Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· AMD Video Cards
· Nvidia
· Displays
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2015
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions

Thread Tools
Old 06-19-2012, 11:56 PM   #51
Diamond Member
Bitek's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,336

Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post
Agreed again. I agreed with you the first time.

But imagine how much better everything would be if gas was back to where it was in January of 2009. Food prices would drop, clothing prices would drop. People who have to drive to work would have more money to spend on consumer goods. Everything would be better.
Yeah man, Jan 2009. 700,000 lost jobs. Dow drops to 8000. Good times.
German Engineering; n., def : Design philosophy characterized by needless complexity and excessive gadgetry to the point of unreliability and impracticality.

On poverty: I'm a Conservative because I believe you don't get jobs by giving handouts, but you get out by giving handjobs
Bitek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2012, 03:24 AM   #52
BoomerD's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Where I hang my hat.
Posts: 46,910


Nutting’s column

First, let’s recap what Nutting said in his column:

"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. 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."

Nutting ran the numbers for the past 60 years, adjusting for the fact that "the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress." For Obama, that means that "the 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress."

He continued, "By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate."

Nutting did, however, attribute a portion of fiscal 2009 spending to Obama rather than Bush. He reassigned about $140 billion, covering spending made that year through the stimulus bill, the expansion of a children’s health-care program and other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

"If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush," Nutting wrote, "we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4 percent annualized increase."

Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic is that it fails to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.

Using and slightly tweaking Nutting’s methodology, we recalculated spending increases under each president back to Dwight Eisenhower and produced tables ranking the presidents from highest spenders to lowest spenders. By contrast, both the Fact Checker and the AP zeroed in on one narrower (and admittedly crucial) data point -- how to divide the responsibility between George W. Bush and Obama for the spending that occurred in fiscal year 2009, when spending rose fastest.

How you divide the spending between Bush and Obama for fiscal 2009 only makes a difference to our ruling if the shifts move Obama significantly up or down our rankings. Do they?

Nutting attributed spending from the first year of every presidential term to the previous administration, arguing that every new president starts their term four months into a fiscal year begun under their predecessor. Historically, this has not been a particularly controversial approach, and even some of Nutting’s critics we spoke to agreed that it’s not a bad rule of thumb.

But fiscal year 2009 was special because it came amid an economic and financial free fall that drove the nation’s leaders to spend a lot more than they ordinarily would. Nutting did take these factors into account, but not to the extent that some critics think is needed. Nutting shifted $140 billion in fiscal 2009 spending from two of Obama’s signature programs -- the economic stimulus package and an expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program -- out of Bush’s column and into Obama’s. He also shifted excess spending beyond what Bush would have spent from the appropriations bills signed by Obama in 2009.

A number of critics also argued that spending for the Troubled Asset Relief Program should be taken into account. This program aided troubled financial institutions and involved a lot of money going out the door in fiscal 2009 and a lot of money coming in the door in subsequent years as the money was paid back to the treasury. The critics note that counting the TARP expenses as Bush’s artificially raises the baseline level of spending Obama inherited, thereby making Obama’s subsequent spending increases seem unrealistically small.

We think reasonable people can disagree on which president should be responsible for TARP spending, but to give the critics their say, we’ll include it in our alternative calculation. So, combining the fiscal 2009 costs for programs that are either clearly or arguably Obama’s -- the stimulus, the CHIP expansion, the incremental increase in appropriations over Bush’s level and TARP -- produces a shift from Bush to Obama of between $307 billion and $456 billion, based on the most reasonable estimates we’ve seen critics offer.

That’s quite a bit larger than Nutting’s $140 billion, but by our calculations, it would only raise Obama’s average annual spending increase from 1.4 percent to somewhere between 3.4 percent and 4.9 percent. That would place Obama either second from the bottom or third from the bottom out of the 10 presidents we rated, rather than last.

When we encounter a compound claim such as this one, we consider the accuracy of each part separately. During our internal discussions, we give a preliminary rating to each half of a claim, then average them to produce our final, published rating.

Our extensive consultations with budget analysts since our item was published convinces us that there’s no single "correct" way to divvy up fiscal 2009 spending, only a variety of plausible calculations. So the second portion of the Facebook claim -- that Obama’s spending has risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" -- strikes us as Half True.

Meanwhile, we would’ve given a True rating to the Facebook claim that Romney is wrong to say that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." Even using the higher of the alternative measurements, at seven presidents had a higher average annual increases in spending. That balances out to our final rating of Mostly True.
BoomerD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2012, 03:52 AM   #53
Elite Member
Zebo's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 39,408

And Bush was before that. What else is new? We are in a debt death spiral. Cut off 47% of govt spending (the deficit), I dare ya, when 50% of GDP is based on it and 66% of people depend on it to live.


Greece is a fucking speed bump compared to mountain of pain USA will endure when money and credit is worthless. In the meantime politicians will issue unlimited money to keep illusions afloat. Obama, Romney or those tough talking House Republicans who niggle over chump change relative.
How can President Obama restart an economy that has been moved offshore?

Cheap is more expensive.

Last edited by Zebo; 06-20-2012 at 04:04 AM.
Zebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2012, 05:49 AM   #54
boomerang's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 16,598

Originally Posted by TheBlackRabbit View Post
And I have to add that every president SHOULD be judged on what they propose or would have passed rather than what they managed to get through due to compromise. Obama could have said "F everybody, single payer or bust, 1.5 trillion stimulus or bust". The problem is the "or bust" is what he would have gotten with the treasonous republican obstructionists. Obviously, the American people would have still blamed the trillion+ deficit on him despite the fact that it was set in stone by default due to Bush + massive revenue loss. Socialist! Is code for White People Hating Black Presidents. They would have NEVER GOTTEN AWAY WITH CALLING HILLARY CLINTON A SOCIALIST, BOTH DUE TO HER BEING WHITE AND A WOMAN.

My point: Bush has to be judged on the tax cut he WANTED to pass: If I remember correctly, he wanted to lower the top rate even further than 35% (but for the life of me, I can find a link after 45 minutes of searching, so I could be wrong).

Obama proposes many progressive tax increases that together are far more than 1 trillion over 10 years. The BS right-wing talking point of ONLY focusing on the income tax rate is complete distortion.


The link gives a great breakdown on who wants what tax cuts extended and eliminated.
I present exhibit A. The progressive mindset laid bare for all to see. These people vote.
Inside many liberals is a totalitarian screaming to get out. They donít like to have another point of view in the room that they donít quash and the way they try to quash it is by character assassination and name calling. - David Horowitz
boomerang is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Alpha 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.