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

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Please review the CBO (which is the data source for the article’s assertions) links I provided. The CBO baseline BUDGET is based on legislation AS IT STAND NOW. Which means it anticipates ALL the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012. The alternative baseline BUDGET anticipates various fiscal issues being continued like the BTC’s, PR tax cut, Doc Fix…it’s in the CBO link. Further, the other CBO link I provided cautioned the effect on the economy failure to continue these items will have. You DO understand that BUDGETS includes SPENDING AND REVENUES…right?

Yes, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE OP (AND MY POST) IS TALKING ABOUT SPENDING....NOT REVENUE?

 

[Dickieboy]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you say whose or what policy in history you would point to.

Mine would be Keynes.

Ok, so please point out where in history Keynes' theories have been correct and be specific.

 

[Dickieboy]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Yes, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE OP (AND MY POST) IS TALKING ABOUT SPENDING....NOT REVENUE?

Yes, I do. YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CBO BUDGETS INCLUDE SPENDING WHICH IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT AS IS THE OP...And just for my edification, where did I say ANYTHING about revenue? Please...point it out...and be specific.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

You did not show the rate of fed debt increases, you showed an increase in the debt to GDP ratio.

I never said that I did (or would), what I showed is how much faster federal spending is rising, realtive to GDP, than federal revenue is rising, relative to GDP. The federal deficit/national debt increase is directly related to those figures. The whole point I am making is that you can't spend more than you take in forever (or even for a few years 'paying for it' by simply hoping that things will 'get better'). Federal spending increses are now said to be 'offset' or 'paid for' by promissing to cut 1/10th the amount of spending over each of the next ten years, using non-binding 'promises' as collateral, that is simply insane. The man that gets a promotion and then upsizes his home is doing OK, but the man that upsizes his home simply hoping to get a promotion is very soon in financial trouble. Obama and and congress with their borrow and spend madness can not be sustained, as neither the demorats nor the republicants are talking about raising taxes anywhere near the 40% required simply to balance the budget, much less pay down the national debt. "Huge" federal spending cuts are being discussed in the 3% to 5% range, yet the federal deficit is now 40% and steady, so even the Ryan "plan" will not achieve federal budget balance (even using his own rosy GDP growth projections) intil the year 2044, about 16 years AFTER we achieve bankruptcy. No they can't!

 

[pbrauer]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Yes, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE OP (AND MY POST) IS TALKING ABOUT SPENDING....NOT REVENUE?

Exactly!!!! The point is that the debt that has occurred during Obama' watch is largely due to the lack of revenue because of the economic downturn.

Spending minus revenue equals debt.

 

[pbrauer]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Ok, so please point out where in history Keynes' theories have been correct and be specific.

Just look at the spending that occured during the Reagan administration... he increased the debt threefold.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Yes, I do. YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CBO BUDGETS INCLUDE SPENDING WHICH IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT AS IS THE OP...And just for my edification, where did I say ANYTHING about revenue? Please...point it out...and be specific.

Please review the CBO (which is the data source for the article’s assertions) links I provided. The CBO baseline BUDGET is based on legislation AS IT STAND NOW. Which means it anticipates ALL the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of 2012. The alternative baseline BUDGET anticipates various fiscal issues being continued like the BTC’s, PR tax cut, Doc Fix…it’s in the CBO link. Further, the other CBO link I provided cautioned the effect on the economy failure to continue these items will have. You DO understand that BUDGETS includes SPENDING AND REVENUES…right?

Using those same baseline numbers again…And continuing my skepticism on the sunset of the Bush tax cuts, etal. Recently the CBO said this:

In fact, under current law, increases in taxes and, to a lesser extent, reductions in spending will reduce the federal budget deficit dramatically between 2012 and 2013—a development that some observers have referred to as a “fiscal cliff”—and will dampen economic growth in the short term.

CBO | Economic Effects of Reducing the Fiscal Restraint That Is Scheduled to Occur in 2013

So to recap, the President has spent less based on numbers gathered from the CBO who warns that IF these numbers are taken as legitimate it will dampen economic growth. Wouldn’t this ‘damped economic growth’ hinder the President’s ability to ‘reduce the deficit by half’? Further wouldn’t the same dampened growth promote a greater deficit?

Nice try…again.

There you go....i'm sorry to see that you forgot what you were talking about, and what I was talking about, and what the OP was talking about.

 

[Dickieboy]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Just look at the spending that occured during the Reagan administration... he increased the debt threefold.

So Reagan was a Keynesian? And Gimme believes in Keynesian economics...Ok...

 

[Conservative]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

...you can never stick to a point? boing boing boing.

You and randel need to get a room as you both have the same empty debate style. Do you belong to a union too?

 

[pbrauer]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

So Reagan was a Keynesian? And Gimme believes in Keynesian economics...Ok...

I don't know he was, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a ducks...

 

[Dickieboy]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

There you go....i'm sorry to see that you forgot what you were talking about, and what I was talking about, and what the OP was talking about.

Fail, the first reference is me trying to get you to understand that budgets include spending AND revenue and had no reference to the OP. The second was a reference to the economy and not revenue and again not in reference to the OP but rather broadening the discussion.

Try again...

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

So Reagan was a Keynesian? And Gimme believes in Keynesian economics...Ok...

No, his spending was on the military.

But keep the straw coming.

 

[Dickieboy]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

I don't know he was, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a ducks...

Ambiguous...who?

 

[Conservative]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Just look at the spending that occured during the Reagan administration... he increased the debt threefold.

Let's see, Reagan increased spending, created 16 million jobs and added 1.7 trillion to the debt. Obama increased spending, has a net job loss, and added 5.2 trillion to the debt. did I mention that the Reagan debt was for 8 years and the Obama debt was generated in 3 plus?

 

[Dickieboy]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

No, his spending was on the military.

But keep the straw coming.

Not my straw...Pete made the assertion...argue with him...:lamo

 

[Phoenix]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Yes, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE OP (AND MY POST) IS TALKING ABOUT SPENDING....NOT REVENUE?

So why hasn't Obama reduced spending?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

So why hasn't Obama reduced spending?

he has to buy votes

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

How cute.

The tea party forced the republicans to pay attention to the lip service of reducing spending. Liberals sought to increase spending all over the place, but were denied, and often times replaced in the past election. How often did we hear how republicans are obstructionists, and the party of no for not going along with the liberal agenda?

But once their ploy of restraining spending actually showed up in pie chart form, it was the wonderful doings of Obama all along.

The op is being a partisan hypocrite big time.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Conservatives will avoid this thread like the plague. :lol:

Looks like you are wrong again as Conservatives are responding to the liberal fiction

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Fail, the first reference is me trying to get you to understand that budgets include spending AND revenue and had no reference to the OP. The second was a reference to the economy and not revenue and again not in reference to the OP but rather broadening the discussion.

Try again...

Did you say :"where did I say ANYTHING about revenue?"? Yes you did. Did I post you saying anything about revenue? Yes, twice. If you think I need you to tell me that budgets include expected outlays and revenues, think again. Do you need to argue that "dampened growth/increased deficit" is NOT a reference to reduced revenue? Apparently so.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Let's see, Reagan increased spending, created 16 million jobs and added 1.7 trillion to the debt. Obama increased spending, has a net job loss, and added 5.2 trillion to the debt. did I mention that the Reagan debt was for 8 years and the Obama debt was generated in 3 plus?

Reagan also succeeded in ruining the USSR, removing the Berlin Wall and keeping the U.S. as the premier world superpower, while Obama fumbles along spending much more and accomplisihig basically nothing, in fact, the U.S. taxpayers now provide 100% funding of the Chinese military budget just with our interest payments to them on their share of our national debt. Yes he did!

 

[radcen]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

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.[...]​

Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

I'm getting tired of seeing this ****ing lie. The lie in the implication that Obama is somehow fiscally responsible. The ONLY thing that is low in Obama's spending is the percentage increase from the previous administration. THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE!!! That's all. Dollar for dollar, spending has remained as absurdly high as it was under the previous administration. All Obama has done is maintain the absurdly high spending of the previous administration. Are people really blind and dumb enough to kid themselves that that is a positive? Apparently so.

The notion that it is bad to increase spending to this level, but ok to keep it at this level, is ridiculous and the type of outright deception that only an untrustworthy partisan hackjob supporter could ever endorse.

 

[radcen]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

The title of the thread is even an outright lie.

 

[SheWolf]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

How much debt was there under Hoover compared to GWB?

 

[Dickieboy]

Re: Obama Spending Lowest In 60 Years

Did you say :"where did I say ANYTHING about revenue?"? Yes you did. Did I post you saying anything about revenue? Yes, twice. If you think I need you to tell me that budgets include expected outlays and revenues, think again. Do you need to argue that "dampened growth/increased deficit" is NOT a reference to reduced revenue? Apparently so.

OK, you win...I did post the word 'revenue' in one post...now please explain how I suggested revenue had ANYTHING to do with the assertion in the OP.

As to the 'dampened growth' hypothesis, I believe it was a veiled threat from the CBO that if the various tax measures/spending cuts are implemented the economy will enter into another recession (which by definition is negative growth). And yes, during a recession there is typically a reduction in revenue which certainly would be implied but I didn’t imply it. My underlying assertion was that under the current ‘Keynesian’ style administration if the CBO is correct AND the tax/spending cuts are not addressed I can only predict more (stimulus) spending ergo increased deficits to counter the predicted recession (or ‘dampened growth’).