Is there a spending problem, a revenue problem or just plain bad management?

[Gimmesometruth]

The UI spending has tapered off dramatically,

Wrong again, UI was increased for 2013 as well.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43734

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Did I not say that the initial spending increases were UI....which was the biggest part of the ARRA? Yes I did. That was a one shot deal, it included tax cuts/refunds, which was another big chunk of it. The UI spending has tapered off dramatically, the stimulus has played out. It was never large enough to have a big or sustained effect on recovery for the size of the crash or the size of our economy, but again, as I said and showed, spending INCREASES have been flat since. And guess what, so has the recovery.

ps, the ARRA legislative process began before Obama was elected.

Did not this tapering off occur because people no longer qualify for benefits?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Didn't Obama run based on a promise...

Yes, yes.....he knew ahead of time the size and effects of the crash.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Did not this tapering off occur because people no longer qualify for benefits?

For most, it has been a matter of reaching the time limit on the extensions.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, yes.....he knew ahead of time the size and effects of the crash.

No, he knew ahead of time that he wanted PPACA and more income redistribution. Obama does not care about the "private" economy, but only about how to increase gov't based on the "crisis". I predict more "stimulus" spending will be a key part of the SOTU "plan" tonight.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

No, he knew ahead of time that he wanted PPACA and more income redistribution. Obama does not care about the "private" economy, but only about how to increase gov't based on the "crisis". I predict more "stimulus" spending will be a key part of the SOTU "plan" tonight.

aka Investment

All spending mentioned tonight will be described as this...

 

[ttwtt78640]

aka Investment

All spending mentioned tonight will be described as this...

Investing in gov't dependence pays handsome returns in sustaining demorat votes. Yes he can!

 

[Cardinal Fang]

"The Great Bush Recession" caused by Democrats mandating lower lending standards for private lenders and the GSEs. Forcing onto the GSEs a quota system, the GSEs buying up toxic debt , bundling and selling them with good paper to the investment babks. Clinton allowing the securitization of these loans.

A familiar slummage of zombie lies. Loan terms are determined by loan underwrtiters. No law, policy, rule or court decision ever set such standards or forced anyone to lend to a borrower not qualified to receive the loan. The GSE's had targets (not quotas) for supporting loans into low-income and other underserved communities long before the 2002-06 period in which all the problems arose. Securitizing and selling assets into secondary markets was already standard practice, having originated with Ginnie Mae in 1970, and having spread to Fannie and Freddie in the 1980's. And it isn't like the private sector wasn't involved. Sperry securitized and sold bundles of its computer equipment leases in order to recapitalize as well. Securitization is not some villain. It is garden variety finance that assorted whackos try to scapegoat. And of course, the toxic debt was not bought up by the GSE's until they were forced to play catch-up very late in the game. Keep in mind that the GSE's purchased only conforming loans -- those that met their minimum underwtiting standards. The porrly underwritten rejects had to go off to Wall Street whose private-label shops would buy and sell off almost anything. The typical note that failed and caused the credit crisis and ensuing Great Bush Recession was written in 2005-06 by a private broker (Countrywide, Ameriquest, New Century Financial, etc.) into subprime or other markets with excessive high-cost, high-profit terms attached for sale and securitization through Wall Street, not the GSE's. Here is a graph of how it all happened...



That red line is toxic garbage being pumped itno the secondary markets. It was the red line that was the problem.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No, he knew ahead of time that he wanted PPACA

the Romney plan to control health costs

and more income redistribution.

Which has little to nothing to do with "deficits"....and is just a rhetorical device.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

These numbers arent worth pissing on, the ratio went ass over teakettle after the global recession hit in 2008.

That's why the data were from 2007. I guess you didn't read that part. I tried not to use big words.

 

[Geoist]

It's obvious that the solution needed is higher taxes and lower spending and nobody is putting forth that the current spending is way too high and the crrrent revenue is way too low.

We need to take a look at WHAT is taxed. As a conservative I'm sure you would agree that raising certain taxes can have negative consequences. If we are to raise taxes then we need to focus in on those that encourage productive behavior (ie, pigouvian taxes, pollution taxes, and land taxes) rather than those that discourage the good (labor, improvements, employment, etc.)

 

[KLATTU]

aka Investment

All spending mentioned tonight will be described as this...

....or stimulus. There's no such thing as spending. Although, I'm not sure they are using stimulus these days-given the failure of the last big one.
In 2009, Obama promised ithe stimulus bill would lift two million people out of poverty.
There are now 2.6 million MORE people in poverty.

Heckuva job,Barry!

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Thanks for the laugh and the limpse into what really drives your posts. Ideogology before truth instead of the other way around.

Your side is in a spot of trouble here. The folks at the top tend to have gotten there by dealing successfully with crises and by passing ground-breaking legislation. Ending the Great Bush Recession that quickly. Ending the Travesty in Iraq. PPACA and the end of DADT. On the cusp of gay marriage and meaningful immigration reform. And then there's that Nobel Peace Prize thing. It's like Wall Street, tobacco, credit card, edcuation, and pay equity reform along with killing bin Laden while saving the auto industry are all going to have to go into footnotes here.

The #10 spot right now is the province of JFK and James Knox Polk, both of whom were impressive, but they didn't serve eight years between them. They may be getting a new neighbor here before too long.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

....or stimulus. There's no such thing as spending. Although, I'm not sure they are using stimulus these days-given the failure of the last big one.
In 2009, Obama promised ithe stimulus bill would lift two million people out of poverty.
There are now 2.6 million MORE people in poverty.

Heckuva job,Barry!

A "failure" because, as your math shows, it was not large enough for the crash.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

WTF is (Log of (Bil. of $))?
Actual federal spending (inflation adjusted 2012 dollars):
Year Spending Deficit ($ billions)
2006 2,965 -277
2007 2,962 -174
2008 3,168 -487
2009 3,696 -1,484
2010 3,590 -1,344
2011 3,666 -1,322
2012 3,563 -1,128

Not that I expect you to have an answer, but how did the actual deficit of 1,089 in FY 2012 become 1,128 by being adjusted to 2012 dollars?

 

[KLATTU]

A "failure" because, as your math shows, it was not large enough for the crash.

How does my math show that??

 

[Perotista]

We need to take a look at WHAT is taxed. As a conservative I'm sure you would agree that raising certain taxes can have negative consequences. If we are to raise taxes then we need to focus in on those that encourage productive behavior (ie, pigouvian taxes, pollution taxes, and land taxes) rather than those that discourage the good (labor, improvements, employment, etc.)

I would agree that we have to be careful as to what is taxed and how much. I remember when the Yacht tax was proposed and passed. It was thought as a good way to soak the rich who were buying Yachts as they could afford the additional tax on them . It didn't last long as those people who could afford to buy the yachts, stopped buying them or began buying their yachts made overseas and this tax almost closed down some ship building companies causing a lost of jobs. Congress quickly repealed it whan faced with reality of its consequences.

Some times increasing taxes can actually produce less revenue for government, people change their spending habits or look elseware for the same product at lower costs.

 

[Wayno]

We have a government that's too damn big and too involved in too many people's lives problem....

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Here is some truth. Obama, not Bush, added $787 billion in spending, via the ARRA act, in 2009.

Screwy ciphering. TARP was not fully spent and much of it has since been repaid. ARRA was a two-year program, and there is still today some money flowing out the far end of the pipeline.

Federal spending went up 20% from 2007/8 to 2008/9 and STAYED at that level despite TARP and ARRA being called "one time", crisis and emergency spending additions.

Republicans should learn to stop creating economic trainwrecks. They are expensive.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

ps, the ARRA legislative process began before Obama was elected.

That's quite true. The lists of "shovel ready" projects were for instance being collected from mayors and governors of both parties all over the country as early as September 2008.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Screwy ciphering. TARP was not fully spent and much of it has since been repaid. ARRA was a two-year program, and there is still today some money flowing out the far end of the pipeline.


Republicans should learn to stop creating economic trainwrecks. They are expensive.

And Democrats are going to need to come up with a new excuse pretty soon because it's 2013 and Bush left office in 2009. Let's see... over 5 trillion in new debt over 4 years and the excuse is that <paraphrasing here> "It cost that much to bail us out of the Bush years"?? I don't suppose you have anything substantive to back that up, do you?

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Didn't Obama run based on a promise to cut the federal deficit in half, yet actually doubled it?

Before and after. The big whammy of the asset market collapses and onset of the worst of the Great Bush Recession changed the whole economic game plan. Do you not remember that far back? No recollection of McCain calling off the campaign to go back to Washington and help deal with the looming economic crisis and then being thrown off Capitol Hill and having to spend the weekend at his house in Alexandria while Obama did the dickering with Congressional leaders? Why Obama even put ending the tax cuts for the top 2% on the back-burner after that idea had been the whole basis of the dialog with that sappy moron, Joe the Plumber.

You can't have it both ways, either Obama "policy" did or did not work. Pretending that Obama fixed something requires that it be actually fixed. Obama railed against Bush FIT rates yet kept 98.6% of them intact, raised federal revenue by $60 billion and immediately spent $90 billion more in the first month of 2013. Hmm...

Terrible math and logic as usual. Try some of this on for size...

MONTHLY JOB LOSSES


That's a lot of "getting worse" shifting over to a lot of "getting better". Not that Republicans helped any.

 

[ocean515]

That's why the data were from 2007. I guess you didn't read that part. I tried not to use big words.

I belive there may be a few people who would disagree with your opinion included with your previous post.

"This suggests rather powerfully that we may be cheating ourselves out of valuable outcomes through a counter-productive over-reliance on the private sector."

In a relatively short period of time the United States of America became a top economic power because of it's reliance on the private sector.

$100's of billions of goods are imported every year, much of which used to be manufactured here. It is only because of poor Industrial Policy, and regulatory incrementalism, that we exported the manufacturing of these goods. We could recapture that business today if the US were to get serious about.

Unfortunately, the current administration does not appear interested in this approach.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

In 2009, Obama promised ithe stimulus bill would lift two million people out of poverty. There are now 2.6 million MORE people in poverty. Heckuva job,Barry!

Learn the difference between net and gross.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I belive there may be a few people who would disagree with your opinion included with your previous post.

"This suggests rather powerfully that we may be cheating ourselves out of valuable outcomes through a counter-productive over-reliance on the private sector."

In a relatively short period of time the United States of America became a top economic power because of it's reliance on the private sector.

$100's of billions of goods are imported every year, much of which used to be manufactured here. It is only because of poor Industrial Policy, and regulatory incrementalism, that we exported the manufacturing of these goods. We could recapture that business today if the US were to get serious about.

Unfortunately, the current administration does not appear interested in this approach.

What "Industrial policy"? Show me this federal "policy".

You just made the correct implication that our economy is lead by private industrial/manufacturing/service sector . They are the ones guiding any "industrial policy", their influence upon import regulation is what has allowed our manufacturing base to be severely impacted by below cost imports......and much of that is done by international corporations who made the decision to move industry to where the cheap labor exists since they faced little to no tariffs.

US industrial policy, indeed.