|
|
On September 01 2012 12:12 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 10:40 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:38 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:07 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 08:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The CBPP's definition of "Bush tax cuts" includes the EGTRRA, JGTRRA, 2008 stimulus and AMT relief.
As I posted earlier the CBO did an analysis of Bush's policies and was perfectly capable of amalgamating the increases in discretionary spending that happened during Bush's term and include it as a separate line item. In the same report the CBO scored Medicare part D as well.
It's pretty laughable that the CBPP wasn't able to get this same data and include it in their graph. Again, amalgamating increases in discretionary spending does not turn discretionary spending into an individual policy, or even a set of policies as closely linked together as the Bush tax cuts. I also linked you to the explanation given in the report for the non-inclusion of Medicare part D. I doesn't matter to me that 'discretionary spending' is not an individual policy. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Being an individual policy, or an amalgamation of only a few policies or an amalgamation of many policies matters shit. It matters in the context of the report, whose aim was to point out which individual policies of the Bush and Obama administrations had the biggest impact on the debt & deficits. Which has zero value. And was displayed in a misleading manner. And contained manipulated numbers. Got it. It didn't contain manipulated numbers, it was not displayed in a misleading manners, and it has value in the context of the debate over whose policies (Obama's or Bush's) contributed the most to the debt and deficits. It did contain manipulated numbers. They took tax cuts from the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. "Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001." On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It was misleading. It took *some* contributing factors to the deficit and displayed them in a manner that suggested they are the *total* cause of the deficit. Some should not equal all. It is misleading to state otherwise. No, it wasn't misleading at all. The report showed which Obama/Bush policies had the highest impact on the debt & deficits, and displayed the magnitude of their impact by comparing it to the size of the deficit. It also showed what the deficit would look like if (all other things being equal) those policies, that can be overturned, were to be taken out of the equation. That's it. According to your logic, one can never compare the cost of a policy to the size of the deficit. On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It has zero value because you cannot show data out of context. Because they are manipulated and misleading they are not in a valid context. The data was neither manipulated nor misleading, and it was shown in context. You're wrong on all three counts. The introduction of the article specifically explains what they're showing. AMT has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. AMT does apply to the ARRA. They took AMT indexing out of the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. Recovery measures ... We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[21] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle.
Bush-era tax cuts ... We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT. I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001. Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They do not simply post the size of the Bush tax cut and compare it to the deficit. They explicitly state: 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 You cannot explain the whole deficit without including all the contributing factors. They are outright manipulating the numbers to get there. Increases in Discretionary spending increased the deficit in 2010 by over $400B. How can their graph that 'explains virtually the entire deficit' not include that? What they are doing is using a fake baseline of a perfectly balanced budget, and then adding in arbitrary items - Bush tax cuts, wars, bailouts and stimulus to 'explain' why the budget is no longer balanced. paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that passed under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline.
AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward.
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT.
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars.
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid?
|
On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 12:12 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 10:40 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:38 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:07 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Again, amalgamating increases in discretionary spending does not turn discretionary spending into an individual policy, or even a set of policies as closely linked together as the Bush tax cuts. I also linked you to the explanation given in the report for the non-inclusion of Medicare part D. I doesn't matter to me that 'discretionary spending' is not an individual policy. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Being an individual policy, or an amalgamation of only a few policies or an amalgamation of many policies matters shit. It matters in the context of the report, whose aim was to point out which individual policies of the Bush and Obama administrations had the biggest impact on the debt & deficits. Which has zero value. And was displayed in a misleading manner. And contained manipulated numbers. Got it. It didn't contain manipulated numbers, it was not displayed in a misleading manners, and it has value in the context of the debate over whose policies (Obama's or Bush's) contributed the most to the debt and deficits. It did contain manipulated numbers. They took tax cuts from the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. "Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001." On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It was misleading. It took *some* contributing factors to the deficit and displayed them in a manner that suggested they are the *total* cause of the deficit. Some should not equal all. It is misleading to state otherwise. No, it wasn't misleading at all. The report showed which Obama/Bush policies had the highest impact on the debt & deficits, and displayed the magnitude of their impact by comparing it to the size of the deficit. It also showed what the deficit would look like if (all other things being equal) those policies, that can be overturned, were to be taken out of the equation. That's it. According to your logic, one can never compare the cost of a policy to the size of the deficit. On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It has zero value because you cannot show data out of context. Because they are manipulated and misleading they are not in a valid context. The data was neither manipulated nor misleading, and it was shown in context. You're wrong on all three counts. The introduction of the article specifically explains what they're showing. AMT has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. AMT does apply to the ARRA. They took AMT indexing out of the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. Recovery measures ... We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[21] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle.
Bush-era tax cuts ... We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT. I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001. On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They do not simply post the size of the Bush tax cut and compare it to the deficit. They explicitly state: 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 You cannot explain the whole deficit without including all the contributing factors. They are outright manipulating the numbers to get there. Increases in Discretionary spending increased the deficit in 2010 by over $400B. How can their graph that 'explains virtually the entire deficit' not include that? What they are doing is using a fake baseline of a perfectly balanced budget, and then adding in arbitrary items - Bush tax cuts, wars, bailouts and stimulus to 'explain' why the budget is no longer balanced. paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that passed under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline. AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward.
It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged.
On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT.
The hell? Where have I accused you of this?
On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't.
On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid?
You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now.
|
On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:12 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 10:40 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:38 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I doesn't matter to me that 'discretionary spending' is not an individual policy. Nor should it matter to anyone else. Being an individual policy, or an amalgamation of only a few policies or an amalgamation of many policies matters shit. It matters in the context of the report, whose aim was to point out which individual policies of the Bush and Obama administrations had the biggest impact on the debt & deficits. Which has zero value. And was displayed in a misleading manner. And contained manipulated numbers. Got it. It didn't contain manipulated numbers, it was not displayed in a misleading manners, and it has value in the context of the debate over whose policies (Obama's or Bush's) contributed the most to the debt and deficits. It did contain manipulated numbers. They took tax cuts from the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. "Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001." On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It was misleading. It took *some* contributing factors to the deficit and displayed them in a manner that suggested they are the *total* cause of the deficit. Some should not equal all. It is misleading to state otherwise. No, it wasn't misleading at all. The report showed which Obama/Bush policies had the highest impact on the debt & deficits, and displayed the magnitude of their impact by comparing it to the size of the deficit. It also showed what the deficit would look like if (all other things being equal) those policies, that can be overturned, were to be taken out of the equation. That's it. According to your logic, one can never compare the cost of a policy to the size of the deficit. On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It has zero value because you cannot show data out of context. Because they are manipulated and misleading they are not in a valid context. The data was neither manipulated nor misleading, and it was shown in context. You're wrong on all three counts. The introduction of the article specifically explains what they're showing. AMT has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. AMT does apply to the ARRA. They took AMT indexing out of the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. Recovery measures ... We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[21] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle.
Bush-era tax cuts ... We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT. I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001. On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They do not simply post the size of the Bush tax cut and compare it to the deficit. They explicitly state: 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 You cannot explain the whole deficit without including all the contributing factors. They are outright manipulating the numbers to get there. Increases in Discretionary spending increased the deficit in 2010 by over $400B. How can their graph that 'explains virtually the entire deficit' not include that? What they are doing is using a fake baseline of a perfectly balanced budget, and then adding in arbitrary items - Bush tax cuts, wars, bailouts and stimulus to 'explain' why the budget is no longer balanced. paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that passed under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline. AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward. It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged. Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT. The hell? Where have I accused you of this? Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars. Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't. Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid? You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now.
No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up.
|
On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:12 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 10:40 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:38 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
It matters in the context of the report, whose aim was to point out which individual policies of the Bush and Obama administrations had the biggest impact on the debt & deficits. Which has zero value. And was displayed in a misleading manner. And contained manipulated numbers. Got it. It didn't contain manipulated numbers, it was not displayed in a misleading manners, and it has value in the context of the debate over whose policies (Obama's or Bush's) contributed the most to the debt and deficits. It did contain manipulated numbers. They took tax cuts from the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. "Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001." On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It was misleading. It took *some* contributing factors to the deficit and displayed them in a manner that suggested they are the *total* cause of the deficit. Some should not equal all. It is misleading to state otherwise. No, it wasn't misleading at all. The report showed which Obama/Bush policies had the highest impact on the debt & deficits, and displayed the magnitude of their impact by comparing it to the size of the deficit. It also showed what the deficit would look like if (all other things being equal) those policies, that can be overturned, were to be taken out of the equation. That's it. According to your logic, one can never compare the cost of a policy to the size of the deficit. On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It has zero value because you cannot show data out of context. Because they are manipulated and misleading they are not in a valid context. The data was neither manipulated nor misleading, and it was shown in context. You're wrong on all three counts. The introduction of the article specifically explains what they're showing. AMT has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. AMT does apply to the ARRA. They took AMT indexing out of the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. Recovery measures ... We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[21] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle.
Bush-era tax cuts ... We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT. I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001. On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They do not simply post the size of the Bush tax cut and compare it to the deficit. They explicitly state: 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 You cannot explain the whole deficit without including all the contributing factors. They are outright manipulating the numbers to get there. Increases in Discretionary spending increased the deficit in 2010 by over $400B. How can their graph that 'explains virtually the entire deficit' not include that? What they are doing is using a fake baseline of a perfectly balanced budget, and then adding in arbitrary items - Bush tax cuts, wars, bailouts and stimulus to 'explain' why the budget is no longer balanced. paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that passed under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline. AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward. It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT. The hell? Where have I accused you of this? On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars. Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid? You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now. No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up.
The introduction, in particular the first paragraph.
|
On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:12 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 10:40 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Which has zero value. And was displayed in a misleading manner. And contained manipulated numbers.
Got it. It didn't contain manipulated numbers, it was not displayed in a misleading manners, and it has value in the context of the debate over whose policies (Obama's or Bush's) contributed the most to the debt and deficits. It did contain manipulated numbers. They took tax cuts from the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. "Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001." On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It was misleading. It took *some* contributing factors to the deficit and displayed them in a manner that suggested they are the *total* cause of the deficit. Some should not equal all. It is misleading to state otherwise. No, it wasn't misleading at all. The report showed which Obama/Bush policies had the highest impact on the debt & deficits, and displayed the magnitude of their impact by comparing it to the size of the deficit. It also showed what the deficit would look like if (all other things being equal) those policies, that can be overturned, were to be taken out of the equation. That's it. According to your logic, one can never compare the cost of a policy to the size of the deficit. On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It has zero value because you cannot show data out of context. Because they are manipulated and misleading they are not in a valid context. The data was neither manipulated nor misleading, and it was shown in context. You're wrong on all three counts. The introduction of the article specifically explains what they're showing. AMT has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. AMT does apply to the ARRA. They took AMT indexing out of the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. Recovery measures ... We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[21] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle.
Bush-era tax cuts ... We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT. I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001. On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They do not simply post the size of the Bush tax cut and compare it to the deficit. They explicitly state: 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 You cannot explain the whole deficit without including all the contributing factors. They are outright manipulating the numbers to get there. Increases in Discretionary spending increased the deficit in 2010 by over $400B. How can their graph that 'explains virtually the entire deficit' not include that? What they are doing is using a fake baseline of a perfectly balanced budget, and then adding in arbitrary items - Bush tax cuts, wars, bailouts and stimulus to 'explain' why the budget is no longer balanced. paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that passed under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline. AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward. It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT. The hell? Where have I accused you of this? On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars. Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid? You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now. No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up. The introduction, in particular the first paragraph.
Lol this one?
Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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).
To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers.
This is a different intent than you are describing.
|
On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:12 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 10:40 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 09:43 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
It didn't contain manipulated numbers, it was not displayed in a misleading manners, and it has value in the context of the debate over whose policies (Obama's or Bush's) contributed the most to the debt and deficits. It did contain manipulated numbers. They took tax cuts from the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. "Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001." On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It was misleading. It took *some* contributing factors to the deficit and displayed them in a manner that suggested they are the *total* cause of the deficit. Some should not equal all. It is misleading to state otherwise. No, it wasn't misleading at all. The report showed which Obama/Bush policies had the highest impact on the debt & deficits, and displayed the magnitude of their impact by comparing it to the size of the deficit. It also showed what the deficit would look like if (all other things being equal) those policies, that can be overturned, were to be taken out of the equation. That's it. According to your logic, one can never compare the cost of a policy to the size of the deficit. On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It has zero value because you cannot show data out of context. Because they are manipulated and misleading they are not in a valid context. The data was neither manipulated nor misleading, and it was shown in context. You're wrong on all three counts. The introduction of the article specifically explains what they're showing. AMT has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. AMT does apply to the ARRA. They took AMT indexing out of the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. Recovery measures ... We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[21] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle.
Bush-era tax cuts ... We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT. I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001. On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They do not simply post the size of the Bush tax cut and compare it to the deficit. They explicitly state: 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 You cannot explain the whole deficit without including all the contributing factors. They are outright manipulating the numbers to get there. Increases in Discretionary spending increased the deficit in 2010 by over $400B. How can their graph that 'explains virtually the entire deficit' not include that? What they are doing is using a fake baseline of a perfectly balanced budget, and then adding in arbitrary items - Bush tax cuts, wars, bailouts and stimulus to 'explain' why the budget is no longer balanced. paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that passed under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline. AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward. It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT. The hell? Where have I accused you of this? On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars. Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid? You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now. No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up. The introduction, in particular the first paragraph. Lol this one? Show nested quote +Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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). To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers. This is a different intent than you are describing.
This reads that the intent of the article is to compare Bush-era policies to Obama-era policies. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article.
|
On September 01 2012 13:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:12 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 10:40 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
It did contain manipulated numbers. They took tax cuts from the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. "Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001." On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It was misleading. It took *some* contributing factors to the deficit and displayed them in a manner that suggested they are the *total* cause of the deficit. Some should not equal all. It is misleading to state otherwise. No, it wasn't misleading at all. The report showed which Obama/Bush policies had the highest impact on the debt & deficits, and displayed the magnitude of their impact by comparing it to the size of the deficit. It also showed what the deficit would look like if (all other things being equal) those policies, that can be overturned, were to be taken out of the equation. That's it. According to your logic, one can never compare the cost of a policy to the size of the deficit. On September 01 2012 09:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It has zero value because you cannot show data out of context. Because they are manipulated and misleading they are not in a valid context. The data was neither manipulated nor misleading, and it was shown in context. You're wrong on all three counts. The introduction of the article specifically explains what they're showing. AMT has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. AMT does apply to the ARRA. They took AMT indexing out of the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. Recovery measures ... We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[21] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle.
Bush-era tax cuts ... We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT. I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001. On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They do not simply post the size of the Bush tax cut and compare it to the deficit. They explicitly state: 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 You cannot explain the whole deficit without including all the contributing factors. They are outright manipulating the numbers to get there. Increases in Discretionary spending increased the deficit in 2010 by over $400B. How can their graph that 'explains virtually the entire deficit' not include that? What they are doing is using a fake baseline of a perfectly balanced budget, and then adding in arbitrary items - Bush tax cuts, wars, bailouts and stimulus to 'explain' why the budget is no longer balanced. paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that passed under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline. AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward. It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT. The hell? Where have I accused you of this? On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars. Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid? You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now. No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up. The introduction, in particular the first paragraph. Lol this one? Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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). To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers. This is a different intent than you are describing. This reads that the intent of the article is to compare the policies that originated under Bush to the policies that originated under Obama. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article.
No where does it say that they are restricting their analysis to just big individual policies.
|
On September 01 2012 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 13:13 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:12 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 10:40 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
"Through 2011, the estimated impacts come from adding up past estimates of various changes in tax laws — chiefly the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), the 2008 stimulus package, and a series of annual AMT patches — enacted since 2001."
[quote]
No, it wasn't misleading at all. The report showed which Obama/Bush policies had the highest impact on the debt & deficits, and displayed the magnitude of their impact by comparing it to the size of the deficit. It also showed what the deficit would look like if (all other things being equal) those policies, that can be overturned, were to be taken out of the equation. That's it. According to your logic, one can never compare the cost of a policy to the size of the deficit.
[quote]
The data was neither manipulated nor misleading, and it was shown in context. You're wrong on all three counts. The introduction of the article specifically explains what they're showing. AMT has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. AMT does apply to the ARRA. They took AMT indexing out of the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts. Recovery measures ... We removed the portion of ARRA costs ascribed to indexing the AMT for another year.[21] Annual AMT “patches” have been a fixture since 2001, and ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle.
Bush-era tax cuts ... We added the cost of extending them, along with continuing AMT relief, from estimates prepared by CBO and JCT. I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001. On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:They do not simply post the size of the Bush tax cut and compare it to the deficit. They explicitly state: 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 You cannot explain the whole deficit without including all the contributing factors. They are outright manipulating the numbers to get there. Increases in Discretionary spending increased the deficit in 2010 by over $400B. How can their graph that 'explains virtually the entire deficit' not include that? What they are doing is using a fake baseline of a perfectly balanced budget, and then adding in arbitrary items - Bush tax cuts, wars, bailouts and stimulus to 'explain' why the budget is no longer balanced. paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that passed under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline. AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward. It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT. The hell? Where have I accused you of this? On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars. Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid? You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now. No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up. The introduction, in particular the first paragraph. Lol this one? Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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). To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers. This is a different intent than you are describing. This reads that the intent of the article is to compare the policies that originated under Bush to the policies that originated under Obama. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article. No where does it say that they are restricting their analysis to just big individual policies.
What do you think holds more "responsibility for the deficits", a new policy that costs a lot or a new policy that doesn't cost a lot?
edit: singular.
|
On September 01 2012 13:16 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:13 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:12 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
AMT has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. AMT does apply to the ARRA. They took AMT indexing out of the ARRA and added it to the Bush tax cuts.
[quote] I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001. On September 01 2012 11:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
They do not simply post the size of the Bush tax cut and compare it to the deficit. They explicitly state:
[quote]
You cannot explain the whole deficit without including all the contributing factors. They are outright manipulating the numbers to get there. Increases in Discretionary spending increased the deficit in 2010 by over $400B. How can their graph that 'explains virtually the entire deficit' not include that?
What they are doing is using a fake baseline of a perfectly balanced budget, and then adding in arbitrary items - Bush tax cuts, wars, bailouts and stimulus to 'explain' why the budget is no longer balanced. paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that passed under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline. AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward. It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT. The hell? Where have I accused you of this? On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars. Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid? You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now. No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up. The introduction, in particular the first paragraph. Lol this one? Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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). To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers. This is a different intent than you are describing. This reads that the intent of the article is to compare the policies that originated under Bush to the policies that originated under Obama. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article. No where does it say that they are restricting their analysis to just big individual policies. What do you think holds more "responsibility for the deficits", new policies that cost a lot or new policies that don't cost a lot?
Bush tax cuts added $187B to the deficit in 2010.
New discretionary spending (less wars) added $428B.
Which number is bigger?
|
On September 01 2012 13:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 13:16 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:13 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:12 kwizach wrote:[quote] I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001. [quote] paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that passed under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline. AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward. It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT. The hell? Where have I accused you of this? On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars. Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid? You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now. No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up. The introduction, in particular the first paragraph. Lol this one? Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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). To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers. This is a different intent than you are describing. This reads that the intent of the article is to compare the policies that originated under Bush to the policies that originated under Obama. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article. No where does it say that they are restricting their analysis to just big individual policies. What do you think holds more "responsibility for the deficits", new policies that cost a lot or new policies that don't cost a lot? Bush tax cuts added $187B to the deficit in 2010. New discretionary spending (less wars) added $428B. Which number is bigger?
We're still talking about new policies. Which new policies are included in that figure?
|
On September 01 2012 13:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 13:16 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:13 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:12 kwizach wrote:[quote] I don't think you understood what they wrote. They take into account the AMT patches that have been passed since 2001 under Bush. The AMT relief measures did not appear with the ARRA - the ones included in the ARRA were the exact same kind of measures that had already been going on under Bush. Like they write in the very sentence you quoted, "ARRA just happened to provide the vehicle". The AMT relief measures were supposed to be there anyway - they're a Bush policy that has been going on since 2001. [quote] paralleluniverse explained to you in detail what a "baseline" is, and you completely dodged his argument. I'm going to refer you to his post. There is no "fake baseline" here - you posted yourself another graph that clearly how we ended up so far away from the initial projections when Bush took office. And they're not "arbitrary items", they are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT. I'm getting tired of repeating this post after post. Can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars, from the graph you cited or from elsewhere? Yes or no? If no, kindly stop complaining about an article which shows clearly that among the policies that passed under Bush and Obama, two policies that passed under Bush account for a large portion of the deficit compared to the baseline. AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward. It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT. The hell? Where have I accused you of this? On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars. Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid? You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now. No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up. The introduction, in particular the first paragraph. Lol this one? Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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). To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers. This is a different intent than you are describing. This reads that the intent of the article is to compare the policies that originated under Bush to the policies that originated under Obama. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article. No where does it say that they are restricting their analysis to just big individual policies. What do you think holds more "responsibility for the deficits", new policies that cost a lot or new policies that don't cost a lot? Bush tax cuts added $187B to the deficit in 2010. New discretionary spending (less wars) added $428B. Which number is bigger?
Let's look at your own graph which you linked earlier.
![[image loading]](https://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)
|
On September 01 2012 13:23 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 13:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:16 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:13 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward. It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT. The hell? Where have I accused you of this? On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars. Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid? You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now. No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up. The introduction, in particular the first paragraph. Lol this one? Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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). To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers. This is a different intent than you are describing. This reads that the intent of the article is to compare the policies that originated under Bush to the policies that originated under Obama. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article. No where does it say that they are restricting their analysis to just big individual policies. What do you think holds more "responsibility for the deficits", new policies that cost a lot or new policies that don't cost a lot? Bush tax cuts added $187B to the deficit in 2010. New discretionary spending (less wars) added $428B. Which number is bigger? We're still talking about new policies. Which new policies are included in that figure?
Many. No where does the article state that they restricted their analysis to only large, individual policies. You can not after the fact add in that constraint. Moreover, it is a bogus constraint. The cumulative impact of many small policies is just as important as the impact of a few large ones. Death by 1000 cuts is still death.
If the Bush tax cuts had been enacted one part at a time in separate laws they would still have the same budget impact. Just because the many policies held within the Bush tax cuts are conveniently held inside a few laws, does not make them more worthy to note than many policies held within many small laws.
|
On September 01 2012 13:24 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 13:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:16 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:13 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
AMT relief is not a "Bush" policy - its a bi-partisan policy. CBPP is correct to assign the cost of AMT relief to years in which Bush was president, but is wrong to assign the cost of AMT relief to Bush going forward. It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I AM NOT STATING THAT BUSH DID NOT INCREASE THE DEFICIT. The hell? Where have I accused you of this? On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I am stating that he increased the deficit through more vehicles than just tax cuts and wars. Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't. On September 01 2012 12:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I could take that same graph, remove tax cuts and wars, and replace them with discretionary spending to show that we'd have a surplus if not for Bush's spendthrift policies. Would that be just as valid? You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now. No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up. The introduction, in particular the first paragraph. Lol this one? Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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). To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers. This is a different intent than you are describing. This reads that the intent of the article is to compare the policies that originated under Bush to the policies that originated under Obama. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article. No where does it say that they are restricting their analysis to just big individual policies. What do you think holds more "responsibility for the deficits", new policies that cost a lot or new policies that don't cost a lot? Bush tax cuts added $187B to the deficit in 2010. New discretionary spending (less wars) added $428B. Which number is bigger? Let's look at your own graph which you linked earlier.
Yes, this is a good graph. It tells you the baseline and tells you everything that resulted in reality differing from the estimate.
The CBPP graph does not do that.
|
On September 01 2012 13:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 13:23 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:16 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:13 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 12:43 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
It's a tax policy that was supported by the Bush administration and that it enacted. The article does not say "look at these policies, it's Bush who decided at the end of 2010 to prolong them". It refers to the policies as "Bush-era policies", because they are policies that originated under Bush. AMT relief is a Bush-era policy that has been prolonged.
[quote]
The hell? Where have I accused you of this?
[quote]
Thanks for stating the obvious. Did you somehow manage to miss the part where I said that tax cuts and wars "are the INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ENACTED UNDER BUSH OR OBAMA WITH THE HIGHEST IMPACT"? Again, "can you single out an individual policy that had a bigger impact than the Bush tax cuts or the wars?" No, you can't.
[quote]
You could, and that would be a graph that would have nothing to do with the article, which aims to single out the individual policies with the highest impact, something which I must have pointed out to you about fifteen different times by now. No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up. The introduction, in particular the first paragraph. Lol this one? Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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). To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers. This is a different intent than you are describing. This reads that the intent of the article is to compare the policies that originated under Bush to the policies that originated under Obama. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article. No where does it say that they are restricting their analysis to just big individual policies. What do you think holds more "responsibility for the deficits", new policies that cost a lot or new policies that don't cost a lot? Bush tax cuts added $187B to the deficit in 2010. New discretionary spending (less wars) added $428B. Which number is bigger? We're still talking about new policies. Which new policies are included in that figure? Many. No where does the article state that they restricted their analysis to only large, individual policies. You can not after the fact add in that constraint. Moreover, it is a bogus constraint. The cumulative impact of many small policies is just as important as the impact of a few large ones. Death by 1000 cuts is still death. If the Bush tax cuts had been enacted one part at a time in separate laws they would still have the same budget impact. Just because the many policies held within the Bush tax cuts are conveniently held inside a few laws, does not make them more worthy to note than many policies held within many small laws.
"Many" is not an answer. Unless you can show me that it is in fact new policies that account for that figure, you have no point. Discretionary spending includes spending that has absolutely nothing to do with new policies - in fact, you can enact zero new policy and still have as much discretionary spending. Remember to find new policies that are not already taken into account in the report, such as the recovery measures.
The reason the individual large policies are the ones that emerge is that they are identified as new policies having had and that will have a big impact on the budget (and not for only one fiscal year). You're welcome to present me with other new policies having had and that will have equal or bigger impacts, even thematically grouped.
|
On September 01 2012 13:39 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 13:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:23 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:16 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:13 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 12:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
No where in the article do they state that intent. It is something you are making up. The introduction, in particular the first paragraph. Lol this one? Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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). To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers. This is a different intent than you are describing. This reads that the intent of the article is to compare the policies that originated under Bush to the policies that originated under Obama. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article. No where does it say that they are restricting their analysis to just big individual policies. What do you think holds more "responsibility for the deficits", new policies that cost a lot or new policies that don't cost a lot? Bush tax cuts added $187B to the deficit in 2010. New discretionary spending (less wars) added $428B. Which number is bigger? We're still talking about new policies. Which new policies are included in that figure? Many. No where does the article state that they restricted their analysis to only large, individual policies. You can not after the fact add in that constraint. Moreover, it is a bogus constraint. The cumulative impact of many small policies is just as important as the impact of a few large ones. Death by 1000 cuts is still death. If the Bush tax cuts had been enacted one part at a time in separate laws they would still have the same budget impact. Just because the many policies held within the Bush tax cuts are conveniently held inside a few laws, does not make them more worthy to note than many policies held within many small laws. "Many" is not an answer. Unless you can show me that it is in fact new policies that account for that figure, you have no point. Discretionary spending includes spending that has absolutely nothing to do with new policies - in fact, you can enact zero new policy and still have as much discretionary spending. Remember to find new policies that are not already taken into account in the report, such as the recovery measures. The reason the individual large policies are the ones that emerge is that they are identified as new policies having had and that will have a big impact on the budget (and not for only one fiscal year). You're welcome to present me with other new policies having had and that will have equal or bigger impacts, even thematically grouped.
You don't need new policies. You can take existing policies and increase their budget.
In 2001 the CBO estimated that discretionary spending would increase from $646B 2001 to $845B in 2010. When 2010 actually rolled around, however, discretionary spending was actually $1371. That difference represents policy decisions made (largely) during Bush's presidency.
Edit: A few examples of new spending:
Department of Homeland Security
No Child Left Behind
Reconstruction of New Orleans
Highway Act of 2005
Farm Bill 2002
Farm Bill 2008
|
|
|
On September 01 2012 14:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 13:39 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:23 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:16 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:13 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:01 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
The introduction, in particular the first paragraph. Lol this one? Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). 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). To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers. This is a different intent than you are describing. This reads that the intent of the article is to compare the policies that originated under Bush to the policies that originated under Obama. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article. No where does it say that they are restricting their analysis to just big individual policies. What do you think holds more "responsibility for the deficits", new policies that cost a lot or new policies that don't cost a lot? Bush tax cuts added $187B to the deficit in 2010. New discretionary spending (less wars) added $428B. Which number is bigger? We're still talking about new policies. Which new policies are included in that figure? Many. No where does the article state that they restricted their analysis to only large, individual policies. You can not after the fact add in that constraint. Moreover, it is a bogus constraint. The cumulative impact of many small policies is just as important as the impact of a few large ones. Death by 1000 cuts is still death. If the Bush tax cuts had been enacted one part at a time in separate laws they would still have the same budget impact. Just because the many policies held within the Bush tax cuts are conveniently held inside a few laws, does not make them more worthy to note than many policies held within many small laws. "Many" is not an answer. Unless you can show me that it is in fact new policies that account for that figure, you have no point. Discretionary spending includes spending that has absolutely nothing to do with new policies - in fact, you can enact zero new policy and still have as much discretionary spending. Remember to find new policies that are not already taken into account in the report, such as the recovery measures. The reason the individual large policies are the ones that emerge is that they are identified as new policies having had and that will have a big impact on the budget (and not for only one fiscal year). You're welcome to present me with other new policies having had and that will have equal or bigger impacts, even thematically grouped. You don't need new policies. You can take existing policies and increase their budget. In 2001 the CBO estimated that discretionary spending would increase from $646B 2001 to $845B in 2010. When 2010 actually rolled around, however, discretionary spending was actually $1371. That difference represents policy decisions made (largely) during Bush's presidency.
"Discretionary spending" is a type of spending. It is not a policy. The article wants to look at the impact of Bush-era policies and Obama-era policies. It separates them. If it wanted to look at size of mandatory spending vs size of discriminatory spending, it would have been a different article. Using "discretionary spending" does not allow for the kind of analysis that the article is interested in.
|
On September 01 2012 15:16 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 14:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:39 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:23 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:16 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 13:13 kwizach wrote:On September 01 2012 13:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Lol this one?
[quote]
To me this reads that the intent of the article is to demonstrate that the Bush tax cuts and wars are the primary drivers of the deficits above all other drivers.
This is a different intent than you are describing. This reads that the intent of the article is to compare the policies that originated under Bush to the policies that originated under Obama. The last line of the paragraph sums up the conclusion of the article. No where does it say that they are restricting their analysis to just big individual policies. What do you think holds more "responsibility for the deficits", new policies that cost a lot or new policies that don't cost a lot? Bush tax cuts added $187B to the deficit in 2010. New discretionary spending (less wars) added $428B. Which number is bigger? We're still talking about new policies. Which new policies are included in that figure? Many. No where does the article state that they restricted their analysis to only large, individual policies. You can not after the fact add in that constraint. Moreover, it is a bogus constraint. The cumulative impact of many small policies is just as important as the impact of a few large ones. Death by 1000 cuts is still death. If the Bush tax cuts had been enacted one part at a time in separate laws they would still have the same budget impact. Just because the many policies held within the Bush tax cuts are conveniently held inside a few laws, does not make them more worthy to note than many policies held within many small laws. "Many" is not an answer. Unless you can show me that it is in fact new policies that account for that figure, you have no point. Discretionary spending includes spending that has absolutely nothing to do with new policies - in fact, you can enact zero new policy and still have as much discretionary spending. Remember to find new policies that are not already taken into account in the report, such as the recovery measures. The reason the individual large policies are the ones that emerge is that they are identified as new policies having had and that will have a big impact on the budget (and not for only one fiscal year). You're welcome to present me with other new policies having had and that will have equal or bigger impacts, even thematically grouped. You don't need new policies. You can take existing policies and increase their budget. In 2001 the CBO estimated that discretionary spending would increase from $646B 2001 to $845B in 2010. When 2010 actually rolled around, however, discretionary spending was actually $1371. That difference represents policy decisions made (largely) during Bush's presidency. "Discretionary spending" is a type of spending. It is not a policy. The article wants to look at the impact of Bush-era policies and Obama-era policies. It separates them. If it wanted to look at size of mandatory spending vs size of discriminatory spending, it would have been a different article. Using "discretionary spending" does not allow for the kind of analysis that the article is interested in.
How does discretionary spending increase if not for policy decisions? Gremlins?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Marco Rubio's a really intelligent, likeable guy. I'd like to hear debates between him and prominent Democrats on various issues.
|
Paul Ryan's political stock went up so much this week. pretty sure that speech just won him the election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
