SB posted this: Really, this graph tells us a LOT about how we got where we are today.
Republican National Convention: The one graph you need to see before watching
C.K.: How is it there are costs for the wars going into 2019?
Me: Flawed assumptions and unwarranted projections are not very persuasive.
M.P.: There you go again with facts and figures trying to sway over folks who just know in their guts it's all the fault of those liberal socialists running the gov't. When you get a feeling, you just know you're right :@
M.P.: Oh, and when the facts don't support your feelings, blame it on somethings else like flawed assumptions and analytic misconduct. And is multiple groups show the same data trends, blame it on a conspiracy.
National Debt Graph by President zfacts.com
C.K.: M.P., just so you know, I am a liberal pinko France loving nancy boy. Still not sure how they a projecting costs for wars that are essentially over. The numbers could be right. Just not sure.
Me: Flawed assumption #1: Tax cuts create debt
Flawed assumption #2: There are no other factors at work that create debt
Flawed assumption #3: The "other debt" would be decreasing had the ennumerated factors not ocurred
Flawed assumption #4: Attributing debts to presidents, not congress
Flawed assumption #5: People who disagree are idiots
R.B.: This is purely a guess: But I believe since this graph is claiming to represent the deficit, not necessarily spending, that the wars show up in the future because of their interest payments.
R.S.: My guess on the question of the war costs is that some of them were deferred, but I don't know for sure. But even if you take that out, the chunk made up by the tax cuts is enormous. I remember thinking in 2000 that it seemed like a bad idea, what with the economy doing well and us looking at surplusses, and all the international goodwill we needed. Republicans have tried twice to make the idea of tax cuts with spending increases work (you can have your cake and eat it too), only to have it fail both times. ...and the article is spot on. Obama inherited this mess, and then had to contend with an idiot congress that wouldn't pass a deficit reduction bill that had something like 9 dollars in spending cuts for every 1 dollar in revenue increases. Surely they could have declared victory and taken the deal. But no....credit rating downgrades are a much better outcome. Ahhhh! Oh well, I digress, lol.
S.B.: Chris -- if you note, the size of debt impact doesn't increase attributable to war doesn't increase visibly beyond about 2013. But neither does it go away, because we are not paying down the debt in those out years either.
Revenue cuts in the absence of commensurate spending cuts do indeed cause an increase in debt.
I do agree with Rich on one point: his flawed assumption #5. I learned long ago not to assume that people who disagree with me are idiots -- even though some of them are. I guess it's that whole causation/correlation thing. ;-)
K.B.: I believe is correct. the costs for the war were deferred and Bush even stated that those costs don't count towards the deficit (uh ok ) but two other factors that debt incurs additional debt because of the increase it causes in interest payments and costs will continue to expand as the vets start claiming benefits as in VA care.
R.G.: I'd say the graph assumes the war ends in about 2013 so it doesn't contribute anything *more* to the debt. That is why the thickness stays the same. (not quite true because gdp is growing, but you get the general idea…)
It would be interesting if they separated the Bush tax cuts into less than/greater than $250k. Those cuts were pretty substantial for the middle class.
B.R.: DoD spending isn't paid for year by year. "Legacy" support for defense programs are planned years, often decades in advance. The Congressional Budget Office tends to figure those programs into their flawed assumptions to make their unwarranted projections.
Me: Quite right, S.B.. Years ago I was convinced that leftists were objectively stupid. I realized later that they were not stupid, they operated on different assumptions than did I, and embraced different fact sets. Granted, there are some leftists that are actually stupid, but most are thinking, caring individuals. I give the benefit of the doubt nowadays.
R.R.: Is there a point at which Obama actually holds responsibility for anything in his first term? I suppose not, when dealing with wiley ole Bush. Why, that crafty devil even managed to sneak into the White House and affix his successor's signature on an extension of his tax cuts!
No comments:
Post a Comment