Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[gobiggergoredder]

It's not for me, but it appears to be that way for you.

Apparently. Please explain it for little ol' me. Use small words if possible.

 

You post graphs, and have a history of doing so, where they are nothing but black and white. You stand behind the black/whiteness and claim that these graphs tell a story.

 

I have claimed for a while now that these graphs don't tell any story and they are in fact 'gray'. Interesting to find out that based upon your 'worldview' you rarely see things in black and white.

[carlfense]

You post graphs, and have a history of doing so, where they are nothing but black and white. You stand behind the black/whiteness and claim that these graphs tell a story.

How so? They show spending figures/contributions to the deficit from both Bush and Obama, right? How is comparing deficit contributions "nothing but black and white?"

 

If anything, it's admitting that both Obama and Bush have contributed to the deficit. I've never claimed otherwise. I'm just annoyed when people act like it's just "Obama's big spending" that increased the deficit.

 

I suppose it's easier to try personal attacks than to argue against the numbers that don't say what you want them to say.

[Mavric]

It's absurd because it ignores the reality of which political party taxed and spent the vast majority of the money causing this insane deficit.

Now you've got it backwards. It's not the taxing that increased the deficit. Quite the contrary actually.

Exactly - it's not the taxing that increased the deficit it's the spending. That's what you're getting at, right?

Nope. Cutting taxes without decreasing spending (or increasing spending while reducing taxes) will increase the deficit.

I knew what you were saying. I just couldn't find the smiley face with his tongue in his cheek.

[Mavric]

You post graphs, and have a history of doing so, where they are nothing but black and white. You stand behind the black/whiteness and claim that these graphs tell a story.

How so? They show spending figures/contributions to the deficit from both Bush and Obama, right? How is comparing deficit contributions "nothing but black and white?"

 

If anything, it's admitting that both Obama and Bush have contributed to the deficit. I've never claimed otherwise. I'm just annoyed when people act like it's just "Obama's big spending" that increased the deficit.

 

I suppose it's easier to try personal attacks than to argue against the numbers that don't say what you want them to say.

Because a lot of the numbers and graphs you present are shown as if they are happening in a vacuum but that obviously isn't the case. That is, they cast the numbers to tell the story they want to tell. They aren't making numbers up but they aren't telling the entire story, either.

 

For example, the link you provided to CBPP basically shows that there would barley be any deficit from 2011-2019 without the wars, Bush tax cuts, and the economy. Most of that data seems to come from this CBO report. If you go to page 16 or the report (page 34 of the document) and add up the bottom six lines, they seem to be roughly equal to the numbers CBPP put in their graph for "Bush-era tax cuts" at approx. $300B in 2009 and somewhere around $700B by 2019. However, if you go the the next page of the same CBO report, it shows that the "Effect on the deficit" is never more than $100B in any year by itself and only over $100B when including debt service in the last two years. Thus, even the CBO report they cite doesn't consider the entire amount to go to the deficit. They are free assert that if they wish but you could be equally correct to state that about any part of the budget.

 

Basically what they're doing is saying that every other aspect of the government would be "paid for" first and those categories would be what's left when you run out of money. That's fine to say that but you could create the same graph for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or whatever else you wanted. To illustrate that point, the same report (page 48) shows spending on Social Security will go up $492B from 2009-19 (72%) but that doesn't affect the deficit according to their graph. Also, Medicare spending goes up $539B (108%) and Medicaid spending goes up $207B (82%) but even those increases wouldn't run a deficit. That's a total increase of $1,238B - roughly equal to the deficit they show for 2019 - but they claim that doesn't have any affect of the deficit.

 

Also, this graph seems to answer a question I've long had and asked in other threads but I've never gotten an answer to. It show a contribution to the deficit of approx. $150B each year from Iraq and Afghanistan (page 17). But total defense spending (page 48) starts at $656B and ends up at $813B in 2019. That would mean that we are currently spending 25% of our total defense budget in Iraq and Afghanistan. This looks to be the case but, to me, that doesn't tell the actual story of what the wars are "costing" us. To me, the "cost" of the wars would be the difference between what we are actually spending and what we would still be spending on those same troops, equipment, maintenance, etc. if we weren't at war. We would still be paying salaries, feeding people, ordering equipment, using supplies and any number of other categories if there wasn't anything going on. The wars obviously increase those numbers but it looks to me like we'd still have a good chuck of those expenses no matter what was going on. Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong.

[carlfense]

Because a lot of the numbers and graphs you present are shown as if they are happening in a vacuum but that obviously isn't the case. That is, they cast the numbers to tell the story they want to tell. They aren't making numbers up but they aren't telling the entire story, either.

I don't think that is correct. You might be reading a story into them but that wasn't my intention. I do agree that it is a snapshot in time.

 

For example, the link you provided to CBPP basically shows that there would barley be any deficit from 2011-2019 without the wars, Bush tax cuts, and the economy. Most of that data seems to come from this CBO report. If you go to page 16 or the report (page 34 of the document) and add up the bottom six lines, they seem to be roughly equal to the numbers CBPP put in their graph for "Bush-era tax cuts" at approx. $300B in 2009 and somewhere around $700B by 2019. However, if you go the the next page of the same CBO report, it shows that the "Effect on the deficit" is never more than $100B in any year by itself and only over $100B when including debt service in the last two years. Thus, even the CBO report they cite doesn't consider the entire amount to go to the deficit. They are free assert that if they wish but you could be equally correct to state that about any part of the budget.

The CBO report doesn't specify what tax cuts are included in Footnote G on 18. Which cuts are you counting?

 

Also, this graph seems to answer a question I've long had and asked in other threads but I've never gotten an answer to. It show a contribution to the deficit of approx. $150B each year from Iraq and Afghanistan (page 17). But total defense spending (page 48) starts at $656B and ends up at $813B in 2019. That would mean that we are currently spending 25% of our total defense budget in Iraq and Afghanistan. This looks to be the case but, to me, that doesn't tell the actual story of what the wars are "costing" us. To me, the "cost" of the wars would be the difference between what we are actually spending and what we would still be spending on those same troops, equipment, maintenance, etc. if we weren't at war. We would still be paying salaries, feeding people, ordering equipment, using supplies and any number of other categories if there wasn't anything going on. The wars obviously increase those numbers but it looks to me like we'd still have a good chuck of those expenses no matter what was going on. Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong.

The Iraq and Afghanistan war costs were not included in the defense budget until 2010. Is that what you are missing? They were funded separately which was probably an effort to make defense expenditures look lower than they are.

[Mavric]

I don't think that is correct. You might be reading a story into them but that wasn't my intention. I do agree that it is a snapshot in time.

No, my point is that taxes collected, for the most part (Social Security being a partial exception) are not collected for a specific purpose. They just go into a "general fund" that can be spent as congress directs. What they are doing in their graph is saying the taxes are to be spent on all other aspects of the government first and those categories are what's left when the revenues are used up. This makes for a nice graph but it is not how it works. You could make the same graph by putting any monies the government spent as what is "left over" when the revenues are used up and the number would be just as correct. You could put Medicare, defense, the post office or congress' salary at the top and it would all be technically true. it only matters what impression you're trying to give as to what is causing the overrun.

 

For example, the link you provided to CBPP basically shows that there would barley be any deficit from 2011-2019 without the wars, Bush tax cuts, and the economy. Most of that data seems to come from this CBO report. If you go to page 16 or the report (page 34 of the document) and add up the bottom six lines, they seem to be roughly equal to the numbers CBPP put in their graph for "Bush-era tax cuts" at approx. $300B in 2009 and somewhere around $700B by 2019. However, if you go the the next page of the same CBO report, it shows that the "Effect on the deficit" is never more than $100B in any year by itself and only over $100B when including debt service in the last two years. Thus, even the CBO report they cite doesn't consider the entire amount to go to the deficit. They are free assert that if they wish but you could be equally correct to state that about any part of the budget.

The CBO report doesn't specify what tax cuts are included in Footnote G on 18. Which cuts are you counting?

I'm talking about the first two lines of Table 1-5 on page 18.

 

Also, this graph seems to answer a question I've long had and asked in other threads but I've never gotten an answer to. It show a contribution to the deficit of approx. $150B each year from Iraq and Afghanistan (page 17). But total defense spending (page 48) starts at $656B and ends up at $813B in 2019. That would mean that we are currently spending 25% of our total defense budget in Iraq and Afghanistan. This looks to be the case but, to me, that doesn't tell the actual story of what the wars are "costing" us. To me, the "cost" of the wars would be the difference between what we are actually spending and what we would still be spending on those same troops, equipment, maintenance, etc. if we weren't at war. We would still be paying salaries, feeding people, ordering equipment, using supplies and any number of other categories if there wasn't anything going on. The wars obviously increase those numbers but it looks to me like we'd still have a good chuck of those expenses no matter what was going on. Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong.

The Iraq and Afghanistan war costs were not included in the defense budget until 2010. Is that what you are missing? They were funded separately which was probably an effort to make defense expenditures look lower than they are.

No, my question is whether some of that money would be spent anyway, even if there wasn't a war.

[carlfense]

No, my point is that taxes collected, for the most part (Social Security being a partial exception) are not collected for a specific purpose. They just go into a "general fund" that can be spent as congress directs. What they are doing in their graph is saying the taxes are to be spent on all other aspects of the government first and those categories are what's left when the revenues are used up. This makes for a nice graph but it is not how it works. You could make the same graph by putting any monies the government spent as what is "left over" when the revenues are used up and the number would be just as correct. You could put Medicare, defense, the post office or congress' salary at the top and it would all be technically true. it only matters what impression you're trying to give as to what is causing the overrun.

Which graph are you talking about? If it's the CBPP graph the point is the relative size of the bars and not what is placed at the top. The order doesn't matter. Each factor's relative contribution to the deficit is what is illustrated.

[carlfense]

No, my question is whether some of that money would be spent anyway, even if there wasn't a war.

Short answer: no. Prior to 2010 the DOD was financed through the defense budget. That covered salaries, equipment, training, etc. The war funding was entirely separate and additional to the standard defense budget.

[Mavric]

No, my point is that taxes collected, for the most part (Social Security being a partial exception) are not collected for a specific purpose. They just go into a "general fund" that can be spent as congress directs. What they are doing in their graph is saying the taxes are to be spent on all other aspects of the government first and those categories are what's left when the revenues are used up. This makes for a nice graph but it is not how it works. You could make the same graph by putting any monies the government spent as what is "left over" when the revenues are used up and the number would be just as correct. You could put Medicare, defense, the post office or congress' salary at the top and it would all be technically true. it only matters what impression you're trying to give as to what is causing the overrun.

Which graph are you talking about? If it's the CBPP graph the point is the relative size of the bars and not what is placed at the top. The order doesn't matter. Each factor's relative contribution to the deficit is what is illustrated.

You're not understanding what I'm saying about being at the top of the graph.

 

Their graph is basically showing the "tip of the iceberg", that it, after all revenues are used up, here's what's left that caused the deficit. The part that isn't on their graph is where the revenues and outlays were equal. I'll use 2009 numbers to explain. We had approx. $2.1T to spend in 2009. They're saying that all the spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other "mandatory" programs plus defense spending (other than Iraq and Afghanistan) and other discretionary spending basically equaled the revenues that would have came in had the "Bush Tax Cuts" not been in effect and the economy not taken a dive. Thus, the only reason for the deficit is the reduced revenues from the cuts and the economy (some $800B) and the extra spending on the wars and various recovery efforts (some $600B) creating the $1.4T deficit. This is what they showed in their graph.

 

What I am saying is it is completely arbitrary what factors they left below their graph - that is, what expenses are included to equal the revenues that came in. It would be just as true to say the $2.1T that came in was what we had to work with (didn't matter that the tax cuts and economy lowered that number from what it could have been) and that money was enough to pay for all discretionary spending (including all defense spending) as well as all Income Security, Retirement and Disability spending and it was the $1.4T we spent on Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid that caused the entire deficit. It just depends on how you want to show the numbers.

[carlfense]

No, my point is that taxes collected, for the most part (Social Security being a partial exception) are not collected for a specific purpose. They just go into a "general fund" that can be spent as congress directs. What they are doing in their graph is saying the taxes are to be spent on all other aspects of the government first and those categories are what's left when the revenues are used up. This makes for a nice graph but it is not how it works. You could make the same graph by putting any monies the government spent as what is "left over" when the revenues are used up and the number would be just as correct. You could put Medicare, defense, the post office or congress' salary at the top and it would all be technically true. it only matters what impression you're trying to give as to what is causing the overrun.

Which graph are you talking about? If it's the CBPP graph the point is the relative size of the bars and not what is placed at the top. The order doesn't matter. Each factor's relative contribution to the deficit is what is illustrated.

You're not understanding what I'm saying about being at the top of the graph.

 

Their graph is basically showing the "tip of the iceberg", that it, after all revenues are used up, here's what's left that caused the deficit. The part that isn't on their graph is where the revenues and outlays were equal. I'll use 2009 numbers to explain. We had approx. $2.1T to spend in 2009. They're saying that all the spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other "mandatory" programs plus defense spending (other than Iraq and Afghanistan) and other discretionary spending basically equaled the revenues that would have came in had the "Bush Tax Cuts" not been in effect and the economy not taken a dive. Thus, the only reason for the deficit is the reduced revenues from the cuts and the economy (some $800B) and the extra spending on the wars and various recovery efforts (some $600B) creating the $1.4T deficit. This is what they showed in their graph.

 

What I am saying is it is completely arbitrary what factors they left below their graph - that is, what expenses are included to equal the revenues that came in. It would be just as true to say the $2.1T that came in was what we had to work with (didn't matter that the tax cuts and economy lowered that number from what it could have been) and that money was enough to pay for all discretionary spending (including all defense spending) as well as all Income Security, Retirement and Disability spending and it was the $1.4T we spent on Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid that caused the entire deficit. It just depends on how you want to show the numbers.

I get what you're saying.

 

I think we can agree that reductions in revenue and increases in spending BOTH contributed to changing Clinton's surplus into the deficit that we have today. But for the Bush tax cuts/But for the spending increases (under Bush and Obama) our deficit would be smaller or non-existent. Right?

[Mavric]

No, my point is that taxes collected, for the most part (Social Security being a partial exception) are not collected for a specific purpose. They just go into a "general fund" that can be spent as congress directs. What they are doing in their graph is saying the taxes are to be spent on all other aspects of the government first and those categories are what's left when the revenues are used up. This makes for a nice graph but it is not how it works. You could make the same graph by putting any monies the government spent as what is "left over" when the revenues are used up and the number would be just as correct. You could put Medicare, defense, the post office or congress' salary at the top and it would all be technically true. it only matters what impression you're trying to give as to what is causing the overrun.

Which graph are you talking about? If it's the CBPP graph the point is the relative size of the bars and not what is placed at the top. The order doesn't matter. Each factor's relative contribution to the deficit is what is illustrated.

You're not understanding what I'm saying about being at the top of the graph.

 

Their graph is basically showing the "tip of the iceberg", that it, after all revenues are used up, here's what's left that caused the deficit. The part that isn't on their graph is where the revenues and outlays were equal. I'll use 2009 numbers to explain. We had approx. $2.1T to spend in 2009. They're saying that all the spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other "mandatory" programs plus defense spending (other than Iraq and Afghanistan) and other discretionary spending basically equaled the revenues that would have came in had the "Bush Tax Cuts" not been in effect and the economy not taken a dive. Thus, the only reason for the deficit is the reduced revenues from the cuts and the economy (some $800B) and the extra spending on the wars and various recovery efforts (some $600B) creating the $1.4T deficit. This is what they showed in their graph.

 

What I am saying is it is completely arbitrary what factors they left below their graph - that is, what expenses are included to equal the revenues that came in. It would be just as true to say the $2.1T that came in was what we had to work with (didn't matter that the tax cuts and economy lowered that number from what it could have been) and that money was enough to pay for all discretionary spending (including all defense spending) as well as all Income Security, Retirement and Disability spending and it was the $1.4T we spent on Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid that caused the entire deficit. It just depends on how you want to show the numbers.

I get what you're saying.

 

I think we can agree that reductions in revenue and increases in spending BOTH contributed to changing Clinton's surplus into the deficit that we have today. But for the Bush tax cuts/But for the spending increases (under Bush and Obama) our deficit would be smaller or non-existent. Right?

Right. I think it's impossible to point to one thing (or a couple) individually that "caused" the current deficit. Pretty much every category of spending both of us have listed has increased in the recent past and the tax cuts and economic downturn have decreased revenues. It would basically have to be a combination of everything. People on both sides of the issues can point to the aspects they don't like and try to point the finger at that but I don't believe you can pin it down like that.

 

I'm not necessarily against some tax increases and reduction in war spending but I don't believe either can fix the mess we're in and how much worse it's getting by themselves. In 2009, we ran approx. $1.4T in the red and all discretionary spending combined - including the entire defense department - was "only" $1.2T so you could get rid of the entire defense department and all discretionary spending and STILL run a deficit. Even undoing all the "Bush tax cuts" (Obama currently is only calling for those at the high end) and implementing the "Buffet Rule" in addition to zeroing all discretionary spending would just barely give us a balanced budget - for now. But that's before the three major mandatory programs (Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid) are all slated to increase between 72% and 110% over the next ten years. It is just not possible to balance things out without reforming mandatory spending programs in some significant way.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

So it's June, and the SCOTUS should be wrapping up soon. I guess the last couple of years they have finished early. Does anyone know how they will announce the decision? Do they telegraph that today or tomorrow the decision will be announced or do they just post it to their Facebook page....

[carlfense]

So it's June, and the SCOTUS should be wrapping up soon. I guess the last couple of years they have finished early. Does anyone know how they will announce the decision? Do they telegraph that today or tomorrow the decision will be announced or do they just post it to their Facebook page....

It was probably decided this week. We probably won't know until summer.

[Yossarian]

So it's June, and the SCOTUS should be wrapping up soon. I guess the last couple of years they have finished early. Does anyone know how they will announce the decision? Do they telegraph that today or tomorrow the decision will be announced or do they just post it to their Facebook page....

It was probably decided this week. We probably won't know until summer.

 

I thought that they had to announce the decision this month since the current sessions ends 30 June.

[carlfense]

So it's June, and the SCOTUS should be wrapping up soon. I guess the last couple of years they have finished early. Does anyone know how they will announce the decision? Do they telegraph that today or tomorrow the decision will be announced or do they just post it to their Facebook page....

It was probably decided this week. We probably won't know until summer.

 

I thought that they had to announce the decision this month since the current sessions ends 30 June.

I think summer begins on the 20th, right? Not near my calendar at the moment.