There is no doubt that federal spending and the federal deficit have gone up dramatically during the period in question, but the graphs seriously exaggerate the rate of acceleration in two ways. First, and most obviously, they present nominal dollars and not dollars adjusted for inflation ("real" dollars).
Second, the graphs are linear, whereas to get a realistic sense of degree of acceleration one needs logarithmic graphs. Thus, in the first graph, each horizontal line represents spending one trillion dollars more than the next lower line, and the space dividing each pair of lines is identical. As a result, an increase from four trillion to eight trillion looks four times greater than an increase from one trillion to two trillion, even though each is a doubling. A logorithmic graph would flatten the curve, so that an increase from one trillion to two trillion and an increase from four trillion to eight trillion would show a change in height of equal size. It gives a much more accurate sense of the rate of change than a linear chart.
The NY Times isn't worth the bandwidth ncessary to comment on it. But it wouldn's surprise me if Trump tries to enact these cuts unilaterally without Congress approving anything.
The graphs leave out the most salient point: Payment on interest for the debt now exceeds the entire Defense Department budget.
This, I think is the tipping point. It is a fact every American who has grappled with credit card debt can understand, so it ought to be easy to explain why Americans should care about cutting spending RIGHT NOW.
Those with personal wealth kindled by "King Dollar" all these years should consider what happens to their wealth when the US can no longer project military power or repay their social security and medicare taxes at retirement.
Hear, hear!!
There is no doubt that federal spending and the federal deficit have gone up dramatically during the period in question, but the graphs seriously exaggerate the rate of acceleration in two ways. First, and most obviously, they present nominal dollars and not dollars adjusted for inflation ("real" dollars).
Second, the graphs are linear, whereas to get a realistic sense of degree of acceleration one needs logarithmic graphs. Thus, in the first graph, each horizontal line represents spending one trillion dollars more than the next lower line, and the space dividing each pair of lines is identical. As a result, an increase from four trillion to eight trillion looks four times greater than an increase from one trillion to two trillion, even though each is a doubling. A logorithmic graph would flatten the curve, so that an increase from one trillion to two trillion and an increase from four trillion to eight trillion would show a change in height of equal size. It gives a much more accurate sense of the rate of change than a linear chart.
The NY Times isn't worth the bandwidth ncessary to comment on it. But it wouldn's surprise me if Trump tries to enact these cuts unilaterally without Congress approving anything.
I hear you. I keep up with the NYT mostly just because I want to stay up to date with what the Left is up to.
And thanks to you and Paul and others like you I can keep up with it without reading their rags. So thanks.
We aim to please (mostly, anyway)!
The graphs leave out the most salient point: Payment on interest for the debt now exceeds the entire Defense Department budget.
This, I think is the tipping point. It is a fact every American who has grappled with credit card debt can understand, so it ought to be easy to explain why Americans should care about cutting spending RIGHT NOW.
Those with personal wealth kindled by "King Dollar" all these years should consider what happens to their wealth when the US can no longer project military power or repay their social security and medicare taxes at retirement.
Good points, all of them.