4 ms·

Effects on the deficit in one graph

14 points by robg 15y ago

cooldeal 15y ago
Link to the original NYTimes article with more text. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html...
Zarathust 15y ago
Are we comparing 8 years of Bush vs 3 years + imaginary budgets for Obama?
mchusma 15y ago
I think the most informative graph would put these graphs on top of each other, to indicate what is really relevant. Both of the last two presidents have contributed heavily to the deficit. The side by side graph seems to indicate that things are getting better. The rate of getting worse may be declining, but things are still getting worse.
jader201 15y ago
I'm fairly new to HN community, so just getting a feel for what is appropriate. IOW, this isn't questioning the judgement of the OP, just trying to educate myself: Why is this relevant to HN? This seems to be a political piece with very little relevance to the technical community (other than how it impacts us all at a global scale -- but so does anything political, to an extent).
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  If it's relevant to hackers and their interests, then it belongs here. See the guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jeremyt 15y ago
My first instinct is to treat this as what it is: a ridiculously transparent political piece that has no business on hacker news. However, since I see these things coming up all the time, and there doesn't seem to be any great movement against them, I'm going to attempt an intelligent response. First, as said already below, this graph compares eight years of the Bush administration to three years of the Obama administration "projected" into 2017. To anyone familiar with Washington projections, not only are they usually embarrassingly inaccurate, but they are also based on rosy assumptions. See the recent healthcare projections as an example: I don't have enough time to go into detail, but because of the way the CBO operates, their forecasts are constrained by what is actually in the bill versus what they think will happen. Simply put, if the bill says that it will reduce the deficit, then they have to put those assumptions into their forecast even if they don't think that it will come to pass. Second, the graph seems to ignore the fact that Obama is not powerless in the face of Bush spending priorities. A couple of examples: True, Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the "surge" in Afghanistan was all Obama's idea, and it was also his idea to keep troops in Iraq for several years into his first term. Also, the "Bush" tax cuts are essentially now the "Bush-Obama" tax cuts, because as of recently, the bill has Obama's ink all over it. He certainly didn't veto the renewal of the tax cuts. Third, the Obama graph does not include all of the additional spending that he wanted but did not get (high-speed rail, more infrastructure, green energy, student loans, etc.), including his most recent request of almost half $1 trillion of stimulus. I would not disagree that we have a spending problem, but this graph does not contribute to any meaningful discussion of a solution. Also, since everyone knows that Ezra Klein is at best left-leaning, please allow me to link to a equally right-leaning opinion on the same matter: http://keithhennessey.com/2011/11/21/the-presidents-missed-opportunities-for-deficit-reduction/ http://keithhennessey.com/2011/11/21/the-presidents-missed-o...
- joshsegall 15y ago
  Well it certainly seems you have a bias as well. Let me share mine: all this "debate" is irrelevant and only serves as a distraction from our real problem, which is prosperity not deficits. In no sense is America broke. We easily find trillions of dollars to spend on wars and bailouts but whine incessantly about a few million or a couple billion on initiatives that would actually spur growth and contribute to lasting well-being of our country's citizens. It's all about priorities and debating how to cut ourselves to success is worse than useless. It's preventing us from having the conversation we really need to have about how to move our economy into the 21st century.
stevedekorte 15y ago
This doesn't even show the $2.4T Treasury/Fed spent on bailouts or $5T-$15T of "nationalized" Fannie/Freddie/AIG liabilities.

14 points by robg 15y ago

Link to the original NYTimes article with more text. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html...

Zarathust 15y ago

Are we comparing 8 years of Bush vs 3 years + imaginary budgets for Obama?

mchusma 15y ago

I think the most informative graph would put these graphs on top of each other, to indicate what is really relevant. Both of the last two presidents have contributed heavily to the deficit. The side by side graph seems to indicate that things are getting better. The rate of getting worse may be declining, but things are still getting worse.

jader201 15y ago

I'm fairly new to HN community, so just getting a feel for what is appropriate. IOW, this isn't questioning the judgement of the OP, just trying to educate myself: Why is this relevant to HN? This seems to be a political piece with very little relevance to the technical community (other than how it impacts us all at a global scale -- but so does anything political, to an extent).

AndrewDucker 15y ago
If it's relevant to hackers and their interests, then it belongs here. See the guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jeremyt 15y ago

My first instinct is to treat this as what it is: a ridiculously transparent political piece that has no business on hacker news. However, since I see these things coming up all the time, and there doesn't seem to be any great movement against them, I'm going to attempt an intelligent response. First, as said already below, this graph compares eight years of the Bush administration to three years of the Obama administration "projected" into 2017. To anyone familiar with Washington projections, not only are they usually embarrassingly inaccurate, but they are also based on rosy assumptions. See the recent healthcare projections as an example: I don't have enough time to go into detail, but because of the way the CBO operates, their forecasts are constrained by what is actually in the bill versus what they think will happen. Simply put, if the bill says that it will reduce the deficit, then they have to put those assumptions into their forecast even if they don't think that it will come to pass. Second, the graph seems to ignore the fact that Obama is not powerless in the face of Bush spending priorities. A couple of examples: True, Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the "surge" in Afghanistan was all Obama's idea, and it was also his idea to keep troops in Iraq for several years into his first term. Also, the "Bush" tax cuts are essentially now the "Bush-Obama" tax cuts, because as of recently, the bill has Obama's ink all over it. He certainly didn't veto the renewal of the tax cuts. Third, the Obama graph does not include all of the additional spending that he wanted but did not get (high-speed rail, more infrastructure, green energy, student loans, etc.), including his most recent request of almost half $1 trillion of stimulus. I would not disagree that we have a spending problem, but this graph does not contribute to any meaningful discussion of a solution. Also, since everyone knows that Ezra Klein is at best left-leaning, please allow me to link to a equally right-leaning opinion on the same matter: http://keithhennessey.com/2011/11/21/the-presidents-missed-opportunities-for-deficit-reduction/ http://keithhennessey.com/2011/11/21/the-presidents-missed-o...

joshsegall 15y ago
Well it certainly seems you have a bias as well. Let me share mine: all this "debate" is irrelevant and only serves as a distraction from our real problem, which is prosperity not deficits. In no sense is America broke. We easily find trillions of dollars to spend on wars and bailouts but whine incessantly about a few million or a couple billion on initiatives that would actually spur growth and contribute to lasting well-being of our country's citizens. It's all about priorities and debating how to cut ourselves to success is worse than useless. It's preventing us from having the conversation we really need to have about how to move our economy into the 21st century.

stevedekorte 15y ago

This doesn't even show the $2.4T Treasury/Fed spent on bailouts or $5T-$15T of "nationalized" Fannie/Freddie/AIG liabilities.