50 years of government spending in one graph

mexicanninja · 10 days

Maher didn't invent that phrase. And the phrase properly only applies to the federal government; "we" spend more public money on education than on security. But it is a wonderful summary of federal government.

drdro123 · 19 days

Although you've already found your mark, it's worth noting that a "fairly well-known graphic novel" "set in a sleazy apartment building" also describes a book sometimes called "the first graphic novel": A Contract with God, and Other Tenement Stories by Will Eisner.

LordGussio · 21 days

Misery loves company?

nilstycho · 27 days

I don't understand. Are you implying that because I support Obama's reelection, I am his uncritical cheerleader? That would be both incorrect, and, more importantly, against the charter of this subreddit.

nilstycho · 27 days

I am a reader of the economist and I support Romney over Obama.

One of us will be happy in November. :-)

As far as who is more aligned with the economist's views, I would say that romney is more connected with the libertarian free market view that the economist believes in.

Exactly! This is the 10,000-foot view of the situation that makes me worry about The Economist endorsing Romney. But if you read at what they have to say about Obama's specific policies, they agree with him surprisingly often. And Romney is currently throwing around socially conservative, anti-science, and populist ideas, which do not always align with the liberal, free-market view of The Economist.

That was what made me decide to start this spreadsheet.

I remember a few issues ago, they were very critical of the dodd-frank act, having written a whole briefing on it and its flaws.

Indeed, you will find it already cited on the spreadsheet. Note that they stop short of saying that it should be repealed; I picked the most damning quote from the article, which was that the "risk [that Dodd-Frank is not worth the cost] is ever more apparent". Romney's plan, according to The Economist, is to replace it "with a new, unspecified framework", which is meaningless unless he gives more specifics. (Which, indeed, he might in the coming months.)

Incidentally, if you can give me any specific citations of the Economist's endorsements of Romney's specific policy proposals, I would be very thankful. That's exactly the sort of thing I want to include.

nilstycho · 29 days

Understood. Thanks.

nilstycho · 29 days

I've read probably 80% of the United States coverage in The Economist for the past five years or so. I think your summation of it is oversimplified. They have expressed numerous concerns about Romney, and their support for his "stances on business" are often qualified. I've tried to list most of The Economist's measurable hot-button issues, but additions are welcome.

nilstycho · 29 days

Unless our structural employment issues are resolved, there is a good chance The Economist might be receptive to Romney's pitch. He speaks their language and has that air of practical centrism they tend to go for in endorsements.

Yes, I agree.

nilstycho · 29 days

Oh good. Please do feel free to green up Romney's column. I promise I won't stomp anything with a good source.

nilstycho · 29 days

There, I gave Romney a big, fat green one based on a column written just a week ago. :-)

edit: In fact, I decided it was big enough to split into three green ones: reform of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. At least, I think they're green; they get faint praise, like "plausible". And I've added a few more greens for Romney and reds for Obama.

nilstycho · 29 days

Honestly, the part I disliked is that you'd clearly worked extensively to source the pro-Obama stuff and seemed to have put almost zero effort into sourcing any of the Romney stuff. A lot of it isn't even things Romney said, just "X Says the Republicans Think Y" stuff.

I used to have more columns (one for congressional Republicans), and then decided that wasn't useful, and dropped it. I didn't want to put too much work into the Romney column before I knew for sure he would be the nominee. The "Republican" things that are there now are basically placeholders/reminders that that might be something to look for later. It's very much a scratchpad at the moment; I don't want to imply otherwise.

No offense intended at all, but if you can so thoroughly and accurately source Obama's statements and the Economist's statements, it seems a little bit strange to me that you can't find a single green statement for Romney across all of the Economist's viewpoints - excepting "believes in Evolution".

It's not that I can't, it's that I haven't. This is very preliminary. Look at how many blank rows there are.

I'm positive they've made statements Obama was wrong on and Romney supports.

Yes! Please add them! Or even just tell me if you have ideas. :-)

It's actually a bit tricky to find The Economist's approval and disapproval of Romney's concrete proposed policies, partly because Romney hasn't been terribly specific thus far. I expect that situation to improve markedly in the coming months.

nilstycho · 29 days

Yeah, I understand the concern. I was debating it myself. On the one hand, it's asking for an army. On the other hand, it's not asking for a personal army. I think there's a critical difference, and I don't see a rule or guideline against recruiting political activists. The guidelines here seem to be loose: essentially politics conducted with civility. There isn't a self-post prohibition or anything like that.

In the end, I asked myself if I would want to see posts like this in /r/mp. I decided I would. If somebody made the same post for a different candidate, I'd be genuinely interested to see what they had to say. I might even contribute something.

If you disagree, sorry, I understand. Downvote away.

nilstycho · 1 month

Recondite? Abstruse? Hermetic?

AMV · 1 month

Probably not it, but it reminded me of Bradbury's "There Will Come Soft Rains".

kfbaal · 1 month

I know they had a ton of tile problems that delayed the launch of STS-1, but I'd guess you're thinking of STS-27. Here's a terrifying picture of the landing.

kfbaal · 1 month

16 tiles lost and 148 damaged. I think they were all on the belly and the OMS. You can see missing tiles on this higher-resolution photo of the landing, if you compare it with that picture of the OMS pods.

topaz_riles_bird · 1 month

Observation 1. Nearly everyone who proposes a flat tax actually means a flat rate tax, not a flat tax. A flat tax would be everyone pays the same amount which runs into serious problems if that amount turns out to be more than some people have.

This is not correct. A flat tax is indeed a constant marginal rate tax. A "same gross amount" tax is a kind of a fixed tax, usually called a head tax or poll tax.

renaldomoon · 1 month

How about a search for "campaign finance" at Google Scholar?

leviself · 1 month

I have the book The Visual Miscellaneum by McCandless. It's awful. It contains textbook examples of how not to do infographics.

claird · 1 month

That's true; I guess that comparison does make some sense in terms of cost effectiveness. But I think it was brought up in terms of safety, where I maintain that a mission failure rate is more relevant.

I note that the authors has updated the article, adding: "a flight failure rate of 1.5%". Credit to her.

claird · 1 month

#1 is also incorrect. They forgot to include the "passengers during flight" qualifier. Also, using a "vehicular failure rate" instead of a mission failure rate is ridiculous.

LoRiMyErS · 1 month

The final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark is in turn a reference to the final scene of Citizen Kane. (If you haven't watched Citizen Kane, beware: the final scene contains perhaps the most famous spoiler of all time.)

SporkGladiator · 1 month

WITHIN THE CIRCLE OF CIRCLES YOU NOW DWELL. YOU EVERYWHERE ARE.

earstwiley · 1 month

The national debt represents money that we have already borrowed (and spent). Raising the debt ceiling allows us to borrow additional money.

It is theoretically possible for us to not borrow any additional money (i.e. not operate at a deficit) starting, say, tomorrow. We would do this by only spending money that we gain through taxation. If we pay our most important obligations first (such as interest on the national debt, and so-called mandatory spending like Social Security and Medicare) then we would have to severely and immediately cut discretionary spending (such as Defense, Transportation, and Health and Human Services). Most people outside the Tea Party believe this would be really stupid.

If Congress really wants to fight debt, they have to do it before the spend the money.

Ultimately, the government will have to operate at a surplus if we want to pay down the debt. However, most people believe it isn't possible to do that overnight, and shouldn't be done without at least one of the following solutions: (1) increase revenue (i.e. taxes) and (2) reduce mandatory spending. In order to do either of those things, Congress would have to pass a law. Suddenly failing to raise the debt ceiling without doing either of those things is widely thought to be really stupid.

I'm all for reducing spending (we pretty much have to), but didn't the Republicans essentially play chicken with a necessary national obligation?

I guess this starts to enter the realm of personal opinion, but: yes.

nilstycho

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login