Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent ($3.83 Trillion Visualized)

tekisui

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Feb-01-10 11:11 PM
Original message

Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent ($3.83 Trillion Visualized)

Source: New York times

Interactive map at link. Well worth the time:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Clio the Leo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Feb-01-10 11:19 PM
Response to Original message

1. It's like a cross between economics, policy and modern art!

..... I bet the President would enjoy this. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tekisui

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Feb-01-10 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. It is intriguing and informative.

I can't pull myself away.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Clio the Leo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Feb-01-10 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. Like a lava lamp....

.... but with useful information! lol

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FrenchieCat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Feb-01-10 11:28 PM
Response to Original message

4. Interesting....

as long as folks remember that the 2010 budget
had many vast increases over the last Bush 2009 budget,
and there is also the balance of offsets between the budgets
(both 2010 and 2011) and the Recovery act.

The point is, just because one sees decreases or increases in various areas, and are
unhappy or happy with them, I recommend that they look closer at the fine print,
instead of making any determination based on interactive information, that provides
numbers without context. So just like articles; don't just read the headlines!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fujiyama

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #4

5. Good point

Could easily be misleading. After all, this budget shows a decrease in Veteran's Benefits. It's easy for the opposition to jump on that, but I'd be curious on checking 2010's vs. 2009's with regards to that.

I'm a bit astounded at how little we actually put in to the NSF and science spending overall. And this was with a big increase with Obama. And why the hell does unemployment benefits ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES come to 3 billion dollars?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Turborama

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 02:48 AM
Response to Original message

6. It's got two different boxes for "Energy efficiency and renewable energy"

but with vastly different figures.

1 box (the green one) says +22.5% and the other box (the red one) says -10.7%

I don't get it :shrug:

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting layout.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ieoeja

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #6

14. Conservation +22.5% ... Supply -10.7%

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Turborama

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #14

17. They've edited it

Previously those boxes' titles were only "Energy efficiency and renewable energy" with no differentiation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

gkhouston

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #6

15. Obviously some sort of boofoo. The figure should be 2.4 billion.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_energy/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Turborama

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #15

18. The NYT says the "Energy" total is $10.01billion but that WH fact sheet says $28.4billion

:shrug:

Thanks a lot for the link, btw.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

gkhouston

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 08:57 AM
Response to Original message

7. And they make "Pentagon" look smaller by parceling it out into various boxes

instead of lumping it into one pie wedge, as is more commonly seen. Slick.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nicholas D Wolfwood

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #7

12. They parcel EVERYTHING out.

Edited on Tue Feb-02-10 10:34 AM by Nicholas D Wolfwood

Further, they do have a designated outline for defense spending, so I'm not sure your point is valid at all. They're not hiding anything - in fact, I'd argue the exact opposite.

On edit: This is especially true if you hide mandatory spending. National defense absolutely dwarfs all other discretionary spending in the chart.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

gkhouston

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #12

13. That's a fair point -- I hadn't used the "hide mandatory spending" feature.

The boxes make it look as if someone has taken pains to make the Pentagon budget the same size as Social Security, and that's not the case, with veteran's benefits, and military retirement, the money for the Corps of Engineers, etc. Funny, in a not-funny way, that the spending freezes won't be coming out of the "security" part of the budget. I'm not so sure that spending isn't also mandatory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BeyondGeography

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 09:05 AM
Response to Original message

8. Net interest up 33.5%

Yikes.

Thanks for posting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kolesar

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 09:31 AM
Response to Original message

9. I cannot find the National Park Service budget...eom

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

gkhouston

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #9

10. Their budget for FY11 is 2.7 billion.

http://home.nps.gov/news/release.htm?id=951

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kolesar

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #10

11. thanks eom

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Festivito

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-02-10 03:41 PM
Response to Original message

16. Unlike * **, budget it includes SS and Wars?

Edited on Tue Feb-02-10 03:48 PM by Festivito

I don't recall SS being in the budget before, usually off budget since it makes more than it costs it just artificially inflates the overall number.

Also, * ** did not include war costs in budgets and, instead, asked for separate funding bills without revising the budget.

This was a setup so ResmugliCONs can come back and compare * ** budgets with Obama's and claim Obama spends more than the ly'n cheat'n dufuss who preceded him.

EDIT: I like the graphic. It's the CONs who setup the comparison debacle, years in advance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 08th 2024, 02:06 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.