How Did Obama and House Republicans Frame the Health Care Debate?

[Gokul43201]

The risk, however, is that the spending is very likely to occur but the GDP numbers come from an iffy macroeconomic forecast.

Well, the debt numbers are based not only on spending, but also on revenues, which are a strong function of GDP. So the GDP forecast is already built into the plot with the absolute numbers. The error bars (not shown, of course) will naturally increase in the fractional debt plot, and I see that risk. But in any case, the whole thing carries a somewhat restricted, but not unuseful message to me, since it relies on predicting spending, revenues and economic growth assuming that there are no changes (beyond those promised today) in fiscal policy over the next ten years. When was the last time that happened?

 

[mheslep]

Odd! Your numbers look a little different from mine, even though we're using the same source. In any case, it's a minor point, not worth any prolonged argument.

I ran only 00-08, you've got 99-09 in your link, plus in bar vs line they change the scaling. Change those and they match.

 

[WhoWee]

Is it really so hard to understand that there are times when spending is necessary? Ironic considering that under Clinton, it was the Republicans who were defending deficit spending when we didn't even need it! Yes, we barely avoided a depression. We barely avoided a collapse of the financial systems. We need to avoid the Japanese model of sustained stagnation. What was the latest report on growth, 6%, I believe. One year ago, the number was more like an average 6% loss in GDP.

Republicans [one year ago] - 6% negative growth
Democrats [today] - 6% positive growth

Job losses when Obama took over ~ 700,000 per month
Job losses today ~ 70,000 per month - one-tenth as much - with one short-term gain in the last quarter.

Hmmmmm... And if the GDP grows, as can be seen by the stable level of debt after WWII, the fraction of debt decreases.

Here is another Republican misrepresentation for you. Every Republican pundit and talk radio nut will point to the debt without ever referencing the debt as a fraction of the GDP. The fact is that we are barely any worse off than when Clinton first took office...from the Republicans [actually we are better off in terms of public debt only] From there, our debt ratio decreased under Clinton.

Oh my, the sky is falling... or maybe not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

All of this fuss about Obama and his spending is over nothing more than a slight uptick on the graph. 2001-2009 was brought to you by the Republicans. Much of the previous debt [as a fraction of GDP] was brought to you by the Republicans. In fact, some of the debt Obama has to include was money not included in the budget by Republicans. For example, much of the cost of the war was deferred to the next Admin. Also, the prescription drug plan was unfunded. Yet the Republicans never mention this. Instead, they constantly try to deceive the public by tagging Obama with this debt responsibility.

Here is an interesting fact about Dems vs Reps: The only President since WWII who significantly decreased the debt directly, was Clinton - a Democrat.

It seems to me that the report card on the Republicans and their economic philosophies is in. They get a big fat F. I once bought into their failed models and theories, but no more. Enough is enough! Quit terrorizing the public with wild claims in order to further a failed philosophical agenda.

There are times when we need conservative solutions, and others when we need liberal solutions. Ideologues need not apply. Long live the pragmatists!

Ivan, you need to extend your charts out about 10 years to appreciate Obama's massive spending. Then just for fun, look at the projections for social security, medicare, and medicaid over the next 10 decades. Spin it any way you like, but long term we are in BIG trouble.