On August 31 2012 06:30 kwizach wrote: [quote] 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".
[quote] 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.
[quote] 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.
[quote] 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?
You realize that's irrelevant, right?
You realize that the reason it's not irrelevant is that it's precisely what the article is about, namely pointing out the impact of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that weighted and will weight the most on the deficit?
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.
[quote] Heck just look at the title of the article: [quote] 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?
You realize that's irrelevant, right?
You realize that the reason it's not irrelevant is that it's precisely what the article is about, namely pointing out the impact of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that weighted and will weight the most on the deficit?
So if the Bush tax cuts were passed one bit at a time we could ignore their impact on the deficit?
On August 31 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote: [quote] The report answers a claim. As written in the first paragraph,
[quote] 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.
[quote] Not a policy.
[quote] Not as big an impact.
[quote] 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".
[quote] 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?
You realize that's irrelevant, right?
You realize that the reason it's not irrelevant is that it's precisely what the article is about, namely pointing out the impact of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that weighted and will weight the most on the deficit?
So if the Bush tax cuts were passed one bit at a time we could ignore their impact on the deficit?
Is there something called the "Bush tax cuts", or is that a made-up term for something fictional? Since they exist, their impact can be evaluated. That's what the article did.
this is kinda funny, i see how this girl can be angry at people always asking her family what they are doing with their money..... but then again they are donating millions into a political election so that comes with the territory
Oh well, Adelson and the Koch brothers are not really shining examples of kind human beings so what else do you expect? They could learn a thing or two from Buffett and Gates.
' Originally a Democrat, Adelson became a Republican as his wealth increased. "Why is it fair that I should be paying a higher percentage of taxes than anyone else?" '
On August 31 2012 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] 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?
You realize that's irrelevant, right?
You realize that the reason it's not irrelevant is that it's precisely what the article is about, namely pointing out the impact of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that weighted and will weight the most on the deficit?
So if the Bush tax cuts were passed one bit at a time we could ignore their impact on the deficit?
Is there something called the "Bush tax cuts", or is that a made-up term for something fictional? Since they exist, their impact can be evaluated. That's what the article did.
Their impact can certainly be evaluated. I'm pointing out that their evaluation was faulty.
$1 in Bush tax cuts and war cannot be assumed to be $1 in new deficits. If you want to make that assumption it must be justified. The article does not justify it, neither do you.
Was Adelson the guy who promised two hundred million to Romney's campaign, and then asked that if Romney won he would pardon that Israeli who was found guilty and put in prison for spying on the USA?
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?
Nope. No risk. Regardless of arguments about whether it was taken out of context (as previously discussed, I think the full context makes it worse), the comment resonates because it affirms suspicions that Obama really doesn't understand private enterprise. The problem is that this one comment isn't an isolated incident in this regard. He has a long history of similar remarks, policies, and acquaintences that are all problematic in the same regard. Hell, just look at Obama's campaign of class warfare.
If I'm Romney, I'm running ads with that comment all the way to election day.
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?
Nope. No risk. Regardless of arguments about whether it was taken out of context (as previously discussed, I think the full context makes it worse), the comment resonates because it affirms suspicions that Obama really doesn't understand private enterprise. The problem is that this one comment isn't an isolated incident in this regard. He has a long history of similar remarks, policies, and acquaintences that are all problematic in the same regard. Hell, just look at Obama's campaign of class warfare.
If I'm Romney, I'm running ads with that comment all the way to election day.
Class warfare? If he acknowledged the existence of class warfare, he would tell the guys at OWS to keep on protesting rather than doing nothing about the crackdowns.
On August 31 2012 09:30 kwizach wrote: [quote] 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?
You realize that's irrelevant, right?
You realize that the reason it's not irrelevant is that it's precisely what the article is about, namely pointing out the impact of the policies of the Bush and Obama administrations that weighted and will weight the most on the deficit?
So if the Bush tax cuts were passed one bit at a time we could ignore their impact on the deficit?
Is there something called the "Bush tax cuts", or is that a made-up term for something fictional? Since they exist, their impact can be evaluated. That's what the article did.
Their impact can certainly be evaluated. I'm pointing out that their evaluation was faulty.
$1 in Bush tax cuts and war cannot be assumed to be $1 in new deficits. If you want to make that assumption it must be justified. The article does not justify it, neither do you.
Their evaluation was not faulty. Nobody is saying that $1 in Bush tax cuts = $1 in deficits. The point the article makes is that the scope of their impact is sufficient to greatly reduce the deficit if they were to disappear (all other things being equal).
Apparently that story the Olympian guy told, about the 9/11 flag, is a rehash of the same story Romney has been using over and over on the campaign trail. (According to NBC tweets).
On August 31 2012 09:46 Shiragaku wrote: This made me laugh :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6BSS6cfmZg But still...pathetic. This proves the stereotype that the rich are aristocratic.
Those reporters were being intentionally obnoxious. I don't fault her for being annoyed by them. When you're an asshole to someone, you shouldn't be shocked when they get mad at you.
EPT![[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)
