• 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?

Ahhh, well

Hmp. Looks like somebody has run out ahead of me at STFRED. Mr Smartypants who can generate URLs and find better data sets. BUT, don't we want percentage change, professor??
 
I think you underestimate the influence that presidents can have on spending policy.

I don't think my post suggests that at all. It's suggesting that partisan fools like to frame everything in terms who is in office at what particular time to spin an argument that ultimately boils down to which political party is better than the other. If we were to shift who was President when, and then reasonably infer what would have happened differently and how differently, none of these partisan arguments would hold up. Would Bob Dole have put the breaks on the stock bubble of the late '90s? Would there have been big deficits instead of the surplus? Would Kerry have averted the housing bust if he'd won in '04? Would he have won again if he was then up for re-election in '08?

No, I'm not minimizing Presidents' effect on spending policy, I'm saying describing the entire nation's history entirely around who was President during that exact time is obviously ignorant, dismissing the often more gradual and longer-term effects policies (often passed by previous legislatures and executives) end up having.
 
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

That's what cherry picking facts is. Picking FACTS that prove your point but only picking the facts that prove your point and purposely not showing the whole picture by avoiding the FACTS that don't prove your point. My best example is with Obamacare. The left can cherry pick facts showing that the amount of uninsured has gone down considerably but the right can cherry pick facts that show how horrible Obamacare is. Both sides have cherry picked facts that prove their side. The left's cherry picked facts don't prove anything and the right's cherry picked facts don't prove anything. All they really prove is the partisanship of both sides. Ditto every other issue you can imagine, including this one here.
 
BUT, don't we want percentage change, professor??

Sure, but it's not possible to get a baseline comparison without using third party (excel) tools. That takes time.

Anything more than 5 minutes is not something i am interested in... unless i'm getting paid:mrgreen:
 
That's what cherry picking facts is. Picking FACTS that prove your point but only picking the facts that prove your point and purposely not showing the whole picture by avoiding the FACTS that don't prove your point.

This sentence is ridiculous. Do you really believe that there are any other set of facts that would show the data provided in another manner? I mean... really?

Ditto every other issue you can imagine, including this one here.

Nonsense!

It is undeniable that when you do not factor for inflation, every single American president, for which there is attainable data, has ended their presidency with larger government expenditures than when it began. However, this statement has a massive flaw built into it... do you know what it is? The reason i ask is tied to the post which you decided to respond.
 
No, I'm not minimizing Presidents' effect on spending policy, I'm saying describing the entire nation's history entirely around who was President during that exact time is obviously ignorant, dismissing the often more gradual and longer-term effects policies (often passed by previous legislatures and executives) end up having.

It is undeniable that this sitting POTUS is the only one, probably since before 1920, that will have left office with lower real federal expenditures than when they entered. Why is this important?

I would be willing to bet everything that i own, had the government simply maintained its expenditure trend, U.S. economic growth would have doubled and in many cases tripled what it has done. For some reason, and to the detriment to the U.S. economy (and the people), this didn't happen... and we know who to blame, and why they did it.
 
Last edited:
It is undeniable that this sitting POTUS is the only one, probably since before 1920, that will have left office with lower real federal expenditures than when they entered.

That fact is heavily timing-based. "When they entered" and "when they left" are two static points in time. The sitting POTUS happened to enter precisely when the **** was hitting the fan and enormous stimulus and bailout packages were in the works.

I would be willing to bet everything that i own, had the government simply maintained its expenditure trend, U.S. economic growth would have doubled and in many cases tripled what it has done. For some reason, and to the detriment to the U.S. economy (and the people), this didn't happen... and we know who to blame, and why they did it.

"Maintained its trend" over what period of time? Emergency-mode Keynesian stimulus to arrest a financial collapse isn't part of a trend. It doesn't become the next year's baseline. We didn't "maintain the trend" from the early forties into the early fifties either, because those weren't a trend, they were episodic and with a specific goal in mind. Didn't federal expenditures plummet in the mid-to-late forties?
 
I'm saying describing the entire nation's history entirely around who was President during that exact time is obviously ignorant

In this case, a worthless strawman. Who made that claim?

the right can cherry pick facts that show how horrible Obamacare is.

No they can't. Those are all lies, not facts. See the difference?

Disagree? Let's hear some anti-ACA "facts."


Not quite, my friend. Yer using percentage change from a year ago on quarterly data. Notice the marked difference post-2009. You want simply percentage change if yer goal is to match jpn's MJ graph.

For some reason, and to the detriment to the U.S. economy (and the people), this didn't happen... and we know who to blame, and why they did it.

Now yer making me feel guilty. Hey, I'm afraid of heights.

The sitting POTUS happened to enter precisely when the **** was hitting the fan and enormous stimulus and bailout packages were in the works.

Who put them "in the works"? The Negro, that's who.

>>Didn't federal expenditures plummet in the mid-to-late forties?

What happened in Sept 1945 that might have caused that to happen?
 
That fact is heavily timing-based. "When they entered" and "when they left" are two static points in time. The sitting POTUS happened to enter precisely when the **** was hitting the fan and enormous stimulus and bailout packages were in the works.

It never occurred under any other President, since the 1920's, and you want to call it timing? :lol:



"Maintained its trend" over what period of time?

fredgraph.png


Emergency-mode Keynesian stimulus to arrest a financial collapse isn't part of a trend.

Never claimed it was.

It doesn't become the next year's baseline.

And you are unaware of the data.

We didn't "maintain the trend" from the early forties into the early fifties either, because those weren't a trend, they were episodic and with a specific goal in mind.

Never claimed we needed to maintain this trend:

fredgraph.png


Strawman noted and defeated.

Didn't federal expenditures plummet in the mid-to-late forties?

I'll entertain this strawman for the sake of snuffing it out; in 2011, the U.S. was not emerging from a major world war, at which roughly half of the economy was made up of government expenditure. Expenditures were set to decline regardless, as ARRA disbursement was on the downward end, and the economy began seeing improvement in labor and real estate markets. What the Republican Congress did, as a means of making Obama a one term President, is borderline ****ing treason.
 
Last edited:
It is your choice; try to portray data in a way that is "deceptive". I already know you cannot.

Did I say deceptive chart? No. Selective data, not deceptive chart. The spin put on the chart by the interpreter or user of the chart, now that can be deceptive.
 
Did I say deceptive chart? No. Selective data, not deceptive chart. The spin put on the chart by the interpreter or user of the chart, now that can be deceptive.

What about jpn's chart? This is the reason we are having this discussion in the first place.
 
Did I say deceptive chart? No. Selective data, not deceptive chart. The spin put on the chart by the interpreter or user of the chart, now that can be deceptive.

Good, then you should be able to provide a "selective" chart to counter Kush's valid data that supports whatever deception you like.
 
Good, then you should be able to provide a "selective" chart to counter Kush's valid data that supports whatever deception you like.

It's not going to happen.
 
This sentence is ridiculous. Do you really believe that there are any other set of facts that would show the data provided in another manner? I mean... really?



Nonsense!

It is undeniable that when you do not factor for inflation, every single American president, for which there is attainable data, has ended their presidency with larger government expenditures than when it began. However, this statement has a massive flaw built into it... do you know what it is? The reason i ask is tied to the post which you decided to respond.


You really don't understand cherry picking. It's apparently way to complicated for you.
 
It never occurred under any other President, since the 1920's, and you want to call it timing? :lol:

Yes. The nature of 2008-2009 was that uncommon that to compare it statically to any other year would distort the comparison. He took office at a very unusual kind of year in our history.


Ok so your trend line starts in 2000? The year we experienced a stock bust and shortly after started two wars? Why is the trajectory of this line the target?

Never claimed it was.

Strawman noted and defeated.

I'll entertain this strawman for the sake of snuffing it out;

How is it a straw man? You're suggesting federal expenditures should have been higher the last several years but did so with the premise of comparing two specific points in time, the first of which was anomalous. Just articulate your own position a little more clearly. It's not a straw man that I point out the vagueness of maintaining some unspecified growth trend of federal expenditures after you just get done comparing two arbitrary (if not anomalous) points in time.
 
Last edited:
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.



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.



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

I cant follow your split quoting.
 
You really don't understand cherry picking. It's apparently way to complicated for you.

You don't understand reality, which is why you continually respond in this manner.
 
Yes. The nature of 2008-2009 was that uncommon that to compare it statically to any other year would distort the comparison. He took office at a very unusual kind of year in our history.

Agreed, it was unusual. Yet he took office in 2009, and spending increased by roughly $185 billion YoY (into 2010), compared to $320 billion between 2008 and 2009.

Ok so your trend line starts in 2000? The year we experienced a stock bust and shortly after started two wars? Why is the trajectory of this line the target?

It keeps up with per capita GDP growth; i could have extended the trend back into 1995, but doing so displays a significant level of under-consumption for government. Between 1980 and 2000, real per capita government expenditure has increased by about 47%, and real per capita GDP increased by 54%.

fredgraph.png


How is it a straw man? You're suggesting federal expenditures should have been higher the last several years but did so with the premise of comparing two specific points in time, the first of which was anomalous. Just articulate your own position a little more clearly. It's not a straw man that I point out the vagueness of maintaining some unspecified growth trend of federal expenditures after you just get done comparing two arbitrary (if not anomalous) points in time.

First off, your tone is way too condescending given your lack of knowledge of these growth trends. Secondly, my assertion is based on observing the data, and nothing more. Your saltiness is both noted and understood for it's partisanship.
 
In this case, a worthless strawman. Who made that claim?



No they can't. Those are all lies, not facts. See the difference?

Disagree? Let's hear some anti-ACA "facts."



Not quite, my friend. Yer using percentage change from a year ago on quarterly data. Notice the marked difference post-2009. You want simply percentage change if yer goal is to match jpn's MJ graph.



Now yer making me feel guilty. Hey, I'm afraid of heights.



Who put them "in the works"? The Negro, that's who.

>>Didn't federal expenditures plummet in the mid-to-late forties?

What happened in Sept 1945 that might have caused that to happen?

These are FACTS:

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

Few Americans Say Healthcare Law Has Helped Them

Forbes Welcome
 
I cant follow your split quoting.

He ne'er is crown'd with immortality, who fears to follow where airy voices lead.​

These are FACTS

Hilarious. Those are linked titles. And they appear to involve survey results rather than … facts. Does that mean you "failed"? It sure does. You have offered not a single fact. HA!

Are the issues involved too complicated for you to be able to say even a single word about them? Any "hobbyists" or "cherry-picking" involved?
 
He ne'er is crown'd with immortality, who fears to follow where airy voices lead.​



Hilarious. Those are linked titles. And they appear to involve survey results rather than … facts. Does that mean you "failed"? It sure does. You have offered not a single fact. HA!

Are the issues involved too complicated for you to be able to say even a single word about them? Any "hobbyists" or "cherry-picking" involved?

The very people that Obamacare effects said they don't like it and that it has hurt them more than it has helped. That's a fact. Don't have the time to play your cherry picking game back and forth.
 
The very people that Obamacare effects said they don't like it and that it has hurt them more than it has helped. That's a fact. Don't have the time to play your cherry picking game back and forth.

No, actually, that is a lie. The group of people that Obamacare effects do not have one voice and their conglomeration of voices do NOT support such an ignorant, partisan view.
 
No, actually, that is a lie. The group of people that Obamacare effects do not have one voice and their conglomeration of voices do NOT support such an ignorant, partisan view.

It was in the polls! Two polls, not to mention RCP is a combination of polls and the polls are not partisan. The polls were not lies, they were facts. That's my point. Your side can cherry pick facts and so can ours. It get's us nowhere.
 
Back
Top Bottom