Comments on: Besides That?, Mr. Hinderaker, how did you like the chart?

By: djw

djw — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:28:28 +0000

What’s remarkable is that they as much as admit they’re just instrumentally looking for a way to present the data that supports their preferred version of events. There is really nothing quite like powerline.

By: cavjam

cavjam — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:45:18 +0000

Seems to me the only line trending down is labeled “net interest”. I’m assuming that that is not net interest in hearing a Bush Speech, but net interest paid on the debt.

Could that be because the Clinton surplus carried over into the beginning of BushCo? Could that be because Greenspan, after arbitrarily jacking them up pre-2000 election, lowered interest rates to an absurdly low level, ostensibly to avoid a deep recession caused by his jacking up interest rates? Ya think maybe this year, and next year, and the year after that, and the yuear after that, etc. ad nauseam, that line may turn a bit upward?

By: Major Woody

Major Woody — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:29:42 +0000

Oh, c’mon now! That chart is pretty clear. If you add up all the percentages, they add up to 100, just like they did during the Clinton years. The total percentage of Federal spending, indeed, has stayed constant. Bravo, Bush!

By: GuinnessGuy

GuinnessGuy — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:28:28 +0000

Brilliant argument. If Canada had the requirement for a large blue-water navy, large air-force and decent-sized-but-high-tech ground force, then they’d probably invest in such a thing. As it stands, they don’t, and we do (kind of). Can someone put up that “apples and oranges” visual aid please.

By: Timmah420

Timmah420 — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:50:26 +0000

Yeah, someone in a conservative forum today told me today that Canada’s ecomomy, healcare, low pre-mature death rate ect. was totally irrelevant because our military wasn’t up to snuff…
That was his whole argument.

By: yagi

yagi — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:24:36 +0000

I also fail to see how additional ‘defense’ spending is automatically assumed to be a good thing. It’s great if you’re a defense contractor, but not so great if you’re a taxpayer or Iraqi.

Also interesting to note that spending on Social Security appears relatively flat.

By: Uncle Mike

Uncle Mike — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:01:02 +0000

Look! Bush spends less than Reagan!

Nice benchmark you got there.

By: optimus prime

optimus prime — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:48:18 +0000

Funny how most of those lines are trending upwards. And how convenient that it stops at 2004.

By: Pinko Punko

Pinko Punko — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 04:59:31 +0000

whew, she’s on there, just not in the “about us” pile.

By: MikeyC

MikeyC — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 04:59:02 +0000

Hmmm… and I wonder what the chart for inflation-adjusted revenues would look like? Reducing taxes to Eisenhower-level proportion of the economy without touching major spending… nope, doesn’t affect the deficit at all!

By: Pinko Punko

Pinko Punko — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 04:58:45 +0000

Unrelated observation: has MJ’ been scrubbed from the internet? PeePo is no more and has been replaced by a Marie-free Conservative Voice. Was she a figment of our imagination?