So?

Yep, that's quite a fact you've found there subby.

I'll give you 100% of a shiny nickel if you can tell me what your point (or TFA's point) is.

Scary? Do you want the recession to end or not?

the entire federal budget, as submitted by President Clinton in 1996 through 1999, was smaller than the budget deficit that Obama is proposing for next year.

Wow. Just wow.

KaponoFor3: the entire federal budget, as submitted by President Clinton in 1996 through 1999, was smaller than the budget deficit that Obama is proposing for next year.

Wow. Just wow.

Strange that he doesn't mention what the deficit is.

From the link he provided you get this:

# 1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
# 1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
# 1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
# 1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

Which would be $6.6 trillion for the budgets from 1996. So Obama's deficit is larger than $6.6 trillion?

Rev.K: Strange that he doesn't mention what the deficit is.

Perhaps you are reading it incorrectly -- it seems like the guy is saying that the highest federal budget that was submitted between 1996 and 1999 by Clinton is smaller than the budget deficit Obama is claiming, not that all the budgets combined are smaller than the deficit.

If that's what he meant (and I think he did, cause Obama isn't saying the deficit is larger than 6.6 trillion), he said it in a rather inartful way.

KaponoFor3: Perhaps you are reading it incorrectly -- it seems like the guy is saying that the highest federal budget that was submitted between 1996 and 1999 by Clinton is smaller than the budget deficit Obama is claiming, not that all the budgets combined are smaller than the deficit.

Yes, that would make sense, but he definitely stated it in a confusing way.

Rev.K: Yes, that would make sense, but he definitely stated it in a confusing way.

A good writer, he is not.

Obama's total budget is $3.6 trillion, which works out at $34,000 per household; median household income is about $50,000. Which basically means that for every dollar that a US household earns, the US government plans to spend 68 cents next year. And the ten-year T-bond still yields less than 3%. Extraordinary.

Did this guy just compare an average to a median? Really? I think that's the extraordinary part...

KyngNothing: Did this guy just compare an average to a median?

Yep, but there is a reason: inequality skews the figures and the mean would be higher than the median and wouldn't reflect a real 'average'. For example, the mean household income in 2004 was $60,528, while the median was $43,389.

februarymakeup: I'll give you 100% of a shiny nickel if you can tell me what your point (or TFA's point) is.

I liked this as a summary of the budget. It's not meant to argue if Obama's right or not. The yield on T-bonds (as mentioned at the end) is what I care about most. I find it puzzling. But it wouldn't have made a very good headline.

/subby
//can I has shiny nickel now?

Two quarters, a dime, a nickel, and three pennies. That's change, all right.

it's till tiny compared to the new deal.

That's a false stat. They are comparing median income to federal budget per person. That's just a completely wrong way of calculating it.

The federal budget next year is around 4 trillion, right? And our economy is somewhere around 12 or 13 trillion. So it's about 1/3.

Jaboobinator: Scary? Do you want the recession to end or not?

Because recessions don't end without increasing government spending?

DamnYankees: That's a false stat. They are comparing median income to federal budget per person.

Nope. FTA: Obama's total budget is $3.6 trillion, which works out at $34,000 per household; median household income is about $50,000.

It's average compared to the median, as KyngNothing said.

filth: Jaboobinator: Scary? Do you want the recession to end or not?

Because recessions don't end without increasing government spending?

i've heard that the only thing that stops a recession is tax cuts and vague speeches about the american dream.

Last One Left: It's average compared to the median, as KyngNothing said.

Still doesn't change my point. You can't compare mean to median. It's dishonest.

That was some really bad logic in that article.

KaponoFor3: If that's what he meant (and I think he did, cause Obama isn't saying the deficit is larger than 6.6 trillion), he said it in a rather inartful way.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that was what he meant, but then why did he just link to the budget numbers? Why not give us Clinton's budget deficits to prove it. Plus he used Clinton's second term, which of course has the much smaller debt.

filth: Jaboobinator: Scary? Do you want the recession to end or not?

Because recessions don't end without increasing government spending?


Properly structured, a Keynesian program of counter-cyclical spending can help to check a downward economic spiral. Monetary policy appears to be inadequate in this case.

DamnYankees: Still doesn't change my point. You can't compare mean to median. It's dishonest.

In general, yes. But not in this case, as I explained before. The median household income is what statisticians use as a representative of an average household. There's nothing wrong with choosing one of the three averages (mean, median or mode) depending on the situation, especially if the mean is skewed right-ward.

Also, how does one define a median budget payment?

Last One Left: The median household income is what statisticians use as a representative of an average household. There's nothing wrong with choosing one of the three averages (mean, median or mode) depending on the situation, especially if the mean is skewed right-ward.

Also, how does one define a median budget payment?

You don't. You compare mean income to mean budget payment. Or you just take the totals and divide. But comparing mean and median is literally meaningless. It doesn't tell you what you are measuring at all. That 34K per househould doesn't mean anything. It's a pretty random fraction.

DamnYankees: That 34K per househould doesn't mean anything. It's a pretty random fraction.

It means the representative household is paying 34k of the budget. You can compare averages this way. It's rather common.

Last One Left: It means the representative household is paying 34k of the budget. You can compare averages this way. It's rather common.

No. It doesn't mean that because taxes don't work that way. You might as well look at the budget per yellow lab.

Sybarite: filth: Jaboobinator: Scary? Do you want the recession to end or not?

Because recessions don't end without increasing government spending?

Properly structured, a Keynesian program of counter-cyclical spending can help to check a downward economic spiral.

This. Look up Keynesian economics. The real question to be asked is why Bush (and others before him) ran huge deficits (along with loose monetary policy) while the economy was supposedly so strong.

Not only does it quicken the arrival and magnitude of the recession, it leaves the government with nowhere to go but further into deficit when the recession hits. It's the practical flaw with Keynesian economics: Governments have to be disciplined enough to run surpluses in good times.

To my surprise, the Canadian government did a pretty good job of this (a bigger surprise is it was a Liberal gov't that did it). The Canadian gov't is just now switching from years of surpluses into deficits, as it should be. Of course we have limited control over our economic destiny because of our massive trade with US and globalization in general, but at least our government and monetary policy is in decent fiscal shape.

Last One Left: DamnYankees: Still doesn't change my point. You can't compare mean to median. It's dishonest.

In general, yes. But not in this case, as I explained before. The median household income is what statisticians use as a representative of an average household. There's nothing wrong with choosing one of the three averages (mean, median or mode) depending on the situation, especially if the mean is skewed right-ward.

Also, how does one define a median budget payment?

I think my biggest problem with it was that he said

Big number/number of households = this much per household.

Then divided the median by that, to get a percent.

Even saying "each household's share of the federal budget is 34k" is not bad, this implies that the federal budget is 68% of all personal income, which is demonstratably false...

Last One Left: It means the representative household is paying 34k of the budget. You can compare averages this way. It's rather common.

When you're saying the "representative household is paying 34k of the budget" you're actually saying the mean budget payment is 34k.

The mean household income is what you should compare to the mean household budget payment.

Using a different number because it's lower would be intellectually dishonest. Using a different number randomly is very poor statistical analysis. So, which is it?

Here's the thing about buying things you don't need (Iraq War, 3 Trillian+ and counting).

You still have to pay for them.

In this case it's like you let your teenager max out your credit card. You can't blame the parent for mailing a lot of money to pay it off.

absoluteparanoia

but they would have totally said something if the debt hit $5T under bush. totally.

DamnYankees: Last One Left: It's average compared to the median, as KyngNothing said.

Still doesn't change my point. You can't compare mean to median. It's dishonest.

Just for that, I'm going to compare it to mode.

Snarfangel: Just for that, I'm going to compare it to mode.

Dude, I've seen the new 'mode and it's awesome. (new window) That is a completely unfair comparison.

ITT: B*tching about taxes

DamnYankees: No. It doesn't mean that because taxes don't work that way.

Really? You can easily calculate the budget as a function of the tax rate, but it doesn't tell you much; it compares expense with income.

Dust: When you're saying the "representative household is paying 34k of the budget" you're actually saying the mean budget payment is 34k.

A statistical representative does not have to be the mean. Under a normal bell curve, mean = median = mode. The household income is skewed to the right, which is why statisticians prefer to use the median. Here's Wiki on it and the relevant quote:
The median income is considered by many statisticians to be a better indicator than the average household income as it is not dramatically affected by unusually high or low values.

I'm not sure why this is confusing to people; the average doesn't always have to be the mean and you can compare mean with median, median with mode, and mode with mean, depending on the SD and variance.

KyngNothing: Then divided the median by that, to get a percent.

He doesn't actually believe each and every household will be paying that; it's a way of showing what the burden is.

Obama will add about $6-7 Trillion to the debt in his first term.

Libs justifying this in their tiny little minds by saying b-b-but Bush does not make it right.

His promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term is also a joke. That's really easy when you pass $800 billion spending bills one year, but not the next, but I suppose it sounds good.

Last One Left: Really? You can easily calculate the budget as a function of the tax rate, but it doesn't tell you much; it compares expense with income.

No it doesn't. You can't compare median income to mean debt. Imagine this:

There are three people. They have salaries of 20K, 30K, and 1.45M. They each have a debt of half their salary.

Would it have any meaning to say the debt to income ratio is over 8 to 1, since the average debt is 250K and the median income is 30K?

It's a realy dishonest way of phrasing the issue.

tchamber: So?

Ah, the American voter speaks.

tchamber: So?

QFT.

To re-emphasize: So?

Snarfangel: mode

I don't know what to think about this idea On the one hand, I don't like budgets, but on the other I do like icecream. What kind of toppings are you proposing?

/hungry

I am just going to give up working and go on welfare. seems the better end of the deal at the moment.

Thank you Dickhead Cheney and the rest of his administration.

/in the ass with a piece of glass

whidbey: ITT: B*tching about taxes

I don't oppose all taxes. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to are dumb taxes.

Last One Left: DamnYankees: No. It doesn't mean that because taxes don't work that way.

Really? You can easily calculate the budget as a function of the tax rate, but it doesn't tell you much; it compares expense with income.

Dust: When you're saying the "representative household is paying 34k of the budget" you're actually saying the mean budget payment is 34k.

A statistical representative does not have to be the mean. Under a normal bell curve, mean = median = mode. The household income is skewed to the right, which is why statisticians prefer to use the median. Here's Wiki on it and the relevant quote:
The median income is considered by many statisticians to be a better indicator than the average household income as it is not dramatically affected by unusually high or low values.

I'm not sure why this is confusing to people; the average doesn't always have to be the mean and you can compare mean with median, median with mode, and mode with mean, depending on the SD and variance.

KyngNothing: Then divided the median by that, to get a percent.

He doesn't actually believe each and every household will be paying that; it's a way of showing what the burden is.

You know what, I don't even have a problem showing what the "budget per household" is next to the mean, median, whatever household income. But dividing the two, and calling it a percent, then making the headline above, is incredibly disingenuous.

Let's say median income is $50. Let's say the mean is $75, and the budget is $25 per household. ASSUMING there are no other sources of income, let's say there are 100 households (I'm an engineer, I like easy math).

The total income is $7,500. To get this headline, the author took $2500, and divided by $5000, (whoa, .5!) instead of $7500 (meh, .33) .

I understand what you're "trying to show", but you're using incorrect math to do it...

Last One Left:
He doesn't actually believe each and every household will be paying that; it's a way of showing what the burden is.

ie: it's a random stat that is no more meaningful than how many times the budget will wrap around the earth

Can anyone give me a ride to Galt's Gulch?

DamnYankees: Last One Left: It's average compared to the median, as KyngNothing said.

Still doesn't change my point. You can't compare mean to median. It's dishonest.

You sort of can, but not in this stupid comparison. The whole freaking thing is dishonest. You can't divide up the debt evenly because each "household" will be paying at a different rate depending on their income.

So? You gotta spend money to make money.

pnjunction: Look up Keynesian economics. The real question to be asked is why Bush (and others before him) ran huge deficits (along with loose monetary policy) while the economy was supposedly so strong.

Because Keynesianisim ignores several inconvenient aspects of reality. Keynesianisim expects the government to run surpluses during good times and deficit spend during recessions/depressions.

If the government runs deficits regardless for the health of the economy, the theory doesn't help/doesn't work. We have run deficits for nearly the last 50 years. The government does not cut back on spending during good times, that is reality, damming Keynesianisim to the pile of bad ideas.

I don't believe Keynesianisim is viable period, but just for the sake of the argument I'm pretending it is here.

Snarfangel: What I am opposed to are dumb taxes.

I'd love to see a list...

There was a book out about 15 years ago about government waste, can't recall the title. Interesting food for thought, though. Yes, it was probably written by a disgruntled (ex-)Republican...

But would we actually agree on what constitutes "dumb taxes?"

You're not going to complain about 3 million spent on bears, are you? ;)

Why is the deficit even bad? Mosler says that is isn't at all.

KaponoFor3: Wow. Just wow. I preferred my war costs hidden from me.



Why?