On the money

Now even Money magazine, that radical hotbed of liberalism (not) is weighing on the reckless spending and effect of continued tax-cutting. Unless the president and the Republican-controlled Congress demonstrate some fiscal restraint, and soon, the magazine reports, the effects will reverberate for generations.

Says on financial analyst:

"This is like running up a credit card debt and asking our kids to pay for it in the future -- it's fiscal child abuse."

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal deficit will reach a percentage of the gross domestic product not witnessed since the Reagan administration.

And this would be conservative in what way?

[It’s worth noting that all those green bars indicating surplus: Yep, those are Clinton years.]

Comments

[Lindsay]

OK, so the four green bars are Clinton's. So are four of the red ones. The chart also starts in 1981, so Clinton's the only D preseident in the period. It would be interesting to run the chart back and see how other D presidents look fromthe days when economists said deficits didn't matter (remember Richard Nixon famously remarking "We are all Keynesians now"?). The president and his congressional party deserve plenty of hits for spending like drunken sailors, but trying to skew the critique into a "Ds are always right on deficits, Rs always wrong, " just doesn't hold up. The parties are equal opportunity opportunists when it comes to trhwoing money around to win re-election.

[Worldwide Pablo]

But, Lindsay, did you not notice the built-in bias of the Money magazine chart to begin with?: Deficits are shown as upward bars (defying all common sense), and surpluses are shown as downward bars?!

If you've ever wondered why average people so often believe that "figures lie, and liars figure":

...there's the proof.

WWP: Money magazine, the most disreputable Time/Life magazine ever. Luce is rolling in the grave, for sure.