If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   The coolest 2011 federal budget infographic you've seen all day   (nytimes.com) divider line 112
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

7531 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2010 at 11:51 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-01 07:40:33 PM  
Why does Obama hate the poor without insurance? Obama must hate them Obama is proposing an 11.2 % cut to Medicaid. It does seem Obama hates the unemployed even more if they try to hold on to their insurance Obama wants Cobra assistance slashed by 63.8%. Even the children do not escape his grasp if he can not have his way on universal care; the children's health insurance program even takes a hit.
 
2010-02-01 07:43:01 PM  
I'll take the amount in the smallest box please. Who would miss it?
 
2010-02-01 07:57:19 PM  
$1.4 billion for those matchbox cars with the car window blacked out one the package so you can't see what matchbox car you're buying?

GET ME SOME TEA
 
2010-02-01 07:59:34 PM  
"Crime victims' fund" is expanding by 659%.


So now we'll be robbing more people.
 
2010-02-01 08:43:58 PM  
Commerce and Housing, lower right corner: $-13,412 million.

So they're paying us?
 
2010-02-01 08:50:57 PM  
Good, cut medicaid and special education.
 
2010-02-01 10:14:19 PM  
Hit the 'Hide Mandatory Spending' button. See everything that's still showing Republicans? That is what is allowed to be cut in the budget process. Could someone tell me what the biggest single item there is?
 
2010-02-01 10:33:21 PM  
GAT_00: Hit the 'Hide Mandatory Spending' button. See everything that's still showing Republicans? That is what is allowed to be cut in the budget process. Could someone tell me what the biggest single item there is?

National Defense?

/No, I'm NOT a Republican.
 
2010-02-01 10:36:24 PM  
AirForceVet: National Defense?

/No, I'm NOT a Republican.


Oh yeah, I know. You're one of the people Farkied in my 'Always good to read' color.
 
2010-02-01 11:40:19 PM  
They just went ahead and included health care reform legislation deficit reductions in the budget.
So much for it being dead in the water.

/Scott Brown, democratic trojan horse throws his head back and whinnies.
 
2010-02-01 11:42:58 PM  
GAT_00: Hit the 'Hide Mandatory Spending' button. See everything that's still showing Republicans? That is what is allowed to be cut in the budget process. Could someone tell me what the biggest single item there is?

You're working under the assumption that most Republicans nowadays are living in the realm of facts. Sadly, mainstream Repubs would rather preserve a talking point than come to grips with the truth. So they'll just find a new way of blaming the hole on socialism and welfare, even if they've had their own time as a charity case, like a Craig T. Nelson.

/Fortunately, there are exceptions to the rule.
//Has had too many of these discussions to be optimistic.
 
2010-02-01 11:44:50 PM  
We are so farked.

\not cuz of Obama
\\because raising taxes has become the third rail of American politics
\\\and you could cut the entire discretionary nonmilitary budget and we'd still have a deficit
 
2010-02-01 11:46:36 PM  
It's like the entire world is upside-down. :(

I'm always reminded of the bumper sticker I have seen for over 20 years now:

Wouldn't it be great if our schools had all the money they need and the Pentagon had to throw a bake sale to buy a missile?

:(
 
2010-02-01 11:52:53 PM  
elchip: because raising taxes has become the third rail of American politics

And I'm stealing that line.
 
2010-02-01 11:55:01 PM  
Subby must have misplaced the sad tag.
 
2010-02-02 12:01:19 AM  
BlippityBleep: Subby must have misplaced the sad tag.

Well, the chart was cool, but its story wasn't.

/Not subby....
 
2010-02-02 12:01:24 AM  
33% more in interest payments from 2010 to 2011. Way to go!
 
2010-02-02 12:03:42 AM  
Some of the % changes on the smaller boxes are interesting.

The big boxes make me sad.
 
2010-02-02 12:05:09 AM  
soy_bomb: 33% more in interest payments from 2010 to 2011. Way to go!

To be fair, many a president has been increasing said interest payments. Hard to pin on any particular one.
 
2010-02-02 12:06:57 AM  
Sigh...friggin medicare, national defense, and social security. Three greatest money pits in our nations history.
 
2010-02-02 12:07:44 AM  
Sigh...friggin medicare, national defense, and social security. Three greatest money pits in our nation's history.
 
2010-02-02 12:08:20 AM  
ju66l3r: It's like the entire world is upside-down. :(

I'm always reminded of the bumper sticker I have seen for over 20 years now:

Wouldn't it be great if our schools had all the money they need and the Pentagon had to throw a bake sale to buy a missile?

:(


Yeah and let the Russians destroy the schools? Get real, commie.
 
2010-02-02 12:12:58 AM  
I don't see where the cool tag came from. There's no way the Government should have that much of our money.

And then they thought they would add the Obamacare money pit to the others?

Puuuuhhhhlease...
 
2010-02-02 12:21:52 AM  
Fantastic Graphic.

I had no idea your FBI, government R&D, and Dept of Energy were all rolled into your national defense budget.

Makes sense
 
2010-02-02 12:22:54 AM  
Unemployment Insurance drops by 47%? Once we all give up, we get lumped into another category, or what?
 
2010-02-02 12:23:18 AM  
Regardless of the implications of the shifting numbers, it's indeed a cool graphic.

i15.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-02 12:23:59 AM  
GAT_00: Hit the 'Hide Mandatory Spending' button. See everything that's still showing Republicans? That is what is allowed to be cut in the budget process. Could someone tell me what the biggest single item there is?

As much as it should happen, it isn't going to. At least not well into the 2020s. The political climate doesn't favor it, people think the war on terror is something sustainable and worth pouring billions into. Any politician who dares suggest that we cut spending in the military will be seen as weak and enabling our enemies.

I mean look at the whole health care debate. Something that could of had the potential to help everyone in the country, turned into complete horseshiat with a few fabricated lies. Now imagine public reactions after you propose cutting the military budget.
 
2010-02-02 12:28:10 AM  
AR55:

I mean look at the whole health care debate. Something that could of had the potential to help everyone in the country, turned into complete horseshiat with a few fabricated lies. Now imagine public reactions after you propose cutting the military budget.


"Turrists are sexin ur daughters and abortin ur fetuses whilst hijacking jimmie johnson allowing teh ghey rainbow warrior to win"

do I win?
 
2010-02-02 12:28:54 AM  
Oh, Net interest. How you slowly nom increasing swaths of our budget.
 
2010-02-02 12:32:43 AM  
Now, wanna have fun? Close your eyes and click randomly on the graphic. What are the odds, statistically speaking, that you will click NASA's allocation?

Yeah, I'm blogging this tomorrow.
 
2010-02-02 12:37:57 AM  
Wow. This puts the whole whargarbl of "They're spending too much on X" in perspective. (I'm looking at you high speed rail)
 
2010-02-02 12:38:30 AM  
Hey neat where's your education funding? Oh there it is...wait....*zoom*....yea, there it is.
 
2010-02-02 12:40:06 AM  
Defense spending can and should be cut in half or more, but even if you eliminated it entirely you're still looking at several hundred billion dollar deficits.

Now what?

Until entitlement spending is dramatically reduced, the demographics of those obligations are going to bankrupt us. Freezing the budgets of agencies such as the USGS makes no difference to the overall budget situation, and only makes it tougher for the few areas of the federal government that actually do something productive.

And I love how they call it "mandatory" spending. What twisted logic describes student loans as mandatory, but the federal judiciary as discretionary?
 
2010-02-02 12:44:59 AM  
wow, that is really cool. I've never seen that before.
 
2010-02-02 12:46:19 AM  
We should totally end Medicare and Social Security immediately. I mean, who's gonna complain? Old people? Blind people? Mental retards? We could kick their asses EASY.
 
2010-02-02 12:51:48 AM  
CitizenTed: We should totally end Medicare and Social Security immediately. I mean, who's gonna complain? Old people? Blind people? Mental retards? We could kick their asses EASY.

That's easy, until the Baby Boomers start Civil War II: Electric We're-Pissed-And-Off-Our-Meds Boogaloo. At that point, I'm emigrating to Canada.
 
2010-02-02 12:59:50 AM  
skandalus: CitizenTed: We should totally end Medicare and Social Security immediately. I mean, who's gonna complain? Old people? Blind people? Mental retards? We could kick their asses EASY.

That's easy, until the Baby Boomers start Civil War II: Electric We're-Pissed-And-Off-Our-Meds Boogaloo. At that point, I'm emigrating to Canada.


Just ask them to tell you about the time they dropped acid and saw Hendrix at the Monterey Pop Festival back in '67. Then, while they drone on and on and on, swipe their cane out from under them and use it to beat their artificial hips.
 
2010-02-02 01:04:07 AM  
Peace Corp gets an additional $500 million while $400 million is cut from Rural Development Programs. Priorities seem to be out of whack to me.


Also, I didn't see how much more we are spending on signs telling us that ARRA brought us a shiny new park.


Snarky comments aside, that site is really cool
 
2010-02-02 01:13:24 AM  
BretMavrik
"Defense" spending (in which you really mean military spending) needs to be cut for sure.

Entitlements also need to be beaten down.

Social security is just a monster that won't stop growing. We need to decrease benefits and increase the collection age. It needs to be a safety net, not a retirement plan.

Our medical system as a whole needs a lot of work. We pay considerably more than most modern countries for medical care, and generally don't do as well as them when it comes to health. We pay more, get less. You can see this broken system reflected in the massive green block in the upper center.

We need to stop spending money we don't have. Our national debt is already too high.

Outside of all of that we need to get more realistic tax levels. We need to roll back our completely failed Reaganomics.
 
2010-02-02 01:23:16 AM  
RIDETHEWALRUS: Peace Corp gets an additional $500 million while $400 million is cut from Rural Development Programs. Priorities seem to be out of whack to me.

yeah, I'd like to know why that is.
 
2010-02-02 01:23:46 AM  
AR55: GAT_00: Hit the 'Hide Mandatory Spending' button. See everything that's still showing Republicans? That is what is allowed to be cut in the budget process. Could someone tell me what the biggest single item there is?

As much as it should happen, it isn't going to. At least not well into the 2020s. The political climate doesn't favor it, people think the war on terror is something sustainable and worth pouring billions into. Any politician who dares suggest that we cut spending in the military will be seen as weak and enabling our enemies.


Dude, the deficit for 2011 is $1.27 trillion. You could eliminate the entirety of the National Defense rectangle ($738 billion), bankrupt every defense contractor, make all the military and their families live in cardboard boxes down by the river, and you would still have a $532 billion deficit. We will never attack the structural problems in our spending until Democrats pull their heads out of their butts and address the "mandatory" spending categories which are only going to increase. Hell, just the interest alone is forecast to consume 15% of the entire budget by 2020. If you want to get spending under control, you have to address the spending in the "mandatory" categories.
 
2010-02-02 01:26:56 AM  
Xetal: Social security is just a monster that won't stop growing. We need to decrease benefits and increase the collection age. It needs to be a safety net, not a retirement plan.

I read something today saying Obama had designs to do something to help Americans invest and plan better for retirement. I only skimmed the article and cannot remember any details beyond that vague description.

I'm wondering if he's planning to scale SS down after implementing that idea should he serve a second term.
 
2010-02-02 01:28:48 AM  
Alien Robot: We will never attack the structural problems in our spending until Democrats pull their heads out of their butts and address the "mandatory" spending categories which are only going to increase

Spoken like a true one-dimensional Repub shill.
 
2010-02-02 01:29:14 AM  
cretinbob: Wow. This puts the whole whargarbl of "They're spending too much on X" in perspective. (I'm looking at you high speed rail)

That's like the teenage daughter trying to defend her $100 in texting overcharges this month by pointing at the $2500 mortgage payment. Any wasted spending is wasted and probably could be put to better use, no matter how small.
 
2010-02-02 01:31:33 AM  
Alien Robot: AR55: GAT_00: Hit the 'Hide Mandatory Spending' button. See everything that's still showing Republicans? That is what is allowed to be cut in the budget process. Could someone tell me what the biggest single item there is?

As much as it should happen, it isn't going to. At least not well into the 2020s. The political climate doesn't favor it, people think the war on terror is something sustainable and worth pouring billions into. Any politician who dares suggest that we cut spending in the military will be seen as weak and enabling our enemies.

Dude, the deficit for 2011 is $1.27 trillion. You could eliminate the entirety of the National Defense rectangle ($738 billion), bankrupt every defense contractor, make all the military and their families live in cardboard boxes down by the river, and you would still have a $532 billion deficit. We will never attack the structural problems in our spending until Democrats pull their heads out of their butts and address the "mandatory" spending categories which are only going to increase. Hell, just the interest alone is forecast to consume 15% of the entire budget by 2020. If you want to get spending under control, you have to address the spending in the "mandatory" categories.


I realize they are going to increase, but people support them and they are popular programs. Eliminating social spending is even more unlikely than military spending, so I don't understand how you plan on doing it. Short of political suicide and possibly revolt, eliminating social expenditures is a task that will most likely never occur.
 
2010-02-02 01:37:08 AM  
whidbey: Alien Robot: We will never attack the structural problems in our spending until Democrats pull their heads out of their butts and address the "mandatory" spending categories which are only going to increase

Spoken like a true one-dimensional Repub shill.


And notice how you knee-jerked to a personal attack on the messenger and didn't dispute the facts. The facts are as I said, eliminate ALL defense spending and you are still left with a half-trillion dollars or so in deficit spending which continues to send the debt load ever higher. You cannot begin to reduce the debt without addressing the "mandatory" spending categories. Your blindness to this just validates what I said.
 
2010-02-02 01:43:02 AM  
Alien Robot: Your blindness to this just validates what I said.

I'm not the one blind (in your case willingly) to the travesty of the past 8 years.

The fact you conveniently leave out the failures of the so-called "fiscal" Bush years is more than telling.

Too convenient, really.
 
2010-02-02 01:48:06 AM  
AR55: Eliminating social spending is even more unlikely than military spending, so I don't understand how you plan on doing it.

I assume just as the one side is not going to "eliminate" defense spending, no one on the other side is planning on "eliminating" spending on social programs. Both areas need substantial trimming of fat and waste. And as I have said, the problem will no go away until the issue of the "madatory" spending categories is addressed.

Just as "Nixon was the only one who could go to China" President Obama is the one who should address starting the process of trimming social programs. If he were to begin to cut social programs, then he could credibly ask for equal or larger cuts in defense and national security while winding down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
2010-02-02 01:51:46 AM  
Alien Robot: Just as "Nixon was the only one who could go to China" President Obama is the one who should address starting the process of trimming social programs.

What a load of crap.

About what I expect from you. Something negative, and always directed at Democrats.

Republicans are saints to you. So saintly, you claim to have never voted for one, I predict.
 
2010-02-02 01:52:41 AM  
whidbey: The fact you conveniently leave out the failures of the so-called "fiscal" Bush years is more than telling.

"B-b-b-but Bush!" Dude, Obama is President now. Deal with reality. Unless Obama has a time machine to go back in time and alter history, what Bush did is immaterial to dealing with present and future spending. What's done is done and you can't change it.
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report