Facts Are Stubborn Things -- The Graphed Truth About the Debt & Spending

As an independent, I give no quarter and call it like I see it. With Obama, he earns my ire for the NDAA, drones attacks, whistle blower attacks and a few other things. These are detestable and abominations. Before I go off I also try to get the facts versus listening to spin and regurgitating it. In the case of the budget, most all of what you hear from the Right is a lie. In my experience, the louder the Right accuses and screams, the likelier they are really the primary source of the problem. No one plays Orwellian double speak like the Right.

Here is a CBO-derived (Congressional Budget Office, which is non partisan employees that serve Congress regardless of which party leads and made up of actuary and other finance geeks) graph that drives the factual point about the source of the U.S. public debt. It is not debatable, it is not opinion. There it is.

The projections in the future might be minutely arguable from a calculations point, but not the basic picture and what it describes -- that the source of our debt explosion is mainly the result of GW Bush's actions, with congressional voting support though from a great many Democrats in Congress to be sure. nearly ALL the Republicans voted "Aye" for these two, including so called "fiscal conservatives" like Paul Ryan. But, let's be clear about the originator of the policy -- the Bush administration.

Take a look. Carefully.



It is important to point out the cumulative nature of the Bush actions -- tax cuts, wars, TARP. Budget ramifications for actions do not present themselves immediately, rather they build over time. So all the Right talk about what the debt WAS at the exact time Bush left office is diversion and a game for the ignorant to believe. So the effect of the Bush policies become much more visible and destructive as time moves on. Sort of like reverse compound interest. It is a bit like a criminal shooting someone in the head and the Right blaming the hospital when the patient dies upon arrival in the ER.

It can also be argued that had Bush not tanked the economy (squandering the budget surplus in the process), the recovery measures (aka Stimulus) would not have been necessary.

The other blatant lie is about Obama spending. The Right would have you believe Obama has blown up federal spending in unprecedented percentages. Again, it is an Orwellian lie meant to cover for the FACT that when the Right runs the Executive branch, spending growth explodes. The facts of the present AND historical clearly show that government spending growth actually decreases under centrist Democratic government (good luck anyone convincing me Obama or Clinton are policy leftists...in Brit terms they'd be center-right Tories). Here's the graph that details this.




Either way, the current president was left with a mess and a Congress unwilling to act upon upon it (or anything else especially after 2010). There is plenty to slam Obama on, but these Right wing lies are not on the list. So spin on all you want, but the truth is staring you in the face.

reply to post by pajoly


See this is the problem I have with this... HOW CAN government count money that Americans are allowed to keep as adding to the debt?!

The bush era tax cut was never the governments money it's OURS dangit. So how can they accuse this program of adding to the debt?! That's typical big government BS! It's our money!

I think in our modern world perception is more important than fact.

It's a bit disheartening actually...

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by pajoly

 

See this is the problem I have with this... HOW CAN government count money that Americans are allowed to keep as adding to the debt?!

The bush era tax cuts is not the governments money it's OURS dangit. So how can they accuse this program of adding to the debt?! That's typical big government BS! It's our money!

Look, we are a nation of 310 million. It costs a lot of money to run a society and the states only cover so much. As a percent, our income taxes at the top brackets are the lowest they have been in decades. During the Eisenhower years the very tippy top brackets were near 90%. Guess what, the economy was pretty great. In the Clinton years, the level was only about 35% for the top bracket. Things were pretty darned good; a surplus was even generated.

But even if you accept your point, the blame still falls where it falls. If you want to make the argument you do, then be consistent and say Bush had no business running up the debt by not funding the wars (historically real wars resulted in a war tax), not funding Medicare Part D, etc. He crapped all over the lawn and then left the bombs for Obama to deal with. There is even theory out there that TARP was in part slammed through by Bush in the final month of his presidency in part to hurt the incoming president.

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by pajoly

 

See this is the problem I have with this... HOW CAN government count money that Americans are allowed to keep as adding to the debt?!

The ultimate logical conclusion of that graph is that ALL (from the big bang to the heat death of the universe) private money that the government doesn't confiscate contributes to the national debt.

And if they got that money anyways you know they would not put it to good use.

You want to know how the country could function besides taxing people more?

Spend less. And/or make it easier to start a small business. That will make the radius of the GDP pie larger as opposed to taking a bigger proportion of the pie.

All you need nowadays is someone on TV pretending there is discourse over an issue, you act like its still being debated and people will believe it. Take global warming. One voice saying No, is all anyone needs to latch onto to defend whats easiest for them to take in.

If every American knew these facts, they would be more inclined to see the MSM and its BS more clearly.

Great post.

reply to post by IsThisThingBugged


Maybe because there is a collection of morons that are going to advocate a new round of tax cuts. It is kind of important to understand that had the tax rates been left alone we would be nowhere close to the level of debt we have now. When someone is about to do a stupid thing you should still tell them it is stupid. The Bush era tax cuts were never intended to be permanent, they were intended to be a small shot in the arm to reinvigorate the slowing economy.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


We don't need new taxes! We need to cut our overseas military adventurism and this welfare state we have going. Half of Americans don't even pay income tax and half are getting some sort of welfare from the government. How is this fair in an equable society.

I don't make excuses for the rich BUT the vast majority of rich in America are self made (*69% self-made, 6% inherited). It's a myth that everybody rich just inherited their money. Let's STOP counting money that belongs to the people as adding to the debt.

Let's have an equable flat tax, where everybody pays. And cut adventurism and welfare. That's the only real solution to our debt crisis. Not economic jealousy.

*www.consumerismcommentary.com...

Originally posted by pajoly
As an independent, I give no quarter and call it like I see it. With Obama, he earns my ire for the NDAA, drones attacks, whistle blower attacks and a few other things. These are detestable and abominations. Before I go off I also try to get the facts versus listening to spin and regurgitating it. In the case of the budget, most all of what you hear from the Right is a lie. In my experience, the louder the Right accuses and screams, the likelier they are really the primary source of the problem. No one plays Orwellian double speak like the Right.

Here is a CBO-derived (Congressional Budget Office, which is non partisan employees that serve Congress regardless of which party leads and made up of actuary and other finance geeks) graph that drives the factual point about the source of the U.S. public debt. It is not debatable, it is not opinion. There it is.

The projections in the future might be minutely arguable from a calculations point, but not the basic picture and what it describes -- that the source of our debt explosion is mainly the result of GW Bush's actions, with congressional voting support though from a great many Democrats in Congress to be sure. nearly ALL the Republicans voted "Aye" for these two, including so called "fiscal conservatives" like Paul Ryan. But, let's be clear about the originator of the policy -- the Bush administration.

Take a look. Carefully.

It is important to point out the cumulative nature of the Bush actions -- tax cuts, wars, TARP. Budget ramifications for actions do not present themselves immediately, rather they build over time. So all the Right talk about what the debt WAS at the exact time Bush left office is diversion and a game for the ignorant to believe. So the effect of the Bush policies become much more visible and destructive as time moves on. Sort of like reverse compound interest. It is a bit like a criminal shooting someone in the head and the Right blaming the hospital when the patient dies upon arrival in the ER.

It can also be argued that had Bush not tanked the economy (squandering the budget surplus in the process), the recovery measures (aka Stimulus) would not have been necessary.

The other blatant lie is about Obama spending. The Right would have you believe Obama has blown up federal spending in unprecedented percentages. Again, it is an Orwellian lie meant to cover for the FACT that when the Right runs the Executive branch, spending growth explodes. The facts of the present AND historical clearly show that government spending growth actually decreases under centrist Democratic government (good luck anyone convincing me Obama or Clinton are policy leftists...in Brit terms they'd be center-right Tories). Here's the graph that details this.

Either way, the current president was left with a mess and a Congress unwilling to act upon upon it (or anything else especially after 2010). There is plenty to slam Obama on, but these Right wing lies are not on the list. So spin on all you want, but the truth is staring you in the face.

edit on 28-8-2012 by pajoly because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2012 by pajoly because: add to the title

How about he chose the job!!!!! Do you think he went into this blind folded???? He is the one who portrayed hope and change yet did not give it. I clearly remember him saying he was going to cut the deficit.....

Go read the original Forbes article. The author - a "contributor" - saddles all of the 2009 spending at George Bush's feet because the 2009 budget is set by Congress in the previous year (2008). Therefore, the gigantic stimulus package that BHO passed very early in his first year was thrown at GWB's feet - that's absolute BS; and therefore the "facts" and the attending graphs that are presented are also, absolute BS.

Originally posted by NosmoKing
Go read the original Forbes article. The author - a "contributor" - saddles all of the 2009 spending at George Bush's feet because the 2009 budget is set by Congress in the previous year (2008). Therefore, the gigantic stimulus package that BHO passed very early in his first year was thrown at GWB's feet - that's absolute BS; and therefore the "facts" and the attending graphs that are presented are also, absolute BS.

edit on 28-8-2012 by NosmoKing because: Typo's

His statements still stand...bottom line.

Originally posted by NosmoKing
Go read the original Forbes article. The author - a "contributor" - saddles all of the 2009 spending at George Bush's feet because the 2009 budget is set by Congress in the previous year (2008). Therefore, the gigantic stimulus package that BHO passed very early in his first year was thrown at GWB's feet - that's absolute BS; and therefore the "facts" and the attending graphs that are presented are also, absolute BS.

edit on 28-8-2012 by NosmoKing because: Typo's

I suppose you did not notice that they put that first year on the shoulder of the preceding president through the chart. That's why it shows Clinton owning 2001 -- GW Bush's first year as president. So it is consistent.

It is amazing how repubs have convinced so many People to vote against their own best interest, and the interests of future generations for policies that have been proven over and over to fail.

There is ZERO doubt about the numbers posted here...the BUSH/PRESCOTT/BROWN SHIRTS have hijacked the Republican party and have had control since Reagan was shot. Clinton and Obama are merely fingers and toes of this same body. The Bush family have always been thieves. Neil was crooked.

reply to post by pajoly

Dear pajoly,

Don't you feel a little like you're tempting fate when you say "It is not debatable, it is not opinion. There it is?" True, a fact is a fact, but does it say what people think it says? Are other facts needed to explain the one under discussion? There are lots of reasons to debate the conclusions you've reached.

One question at the start though. If George Bush starts a policy, then Obama and Democrats approve of it and extend it, is it still Bush's responsibility? I would argue that it is no longer, but rather belongs to the people who approve and continue it.

OK, looking at your first graph's headline. You notice that it only refers to publicly held debt. Intra-governmental debt is at least half of that and is primarily the funding for entitlement spending. You'll notice that health care and Social Security are not even mentioned on the first graph. That omission skews everything.

Further, notice that it is measured as a % of GDP. It is difficult enough to predict future expenditures in dollar amounts, but to also predict the size of the GDP 10 years out is nearly crystal ball gazing. (By the way, total debt is already over 100% of GDP.) Why not use dollars?

Look at the individual factors. Which of those were Obama powerless to stop when he had majorities in the House and Senate? Those don't get blamed on him. (Although, as the "recovery" stretches on and on, more of the economic downturn becomes Obama's fault.)

The Bush-era tax cuts, and the wars are now his, as are the recovery measures.

As for the second chart, asking if Obama is a big spender? Look at the nation's deficit figures over the last however long you care to look. Yes, he's a big spender.

All of this is certainly very debatable. These two charts don't prove what you seem to think they do.

With respect,
Charles1952

Here's the real truth about debt & spending....

Yes, Facts Are Stubborn Things

The National Debt will top $16 Trillion any minute now

$15.99 trillion right now !!


The Last of the Bigtime Spenders




Who creates Jobs again ?

The national debt is a topic I wish I understood better. I've done some reading/research on it but as this thread shows, "the numbers" can be manipulated/interpretted to show whatever one wants to show. It's hard for me to trust anything I read on it. Any suggestions on non partisan impartial sources one could learn about the national debt from?

Originally posted by xuenchen
Yes, Facts Are Stubborn Things

But you forget that the true facts are that everything is bush's fault

In reality (a slippery idea these days) the national debt and the majority of actual problems are a bi-partisan effort

reply to post by IsThisThingBugged


It most certainly is NOT your money. It is the Federal Governments money. It always has been. You are loaned the money. The only entity allowed by law to own money is the Department of the Treasury.


adask.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by pajoly

 

See this is the problem I have with this... HOW CAN government count money that Americans are allowed to keep as adding to the debt?!

Taxes equals revenues.

If your boss just cut your pay by 30% so he could by a third vacation home...would it add to your debt?

How can you complain about it if it is his money in the first place?

How do you account for your new short-fall? You either go into debt or you feed your family less often, skip doctors appointments etc. Most often all of the above.

The logic that it is OUR money, NOT the governments....

Governments are a pooling of funds to do those things we can not do as individuals.

We can eliminate all taxes...along with Military, Fire, Police, Disaster response, Roads, Courts ad infinium...

Our Money vs. Governments....would make sense if the money went to BP Oil (Which a few billion of it does)...but the US Government is not corproation..yet...It is a government "of the people" "by the people" "for the people"...we can debate how much of that promise is being delivered and in what reagard, but Government provides resources and services for those tax dollars.

Cut revenues to benefit the wealthy campaign contributors, lobbyists, corporations et al. and we still need roads and services, military etc....and those that cannot afford lobbyists or politicians carry the debt.