EPTOn September 02 2012 05:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
It doesn't matter if they are have anything to do with each other. What matters is if they increase the deficit. That's the only thing that should be in question.
Show nested quote +
On September 02 2012 05:09 kwizach wrote:
It can, it is and it should. That's why they're called the Bush tax cuts and not "the amalgamation of policy decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with each other whatsoever except for entailing spending or loss of revenue".
On September 02 2012 04:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Lol a tax cut package that contains many changes the the tax code, some of which are supported by Obama and some which are not, should no more be singled out as an individual thing than the amalgamation of spending decisions which contain both supported and disputed elements.
On September 02 2012 04:11 kwizach wrote:
No, it says the factors within it contributed to the deficit - there is absolutely nothing factually inaccurate about this. The article does say they are looking at Bush-era policies and Obama-era policies. The Bush tax cuts and the wars are the single policies with the highest impact. How else does this need to be explained to you? Or, more to the point, how many times?
Discriminatory spending is not a policy. Could you maybe print down those five words and put them on the wall above your computer so that I don't have to repeat them again?
I want to live in a world where people are able to read an article and a graph (and understand what a policy is). Apparently that was too much to ask.
On September 02 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
![[image loading]](http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg)
This graph is stating that the factors within it caused the deficit. No where in the article do they couch that statement by stating that they are only looking at large individual programs. That makes it factually inaccurate. There is no other interpretation.
On September 02 2012 03:08 kwizach wrote:
They explained the problem with the CBO numbers. It's not hard to read.
The only reason to separate the big items from the rest of the spending is to study the policies with the biggest impact. If you want an actual complete picture, you shouldn't aggregate small items, you should study each and every single policy separately. You seem to desperately want to be reading an article that does something different than what this one wants to do.
The article was about the Bush-era and Obama-era policies bearing the most responsibility for the deficit. It's stated in the very first paragraph. You quoted it, why not read it?
On September 02 2012 01:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Just use the CBO numbers. It is not hard.
On September 02 2012 01:42 kwizach wrote:
It wasn't an excuse. They said they did not include the costs because they could not estimate them with the same confidence as the rest. What are they supposed to do, guess the numbers, cross fingers and hope they're right? Brilliant.
On September 02 2012 00:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
They *explained* why they didn't include it BUT THEY STILL SHOULD HAVE. It wasn't a good excuse!
On September 02 2012 00:19 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I know you like to constantly dodge arguments, but the point is that discretionary spending increase does not simply equate to new policy decisions. Therefore you have to provide policies.
[quote]
Discretionary spending is a kind of spending. It makes no sense in the context of the article to study its increase as a policy decision in itself. Again, by that logic, you can argue that "spending" is a policy decision, and put all government spending on the graph under a single label. Is that relevant in the context of the analysis? No.
[quote]
Not necessarily an entirely new policy, since previous existing agencies were included in the new DHS. Not quite a policy in the context of the article either. Moreover, still a smaller impact.
[quote]
All smaller impacts than the Bush tax cuts and the wars.
[quote]
We already covered this twice in this discussion. For the third time, the explanation of the non-inclusion of Medicare Part D is explained on p. 10 of the article. Are you going to mention it again in ten posts?
[quote]
I know you like to constantly dodge arguments, but the point is that discretionary spending increase does not simply equate to new policy decisions. Therefore you have to provide policies.
[quote]
Discretionary spending is a kind of spending. It makes no sense in the context of the article to study its increase as a policy decision in itself. Again, by that logic, you can argue that "spending" is a policy decision, and put all government spending on the graph under a single label. Is that relevant in the context of the analysis? No.
[quote]
Not necessarily an entirely new policy, since previous existing agencies were included in the new DHS. Not quite a policy in the context of the article either. Moreover, still a smaller impact.
[quote]
All smaller impacts than the Bush tax cuts and the wars.
[quote]
We already covered this twice in this discussion. For the third time, the explanation of the non-inclusion of Medicare Part D is explained on p. 10 of the article. Are you going to mention it again in ten posts?
They *explained* why they didn't include it BUT THEY STILL SHOULD HAVE. It wasn't a good excuse!
It wasn't an excuse. They said they did not include the costs because they could not estimate them with the same confidence as the rest. What are they supposed to do, guess the numbers, cross fingers and hope they're right? Brilliant.
Just use the CBO numbers. It is not hard.
They explained the problem with the CBO numbers. It's not hard to read.
On September 02 2012 01:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Hey, as long as we're counting stuff together, why not simply consider all policies together, including the wars and the Bush tax cuts? That will allow for a great analysis of which policies had the biggest impact, right?
Why not leave big items separate and aggregate small items? It would give the complete picture.
On September 02 2012 00:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The programs I listed were in total comparable to the Bush tax cuts. There was NO context of the article to not include this stuff. They did not specify that they were only looking at individual programs.
The programs I listed were in total comparable to the Bush tax cuts. There was NO context of the article to not include this stuff. They did not specify that they were only looking at individual programs.
Hey, as long as we're counting stuff together, why not simply consider all policies together, including the wars and the Bush tax cuts? That will allow for a great analysis of which policies had the biggest impact, right?
Why not leave big items separate and aggregate small items? It would give the complete picture.
The only reason to separate the big items from the rest of the spending is to study the policies with the biggest impact. If you want an actual complete picture, you shouldn't aggregate small items, you should study each and every single policy separately. You seem to desperately want to be reading an article that does something different than what this one wants to do.
On September 02 2012 01:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Yeah, "arbitrary constraints" like "being a new policy" - what the article was about. I love how your complaint about the article is that they don't do what you want them to do instead of what they wanted to do. It's like someone yelling at the weatherman because he's not giving you the latest news on sports.
The article was about the causes of the deficit. They use that word. You cannot have an honest article about causes where only some causes are listed as the total cause. "Being an new policy" is not what the article was about. It was about the causes of the deficit. The causes. That's why they included "Economic downturn" - obviously economic downturn is not a "new policy"!!!
On September 02 2012 00:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
This is really, really stupid on your end. You can't ignore $400B+ because it doesn't fall into arbitrary (and BAD) constraints that you have dreamed up after the fact.
This is really, really stupid on your end. You can't ignore $400B+ because it doesn't fall into arbitrary (and BAD) constraints that you have dreamed up after the fact.
Yeah, "arbitrary constraints" like "being a new policy" - what the article was about. I love how your complaint about the article is that they don't do what you want them to do instead of what they wanted to do. It's like someone yelling at the weatherman because he's not giving you the latest news on sports.
The article was about the causes of the deficit. They use that word. You cannot have an honest article about causes where only some causes are listed as the total cause. "Being an new policy" is not what the article was about. It was about the causes of the deficit. The causes. That's why they included "Economic downturn" - obviously economic downturn is not a "new policy"!!!
The article was about the Bush-era and Obama-era policies bearing the most responsibility for the deficit. It's stated in the very first paragraph. You quoted it, why not read it?
This graph is stating that the factors within it caused the deficit. No where in the article do they couch that statement by stating that they are only looking at large individual programs. That makes it factually inaccurate. There is no other interpretation.
No, it says the factors within it contributed to the deficit - there is absolutely nothing factually inaccurate about this. The article does say they are looking at Bush-era policies and Obama-era policies. The Bush tax cuts and the wars are the single policies with the highest impact. How else does this need to be explained to you? Or, more to the point, how many times?
On September 02 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Within the article they state that using a baseline for discretionary spending that grows with inflation is a valid baseline. Yet they ignore the increases in discretionary spending under Bush that exceeded just such a baseline.
Within the article they state that using a baseline for discretionary spending that grows with inflation is a valid baseline. Yet they ignore the increases in discretionary spending under Bush that exceeded just such a baseline.
Discriminatory spending is not a policy. Could you maybe print down those five words and put them on the wall above your computer so that I don't have to repeat them again?
On September 02 2012 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I'm done debating this with you. If you want to live in a world where data can be manipulated for arbitrary reasons then have fun with that.
I'm done debating this with you. If you want to live in a world where data can be manipulated for arbitrary reasons then have fun with that.
I want to live in a world where people are able to read an article and a graph (and understand what a policy is). Apparently that was too much to ask.
Lol a tax cut package that contains many changes the the tax code, some of which are supported by Obama and some which are not, should no more be singled out as an individual thing than the amalgamation of spending decisions which contain both supported and disputed elements.
It can, it is and it should. That's why they're called the Bush tax cuts and not "the amalgamation of policy decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with each other whatsoever except for entailing spending or loss of revenue".
It doesn't matter if they are have anything to do with each other. What matters is if they increase the deficit. That's the only thing that should be in question.
Yes, and the answer is that each of these other policies increases the deficit by less than the Bush tax cuts and the wars, which is why the Bush tax cuts and the wars were highlighted in the article. The article states they want to look at policies, not aggregates, and they highlight policies, not aggregates. If you want to read about aggregates, go read another article.
