That $10 trillion from 1791-2008 can be broken down as: compared to $5.7 trillion from 1791-2000 and $4.3 trillion from 2001-2008. Yep, between 2001 and 2008 there was a president who almost spent as much as all other presidents before him combined. What, you might wonder, was all of that spent on that could simply be cut off just like that in 2009? Was it 2 wars that started during those years or was some of it even due to [gasp] bailouts initiated by said president?
That $10 trillion from 1791-2008 can be broken down as: compared to $5.7 trillion from 1791-2000 and $4.3 trillion from 2001-2008. Yep, between 2001 and 2008 there was a president who almost spent as much as all other presidents before him combined. What, you might wonder, was all of that spent on that could simply be cut off just like that in 2009? Was it 2 wars that started during those years or was some of it even due to [gasp] bailouts initiated by said president?
This seems perfectly logical to me, but NS apparently has limited comprehension factors, so I doubt he will absorb this.
BigBallinStalin wrote:And, does the article include deficit spending as "spending"?
And how does it factor in borrowing? For example, if the government borrows $800 billion (by sell T-bills), then how does this affect the current spending? Because the debt must be repaid, so... 10 years from now, the debt incurred by Obama would have to be repaid... but would the "spending" include repayment of past debts? If so, then wouldn't this article be misconstruing the truth?
The article doesn't. Obama simply borrows more (which is then spent, or spent later)--while the costs of repaying the debt apparently aren't included in the article's analysis. Borrowing is a great tactic because the government doesn't have to raise taxes in the short-term. It'll rely on the Federal Reserve to buy up T-Bills and spit out newly created credit into the accounts of major banks. Almost all US presidents and Congresses have done this. The value of your US dollars is continually depreciated every time the government engages in deficit spending.
Here's the history of US deficits and debt according to USgovernmentspending.com:
_______________________________________
Longer view on debt:
"Spending," as the article calls it, is only one side of the problem. Deficit spending and continued borrowing and depreciating of your currency is the major problem for almost all Americans (and holders of US dollars)---unless of course you make enough on interest which will offset the rate of inflation (most Americans don't have this going for them)--because the Federal Reserve controls the interest rate, which it's been maintaining at less than 1% or 1.5%.
Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.
The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
That $10 trillion from 1791-2008 can be broken down as: compared to $5.7 trillion from 1791-2000 and $4.3 trillion from 2001-2008. Yep, between 2001 and 2008 there was a president who almost spent as much as all other presidents before him combined. What, you might wonder, was all of that spent on that could simply be cut off just like that in 2009? Was it 2 wars that started during those years or was some of it even due to [gasp] bailouts initiated by said president?
This seems perfectly logical to me, but NS apparently has limited comprehension factors, so I doubt he will absorb this.
I have never once denied that Bush spent too much as well. I just know that Obama has spent a lot more and piled up the debt even faster.
patrickaa317 wrote:Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.
The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.
No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
patrickaa317 wrote:Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.
The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.
No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?
patrickaa317 wrote:Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.
The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.
No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?
But I wouldn't get your hopes up. The Obamafanatics hate being misled, or they'll just ignore it when it's made apparent.
I'm also sort of taking a wait and see approach. I'm going to wait and see what happens in 2014 and beyond assuming the president is reelected and assuming the CBO is wrong about their budget projections with respect to the Affordable Care Act. I've seen private accounting firms do their own projections and it's not good.
patrickaa317 wrote:Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.
The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.
No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?
But I wouldn't get your hopes up. The Obamafanatics hate being misled, or they'll just ignore it when it's made apparent.
I'm also sort of taking a wait and see approach. I'm going to wait and see what happens in 2014 and beyond assuming the president is reelected and assuming the CBO is wrong about their budget projections with respect to the Affordable Care Act. I've seen private accounting firms do their own projections and it's not good.
Wouldn't you rather vote for people who will repeal it now (while it's still theoretically possible) instead of waiting to see if the shit hits the fan?
patrickaa317 wrote:Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.
The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.
No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?
But I wouldn't get your hopes up. The Obamafanatics hate being misled, or they'll just ignore it when it's made apparent.
I'm also sort of taking a wait and see approach. I'm going to wait and see what happens in 2014 and beyond assuming the president is reelected and assuming the CBO is wrong about their budget projections with respect to the Affordable Care Act. I've seen private accounting firms do their own projections and it's not good.
Wouldn't you rather vote for people who will repeal it now (while it's still theoretically possible) instead of waiting to see if the shit hits the fan?
patrickaa317 wrote:Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.
The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.
No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?
I didn't see anything to disagree with there.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Without Republican intervention, would Obama have been able to spend more?
In other words, assume that the Republicans could not block any spending proposals by the Democrats--or force them to compromise.
Actually, a lot of the compromises have wound up costing us a lot more.. such as going for this false "fix" of the health insurance system, instead of a more true socialized system of direct payment.
Also, Democrats initially fought for more control of the banks, etc. There are other examples, but those are pretty big ones.
The "compromise" pushed for the Republicans are to punish the populace and reward their wealthy cronies. Of course, Democrats reward the wealthy, too.. but they do slightly less harm to the populace as a whole.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Without Republican intervention, would Obama have been able to spend more?
In other words, assume that the Republicans could not block any spending proposals by the Democrats--or force them to compromise.
Actually, a lot of the compromises have wound up costing us a lot more.. such as going for this false "fix" of the health insurance system, instead of a more true socialized system of direct payment.
Also, Democrats initially fought for more control of the banks, etc. There are other examples, but those are pretty big ones.
The "compromise" pushed for the Republicans are to punish the populace and reward their wealthy cronies. Of course, Democrats reward the wealthy, too.. but they do slightly less harm to the populace as a whole.
and......a lot of bills were not rubber stamped by a split Congress that much more likely would have been rubber stamped with a Democrat controlled Congress.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Without Republican intervention, would Obama have been able to spend more?
In other words, assume that the Republicans could not block any spending proposals by the Democrats--or force them to compromise.
Actually, a lot of the compromises have wound up costing us a lot more.. such as going for this false "fix" of the health insurance system, instead of a more true socialized system of direct payment.
Also, Democrats initially fought for more control of the banks, etc. There are other examples, but those are pretty big ones.
The "compromise" pushed for the Republicans are to punish the populace and reward their wealthy cronies. Of course, Democrats reward the wealthy, too.. but they do slightly less harm to the populace as a whole.
and......a lot of bills were not rubber stamped by a split Congress that much more likely would have been rubber stamped with a Democrat controlled Congress.
What was the tax rate under Reagan. (asked you before, in another thread, not sure why I think you might possibly answer now....)
patrickaa317 wrote:Bush was a huge spender through TARP. The catch with Obama's spending is in 2010 when [some of] the bailout money started being paid back, this money went against what Obama was spending in 2010, so the "decreased spending" was due to this.
The socialist-lights (i.e. Republicans) took control of the house in 2011 and spending slowed then. Similar as to when Bush was very unpopular and the democrats took control in 2006, spending sky-rocketed. Don't get me wrong, Bush is just as much to blame but to look at presidents alone as to who spent the least is completely dishonest as the checkbook isn't in the president's hands as he cannot spend money without the approval of congress.
No comments or rebuttals on this? Is everyone feeling alright?
I will comment! Democrats took a Congressional majority in 2006, along with the power of the purse. Exactly on time, 16-8 months after the Democrats took the super majority, it all went to shit.
Of course, this was ALL George Bush's and Republicans fault, who, before 2006, had a record of 54 straight months of job growth, even after 9-11.
I never liked Bush, but at least he understood the economy, or else hired people who understood the economy.
Oh yeah, and the centerpiece of our economic meltdown of 2008, real estate. I have always put the blame on both parties, but more so the Democrats.
hmmm, who were "those who were showing concern there may be a bubble?"
Democrats flat out made it law to give mortgages to people who were highly unlikely to be able to pay the money back, but Republicans were happy to exploit the benefits in the beginning of the real estate boom, for the short term anyways. Of course the greedy banks and the greedy mortgae pushers have their part of the blame, as well as many others...
I also place a large amount, if not most of the blame, on the homeowners who signed their names on the dotted lines based on ludicrous future expectations/flat out not understand what they were doing or what environment their decisions would lead to. If I only had a dime for everytime I heard someone say "real estate only goes up Scott!" followed by "idiot!"...sound familiar?
Bottom line is, if the homeowners would have not have signed on the dotted line and lost track of reality/redefined/disrespected common sense on what debt levels are okay and what aren't, we never would have had such a huge bust.
(1) The institution of voting provides a very weak incentive to nearly all voters for reviewing the actual performance, thus historical records, of their chosen politician. (2) Politicians are aware of this, so they participate in the game of rhetoric and mass media. (political packages of promises, TV screen time, and other ways of political marketing).
(3) People have better things to do, so it's cheaper to simplify things into Democrats=good, Republicans=bad, the rest=don't care, (and they wonder why problems follow in public policy!).
(4) No one in the main stream media noticed this blunder, and/or main stream media companies perceive that their viewers would not care about such blatant mistakes.
BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) The institution of voting provides a very weak incentive to nearly all voters for reviewing the actual performance, thus historical records, of their chosen politician. (2) Politicians are aware of this, so they participate in the game of rhetoric and mass media. (political packages of promises, TV screen time, and other ways of political marketing).
(3) People have better things to do, so it's cheaper to simplify things into Democrats=good, Republicans=bad, the rest=don't care, (and they wonder why problems follow in public policy!).
(4) No one in the main stream media noticed this blunder, and/or main stream media companies perceive that their viewers would not care about such blatant mistakes.
etc.
It was kind of a rhetorical question but thanks for your analysis!
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) The institution of voting provides a very weak incentive to nearly all voters for reviewing the actual performance, thus historical records, of their chosen politician. (2) Politicians are aware of this, so they participate in the game of rhetoric and mass media. (political packages of promises, TV screen time, and other ways of political marketing).
(3) People have better things to do, so it's cheaper to simplify things into Democrats=good, Republicans=bad, the rest=don't care, (and they wonder why problems follow in public policy!).
(4) No one in the main stream media noticed this blunder, and/or main stream media companies perceive that their viewers would not care about such blatant mistakes.
etc.
It was kind of a rhetorical question but thanks for your analysis!
I think those are good explanations, but I'd like to add one more:
(5) The people in Barney Frank's constituency don't care about his financial policy.
Sue me. 
