Thursday, February 28, 2013

We're Doomed

When your government says it absolutely, positively, cannot find a harmless 2.2% of "fat" to trim from it's massive and ever growing "budget".... well.... assume the "tuck" position, people.

14 comments:

  1. Now that is funny.... I am officially stealing the pic. Unfortunately, it is pretty much that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guess if you lived in the right-wing, conservative, faux news, and republican bubble that is devoid of facts, yes, we are doomed. Luckily, that is not that case, in reality, it is totally opposite.


    http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/21/15343715-your-helpful-thanksgiving-charts-about-the-deficit?lite

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Maddow charts make great hay of the decline in the deficit from 2009, ignoring the extra $1 trillion we spent then in a panic about the economy. Measuring from 2007 is more appropriate.

      The Maddow charts are horribly misleading.

      Delete
    2. I'm always tickled when I'm having a discussion with a leftist, they claim I'm in a "bubble" (as you're doing here), and then respond with a link to Rachel Maddow!

      Delete
  3. I see no cutting of the deficit by half in my first term. Here's the main point.. the government has never used normal accounting to determine increases or decreases in spending. Instead, they insist on setting today's spending as "NORMAL" and then screaming about cuts to increases. That is all the sequester was and ever will be. What we need are real cuts so that we can actually spend LESS in DC than the PREVIOUS YEAR.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Careful, Czabe. That's racist. Everything is racist.

    And it is also a conspiracy theory. Everything I don't agree with is a conspiracy theory.

    Racist, homophopic, hateful, rightwing, teabagger, extremist, nazi, etc. etc. etc.

    You may have the truth on your side, but I have a bunch of pavlovian labels to throw at you. I win.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wait wait wait...did someone say living in a bubble then quote rachel maddow. Does that fall under irony, oxymoron or pure moronic. I vote all 3. I guess when you're kissing obama's ring you don't see the real world!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Budgetary pie charts always look better when you leave off little things like a 4 trillion dollar war

    ReplyDelete
  7. Patiently waiting for the obigatory first comment to tell Czabe to shutup and stick to sports, or insult him for talking politics on a sports blog....

    ReplyDelete
  8. The problem is the Bush year budgets never included the cost of the Iraq or Afganistan wars, so they can't be compared to the current budgets that include those costs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is the Bush year budgets never included the cost of the Iraq or Afganistan wars, so they can't be compared to the current budgets that include those costs.

      So how exactly was it paid for? With unicorn farts?
      Under Bush the wars were accounted for as "Emergency Spending" and the costs were included in the annual budget deficits. Obama decided on his "Afghan surge" and that is what significantly increased military spending over those incurred under Bush.

      And at least Bush had an actual budget; its now 1,402 days since the country last had a budget.

      Delete
    2. It appears you lack a basic understanding of the difference between a budget and an expenditure.

      The point is the "emergency spending" of the wars were not in the budgets passed by Bush. The spending for those were passed in supplemental spending bills after the budgets were passed.

      Delete
    3. So where can I find these mythical "current budgets" you mentioned? The last budget was passed in April 2009 so apparently you don't understand what "current" means.

      I specifically referenced the annual deficits under Bush which included the war expenditures. And there's no disputing that deficit spending exploded under Obama by several orders of magnitude. It boggles the mind that you'd talk about budgets when Obama and the Democratic Senate haven't passed one in almost four years. Given that case the appropriate comparisons is spending under the two presidents.

      Delete
  9. The thing is...1)it's not to scale. and 2) budgets affect more years than just the year they were implemented. It's not black and white or "that simple"

    ReplyDelete