• 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!

Should we expect a large expansion of federal spending under Clinton?

Hillary is already on record for wanting a large expansion in federal spending.

$1.1 trillion over ten years, as I posted earlier. Tbh, you can find estimates from reliable sources that put the figure at $1.4T or perhaps even $1.8T. That top number is 3.5% more than CBO's current projection. How is three-and-a-half percent "large"?

>>experts have noticed that with all of her increased spending, even with her tax plan, she is still over two trillion dollars short of paying for the increased programs she wants.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates a total of $200 billion more added to the debt over ten years, ten percent of the number reported by the unspecified "experts" you refer to. (source)

>>I'm voting for the more fiscally responsible Johnson.

I'm voting for Clinton45 cuz I don't want Frumpy to win.

I can go to STLFED and make a chart that says pretty much whatever I want it to say, if I know what I want to portray as fact before I begin cherry picking my data points.

That's funny. You can't change the data, and if you don't like the dates being used, pick some different ones. Do you figure including earlier decades will change what happened in the 1990s?
 
Are you saying that the graph, using data from the NBER and Fed Reserve of St. Louis is incorrect? Then please provide the "true" data.

Waiting...

The fact that you get your cherry picked facts from such a liberally biased organization just shows how partisan you are. All "facts" can be cherry picked. That's why they call them cherry picked "facts". The KKK can cherry pick "facts" out of the bible to justify their beliefs, just as you can cherry pick "facts" from Mother Jones to further your biased partisan agenda. Anything can be cherry picked to prove a particular agenda.
 
The fact that you get your cherry picked facts from such a liberally biased organization just shows how partisan you are. All "facts" can be cherry picked. That's why they call them cherry picked "facts". The KKK can cherry pick "facts" out of the bible to justify their beliefs, just as you can cherry pick "facts" from Mother Jones to further your biased partisan agenda. Anything can be cherry picked to prove a particular agenda.

You are engaging in classic ad hominem. Is the data correct or not? Does it show what MJ claims it does or no?
 
You are engaging in classic ad hominem. Is the data correct or not? Does it show what MJ claims it does or no?

You don't understand cherry picking. You can cherry pick facts to prove Obamacare is a huge success. You can cherry pick facts that prove Obamacare is a huge failure. Ditto every other issue, including economics. Liberals and the far right both believe that if they present their cherry picked facts then it automatically proves their case. Not so. Anyone who uses Mother Jones as a source is just showing their prejudiced partisan bias right up front and also shows they are not interested in anything but their own agenda. Now we finally know where John gets his "facts" from.
 
Last edited:
You don't understand cherry picking. You can cherry pick facts to prove Obamacare is a huge success. You can cherry pick facts that prove Obamacare is a huge failure. Ditto every other issue, including economics. Liberals and the far right both believe that if they present their cherry picked facts then it automatically proves their case. Not so. Anyone who uses Mother Jones as a source is just showing their prejudiced partisan bias right up front and also shows they are not interested in anything but their own agenda. Now we finally know where John gets his "facts" from.

I know what cherry picking is; however, refusing to read past the source does not mean anyone was engaging in it.
 
I know what cherry picking is; however, refusing to read past the source does not mean anyone was engaging in it.


It's the Austerity, Stupid: How We Were Sold an Economy-Killing Lie | Mother Jones

Even in their own story there is no sourced data to examine what criteria they used to arrive at those numbers. There is literally no way to examine it without engaging in extensive research yourself. I would call such cherry picked data, per capita inflation adjusted is a lot different from actual dollars inflation adjusted, for instance.
 
I doubt it.

Sadly, she does not seem to share just about the only good thing her husband did during his time in office - balance the budget.

(and Clinton haters please save the 'he did not balance the budget' nonsense. He did. It was not a perfect balanced budget, but it was a heck of a lot better effort than Reagan or the Bush's (or Obama for that matter) made when they were in office.)
 
Under Clinton42, federal outlays as a percentage of GDP fell from 21.1% in 1992 to 17.4% in 2000. The figure is now less than it was was when Bubba was inaugurated.

View attachment 67205328

Republicans will very likely maintain control of the House over the next four years. Is it reasonable to fear that a Clinton45 administration would push the ratio back up much higher than 20%, where it was every single year 1981-93 under Reagan and his unfortunate successor?

As you imply, that depends on congress. If she gets a democrat congress, it could be like 2009 again and they could quickly pass a whole bunch of new social programs. If Republicans maintain control then they could continue to obstruct and keep spending increases moderate. If you look at it in terms of percentage increase, then the increases slowed down under Regan and then stayed mostly flat. If another recession happens, who knows. Thats when they make big expansions.

Capture.jpg
 
I doubt it.

Sadly, she does not seem to share just about the only good thing her husband did during his time in office - balance the budget.

(and Clinton haters please save the 'he did not balance the budget' nonsense. He did. It was not a perfect balanced budget, but it was a heck of a lot better effort than Reagan or the Bush's (or Obama for that matter) made when they were in office.)

Bush practically had the budget balanced by 2007, and might have had it until the recession hit.
 
The nation would greatly benefit from a federal (as well as state and local government) spending stimulus targeted on infrastructure. Lack of government spending is partially to blame for an economy that is growing, but comparatively slowly.
.

The liberal broken record.

We need to spend more money on infrastructure.
Yeah we just did that a few years ago. It was called ARRA .Yet our infrastructure is still a mess .

The answer to EVERYthing for liberals is more government.
You might think the results of BIG GOVERNMENT have been a stunning successs the way they keep repeating the same old SH$T.
 
The liberal broken record.

We need to spend more money on infrastructure.
Yeah we just did that a few years ago. It was called ARRA .Yet our infrastructure is still a mess .

The answer to EVERYthing for liberals is more government.
You might think the results of BIG GOVERNMENT have been a stunning successs the way they keep repeating the same old SH$T.

I don't think you understand the liberal snake oil salesman pitch.

If you take their medicine..over and over and still get sick... well the answer isn't that the medicine doesn't work.. the answer is.... YOU SIMPLY DIDN'T TAKE ENOUGH.

no matter how much it doesn't work.. you just have to take more.;)
 
Under Clinton42, federal outlays as a percentage of GDP fell from 21.1% in 1992 to 17.4% in 2000. The figure is now less than it was was when Bubba was inaugurated.

View attachment 67205328

Republicans will very likely maintain control of the House over the next four years. Is it reasonable to fear that a Clinton45 administration would push the ratio back up much higher than 20%, where it was every single year 1981-93 under Reagan and his unfortunate successor?

Well yea.

She's already addressed this issue. Basically shovel ready jobs meet green jobs and its to be " seeded " with Federal dollars

Can you say corruption and chroney capitalism ?

What did Tax payers get for their Solyndra investment ? 5th amendment pleas from corrupt Solyndra executives.

Hillary has no other option or strategy when it comes to growing our economy other than stimulus because she and her party are ideologically opposed to strategies that actually work.

Like lowering capital gains tax, ( Bill lowered Capital Gains taxes ) lowering the penalty for money thats repatriated back into the US, lowering top marginal rates, killing the disaster that is ObamaCare and doing away with burdensome and sometimes draconian regulations.

If she wins it will just be more of the same. We'll continue Obama's " recovery " while the Left goes out of their way to marginalize any negative economic data
 
Mother Jones? Hilarious how you guys can come up with facts from such irreputable sources and then claim that they are not cherry picked.

You love to repeat this nonsense, MR. And that's exactly what it is.

As has been noted, that data is SOURCED from NBER and the Fed. It's all very easily accessible. All that's in there is the ending dates for recessions (NBER) and percentage change in total gubmint spending over the following five years (STFRED).

Are you saying that Mother Jones has somehow fabricated or altered the data? Are there "other" recessions that occurred over the past thirty-five years that you suspect have been left out of the analysis? I used to get into this with Conservative, and yer just making a complete fool of yerself.

Btw, "irreputable" is archaic at best. I'd recommend "disreputable."

The fact that you get your cherry picked facts from such a liberally biased organization just shows how partisan you are.

The same worthless crap over and over.

You don't understand cherry picking.

No, we all understand it. And those of us who can reason are able to understand that you can't just say "cherry-picked" and win an argument. What the eff is cherry-picked about it? Absolutely nothing, that's what. If you wanna say it is, then show us how. Otherwise, you lose and lose big.

>>Liberals and the far right both believe that if they present their cherry picked facts then it automatically proves their case. Not so.

You believe you can say "cherry-picked" and automatically dismiss an argument. Not so, if you expect to win the debate.

>>Anyone who uses Mother Jones as a source is just showing their prejudiced partisan bias right up front and also shows they are not interested in anything but their own agenda. Now we finally know where John gets his "facts" from.

This is so pathetically weak I almost feel sorry for you.

there is no sourced data to examine what criteria they used to arrive at those numbers.

What the hell does that mean? The data is IN THE FRIGGIN' CHART. It's sourced. What do mean "arrive at the numbers"? NBER and STFRED did that.

>>There is literally no way to examine it without engaging in extensive research yourself.

Well then I guess I'm one hell of a researcher (I'm pretty good, actually ☺ ), cuz I can "examine it" very easily. Very easily.

Here it is:

post_recession_spending_1982_2014.jpg

The chart published by MJ has cumulative totals for the percentage change in spending, but you can clearly see that the increases following the GOP SSE Great Recession that ended Jun 2009 are substantially less than they were in the years following the previous three downturns.

I'd say the way to properly question the validity of the argument offered in the article is to point to the very large increases in Q2 2008 and Q2 2009. A counter to that would be to note the very large drops in spending Q3 and Q4 2008, which more or less balance those out.

>>per capita inflation adjusted is a lot different from actual dollars inflation adjusted, for instance.

Yes it is, and it's more informative to use per capita spending because it adjusts for the increase in population over recent decades. You have a problem with that?

Bush practically had the budget balanced by 2007, and might have had it until the recession hit.

Of course it was the housing bubble that got the deficit down to 1.1% of GDP in 2007, so the fact that a severe recession followed isn't something you can simply write off as an unfortunate development — it was basically inevitable.
 
Last edited:
We need to spend more money on infrastructure. Yeah we just did that a few years ago. It was called ARRA .Yet our infrastructure is still a mess .

Only about ten percent of the ARRA went to infrastructure spending.

>>The answer to EVERYthing for liberals is more government.

The answer to everything for the Right is massive tax cuts for wealthy households.

>>You might think the results of BIG GOVERNMENT have been a stunning successs the way they keep repeating the same old SH$T.

You might think the results of BIG TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY have been a stunning success the way they keep repeating the same old SH$T.

>>The liberal broken record.

That record in recent decades consists largely of cleaning up the messes created by policies pushed by the Right — massive and completely unproductive tax cuts for wealthy households that exploded the national debt, an irresponsible deregulation of the financial sector that led to the worst recession since the Great Depression and cost the country a LOT of money, and a very reckless and expensive overseas military misadventure.
 
You love to repeat this nonsense, MR. And that's exactly what it is.

As has been noted, that data is SOURCED from NBER and the Fed. It's all very easily accessible. All that's in there is the ending dates for recessions (NBER) and percentage change in total gubmint spending over the following five years (STFRED).

Are you saying that Mother Jones has somehow fabricated or altered the data? Are there "other" recessions that occurred over the past thirty-five years that you suspect have been left out of the analysis? I used to get into this with Conservative, and yer just making a complete fool of yerself.

Btw, "irreputable" is archaic at best. I'd recommend "disreputable."



The same worthless crap over and over.



No, we all understand it. And those of us who can reason are able to understand that you can't just say "cherry-picked" and win an argument. What the eff is cherry-picked about it? Absolutely nothing, that's what. If you wanna say it is, then show us how. Otherwise, you lose and lose big.

>>Liberals and the far right both believe that if they present their cherry picked facts then it automatically proves their case. Not so.

You believe you can say "cherry-picked" and automatically dismiss an argument. Not so, if you expect to win the debate.

>>Anyone who uses Mother Jones as a source is just showing their prejudiced partisan bias right up front and also shows they are not interested in anything but their own agenda. Now we finally know where John gets his "facts" from.

This is so pathetically weak I almost feel sorry for you.



What the hell does that mean? The data is IN THE FRIGGIN' CHART. It's sourced. What do mean "arrive at the numbers"? NBER and STFRED did that.

>>There is literally no way to examine it without engaging in extensive research yourself.

Well then I guess I'm one hell of a researcher (I'm pretty good, actually ☺ ), cuz I can "examine it" very easily. Very easily.

Here it is:

View attachment 67205462

The chart published by MJ has cumulative totals for the percentage change in spending, but you can clearly see that the increases following the GOP SSE Great Recession that ended Jun 2009 are substantially less than they were in the years following the previous three downturns.

I'd say the way to properly question the validity of the argument offered in the article is to point to the very large increases in Q2 2008 and Q2 2009. A counter to that would be to note the very large drops in spending Q3 and Q4 2008, which more or less balance those out.

>>per capita inflation adjusted is a lot different from actual dollars inflation adjusted, for instance.

Yes it is, and it's more informative to use per capita spending because it adjusts for the increase in population over recent decades. You have a problem with that?



Of course it was the housing bubble that got the deficit down to 1.1% of GDP in 2007, so the fact that a severe recession followed isn't something you can simply write off as an unfortunate development — it was basically inevitable.

Your chart showed expenditures going down in the period following the recession in the 80s. By data, I mean I want to see the exact numbers used, from the inflation index to the dollar adjustments to the budget allocations year to year and any non budgetary spending. None of that is sourced and cannot be compared to the actuals.

Just a thought, but especially in this sort of discussion, its a pain to respond to you properly due to your inability to use the quote feature properly.
 
I don't think you understand the liberal snake oil salesman pitch.

If you take their medicine..over and over and still get sick... well the answer isn't that the medicine doesn't work.. the answer is.... YOU SIMPLY DIDN'T TAKE ENOUGH.

no matter how much it doesn't work.. you just have to take more.;)
...and they can always count on the salesman ( useful idiots) like Krugman to deliver the pitch.
 
Your chart showed expenditures going down in the period following the recession in the 80s.

No, that is incorrect. The percentage of increase went down in the first and third quarters following that recession. After that, spending increased at a faster rate than it did in all of the other three time periods. Notice this is also present in the chart jpn posted. Not surprising — it's the same data.

>>By data, I mean I want to see the exact numbers used

Go to STFRED and find them. This was easy to do, but I'm not doing it again.

>>from the inflation index

It's shown in the title of the chart — CPI for all urban consumers: all items.

>>to the dollar adjustments

What adjustments? Per capita? I used US population, including military overseas, just as the chart's title indicates. I don't think the Fed has a better one in this context.

>>to the budget allocations year to year and any non budgetary spending.

Allocations? Isn't the total expended the relevant value here, as opposed to the amount authorised by Congress. "Non-budgetary spending"? That's included in expenditures.

>>None of that is sourced and cannot be compared to the actuals.

BS. It's all sourced. Yer just full of crap as always.

>>Just a thought, but especially in this sort of discussion, its a pain to respond to you properly due to your inability to use the quote feature properly.

A completely worthless thought, as is the rest of yer post. How is it "a pain"? I mean besides the fact that yer getting yer ass kicked again. If you don't like it , don't respond. No one will suffer any loss as a result.

they can always count on the salesman ( useful idiots) like Krugman to deliver the pitch.

The "pitch" is a middle-middle, batting practice fastball with nothing on it … and you can't find yer way out of the clubhouse to even get in the batter's box.
 
This is the myth conservatives believe. The truth is different. Democrats held the House and the Senate for the first two years of the Clinton presidency. By the time the GOP took control of the House and Senate in January, 2005, and passed budgets that took effect in FY2006, the trajectory of the deficit was already close to being eliminated. The GOP merely showed up to claim credit, but the matter was already decided.
BN-EX460_narrow_G_20141008143612.jpg


And then George W Bush happened.

Did you mean 1995? Assuming you did, we can see that the change was do entirely to economic growth from the tech boom couple with spending restraint. Spending increased at about 3% every year, but revenue doubled.

year-revenue-outlays
1992 1,091.2 1,381.5
1993 1,154.3 1,409.4
1994 1,258.6 1,461.8
1995 1,351.8 1,515.7
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5
1997 1,579.2 1,601.1
1998 1,721.7 1,652.5
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0

Meanwhile, Clinton proposed 200bn dollar deficits through 2000. This was about when the shutdown happened of course. Clinton vetoed the Republican congresses spending bills. They refused to pass somethign he liked, shutdown happend, and then we ended up with a balanced budget agreement in 1997. So, the matter wasnt decided. The Republicans directly affected it.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-1996-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-1996-BUD.pdf

Then yes, GWB happened.
 
...and they can always count on the salesman ( useful idiots) like Krugman to deliver the pitch.


Well its a great pitch.. I mean the rich get to make a lot more money.. without having to pay for it.. just their turn at the trough.

and then we wonder.. gee.. why did the rich get richer and everyone else fall behind.

what should we do? Why take your medicine and have more deficit spending.. that will do it ;)
 
I can go to STLFED and make a chart that says pretty much whatever I want it to say, if I know what I want to portray as fact before I begin cherry picking my data points.

Just a bunch of hot air. Why don't you try and make a relevant chart that depicts the data to suit your portrayal. I guarantee you cannot.
 
The fact that you get your cherry picked facts from such a liberally biased organization just shows how partisan you are. All "facts" can be cherry picked. That's why they call them cherry picked "facts". The KKK can cherry pick "facts" out of the bible to justify their beliefs, just as you can cherry pick "facts" from Mother Jones to further your biased partisan agenda. Anything can be cherry picked to prove a particular agenda.

The data is correct, and can be found here. Can you locate any inconsistency?

One last point. Obama is the only President, for which the data exists, that will have ended his administration with expenditures less (inflation adjusted) than when he took office.

fredgraph.png
 
I can go to STLFED and make a chart that says pretty much whatever I want it to say, if I know what I want to portray as fact before I begin cherry picking my data points.

Edit: Here's the link - you make some charts, they're fun. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/

What a ridiculous claim.

All of reality is in agreement with reality, and this reality is at odds with lies like "i can make reality say whatever i want it to say."
 
Did you mean 1995?

Yes, he did.

>>the change was do entirely to economic growth from the tech boom couple with spending restraint.

Yes, there was solid growth in GDP and yes there was spending restraint. But as jpn noted, Clinton and the Democrats enacted substantial tax increases on wealthy households in the 103rd Congress AND passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 that placed caps on spending, substantially limiting its growth. That was the trade-off — Democrats accepted large cuts in future Medicare spending to gain the tax increases.

Yer not offering anything to indicate the relative impact of those factors. Certainly the word "entirely" is completely unjustified in this context.

CBO provides estimates of how various policy, economic, and technical factors account for differences between projected and actual revenues and outlays, but those involve only one-year forecasts.

>>Meanwhile, Clinton proposed 200bn dollar deficits through 2000.

In the early years in his presidency, I would guess that's correct. But what was OMB projecting in the later years? A deficit of $112B in 1998, and surpluses of $10B in 1999, $114B in 2000, and $185B in 2001.

>>Clinton vetoed the Republican congresses spending bills. They refused to pass somethign he liked, shutdown happend, and then we ended up with a balanced budget agreement in 1997

That involved only $160B in spending cuts over five years, and about half of that was subsequently rescinded in 1999 and 2000. It had not much more than a marginal impact on the budget, accounting for about fourteen percent of the shift from a deficit to a surplus. The surpluses 1998-2001 totalled $560B. It's also important to note that the deficit fell by $181B 1994-97.

>>So, the matter wasnt decided.

It was largely decided.

>>The Republicans directly affected it.

Not much.

we wonder.. gee.. why did the rich get richer and everyone else fall behind.

You may wonder, but liberals know why — a combination of the effects of globalisation, automation, a higher return on education, … AND massive tax cut giveaways to fat cats.

>>what should we do?

Seek to mitigate the impact of the first three of those factors by making smart investments in education, infrastructure, and R &D, … AND raise taxes on wealthy households.

The data is correct, and can be found here.

Well, that's some of it. jpn's chart included state and local gubmint spending, and was adjusted for population.
 
Last edited:
Well, that's some of it. jpn's chart included state and local gubmint spending, and was adjusted for population.

Ahhh, well then.

fredgraph.png


It should be thought of as thousands of dollars per capita, adjusted for inflation (2009 prices). I highly doubt MR would have known, or will respond with anything of substance.
 
Back
Top Bottom