« POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: THE UNVARNISHED BS 

By: Beldin in POPE | Recommend this post (3)
Mon, 23 Jul 12 10:06 PM | 117 view(s)
Boardmark this board | (The) Pope's for real stock market report
Msg. 65065 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 65064 by clo)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

ROTFLMAO! The chart is a year old and it's based on bullshit projections given to the CBO by Barry Soetoro and his minions. Just as I expected, this chart is worthless - BS in, BS out.




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: THE UNVARNISHED BS
By: clo
in POPE
Mon, 23 Jul 12 9:47 PM
Msg. 65064 of 65535

Thanks snapits.
The chart was based on data from CBO.

It's based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

An additional significance of the chart: it identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks -- like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. Those external events make a big difference in the deficit, and they are the major reason why deficits have increased faster in absolute terms during Obama's first two years than during the last two under Bush. (In a recession, tax revenues plunge, and government spending goes up - partly because of automatic programs like unemployment insurance, and partly in a deliberate attempt to keep the recession from getting worse.) If you want, you could even put the spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in this category: those were policy choices, but right or wrong they came in response to an external shock.

The point is that governments can respond to but not control external shocks. That's why we call them "shocks." Governments can control their policies. And the policy that did the most to magnify future deficits is the Bush-era tax cuts. You could argue that the stimulative effect of those cuts is worth it ("deficits don't matter" etc). But you cannot logically argue that we absolutely must reduce deficits, but that we absolutely must also preserve every penny of those tax cuts. Which I believe precisely describes the House Republican position.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/


« POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next