detlef Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Policy changes and their pricetags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Policy changes and their pricetags Sweet. So we can ignore all the costs associated with the continuance of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other than that, it sums it up pretty nicely and encapsulates my issues with the previous admin, the congress from 2002 through today, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 yeah, some of the counting is disingenuous, tallying spending under obama under the bush column. you're also comparing two and a half years to 8. was this graph from a paul krugman op-ed? it is essentially propaganda from the cbpp. but if it is trying to make the point that bush was a profligate spender, hey, no argument from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I'd like to see the Defense, Afghanistan and Iraq costs broken out in the first column. However, purely as a graph of new costs without any reasoning as to why those costs were incurred, it's interesting enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 yeah, some of the counting is disingenuous, tallying spending under obama under the bush column. you're also comparing two and a half years to 8. was this graph from a paul krugman op-ed? it is essentially propaganda from the cbpp. but if it is trying to make the point that bush was a profligate spender, hey, no argument from me. It was just linked to by a friend on Facebook. Oh, and the Obama costs are carried out for 8 years. Mind you, that doesn't take into account what other new things he could do that would add to it. None the less, I'm not claiming it is more than it is. Just saw it and was, well, impressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It was just linked to by a friend on Facebook. Oh, and the Obama costs are carried out for 8 years. Mind you, that doesn't take into account what other new things he could do that would add to it. None the less, I'm not claiming it is more than it is. Just saw it and was, well, impressed. well, again, it lays the costs for the surge in afghanistan, continued operations there and in iraq, the latter and more costly stages of the auto bailouts, the post-9/11 increases to the defense budget baseline, the continuance of the "bush tax cuts" after their expiration (most of which obama never even wanted to get rid of), and so forth all under the bush column. in short, everything it counts under the bush column it magnifies to the greatest degree possible, and it minimizes everything counted under the obama column to the greatest degree possible. hell, all you need to know can be gleaned from the fact that it lists the meager 2008 stimulus as costing more than the 2009 stimulus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It was just linked to by a friend on Facebook. Oh, and the Obama costs are carried out for 8 years. Mind you, that doesn't take into account what other new things he could do that would add to it. None the less, I'm not claiming it is more than it is. Just saw it and was, well, impressed. Some of this "costs of new policy" is taken into consideration in a vacuum, of sorts. While the increased spending is very lamentable the debit for tax cuts can be a bit misleading. The graph looks at the tax cuts as a negative on the whole. I don't entirely agree that viewing it in this light is the most honest way of assessing the tax cuts. There are really no grounds to state that had tax rates remained constant from their 2000 levels that we would have seen the revenue as outlined in the CBO estimates due to these estimates not including the recession of 2001 and the potential slower recovery trajectory that could have occurred had these tax cuts not been passed on. It is a fact that, even with the tax decreases, that by 2005 tax revenues to the US were the highest in the nation's history. In 2008 tax revenues were 2.524 Trillion dollars while outlays were 2.982 trillion, giving us a roughly 458 billion deficit. In 2009 tax revenues dipped 2.105 billion while spending increased to 3.517 trillion, leaving a deficit of 1.42 trillion. The 2009 budget would have been the last that passed under the Bush admin, but may be construed as the first one that was passed while democrats were in control of congress. In 2010 revenues increased to 2.162 trillion while expenditures dropped to 3.456 trillion, again a budget orchestrated by a democrat controlled congress. The Republicans absolutely allowed spending to get out of control on their watch, no doubt about it. But, prior to the recession, even with lower tax rates, and two wars raging, we had decreased the deficit to 160 billion in 2007 (which is still too much). Since then the deficit hit a high of 1.412 trillion, increasing by nearly one trillion between 2008 - 2009. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Bush started a war he couldn't end in 8 years. 1 in in the wrong country don't forget. It seems reasonable enough to include the continued costs on his tab. I don't get out of a water bill because I go on vacation for a week with the bathroom sink running. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Bush started a war he couldn't end in 8 years. 1 in in the wrong country don't forget. It seems reasonable enough to include the continued costs on his tab. I don't get out of a water bill because I go on vacation for a week with the bathroom sink running. So did Kennedy, but Nixon seems to get a lot of the blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 So did Kennedy, but Nixon seems to get a lot of the blame. well by today's standers Nixon would be a tree hugging hippie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 well by today's standers Nixon would be a tree hugging hippie. and JFK would be a blue dog lieberman-esque sellout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I am very confused... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I am very confused... Just remember we're fooked no matter which way we go and it all becomes crystal clear. America was fun while it lasted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Just remember we're fooked no matter which way we go and it all becomes crystal clear. America was fun while it lasted. At least you got a Vette out of the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.