Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-30-2012, 03:57 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,884,083 times
Reputation: 9383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
And the deficit is the last thing we need to worry about. It actually needs to go up in the context of reducing consumer debt.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-30-2012, 04:06 PM
 
20,577 posts, read 19,242,830 times
Reputation: 8174
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
One has nothing to do with the other.
it doesn't? Discarding M0, all money takes the form of being created as debt. Pick one:

* depression
* increase consumer debt
* increase business debt
* increase da guberment debt


The only way to pay down debt is to create more debt somewhere else( or mint lots of coins which is just non interest bearing debt, now being a worthless token instead of a commodity( I could explain that in the advanced class)). I didn't make the system. I just explain my hatred for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2012, 04:16 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,884,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
it doesn't? Discarding M0, all money takes the form of being created as debt. Pick one:

* depression
* increase consumer debt
* increase business debt
* increase da guberment debt


The only way to pay down debt is to create more debt somewhere else( or mint lots of coins which is just non interest bearing debt, now being a worthless token instead of a commodity( I could explain that in the advanced class)). I didn't make the system. I just explain my hatred for it.
one persons debt is another individuals asset so no.. one has nothing to do with the other..

For example, I recently sold a home, and carrying financing on it.. That makes my tenant in debt to me, but I'm also in debt to the bank, who's also in debt to the depositors.. Thats 3 entities who are in debt or more, for the exact same transaction. This doesnt change the total outstanding obligation, it just changes how its calculated and appears to be more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2012, 05:48 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,544,777 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Let me give you a clue.

Spending <> Deficit.

Deficit has two components. Spending is one, and THAT is what this thread is about. Try again.
Wow, you are a genius. I am amazed at how ways you can avoid the issue. Why don't you explain why the argument was that the amount of spending was necessary a few months ago but now the argument is that it didn't happen to the extent that was previously described as necessary? You have lots of questions and little ways you try to pick at information. Go ahead and make a statement that explains the two approaches to the topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2012, 06:50 PM
 
29,953 posts, read 18,520,884 times
Reputation: 20715
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
My God what? Which part this little box we are in are you talking about? The deficit is the result of a "revenue" shortfall, not a spending "binge". I happend to be against a spending binge, but certainly not a deficit binge under the right circumstances.

Obviously you do not look at the "revenue" and "spending" data on a year to year basis. Given that you are a liberal, facts may be disturbing, so I will give you fair warning. The factual data printed in the link below may be shocking to you.
Federal Budget Receipts and Outlays


As you are a liberal, and refuse to look at data, I will spell it out for you

2008 revenues $2.52 trillion spending $2.98 trillion

2009 revenues $2.11 trillion spending $3.52 trillion

2012 revenues $2.47 trillion spending $3.8 trillion


Any fool, even a liberal, can see that revenues currently are near the all time high for revenue generation in US history. However, we have outpaced revenues with record spending (again). We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Wake up
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,727,711 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
Wow, you are a genius. I am amazed at how ways you can avoid the issue. Why don't you explain why the argument was that the amount of spending was necessary a few months ago but now the argument is that it didn't happen to the extent that was previously described as necessary? You have lots of questions and little ways you try to pick at information. Go ahead and make a statement that explains the two approaches to the topic.
If you want to have a discussion with me, a good approach is to stop rhetoric based arguments, and present facts. I don't have to explain your ideas, you do. I will counter with mine. So, present numbers, spending over last 10 years if you so desire and we will have something to discuss.

And yes, I have a lot of questions because of stupidity "talking points" bring about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
You mean the $800B in new yearly spending, doesnt contribute to the deficits?
It is nutty to assume... Spending is Deficit. If you want to discuss deficit, let us also talk federal tax revenues. But would that be the point of this thread? Create yet another, if you want to discuss deficit.

And when you develop the ability to present numbers, over a period of time so we can compare, do so and we will get somewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 08:23 AM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,544,777 times
Reputation: 2823
The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

The Facts


First of all, there are a few methodological problems with Nutting’s analysis — especially the beginning and the end point.

Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.

Bush had rescued Fannie and Freddie Mac and launched the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which depending on how you do the math, was a one-time expense of $250 billion to $400 billion in the final months of his presidency. (The federal government ultimately recouped most of the TARP money.) So if you really want to be fair, perhaps $250 billion of that money should be taken out of the equation — on the theory that it would have been spent no matter who was president.

Nutting acknowledges that Obama is responsible for some 2009 spending but only assigns $140 billion for reasons he does not fully explain. (Update: in an email Nutting says he attributed $120 billion to stimulus spending in 2009, $5 billion for an expansion of children’s health care and $16 billion to an increase in appropriations bills over 2008 levels.)

On the other end of his calculations, Nutting says that Obama plans to spend $3.58 trillion in 2013, citing the Congressional Budget Office budget outlook. But this figure is CBO’s baseline budget, which assumes no laws are changed, so this figure gives Obama credit for automatic spending cuts that he wants to halt.

The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.

So this is what we end up with:

2008: $2.98 trillion

2009: $3.27 trillion

2010: $3.46 trillion

2011: $3.60 trillion

2012: $3.65 trillion

2013: $3.72 trillion

Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent. Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)

Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress. Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:

2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)

2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)

2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.

Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation. Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.

One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

2008: 20.8 percent

2009: 25.2 percent

2010: 24.1 percent

2011: 24.1 percent

2012: 24.3 percent

2013: 23.3 percent

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.

We sent our analysis to Carney but did not get a response. (For another take, Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute has an interesting tour through the numbers, isolating various spending categories. For instance, he says debt payments should be excluded from the analysis because that is the result of earlier spending decisions by other presidents.)

UPDATE: The Associated Press also dug into the numbers and came to the same conclusion as we did. “The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama’s 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama’s watch, the [Nutting] analysis counted them as government spending cuts,” the AP said. “It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 08:28 AM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,637,145 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm View Post
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.
Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch
Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
Obama took the irresponsible levels of spending in fiscal year 2009, which were supposed to be a one time deal in a national emergency, and turned it into the norm, and made it the new baseline.

It's sort of like buying a $200,000 house in 2008, and then adding that to your household budget, and spending $200,000 each year for the next four years, then scratching your little wooden head wondering why you are in so much debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 08:34 AM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,637,145 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
This is the CBO budget projection dated January 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama's inaugural and clearly show a $1.186 trillion deficit for 2009.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c....2009.0406.pdf
A budget estimate is just that, and estimate, and the CBO can only make their estimates from the figures given to them and they have to use the parameters they are directed to follow. The experts can't even accurately predeict the economy and jobs growth from one month to the next, and you expect an estimate one year out, to be held up as fact?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,887,524 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
A budget estimate is just that, and estimate, and the CBO can only make their estimates from the figures given to them and they have to use the parameters they are directed to follow. The experts can't even accurately predeict the economy and jobs growth from one month to the next, and you expect an estimate one year out, to be held up as fact?
What it shows is that before Obama was even president the estimates were pointing to a trillion+ deficit. That clearly dispels claims by the GOP that the deficit is Obama's "fault."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top