On August 31 2012 09:48 kwizach wrote: That is what they did. Or do you in mind any other individual policy enacted under Bush or Obama that had a bigger impact?
There aren't. Even the entire frickin stimulus package cost was smaller than the tax cuts or the wars.
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.
Wow, fox news of all things called Paul Ryan out on his bullshit. In a strange bit of pot calling the kettle black fox news pretty slammed most of what Paul Ryan has been saying, and here is the strange part, with facts. Unslanted facts.
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. >_>
Seriously, I have a sister-in-law that is having twins in the US. I have no idea how she is going to pay for it. In Canada you get free health care, the Child Tax Benefit, a year of paid maternity leave ... It's just so much cheaper to raise kids in Canada, especially if they have a disability.
But anyway, I do like the Pacific Northwest. And New York. And Chicago. The US is great country, but if you read the news you'd think the whole country is constantly on fire ... because of socialism!!!!!
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?
Ignoring changes in the economy the Bush tax cuts and wars explained about 1/3 of the change in the budget situation from 2001 to 2011. The CBPP report either ignores the other 2/3 factors or includes it in the tax cuts and wars (interest).
On August 31 2012 09:57 valium wrote: Wow, fox news of all things called Paul Ryan out on his bullshit. In a strange bit of pot calling the kettle black fox news pretty slammed most of what Paul Ryan has been saying, and here is the strange part, with facts. Unslanted facts.
I urge you to read this great article on Rupert Murdoch. He is an old-school conservative that hates the current incarnation of the Republican party, and Romney as a candidate in particular. The only way Fox News is the way it is is because it makes him a shit load of money.
On August 31 2012 09:57 valium wrote: Wow, fox news of all things called Paul Ryan out on his bullshit. In a strange bit of pot calling the kettle black fox news pretty slammed most of what Paul Ryan has been saying, and here is the strange part, with facts. Unslanted facts.
fox news is much more middle of the road then msnbc - they get a lot of unwarrented shit from people when in fact they have arguably the best live reporting and overall production of all the major newsstations, that said alot of their opinion shows are cringeworthy, but they are definitely getting better in that category.
Isn`t there a rather large risk putting `We built that`` as your cornerstone?
As in Obama just needs to say, ``You all have selective hearing. I said you didn`t build the infrastructure, roads etc. Here`s a prime example of `gotcha politics`` that we need to leave behind?
On August 31 2012 09:57 valium wrote: Wow, fox news of all things called Paul Ryan out on his bullshit. In a strange bit of pot calling the kettle black fox news pretty slammed most of what Paul Ryan has been saying, and here is the strange part, with facts. Unslanted facts.
If you are referring to what I saw, then they were only reporting what critics were saying about it, then they followed up with an interview with Ryan and asked him about those issues.
On August 31 2012 10:05 Falling wrote: Isn`t there a rather large risk putting `We built that`` as your cornerstone?
As in Obama just needs to say, ``You all have selective hearing. I said you didn`t build the infrastructure, roads etc. Here`s a prime example of `gotcha politics`` that we need to leave behind?
Then he needs to sue his grammar school teacher, because "that" could only refer to the business that the person owns, as reference to the roads, bridges, etc, which had been mentioned earlier would have required a "those", instead of "that".
In either case, they should move "We Built That" away from the Debt Clock.
On August 31 2012 05:50 kwizach wrote: [quote] 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.
[quote] 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?
Ignoring changes in the economy the Bush tax cuts and wars explained about 1/3 of the change in the budget situation from 2001 to 2011. The CBPP report either ignores the other 2/3 factors or includes it in the tax cuts and wars (interest).
You realize that the only two specific policies that appear on that graph are the Bush tax cuts and the wars, right?
On August 31 2012 09:57 valium wrote: Wow, fox news of all things called Paul Ryan out on his bullshit. In a strange bit of pot calling the kettle black fox news pretty slammed most of what Paul Ryan has been saying, and here is the strange part, with facts. Unslanted facts.
fox news is much more middle of the road then msnbc - they get a lot of unwarrented shit from people when in fact they have arguably the best live reporting and overall production of all the major newsstations, that said alot of their opinion shows are cringeworthy, but they are definitely getting better in that category.
Fox's opinion shows are the best. They are my go-to show when Boxing or MMA is not on. They never fail to give a good laugh, not sure if that is a good thing considering it is a news network though. I was kinda sad when they got rid of that guy that said everyone was a Nazi, he was really funny.
On August 31 2012 09:57 valium wrote: Wow, fox news of all things called Paul Ryan out on his bullshit. In a strange bit of pot calling the kettle black fox news pretty slammed most of what Paul Ryan has been saying, and here is the strange part, with facts. Unslanted facts.
fox news is much more middle of the road then msnbc - they get a lot of unwarrented shit from people when in fact they have arguably the best live reporting and overall production of all the major newsstations, that said alot of their opinion shows are cringeworthy, but they are definitely getting better in that category.
Fox's opinion shows are the best. They are my go-to show when Boxing or MMA is not on. They never fail to give a good laugh, not sure if that is a good thing considering it is a news network though. I was kinda sad when they got rid of that guy that said everyone was a Nazi, he was really funny.
ahah, that's Glenn Beck. Here's Lewis Black on Beck's "nazi tourettes":
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?
Ignoring changes in the economy the Bush tax cuts and wars explained about 1/3 of the change in the budget situation from 2001 to 2011. The CBPP report either ignores the other 2/3 factors or includes it in the tax cuts and wars (interest).
You realize that the only two specific policies that appear on that graph are the Bush tax cuts and the wars, right?
On August 31 2012 10:05 Falling wrote: Isn`t there a rather large risk putting `We built that`` as your cornerstone?
As in Obama just needs to say, ``You all have selective hearing. I said you didn`t build the infrastructure, roads etc. Here`s a prime example of `gotcha politics`` that we need to leave behind?
Then he needs to sue his grammar school teacher, because "that" could only refer to the business that the person owns, as reference to the roads, bridges, etc, which had been mentioned earlier would have required a "those", instead of "that".
In either case, they should move "We Built That" away from the Debt Clock.
Yeah, but again that`s a grammar nazi argument. But I`ll agree with moving it away from the debt clock as that is probably closer to the truth than a lot of people would like to admit.
But I do think it`s rather smart to pull out all these Bain guys given how much flak he got over Bain.
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?
Ignoring changes in the economy the Bush tax cuts and wars explained about 1/3 of the change in the budget situation from 2001 to 2011. The CBPP report either ignores the other 2/3 factors or includes it in the tax cuts and wars (interest).
You realize that the only two specific policies that appear on that graph are the Bush tax cuts and the wars, right?
I like the way the change caused by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is as big as the change caused by every other unforeseen discretionary spending policy put together. Well, almost as big.
On August 31 2012 10:05 Falling wrote: Isn`t there a rather large risk putting `We built that`` as your cornerstone?
As in Obama just needs to say, ``You all have selective hearing. I said you didn`t build the infrastructure, roads etc. Here`s a prime example of `gotcha politics`` that we need to leave behind?
Yea, you would think that. It seems many people don't seem to understand sentence structures.
Big speech tonight for Romney at the convention...
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/Cause_of_change_in_U.S._debt_position_2001-2011.png/640px-Cause_of_change_in_U.S._debt_position_2001-2011.png)
2575
1612
486
EPT
