That's where most of my 'partial' point agreement came in, GC.

Even if dealing with the theory of 'recent expenditures'...

There should be a line in there about the increase in entitlement expenditures on the back of a demographic cycle where we have increasing baby boomer retirements on the back of a lower # of taxpayers. (That's due to math, not politics). That 'gap' isn't reflected and it should be if your chart is really about recent expenditure challenge.

 

-----signature-----

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the Bush tax cuts. I think taxes should be more progressive not less. And I agree they were irresponsible and unnecessary pandering. But there are many people who think the spending the government does is a far worse evil. And given the level of fraud and stupid attached to the government, I don't view that argument as wrong. I just find it less compelling than the counter argument.

All that said the blogger's main argument was solid, IMO. Taking only the items you don't want and trying to portray them as the culprit while the items you have icnreased and or like are hidden among the "general budget underneath the graph." Is pretty stupid and disingenuous.

 

-----signature-----

You can show other parts of the budget but that doesn't mean you can't show the changes that were shown. The chart is in direct response to those pushing the idea that the defecit was a result of Obama's stimulus. It also makes more sense to focus on large Policy changes and a recession as opposed to trends in current services.


To use SS and Medicare is stupid and incorrect.

 

-----signature-----

SS shouldn't be used unless and until we get to having to supplement it directly from the general fund. But I don't see why medicare can't be used.

 

-----signature-----

Medicare, for the most part, has a specific tax associated with the program. I have no issue with showing the revenue of that tax and relating it to outlays.


They can show the parts of Medicare that are not tied directly to a specific tax like Medicare part B but that only makes Bush look worse.


The chart is effective at showing how the stimulus impacts the budget relative to some other major issues. You can certainly put other changes on that list to get a bigger picture, that doesn't mean that this chart is wrong for what it is. It doesn't mean there is "no mathematical" reason for making the chart the way they did. It doesn't justify throwing all of medicare and SS up next to the budget. It doesn't justify the BS about taxes not hurting the deficit.


You are confused over the difference between can and must.

 

-----signature-----

Are these the same Wars and Bush era tax cuts that Obama has continued?

Do we add in the Libyan "relief" effort into this at all?

 

-----signature-----

Putting the name Obama next to a tax cut doesn't make it any better or worse. I think you are caught up in partisan nonsense and failing to see what is being discussed.


It is like you forgot that Republicans pushed to keep the tax cuts and essentially won over the voters.

 

-----signature-----

The chart is obviously meant to mislead, not illuminate. Every penny of spending contributes equally to the deficit.

 

-----signature-----

The things listed are events and decisions. How decisions and events impact the deficit is very important when one party is trying to nail another to the wall over the deficit and the decisions made.


It is like you people are trying to be stupid.

 

-----signature-----