Spending under Obama increasing at lowest pace since Eisenhower's administration
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:06:47 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Spending under Obama increasing at lowest pace since Eisenhower's administration
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Spending under Obama increasing at lowest pace since Eisenhower's administration  (Read 6274 times)
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 24, 2012, 03:17:17 PM »
« edited: May 24, 2012, 03:27:16 PM by Senator Sbane »

Yup, spending is the slowest in basically 50 years, including slower than under St. Reagan.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?link=MW_story_popular




Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2012, 03:22:09 PM »

It is still reckless coming off a big pop up due to wars and the Lehman collapse, and unsustainable.  Just because you are binging only six days a week rather than seven, doesn't mean you won't die an early death.
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2012, 03:24:27 PM »

Go to anncoulter.com, she clears this up.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2012, 03:30:40 PM »
« Edited: May 24, 2012, 03:34:33 PM by Senator Sbane »

It is still reckless coming off a big pop up due to wars and the Lehman collapse, and unsustainable.  Just because you are binging only six days a week rather than seven, doesn't mean you won't die an early death.

The binge didn't happen under Obama though, just making it clear for the record. And a lot of the widening of the deficit was due to lower revenue due to the recession. Sure, we may need to cut but saying it's Obama's fault we are here is a complete lie. Go check out the charts I just posted. And yes, that 1.4% increase in spending is including the portions of the Stimulus spent in 2009. Republicans just don't like it because a lot of the cuts came from the Military and wars whereas other things didn't get cut much. Well, too bad for the warmongering chickenhawks, but military spending needs to be cut, not increased like Mittens wants!

Now we do need to cut spending and raise taxes. Mittens might be ready to cut spending but taxes....we are unclear on that no matter what your instincts tell you. I need to see Romney's tax plan written down, not you or anybody telling me what he "wants" to do. Instituting a 20% across the board cut in the tax rate with a few cuts in deductions for richers is still going to lower revenue which is the opposite of what is needed. Unless you can show me how the math works...
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2012, 03:34:54 PM »

Go to anncoulter.com, she clears this up.

I don't read her drivel. Do you have a more credible source?
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2012, 03:36:42 PM »

Well I didn't mean to suggest that Mittens' broad outlines of his plan reach metaphysical perfection. How can it be when it is almost certainly not co-extensive with what the Torie plan would be?  Tongue
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2012, 03:38:09 PM »

Go to anncoulter.com, she clears this up.

I don't read her drivel. Do you have a more credible source?

Well sometimes the chick has stats and what not. She's biased, but she ain't dumb. In short, she is not just a female version of Sean Hannity.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2012, 04:00:55 PM »


Of course spending as % of GDP went up as the GDP slowed due the recession.  This would have happened even if Obama had enacted spending cuts to start his administration (which would have caused the economy to tank further and thus lower the GDP).
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2012, 04:06:14 PM »

Even if we attribute the entire 2009 budget to Obama (not fair imho but let's just do it), spending will have grown more slowly than in the Bush years and Reagan's first term (which also had a recession, but not as deep as this one). So I guess it's fair to say Obama spends like a Republican, not like the Democrat Clinton. Tongue
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2012, 04:09:30 PM »


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

A better source than looking at it as a % of GDP. Government spending should counteract the business cycle. Too bad we already had a huge budget deficit due to Bush's reckless tax cuts and spending on unnecessary wars. Under Obama spending only increased in one year in the middle of a recession, and since then has actually decreased in real terms.
Logged
Inverted Things
Avelaval
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,306


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2012, 08:35:12 PM »

Ah... A nice example of how to mislead with numbers.  Let's break this down a bit:

The good (note that the linked article points all of these things out):
*All presidential terms taken into account (so that Reagan, Clinton and Bush#2 aren't judged differently from Bush#1 and Obama).
*Assigns the border years to the previous president.  The 2009 budget, for example, was passed by Bush#2.
*Separates out Obama's 2009 stimulus from Bush#2's 2009 budget.

The bad (note that the linked article does not point out any of these):
*"Resets" the growth at the start of each presidential term.  There's a big difference between starting at 15% of GDP and 23% of GDP.
*These numbers look unadjusted for inflation (someone confirm or deny?)  Inflation was high under Reagan, which means amplified percentage increases in federal spending.
*Ignores the folks who actually pass the budget: congress.

The items in the bad list make this a terribly misleading graph.
Logged
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2012, 08:40:41 PM »

Ah... A nice example of how to mislead with numbers.  Let's break this down a bit:

The good (note that the linked article points all of these things out):
*All presidential terms taken into account (so that Reagan, Clinton and Bush#2 aren't judged differently from Bush#1 and Obama).
*Assigns the border years to the previous president.  The 2009 budget, for example, was passed by Bush#2.
*Separates out Obama's 2009 stimulus from Bush#2's 2009 budget.

The bad (note that the linked article does not point out any of these):
*"Resets" the growth at the start of each presidential term.  There's a big difference between starting at 15% of GDP and 23% of GDP.
*These numbers look unadjusted for inflation (someone confirm or deny?)  Inflation was high under Reagan, which means amplified percentage increases in federal spending.
*Ignores the folks who actually pass the budget: congress.

The items in the bad list make this a terribly misleading graph.

Not to mention, the debt has actually increased substantially under Obama.  So, the spending is only looking at one piece of the puzzle.  Granted, it's an important piece, but it is just that, a piece not the whole puzzle.
Logged
Inverted Things
Avelaval
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,306


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2012, 09:00:15 PM »

Ah... A nice example of how to mislead with numbers.  Let's break this down a bit:

The good (note that the linked article points all of these things out):
*All presidential terms taken into account (so that Reagan, Clinton and Bush#2 aren't judged differently from Bush#1 and Obama).
*Assigns the border years to the previous president.  The 2009 budget, for example, was passed by Bush#2.
*Separates out Obama's 2009 stimulus from Bush#2's 2009 budget.

The bad (note that the linked article does not point out any of these):
*"Resets" the growth at the start of each presidential term.  There's a big difference between starting at 15% of GDP and 23% of GDP.
*These numbers look unadjusted for inflation (someone confirm or deny?)  Inflation was high under Reagan, which means amplified percentage increases in federal spending.
*Ignores the folks who actually pass the budget: congress.

The items in the bad list make this a terribly misleading graph.

Not to mention, the debt has actually increased substantially under Obama.  So, the spending is only looking at one piece of the puzzle.  Granted, it's an important piece, but it is just that, a piece not the whole puzzle.

Now you're changing the subject.  The article didn't mention debt at all, and I didn't see anyone else do so.  In fact, the article was very clear that it was about spending and not about debt.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2012, 09:39:01 PM »

Why are they only counting $140 billion of the 2009 stimulus spending as belonging to Obama?
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2012, 10:20:47 PM »

It's because otherwise the statistics would show something quite different, Shua.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if all the public servants who were let go never found private sector employment, the net change to the economy would be zero.

Increasing the size of the public service also provides a net change of zero. For the same reason.

I'll leave that as an exercise for you to figure it out.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2012, 10:23:57 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What 2009 budget? There wasn't a budget passed in 2009, 2010, 2011, or as yet, in 2012.

The last federal budget was passed in 2008, in April. More than 4 years ago. Obama will be the first president never to pass a budget in his entire term.

We don't actually know how much he has spent because we don't have a budget. The numbers that we do have, show that the debt has jumped from 60 percent of GDP all the way up to 100+ percent.

Obama could clear the previous record of 120 percent easily.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2012, 02:17:31 AM »

The Republicans don't need facts when conventional wisdom is on their side.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2012, 02:25:55 AM »

I love how Politifact gave it a "mostly true." Is anything in the statement actually wrong? No, not really, it's just given "mostly true" for no real reason other than to seem nuanced and therefore, obviously, more true and reliable.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2012, 02:38:14 AM »

Why are they only counting $140 billion of the 2009 stimulus spending as belonging to Obama?

Because only 140 billion were in fiscal 2009, which ended in September 2009.

The big chunk of the stimulus spending was in fiscal 2010, which started in October 2009.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2012, 10:04:43 AM »


The last federal budget was passed in 2008, in April. More than 4 years ago. Obama will be the first president never to pass a budget in his entire term.

We don't actually know how much he has spent because we don't have a budget. The numbers that we do have, show that the debt has jumped from 60 percent of GDP all the way up to 100+ percent.
I think he signed a budget his first year in office.  Still, only passing one budget in 4 years is pathetic. 

This is pretty simple.  Nutting took at least 1.6 trillion of Obama (debt)spending increases and gave it to Bush.  Running a 1.5 to 2 trillion dollar deficit every year of your term is a 'flat' trend in a misleading sense.  Jacking up spending in year one (than pretending that increase doesn't count) and than base lining forever at the insane level isn't "flat."  It is spiking up and continuing the spike level out.     
Logged
WhyteRain
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2012, 02:50:41 PM »

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned yet this angle:  Obama didn't "inherit the mess"; he VOTED for the mess.

Look at it this way.  We are used to talking about a new president "inheriting" the circumstances left by his predecessor -- because most of our recent presidents (all but one since 1977) have been former governors with no D.C. authority before entering the Oval Office -- Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43.

Unlike four of his five immediate predecessors, Pres. Obama did not need a map of D.C. when he became president.  In fact, he literally (an often misused word nowadays, but not here) just moved the contents of his desk from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other!  He had been in D.C. for four years and with the ruling majority in Congress for two.  As such, Obama became the first president in nearly 50 years to preside over a budget that he himself had voted for.  Thus it's beyond ridiculous to speak of Obama "inheriting the mess" in D.C. on Jan. 20, 2009.

Moreover, Obama voted for the Democratic Congress' budgets of FY2008 and FY2009.  Therefore it is fair to say that his spending began on Oct. 1, 2007 (the beginning of the FY 2008 budget which tripled the deficit in one year from 1.1% to 3.2% of GDP and, I'm convinced no coincidentally, eight days before the peak of the stock market averages).
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2012, 03:09:55 PM »

I love how Politifact gave it a "mostly true." Is anything in the statement actually wrong? No, not really, it's just given "mostly true" for no real reason other than to seem nuanced and therefore, obviously, more true and reliable.

The Washington Post seems to think the article is wrong. They give Jay Carney's statement, and Nutter's article, THREE PINOCCHIOS http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html#pagebreak

The very serious centrists come to America's rescue! Except what they left out was that government spending increasing as a percentage of GDP is the norm during recessions because they're pandering dolts with their head in the sand. Under what kind of absurd framework would it be positive for counter-cyclical measures (unemployment benefits, medicaid, food stamps etc.) to not exist so that the government would shrink in conjunction with the economy?

People, this isn't rocket science. Obama was burdened with a crushing economic crisis that required tough action on a few fronts (action that he didn't deliver but that's besides the point) and was bound to create enormous fiscal stress because tax revenues plummeted while expenditures were bound to increase based off of formulas already set in stone. To me this article is negative and reveals one of the biggest moral failures of Obama but it's also the reality we're living in. Obama isn't a big spender, he's not a dangerous radical and he most certainly is not a socialist. He's a slow-moving and ineffective moderate who didn't engage in enough counter-cyclical spending to bring us out of this recession properly and we're still paying the price of that.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2012, 04:14:38 PM »

It is still reckless coming off a big pop up due to wars and the Lehman collapse, and unsustainable.  Just because you are binging only six days a week rather than seven, doesn't mean you won't die an early death.

Medical analogy. You get cancer that requires expensive treatment. Your medical expenditures skyrocket. They are likely to stay high for some time because any symptom is likely to be treated with deadly seriousness because cancer is a deadly-serious disease.

Are you wasting money (even if it is that of an insurance company?) Not in the least. The alternative is to die, after which any possibility of an income stream comes to an end.  That is not to say that cancer treatment is pleasant; it isn't something that I would wish upon anyone.

In view of my posting record you should be able to figure what I offer as an analogue to cancer -- two eminently-avoidable wars and  the promotion of an economic boom that could only go catastrophically wrong.

OK. We are finally getting some honest-to-goodness economic growth. Have enough of that with flat spending, and relief expenditures will go down as tax revenues rise.  If that isn;t a win-win scenario, then what is?         
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2012, 05:54:55 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope. The last budget passed was in April of 2008. There have been zero budgets passed under Obama, so the only way to know how much has been spent is to look at the debt.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not to mention the fact that we don't actually have the numbers for how much he is spending. Wink   
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2012, 10:25:49 AM »

Nope. The last budget passed was in April of 2008. There have been zero budgets passed under Obama, so the only way to know how much has been spent is to look at the debt.
did they pass a half year budget in Obama's first year?  They passed something and the continuing resolutions have been based on that.  I'm to lazy to look right now.   
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 13 queries.