Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I've said previously, it's the economy not Obama, per se. Contrary to what the right-wing suggest, there has been no big increase in government under Obama. That's the big lie talking point that the GOP pedals.
The implications of this big lie is that Obama vastly expanded the government to the tune of trillions. If so, where are the great big programs? Obama did pass the ACA, but that mainly goes into effect in 2014. He also passed a stimulus package, that was $787 billion, with 40% tax-cuts, spread over two years.
There was no "Obama spending." Deficits arose from specific areas, namely, a drop in tax-revenue due to the Great Recession; and additional spending that automatically kicks in during bad economic times (e.g. the Great Recession) -- such as unemployment benefits; food stamps; Medicaid, etc.
What we’re seeing isn’t Obama's expansion of Big Government; we’re seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump. It would have been about the same had McCain won -- but probably longer lasting as McCain would have mimicked the austerity disaster that Europe decided upon.
Incidentally, it's a good thing we had these safety nets that didn't exist during the Great Depression, or we would have repeated the severity of the Great Depression -- that's what we have to show for it! We don't have millions of people begging in the streets; we don't have widespread hunger; we don't have people dying for lack of medical treatment, like we did during the Great Depression.
As an aside, although the amount of federal debt has doubled since 2006, the amount of interest the federal government pays has not increased over 2006 levels.
It isn't just Obama, it wasn't just Bush. Both parties are responsible for out of control spending, mostly in the name of buying votes. This chart shows per-person spending by the federal government, in fixed, inflation adjusted dollars:
This is why fiscal conservatives were never fans of Bush II or the Republican-controlled house and senate under him. There was little responsible management of spending under Bush. But even so, Obama's spending has been a flippin' disaster. Bush was "Obama lite".
Furthermore, the Republicans have their own deficit-generating programs, like wars and the Bush tax cuts, that aren't easily repealed by a new president.
Most of that debt came from the stimulus, largely supported by Republicans. Remember, the first year of Obama's presidency was essentially Bush's budget.
We can't keep spending like a drunken sailor though. Cuts must come, and revenues must increase. Until both parties get off of that high horse, nothing will change.
Simply laying everything on Obama isn't helping anything, BTW.
Most of that debt came from the stimulus, largely supported by Republicans. Remember, the first year of Obama's presidency was essentially Bush's budget.
We can't keep spending like a drunken sailor though. Cuts must come, and revenues must increase. Until both parties get off of that high horse, nothing will change.
Simply laying everything on Obama isn't helping anything, BTW.
The debt is due to increased spending in dealing with the recession(ie. extended UE payments, lost tax revenue from lost jobs and Corp profit decreases, increasing Medicare and SS demands, Wars ....) Yes, the economy has slowed resulting in less ability to handling expenditures. As the economy picks back up as it is, the defits will lower. Eventually we will get back to the economy growing faster than expenditures. What we do with that surplus, will be a question that, hopefully, we answer better than we have since Clinton. When Obama get there, I suspect he will act more like Clinton than Bush. With a few more Dem Presidents coming up, we have a good period to look forward to. Maybe in a decade or two, we will be able to have another Repub.
Last edited by florida.bob; 03-20-2012 at 09:17 AM..
I think we are seeing government expansion on steroids and it is a matter of degree. McCain would likely not have expanded government as much. I think it is very debatable whether the stimulus did much good at all.
Then answer where the big increase expansion is? Where are the big new federal programs?
A large part of it is a slowdown in GDP rather than an accelerated rise in government spending. Nominal GDP rose at an annual rate of 5.1 percent from 2000 to 2007; it only rose at a 1.7 percent rate from 2007 to 2010.
...and here is a graph dispelling the nonsense:
What we are seeing isn’t some drastic expansion of Big Government; we’re seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump. It would have been the same under McCain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Most of that debt came from the stimulus, largely supported by Republicans. Remember, the first year of Obama's presidency was essentially Bush's budget.
How do you figure? The stimulus was $787 billion, spread over two-years, with 40% tax-cuts. How does that result in trillions in debt?
Not directed at you but the answer is, "it's the economy, stupid."
It isn't just Obama, it wasn't just Bush. Both parties are responsible for out of control spending, mostly in the name of buying votes. This chart shows per-person spending by the federal government, in fixed, inflation adjusted dollars:
This is why fiscal conservatives were never fans of Bush II or the Republican-controlled house and senate under him. There was little responsible management of spending under Bush. But even so, Obama's spending has been a flippin' disaster. Bush was "Obama lite".
I agree. I'm not defending Bush's record on spending at all, but you're right, Obama's spending "...has been a flippin' disaster."
It isn't just Obama, it wasn't just Bush. Both parties are responsible for out of control spending, mostly in the name of buying votes. This chart shows per-person spending by the federal government, in fixed, inflation adjusted dollars:
This is why fiscal conservatives were never fans of Bush II or the Republican-controlled house and senate under him. There was little responsible management of spending under Bush. But even so, Obama's spending has been a flippin' disaster. Bush was "Obama lite".
If the theory is that Obama is the 'big spender' let's use your own graph but change the range to 2000- 2012. Obama hasn't increased anything more than what he inherited from Bush. All of the increase in federal spending happened under Bush.
...and where is all that increase? Defense and Health Care:
While, we're at it, let's look at the revenue picture:
Note how per capital chained revenue, with a much higher GDP, never exceeded 2000? That's the effect of the Bush tax-cuts.
If you want to have surpluses again, it's really simple. Let the Bush tax-cuts expire, cut defense spending and have true health care reform -- in other words, policies liberals historically have supported.
Federal spending has increased in nearly all catagories since 1990. In inflation adjusted dollars, we spend right around $7000 per person throughout the entire decade of the 90s. That increased to about $9000 per person throughout Ws terms, and increase of ~28% in spending, or 3.5% per year. Under Obama that has gone to ~$10,500, an increase of ~17% in 3 years, or 5.6% per year. Neither are sustainable.
Per the chart above, federal spending has increased in virtually all areas. At least projections show defense spending declining, by upwards of 20% by 2016. Unfortunately, increases in other areas exceed those cuts. Again...not sustainable, and who knows if those cuts will actually happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
