're simply being singled out and analyzed as one of the factors. Like I already said, "if your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence".
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The reason the deficit changed from a recent low of $160B in 2007 to where it is today can only be explained by changes in the economy and changes to government tax and spend policy.
I already answered this. Nobody is saying that the tax cuts and the wars are the independent variable responsible for the change. Why do you keep making that argument? "The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit" and the factors contributing to the deficit.
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Advocating that some policies should be changed is a different argument and not the intent of the original source. The source was blaming the deficit on the wars and tax cuts.
The original source points to four factors that contributed and/or are projected to contribute to the deficit: the economic downturn, the financial rescues (limited impact), and Bush-era policies of tax cuts and wars. You can read it here.
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Moreover, the original article blames future deficits on tax policies the Bush administration never made. The Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010 - you cannot blame their extension on an administration out of office!
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010.
Again, the Bush tax cuts and wars contribute to the deficit in no manner that is any different from any other tax cut or spending program that already existed. There is no cause to include them in the graph other than 'you want to.'
The report answers a claim. As written in the first paragraph,
"Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years".
It is therefore specifically interested in policies, and even more specifically in the policies that have been enacted more or less recently (during the Obama and Bush administrations) and that have had a considerable impact on the deficit. Turns out that the Bush policies that were mentioned are the ones that had the biggest impact. Therefore, the report presents its data to show that without those policies, the deficit would be much lower.
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Why not replace wars and Bush tax cuts with interest payments,
Not a policy.
agricultural subsidies, alternative energy subsidies, GM's NOL gift, the TSA, the Homeland Security Department, the PATRIOT act,
Not as big an impact.
and Medicare Part D?
Addressed on p. 9 of the report: "In short, we did not include the costs of the prescription-drug program in this analysis because we could not estimate those net costs with the same confidence that we could estimate costs, based on CBO analyses, for other Bush-era policies — namely, the tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan".
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The article is also not saying that the Bush tax cuts and wars were included for arbitrary reasons. They are arguing that the Bush tax cuts and wars are responsible for the deficit.
If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
Heck just look at the title of the article:
Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
The word driving implies cause.
The Bush tax cuts and the wars are among the causes of the deficit. Since the report is interested in the recent policies that had the biggest impact, they came out on top.
The entire methodology the article is using is wrong.
You can't arbitrarily take a portion of spending or tax cuts and declare them 100% deficit financed. You need some valid logical reason to do that. The article does not give one.
The article looks at the policies enacted under the Bush and Obama administrations that have individually had the highest impact on the deficit, and they look at the impact they have had and will have. It turns out that the policies with the highest impact are the Bush tax cuts and the wars. The article proceeds to show that by adding the costs of these policies, the next in line (the recovery measures) and the economic downturn, you basically get the entire deficit. Are you contesting the numbers, or are you simply unhappy that the policies with the highest impact were enacted under Bush? If that's the problem, you should blame Bush, not the article.
That's not what they did!
They just took 5 line items out of a CBO report and chucked them into a graph that 'explains' the deficit.
There is something to be said about tradition but it is clear that nobody can change the electoral system easily. For the voters there is a big advantage in the state changing to a proportional EV-system since each vote will be worth so much more in total. The problem is that if your state is far biased it will argue that the majority will loose some of the influence on the result and therefore it will be seen as a biased decission to change the system and the majority party in that state will give the state as much hell as they can. In the so called swing states the votes already count so much more than in the biased states. If they changed system to a proportionality vote, they would loose a lot of influence on the total result of the election and each vote will basically become a lot less relevant. With a big drawback to changing EV-system to proportionality from winner takes all, no matter how the votes are distributed in the state, USA is completely locked in the current system.
On August 31 2012 09:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote: That's not what they did!
They just took 5 line items out of a CBO report and chucked them into a graph that 'explains' the deficit.
I don't understand what's so contentious about the claim that the Bush tax cuts and/or the Iraq/Afghanistan War far outweigh...well, pretty much any given thing.
On August 31 2012 05:12 kwizach wrote: [quote] Ok, so we're back to the original argument. Again, I haven't looked at the numbers, but it's perfectly plausible that a previously "good" economic situation allowed to partially "compensate" for the losses due to the wars and the tax cuts. Imagine this super-simplified scenario (it doesn't get more simplified than this :D): the wars + tax cuts = -6. Positive economic situation = +5. In this case, deficit = -1. Now the wars + tax cuts = still -6, but the now negative economic situation = -3. In this case, deficit = -9. You now "feel the full impact" of the wars & tax cuts (obviously the impact was the same previously, but now there's nothing to mitigate it). (I obviously took the numbers/proportions out of my hat as an example). There could be other reasons, I haven't looked into it, but the good economic situation probably "shielded" the budget from the impact of the tax cuts and the wars to a certain amount until 2008.
If the only thing that is changing is a good economy to a bad one then a deterioration in the economy should be your answer.
Your answer to what? The change, yes. The sole reason the deficit is this big, no. The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit.
On August 31 2012 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Again, you can no more blame the tax cuts and wars as a 'natural -6' any more than you can blame any other government spending or failure to tax as a natural -X.
You keep changing the argument. I already answered this. "If your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence."
The reason the deficit exists is the cumulative result of all tax and spend policies. That includes all taxes and all expenditures. You can't single out specific ones as the cause.
Are you even reading what I'm writing?! Nobody is saying they're the only cause. They're simply being singled out and analyzed as one of the factors. Like I already said, "if your question is now why are they singled out in the graph, I guess one would have to look at the original article to see the objective and argument of the writer, but chances are that he/she wanted to point out specific policies that can/will more or less easily be stopped/overturned (and possibly see the legacy of specific Bush policies). You can't really erase social security from existence".
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The reason the deficit changed from a recent low of $160B in 2007 to where it is today can only be explained by changes in the economy and changes to government tax and spend policy.
I already answered this. Nobody is saying that the tax cuts and the wars are the independent variable responsible for the change. Why do you keep making that argument? "The graph isn't about the 2008 change, it's about the deficit" and the factors contributing to the deficit.
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Advocating that some policies should be changed is a different argument and not the intent of the original source. The source was blaming the deficit on the wars and tax cuts.
The original source points to four factors that contributed and/or are projected to contribute to the deficit: the economic downturn, the financial rescues (limited impact), and Bush-era policies of tax cuts and wars. You can read it here.
On August 31 2012 06:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Moreover, the original article blames future deficits on tax policies the Bush administration never made. The Bush tax cuts expired at the end of 2010 - you cannot blame their extension on an administration out of office!
Considering it's way harder politically to remove/fail to renew tax cuts than to enact them, I'd say it does deserve a part of the blame. Anyway, if we look at what the parties were advocating at the end of 2010, the Democrats wanted to keep the tax cuts for the poor & middle-class, while the Republicans wanted to keep them for the rich (and let's say also for the poor & middle class). Since the Republicans were the only ones that wanted to keep them for the rich, we can therefore blame them for the loss in revenue of that part of the Bush tax cuts since the end of 2010.
Again, the Bush tax cuts and wars contribute to the deficit in no manner that is any different from any other tax cut or spending program that already existed. There is no cause to include them in the graph other than 'you want to.'
The report answers a claim. As written in the first paragraph,
"Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years".
It is therefore specifically interested in policies, and even more specifically in the policies that have been enacted more or less recently (during the Obama and Bush administrations) and that have had a considerable impact on the deficit. Turns out that the Bush policies that were mentioned are the ones that had the biggest impact. Therefore, the report presents its data to show that without those policies, the deficit would be much lower.
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Why not replace wars and Bush tax cuts with interest payments,
Not a policy.
agricultural subsidies, alternative energy subsidies, GM's NOL gift, the TSA, the Homeland Security Department, the PATRIOT act,
Not as big an impact.
and Medicare Part D?
Addressed on p. 9 of the report: "In short, we did not include the costs of the prescription-drug program in this analysis because we could not estimate those net costs with the same confidence that we could estimate costs, based on CBO analyses, for other Bush-era policies — namely, the tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan".
On August 31 2012 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The article is also not saying that the Bush tax cuts and wars were included for arbitrary reasons. They are arguing that the Bush tax cuts and wars are responsible for the deficit.
If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
Heck just look at the title of the article:
Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
The word driving implies cause.
The Bush tax cuts and the wars are among the causes of the deficit. Since the report is interested in the recent policies that had the biggest impact, they came out on top.
The entire methodology the article is using is wrong.
You can't arbitrarily take a portion of spending or tax cuts and declare them 100% deficit financed. You need some valid logical reason to do that. The article does not give one.
The article looks at the policies enacted under the Bush and Obama administrations that have individually had the highest impact on the deficit, and they look at the impact they have had and will have. It turns out that the policies with the highest impact are the Bush tax cuts and the wars. The article proceeds to show that by adding the costs of these policies, the next in line (the recovery measures) and the economic downturn, you basically get the entire deficit. Are you contesting the numbers, or are you simply unhappy that the policies with the highest impact were enacted under Bush? If that's the problem, you should blame Bush, not the article.
That's not what they did!
They just took 5 line items out of a CBO report and chucked them into a graph that 'explains' the deficit.
That is what they did. Or do you in mind any other individual policy enacted under Bush or Obama that had a bigger impact?
On August 31 2012 09:19 Souma wrote: It's not hilarious, it's depressing.
So true. It is basically cliche to say that there is something seriously wrong when a satire/comedy show, like the Daily Show, is more insightful than most news programs. But that's all most of us have left, the ability to laugh at ourselves. Hopefully the world enjoys watching the fin de seacle that is the USA.
I still believe in you guys! I wouldn't want to live in America anytime soon, but still ...
WE BUILT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For what it's worth, even if our national politics can be a giant joke, there are places worth living here in America. At the moment, I would rather live here in San Diego than anywhere else in the world (granted, I've only been to Vietnam and Japan for extended periods of time). America has a lot of great things (for instance, our community college -> four-year university system is phenomenal, and I didn't have to pay a single cent to attend a world-class university or to be covered under its extensive health insurance). We just have a lot of bad shit that's plastered all over the media, though with good reason (generally).
Though if I were to raise a family I would probably choose Japan or Canada over the U.S. >_>
EPT
