« "Excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate" | Main | "So shallow, so hyperpartisan, and so intellectually dishonest" »

A Visual Guide to our Budgetary Problem

Since 'splaining explaining it hasn't worked with our leftards progressive elements, one of our better political cartoonists stepped up:
Budget_Pie_2011.jpg

  Perhaps they'll start to grasp the issue...

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41426.

Comments (40)

Its missing the cockroaches... (Below threshold)
epador:

Its missing the cockroaches eating the crumbs.

But Boehner seemed so happy... (Below threshold)
Tim:

But Boehner seemed so happy! He didn't cry once that night.

Boehner sold the pooch.

"Perhaps they'll start to... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Perhaps they'll start to grasp the issue..."

You can't fix stupid.

GarandFan wrote:<bloc... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

GarandFan wrote:

You can't fix stupid.

Not true, but it is very messy.

Reality fixes stupid - but ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Reality fixes stupid - but it's usually catastrophic.

JLawson,Yep. Thin... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

JLawson,

Yep. Think of it as Darwin's Razor.

JLawson: "Reality fixes ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

JLawson: "Reality fixes stupid - but it's usually catastrophic."

Stupid winds up dead with monotonous regularity. The problem is that when stupid is driving the bus...and you're ON the bus stupid in gonna kill you too!

We're on the bus...and the guy driving isn't just stupid, he's suicidal/homicidal.

JLawson,Unfortunat... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

JLawson,

Unfortunately, reality isn't moving fast enough...

It's not about them being s... (Below threshold)
jim m:

It's not about them being stupid. They just don't care about the facts and what the reality of the situation is. Reality means that all their ideas of how the world works and how there ideology doesn't work in the real world.

Reality means that they cannot spend and spend forever. Reality means that there isn't enough wealth to steal from other people to cover their spending.

The reality is that lefty politicians don't really care about anything other than lining their own pockets and when the pyramid scam collapses they know that they will have made enough money to be OK and it doesn't matter to them how many people have their lives destroyed by stupid leftist policies.

I think that obama knows that this is the end game and the point is to delay for as long as possible the reckoning. They want to delay that reckoning and see if they cannot pull a Hugo Chavez and turn ignorant masses into a weapon to destroy the constitution and make themselves a perpetual government stealing from the people to enrich themselves.

"The problem with socialism... (Below threshold)
Matt:

"The problem with socialism, is that eventually, you run out of other peoples money."

You do need the Obamacare a... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

You do need the Obamacare as the RAte at 105 Billion eating both Cuts.

Yep. Think of it as Darw... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Yep. Think of it as Darwin's Razor.

Against Stupid's jugular, Rodney.

Jim M - I think you've pegged it. They don't care about what happens AFTER the crash, as long as they've got their stash and they think they've got a means of keeping control.

But Reality's an unforgiving bitch - and the Internet never forgets. (Which may be why Obama wants an Internet kill switch...)

Woop will stop by after Ses... (Below threshold)
914:

Woop will stop by after Sesame street is over. This should be easy for him to grasp. Big bird and Grover have been tutoring him.

Hey gang - it's time to te... (Below threshold)
Ralph Spoilsport:

Hey gang - it's time to tell them "Hands Off My Grandma!"

(Which may be why Obama ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

(Which may be why Obama wants an Internet kill switch...)

That's exactly why they want an internet kill switch. You will note hat the talk of that really got going after we saw the unrest in Egypt and Algeria and now Libya. The administration saw Egypt try to shut off the internet to crush dissent and realized that they need to plan ahead if they are going to be able to do it themselves.

But let's not fool ourselves. It's not just obama. It's also the big government types in the GOP like Lindsey Graham who would love to crush dissent. He's already on record saying that freedom of speech should be curtailed by the government.

Why are you directing this ... (Below threshold)
john:

Why are you directing this at "progressive elements"? All you've shown is that neither the Democrats nor Republicans are doing a damned meaningful thing to cut the budget. Or do you think that the Democrats proposing nothing is somehow different from the GOP proposing twice nothing?

Told you Woop would stop by... (Below threshold)
914:

Told you Woop would stop by:

"14. Posted by Ralph Spoilsport | April 14, 2011 11:59 AM | Thanks for voting! Score: 0 (0 votes cast)"


Isn't it clever..

Why are you directing th... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Why are you directing this at "progressive elements"?

Because the left is still saying that we need to spend more. Because the left is saying that despite cranking up spending by over a Trillion dollars more per year since 2008 and saying that somehow it is impossible to cut more than a few billion.

Because the left is saying tat going back to 2008 levels of spending where the budget deficit was still over $400 Billion is too severe a cut.

Does anyone remember how horrible the service cuts were in 2008? No I didn't think so. The government doesn't need to spend what it is spending. They have already admitted that the $39B that they just cut is coming almost entirely from money they haven't had the time to spend anyway. Those weren't cuts at all but the dems were refusing to do even that.

THAT'S why we single the left out. They haven't got a clue. At least there are a couple of people on the right that are starting to understand how dangerous the situation is.

John you are quickly joingi... (Below threshold)
retired military:

John you are quickly joinging the ranks of those whom Hyper considers to be nonpeople.

Chief, leftists couldn't gr... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

Chief, leftists couldn't grasp an issue if it literally sat on their faces.

You're talking about a collection of people who are so numbingly vacant they defy the principles both of creationism and Darwinism.

They can't engage in critical thinking. They can't follow base logic. They can't apply facts to a premise. They can't juxtapose theory to practice. They can't remember yesterday and tomorrow for them merely is an opaque hypothetical.

You'd have a better chance teaching a mannequin to dance the jitterbug than to educate a leftist to grasp a concept such as the budget deficit.

Heh. John and Ralph are th... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves Author Profile Page:

Heh. John and Ralph are the same commenter, who just happen to be on the same ISP as woop.

Some coincidence, that!

Thread should have closed a... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Thread should have closed at #3.

That's money, GaradFan.

You guys want to know the p... (Below threshold)
warchild:

You guys want to know the problem? here it is in a totally non partisan way.

we lost probably 10 trillion or so, in the economic meltdown. you can blame democrats and democrats can blame Republicans over whose fault it is. But the economic meltdown was as severe as it gets.


Now who pays for that? No one wants to do it. If you say, cut public sector pay (as your side proposes) people scream and rail and make it nearly politically impossible to do so. They say don't take from me.

If you say raise taxes and increase revenue, (as my side often proposes) People scream and yell and make it politically impossible to do so and say you are not taking from me.

Then we get to the politicians. Who it seems have one goal and one goal only get reelected. And telling their constituents that they will be the main one losing money, usually doesn't get you reelected.

So for instance, if President Obama said, "I'm privatizing medicare, cutting the hell out of it and even though all you in my base think it's a shit sandwich--eat up!" His base abandons him and he doesn't get relected.

If John Bohener says "I'm letting taxes be raised up the wazoo and even though all of you in my base think it's a shit sandwhich--eatup and ask for seconds!" You would abandon him.

So, knowing their is a problem each side goes to war. "We have a problem and your side needs to tighten your belt so it can be dealt with." Cut your spending, or pay more taxes.

the result, nothing gets done.


it's possible i suppose that both sides will be big about it one day and say, "okay I'll give a little if you give a little" but we all know in hearts that won't happen. We all know that both sides will angle for an advantage.

And we will play a part in this because we all really intensely dislike the other side. Most of you probably wouldn't mind socking a media matters person in the tummy. Most of them wouldn't mind doing the same to you. So we won't work together. We'll work to thwart each other, and if the ship goes down so be it.

The left is fine with drowing as long as they get the satisfaction of wathching the right drown with them. The right is fine with drowing too as long as they get the satisfaction of watching the left suffocate with them.

So uncork the champagne, and celebrate. Know that at least you get to watch your enemy suffer. They'll be celbrating your demise over in the next room.

Cheers!

"Perhaps they'll start to g... (Below threshold)
914:

"Perhaps they'll start to grasp the issue..."

You can't fix stupid."


No, but you can double and triple down on dumb as Woop shows time and again.

warchild,Rubbish.<... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

warchild,

Rubbish.

The problem is that the Government spends more than they bring in, and has expanded this proclivity in a geometric fashion over the course of the 111th and 112th Congresses. Trying to tax one's way out of such a mess will only further hobble the economy, thus reducing the tax pool.

At this point eliminating the DoD would NOT close the budget gap (which was how Clinton balanced his budget).

Time to cut spending in real terms (not as measured against projected growth/funding levels).

And after I post Rodney scr... (Below threshold)
warchild:

And after I post Rodney screams, "you are not taking from me." Typical.

Because the left is stil... (Below threshold)
john:

Because the left is still saying...

Aside from completely going off the point of the thread, most of what you wrote is equally applicable to Republicans. This post shows a chart demonstrating that neither party is doing anything meaningful about spending, and all you want to do is paint "the left" as evil. I was apparently mistaken in assuming you had any serious interest in the issue.

John and Ralph are the s... (Below threshold)
john:

John and Ralph are the same commenter, who just happen to be on the same ISP as woop.

Bullshit. Though not surprising that you try to smear with false accusations those who point out your hypocrisy.

Passing through this place ... (Below threshold)
llg33149:

Passing through this place is like visiting the Monkey House at the zoo. You folks love grooming one another and tossing your feces at those you don't like.

An intelligent bunch. Just like the monkeys.

llg33149 |Stand st... (Below threshold)
retired military:

llg33149 |

Stand still while I get some more feces. You love it, you know you do.

warchildThey could... (Below threshold)
retired military:

warchild

They could double the amount of income tax revenues to the govt from all individuals (2010 - $1.4 trillion - $1.21 of which came from folks making 67K agi or more) and it still wouldnt cover the estimated deficit for this year.

Taxes being too low isnt the problem.

Spending too much is the problem.

GIve me the year that congress last balanced the budget without using Social security money to do so? For that matter with using social security money to do so and how many times in the last 50 years have they done so?

Congress has shown they will spend every last cent you give them a chance to and then borrow to spend more.

If you could prove to me that congress will stop spending us into the poor house then I may go along with a small tax increase too pay off the deficit faster.

In addition, money has a greater multiplier effect on the GDP when spent by the private sector than when spent by the govt.

Try looking at some facts every now and then.


warchildThey could... (Below threshold)
warchild:

warchild

They could double the amount of income tax revenues to the govt from all individuals (2010 - $1.4 trillion - $1.21 of which came from folks making 67K agi or more) and it still wouldnt cover the estimated deficit for this year.

Taxes being too low isnt the problem.

Spending too much is the problem.

GIve me the year that congress last balanced the budget without using Social security money to do so? For that matter with using social security money to do so and how many times in the last 50 years have they done so?

Congress has shown they will spend every last cent you give them a chance to and then borrow to spend more.

If you could prove to me that congress will stop spending us into the poor house then I may go along with a small tax increase too pay off the deficit faster.

In addition, money has a greater multiplier effect on the GDP when spent by the private sector than when spent by the govt.

Try looking at some facts every now and then.

-----
you missed my point RM. I didn't advocate a position. I was pointing out that both sides are convinced they are right and therefore will not compromise.

Warchild, you are a little ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Warchild, you are a little correct, but mostly wrong, and here's why:

Yes, a big part of the problem is that there are arrogant, self-absorbed Republicans, just as there are arrogant, self-absorbed Democrats.

However...

1. The Tea Party candidates were the significant trend in the 2010 election, sent to office on specific promises to maintain or lower taxes, and to cut spending. This creates at least a minimal level of accountability on the right, while the left remains, frankly, out of touch with reality;

2. The Republicans have been demonized by the Democrats for their pro-business stances, but it is a hard economic fact that small-to-midsize businesses create most of the GDP and job growth in the US; punative statutes and tax structures damages the ability of the government to find revenue. Ergo, any serious effort to address the deficit requires a pro-business atmosphere, and not just lunch with CEOs;

3. If your engine is not able to carry the load, the first you do is reduce what it has to carry. Even ordinary people know that if you get into financial trouble, the first thing you have to do is control spending.

They could double the am... (Below threshold)
john:

They could double the amount of income tax revenues to the govt from all individuals (2010 - $1.4 trillion - $1.21 of which came from folks making 67K agi or more) and it still wouldnt cover the estimated deficit for this year.

And on the flip side, they could ELIMINATE THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT -- cut it to ZERO -- except for mandatory spending and defense, and it still wouldn't cover the estimated deficit for this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_Receipts_%26_Expenditures_Estimates.PNG

That's why people who say "Taxes being too low isnt the problem. Spending too much is the problem." don't actually understand the problem.

John,Mandatory Spe... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

John,

Mandatory Spending is what Congress says it is. Like so many promises made by the Federal Government, those promises are about to change.

That may not be the change you wanted, but it is the necessary consequence of the change you voted for.

JohnThe reason why... (Below threshold)
retired military:

John

The reason why it wouldnt cover the deficit this year is simple. Tax revenues are down considerably due to high unemployment.

Lets say they cut spending by even a trillion by doing accounting tricks and also cutting defense along with that big block called OTHER (Whatever it is) on your chart.

Cutting waste and reforming social security and medicare would also help some.

That would send a signal to the world that they are serious about getting the debt under control. Private businesses could start to invest again and individuals would also start to spend again as right now they are hoarding cash and paying off bills for items bought. Tax revenue to the govt increases and the budget gets balanced a lost sooner than the 20 years they are talking about.


Once that happens the recession reverses itself and the economy starts to grow again,

If congress stops spending more than it has the debt can start to get paid off instead of just servicing it. The more it is paid off the more money there is to start spending on the 'nice to have stuff" again as well as paying off the debt.

In addition, the govt can actually invest in things like letting oil companies drill off the coasts and in Anwar. Throw about 10 nuclear power plants online and now instead of billions being sent overseas for oil you have billions being spent here for oil and power.

When you have someone drowing in credit card debt what are they told to do?

a. Tear up the credit cards
b. Live within their means.

pretty soon the credit card debt starts to disappear.

It is a simple law of economics.

JohnA lot of entit... (Below threshold)
retired military:

John

A lot of entitlements would have to be cut as well. It wont be pretty, wont be easy, the military would have to put off some equipment buys for a few years and people will complain loud and long and howl like a scalded dog but better a little pain in the long run than the death of a thousand entitlements like we have now.

Govt needs to get out of trying to be a nanny state.

JohnBTW when I sai... (Below threshold)
retired military:

John

BTW when I said accounting tricks.

Here's one

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259528/federal-government-s-unspent-billions-deroy-murdock

Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) holds the treasure map. He and his team cite an Office of Management and Budget document with the riveting title “Balances of Budget Authority — Budget of the U.S. Government — Fiscal Year 2011.”
On page 8, Table 1 indicates in black and white that this fiscal year’s federal budget contains $703,128,000,000 in “unobligated balances.” Thus, more than $703 billion languishes on department, agency, and program ledgers. This includes $12.2 billion unspent at the Agriculture Department, $16.4 billion at Labor, $25.2 billion at Housing and Urban Development, $71.4 billion at Defense, and $309.1 billion at Treasury.

While unspent obligated money must be stewarded for specific purposes for up to five years, these unobligated funds “have not yet been committed by contract or other legally binding action by the government,” OMB explains.

...

In fact, Senator Coburn’s office estimates that $82.4 billion of these funds are between six and 20 years old! You read correctly: At this very second, the federal budget contains $82.4 billion that has hibernated in numerous accounts between FY 1991 and FY 2005. While agency chiefs and lobbyists might scream that these funds are sacred, such arguments become hilarious when applied to taxpayer dollars that have remained untouched for at least half a dozen years.

Team Coburn reckons that at least $100 billion of these unobligated funds safely could be applied to budget reduction.
Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) holds the treasure map. He and his team cite an Office of Management and Budget document with the riveting title “Balances of Budget Authority — Budget of the U.S. Government — Fiscal Year 2011.”
On page 8, Table 1 indicates in black and white that this fiscal year’s federal budget contains $703,128,000,000 in “unobligated balances.” Thus, more than $703 billion languishes on department, agency, and program ledgers. This includes $12.2 billion unspent at the Agriculture Department, $16.4 billion at Labor, $25.2 billion at Housing and Urban Development, $71.4 billion at Defense, and $309.1 billion at Treasury.

While unspent obligated money must be stewarded for specific purposes for up to five years, these unobligated funds “have not yet been committed by contract or other legally binding action by the government,” OMB explains.

...

In fact, Senator Coburn’s office estimates that $82.4 billion of these funds are between six and 20 years old! You read correctly: At this very second, the federal budget contains $82.4 billion that has hibernated in numerous accounts between FY 1991 and FY 2005. While agency chiefs and lobbyists might scream that these funds are sacred, such arguments become hilarious when applied to taxpayer dollars that have remained untouched for at least half a dozen years.

Team Coburn reckons that at least $100 billion of these unobligated funds safely could be applied to budget reduction.


Now take that $703,128,000,000 in “unobligated balances.” throw in LOTS of cuts and geez we are talking about deficit reduction and balancing the budget.


Congressional Republicans w... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Congressional Republicans want a much tigher budget...somewhere distant down the road, but not certainly yet too. Here is their form of musical chairs, as they nearly to their horror had their own Republican Study Committee Budget plan passed, until at the last minute during the roll call, they had to change their own votes, lest it be passed. No surprise!

crampless,Demonstr... (Below threshold)
Rodney Graves:

crampless,

Demonstrably the decmocrats, especially the empty suit behind the teleprompter, intend to talk the deficit to death.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy