11–20 of 32 posts
It seems disingenuous to exclude partial responsibility for the occupations in Irag and Afghanistan from Obama policies given that we are still there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to tell what exactly I'm supposed to learn from the graph. Normally, graphs like this would include a time axis, but this one does not. This makes it non-obvious that the Obama debt is over a shorter period than the Bush debt. If you normalize for time in office and discount the military spending (arguing that any president would have done similar after 9/11), then both administration's debts seem very equa…
There's a ton of verbiage about X dollars of this and Y program of that which have contributed to the debt and deficit. Most of it doesn't serve to enlighten, I'm convinced that it's largely meant to confuse . The Obama administration have just presented a very clear picture of what the components of the debt are. Obama policies have been directed at contingencies and emergencies, not wars of choice and vast pay-offs…
The graph pretends to be a time-based graph, though, by highlighting the differences between the Bush and Obama administrations. It's not like it would take any more work or space to lay the information out horizontally. I'm sure I've seen it done before, but this is the closest I can find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent...
It seems disingenuous to exclude partial responsibility for the occupations in Irag and Afghanistan from Obama policies given that we are still there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to tell what exactly I'm supposed to learn from the graph. Normally, graphs like this would include a time axis, but this one does not. This makes it non-obvious that the Obama debt is over a shorter period than the Bush debt. If you normalize for time in office and discount the military spending (arguing that any president would have done similar after 9/11), then both administration's debts seem very equa…
To be fair, Obama took office in the middle of a recession and had to immediately release a massive stimulus package (recovery act).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a ton of verbiage about X dollars of this and Y program of that which have contributed to the debt and deficit. Most of it doesn't serve to enlighten, I'm convinced that it's largely meant to confuse . The Obama administration have just presented a very clear picture of what the components of the debt are. Obama policies have been directed at contingencies and emergencies, not wars of choice and vast pay-offs…
There's no time axis as this isn't particularly a time-based graph The graph pretends to be a time-based graph, though, by highlighting the differences between the Bush and Obama administrations. It's not like it would take any more work or space to lay the information out horizontally. I'm sure I've seen it done before, but this is the closest I can find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent.…
I note that the deficit peaked in 2010, so it's starting to come down.
I'm not sure the average joe would put time into figuring out what this is supposed to be telling them.
Americans, do you think this is good and I'm just out to lunch? I'm happy to be wrong on this, I'm just looking for input.
Now this is a contextually appropriate informational graphic. Something tells me the White House are making good use of Professor Tufte.
It's hard to tell what exactly I'm supposed to learn from the graph. Normally, graphs like this would include a time axis, but this one does not. This makes it non-obvious that the Obama debt is over a shorter period than the Bush debt. If you normalize for time in office and discount the military spending (arguing that any president would have done similar after 9/11), then both administration's debts seem very equa…
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1gU
Here is the rate of change.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1gV
Normalizing for time (though not the military), both administration's debts do not seem equal at all.
As a Canadian with a reasonable working knowledge of international news and economics who happens to be geeky about data visualization... this is a confusing jumble. I'm not sure the average joe would put time into figuring out what this is supposed to be telling them. Americans, do you think this is good and I'm just out to lunch? I'm happy to be wrong on this, I'm just looking for input.
I will admit, even as someone who supports Obama, and finds the GOP misrepresentation of the debt ceiling debate (and history in general) completely unconscionable, the primary purpose for this graphic is a political one.
How can you tell? The primary foci are the red and blue blocks. I.E. who's responsible for what portion of the debt.
The rest of the graphic is extraneous detail.
There are a pile of more interesting graphics, some of which you can find here: http://www.businessinsider.com/republican-budget-hypocrisy-2... and http://flowingdata.com/2011/07/26/how-the-deficit-got-so-big...
It seems disingenuous to exclude partial responsibility for the occupations in Irag and Afghanistan from Obama policies given that we are still there.
Agreed. Stuff like this shouldn't be on the front-page unless it comes from an impartial source.
I'd rather deal with analyses on their merits, rather than based on arbitrarily decided notions of impartiality. This isn't baseball. There may nominally be two sides to the debt ceiling debacle, but it's not a game. Let's look at what is being said, rather than disqualifying based on who's said it.
