The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling

Its based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan whos “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.

The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling — James Fallows — Politics — The Atlantic.

In other words, GOP and your ilk: Shut the F&&& Up. You caused this mess and you should pay the political price for the cleanup. Most folks can see the utter failure of the GOP/Tea Party anarchism is in the lack of understanding of what it means to govern. Dems are blowing it. Per usual.

  • Jenn Bo

    Thank you! I have been fuming about this whole debacle. The Republican position that ending tax “loopholes” is a tax increase is crazy (not that I agree with the term “loophole”.) The targeted revisions to tax incentives are great ideas. In addition, I believe I will personally be impacted by higher taxes at some point — when the country is so overwhelmed with entiltlement costs we have no funds for running the gov’t — so might as well start taxing those of us in the top %‘ile now. / end rant.

  • http://www.sugarleg.com sugarleg

    thank you for chiming in!!!  been wondering your thoughts.  was at a family wedding over the weekend and had a fascinating talk with my fave uncle who is normal Republican, but had been hornswaggled to some extent by the high tax myths.  he is parroting the GOP/FOX talking points, but when we started to clear away the lies, he was hearing me when I explained numbers like these.  Dems are blowing it b/c they are just as beholden to Big Money as the Repubs.  so f’ing bummed about this.

    oh and HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

    • http://blurbomat.com blurb

      Thanks!

  • Sean McVey

    So if I’m reading this chart correctly…you are stating that the Bush medicare drug prescription benefit is more expensive than Obamacare???? $180 billion (Bush) vs. $152 (obamacare)???? You don’t actually believe that do you? The CBO is required to make projections based on rosy estimates supplied by the politicians. You are comparing projections for Obama vs. actual costs for Bush. When has a government program’s actual cost ever come in at or near the projected cost? (Here’s a clue: NEVER). When all is said and done (if somehow Obama is re-elected) his contribution to our debt will be at least DOUBLE what Bush’s was (and that is a conservative estimate — PUN intended).

    • http://blurbomat.com blurb

      You are not reading the chart correctly. I didn’t invent this chart. You should read the link and come back and have a chat.

      Question for you before you head off to read: When, in the past 30 years, have the GOP ever been “fiscally conservative”? Here’s a clue: NEVER.

      • Sean McVey

        How bout answering my question? The chart indicates that Bush’s Medicare prescription policy cost $180 billion. The chart also says that Obama’s “Health Reform” (Obamacare) will cost only $152 billion over 8 years. My point is simply that the projection for Obamacare is way too low. If you recall during the debate over healthcare even the democrats admitted that the cost of the program would be around $1 trillion for 10 years — that’s $100 billion a year (or $800 billion for 8 years — the time period shown on the chart). Why does the chart only show $152 billion total for health reform?

        Point # 2 — This chart purports to track costs of new policies initiated by the president — ok fine. But what it doesn’t track are real costs. For example: Obama approved a request by the armed forces to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan — i think he added 30,000 soldiers. That significantly increased the cost of the Afghan war — yet nowhere on the chart is this reflected. Does that make sense to you?

        The old saying “There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians” applies here. This chart was created by a well known liberal organization (CBPP). I don’t expect a unbiased, impartial review of the facts from them.

        My problem with this chart is that every number on it is wrong — and if you use it to defend the spending policies of Obama you will lose. I don’t defend what Bush did — he spent way too much as well. But Bush was an amateur compared to Obama.

  • Anonymous

    Nice chart if you like fairy tales. What it doesn’t say is that the obama care cost is conservatively estimated at 152 billion per year with total costs exceeding 2 trillion and stimulus spending is actually closer to 3.27 trillion.  As for discretionary spending, obama wants to spend 46 trillion over the next ten years.  Suddenly 5.07 trillion sounds like a number I would be happy with.

    • Sean McVey

      Chart estimates obamacare at $152 billion for 8 YEARS!!! Not one year…it’s so far off the mark that you have to wonder who the dolt was who created this chart.

  • Pingback: Will people pay attention? « red to orange

  • http://blurbomat.com blurb

    Mr. McVey, how about you read the Terms of Service, then read the linked article? 

    I won’t engage your question until you demonstrate that you’ve read the article. There’s a nice surprise for you there. Including another chart that should paint a complete picture; including one involving how far in debt the U.S. will be going forward. 

    I link to things here because I’d like to have a conversation about that thing. So if you can demonstrate that you’ve read the article, I’m happy to discuss any issues you may have.

    If you can’t, I’ll have to moderate your comments.

  • Huts Erickson

    I’m just curious when a ‘common senese’ party will be created and realize that the thing on their shoulders is their head and it is used to think and act reasonably.  I can dream…

  • Brian Verhaaren

    I’ve seen the second chart floating around a lot lately, but haven’t seen the source of that data yet.  The questions I have on it is why that projection into 2019 doesn’t include what would be assumed is a reduction of costs as our troops withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems to be pretty constant.  Of course there are going to be ongoing costs, but it seems like that would reduce over time.  Perhaps not.

    Secondly, I never agreed with the GWB tax cuts, and love the Futurama that makes fun of it (including Richard Nixon’s head lamenting, ‘Oh what a McGovern I’ve been’), however when they were set to expire they got extended last year by the White House and Congress.  Government fail.

    My opinion: they are all on the take and unable to doing even the simplest things to keep the Tea Partiers out.  It is a sad state of our government.

    • http://blurbomat.com blurb

      See my comment above. I don’t know the specific sources for each of the numbers, but the CBO has a ton of data about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If the law stands, it may be one of the best pieces of legislation in our lifetimes in terms of net costs and net benefits. 

  • Anonymous

    Why didn’t you let Mr. McVey’s last comment stand? Last I saw it was “flagged for review” and then removed. Given the polite tone of the rest of his comments, I doubt that it was offensive, it’s just a different view from your own.
    With respect to the comparison graph you posted, as you probably know, the CBO does not procure their own figures, they crunch numbers given to them by Congress. Both sides of the aisle use the CBO to “prove” their various positions.
    Further, the CBO does not take into consideration dynamic scenarios where people change their financial behavior based on things like the tax code. CBO assumes, for the purpose of calculation, that behaviors stay the same. 

  • http://blurbomat.com blurb

    You haven’t proved anything. So yes, you do need more proof. I used the term “net” and you used the term “gross”. Those mean very different things. You are in denial about your ideology. The two comments you left with the Heritage foundation blog posts were held in moderation by the commenting system.

    The Heritage Foundation is a 100% conservative organization. You’ll need to provide independent sources, including the CBO. P.S. The Heritage Foundation, in 1990, fronted the notion of the “Individual Mandate” that John McCain used in his healthcare reform plan to counter the Clinton universal care push in 1993. If you can step out of your denial long enough to admit that the Heritage Foundation isn’t exactly the most reliable of organizations, you’ll pardon me if I don’t buy your rhetoric. You’re going to have to try harder to convince me that somehow taxes are evil or that the taxpayer is somehow getting ripped off by the PPACA, one of the best things Congress (minus Republicans) has ever done to address the serious problem of healthcare costs and their effect on the deficit.

    Your precious GOP has done jack squat on deficit reduction. I’m happy to hear any arguments to the counter, but you’ll need to provide neutral sources for me to take you seriously.

  • http://blurbomat.com blurb

    The commenting system moderated it. I’ve approved it.

  • Tish Merritt

    visual perspective. thanks for sharing.