• 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]

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

Well let's put your knowledge of history to a test ... which FDR policies do you blame for the downturn in 1938?

His (and Hoover's) moronic Keynesian-style spending that made the economy so utterly dependent on stimulus that as soon as he (almost) balanced the budget...the whole house of cards immediately collapsed and threw the country back into recession.

Whereas if he had just let the economy work itself out it would have probably been back to self-sustaining prosperity LONG before 1938.
The British barely deficited their budget during the Great Depression and they recovered faster then America did.

FDR didn't end the Great Depression...he prolonged it.

Federal Budget Receipts and Outlays
 
Last edited:

Dickieboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
1,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

That and the 1936 Revenue act that significantly increased the tax on higher incomes...'tax the rich'...sound vaguely familiar?
 

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

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.
Now I admit it's a simplistic opening remark.
But after your INCREDIBLY naive statement:
'FDR was the driving force behind the conversion of US manufacuting from consumer to military production.'
That was the level of respect I had/have for you on this subject.

And BTW (imo), Pearl Harbor, U.S. military industrial complex greed, the military's desire to prepare America for possible war, the Two-Ocean navy bill, and finally FDR's desire for re-election by reducing unemployment ...in that order...was the driving force behind the conversion of US manufacturing from consumer to military production.


Plus, I see - as you did with other posts where I dismantled your points - you avoid facing the truth and deal with the facts and just resort to childish cherry picking.

So, you don't know your history, you avoid facts when they make you look wrong and you use childish insults to attack others instead of using facts.

Noted.

Maybe you should get out more instead of typing 10,000?!? posts on here in under a year.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:

Jenn

New member
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
21
Reaction score
5
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Originally Posted by AdamT:

'the last budget of Obama's first term -- is projected to be $704 billion'

Projected being the key word. I am projecting I will earn or steal $43.06 million this year. Will it happen? Probably not, but I can always adjust those numbers later, right?!?
 
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

Well let's put your knowledge of history to a test ... which FDR policies do you blame for the downturn in 1938?

His (and Hoover's) moronic Keynesian-style spending that made the economy so utterly dependent on stimulus that as soon as he (almost) balanced the budget...the whole house of cards immediately collapsed and threw the country back into recession.

Whereas if he had just let the economy work itself out it would have probably been back to self-sustaining prosperity LONG before 1938.
The British barely deficited their budget during the Great Depression and they recovered faster then America did.

FDR didn't end the Great Depression...he prolonged it.

Federal Budget Receipts and Outlays
Just as I expected, you failed the test.

It obviously wasn't FDR's Keynesian polices since unemployment fell every year until the Great Depression ended except for 1938 and GDP grew every year except that year. Now wile FDR was president and he does get the blame for that recession, the cause of the recession was mostly due to spending cuts and tightened monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. FDR returned to higher spending level and the recession ended. The chart you posted demonstrates this as spending was $10.5B in 1936, dropped to $8.6B in 1937, which contrbuted to the recession which lasted until 1938 when spending dropped $7.7B. Spending increased again in FY1939 to $10.3B.

And the nonsense that FDR's policies prolonged it is unprovable partisan nonsense, pushed by the very same poeople whose ideology led us into the Great Depression to begin with. That they think they knew the answers to the way out of it when they are the ones who caused it is ridiculous.
 

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

Just as I expected, you failed the test.

It obviously wasn't FDR's Keynesian polices since unemployment fell every year until the Great Depression ended except for 1938 and GDP grew every year except that year. Now wile FDR was president and he does get the blame for that recession, the cause of the recession was mostly due to spending cuts and tightened monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. FDR returned to higher spending level and the recession ended. The chart you posted demonstrates this as spending was $10.5B in 1936, dropped to $8.6B in 1937, which contrbuted to the recession which lasted until 1938 when spending dropped $7.7B. Spending increased again in FY1939 to $10.3B.

And the nonsense that FDR's policies prolonged it is unprovable partisan nonsense, pushed by the very same poeople whose ideology led us into the Great Depression to begin with. That they think they knew the answers to the way out of it when they are the ones who caused it is ridiculous.

So, you say the cause of the recession was Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy?

You do realize that the Fed increased the monetary supply by 62% during the mid-late 20's?
They did not cause it by tightening the policy. They caused it by over-inflating the economy by 'printing' too much money in the 20's and when they stopped when they saw the economy was overheating (and they could not keeping printing at that pace forever), it collapsed as it had gotten dependent on that new money pouring into it from the Fed.
You Keynesians just don't seem to get it - if you make money too plentiful, people will get greedy and want more and more...and they will take greater and greater risks to get it because it was so easy to get in the first place.
That is what (more or less) caused the Crash and that is (more or less) what caused the housing boom/bust.
And both can be traced to governments either printing too much money or making credit too cheap.


Explain this to me Bernanke - why did Britain recover much faster then America did (and their unemplyment rate was as bad as America's in the early 30's) even though they ran a fraction of the deficits that Hoover/FDR did?

And I don't want another baseless theory. I want to see a theory with a link to unbiased factual evidence of that theory...otherwise, please don't waste my time.


BTW, the reason is obvious. Government stimulus stunts growth. Sure, it gives it a quick fix at the beginning - like a junkie when he first gets high. But once the initial high passes, the economy stagnates as it becomes dependent on government stimulus just to get by. That is why the Great Depression and it's aftermath dragged on for a decade.

And that is EXACTLY what is happening now. The DOW goes up, not on good fundamentals. It goes up when the market thinks the government/Fed is going to print more money.


And btw - if FDR prolonging the Great Depression is unprovable...then where is your proof that he did NOT prolong the Great Depression?
And if you cannot prove it - then what is your factual basis for calling it 'nonsense'?

Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:

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
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

If I was you I'd move on too. Nothing to see here, folks ... no one look at the shrub behind the curtain! :lol:

He had you nailed. Thanks for confirming.
 

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

Now I admit it's a simplistic opening remark.
But after your INCREDIBLY naive statement:
'FDR was the driving force behind the conversion of US manufacuting from consumer to military production.'
That was the level of respect I had/have for you on this subject.

I suppose you should have taken the time to read the linked info. explaining FDR's involvement in detail. It's very hard to take you seriously when you consistently get the facts completely wrong.
 

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 suppose you should have taken the time to read the linked info. explaining FDR's involvement in detail. It's very hard to take you seriously when you consistently get the facts completely wrong.

If you can not even get it together enough to deal with my entire posts and insist on just cherry picking those sentences you can handle - I am not going to bother answering you.

Youpost few facts, have a closed mind, take everything WAY too emotionally and I learn nothing from you.

Bottom line - you are wasting my time.


Have a nice day.
 

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

If you can not even get it together enough to deal with my entire posts and insist on just cherry picking those sentences you can handle - I am not going to bother answering you.

Youpost few facts, have a closed mind, take everything WAY too emotionally and I learn nothing from you.

Bottom line - you are wasting my time.


Have a nice day.

I'm responding to what little substance I can cull from your posts and ignoring the pure tripe. If you won't stand by what you've written and address rebuttals to it then I guess you might as well move along.
 

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 suppose you should have taken the time to read the linked info. explaining FDR's involvement in detail. It's very hard to take you seriously when you consistently get the facts completely wrong.

Btw - I read much of your linked article, scanned the rest and learned NOTHING that I did not already know or assumed before.

My statements above stand.

FDR's motives for Lend Lease et al were simply political opportunism (in my opinion), they paled in comparison with the MASSIVE Two Ocean Navy Act and other military-originated programs in readying America for war and his meddling in some programs -iike the Alaska-class cruisers - actually hurt America's war effort.

Plus, don't forget; it was his ineptitude at Yalta that allowed the Soviets to more easily take over Eastern Europe in '45.

Many people assume because America kicked everyone's ass in WW2 and FDR was POTUS that he must have done a great job.

His programs lengthened the Great Depression and it's aftermath and he was an adequate (at best) war time POTUS. Churchill was much better (despite making a few mistakes as well).


Now until you start debating with an open mind, deal with ALL the facts (not just the ones you like) and can stop spewing bile everytime you talk to someone whose views you disagree with - I am done with you for now.

No offense, but life is too short and you take these discussions FAR to personally for my taste.

I am here to learn, teach and pass the time, Not blow off stress at others expense...that is what exercise is for.


Have a nice day.
 
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

Btw - I read much of your linked article, scanned the rest and learned NOTHING that I did not already know or assumed before.

My statements above stand.

FDR's motives for Lend Lease et al were simply political opportunism (in my opinion), they paled in comparison with the MASSIVE Two Ocean Navy Act and other military-originated programs in readying America for war and his meddling in some programs -iike the Alaska-class cruisers - actually hurt America's war effort.

Plus, don't forget; it was his ineptitude at Yalta that allowed the Soviets to more easily take over Eastern Europe in '45.

Many people assume because America kicked everyone's ass in WW2 and FDR was POTUS that he must have done a great job.

His programs lengthened the Great Depression and it's aftermath and he was an adequate (at best) war time POTUS. Churchill was much better (despite making a few mistakes as well).


Now until you start debating with an open mind, deal with ALL the facts (not just the ones you like) and can stop spewing bile everytime you talk to someone whose views you disagree with - I am done with you for now.

No offense, but life is too short and you take these discussions FAR to personally for my taste.

I am here to learn, teach and pass the time, Not blow off stress at others expense...that is what exercise is for.


Have a nice day.

It seems to me that you're just here to post hackish opinions that are contrary reality. It's not for nothing that Historians consistently rate FDR as one of the top three presidents in US history, or that he's considered one of the greatest war presidents.
 

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

It seems to me that you're just here to post hackish opinions that are contrary reality. It's not for nothing that Historians consistently rate FDR as one of the top three presidents in US history, or that he's considered one of the greatest war presidents.
Ah... so since he disagrees with you, and you can't argue on merit, you go with two fallacies, that he must be here to be a hack, and that because you are in a majority opinion it must be right...

Sadly, though, he already addressed this point...
"Many people assume because America kicked everyone's ass in WW2 and FDR was POTUS that he must have done a great job."

I don't disagree, FDR is consistently rated by historians... who just assume without measuring the relevant facts... I feel they do the same thing with Jefferson... Jefferson may have been a great patriot, and wrote eloquently and intelligently, but by most measures his presidency was far from successfull... FDR had a lot of failures that have been brushed over by Americanization techniques, whereby everyone was just expected to accept FDR as a great president... We are also supposed to hate Hoover, despite the fact that Hoover's policies are actually what began the recovery from the Depression... Most historians also list GWB in the middle of the pack... but I'm sure you've called him the worst president the us has ever had on more than one occasion... So stop relying on the rankings and stop relaying opinions that don't hold up to the test of facts...
 

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

Ah... so since he disagrees with you, and you can't argue on merit, you go with two fallacies, that he must be here to be a hack, and that because you are in a majority opinion it must be right...

Sadly, though, he already addressed this point...
"Many people assume because America kicked everyone's ass in WW2 and FDR was POTUS that he must have done a great job."

I don't disagree, FDR is consistently rated by historians... who just assume without measuring the relevant facts... I feel they do the same thing with Jefferson... Jefferson may have been a great patriot, and wrote eloquently and intelligently, but by most measures his presidency was far from successfull... FDR had a lot of failures that have been brushed over by Americanization techniques, whereby everyone was just expected to accept FDR as a great president... We are also supposed to hate Hoover, despite the fact that Hoover's policies are actually what began the recovery from the Depression... Most historians also list GWB in the middle of the pack... but I'm sure you've called him the worst president the us has ever had on more than one occasion... So stop relying on the rankings and stop relaying opinions that don't hold up to the test of facts...

Yep, we all know how those historians ignore facts. Do you even listen to yourself? :lamo
 

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

Ah... so since he disagrees with you, and you can't argue on merit, you go with two fallacies, that he must be here to be a hack, and that because you are in a majority opinion it must be right...

Sadly, though, he already addressed this point...
"Many people assume because America kicked everyone's ass in WW2 and FDR was POTUS that he must have done a great job."

I don't disagree, FDR is consistently rated by historians... who just assume without measuring the relevant facts... I feel they do the same thing with Jefferson... Jefferson may have been a great patriot, and wrote eloquently and intelligently, but by most measures his presidency was far from successfull... FDR had a lot of failures that have been brushed over by Americanization techniques, whereby everyone was just expected to accept FDR as a great president... We are also supposed to hate Hoover, despite the fact that Hoover's policies are actually what began the recovery from the Depression... Most historians also list GWB in the middle of the pack... but I'm sure you've called him the worst president the us has ever had on more than one occasion... So stop relying on the rankings and stop relaying opinions that don't hold up to the test of facts...

First, thank you very much.

And two, I agree that simply argueing that 'the 'experts' say...' means little.

When I was younger, I used to give the 'experts' merit.

But as timed passed, I gave them less and less.

I think it hit rock bottom five years ago when it was ridiculously obvious to me that the housing boom was going to implode (and I am NO expert - the signs were just obvious); but most 'economists' were still saying that everything was okay.

Even Bernanke was saying things will be fine.
And he was not just saying that to try and stop panic; he really believed it. Just look at the transcripts from Fed meetings from that time and Bernanke and Geithner show that they both completely misunderstood what was about to happen...and these two were supposed to be top experts.
Turns out they were clueless. Just as the VAST majority of economic 'experts'....they almost all completely missed it.

My point is that one should never, EVER trust 'experts'...no matter what their credentials.

Listen to what they say, keep an open mind and verify it for yourself.

I truly believe that if the majority of Americans followed this 'advice' that America would be FAR better off then it is.

The American masses are not idiots (imo)...just REALLY naive.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
64,035
Reaction score
25,323
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

First, thank you very much.

And two, I agree that simply argueing that 'the 'experts' say...' means little.

When I was younger, I used to give the 'experts' merit.

But as timed passed, I gave them less and less.

I think it hit rock bottom five years ago when it was ridiculously obvious to me that the housing boom was going to implode (and I am NO expert - the signs were just obvious); but most 'economists' were still saying that everything was okay.

Even Bernanke was saying things will be fine.
And he was not just saying that to try and stop panic; he really believed it. Just look at the transcripts from Fed meetings from that time and Bernanke and Geithner show that they both completely misunderstood what was about to happen...and these two were supposed to be top experts.
Turns out they were clueless. Just as the VAST majority of economic 'experts'....they almost all completely missed it.

My point is that one should never, EVER trust 'experts'...no matter what their credentials.

Listen to what they say, keep an open mind and verify it for yourself.

I truly believe that if the majority of Americans followed this 'advice' that America would be FAR better off then it is.

The American masses are not idiots (imo)...just REALLY naive.

Ok let's test YOUR naivety on the cause of the housing bubble.
1) Who "Kicked off" the housing boom in 2002 with a program that got Fannie Mae to buy $440 billion in subprime no money down mortgages?
2) Who used Federal power to stop the States Attorneys from using their own laws to regulate predatory "subprime" mortgages?
3) How were CDS's used in relation to housing and why did they precipitate the failure of the financial system?
4) Who's name is on the bill that deregulated the banks and insurance companies? hint: He is now sitting on the Board at UBS Bank

If you don't know off hand, feel free to use the internet.
 
Last edited:

Gonzo Rodeo

better late than pregnant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,373
Location
Here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Obama's spending is the HIGHEST. Ever.

The argument these graphs are trying to make claim lowest increase in spending. Still increased, but not as much. Yet, what do you hear from liberal pundits and hacks? Lowest spending. And if you read the so-called "methodology," it's not even accurate! You have to take the whole of 2009 and attribute it to Bush. Obama has been in office 3 1/2 years, but the chart only accounts for roughly two years of the Obama reign. So that's how you give Obama numbers that make him look like he's responsible - just blatantly lie, and know that your fanbase won't question you.

English comprehension 101. Class dismissed.
 

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

Ok let's test YOUR naivety on the cause of the housing bubble.
1) Who "Kicked off" the housing boom in 2002 with a program that got Fannie Mae to buy $440 billion in subprime no money down mortgages?
2) Who used Federal power to stop the States Attorneys from using their own laws to regulate predatory "subprime" mortgages?
3) How were CDS's used in relation to housing and why did they precipitate the failure of the financial system?
4) Who's name is on the bill that deregulated the banks and insurance companies? hint: He is now sitting on the Board at UBS Bank

If you don't know off hand, feel free to use the internet.

Once again, going to lay this out. Gramm/Leach/Bliley eased the wall separating commercial and residential banking opening the door for more and more mortgage derivatives and the CDSs that were part of their "securitization" or "lessening of risk"--quotes because it really did the opposite in a cascading effect on the financial system.

CARPE DIEM: The Higher Education Bubble: It's About to Burst
The housing bubble, where the housing cost lifts off the CPI began in approximiately the late to mid 90s after some redlining test cases occurred and the CRA began to really take off---not saying it was the prime cause it was a contributor. When the full effect of the reforms and the new regs from the above G/L/B occurred, the housing market really began to heat up. By then private and public firms were at the trough and sending things into a feeding frenzy. Bush didnt kick off the housing boom, he complied with regs as he was required to do by law. Hindsight says he should have done so much more slowly, but hindsight says we should have passed that abomination of a financial bill in the first damn place.

Anyhow, feel free to give us your version of what happened, but if its all: "derp Boooooossssshhhhh herp", forget I asked. I already know you are wrong.
 

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

Ok let's test YOUR naivety on the cause of the housing bubble.
1) Who "Kicked off" the housing boom in 2002 with a program that got Fannie Mae to buy $440 billion in subprime no money down mortgages?
2) Who used Federal power to stop the States Attorneys from using their own laws to regulate predatory "subprime" mortgages?
3) How were CDS's used in relation to housing and why did they precipitate the failure of the financial system?
4) Who's name is on the bill that deregulated the banks and insurance companies? hint: He is now sitting on the Board at UBS Bank

If you don't know off hand, feel free to use the internet.

Other then the Credit Default Swap question - I have no idea who the people are (hey - I never claimed to be an expert, FAR from it).

I assume they are conservatives, since you are a liberal?

Instead of ordering others to answer your questions and acting condescending; why don't you just make a statement, include a link to provide 'proof' of your point and ask if they agree or disagree?


As for the financial collapse? Means little to me. They screwed up because of greed and the government bailed them out - which was TOTALLY wrong.

But this had little to do with what caused the housing bubble.

The housing bubble was precipitated by the Fed lowering interest rates too much and GWB falling in love with low income home ownership (which Congress quickly fell in love with as well) as a no lose idea...when it should have been obvious it was a recipe for disaster.
Bubbles start when new money enters a market. If the money is there for legitimate reasons, the market generally grows in a healthy manner. When the money is there for illegitimate reasons - like the government decides to artificially stimulate that market - then the growth is based on a fallacy.
The GWB administration decided to begin a low income housing boom (an idea Clinton had fooled around with on a much smaller scale) and the Fed and later the banks went along (in my opinion).
GWB forced HUD to pour billions into Fannie/Freddie to help low income people (who had no business owning homes) to own homes. And he got Congress to go along with it.
Apparently, according to White House employees from that administration, it was a HUGE pet project of Bush's. one he REALLY thought would help the country.

It was a dumb (noble?) idea and it failed miserably.


And it ALL would have (again, imo) been behind Americans by now if the powers that be had just let the market hit bottom, balanced the federal budget, let the banks/corporations that needed/deserved to fail - fail and let interest rates rise to where the market decided instead of keeping them artificially low.
The American economy would be growing again, the unemployment rate would be far lower and the national debt would be about 1/2 of what it is now.
But you or a Keynesian-loving person will say 'things would have been disastrous if the government had not spent, spent and spent.'
Yeah? Then please prove it?
You can't?
Then the threat means nothing.

And that is the ONLY argument big spenders can make - scare tactics. knowing that it is impossible to prove.


I believe the housing boom/bust was caused by - in order - the Fed, GWB admin, Congress, the Clinton admin (they opened the door to the dumb ass low income housing nonsense), home buyers and then the banks (sure, the banks acted like idiots - but no one put a gun to American's heads to go SO far into debt).


I assume you blame it all on conservatives and the banks.

I am not partisan - I KNOW both parties are worse then useless. And if the greedy masses had not have gotten WAY over their heads and if the Fed/Congress had told the idiotic banks back in the mid 00's when it was apparent they were taking MASSIVE risks with debt; 'Hey! If you guys get into trouble...you are completely on your own' - then I guarantee you they would have acted a lot less wreckless.

Moral hazard.


Have a nice day.
 
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

Yep, we all know how those historians ignore facts. Do you even listen to yourself? :lamo

As a Harvard educated historian myself, that has taken History courses at 5 different universities, I can say I have plenty of first-hand knowledge in this regard. Several of my professors are routinely filmed for biographies or other history specials. Some are considered the eminent minds in their respected foci.

1 is a presidential transition expert - his favorite president is Washington, because he voluntarily stepped down, when he could've been king...
1 is a civil war expert - his favorite president is Lincoln, go figure...
1 is a WWII expert - his favorite president is FDR, coincidentally...
1 grew up with Truman as his first president, and focuses on Cold War topics - his favorite president is Truman, oddly enough...
1 grew up as an Americanized Italian American, who could speak about public parks and military topics in great detail - his favorit president was Teddy Roosevelt, because he took a bullet and kept on speaking...
1 is an Irish American expert on Boston history - his favorite president is JFK, somehow...

Do you see what I'm saying yet, or are you still just gonna be an ignorant clown who says meaningless stuff back to people who aren't blind following liberals? Historians see what they want to see, just as much as the general public does...

Do you really think it's a coincidence that the 3 major topics studied in US History are the Revolution, The Civil War, and World War II, and the top 3 presidents have been Washington, Lincoln, and FDR?

Personally, I think there were many great things FDR did, but there were also many faults that FDR had, and FDR's actions and policies contributed to a lot of negative aspects of our society, including; expanding the size and scope of the federal government, butchering the constitution, and assisting in converting the US to be like biggest Nationalistic and Socialistic nation on earth... Some of these things may have had great results in the short-term (or at least were masked by other successes), but also had long lasting complications which may have actually been worse off than other approaches which could've been taken...

However, regardless how anyone feels or ranks his presidency, FDR, as any other figure, is perfectly open to scruitiny... So if you care to discuss the relevant facts, there's a discussion to be had... but you won't get much response to "He was ranked high", or "FDR was great" without backing it up with details...
 

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

As a Harvard educated historian myself, that has taken History courses at 5 different universities, I can say I have plenty of first-hand knowledge in this regard. Several of my professors are routinely filmed for biographies or other history specials. Some are considered the eminent minds in their respected foci.

1 is a presidential transition expert - his favorite president is Washington, because he voluntarily stepped down, when he could've been king...
1 is a civil war expert - his favorite president is Lincoln, go figure...
1 is a WWII expert - his favorite president is FDR, coincidentally...
1 grew up with Truman as his first president, and focuses on Cold War topics - his favorite president is Truman, oddly enough...
1 grew up as an Americanized Italian American, who could speak about public parks and military topics in great detail - his favorit president was Teddy Roosevelt, because he took a bullet and kept on speaking...
1 is an Irish American expert on Boston history - his favorite president is JFK, somehow...

Do you see what I'm saying yet, or are you still just gonna be an ignorant clown who says meaningless stuff back to people who aren't blind following liberals? Historians see what they want to see, just as much as the general public does...

Do you really think it's a coincidence that the 3 major topics studied in US History are the Revolution, The Civil War, and World War II, and the top 3 presidents have been Washington, Lincoln, and FDR?

Personally, I think there were many great things FDR did, but there were also many faults that FDR had, and FDR's actions and policies contributed to a lot of negative aspects of our society, including; expanding the size and scope of the federal government, butchering the constitution, and assisting in converting the US to be like biggest Nationalistic and Socialistic nation on earth... Some of these things may have had great results in the short-term (or at least were masked by other successes), but also had long lasting complications which may have actually been worse off than other approaches which could've been taken...

However, regardless how anyone feels or ranks his presidency, FDR, as any other figure, is perfectly open to scruitiny... So if you care to discuss the relevant facts, there's a discussion to be had... but you won't get much response to "He was ranked high", or "FDR was great" without backing it up with details...

Thank you for being you Inde..You my friend are a great contributer and I enjoy your posts..
 
Last edited:

Billy the Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
2,449
Reaction score
563
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Check the chart below compiled by Marketwatch and you will see Obama isn't close to being a big spender.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.


As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”


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

Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.[...]​



Well if he keeps this "no spending" up, the US will be out of debt in what 50-60 years? Woo Hoo!
 

IndepCentristMA

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
669
Location
Boston, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Btw, scholars rank GWB in the bottom 25% -- not in the middle of the pack. Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FDR ranks second, just behind Lincoln.

That's not "scholars" rankings, clown boy... that's aggregate polls of several different groups... including the general public, as surveyed by left leaning papers...

From your source
Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[8] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".

Hmm... so Democrats in 2005 didnt like Bush, and Republicans did? Odd how that works...

Also from your source:
Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said: "President Bush would seem to have small hope for high marks from the current generation of practicing historians and political scientists. In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do." Dr. Douglas Lonnstrom, Siena College professor of statistics and director of the Siena Research Institute, stated: "In our 2002 presidential rating, with a group of experts comparable to this current poll, President Bush ranked 23rd of 42 presidents. That was shortly after 9/11. Clearly, the professors do not think things have gone well for him in the past few years. These are the experts that teach college students today and will write the history of this era tomorrow."[9]

Which is precisely why true scholars weren't involved... True scholars know that the recognition of a president isn't truly felt until several years after he is out of office, so the long-term effects of his policies can be felt, but polls on recent presidents reflect personal feelings which belie true scholarship... What you have is opinion polls... the same ones which will go back and forth from JFK and Clinton being decent presidents to ones where Reagan and GWB are rated as being good presidents... It's too soon to rank GWB by accurate scholarship...

However, GWB, even by your aggregate of opinion polls, is still not in the bottom 10 or the top 10 of presidents, which makes him middle of the pack and not listed as worst ever... as I said...

and you saying that FDR is ranked anywhere, still does nothing to debase the arguments against him, that were presented on this very thread... regarding his slowing the economy from growing... and being bailed out by military build up prior to the war, and massive spending on the military due to the war...
 

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

As a Harvard educated historian myself, that has taken History courses at 5 different universities, I can say I have plenty of first-hand knowledge in this regard. Several of my professors are routinely filmed for biographies or other history specials. Some are considered the eminent minds in their respected foci.

1 is a presidential transition expert - his favorite president is Washington, because he voluntarily stepped down, when he could've been king...
1 is a civil war expert - his favorite president is Lincoln, go figure...
1 is a WWII expert - his favorite president is FDR, coincidentally...
1 grew up with Truman as his first president, and focuses on Cold War topics - his favorite president is Truman, oddly enough...
1 grew up as an Americanized Italian American, who could speak about public parks and military topics in great detail - his favorit president was Teddy Roosevelt, because he took a bullet and kept on speaking...
1 is an Irish American expert on Boston history - his favorite president is JFK, somehow...

Do you see what I'm saying yet, or are you still just gonna be an ignorant clown who says meaningless stuff back to people who aren't blind following liberals? Historians see what they want to see, just as much as the general public does...

Do you really think it's a coincidence that the 3 major topics studied in US History are the Revolution, The Civil War, and World War II, and the top 3 presidents have been Washington, Lincoln, and FDR?

Personally, I think there were many great things FDR did, but there were also many faults that FDR had, and FDR's actions and policies contributed to a lot of negative aspects of our society, including; expanding the size and scope of the federal government, butchering the constitution, and assisting in converting the US to be like biggest Nationalistic and Socialistic nation on earth... Some of these things may have had great results in the short-term (or at least were masked by other successes), but also had long lasting complications which may have actually been worse off than other approaches which could've been taken...

However, regardless how anyone feels or ranks his presidency, FDR, as any other figure, is perfectly open to scruitiny... So if you care to discuss the relevant facts, there's a discussion to be had... but you won't get much response to "He was ranked high", or "FDR was great" without backing it up with details...

Do you make a habit of asking all your profs who their favorite president is? :lol:

Pardon me for thinking that you made up that little story to fit your narrative.

As to why the top rated presidents come from major American epochs, there's no mystery there. Great challenges provide the opportunity for great success or great failure. Obviously Roosevelt wasn't perfect, but it's absurd to argue that his only contribution to WWII was an ill-advised procurement deal.

And the fact remains that in 16 separate surveys of scholars over a period of more than 60 years, FDR was never ranked lower than the third best president in US history.
 
Top Bottom