• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years [W:166/819]

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,443
Reaction score
32,289
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Because its working out so swimmingly in Greece!!!

Then send Obama to be president of Greece.

Sent from my blasted phone.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,656
Reaction score
37,795
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

No, but it is a known future cost, that was completely unnecessary.

It's a future estimated cost. Lots of those vets are still in the service, and we don't know what their impact is going to be on the VA when they leave, or even when they will leave - if DOD cuts continue as they are, and the personnel draw down goes into full effect, that will push more vets out quicker, and the VA's load will become heavier faster.

CNS??? I'll go with the treasury that has stated SS has a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus, enough to fully fund SS until 2036. Raising the FICA cap from the current $106,000 to $180,000 makes it solvent for the long term.

:roll: we've been over this about a gajillion times. SS is running a deficit since last year. The Trust Fund calling in IOU's to the General Fund is about as much of a "surplus" as you have a "surplus" when you draw money out on a credit card and spend it from your wallet. Your ad-sourcinem continues to be a failure as they were quoting the Social Security Board of Trustees :lamo

The only way to effectively address health care costs for people is to upgrade to UHC as the all other industrialized nations have done.

That is incorrect - there are several good ways. Then, yes, there is also the bad way - switch to government provision and government rationing. However, that's not going to effect Medicare's future unfunded liability either, unless you intend to extend severe rationing to that program, as well.

The GOP's proposal to simply shift costs to those least able to afford it is no solution.

The GOP makes no such proposal - in fact, it is the Obama administration that is proposing a "flat" cut in benefits via the IPAB. The GOP is proposing a Progressive cut in benefits, with our wealthy having more benefits cut in order to ensure that we can continue to protect our low-income seniors.


However, that is neither here nor there - the point remains that if you want to count future estimated liabilities, SS and Medicare/Medicaid continue to dwarf military spending in general and on the wars in particular. Everyone from Barack Obama to Bill Clinton to Paul Ryan to the CBO, the IMF, and the World Bank have stated that our current entitlements are unsustainable, and that it is impossible to tax enough to pay for them.

We currently spend almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.

If you take China's figures at face value, no, we don't - though it's close. Mind you, you would be a particularly naive form of fool if you did take China's figures at face value, but you could if you wanted. However, that is also neither here nor there - the US military has a global role that is matched by no other nation, and furthermore, US military spending is currently near historical lows, while Medicare is skyrocketing.

couple of fun charts that put into context how ridiculous this argument is:

medicare-spending-deficits-600.jpg


deficit.jpg


defense-entitlement-spending-680.jpg


Defense isn't driving us off a fiscal cliff - the entitlements are. Furthermore, our economy is utterly dependent upon free global trade, which in turn is dependent upon the security guarantee provided by a forward-deployed US military in particular the US Navy. You slash defense, you pull the military back. You pull the military back, the world regionalizes into blocs. The world regionalizes into blocs, the US economy crashes and revenues sink far below the "savings" generated by the defense cuts. It's a penny wise and pound foolish way of cutting off our nose to spite our face.

And we have a choice between a candidate that wants to increase that excessive spending and the president who wants to cut wasteful spending.

This would be the President who gave us Solyndra and studies on robot bees, yes? Whose allies in the Senate defended the Cowboy Poetry Contests?
 
Last edited:

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

And we have a choice between a candidate that wants to increase that excessive spending and the president who wants to cut wasteful spending.

Easy choice for me.

We have a candidate that wants to cut wasteful spending?!? ****ing hell sign me up, who is this guy?
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Weird, and here's a US News & World Report Headline:

President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents

President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
Even if counting from fiscal years beginning prior to a presidents' inauguration, that is not true. Whether looking at nominal figures or real figures ...

Nominal
2005 dollars
Carter
2334.73
5656.48
Reagan
7680.25
12960.36
Bush
6166.91
8546.12
Clinton
14073.26
16979.49
Bush
20953.67
21262.24
Obama
10576.95
9498.17


Government Spending Chart: United States 1970-2017 - Federal State Local Data
 

johnny_rebson

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

We have a candidate that wants to cut wasteful spending?!? ****ing hell sign me up, who is this guy?

Johnson of the Libertarian Party.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

It's a future estimated cost. Lots of those vets are still in the service, and we don't know what their impact is going to be on the VA when they leave, or even when they will leave - if DOD cuts continue as they are, and the personnel draw down goes into full effect, that will push more vets out quicker, and the VA's load will become heavier faster.

"Indirect and delayed costs

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[10][11]

Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[12] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[12]

The extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring."

Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" Social Security is not at all responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year, Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It invested the surpluses in Treasury bills -- in effect, lending them to the rest of the government.

But now Social Security has started to pay out more than it takes in. So to keep it going, it collects only what the rest of the government is obligated to pay it. This will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years."

"The answer is Greenspan's commission failed to predict how much income would become concentrated at the top. Remember, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to earnings up to a certain ceiling that rises with inflation. That ceiling is now $106,800.

Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of total income covered by Social Security. Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.

It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because income inequality has widened. Now a much larger portion of total income goes to the top -- almost twice the share they got back then.

If we want to return to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000. Do that and Social Security's long-term problem is solved."
How to fix Social Security | Marketplace.org



:roll: we've been over this about a gajillion times. SS is running a deficit since last year. The Trust Fund calling in IOU's to the General Fund is about as much of a "surplus" as you have a "surplus" when you draw money out on a credit card and spend it from your wallet. Your ad-sourcinem continues to be a failure as they were quoting the Social Security Board of Trustees :lamo

"Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. "
Trustees Report Summary




That is incorrect - there are several good ways. Then, yes, there is also the bad way - switch to government provision and government rationing. However, that's not going to effect Medicare's future unfunded liability either, unless you intend to extend severe rationing to that program, as well.


"Health care costs in Australia are only 8% of GDP and everyone is covered, while in the U.S., they amount to 15% of GDP and many remain uncovered."
australia


The GOP makes no such proposal - in fact, it is the Obama administration that is proposing a "flat" cut in benefits via the IPAB. The GOP is proposing a Progressive cut in benefits, with our wealthy having more benefits cut in order to ensure that we can continue to protect our low-income seniors.


"The plan does not “preserve” Medicare—it ends Medicare as we know it.


Even if something called “Medicare” still exists under the Republican plan, it will
provide less protection and cost more than the program we have today.


Calling something “Medicare” does not make it Medicare. A vehicle that’s
missing wheels, brakes, and doors is not a “car,” no matter what a salesman
calls it.


The plan raises beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs.


The amount of the voucher will not keep up with increases in health care costs.


Over time, the voucher will buy less and less coverage, and the beneficiaries will
have to either pay more or go without care.


The plan relies on costly private insurance companies.


Private plans in Medicare have always, on average, cost more, not less, than the
traditional Medicare program to deliver the same care.


Private health insurance companies have higher administrative costs than
Medicare and must pay for marketing, salaries, advertising, and profits.


Private insurance companies’ poor track record in controlling Medicare costs
suggests that premium support will not be able to save money without passing
costs onto beneficiaries.


The plan puts current beneficiaries at risk, too.


Even if the premium support proposal is phased in and traditional Medicare
remains an option in the future, current beneficiaries will face higher costs.


Healthier and wealthier beneficiaries will likely leave traditional Medicare for
cheaper private plans that provide less protection because they can afford to
pay additional out-of-pocket costs themselves.


Higher-cost patients will remain in traditional Medicare, thereby pushing up
Medicare premiums for everyone left in the program. Higher premiums would
encourage more people to leave traditional Medicare, increasing Medicare’s
costs further."
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:eRFnzUh6IlgJ:familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/budget-battle/Medicare-Premium-Support.pdf+GOP+plan+to+shift+heatlth+care+cost+to+those+least+able+to+afford+them&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgC6gIngiso6cwTKDtMh5GJmpoW5j-TopYvOkISOsv1bBLrs00WbZMwn82AEtNsMEPaxIF1Pp3XKdKpbxyw0QPt0mK4bVqco4Nkev3lZFadZMyZtBu2uA-pZPODwrGlf3G8yqqA&sig=AHIEtbS2Ig-9bJziZe-Z-VZHUuG9Nviklw


However, that is neither here nor there - the point remains that if you want to count future estimated liabilities, SS and Medicare/Medicaid continue to dwarf military spending in general and on the wars in particular. Everyone from Barack Obama to Bill Clinton to Paul Ryan to the CBO, the IMF, and the World Bank have stated that our current entitlements are unsustainable, and that it is impossible to tax enough to pay for them.

Thats right, we will need to raise the FICA cap to 180,000 and upgrade our health care system as every industrialized country on the the planet has done.



the US military has a global role that is matched by no other nation, and furthermore, US military spending is currently near historical lows, while Medicare is skyrocketing.

I am aware of the role the US military plays in establish US hegemony that benefit the wealthy. I'm tired of paying to finance greater wealth by the 1%.


"Empire is a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of another political society. It can be achieved by force, by political collaboration, by economic, social, or cultural dependence. Imperialism is simply the process or policy of establishing or maintaining an empire."
--Michael Doyle, Empires


Defense isn't driving us off a fiscal cliff - the entitlements are. Furthermore, our economy is utterly dependent upon free global trade, which in turn is dependent upon the security guarantee provided by a forward-deployed US military in particular the US Navy. You slash defense, you pull the military back. You pull the military back, the world regionalizes into blocs. The world regionalizes into blocs, the US economy crashes and revenues sink far below the "savings" generated by the defense cuts. It's a penny wise and pound foolish way of cutting off our nose to spite our face.

MIlitary costs (past and present) are the biggest part of our national debt. Social security has not added one dime to our national debt. If fact it was so successful it loaned money for other other government uses, so that the rich could get tax cuts. Now some don't have the good sense to ask the rich to give up their tax cuts to repay the money borrowed from SS. If you want to provide a military to increase the wealth of the 1%, you pay for it.

This would be the President who gave us Solyndra and studies on robot bees, yes? Whose allies in the Senate defended the Cowboy Poetry Contests?

You talk about peanuts to distract from the trillions of dollars of national debt to make the rich richer.

The president has created more clean energy jobs than any president in history. His opponent doesn't believe there is enough evidence of AGW to take any actions.

LIke I said, it is an easy choice for me.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
38,226
Reaction score
9,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Even if counting from fiscal years beginning prior to a presidents' inauguration, that is not true. Whether looking at nominal figures or real figures ...

Nominal
2005 dollars
Carter
2334.73
5656.48
Reagan
7680.25
12960.36
Bush
6166.91
8546.12
Clinton
14073.26
16979.49
Bush
20953.67
21262.24
Obama
10576.95
9498.17


Government Spending Chart: United States 1970-2017 - Federal State Local Data

I see you guys are STILL peddling all the 2009 spending as belonging to Bush when Obama signed the budget agreement in March of 2009 and tossing the stimulus into Bush's budget numbers for 2009 as well. How partisan of you.
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

I see you guys are STILL peddling all the 2009 spending as belonging to Bush when Obama signed the budget agreement in March of 2009 and tossing the stimulus into Bush's budget numbers for 2009 as well. How partisan of you.
Seriously?? I attributed all of FY2009 to Obama even though, as you point out, we were still operating under Bush's budget for the first half of that fiscal year. How on Earth did you miss that?
 

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Even if counting from fiscal years beginning prior to a presidents' inauguration, that is not true. Whether looking at nominal figures or real figures ...

Nominal
2005 dollars
Carter
2334.73
5656.48
Reagan
7680.25
12960.36
Bush
6166.91
8546.12
Clinton
14073.26
16979.49
Bush
20953.67
21262.24
Obama
10576.95
9498.17


Government Spending Chart: United States 1970-2017 - Federal State Local Data
Each # should be divided by the # of years in office.
 

Travis007

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
13,375
Reaction score
1,611
Location
NJ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Seriously?? I attributed all of FY2009 to Obama even though, as you point out, we were still operating under Bush's budget for the first half of that fiscal year. How on Earth did you miss that?

Pelosi Reid.. you really are out to lunch..
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Each # should be divided by the # of years in office.
My mistake, you are correct...


Nominal2005 dollars
Carter5841,414
Reagan9601,620
Bush1,5422,137
Clinton1,7592,122
Bush2,6192,658
Obama3,0222,714
 
Last edited:

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Pelosi Reid.. you really are out to lunch..
You really should take the time to learn how our government works ... with the exception of veto overrides (click here to learn what that is) no bill becomes law without the president's signature or tacit approval. And since there were no overrides, Bush approved every bill that became law.
 

IndepCentristMA

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
669
Location
Boston, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

My mistake, you are correct...


Nominal2005 dollars
Carter5841,414
Reagan9601,620
Bush1,5422,137
Clinton1,7592,122
Bush2,6192,658
Obama3,2542,922

I'm glad you could admit the mistake... (Although, do you also realize you divided Obama's by 4, when it's only been 3.25?)
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

I'm glad you could admit the mistake... (Although, do you also realize you divided Obama's by 4, when it's only been 3.25?)
I divided by 3.5. And also, that's counting from October 1st, 2008; so not only is that counting 3 years and 8 months, but it's also applying nearly 4 months of spending to Obama which actually occurred while Bush was still president. But as I pointed out initially, I was going by fiscal years.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
38,226
Reaction score
9,269
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Seriously?? I attributed all of FY2009 to Obama even though, as you point out, we were still operating under Bush's budget for the first half of that fiscal year. How on Earth did you miss that?

I didnt. All they passed were appropriations to continue government operation at baseline. The increases all occurred after Bush left office. His proposed budget would have raised the deficit by 1/2 a trillion. Obama and the dem congress added .4trillion of pork to the budget AND passed the stimulus for another 800billion. Bush owns that 500billion, Obama owns the other 1.2 billion and subsequent years.

Oh and 700billion worth of TARP. Dont give me that Bush bill crap, if he is going to claim the subsequent savings, he can take the spending hit, since he was all for the bailouts in the first place---not saying McCain wasnt he was an establishment weasel too.

Only people against the bailout were the very far left and right.
 

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Cut the bull**** -- yes, you did. You wrongly accused me of attributing FY2009 to Bush when in fact, I attributed it to Obama. Just admit you screwed up and move on.
OpportunityCost said:
All they passed were appropriations to continue government operation at baseline. The increases all occurred after Bush left office. His proposed budget would have raised the deficit by 1/2 a trillion. Obama and the dem congress added .4trillion of pork to the budget AND passed the stimulus for another 800billion. Bush owns that 500billion, Obama owns the other 1.2 billion and subsequent years.
Yet more bull****. The CBO estimated Bush's Budget at 500 billion around April of 2008. After the economy collapsed later that same year, the CBO recalculated their estimate to factor in Bush's failed economy and released a new estimated deficit of 1.2 trillion. That was before Obama evenbecame president. Bush owns that and you can't pass that ****hole onto Obama.
 
Last edited:

IndepCentristMA

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
669
Location
Boston, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

I divided by 3.5. And also, that's counting from October 1st, 2008; so not only is that counting 3 years and 8 months, but it's also applying nearly 4 months of spending to Obama which actually occurred while Bush was still president. But as I pointed out initially, I was going by fiscal years.

I call shenanigans then... since if you look at the chart, between the years of 2009 and 2012 every single budget is above $3T in spending, yet youve somehow managed to have his spending average $2.6T/yr...


3205.79 - 2009
-----------------
3113.96 - 2010
3178.42 - 2011
3277.12 - 2012

I dont count the 2009 budget to either of Obama or Bush completely, since they both contributed significantly to it... so let's go with the 3 budgets of Obama's, if you want to go with fiscal years alone...

3189.83... That number is just "slightly" higher than the one presented earlier...

That's also because the Congress did not pass the budgets that Obama sumbitted, for spending much higher than that... the budgets he submitted were $3.6T, $3.8T, $3.7T, and $3.8T... but didn't pass congress...

You can only blame Bush for what Bush spent... even if you want to blame Bush for all of the increase in 2009 (which ignores Obama's overuse of TARP funds and the addition of ARRA)... Obama's budgets in subsequent years were submitted with higher spending than that... without anything left on the books from Bush... that's Obama's spending, he owns that... and he's done it with a persistend deficit of $1.4T...

Also look at the chart... clearly Obama's increase extends further than just the one year of 2009... if 2009 was to handle what they claim was the worst depression since the great depression... why is 2012 a higher budget? Why are all the estimated budgets exponentially increasing?

usgs_line.php
 
Last edited:

Sheik Yerbuti

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
2,921
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

I call shenanigans then... since if you look at the chart, between the years of 2009 and 2012 every single budget is above $3T in spending, yet youve somehow managed to have his spending average $2.6T/yr...


3205.79 - 2009
-----------------
3113.96 - 2010
3178.42 - 2011
3277.12 - 2012

I dont count the 2009 budget to either of Obama or Bush completely, since they both contributed significantly to it... so let's go with the 3 budgets of Obama's, if you want to go with fiscal years alone...

3189.83... That number is just "slightly" higher than the one presented earlier...

That's also because the Congress did not pass the budgets that Obama sumbitted, for spending much higher than that... the budgets he submitted were $3.6T, $3.8T, $3.7T, and $3.8T... but didn't pass congress...

You can only blame Bush for what Bush spent... even if you want to blame Bush for all of the increase in 2009 (which ignores Obama's overuse of TARP funds and the addition of ARRA)... Obama's budgets in subsequent years were submitted with higher spending than that... without anything left on the books from Bush... that's Obama's spending, he owns that... and he's done it with a persistend deficit of $1.4T...
I was only counting dollars actually spent, not estimates. 2012 isn't on the books yet.
 

IndepCentristMA

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
669
Location
Boston, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

I was only counting dollars actually spent, not estimates. 2012 isn't on the books yet.

Fair point... let's throw 2012 out then...

3113.96 - 2010
3178.42 - 2011

it averages to 3146.19 now...

(no matter how you slice it, his spending has been over $3T every time... so stop posting BS)

Okay, I've indulged this lame concept long enough...

Obama isn't responsible for the "actual" budget... since that's what's spent/not spent by the lower departments, personal claims, and contractors which tend to be way out of his reach...

What you hold Obama responsible for are the budget proposals he's presented, any budgets he's signed, and how his legislation has affected the budget...

Regarding his proposals, they've been of $3.6T, $3.8T, $3.7T, and $3.8T, despite the fact that we've never collected over $2.5T in revenue... meaning, that even in a best case scenario, we would have deficits of $1.1T, $1.3T, $1.2T, and $1.3T... However, in the last GWB budget, revenue clearly dropped from $2.5T to $2.1T... and in Obama's first budget, that he was proposing he knew that revenue had dropped to $2.1T, so he was knowingly proposing a deficit of nearly $1.5T...

However, Obama listed in his budget that he expected to collect more revenue... so it masked the size of the deficit... Yet, almost all of his legislation increased spending or created tax break loopholes... Thus preventing revenue from actually increasing... Things like, his use of TARP (which only $177B had been spent under Bush, and only $300 had been spent when the recession had ended... so Obama could've returned $400B of it), ARRA $800B, Cash for Clunkers (a minimal cost program, which benefited foreign auto-makers mostly, still it added to spending with no offset or benefit to the market), ObamaCare (whose cost is very under projected and bound to cost more than the $100B/yr that its currently figured for), etc. have all added significantly to the spending, while he's famously praised himself for numerous small pieces of legislation to create tax breaks for the poor (if the poor have the tax filing know-how and financial means to be able to use them, which most don't)... Furthermore, he recognized that ending the Bush Tax Cuts would've meant a crippling tax hike that wouldve killed the fragile economy, so he extended the Bush Tax Cuts for 2 more years... Yet, instead of accounting for that extension decreasing the revenue, he increased the budget proposals to $3.8T, $3.7T, and $3.8T... That the actual spending was half a trillion lower than what Obama intended it to be is a saving grace of why the debt didnt balloon up close to $20T...

Then, to top it off... he's only been able to get 1 of his budgets signed... For someone that heavily criticized GWB for calling himself the great uniter, but acting like the great divider, it's really embarrasing for Obama that we now have far more polarization, and he has a complete inability to get anything accomplished... Instead of being embarrassed by it, though, he now intends to use it to his advantage, by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and dangling this Robinhood taxation strategy that he knows won't get passed... so what will happen is a massive tax hike that will punish working families, and he'll try and point the finger at the Republicans over it, shamelessly...

It's safe to say, Obama's handling of this nations fiscal situation has been reckless and attrocious...

The Solyndra debacle is perhaps most indicative of his inability to ground himself in reality when it comes to spending... He actively pursued and celebrated his investment of $535M of taxpayer funds in building a $737M state of the art manufacturing plant for a company that lacked private investment, since all financial forecast reports said the risk was too great and there was no sustainable market to be had. The government's official report under the Bush administration said the company's finances would run out in Sep 2011, which is exactly when it went bankrupt... And instead of mitigating the taxpayer risk, he helped a large campaign donor of his take his private investment out of the company days before it filed for bankruptcy...

This isn't the lowest spending, it's the most reckless spending since Jefferson... At least when FDR spent us over 100% of GDP it was because we were suddenly thrust into a world war we weren't prepared for... Obama doesn't have that excuse to fall back on... he's just spending for the sake of spending...
 
Last edited:

Misterveritis

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,813
Reaction score
2,233
Location
Huntsville, AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

. . .
the need for demand - where the government primes the pump with its own spending - is absolutely essential and appropriate given this circumstance it is that sign of expansion looming which will result in the money on the sidelines being used to prepare to satisfy such increasing demand
Okay. We need a 600 ship Navy, A Special Operations Command of 150,000 troops, and a substantially upgunned, larger Marine Corps. Let's professionalize the US Intelligence community, increase our HUMINT capability by at least one order of magnitude, and do what it takes to win in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We should provide one hundred medium-sized state-of-the-art nuclear power plants.

That should stimulate the economy far more than keeping public sector unions afloat.
 

Misterveritis

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,813
Reaction score
2,233
Location
Huntsville, AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

That is your opinion, and one not shared by the majority of scholars who consider FDR our greatest president, nor was your opinion shared by the majority of voters that were living then, as they reelected FDR two more times.
Perhaps it is time for a reconsideration. I believe his policies prolonged the depression. If he was not the worst president we have ever had, saved only by winning WWII, he was a close second.

The one term Marxist flexible president Barrack Hussein Obama is essentially tied with FDR as the worst. Will he start a big war to complete the parallels? Why admit to Stuxnet if he is not trying to get a good little war going with Iran?
 
Top Bottom