The next time someone tries to cry that Obama is spending the US into oblivion

60 posts / 0 new

Obama did not go on federal spending binge. Pace of increase now lowest it has been in decades

byMeteor Blades

Government spending under Obama, including the
stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace—”
slower than at any time in nearly 60 years. But when
inflation is included, spending is falling.The standard view is that President Obama has been spending taxpayers' money wildly, like no other president before him. Rex Nutting has put the kibosh on that. In fact, growth in federal spending is the lowest it's been since half a decade before Obama was born:
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

A key aspect of budgeting often ignored for political conveniency is the fact that the federal fiscal year begins Oct. 1. So by the time Obama stepped into the Oval Office, the budget for fiscal 2009 was already nearly one-third spent and expenditures for the rest of the year locked in. He added about $140 billion to the spending in 2009 through the stimulus plan.
The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal
2009, before Obama took office.For the four budget years Obama has had a direct hand in shaping, federal spending is on track to go from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion. On an annual basis, that's 0.4 percent. When those dollars are inflation-adjusted, federal spending will actually have fallen during Obama's first four budgets at an average rate of 1.4 percent. That, Nutting says, is the first real decline since Richard Nixon pulled hundreds of thousands of the U.S. troops out of Vietnam 40 years ago.

What's also true, of course, is that revenue hasn't kept up with spending. This is partly due to tax cuts pushed through by George Bush, two wars rushed into by George Bush and a record-busting recession that began on George Bush's watch. The impact of the last includes millions of Americans out of work or working fewer hours, thereby reducing income tax revenues and putting immense pressure on expenditures for food stamps and unemployment insurance benefits.

In per capita terms, Nutting writes, real spending will fall from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (as gauged with 2009 dollars). That's a 5 percent drop.

It can be argued, and obviously has been from the president's left, that he should have sought more spending to quickly reduce unemployment and take advantage of low borrowing rates to improve America's crumbling infrastructure. That he should have gone on a short-term spending binge as an investment in the future. But those who say he actually did do so are not eager for anyone to look at the data and pop their propaganda balloon.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Comments

This is like calling Obama the world's tallest midget!

He's had a LOT of help along the way. 100 years of help.

Which is PRECISELY what I have been saying.

The BUDGET debate is FAKE!

You know this... but again... You are "pretending" not to.

-------------

Could you do me a small favor? Could you at least tell me that you know that the "FEDERAL RESERVE" is a PRIVATE banking cartel. It's not "FEDERAL" at all. I could change my name to "Federal Christian" and that wouldn't make me anymore "federal" than I am now. (I just called myself "Federal"... it didn't work. I'm still just a plain old Hoosier!)

You do know that, right? I KNOW that you do. I'm just curious if you will admit it.

So it's been 100 years of ruining our financial system... patient lil' buggers!

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm
Quote Fletcher Christian:

This is like calling Obama the world's tallest midget!

He's had a LOT of help along the way. 100 years of help.

Fletch:

If spending is the problem, is decreased spending the only solution? What are your thoughts on revenue? Do you suppose increasing revenue might be part of the solution? What is the 100 year history of revenue relative to spending?

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Fletcher Christian:

This is like calling Obama the world's tallest midget!

He's had a LOT of help along the way. 100 years of help.

Which is PRECISELY what I have been saying.

The BUDGET debate is FAKE!

You know this... but again... You are "pretending" not to.

-------------

Could you do me a small favor? Could you at least tell me that you know that the "FEDERAL RESERVE" is a PRIVATE banking cartel. It's not "FEDERAL" at all. I could change my name to "Federal Christian" and that wouldn't make me anymore "federal" than I am now. (I just called myself "Federal"... it didn't work. I'm still just a plain old Hoosier!)

You do know that, right? I KNOW that you do. I'm just curious if you will admit it.

So it's been 100 years of ruining our financial system... patient lil' buggers!

So when conservatives whine about the runaway spending of Obama, for years now, and I put an article (which if you follow the link has a beautiful graph showing who the real big spenders are (hint Reagan and Baby Doc Bush)) which proves the exact opposite this is your response? So you are trollling conservative websites, and telling those people to never vote for any of the conservatives?

And of course the Federal Reserve Banking System is a cartel of private banks, who have been tasked with keeping inflation low and the economy growing.

Now, as an American, are you in favor of high inflation, or a shrinking stagnant economy?

And, do you understand that each individual bank strongly opposes both? The bank's deposits lose value from inflation, and recessions and depressions mean loans do not get paid.

Therefore JD Rockefeller, JP Morgan and Paul Warburg wanted something done to force all the other bankers to behave responsibly, but to do it in a manner that the banks saw value in. A bunch of regulations in 1913 was not going to fly. So they set up a cartel of banks. But those banks were made responsible for all the banks' actions. So the bankers became the regulators.

The original act still lacked controls on investment banking, and so in the 1920's a huge real estate and stock price bubble formed, we had the Great Depression. Then Glass Steagal was signed into law, and the Wall Street financial system's worst abuses were shielded off from the Main Street economy. Except that the pirates couldn't steal the booty of Main Street, so when Reagan came in he began deregulation of Wall Street and the S&L's. That lead to leveraged buyouts and pirates like Gordon Gecko and Mitt Rmoney. Then Clinton followed with more deregulation, and then Dubya ended having regulators of large sectors of banking. Which lead to the present recession.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I'm guessing that the baseline in this analysis includes the TARP bill in 2008 which was something like $700+ billion. That's probably how the incremental growth after 2008 is reflected as so low.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Additionally, Senator/Presidential Nominee Obama voted for that TARP bill, so it strikes me as intellectually dishonest to not hold him accountable for it.

EDIT

If you look at the chart in the linked article, Total Federal Spending for fiscal year 2007 (Oct 2006 to Sept 2007) looks like it was about $2.8 trillion. That's with the out-of-control GOP Congress and the full-bore war spending in Iraq, Blackwater, etc. Fiscal year 2011 (Oct 2010 to Sept 2011) more than a year out of the recession bottom (the economists' numbers, not mine) Total Federal Spending looks like it was about $3.6 trillion. That's not 1.4% a year growth. I know 2007 is Bush and 2011 is Obama, but that's to compare growing economy in 2007 vs growing economy in 2011. I can use damned statistics, too.

The bottom line is, we probably DO need the goverment spending that's projected from 2012 to 2013, but we SHOULDN'T need that level of spending, because we should have, in 2009 and today, made real changes in policies in taxation, trade, industrialization, immigration, war spending, etc. that aren't the same as the Bushes and Clinton.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

On the topic of revenue vs spending cuts. The problem

With increasing revenue to decrease debt is that nopolitician has ever proven that they can be trustEd not ape actually use that money. It's like a fat guy with no self control on a diet the onlystayrot decrease their weight is to decrease their food supply same thing with the government.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

We've had this "sound-money" discussion before...

If you need to update yourself then watch these...

The American Dream Film-Full Length

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

The Money Masters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA

The rest of Obama's, the FED's and Bilderberg's plan is to ramp up hyper-inflation and kill the US economy regardless of party.

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/disgutsting-big-spender-obama-lectures-america-on-living-within-our-means/

He is a big spending hypocrit!!!

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote CollegeConservative:

On the topic of revenue vs spending cuts. The problem

With increasing revenue to decrease debt is that nopolitician has ever proven that they can be trustEd not ape actually use that money. It's like a fat guy with no self control on a diet the onlystayrot decrease their weight is to decrease their food supply same thing with the government.

In keeping with your "fat guy" analogy, you don't deprive the fat guy of a healthy diet to the point of causing seroius harm that could otherwise be avoided with more sensible adjustments to the entire system. That's far too humane I suppose.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I'm guessing that the baseline in this analysis includes the TARP bill in 2008 which was something like $700+ billion. That's probably how the incremental growth after 2008 is reflected as so low.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Additionally, Senator/Presidential Nominee Obama voted for that TARP bill, so it strikes me as intellectually dishonest to not hold him accountable for it.

EDIT

If you look at the chart in the linked article, Total Federal Spending for fiscal year 2007 (Oct 2006 to Sept 2007) looks like it was about $2.8 trillion. That's with the out-of-control GOP Congress and the full-bore war spending in Iraq, Blackwater, etc. Fiscal year 2011 (Oct 2010 to Sept 2011) more than a year out of the recession bottom (the economists' numbers, not mine) Total Federal Spending looks like it was about $3.6 trillion. That's not 1.4% a year growth. I know 2007 is Bush and 2011 is Obama, but that's to compare growing economy in 2007 vs growing economy in 2011. I can use damned statistics, too.

The bottom line is, we probably DO need the goverment spending that's projected from 2012 to 2013, but we SHOULDN'T need that level of spending, because we should have, in 2009 and today, made real changes in policies in taxation, trade, industrialization, immigration, war spending, etc. that aren't the same as the Bushes and Clinton.

You are not reading it right. The 1.4% "yearly" growth is for Obama's of the very end of 2009 through 2013. 2.8 Trillion to 3.6 trillion is the yearly growth from 2007 Bush to 2011 Obama. Half of that growth is under each President. The article makes no such claim. The article claims 1.4% growth under Obama's first term. I can read damned statistics too! lol

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

So agree we don't give him more food( taxes) we slowly decrease his intake to decrease his weight( size of gov and debt) but take away bet by bit

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Government spending and increase has levelled off under Obama, and this nonsense about his wild spending can be countered by pointing out that the stimulus was inadequate, not wrong-headed. If anything, Obama should be criticized for compromising with the toxic austerity dogmas of the intransigent and irrational Right. Plus, it is morally questionable to accuse him of having to pay for putting out the fires your side set. Really!

Then there is the "conservative realism" dogma that government will only waste and misdirect the money we send them to do what "we" want done. Followed by anecdotes instead of facts. Because, government is imperfect. What does not get compared is how well imperfect goverment does certain features of the Commons v. how well the private sector, also highly imperfect, can do them. There is the other side of this equation where we see how the private sector is better suited to do some things we would never expect government to try to replicate.

But, above all this, is the idea that the State has a responsibility for the general welfare in its management of the economy. There is no "free market" that is not regulated and established by the State. When the State is dominated by the Commerce it is supposed to regulate and control, it becomes the establishment of legal theft and fraud. The cure is not to let Commerce be the State.

Sadly, Obama did not go on a spending binge or institute government run much of anything. Things would be a lot better had he. But look at what he faced in politics and media. The lack of integrity and character in the disloyal opposition, the bought and sold GOPimps and the Tea Party shills is appalling.

And to the Bilderberg Club, please stop telling us that there is a conspiracy where there only needs to be a collusion of interests and a clubhouse culture. Of course the power of money matters; and of course those who want to use that power to dominate will conspire. They may only need to breathe the same atmosphere to do so.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

So agree we don't give him more food( taxes) we slowly decrease his intake to decrease his weight( size of gov and debt) but take away bet by bit

For that to work it would have to be an evenly distributed cut back. The only cut backs I hear about are cutting social programs. That's more like cutting off his legs to decrease his weight. You can't kill off part of the American population through austerity in order to get things back in balance. The lower end of the financial spectrum is already too "skinny". So yeah, make cut backs if you really think the deficit matters but they can't cut the weight from the legs when there's nothing left there but bone already.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Thats not austerity. Austerity is what europe is doing with high taxes and deep cuts killing growth. The reason social programs get cut more is they typically make up more of the waste and unconstitutional spending then defenses. Although be fore you jump on me i do think we could cut most of our ousourcing and contracters.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Not gonna jump on you CC. I just try to look at the whole picture and the majority of the social programs are limping as it is. There's not much you can cut from them without devestating the entire thing which will negate the actual purpose. If the programs designed to help the needy are underfunded they might as well be eliminated. They must have a minimum of funding in order to work properly. They are already on the brink of being underfunded and now that there are less people working and more people in need of the programs it's on life support. There's nothing to cut. The military however has plenty of room to cut back on without giving up the integrity of our defense. Then you can start looking at the billions in pork that's unneccesary.

I, for one don't think we need to cut back based on my belief in the fiat monetary system that we have but that is another story all together and would hijack this already hijacked thread.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

we got by before these programs because of private charity if you cut back on safety net programs the churches will pick that up again. People forget we are the most charitable nation on the planet even our close competitors dont come near us.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Why don't all those hateful dens of condemnation masquerading as churches start pitching in some "charity" for the defense budget? So many of them are 100% supportive of the invasion of Muslim nations.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

you mean the two that we proped up dictators in yes i belive we had a responsibility to replace the monsters we created.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

we got by before these programs because of private charity if you cut back on safety net programs the churches will pick that up again. People forget we are the most charitable nation on the planet even our close competitors dont come near us.

No, actually people forget (because they weren't born yet) how miserable it was to be out of work or "retirement age" before the safety net programs. If granny didn't have any kids to live with she ended up in a pine box by the time she was 65. If churches are so great and charities are so great then why do we still have so many people dying in poverty in the year 2012. We have churches and charities in larger numbers than there ever was before in the history of mankind AND we have welfare programs but poverty still runs rampant. If we were the most charitable nation on the planet then nobody would be bitching about taxes. Sorry CC but in order to have a great society everyone must participate when it comes to the whole. Individualism is a great thing but you can't put it before country.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Whoa.

You're cool with the ayatollahs?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

then take all the money we spend in foriegn aid for social programs

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
, actually people forget (because they weren't born yet) how miserable it was to be out of work or "retirement age" before the safety net programs.
But, but, but, our college student tells us that America was a virtual paradise before "all these programs". Private charities were all that were needed. Life was grand for everybody.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It wasn't grand but it was a heck of a lot less intrusive.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

we got by before these programs because of private charity if you cut back on safety net programs the churches will pick that up again. People forget we are the most charitable nation on the planet even our close competitors dont come near us.

Not true. Most of the elderly worked until dead or until their employer threw them out, and they lived out their last days in parks or gutters. Every county and major city had a "sanitation" dept whose job it was to go out and pick up the dead bodies and take them to the Potter's field for free burial.

Churches and private organizations were the ones pushing the hardest for welfare programs here in the US. For a history read up on Mother Jones.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Another point, alot of what is called "charitable giving" today involves bigots giving money to the Church of Thou Shall Hate Fags, and then that church gives a bunch of money to political operations for bigotted state initiatives. See the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for an example, or any of the Mega Money Changer Churches.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

Well lds is not a Christian church it's a cult

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

It's like a fat guy with no self control on a diet the onlystayrot decrease their weight is to decrease their food supply same thing with the government.

I've been trying to think of a pithy analogy to describe GOP governance.

It's like having a business partner who takes half the money in the bank to the track and loses it on a horse named Three-Legged Lightning, and comes back and tells you "You're broke."

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

You are not reading it right. The 1.4% "yearly" growth is for Obama's of the very end of 2009 through 2013. 2.8 Trillion to 3.6 trillion is the yearly growth from 2007 Bush to 2011 Obama. Half of that growth is under each President. The article makes no such claim. The article claims 1.4% growth under Obama's first term. I can read damned statistics too! lol

I understand all that in the article. The problem is using fiscal 2009 as the baseline. On top of that, they move 140 billion from 2010 to 2009 to make 2009 bigger and 2010 smaller. It's the oldest accounting trick in the book.

Look, if you want crap "analysis" like this, go to the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, et al. The left shouldn't be wading into the right's cesspool.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

FY2009- Total Federal Funds Outlays

Military: 54% =1,449 billion

Non-MilitARY: 46% =1210 billion

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Looks like we could cut some of the bloated military budget and use those funds to strengthen social programs.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

No you are misreading the graph and article. They point out that they take the 2009 stimulus funding that Obama wanted in early 2009 and credit all that to 2010's budget year because the author knew it was not Bush's spending.

The inescapable reality is the biggest spenders have been and will always be Republicans, because they demand tax cuts, and are actively trying to destroy the social safety net, so they simultaneously explode spending on programs that benefit their defense contractor buddies. That way they can redistribute tax money to the very wealthy and then cry out the need to throw the poor and elderly to Gosar or some other Summerian demon.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

No you are misreading the graph and article. They point out that they take the 2009 stimulus funding that Obama wanted in early 2009 and credit all that to 2010's budget year because the author knew it was not Bush's spending.

I stand corrected. But I think you're wrong as well. It looks like he's merely NOTING that 2009 (Oct 2008 - Sept 2009) includes $140B of spending authorized by President Obama. He does this because the right argues that Bush should only be accountable for 4 months of that spending because he left office in January 2009 (which is also a nonsensical argument.)

If the author truly wanted to segregate "Bush's" spending vs "Obama's" spending he should have taken the 140B out of 2009 and added it to 2010. But this is all divination and mental masturbation. As I said, a big chunk of that increased spending was TARP, which he voted for, and probably the refundable tax credits for first time homebuyers (although I don't know if that is counted as "spending") Based on the tone of the article and its conclusion that is absurd on its face, I'm guessing that 140B figure is B.S. and probably a lot higher.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

How bout we start by eliminating foreign aid

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

No you are misreading the graph and article.

This Rex Nutting analysis has been talked about a lot and has been widely discredited for a variety of reasons. Nutting relies on the usual economic truism that all budgets are written the year before, so that Fiscal 2009 must have been written and signed by Bush before he left office with his tail between his legs.

As such he attributes the $800+ Billlion dollars of Obama Stimulus passed in Feb 2009 to Bush! Also recall that while Bush had pushed through TARP before leaving, which was $750 Billion in deficit spending. Nutting, like most commentators, adds this to Bush's deficit in 2008, when it passed. Mistake Number Two. In fact, Bush spent $400 Billion of TARP. He left $350 Billion for his successor.

Essentially Bush spending in 2008 is left in the 2008 column, and Obama stimulus in 2009 is transfered back to the 2008 column.

That certainly is one dishonest way to "smooth" out a graph.

To set the record straight, Obama more than doubled the deficit his first year, and has fiddled around the margins of debt in the two years since.

To put Obama's largesse in context, the total deficit for the eight Bush years was 2.2 trillion dollars. The total deficit for Obama’s first two years was $2.75 trillion dollars, even if you leave out the TARP $350 Billion that was his.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am

If you read the articles, the entire 2009 stimulus package proposed by Pres. Obama is deducted from Bush's FY 2009, and credit onto Obama's FY 2010.

The TARP spending is also offset by the loan paybacks.

Any tax credit is considered spending, so the tax credits would also be counted.

The large majority of Bush's spending increases come in 2002 - 2005, from the Global War on Terrah, and Medicare Part D, and the tax cuts.

TARP spending didn't occur in a vacuum. If no TARP package existed, all the major banks would have failed to meet their balance sheet requirements. Then Federal Govt through the FDIC would have been on the hook to cover all the depositors money up to the first $100,000 per person. After Chase had gone down, the run on every other bank would have put us back into 1930 bank runs. The costs of such would have been greater than TARP, and we'd be in a Great Depression, except this time with street gangs carrying AK 47s.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

If you read the articles, the entire 2009 stimulus package proposed by Pres. Obama is deducted from Bush's FY 2009, and credit onto Obama's FY 2010.

That's not how I read the article. I interpret the article to mean that the numbers shown for FY 2009 reflect actual spending for that period, regardless of the budget. So Obama's stimulus is only counted when it is spent, and 140B is spent in FY 2009. Maybe I'm wrong.

Quote Phaedrus76:

The TARP spending is also offset by the loan paybacks.

Which would reflect decreased spending in 2010 and later years, that isn't really a decrease in spending.

Quote Phaedrus76:

TARP spending didn't occur in a vacuum. If no TARP package existed, all the major banks would have failed to meet their balance sheet requirements. Then Federal Govt through the FDIC would have been on the hook to cover all the depositors money up to the first $100,000 per person. After Chase had gone down, the run on every other bank would have put us back into 1930 bank runs. The costs of such would have been greater than TARP, and we'd be in a Great Depression, except this time with street gangs carrying AK 47s.

Perhaps. But it's absurd to charge the lending to Bush and the repayments to Obama.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Calperson:

Also recall that while Bush had pushed through TARP before leaving, which was $750 Billion in deficit spending. Nutting, like most commentators, adds this to Bush's deficit in 2008, when it passed. Mistake Number Two. In fact, Bush spent $400 Billion of TARP. He left $350 Billion for his successor.

I hereby withdraw all my criticism of the Daily Kos article. Fight stupid with stupid.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama's entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.

That's not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in ... Bush's column. (And if we attribute all of Bush's spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn't spend much either.)

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote CollegeConservative:

People forget we are the most charitable nation on the planet even our close competitors dont come near us.

We have competitors in charity? Gee Einstein... if we're the richest nation on earth... should we NOT have the highest charitable giving? Duh!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote Calperson:

Also recall that while Bush had pushed through TARP before leaving, which was $750 Billion in deficit spending. Nutting, like most commentators, adds this to Bush's deficit in 2008, when it passed. Mistake Number Two. In fact, Bush spent $400 Billion of TARP. He left $350 Billion for his successor.

I hereby withdraw all my criticism of the Daily Kos article. Fight stupid with stupid.

Well, the fact remains by the time of the November 2008 Election which ousted the permanently installed dictator Bush, he had spent $400 Billion of TARP. Obama as President Elect asked Bush to release the remaining $350 Billion so he could spend it. This was in Jan 2009, 2 months before he forced through his his "Prokulus 1" of $825 Billion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/tarp-vote-obama-wins-350_n_1582...

I can't believe you don't remember this, even the Huff post reported on it. By Obamas second MONTH in office he had spent $1.2 Trillion of his newly conqured American subjects money. This really was the start of how he got his reputation as a BIG spender.

As for TARP itself which was passed after the Democrats retook the purse strings in 2006, it is and always has been Democrat legislation. Tea Partiers were firmly against it and have never forgiven Bush for it. Lets look at the voting record of TARP.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/h26

Democrat = 246 Aye, 10 Nay

Republican = 159 Aye, 19 Nay

In essence Democrats voted for it in far, far greater numbers than Republicans, and Republicans objected to it by more than twice as much.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am
Quote Fletcher Christian:.. Could you do me a small favor? Could you at least tell me that you know that the "FEDERAL RESERVE" is a PRIVATE banking cartel. It's not "FEDERAL" at all.

The director is appointed by the president. It is thus false to say that the FED 'is not FEDERAL at all.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote Phaedrus76:

TARP spending didn't occur in a vacuum. If no TARP package existed, all the major banks would have failed to meet their balance sheet requirements. Then Federal Govt through the FDIC would have been on the hook to cover all the depositors money up to the first $100,000 per person. After Chase had gone down, the run on every other bank would have put us back into 1930 bank runs. The costs of such would have been greater than TARP, and we'd be in a Great Depression, except this time with street gangs carrying AK 47s.

Perhaps. But it's absurd to charge the lending to Bush and the repayments to Obama.

Not perhaps. Of the 8 largest banks, 7 were going to be insolvent in the 4th QTR of 2008. Read a book, watch a movie, the a- hole who runs Wells Fargo was ticked off because he was being forced to eat the same sh!t sandwich that all the other bankers were needing. And I don't care who you charge the money to, if every major bank is insolvent the entire economy crashes. And we are looking at 1 million fewer jobs in banking, 400,000 fewer in insurance, 1 million lost jobs in the auto industry. Let me see 1,000,000 plus 400,000 plus 1,000,000 = 2.4 million fewer jobs, plus those are good paying industries, so New York state, MA, PA, and CA are in depressions too.

And the tax payer is still on the hook for the bank depositors' money. The tax payer is still on the hook at the state level for most insurance losses (state laws require that insurance is solvent, and if the company fails, the money is made up by the govt). And all three industries have good benefits, are some of the last to have pensions, so on top of 2.4 mil lost jobs, the govt is picking up the pension costs, and healthcare costs of the retirees.

No perhaps about it.

Unless the plan of the TeaBaggers is Road Warrior/ Mad Max, in which case it is every man for himself.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote antikakistocrat: ..The rest of Obama's, the FED's and Bilderberg's plan is to ramp up hyper-inflation and kill the US economy regardless of party.

Right. The great big evil conspiracy that takes a 100 years and still no hyper-inflation!

Damn! Maybe next year.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

we got by before these programs because of private charity if you cut back on safety net programs the churches will pick that up again. People forget we are the most charitable nation on the planet even our close competitors dont come near us.

Wow. What are you guys smoking in college these days?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

then take all the money we spend in foriegn aid for social programs

So we spend a trillion on defense and you want to start cutting programs for some starving bastard in Africa? I think we should cut our defense budget in half and double our spending on foriegn aid social programs.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

Well lds is not a Christian church it's a cult

Oh right, compared to the Christains who believe in a Bible who thinks you should be killed if you eat shellfish.

I'm feeling guilty now. This is like shooting fish in a barrell.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:
Quote chilidog:
Quote Phaedrus76:

TARP spending didn't occur in a vacuum. If no TARP package existed, all the major banks would have failed to meet their balance sheet requirements. Then Federal Govt through the FDIC would have been on the hook to cover all the depositors money up to the first $100,000 per person. After Chase had gone down, the run on every other bank would have put us back into 1930 bank runs. The costs of such would have been greater than TARP, and we'd be in a Great Depression, except this time with street gangs carrying AK 47s.

Perhaps. But it's absurd to charge the lending to Bush and the repayments to Obama.

No perhaps about it.

Perhaps that $700 billion could have been better appropriated. The fact of the matter is that Bernacke has had interest rates at 0% for almost 4 years and he indicates they will stay at 0% for another 2 years. Not to mention his quantitative easing.

But what difference does it make to spend $2, $3, $4 trillion in stimulus if all the materials and profits come from China?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote Phaedrus76:
Quote chilidog:
Quote Phaedrus76:

TARP spending didn't occur in a vacuum. If no TARP package existed, all the major banks would have failed to meet their balance sheet requirements. Then Federal Govt through the FDIC would have been on the hook to cover all the depositors money up to the first $100,000 per person. After Chase had gone down, the run on every other bank would have put us back into 1930 bank runs. The costs of such would have been greater than TARP, and we'd be in a Great Depression, except this time with street gangs carrying AK 47s.

Perhaps. But it's absurd to charge the lending to Bush and the repayments to Obama.

No perhaps about it.

Perhaps that $700 billion could have been better appropriated. The fact of the matter is that Bernacke has had interest rates at 0% for almost 4 years and he indicates they will stay at 0% for another 2 years. Not to mention his quantitative easing.

But what difference does it make to spend $2, $3, $4 trillion in stimulus if all the materials and profits come from China?

So, are you arguing to end the Libertarian Chicago School's free market ideology, and return to tarrifs?

Or are you only trying to change the subject?

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

This is a great example of why not to argue about economics with cons. They will find a statistical defense against anything, and it will take someone who has big picture eyes to see what is wrong with the picture. Does Obama have to spend to prevent and economic crash? Does he have to pay the bills for previous 'purchases?' Did he actually include in the visible debt numbers what had been hidden off the books before? Yes to all the above.

If you cannot tell the difference between investment and waste, you do not know how to account for spending. If you think the deficit is a problem, and at some point it is, you have to be able to reverse the waste, not just stop spending on the useful investments as if you were "broke."

The idiotic idea that welfare and investments in Americans and infrastructure are "waste" only makes sense to the entitled rulers or their intimidated peasants. And, CC's lovely riff on "foreign aid" deserves a special note. Even at its very low dollar figure, what passes for "foreign aid" from America is basically a subsidy for American products pushed abroad. As with our defense spending on foreign militaries, we give them the money to buy our stuff. We are not generously giving away our wealth to aid the world anymore than our Navy is out there to do charity and rescue relief rather than support our petro trade on the seas.

The issue is still democracy, and economics is its sideshow.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Look, we can argue FY09 all day long, what about FY10 and FY11? It is clear Obama is not the big spender that the Republicans say he is.

What a surprise!

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:

So, are you arguing to end the Libertarian Chicago School's free market ideology, and return to tarrifs?

Hell yeah!

I'm not a libertarian laissez-faire capitalist free market freak.

Yes we need tariffs.

As I said, in hindsight (based on Bernacke's interest rate policies and his quantitative easing) in 2008/2009 we needed to spend well over $700 billion, well over the stimulus package, probably $2 trillion to get us to a stable growing economy this year. If we sent everybody stimulus checks for $10k we wouldn't have had to give the banks $700B. (Yes I understand inflation. And I understand deflation.) But again, if we're buying the paint and the asphalt and the cement and everything else from China, that stimulus money is leaving our economy. Thom's talked about this on several occasions.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes dr. Ercon because defense is constitutional redistributing our wealth to African dictators is not.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Currently Chatting

A Rising Tide Only Lifts All Boats When Everyone Has a Boat.

President John F. Kennedy once said about economic development that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Kennedy was, of course, right, but he missed something really, really important: A rising tide lifts only lifts all boats when everyone has a boat.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system