• 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]

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

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?
Agree on Solyndra.

I think we should use the Cowboy Poetry contest to select the winners of the hundred medium-sized nuclear power plants I propose the One term Marxist convince the Congress to fund and build. How else are we going to decide which communities get a real energy break? :)
 

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

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.

Yes, a very tiny group of ultra conservatives do believe that, but they rarely get more than 1% of the vote. Fortunately the great majority then and now consider him to one of our greatest presidents.
 

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Yes, a very tiny group of ultra conservatives do believe that, but they rarely get more than 1% of the vote. Fortunately the great majority then and now consider him to one of our greatest presidents.

But Reagan consistently makes that list too, so I'm not sure if it's all that significant. It's all about the myths we cherish and what political agenda you want to forward in the present. A lot of things about FDR are ignored in his lionization by the left. Were he alive today, you probably wouldn't like what he has to say.
 

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

But Reagan consistently makes that list too, so I'm not sure if it's all that significant. It's all about the myths we cherish and what political agenda you want to forward in the present. A lot of things about FDR are ignored in his lionization by the left. Were he alive today, you probably wouldn't like what he has to say.

Well I guess you have a choice of denying public opinion then and now, or try to make the case that everyone is wrong, but you are right. Either way, I'm really not interested.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
23,536
Reaction score
10,607
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LOL - don't know how I missed this thread. What a joke! "Rex Nutting" must to be a pen name because this article is embarrassing even to the most blatant liberal partisan.

Equating "annual growth in spending" with "lowest spending in 60 years"???? LOL. Seriously? If only Obama had spent 2, 3, hell why not 5 trillion that first year and then backed off by a few billion each year... he could have reduced spending more than any President in history!

Gotta love it.

Yes, it's sad that he has only a single talking point on the economy, but do you really have to make something up?
 

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LOL - don't know how I missed this thread. What a joke! "Rex Nutting" must to be a pen name because this article is embarrassing even to the most blatant liberal partisan.

Equating "annual growth in spending" with "lowest spending in 60 years"???? LOL. Seriously? If only Obama had spent 2, 3, hell why not 5 trillion that first year and then backed off by a few billion each year... he could have reduced spending more than any President in history!

Gotta love it.

Yes, it's sad that he has only a single talking point on the economy, but do you really have to make something up?

The article is about spending *growth*. Talk about embarrassing. :roll:
 

Dickieboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
1,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The article is about spending *growth*. Talk about embarrassing. :roll:

And the title of the thread is what?...embarrasing indeed...:lamo
 

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

BCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
178
Location
Heart of Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
"It's just some stupid analysis filled with liberal biases"..This is what a Republican friend of mine said when I presented this to him. It's data from the CBO, I couldn't believe my ears.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
23,536
Reaction score
10,607
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And the title of the thread is what?...embarrasing indeed...:lamo
Haha... of course the title of the article is also fail - "Obama spending binge never happened"
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,134
Reaction score
37,579
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"It's just some stupid analysis filled with liberal biases"..This is what a Republican friend of mine said when I presented this to him. It's data from the CBO, I couldn't believe my ears.

It is a stupid analysis. It treats one-time purchases as permanent baselines. The equivalent were to be if, the month after I bought my house for $150K with a 30 year fixed rate mortgage, I went and racked up $100K on my credit card gambling in Las Vegas in the name of "living within my means".

Anyone trying to actually argue this should be embarrassed.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,134
Reaction score
37,579
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

"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





"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







"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 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




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.





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




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.



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.

I'm not even going to pretend to deal with this mess of random spurts. The basic points remain:

1. If you include current costs, SS and Medicare / Medicaid are contributing more to the debt than DOD spending.
2. If you include future costs, SS and Medicare / Medicaid contribute more to the debt than DOD spending.
3. If you include future unfunded liabilities, SS and Medicare / Medicaid contribute way more to the debt than DOD spending.
4. These basic facts have been pointed out by the CBO, the GAO, the IMF, and every political creature between Paul Ryan and Bill Clinton. Even Obama admits you can't tax enough to fund Medicare.

5. Speaking of Medicare, both Ryan and Obama's plan reduce Medicare growth by the exact same amount. The difference being that Ryan leaves current retirees alone (Obama cuts from them too), and Ryan makes the benefit progressive so as to help our lower-income seniors while not extending benefits to our wealthy (Obama cuts at a flat rate). Any progressive worth his salt ought to prefer Ryan's plan over Obama's, and those that don't are the ones who simply chase after and support anything with a "D" after their name.
 

Eighty Deuce

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1,260
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"It's just some stupid analysis filled with liberal biases"..This is what a Republican friend of mine said when I presented this to him. It's data from the CBO, I couldn't believe my ears.

Well, at least you have one smart friend.
 

Eighty Deuce

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
1,260
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The article is about spending *growth*. Talk about embarrassing. :roll:

If you take the time to actually read it, you see that its about how to fudge numbers.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Of course this thread is a joke - pure cherry picking.

If you look at this site - which gives far more detail then the link provided - you will see that yes, Obama (that pathetic POTUS) reduced spending his first FY. But that is only because George W. Bush (another pathetic POTUS) posted (with help from the democrats/Obama) a GIGANTIC budget deficit during his last FY (fiscal year) in office.

Federal Budget Receipts and Outlays


In his first three fiscal years, Obama has posted deficits that are almost THREE times as large as the FY2008 deficit...and even that was (at the time) the largest deficit in U.S. history.

Obama is responsible (along with the economic morons in Congress) for raising the U.S. national debt by about 1/3 in his first 3 fiscal years.


Either the guy that wrote the article linked at the top of this thread - Rex Nutting - deliberately cherry picked the numbers to get attention or he is genuinely lacking in common sense in this area.

I suspect it is a bit of both.
 
Last edited:

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
3,745
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly 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?)

If I am not mistaken we are spending between 3.5-4 trillion per year. Hoe does that average 2.9 trillion.

Also does your number for Bush include $700 billion for TARP and a reduction in spending for Obama with TARP as it has been mostly repaid?
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
45,400
Reaction score
20,575
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

I am confused. Is it Obamas spending that saved us from a second Great Depression as he claimed last year? Or is it his frugalness that he is claiming now?
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

I am confused. Is it Obamas spending that saved us from a second Great Depression as he claimed last year? Or is it his frugalness that he is claiming now?
Whichever gets him more votes.
 

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

I am confused. Is it Obamas spending that saved us from a second Great Depression as he claimed last year? Or is it his frugalness that he is claiming now?
If he's talking to his base, it's the former. If he's talking to swing voters, it's the latter.
 

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

Yes, a very tiny group of ultra conservatives do believe that, but they rarely get more than 1% of the vote. Fortunately the great majority then and now consider him to one of our greatest presidents.
Hence it is time for reconsideration. Many people thinking the same way does not make it a fact. He is great solely because we won world war two. His economic policies set this nation on the path to socialism and to ruin. We are nearly there.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

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?
Personally, I think a trained goat could have been POTUS and America still would have won WW2.

One look at the production figures of the major powers of WW2 clearly shows why America won - they simply out-built everyone else (with high quality weapons/accessories) by a HUGE margin.

The size and skill and innovation of the American industrial base were the heroes (along with the soldiers of course) - not the POTUS.

The best thing FDR did was stay out of the way.

The few times he did get involved - some were highly negative.

Like his (apparent) insistence on the Alaska class battlecruisers (technically HUGE cruisers) that the Navy did not want - but he did.

So they built these white elephants and they were promptly decommissioned less then three years later - never to return to service again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_class_cruiser
 
Last edited:

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Personally, I think a trained goat could have been POTUS and America still would have won WW2.

One look at the production figures of the major powers of WW2 clearly shows why America won - they simply out-built everyone else (with high quality weapons/accessories) by a HUGE margin.

The size and skill and innovation of the American industrial base were the heroes (along with the soldiers of course) - not the POTUS.

The best thing FDR did was stay out of the way.

The few times he did get involved - some were highly negative.

Like his (apparent) insistence on the Alaska class battlecruisers (technically HUGE cruisers) that the Navy did not want - but he did.

So they built these white elephants and they were promptly decommissioned less then three years later - never to return to service again.

Alaska class cruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What an ignorant statement. FDR was the driving force behind the conversion of US manufacuting from consumer to military production. The American Economy during World War II | Economic History Services
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

What an ignorant statement. FDR was the driving force behind the conversion of US manufacuting from consumer to military production. The American Economy during World War II | Economic History Services

And unless you can prove that had another POTUS been in power that he would not have done at least what FDR 'did' - then your point means nothing. Plus, I see you don't know much about the American military industrial complex. It was they that put pressure on FDR to ramp up the Lend Lease Act. Plus, if you think America did not do something similar in WW1, then you don't know your history. American industry made a fortune before America's entry into WW1 by supplying all kinds of 'stuff' to the combatants.
All Lend Lease did was make it official.

Plus, considering the massive amount of people still unemployed in 1939/40 (thanks to FDR's pathetically failed policies) you don't think he was not itching to Find a reason to put people back to work during an election year (which 1940 was)? Plus, it would (in theory) not cost Americans a penny since they were selling to other countries. It's win-win for FDR.

Lend Lease was about the U.S. industrial military complex lobbying FDR to make them huge profits by selling tons of 'stuff' to the Allied side AND FDR desperately looking for a way to lower unemployment during an election year.

But no - you think it has little to do with those things and was just the noble FDR seeing the coming storm when no one else could and single handedly readying America for war.
Holy crap - are you naive.


Also, the TWo Ocean Navy Act had far, FAR more to do with helping America against Japan then the Lend Lease Act.

If it was not for the Two ocean Navy Act - which FDR had nothing to do with, it was instigated by the Navy directly to Congress - America would have been in no position to march across the Pacific in 1943/44 against Japan. And the Lend Lease Act (which is the only major military 'ramping up that FDR had to do with) had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Two Ocean navy bill.


I am so sick of debating with people who have not a clue what they are talking about.

They just read something from some publication and think they are know-it-alls be ause it says what they want to hear about their 'heroes' and then they say 'See - I told you'.

Ridiculous...no wonder America is such a mess.

The masses are monumentally ignorant - but assume they are SO knowledgeable.
 
Last edited:

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

And unless you can prove that had another POTUS been in power that he would not have done at least what FDR 'did' - then your point means nothing.

And another idiotic statement -- you're on a roll. If we were to adopt that "logic" it would be impossible to evaluate ANY president's performance ... or for that matter any PERSON's performance.
 

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

And unless you can prove that had another POTUS been in power that he would not have done at least what FDR 'did' - then your point means nothing. Plus, I see you don't know much about the American military industrial complex. It was they that put pressure on FDR to ramp up the Lend Lease Act. Plus, if you think America did not do something similar in WW1, then you don't know your history. American industry made a fortune before America's entry into WW1 by supplying all kinds of 'stuff' to the combatants.
All Lend Lease did was make it official.

Plus, considering the massive amount of people still unemployed in 1939/40 (thanks to FDR's pathetically failed policies) you don't think he was not itching to Find a reason to put people back to work during an election year (which 1940 was)? Plus, it would (in theory) not cost Americans a penny since they were selling to other countries. It's win-win for FDR.

Lend Lease was about the U.S. industrial military complex lobbying FDR to make them huge profits by selling tons of 'stuff' to the Allied side AND FDR desperately looking for a way to lower unemployment during an election year.

But no - you think it has little to do with those things and was just the noble FDR seeing the coming storm when no one else could and single handedly readying America for war.
Holy crap - are you naive.


Also, the TWo Ocean Navy Act had far, FAR more to do with helping America against Japan then the Lend Lease Act.

If it was not for the Two ocean Navy Act - which FDR had nothing to do with, it was instigated by the Navy directly to Congress - America would have been in no position to march across the Pacific in 1943/44 against Japan. And the Lend Lease Act (which is the only major military 'ramping up that FDR had to do with) had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Two Ocean navy bill.


I am so sick of debating with people who have not a clue what they are talking about.

They just read something from some publication and think they are know-it-alls be ause it says what they want to hear about their 'heroes' and then they say 'See - I told you'.

Ridiculous...no wonder America is such a mess.

The masses are monumentally ignorant - but assume they are SO knowledgeable.
Well let's put your knowledge of history to a test ... which FDR policies do you blame for the downturn in 1938?
 
Top Bottom