»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The Other 95%
| The Alley |
|
The Other 95% |
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"How is it that the angry and scared members of the radical fringe dominate the news cycle every night? They scream about deficits and "outrageous taxes." Where were they when 3/4ths of our 10 trillion dollar debt was created by George W. Bush? Meanwhile our country faces critical challenges in our infrastructure, education, economy and overall quality of life. Taxes and government are an essential part of all of these. The answer isn't "big government" but effective government. And it's essential that we all pay our fair share. (This means citizens and corporations alike). We are aware that government, like any big business, can involve corruption, but we also know that our government is just us - of, by and for The People. Come join the growing movement to set the record straight and stand up for our country and our future!" http://theother95.com/ |
||
| © Copyright 2010 JenniferMaxwell - All Rights Reserved | |||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
quote: This government that you describe as "by, for, etc" passed a health care bill that- depending on which poll you read- was OPPOSED by between half or more of the "people". Instead of cutting spending, the "people" are adding 11 new taxes over the next 3 years. The "people" are taking it in the keester, and have to wait until November to do anything about it, and have to pray that there are no lame duck "people" who choose to leave a legacy. Oh, btw... it is not the deficit that has most of the 9/12 organizations screaming... it is the lack of fiscal responsibility that is causing the ruckus... more taxes, more spending, bigger programs, and less cash in hand. I have never had a hassle in paying my taxes. In an economy run by small business (those that are still around) feeding the golden goose is a requirement. ALlowing that goose to gorge itself into stupidity is not. When my economy took a sudden dive last year (the restaurant I was kitchen manager for closed its doors without warning) I did what every responsible parent does... I didn't go out and get a new car, I didn't buy new clothes, I didn't take the money I had and spend it on anything that wasn't keeping the lights on, the kids fed and their beds in the house. The "people" that you talk about complained loudly that they had no money, and that the former residents left them with an overdrawn bank account, and then proceeded to spend how many trillions of dollars that they didn't have. Is that enough of an explaination for you to understand why Republicans, Democrats, and Independants are gathering in droves to tell the "people" they are not amused? Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yep, that is what the government is "supposed" to be. Unfortunately, now it's just a cliche. When the government tells the majority of the people they don't care what they say or think, it ceases to be of, by or for. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“Some basic facts: Obama has passed 25 separate tax cuts. Obama’s stimulus package included $300 billion in middle class tax cuts — one of the largest in history. The recent healthcare reform law includes tax credits and savings for small businesses and working people. Unlike President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts, which went to the wealthiest 2.2%, President Obama’s tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit working and middle class families — 95% of all Americans. Here are some of the new tax credits available through the Recovery Act alone that you may be eligible for: The Making Work Pay tax credit – Ninety-five percent of working families are already receiving the Recovery Act’s Making Work Pay tax credit of $400 for an individual or $800 for married couples filing jointly in their 2009 paychecks – and will continue to see these benefits in 2010. Tax credits for college expenses – Families and students are eligible for up to $2,500 in tax savings under the American Opportunity Credit as well as enhanced benefits under 529 college savings plans, which help families and students pay for college expenses. The Homebuyers tax credit – Homebuyers can get a credit – up to $8,000 for first-time home buyers and up to $6,500 for upgrade homebuyers – for homes under contract by April 30, 2010 and purchased by June 30, 2010 under the Homebuyer tax credit. Over 1.7 million households have already taken advantage of the First Time Homebuyers tax credit. Tax credits for energy efficient renovations – Taxpayers are eligible for up to $1,500 in tax credits for making energy-efficient improvements to their homes, such as adding insulation and installing energy efficient windows. The vehicle sales tax deduction – Taxpayers can deduct the state and local sales taxes they paid for new vehicles purchased from Feb. 17, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2009 under the vehicle sales tax deduction. Expanded family tax credits – Moderate income families with children may be eligible for an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit and the additional Child Tax Credit. Tax-free unemployment benefits – Thanks to the Recovery Act, individuals who received unemployment insurance in 2009 do not have to pay taxes on the first $2,400 of such earnings. Find out what tax cuts you may qualify for: Use the White House online tax calculator” http://theother95.com/the-facts/ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Homebuyers tax credit – Homebuyers can get a credit – up to $8,000 for first-time home buyers and up to $6,500 for upgrade homebuyers – for homes under contract by April 30, 2010 and purchased by June 30, 2010 under the Homebuyer tax credit. Over 1.7 million households have already taken advantage of the First Time Homebuyers tax credit. Tax credits for energy efficient renovations – Taxpayers are eligible for up to $1,500 in tax credits for making energy-efficient improvements to their homes, such as adding insulation and installing energy efficient windows. The vehicle sales tax deduction – Taxpayers can deduct the state and local sales taxes they paid for new vehicles purchased from Feb. 17, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2009 under the vehicle sales tax deduction. Expanded family tax credits – Moderate income families with children may be eligible for an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit and the additional Child Tax Credit. Tax-free unemployment benefits – Thanks to the Recovery Act, individuals who received unemployment insurance in 2009 do not have to pay taxes on the first $2,400 of such earnings. These tax credits/deductions are limited to certain groups of people: those buying homes, those lucky enough to be able to afford to make energy-efficient upgrades to their homes, those with qualifying children and those who are unemployed for a small percentage of their benefits. And sales tax deductions can only be utilized by those who have enough deductions to exceed the standardized deduction. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Yes, Denise. And the tax cuts that President Bush passed were for whom? You point out that these things are ways of putting economic theory into practice, I suspect. Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I think so. Because, of course, neither example gave money directly to you. Each tried to stimulate the economy in the way it thought most effective. The Bush Tax cuts put the economy into recession because they were pumping money into the economy at a further remove from where people were actually spending it. There were times when such a move would have been much more effective, I think, but this was not one of them. In this case the money didn't stay at home and a lot of it went into savings, and that was not what the economy needed. When the marginal tax rate was much higher, the situation would have been and was different, during the sixties, for example. The Obama tax cuts put money into the economy at the places where it was less likely to be saved and more likely to be spent immediately, putting money into the economy at somewhat greater velocity, and speeding things up a bit. We still need more jobs — a lot more jobs. But the economic indicators that were noseediving during the last couple of years of the Bush administration are turning around. I'd like to see things a lot better, mind you. But your sour grapes comments about the Obama tax cuts are in the face of an improving economy. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Bush tax cuts, Bob, which are due to expire at the end of this year, apply to all wage earners who pay federal taxes. And yes, people tended to save as much of it as they could for a rainy day. Today people tend to spend the Bush tax cuts and the Obama tax credits because that rainy day is here, otherwise they'd be saving now too. Sour grapes comments about Obama's tax cuts? Why would you characterize my comments that way? Obama's tax cuts, as you call them, are not tax cuts. They are targeted tax credits, that benefit some people. I hope you are right about the economy but I'm not seeing it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In this case the money didn't stay at home and a lot of it went into savings, Please supply some proof of that, Bob. Yes, we see a lot of numbers crunching and spinning on how the economy is improving and yet unemployment insurance keeps getting extended because people can't find jobs, the unemployment rate continues not to go down, thousands more each month apply for unemployment benefits and foreclosures continue to soar. Sell the "economy is improving" spin to these people.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
OK, Mike. The first reference is good overall. In case you miss the point you requested backup on, I've excerpted the paragraph underneath. The last sentence in the paragraph is the one that's the one that's relevant to our discussion here. There's a generally assumed logic to the statement, which is that you don't get wealthy by spending your own money if you can help it. And that the people that do spend their own money are the folks that have to, that is, the people who don't have much choice in the matter; those at the bottom of the heap. Risks are better when you can get other people to take them for you. The whole paper is an eye-opener, and quite neutral. It also talks about how the Bush tax cuts lost the country about 25 cents for every dollar we gave to the rich. First the general reference, then the quotation. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2116 Zandi also examined an alternative stimulus package and found it would have yielded far more short-term demand — $1.20 for each $1 of cost — and thus have generated significantly more economic and job growth. The alternative package would have put more money into the hands of those who immediately spend it — low- and middle-income Americans — through tax cuts targeted on this group, greater temporary unemployment benefits, and more federal fiscal relief to states to lessen state budget cuts and tax increases. As noted, the federal tax cuts that were enacted are heavily skewed toward high-income households, who are much less likely than other households to spend their tax cuts quickly. (They are more likely to save their tax cuts.) [Boldface supplied by Bob] http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bush-tax-cuts-cost-more-twice-m http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cut-mythology/ |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You know what they say about assumptions, Bob?  |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Bob, if you think the economy is improving just visit a mall or several malls and see all the empty stores. The only ones still open are the larger dept style stores that hold the mall together and the teenage stores like "hot topic" since they expect the teens to be the bigger spenders... closed stores, less jobs, more unemployment and those are for the less expensive paid jobs that the young people, elderly who need to supplement there social security and those without college educations use to work at. My husband just became unemployed...you are only seeing the drop off of those whose unemployment has already run out, not all those still losing jobs daily. With every city and town and state complaining of not enough revenue coming in ( between company losses from those not having enough money to order from them) and not evenough taxes being collected with people not having wages..show me where the economy is improving. M |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Actually, the economy getting better is- in my neck of the woods, anyhow- a complete and total myth. While I currently am employed (and we won't get into how long it took me to find one, and why I was unemployed in the first place), I have numerous of my friends who are either 1) not employed 2) begging they don't become unemployed 3) watching those they work with lose their jobs and praying they aren't next. Even my employers have put their employees on a guarantee. I am the service tech at the Oreck Clean Home Center in Allentown, Pa. I am paid based on the number of services I perform, and the number of sales I make when the floor gets busy enough to require my presence. The owners have placed every employee in all 6 of their stores on guarantee that if our paychecks start to fall beneath a certain level, we are guaranteed at least our average to date... even if we are due 1/2 of that amount. Their reasoning? Sales are starting to fall off significantly. We have had, within the last few months, 4 houses on my street- over the space of 2 miles or so- go into foreclosure. The local water/sewage company (city owned) is allowing people a 1 time deferrment (3 months) on paying their quarterly bill, and is making payment arrangements with anyone who cannot pay the bills... including re-connecting the ones who have had their water shut off for non-payment. We are having businesses fall away at an alarming rate. My former band is watching their audiences (normally some of the largest the various clubs get) dwindle to the point where they have lost (in the last 6 months) several venues they used to play at. And they are not the only ones. More venues are going to DJ's or no entertainment at all because they are required to pay my band a minimum that is substancially more than a DJ would make, and no one is going out due to the lack of disposable cash. Several full-time bands, playing 5-6 nights a week and providing the musicians with their only source of income are dropping to weekend bands because venues cannot afford the entertainment costs during the week. One of the local volunteer fire companies has reported that their annual Easter Flower Sale to raise money yielded just over 1/3 less in sales than they did this point last year. I know for a fact that the majority of the locals are still waiting for some sort of upswing. Other threads talk about the 9/12 commissions (TEA baggers) being Republicans with a sour grapes attitude and a complex against the fact that they lost the plotical fight... the organization I belong to is 47 strong, and as of last night included 9 full-blown, card carrying Democrats, a few of whom who couldn't care less about the taxes, or the health cre bill, or anything... they are adding their voice to those who want something done about the economy. A better economy, in my not so humble opinion, would normally involve... uh... well, I don't know, but not this. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
A better economy would probably involve higher employment and better real wages, to start. I'm not a good enough economist to know if protective tariffs would help, but I suspect they would; also higher quality in domestic goods would help as well, so that folks wouldn't feel that they were being cheated every time they bought an American car, for example, and lost money on the resale value and had the thing fall apart pre-maturely. A proud and loyal market shouldn't be treated like a market of suckers, as we were for so many years by Detroit. I'd rather buy American, all other things being equal. Decent pay for decent work is a pretty good ideal, I've always felt. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
In addition, the Bush tax cuts lost the country money. About 25 cents for each dollar of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy vanished out of the economy. Not only did we give the Wealthy folks huge tax cuts, but it cost us billions and billions and billions of dollars to do so; much of which we were silly enough to borrow from China, and which we must now pay back to China with interest. Of the money we actually gave to the super wealthy, we lost 25% of it because it never went back into the economy. The references are the ones I cited above. Please feel free to check them out. Of the money that we have given to the lower income folks under Presidenrt Obama, the country actually makes it back plus about 20% added to the economy in the first year. Lower income folks, apparently actually spend the money, and keep it in circulation. They're a much better economic policy investment for this sort of thing when the tax rates aren't up around the 80% level and higher for the super rich, as they were in the late 50s and early 60s. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'd rather buy American, all other things being equal. Me, too, Bob. Problem is that all other things are not equal, such as price and quality. So when Bush gave tax cuts, it didn't help the economy because people saved it but, when Obama give tax cuts, it helps the economy, because people spend it. Got it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Although that’s correct Mike it isn’t the whole story, the tax cuts under Bush also reduced revenue more and therefore increased the deficit more than Obama’s cuts. But I’m glad you’ve finally ‘got it’. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I 'got it', alright. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And for the rest of the story, Obama's spending has produced the largest projected deficits in history. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The whole story Denise? According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office the 2009 deficit was projected to be $1.2 trillion on January 7, 2009 – that’s the last estimate before Obama took office. Are you blaming Obama for the debt he inherited Denise? Perhaps you’re only blaming him for the debt he’s added, but that would be a little harsh bearing in mind that he’s had the biggest recession in recent history to deal with and yet he’s still managed to add less to the deficit than Bush and Reagan. Could you expand on your claim, with some figures perhaps? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If that's sarcasm I detect, Mike, you may not have gotten it at all. Perhaps you think that The Tax Cuts were supposed to help the economy in some other way. I've never quite understood how. But since you apparently understand enough to be able to be sarcastic about my explanation, perhaps you could give me the official Rerpublican Party explanation, which you may believe is somehow different than the one I ventured? I'm waiting with bated breath. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I didn't say it was the whole story, Grinch, and I don't blame him for any deficit that he inherited. Where did I say that? I blame him for the debt that he is recklessly creating since he took office. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/ |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I need a reference for comparison Denise. How does Obama compare with other Presidents? Has Obama added more to the deficit than, say, Bush? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The link I provided has a graph going back to 2000. *spelling correction* [This message has been edited by Denise (04-18-2010 07:52 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And this article has statistics comparing Reagan's deficits with Obama's deficits: quote: http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/04/08/commentary/op-eds/doc49dc346bbf48d283993706 .txt |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Interesting information on the Other 95 group: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/04/18/is-the-obama-administration-behind-an-astroturf-anti-tea-party-website/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, well, well....whodathunkit? Thanks, Denise |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If Cass Sunstein's actions are as described in the Salon article, they are indeed quite underhanded and deserve any criticism you'd care to level in that direction. You may not have read the actual Salon article in its entirety, and I would suggest that it would be worth your while to do so. The actions were upsetting when George Bush tried them with us, and they remain equally upsetting now. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're welcome, Michael. Yes, Bob, I read it. Thanks. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Is there a reason that your example is comparing the added deficit for Reagan and the total deficit for Obama Denise. That seems a little unfair, if not downright misleading. If you actually compare like for like Reagan added 22.5% of GDP to the deficit, Bush added 28.8 and Obama has added 12%. quote: You can rest easy Bob, the article is another conspiracy theory with about as much credibility and accuracy as all that Death Panel garbage. Mike brought this up a while back: /pip/Forum6/HTML/001914.html#000004 I posted a link to the original paper by Sunstein: /pip/Forum8/HTML/000953.html A not half bad paper, although I’ve got some issues with it it’s definitely not what the wingnut conspiracy theorists in the article are making it out to be. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't know Grinch. It says 'increased by' a certain percentage in both instances. Can you show me where it is counting only the added deficit for Reagan and the total deficit for Obama? Sunstein's paper seems to me to be characterized correctly by Salon and Redstate. He is setting forth possible ways that the government can counter what it considers conspiracy theories, and the pros and cons of each possible approach. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Certainly Denise. quote: Can you see the deficit figure that they claim Obama inherited? $400 billion. That’s the difference, or deficit, between what was spent on the budget and what was accrued by tax revenue. That deficit is added to the rolling national debt figure – in this case giving a total of $2.3 trillion and a cumulative total of 12.3 trillion. To calculate the cumulative deficit over a given period you need to take the initial national debt figure and deduct it from the final national debt figure. That’ll give you the total deficit added to the national debt over that given period. In 1989/90 that was 2.3 trillion In 2008/2009 that was 2.3 trillion In 2009/2010 that was 2.1 trillion It’s not quite as simple as that but it’s sufficient to explain why this: quote: Is complete twaddle. quote: Yes he is Denise, albeit in a different context but that’s a fair summation of what he discusses in his paper. Now where’s the evidence that that’s what’s happening and that Obama is behind anti-tea party websites? Where’s the video Denise? [This message has been edited by Grinch (04-19-2010 07:21 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm not a mathematician so I'll have to study your explanation of the figures to see if I can make sense of it. The articles said that it was a possiblity that the administration is behind it based on the thoughts and words of one of his chief advisors. It's certainly not a stretch to consider it a possibility and doesn't rise to the level of conspircacy, in my opinion. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Advisors are supposed to write papers that explore possible courses of action, and even advocate for some of them. Herman Kahn famously wrote a paper on the survivability of nuclear war, not because it was something that was a great thing to try to do, but because it was an avenue that needed to be thought about and explored for The Rand Corporation. Nobody ever tried to act on Kahn's speculations; though it was apparently bruited about by some idiots during occasional administrations, wiser heads decided that initiating a nuclear exchange would essentially be suicidal for everybody concerned. These papers frequently fall under the banner of intellectual exploration of alternatives. Sometimes they may be taken up, often they are not. Mr. Sunstein's proposals were designed to deal with propaganda assaults on the government. Mr. Sunstein was apparently fairly accurate in predicting the sort of accusations and assaults that would be directed at the government from misinformed or duplicitous sources. His ability to predict this sort of assault is unfortunate, among other reasons because it proved to be accurate. It laid out possible courses of action for the government to take to counter these attacks. Because the options are there does not mean that they were taken by this administration. Nor does it mean they were not. I have no idea. Perhaps the Radical Right feels the administration should not avail itself of legal methods of defending both its perception of the truth and its reputation. I would like to register my strong disagreement with this point of view, especially since I see none of the more contemptible pieces of the law, such as The PATRIOT Act being brought into play here against our citizens. Nor do I hear reports of wire-taps and other measures being used against them, such as that Act would allow. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s not your fault Denise – it’s mine. I edited and re-edited my post trying to make it more understandable but, as usually happens, the more I edited the more convoluted it got. I’ll have another go at a more reader friendly version and post it later today. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, Here’s take two, I’ve come at it from a different angle and tried to remove references to specific figures. The article claims that the Deficit is bigger under Obama than it’s ever been. To work out if that’s true you need to define what the deficit actually is, the problem is that there are more ways to work it out than there are economists telling you how to do it. The standard definition is that it’s the difference between what’s budgeted to be spent and revenue – what’s earned, does that sound about right? You’d think so, but you’d be wrong. You see there’s a whole heap of spending that’s classified as ‘off-budget’, that doesn’t mean it’s not spent, it’s simply not calculated in some versions of the deficit that get put out by economists. What you end up with is a whole bunch of differing figures that purport to be ‘the deficit’, some don’t include the off-budget figures, some include some of them and almost none include all of them. That’s really handy to know if you want to make an administration look bad or good, you can pick a low deficit figure for your own guy and a really high one for the poor beggar you’re attacking. That’s what the article did, it compared apples with oranges and end up with a melon. Fortunately there’s a really easy way to work out the true spending deficit – including all off-budget items and compare apples with apples. All you need to do is look at the national debt figure year on year, if you take the 2009 national debt figure from the national debt figure for 2008 you get the total debt - the real deficit figure - that was added in 2009. You can do that for any year you like and when you do it’s clear that Bush and Reagan added more debt (had bigger real deficits) than Obama has so far accrued. I hope that explains my point a little better Denise, and I apologise for making a hash of explaining it earlier. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks for the attempt at explaining it, Grinch. Still not sure I'm undersstanding it. Do you mean that you subtract the 2008 debt from 2009 debt, and that gives you the current deficit? How would that relate to this graph from the CBO? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: In a nutshell – yes. If you owe $10 in 2008 and £15 in 2009 the true deficit that you’ve accrued in that period is $5 – you’ve, in effect, spent $5 more than you earned, regardless of the amount you spent or earned. The CBO graph you posted? The easy answer is that it isn’t a CBO graph at all, it’s a graph compiled from two sources, one for the pre-Obama deficit and one for the post-Obama deficit, and in this case it looks like the two sources are using a different calculation to obtain the deficit – they’re comparing apples and oranges. Hope that helps . |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
