The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label trickle-down. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trickle-down. Show all posts

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Trumponomics: "America We Have A Budget Problem"

Image result for trump failed economic planMake no mistake. Trump/Ryan's Budget (tax plan) is a dead give-away to the nation's wealthier top 20 percent. You and I both know we have been down this path before and it is path of sure doom over time: Reaganomics.  

Even when separated by less drastic supply-side administrations, and when coupled with a banking blunder via the Clinton administration, Reagan's Trickle-down proved to be a disastrous economic strategy. Of course, Bush "Dubya" era non-regulation and two wars helped to level the nation to its economic knees. Nonetheless, we shouldn't underestimate to lack of leadership acumen inherent in Donald Trump. He is a walking case of ineptitude who serves as a figurehead for much more sinister people (e.g., Bannon, and his economic team).

Take a deep look at Trump/Ryan's Trumponomics.

Since most of you didn't spend but a quick glance at the graphic, you should know the Trump/Ryan Plan includes a $2 Trillion dollar lie. Some are calling the "lie" a math mistake. I shudder to that assertion with a great deal of indifference and non-belief.

On another front, the lying Budget Director Mulvaney ran up against South Carolina's fiscal conservative Mark Sanford and was summarily labeled the bearer of a "lie" regarding potential 3% GDP as a benefit of Trumponomics. 
Sanford To Mulvaney (3:33 Minutes)

The Big Lie!

Before we leave this post, take a glance at one of Trump's absolute "nut job" cabinet.  

Did you vote for this mess?


Wednesday, May 24, 2017

The Daily GOP Ignominious: Trumponomics (Trump/Ryan Budget)

Roughly 60% of Discretionary spending on military/defense.
Two points:

A. Definitions:  Mandatory Vs. Discretionary Spending
2015 Video

B. Defense Sending Top 10 militarized nations

The two points identify and delineate the ridiculousness of a Trump/Ryan Budget including 59% of Discretionary Spending.

All said who wins and who losses via TrumpRyan? 

The LA Times (Link)
Image result for trump fy 2018 budget proposal

Medicaid Cuts?

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget 

The President’s FY 2018 skinny budget details the Trump Administration’s plans for appropriations in the upcoming fiscal year but little else. The budget would maintain the overall spending limits for FY 2018 but repeal the defense sequester while shifting all of those cuts to non-defense discretionary spending. 
It is encouraging that President Trump proposes to pay for most new spending in this budget with detailed proposals to cut spending elsewhere. We are disappointed the budget does not apply this principle in full to proposed supplemental spending, and we hope going forward the President will be as insistent on offsets as he is on spending increases.  
Unfortunately, the budget does not include any proposals on mandatory spending or revenue and does not include any proposals or projections beyond 2018. In this sense, this budget ignores the 70 percent of spending that is responsible for 90 percent of spending growth over the next decade and tells us nothing about how the Administration will address the nation’s unsustainably rising national debt. 
The Administration can rectify this lack of detail by putting out more proposals in the coming weeks and releasing their fuller budget as quickly as possible. Until a budget plan is proposed and agreed to, legislative changes with major fiscal implications should be avoided. 
The fiscal situation requires that Presidents' budgets set a course for putting debt on a sustainable path, and the Trump Administration should present policies to get us there.
Now for a few quick graphics.

Image result for BK analysis of Trump FY2018 budget

If you prefer the quick look at the data via a bar graph.....

Related image

We are awaiting today's CBO scoring of the Trump/Ryan Bill (AKA Trumponomics).  It is important tot note Medicaid pays about 70% of the cost of our elderly who are interned in nursing homes. Another critical item is Trumponomics is simply Reaganomics on steriods (e.g., Trickle-down supply side economics to the max). 

While we awaiting the scoring take a look at seven campaign promises forsaken by the Trump/Ryan economc terrorists.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Trump Tax Plan? Trickle-Down Again (Video)

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, meme and text

Pacific Standard Mag

The IMF Confirms That ‘Trickle-Down’ Economics Is, Indeed, a Joke

Like, a literal joke.

“money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy.”
American humorist Will Rogers, who mocked President Herbert Hoover’s Depression-era recovery efforts, saying that “money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy.” 
At the center of Reagan’s economic doctrine was the idea that economic gains primarily benefiting the wealthy — investors, businesses, entrepreneurs, and the like — will “trickle-down” to poorer members of society, creating new opportunities for the economically disadvantaged to attain a better standard of living. Prosperity for the rich leads to prosperity for all, the logic goes, so let’s hurry up with those tax cuts already.....
Read More (Linked above)

This past January the nation embarked on a tightrope experience of Trump as the 45th President of the nation.  In addition to many promises which equal the carnival barking lies of any cheap traveling carnival, he focused on a couple of promises which carry real danger for the nation. One such promise was the tried and failed Republican paradigm of promulgating tax policies which without question favor wealthy Americans and corporations. While many suspected the worse in a Trump tax plan, It appears Trump and his economic ministers have surprised even their cohorts among the GOP members of Congress.

As Trump was being inaugurated, a few social media and print media sources published articles based on their knowledge of Trump's spoken components of a tax reduction plan. One consideration is certain. I don't believe anyone forecast Trump proposing a tax rate of 15% for taxpayers and corporations.

January 2017

Janaury 2017 Center For Budget Policy Priorities

Trump Tax Plan Gives Big Tax Cut to the Top

House Republican "Better Way" Tax Plan Gives Big Tax Cut to the Top
Ugly, eh? 

Three months later and with Trump's cherish 100-day barometer, Trump has released his tax plan.  Yet, he hasn't released his past taxes for pubic review as has all presidents (back) through Richard Nixon.

Well, here it is (see video below). Trump's tax plan and I will wager not one surprise for those who don't trust Republicans with the US economy. I will also wager there is no surprise Trump's tax plan offers a form of neo-Trickle down (Supply Side) policy which favors the wealthy tax proposal provisions. What should surprise is the audacity to propose such reduced tax rates at a time when it seems Trump is chopping at the bits to engage US forces in wars? Do you recall The George W. Bush Great Recession formula for wrecking the US economy (after Bill Clinton)? The formula was:
1. reduced financial regulation. (Clinton and Bush): Sub-Prime Bubble
2. major tax cuts.
3. two Bush wars. 
The economic world changed as the Bush Bubble came falling down like Bush in the stands at the China Olympics (totally inebriated).

Trump's economic ministers

For those who abstained for viewing the 28-minute video, Kevin Drum developed a piece for Mother Jones with a basic (non-detailed) opinion review. No one has complete details of Trump's tax plan but Drum captured enough of the plan for validation of another trickle-down on steroids plan.

Trump Tax Plan Unveiled
There's a little more than you see in the tweet above:
Three tax brackets instead of seven. However, there's no telling how this affects taxes until Steve Mnuchin tells us where the cutoff points are.
Doubles the personal exemption from $12,000 to $24,000. This will help middle-class families, but it's a little hard to know how much it will help them until we get details on....
Elimination of itemized deductions. Which ones? All of them? Good luck with that. But you can be sure that one of the targets will be the deduction for state income taxes, since that mostly benefits the hated blue states of California and New York.
Elimination of the estate tax. A huge boon for the super-duper rich.
Elimination of the AMT. A huge boon for the rich.
Elimination of Obamacare's 3.8 percent tax on investment. A huge boon for the rich.
Reduce business tax rate to 15 percent. A huge boon for corporations and the rich, especially those with income from pass-through businesses. Apparently Mnuchin doesn't care that Senate rules make this almost literally unpassable.
Tax repatriation holiday. A huge boon for corporations and the rich.
Territorial taxation system for corporations. There's no telling what effect this would have. There are good territorial systems and bad ones. It's all in the details—though it's a pretty good guess that Trump will opt for one of the bad ones.
The driving force behind this appears to be Trump's desire to call this the biggest tax cut in American history. 

As one would expect, CNN loaded its afternoon programming with enough panel members to embarrass an Arkansas farmers chicken coup Another expectation would find a discredited Right Wing economic shill, Steven Moore, sitting on the panel ready to spew GOP talking points (AKA political bull crap). The session ended with another economic contributor taking Moore's Trump facilitation to task. Link.

MMFA on Moore and CNN's poor decision to place him on their shows.

The man is a class facilitator of bad economics.

MSNBC's AIi Velshi also devoted air time to a Republican carry a pail of Trump B/S.  Link.

I digress...back to Trump's tax plan.

We have a president sitting atop a party (while occupying the White House) who has never shown a propensity for caring about Americans who earn less than millions per year. He has surrounded himself with both billionaires (certain advisers and cabinet members) who can't fathom life in America without a country club membership. Actually, I would be surprised if joining Trump's Cabinet came with a prerequisite for membership at Mar-A-Lago.

If you believe Trump and company will propose a tax plan which will be fair and equitable across the economic income strata, you are a Trump enabler.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Taxation When It Doesn't Trickle-Down

"This post was first published on"
Images independent of the article and garnered via Google

Conspicuous Consumption

expenditure on or consumption of luxuries on a lavish scale in an attempt to enhance one's prestige.
"an age of increasing conspicuous consumption"
Poor Pope Benedict. The current issue of Time magazine, highlights four “ways the pope is cleaning house,” and labels the pope emeritus the “Prada pope” for his “lavish apartment” and “custom red shoes.” Elsewhere, the Huffington Post mentions Benedict’s “luxury cars” that “included a custom-made Renault, a BMW X5, and a Mercedes.” The context is Pope Francis arriving at Castel Gandolfo in…a Ford Focus.
A far less Papal view
 Image result for trump gold rooms Image result for trump gold rooms Image result for trump gold rooms
 " Staff."

Why We Should Tax Conspicuous Consumption

October 27, 2016 by

This post first appeared on

As part of our election series focusing on the issues that aren't getting the attention they deserve in campaign 2016, we talked with Cornell University economist Robert H. Frank about how to address growing income inequality in the United States.

Economist Robert Frank is arguably the country’s leading expert on wretched excess.

Over the course of a four-decade career as a distinguished academic (he has written several college textbooks, including one with former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke), the Cornell University professor has developed a curious subspeciality: Studying the lifestyles of the filthy rich and spectacularly successful.

His anthropological field guides to life among the extremely affluent, including Luxury Fever and his recently published Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, have led him to one conclusion: The 1 percent are a problem. But not necessarily for the reasons you might think.

The reason the nation’s wealthiest have become a menace to the commonweal, Frank has concluded, is not because of how much more they make than the rest of us. It’s how much more they spend.

For a society that has consumers (as opposed to private investment or the government) to thank for two-thirds of all its spending, that considers the Consumer Confidence Index a key measure of economic health, what Frank has to say might be regarded as unconventional, if not downright heresy. He prefers the term “radical pragmatism.”

It boils down to this: Scrap the income tax.

It’s not that Frank is a dour socialist who wants to completely level the playing field. Let the rich have their baubles, he said. Just impose reasonable limits, and keep the rest to make investments that will benefit everyone.

“Who’s happier? A guy driving a $300,000 Ferrari on roads riddled with foot-deep potholes, or somebody driving a $150,000 Porsche 911 Turbo on well-maintained roads?” reasoned the professor, whose reed-thin physique suggests a long-distance runner, but who described himself as an unredeemed “car buff.”

Ultimately, given the advances in technology that is replacing humans in even complex jobs, Frank said in an interview with, the next president may want to consider an even more radical method of sharing the wealth: A guaranteed income and a broad public works program that would subsidize displaced workers to take on socially useful tasks like planting green spaces, transporting the frail elderly and assisting in day care centers.

To Frank, the real source of the middle-class squeeze and much of the anger in the year’s presidential campaign, is both a matter of hard facts and human psychology.

The facts are that globalization and technology have promoted “winner-take-all” economies in which “winners” are able to completely shut out people and companies whose skills (or luck) and products are just marginally less than their own. That has led to “an enormous concentration of economic rewards,” Frank said.

The psychology is that when we humans have it, we like to flaunt it. Among the super-wealthy, Frank said, has triggered a “spending cascade” that forces people further down the income ladder to work more and more hours or go deeper and deeper into debt to keep pace. Call it trickle-down consumerism.

Whatever you do, just don’t call it keeping up with the Joneses on steroids. Frank finds that too judgmental. The reason the median family is spending 50 to 75 percent more to buy a house that's at least 50 percent bigger than the ones they bought in 1970, or proud parents are spending more than three times as much on weddings than they did in 1980, Frank says, has less to do with envy or status-seeking than what he calls “context.”

To explain, Frank recalls a house he lived in when he was a young Peace Corps volunteer in rural Nepal. It had two rooms, no plumbing and no electricity. “Never once during the two years I lived in that house did it ever occur to me for an instant that the house was unsatisfactory in any way,” he said.

But he acknowledges, “if I lived in a house like that in Ithaca,” his home town in upstate New York, “it would have been shameful… a clear signal that I’d failed in some spectacular way to meet even the minimal expectations of society.”

Yes, on one hand, what Frank is describing is classic peer pressure. “There’s a sense in which people are a prisoner of what others do," he said. But, he added, the consequences of not meeting the minimal expectations of society can be very real: “The better schools are located in the neighborhoods where the houses are more expensive," he said. So middle-class families “bid up the prices, of course, in the better school districts.”

But if he believes “you can’t escape context,” Franks also is convinced that “it’s a problem we can solve politically.”

How his proposed “ steeply progressive consumption tax” would work: Taxpayers would report to the IRS how much they made and how much they saved. The difference is their consumption. Frank envisions a “big standard deduction, say $30,000 for a family of four” that would mean “people in the bottom half and slightly above would pay no more tax than they do under the current system."

“Once your consumption goes beyond a certain point, though," he said, "the rates begin rising." How much? “Let me not frighten you,” Frank hesitated, evidently forgetting his context (speaking to a journalist). “But I’ll say, suppose it were 100 percent for people consuming already $5 million a year or more, what would that mean?”

It would mean the $1 million yacht might cost the purchasers $2 million. Or the $10 million New York City penthouse suddenly gets a price tag of $20 million. Frank doesn’t think it will stop luxury spending. But, he predicted, “By making additional purchases for people at the top of the ladder much more expensive, that would steer money out of those purchases and into savings and investment.”

In 1980, Frank said, the average expenditure for a wedding was $10,000; last year, $31,000. “Nobody thinks the people getting married who are spending $31,000 are happier,” he said. “In fact there’s some evidence that they are less happy because the extra debt they take on creates problems for them.”

It’s not that he’s looking to put florists out of business, but Frank argued, “florists and gratuitously expensive weddings aren’t inherently a better form of employment than people planning landscaping in public spaces. There are lots of things we could do that would generate employment that I think people would value more highly.”

Top on his list: Improved infrastructure. Noting that the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates the cost of the overdue maintenance at $3.6 trillion, he said that should be the top of the nation’s agenda.

Further down the road, Frank said, the next president may need to focus on growing “concern that new advances in AI — artificial intelligence — are putting people out of work who never thought they’d be automated out of their jobs.” As an example, he cited radiologists. That’s causing economists like him to have doubts about whether the labor market will continue to create enough new jobs to replace the ones that innovation destroys.
“We’ve started to hear now even conservatives calling cautiously for a basic income guarantee,” said Frank, who recommends that it be “too small to [allow people to live] wholly at taxpayer expense,” but able to be supplemented with low-income jobs “in the old tradition of public works employment.”

"A good life can never be had with just private consumption,” he said. “You need good schools, you need good roads, you need safety features to keep people from harm. And those expenditures contribute to well-being too.”

Frank doesn’t expect his recommendations to come to fruition overnight. “This is not a natural way for people to think about things,” he said. But, he noted, other once-unthinkable things, such as a tax on carbon consumption and legalized gay marriage, gained rapid acceptance once they had gathered momentum. “Things happen incrementally until they don’t,” said Frank. “Revolutions, when they come, are never widely predicted.”


Monday, October 5, 2015

Tax Cuts? The Trickle-down Gift To The Wealthy

Your GOP will never cease to provide wealthy garnering tax breaks to the nation;s wealthy.  Sad tax relief for the nation's Top !% means trickle-down economics hell for the rest of the nation.

Connect The Dots USA offers a picture of that the GOP wishes you would simply not view.

October 3, 2015

Most folks are surprised to learn that before Reagan starting slashing tax rates in 1982, income in the top bracket was taxed at 70% and before that, 91%! What does this mean? In 1956 under Eisenhower, for example, any amount over $400,000, which equals $3.5 million in today’s dollars, was taxed at a 91% rate for a married couple. So if you had the equivalent of $4.5 million in taxable income, you paid $910,000 in taxes on that last million and anywhere from 50% to 90% on the amounts over $276,000 in today’s dollars. 

With the tax act of January 2013, any taxable income over $457,601 married is now taxed at only 39.6% (up from a decade of 35%). And if you get your money from capital gains dividends, you pay at most a 20% income tax rate. As we see, the overwhelming majority of tax cuts have been skewed to the super-rich. Our measly tax cuts are just so we’ll carry the water and make the argument for the billionaire bonus cuts.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Healthcare Premiums "Skyrocketing" Due To Obamacare?

Watchout for the GOP Carnival Barkers!

Do you ever hear members of Congress speak about how the Affordable Care Act will cause medical premiums to "skyrocket." 

Boehner's website

“Internal cost estimates from 17 of the nation’s largest insurance companies indicate that health insurance premiums will grow an average of 100 percent under Obamacare,” reported the Washington Examiner. “[S]ome will soar more than 400 percent, crushing the administration's goal of affordability.”
Premiums will "skyrocket!"    Has the GOP just come from under a rock?  Do they not realize that high information people are aware of the history of health insurance premiums over the past 45 plus years? The chart below highlights the need for curving healthcare cost; it also shows how during the early 1980s health premium cost skyrocketed.

 Image linked

We cannot locate a chart related to income disparity as a result of GOP economic policy (trickle-down or supply side economics, if you prefer) that goes back to the 1960s.  But, there is little to go back 45 plus years.  As stated above the premium chart above. In the early 1980s healthcare premiums took-off.  Well take a look at the following chart at what other economic phenomenon took off in the early 1980s.

Which Political party was in the Oval Office in the early 1980s?  Better yet, which President was in office effective January, 1981? Yes, you are correct! The Father of Modern-day Conservatism: Ronald Reagan.

Some Republicans have claimed the law is responsible for "whopping" premium increases, but they have misrepresented the facts in the process. For example:
  • House Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner said premiums will "skyrocket" because of the law, citing a report on rising premiums by the Kaiser Family Foundation. But the Kaiser report covered increases that took effect before the law was signed.
  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell points to a news story about a Washington insurance provider that blamed premium increases on the health care law. But the state insurance commissioner says the increase had "absolutely nothing to do with health care reform," and the insurance company later admitted the law is only partly at fault.
  • Both politicians refer to premiums for new plans on the individual market, where only about 6 percent of those with insurance now get their coverage.
House Republican Leader John Boehner, the presumptive House speaker in the next Congress, issued a press release Sept. 7 that highlighted a Seattle Times story about “whopping” rate increases in Washington state and a report on rising premiums by the Kaiser Family Foundation as evidence rates will “skyrocket” because of the new federal law. But his examples are bogus. 
Boehner, Sept. 7: [B] etween reports from the Kaiser Family Foundation and theSeattle Times indicating that health care costs will skyrocket under ObamaCare, the Democrats’ claims that their government takeover of health care will make health insurance more affordable doesn’t pass the straight-faced test. 
Not true. The Kaiser report gave absolutely no indication that “health care costs will skyrocket under ObamaCare.” It found that premiums for families with employer-sponsored health care plans rose a modest 3 percent in 2010, but workers’ share of the cost jumped 14 percent as companies shifted health care costs to employees during the recession. None of those increases had anything to do with the new federal law. The Kaiser report was the result of an annual survey of more than 3,000 companies that was conducted between January and May of 2010 — before the mandated changes in health care coverage went into effect on Sept. 23. In fact, these increases reported by employers took effect before the law was even signed. 
Furthermore, the Seattle Times story refers to the Washington state increases that we’ve already mentioned. They have less to do with the new federal law than they do with trends in the health care industry. 
Boehner and McConnell aren’t the only Republicans making inflated claims of this sort. GOP Rep. David L. Camp of Michigan sent out a press release with the headline: “Democrats’ Health Care Law to Sharply Increase Premiums — by as Much as 20 Percent Next Year.” But the Sept. 8 release concedes that the increases were only “in part” because of the law.
Read More linked in title above

Five Affordable Care Act Facts

1. Obamacare's '80/20' rule has led to nearly $4 billion in savings

2. 'Obamacare' has extended the life of Medicare by 10 years

3. Number of uninsured Americans down to 4 year low due to 'Obamacare'

4. The Affordable Care Act, 'Obamacare,' has saved seniors $4.5 billion

5. States that refuse to expand Medicaid will lose over $8 billion

If you want to know the truth behind GOP obstruction of existing law, do a little research on political contributions. Also, note if you click the links below, the Chamber of Commerce is a GOP local business hub and nothing more.

How Congress Voted 2010

Lobbying by industry

When all said and done, what would the GOP do to keep healthcare premiums from "skyrocketing?"

Friday, August 16, 2013

Growing Plutocracy, Income Inequality and zFacts (Voodoo Economics Video & Slides)

We often posit about the nation's growing income disparity, economic policy and Republican false mantra of fiscal conservatism. We also remind of how the GOP manages the nation's economy like a boulder thrown in the Colorado River.

"Facts are stubborn things." Ronald Reagan

Take a look at Reagan "Supply-Side Economics" (AKA "Trickel-Down")

zFacts Dot Com provided an intriguing look at how this all came about. 

The US Economy via zFacts Last Updated March 2013

National Debt / Voodoo Economics Video & Slides

This slide show explains why the Republican debt is $12 Trillion when calculated by the balanced-budget standard that Republicans prefer, but only $9.2 Trillion by economic standards. It also explains some about why the debt went out of control, and when debt is good and when it's bad.

  Click here  ^  for Next Slide. ^ for Full Screen

Here's a short version that only cover the economic approach, where the debt came from and the boom caused by the WWI debt.
            Click here  ^  for Next Slide. ^ for Full Screen
This video also uses the economic approach (not the Republican's balanced-budget approach) to calculating the Republican debt.

For the "high information" citizens of the United States the previous data is no surprise. Unfortunately, there is a large swatch of people in the nation who vote to place Republicans in high office without regard for empirical data that flags the GOP as "dangerous for American."

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

A Quondam View to the Past, Series II: Ronald Wilson Reagan's Legacy Part IV.

Preliminary Comment:

This screed also relates to current GOP candidates grabbing the coattail of a former president who has been cast by the GOP as their 'model' president.  As is always the case, people can find graphs which can take the Reagan years and spin them very differently then the illustrations (chart, graphs, and tables) I have posted in the article.  As a matter of example, while seeking information for this piece, I ran across a few charts which illustrate Reagan's lack of domestic spending. Those charts were 'micro' to the 'macro' point of this screed, so I did not post the charts here.  In fact, Reagan's lack of domestic spending led to more questions about his astronomical level of spending: obviously the preponderance of spending was foreign spending. So, President Reagan held true to form and true to the GOP paradigm of less domestic spending. 

A few words about charts, graphs, and illustrations. The first two visual aides are sometimes frowned upon and avoided as they tap into the need to visualize massages from images.   I managed to avoid illustrations in  the first three parts of this series; the word "fiscal" in and of itself requires use of tools that show patterns, trends and historical perspective. 

Part IV: The Fallacy of  a Fiscal Conservative

Part IV of the Quondam View of the Part Series II relates to a presidential legacy that is shrouded in exultant levels of conservative worship by those who seek the perfect political model.  As I have discussed in the previous (three) Parts of this series, Ronald Reagan gave the nation major accomplishments in international affairs; he also gave the nation decades of economic suffering which the lingers today. 

I assert that Ronald Reagan was far from a fiscal conservative.   I will support my premise with basic charts, tables and illustrations. Some of the following visual aides may appear redundant.  My experience is a chart for one does not mean a chart for all.  Based on our learning and visual orientation, the same data when depicted by two types of charts are sometimes necessary to make a point or deliver a message.

I assert that Ronald Reagan was far from a fiscal conservative.   I will support my premise with basic charts, tables and illustrations. Some of the following visual aides may appear redundant.  My experience is a chart for one does not mean a chart for all.  Based on our learning and visual orientation, the same data when depicted by two types of charts are sometimes necessary to make a point or deliver a message.

Let's start with a famous Ronald Reagan's quote: "facts are stubborn things." Well, yes and let's take a look.

The Debt

We are living with a national debt and deficit that is completely obscene (and growing).  While, some use the power of our short-term thinking to lay "SPENDING" on our current president, facts sit in archives which may address some reasons for Obama's spending.  I will close series Part IV with further comment about Obama's spending as he certainly has contributed to the path to indebtedness.

I. Office of the Democratic Leader       Source: Treasury Dept. Data