This Whole Debt Limit Thing

[BeAChooser]

As I understand it, in 2010 Obama started including the cost of the Iraq/Afghan wars in the budget, prior to that they weren't reported.

It looks as if that cost has been included in the graph from that point, but not before

And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

The chart came from this:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2010

I see nothing in that article to suggest that they didn't use ACTUAL COSTS which would include the cost of the wars even during Bush's tenure.

In fact, if you look, that Heritage report lists the deficit as being $480 billion in 2004 in 2010 inflation adjusted dollars.

That's more than the Washington Post depicted the 2004 deficit as being in a 2009 chart: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html .

Heritage had this to say about the makeup of the Washington Post chart number:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above.

You might also want to note this Washington Post article in 2005 which said this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35029-2005Jan25.html

Additional war spending this year will push the federal deficit to a record $427 billion for fiscal 2005

That suggests war spending was included in the Washington Post chart.

Now more likely than not, the discrepancy between the Washington Post chart 2004 deficit ($412 billion) and the one listed in the Heritage report ($480 billion) is because the Washington Post, being the sloppy liberals they are, forgot to account for inflation and simply used the 2004 dollar numbers in the 2009 chart.

Let see if that might be true.

The inflation modifier between 2004 and 2010 (using http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100&year1=2010&year2=2004 ) is 1.15.

So $412 billion * $1.15 = $473 billion.

Which is pretty close to the $480 billion listed in the source of the chart I linked.

Therefore, I doubt your claim.

I think the chart I posted does include all war costs, even under Bush.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

[Opinion, it's how I see it, and yes, I admit, it is on the radical side] As Bill Maher just noted on the Lawrence O'Donnell show tonight, trashing the economy and blaming Obama is all the far right has and it's what they are focusing on. It so reminds me of the obsessive campaign to kill Clinton's Presidency with the Monica Lewinsky/perjury thing. The constant harping and harping about Clinton was so incessant it interfered with his ability to govern and I'm convinced interfered with Clinton's ability to take necessary action against Osama. The claim that everything Clinton did against Osama was a Wag the Dog distraction from Lewinsky had an unfortunate impact.

And the campaign against Clinton bled over into the Bush admin resulting in Bush ignoring everything Clinton had done in both the Middle East Peace Process and the efforts to deal with al Qaeda. Bush dropped the ball on purpose probably because he believed the Wag the Dog lie, but who knows.

And now here we go again only this is even worse. Instead of putting the country at unnecessary increased risk of a significant terrorist attack (which came to fruition) now the same fanatical right wingers are putting the economic recovery in serious danger for the purpose of their incredibly ignorant political and economic beliefs and goals.

Propaganda and the lack of critical thinking skills is a very dangerous thing and this country might just be in big trouble. I hope not. I hope the economic influence of big money doesn't have the same goals as the right wing ideologues they've been using as their puppet government. And I hope they can control the devils they let out of the cage.[/opinion]

 

[mhaze]

Not harsh enough. How about "AND you lose your government pension"?

Plus we still need to get spending back to reason without being taxed to death. So I'm all for Cut, Cap and Balance.

Not harsh enough - "And if you propose phoney trillion dollar cuts, and/or do not adhere to GAP accounting principles", you will be criminally prosecuted at the felony level as well as being required to submit to standard passenger airline checkpoint procedures.

 

[BeAChooser]

[Opinion, it's how I see it, and yes, I admit, it is on the radical side]

When is your opinion not?

It so reminds me of the obsessive campaign to kill Clinton's Presidency with the Monica Lewinsky/perjury thing.

After all the conversations we've had, do you STILL think that is all it was about. Monica?

 

[BeAChooser]

Not harsh enough - "And if you propose phoney trillion dollar cuts, and/or do not adhere to GAP accounting principles", you will be criminally prosecuted at the felony level as well as being required to submit to standard passenger airline checkpoint procedures.

I like it. No more "move on" where the crimes of government officials and their lackeys are concerned.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

[Opinion, it's how I see it, and yes, I admit, it is on the radical side] As Bill Maher just noted on the Lawrence O'Donnell show tonight, trashing the economy and blaming Obama is all the far right has and it's what they are focusing on. It so reminds me of the obsessive campaign to kill Clinton's Presidency with the Monica Lewinsky/perjury thing. The constant harping and harping about Clinton was so incessant it interfered with his ability to govern and I'm convinced interfered with Clinton's ability to take necessary action against Osama. The claim that everything Clinton did against Osama was a Wag the Dog distraction from Lewinsky had an unfortunate impact.

And the campaign against Clinton bled over into the Bush admin resulting in Bush ignoring everything Clinton had done in both the Middle East Peace Process and the efforts to deal with al Qaeda. Bush dropped the ball on purpose probably because he believed the Wag the Dog lie, but who knows.

And now here we go again only this is even worse. Instead of putting the country at unnecessary increased risk of a significant terrorist attack (which came to fruition) now the same fanatical right wingers are putting the economic recovery in serious danger for the purpose of their incredibly ignorant political and economic beliefs and goals.

Propaganda and the lack of critical thinking skills is a very dangerous thing and this country might just be in big trouble. I hope not. I hope the economic influence of big money doesn't have the same goals as the right wing ideologues they've been using as their puppet government. And I hope they can control the devils they let out of the cage.[/opinion]

Yet another something we see eye-to-eye on...this madness must end.

I keep hoping that as the deadline draws nearer, the less fanatical Republicans begin defecting to support Obama's plan and keep the default from happening.

I'd be completely unsurprised if this were to happen on, say, Aug 1st. Keep some semblance of "I didn't want to, but I felt I had no choice. It was either give in to their demands or the Country go into default. Someone had to be the bigger man and agree to compromise". And, ya know, as ******** as that excuse is, I'd be happy to see it.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://biggovernment.com/fsalvato/2...vernment+(Big+Government)&utm_content=Twitter

A good friend of mine, David Jeffers of The Aletheia Group, sent out a message last night almost directly after President Obama finished his speech to the American public regarding the debt ceiling. His message was titled “Obamaocchio,” and, in light of what Mr. Obama and his Administration have been telling bankers behind closed doors about this issue, appropriate.

Even as President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner take to the airwaves (as it were) to trumpet that the economic sky will fall if Congress does not reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling; to give the federal government the ability to amass more foreign debt, both Mr. Obama and Mr. Geithner – and their dispatches – have been reassuring the financial sector that they have no intention of allowing the United States government to “default” on its debt, regardless of whether Congress raises the debt ceiling or not.

Sounds like Obama and company have been lying to the public. Now tell me something new?

 

[Nosi]

http://biggovernment.com/fsalvato/2...vernment+(Big+Government)&utm_content=Twitter



Sounds like Obama and company have been lying to the public. Now tell me something new?

Giving Granny heart attacks for nothing? what a !

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, seriously. You guys are sourcing National Review, Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, and (most of all) biggovernment.com. Do have any idea how unconvincing that is? You might as well cite Mad Magazine.

 

[ladmo]

i like it. No more "move on" where the crimes of government officials and their lackeys are concerned.

Not harsh enough - "And if you propose phoney trillion dollar cuts, and/or do not adhere to GAP accounting principles", you will be criminally prosecuted at the felony level as well as being required to submit to standard passenger airline checkpoint procedures.

Nice points, elected officials should not be above the law and out of reach of prosecution.

 

[icerat]

And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

There was a huge jump in the graph between 2008 and 2009. According to the CBO, as reported in Wikipedia, this was because of the change in accounting for military expenditure.

That percentage graph close follows the curve of those on wikipedia, hence my raising the question.

The chart came from this:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2010

I see nothing in that article to suggest that they didn't use ACTUAL COSTS which would include the cost of the wars even during Bush's tenure.

It's impossible to tell, they're not actually very clear at all on the source of their data.

In fact, if you look, that Heritage report lists the deficit as being $480 billion in 2004 in 2010 inflation adjusted dollars.

That's more than the Washington Post depicted the 2004 deficit as being in a 2009 chart: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html .

Heritage had this to say about the makeup of the Washington Post chart number:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

You might also want to note this Washington Post article in 2005 which said this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35029-2005Jan25.html

That suggests war spending was included in the Washington Post chart.

How do you come to that conclusion? Heritage has the 2005 inflation adjusted deficit at $357 billion. That WP article, inflation adjusted, has it at $472.6 billion.

For 2004 WP has $412, which inflation adjusted for 2010 is $456 billion.

Heritage has $480 billion in 2010

Now more likely than not, the discrepancy between the Washington Post chart 2004 deficit ($412 billion) and the one listed in the Heritage report ($480 billion) is because the Washington Post, being the sloppy liberals they are, forgot to account for inflation and simply used the 2004 dollar numbers in the 2009 chart.

The article is from Jan 2005. I think it's unlikely they were using a 2009 chart

I think the chart I posted does include all war costs, even under Bush.

Either way, would have been nice for them to explain, no?

 

[bonzombiekitty]

There was a huge jump in the graph between 2008 and 2009. According to the CBO, as reported in Wikipedia, this was because of the change in accounting for military expenditure.

I remember thinking back in '08/'09 when Obama did the change that in a couple years people are going to use it as an argument that he drastically increased the budget even though it was already being spent, it just wasn't accounted a certain way.

And of course, look what's happening.

 

[BenBurch]

I remember thinking back in '08/'09 when Obama did the change that in a couple years people are going to use it as an argument that he drastically increased the budget even though it was already being spent, it just wasn't accounted a certain way.

And of course, look what's happening.

When your opponents are liars and frauds, it really doesn't matter what you do; they will find a lie to tell about you.

 

[Bri]

There was a huge jump in the graph between 2008 and 2009. According to the CBO, as reported in Wikipedia, this was because of the change in accounting for military expenditure.

That percentage graph close follows the curve of those on wikipedia, hence my raising the question.

My understanding is that the change in procedures has to do with the way that projections of future deficits are calculated, and would have nothing to do with how actual deficits or debt are reported.

From the NY Times article which was the original source for the Wikipedia article you linked to:

For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller.​

So the changes you're talking about would make any deficit projections for Obama seem bigger compared to similar projections for Bush, but we can look back and see actual numbers for Bush so no need for projections there.

-Bri

 

[icerat]

When (if ever!) are actual deficits calculated and reported, rather than projections? How long after the end of the fiscal year?

 

[Bri]

When (if ever!) are actual deficits calculated and reported, rather than projections? How long after the end of the fiscal year?

That image that was linked to had a dotted line denoting what was projected and what was historical data.

The Office of Management and Budget currently has historical data through 2010 here. The CBO has the most recent estimates of the current fiscal year's outlays and receipts, issued June 22 as part of its 2011 long-term budget outlook here.

So you won't see any discrepancy in the historical data between Bush and Obama. The only discrepancy you would see is for future projections and then only if you compared the two different calculations. The important thing to note is that the projections should now be more accurate rather than less accurate (but would appear higher than similar projections would have using the Bush calculations).

ETA: One thing to note with that chart is that the projected revenues are usually based on current law, which means that they likely assume that the Bush tax cuts will expire. I assume that's why they appear to increase dramatically after the "projected" line. But the chart seems to undercut the argument that letting the tax cuts expire won't improve the deficit. The caveat here is that the projection likely assumes that ALL of the Bush tax cuts will expire, not just those for the rich.

-Bri

 

[BeAChooser]

There was a huge jump in the graph between 2008 and 2009. ... snip ...

First, let me beg you to please learn to use the quote feature properly before responding, since your post made it look like most of what you posted was written by you, when in actually most of your post came from my post to you. It was confusing.

Second, were you not paying attention to what was going on in the economy in late 2008 and early 2009, and all the non-military spending that was approved about that time? THAT explains the huge bump that occurred in the charts that I supplied.

According to the CBO, as reported in Wikipedia, this was because of the change in accounting for military expenditure.

You left off the last part of that sentence in Wikipedia. It said one the changes was for "accounting for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ('overseas military contingencies') in the budget". The budget is different than actuals, which is what Heritage and the Washington post reported in their charts. The CBO was talking about the differences in "projected" debt … based on budgets.

Quote:
I see nothing in that article to suggest that they didn't use ACTUAL COSTS which would include the cost of the wars even during Bush's tenure.

It's impossible to tell, they're not actually very clear at all on the source of their data.

Actually, it's not "impossible" to tell, since I was able to show what they did. And Heritage is actually very clear on the source of their data. Look at the table where I got the 2004 $480 billion dollar deficit number and the chart immediately below that which is based on that table's numbers. It states at the bottom of that chart where that the data came from. The chart also very clearly states that on the right side of the dotted line (at 2010), the numbers are "projected", implying that on the left side the numbers are "actuals". Further down in the report is a chart titled "The President's Budget Would Bring Record Budget Deficits …" and again the "projected" portion of the chart is clearly identified. And it too clearly shows the source and shows an "actual" deficit in 2004 of $480 billion. Likewise, the final chart I linked, showing spending versus revenue as a percentage of GDP also has a dotted dividing line and the word "projected" to the right side of it. And it too clearly identifies the source of the data.

You might also want to note this Washington Post article in 2005 which said this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan25.html

Additional war spending this year will push the federal deficit to a record $427 billion for fiscal 2005

That suggests war spending was included in the Washington Post chart.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Because they clearly indicated they were including the war spending in that $427 billion 2005 figure? Also because they stated later in the article that "That $80 billion would come on top of $25 billion already appropriated for the war this year, pushing the total cost of fighting to $105 billion, up from $88 billion in 2004"?

Heritage has the 2005 inflation adjusted deficit at $357 billion. That WP article, inflation adjusted, has it at $472.6 billion.

The 2005 WP article was talking about a projected estimate for the 2005 deficit, not the actual. The 2010 Heritage article was using "actuals". Guess it just turned out to be lower than estimated. And I think you meant $427.6 billion, not $472.6 billion, or would you like to supply your source for that number?

For 2004 WP has $412, which inflation adjusted for 2010 is $456 billion.

Your link came back saying "Sorry, the numbers not usuable."

But you insist on using your inflation calculator?

Fine.

So I plugged in $1 as the amount of money in your inflation calculator.

Entered 2004 as the initial year.

Entered 2010 as the final year.

And got the response $1.14

$412 billion * 1.14 = $470 billion … not $456 billion … in 2010 dollars. And $470 billion is really close to Heritage's $480 billion, like I said earlier.

Quote:
Now more likely than not, the discrepancy between the Washington Post chart 2004 deficit ($412 billion) and the one listed in the Heritage report ($480 billion) is because the Washington Post, being the sloppy liberals they are, forgot to account for inflation and simply used the 2004 dollar numbers in the 2009 chart.

The article is from Jan 2005. I think it's unlikely they were using a 2009 chart

Pay attention now. I was comparing the Heritage report to the Washington post chart from this 2009 source that I linked earlier: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html .

 

[lomiller]

My understanding is that the change in procedures has to do with the way that projections of future deficits are calculated, and would have nothing to do with how actual deficits or debt are reported.

From the NY Times article which was the original source for the Wikipedia article you linked to:

For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller.​

So the changes you're talking about would make any deficit projections for Obama seem bigger compared to similar projections for Bush, but we can look back and see actual numbers for Bush so no need for projections there.

-Bri

The US debt increases faster than the deficit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_Budget_-_Deficit_and_Debt_Increases.png

Look at the bush budgets (2007 – 2009) and you can see just how much larger this gap was under Bush then the Obama Budgets.

 

[BenBurch]

The US debt increases faster than the deficit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_Budget_-_Deficit_and_Debt_Increases.png

Look at the bush budgets (2007 – 2009) and you can see just how much larger this gap was under Bush then the Obama Budgets.

Spending and borrowing is only bad when a Democrat does it. This GOP mindset is why we had the mortgage crisis, why we had the banking crisis, and why, in the 1980s, we had the S&L crisis. (Republicans were in the thick of that last one!)

 

[BeAChooser]

But the chart seems to undercut the argument that letting the tax cuts expire won't improve the deficit

No, the CBO chart is based on the assumptions that the White House gives the CBO. And one of those assumptions is that increasing taxes won't negatively impact business and therefore taxes ... and therefore revenue.

It's Garbage in ... Garbage out.

And to see that it's garbage, you need need only look back at the charts I supplied showing revenue over the last 50 years. Until Obama, no matter what the tax policy, revenues as a percent of GDP stayed within a narrow range. Because businesses and people adapt to whatever the tax rate is and end up working/investing whatever it takes to reach a specific level and no more. It's human nature at work.

The reason that we are at a 70 year low in revenues is because businesses and people have no confidence that the Obama administration knows what it is doing (in large part because of what Obama had done to spending). Events are proving that assessment right. So they are holding off on decisions that would create jobs and improve the economy (and as a result revenue).

The problem is not the Bush tax cuts ... the problem is Obama and his socialist rhetoric/lies. And until you folks wake up to that fact, things are not going to get much better. We may now be in a Obama/Pelosi/Reid created depression.