Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· 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
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-29-2012, 02:11 PM   #476
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
 
QuantumPion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dank69 View Post
No, the debt stayed the same from 1950 to Nov 2008.
Not quite but sort of

QuantumPion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 03:11 PM   #477
werepossum
Lifer
 
werepossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 17,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy View Post
This is getting so twisted now as to be a joke. Your description of presidential influence on the budgeting process is simply laughably wrong. The president wields enormous influence, and the FY2009 outlays very much resembled Bush's budget request. They are not identical, but to declare the President's wishes 'fart gas' shows deep ignorance of basic governance practices in the US. You aren't paying attention, you're just selectively choosing things that tell you what you already want to believe.

I know you're desperate to somehow make the spending of 2009 Obama's. Analysis has attributed the increases that Obama sought to Obama, kept those which Bush pushed for with him, and rightly so.



Obama is not running on the fruits of Republican obstructionism outside of simply pointing out their craven dishonesty. He knows as well as most economists do that more spending in the short term is the answer, and he's going to run on the catastrophic effects of the absolutely foolish austerity that Republicans claim to want. Luckily for the US, Europe is aiding us by piling up mountains of evidence of the failure of conservative economics, and every day that goes by just gives liberals more ammunition on that.
Let us all examine the President's "enormous influence".

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obama-...tors-against-0

Quote:
President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.


Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate floor.

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no Democrats took up.

"A stunning development for the president of the United States in his fourth year in office," Mr. Sessions said of the unanimous opposition.
Every Congressional budget will be "very similar" to the President's budget, simply because most of the budget is non-discretionary spending. Of the remainder, very, very seldom does any department or major entitlement program get an actual cut, so the difference for most is merely a couple percent either way.
__________________
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know,
72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the
tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you
guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy - Barack Hussein Obama
werepossum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 03:18 PM   #478
eskimospy
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 29,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by werepossum View Post
Let us all examine the President's "enormous influence".

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obama-...tors-against-0

Every Congressional budget will be "very similar" to the President's budget, simply because most of the budget is non-discretionary spending. Of the remainder, very, very seldom does any department or major entitlement program get an actual cut, so the difference for most is merely a couple percent either way.
So you are now agreeing with me that the President exerts enormous influence on the budget? Wow, they didn't take it exactly as written. Congress never does. When someone writes a book and then the editor changes it, didn't the writer still exert enormous influence on its outcome?

Regardless of you being wrong about the president's supposed lack of influence on discretionary spending changes, you are now working against your own point. The sum total change in discretionary spending from 2008-2009 was 4.9%. Even if the entirety of that change was attributable to changes outside of Bush's control (and it wasn't), that wouldn't contradict this thread's central premise of very modest spending increases under Obama.
eskimospy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 03:47 PM   #479
werepossum
Lifer
 
werepossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 17,823
Default

Let's look for a moment at Nutting's assertions. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top...ush-yet-again/

Quote:
Nutting argues there has been no Obama spending spree because the rate of spending increase over the final year of Bush spending is less than 2 percent. In order to back this claim, Nutting attributes all 2009 spending to Bush – save for the curious number of $140 billion he carves out for the Obama stimulus – thus saddling Bush with responsibility for spending $3.52 trillion in 2009. Because Obama has spent around $3.7 trillion every year since, Nutting argues that he’s merely maintaining the status quo – and Selweski buys this.
But anyone with even a faint memory should know what a crock this is.
Let’s start by looking at the pattern of federal spending during the Bush presidency. The first budget proposed and signed by Bush was for fiscal year 2002, which totaled $2.0 billion in outlays. That figure steadily rose during the Bush years, such that the final budget proposed by Bush was for a whopping $3.1 trillion for FY 2009. The average of the eight budgets proposed by Bush was $2.55 trillion. The average of Obama’s four proposed budgets (none of which have been enacted – we’ll get to that – but all of which reflect what’s actually been spent) has been $3.7 trillion.
So how does Nutting come up with the nutty theory that there has been no Obama spending spree? Here’s how:
Everyone should remember that, in October 2008, Bush responded to the meltdown in the mortgage market by pushing through the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP), a one-time emergency measure that cost $750 billion and pushed that year’s deficit from an expected $450 billion to more than $1.2 trillion. There was disagreement about how to account for TARP in the budget because Treasury saw it as a straight expenditure, while the Congressional Budget Office argued it should be accounted for differently as much of it was expected to be paid back.
What was never expected, however, was that it would be added to the permanent budget baseline. When the following year’s budget was developed, it was supposed to view the baseline as the previous year’s spending minus TARP.
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a Bush-passed FY 2009 budget of $3.1 trillion – not including TARP. To this, Obama added a “stimulus” of $775 billion, which he pushed through the now Democrat-controlled Congress. (It ultimately cost $862 billion.) This too was sold as a one-time measure. Had it been treated that way, it would have reset the baseline for FY 2010 back to around $3.1 trillion.
But that’s not what happened. In February 2009, Obama submitted a budget request of $3.552 trillion for FY 2010. Actually spending turned out to be $3.721 trillion. So even though the 2009 stimulus was supposed to be a one-time, emergency event (like TARP the previous year), total spending in the year that followed was roughly the same as it was in the year when the stimulus passed.
How did Obama and the Democrats get away with taking a supposed one-time expenditure and adding it to the permanent budget baseline? They did this by putting an end to federal budgets. Since 2009, Congress has not passed a federal budget, choosing instead to enact a series of continuing resolutions to authorize federal spending. That has eliminated the need to defend the passage of singular budget bills that document their spending profligacy.
To make a long story short, Obama took the one-time emergency measure that was the $750 billion TARP in 2008, added another such measure in the form of the $775 billion (actually $862 billion) stimulus in 2009, then quietly added these amounts to the budget baseline in spite of the fact that both were sold as one-time measures. Because the Democrats stopped passing budgets after 2009, this gambit largely escaped the attention of the public.
Nutting’s strangest claim is that only $140 billion in 2009 spending should be attributed to Obama for the stimulus, since the amount of the bill he signed was $775 billion. But that’s almost a mere footnote given the whole picture.
The overall numbers don’t lie. I supported TARP as a necessary emergency measure when it was proposed in 2008, but many feared that the huge one-time spending measure would not be one-time at all, and that’s exactly what happened.
Bullet items:
1. Obama spent roughly half of TARP - but Nutting counts all that as Bush spending. (Yes, Proggies, it is possible to spend less than what is budgeted.)
2. Nutting counts the FY2009 budget plus TARP as the new baseline budget. (The real reason why Democrats decided having a budget was a bad idea.)
3. Obama's stimulus Rex, also supposedly a one-time deal, also gets partially added to the new baseline as only $140 billion of the $862 billion gets counted as Obama spending. Thus Obama gets judged (by Nutting anyway) on how much he raised Bush's spending plus his own.
4. Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill in March 2009 - but under Nutting's rule, that's Bush spending, even though Bush's budget, like all of Obama's, was voted down (though unlike Obama's not unanimously.) When Bush signs a spending bill he gets "credit" for all that spending no matter who actually spent it; when Obama signs a spending bill "credit" accrues to Bush.
5. Obamacare, which mandates increased federal spending (non-discretionary spending) in the future as far as the eye can see, is conveniently ignored.

Examining TARP, we see that under the new rules the loans are counted as Bush's spending even when Obama spent them, whereas the recipients paying them back shows as Obama reducing the deficit. Democrats didn't lower the bar, they sank it into the abyss. But again, all this pales beside the Big Lie, which is the Obama and the Dems attempting to take credit for what they have spent the last three years squealing was Republican obstructionism. "Look how responsible I am - when cornered like a rat."

To paraphrase an old saying, "Figures don't lie, Democrats do."
__________________
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know,
72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the
tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you
guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy - Barack Hussein Obama
werepossum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 03:52 PM   #480
werepossum
Lifer
 
werepossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 17,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy View Post
So you are now agreeing with me that the President exerts enormous influence on the budget? Wow, they didn't take it exactly as written. Congress never does. When someone writes a book and then the editor changes it, didn't the writer still exert enormous influence on its outcome?

Regardless of you being wrong about the president's supposed lack of influence on discretionary spending changes, you are now working against your own point. The sum total change in discretionary spending from 2008-2009 was 4.9%. Even if the entirety of that change was attributable to changes outside of Bush's control (and it wasn't), that wouldn't contradict this thread's central premise of very modest spending increases under Obama.
Very modest spending changes IFF you accept that the "one time" measures of TARP and Stimulus Rex are in fact the new baseline. And no, I'm not agreeing with you that "the President exerts enormous influence on the budget" UNLESS his party controls Congress OR he like Reagan can make something so popular that the voters pressure Congress to adopt it. I was pointing out that structural factors beyond a President's control exert enormous influence on the budget. I'm not sure how one could accidentally confuse those two.
__________________
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know,
72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the
tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you
guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy - Barack Hussein Obama
werepossum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 05:39 PM   #481
eskimospy
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 29,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by werepossum View Post
Let's look for a moment at Nutting's assertions. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top...ush-yet-again/



Bullet items:
1. Obama spent roughly half of TARP - but Nutting counts all that as Bush spending. (Yes, Proggies, it is possible to spend less than what is budgeted.)
2. Nutting counts the FY2009 budget plus TARP as the new baseline budget. (The real reason why Democrats decided having a budget was a bad idea.)
3. Obama's stimulus Rex, also supposedly a one-time deal, also gets partially added to the new baseline as only $140 billion of the $862 billion gets counted as Obama spending. Thus Obama gets judged (by Nutting anyway) on how much he raised Bush's spending plus his own.
4. Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill in March 2009 - but under Nutting's rule, that's Bush spending, even though Bush's budget, like all of Obama's, was voted down (though unlike Obama's not unanimously.) When Bush signs a spending bill he gets "credit" for all that spending no matter who actually spent it; when Obama signs a spending bill "credit" accrues to Bush.
5. Obamacare, which mandates increased federal spending (non-discretionary spending) in the future as far as the eye can see, is conveniently ignored.

Examining TARP, we see that under the new rules the loans are counted as Bush's spending even when Obama spent them, whereas the recipients paying them back shows as Obama reducing the deficit. Democrats didn't lower the bar, they sank it into the abyss. But again, all this pales beside the Big Lie, which is the Obama and the Dems attempting to take credit for what they have spent the last three years squealing was Republican obstructionism. "Look how responsible I am - when cornered like a rat."

To paraphrase an old saying, "Figures don't lie, Democrats do."
Much of what that guy wrote is simply factually incorrect. I already corrected you when you previously made similar assertions, but I highly suggest that you read less poorly informed commentators in the future.

1.) TARP was passed under Bush. Both the first AND the second funding releases for TARP took place under Bush's presidency. That's Bush spending, period.

2.) Nutting counts the total spending as the spending baseline, which is perfectly rational to do. It is those attempting to discredit this that continually jump through all sorts of hoops to try and declare various things 'not real spending'. Nutting simply uses OMB figures. Why all the mental gymnastics?

3.) Once again, factually false. First, the stimulus was not $862B of spending. Almost half of it was tax cuts. Secondly, Nutting credited the spending of the stimulus to OBAMA's spending figures, not Bush's, because it was clearly Obama's program. It was not added to Bush's baseline. This is in fact why Obama's rate of increase is 1.4% instead of about 0.4%. This is specifically mentioned in the article, I do not understand why you continue to repeat this falsehood.

4.) Bush failing to pass appropriations bills does not absolve him of the spending he budgeted for. To use that sort of argument would simply defy basic logic. Using your logic, years in which appropriations were delayed due to gridlock would see federal expenditures plunge 90%+, only to surge thousands of percent the next year when the funding was actually signed. This would be a breathtakingly inane way to look at budgeting. It would only be done in the service of someone trying to avoid uncomfortable figures.

5.) The ACA is not ignored, it is simply just counted as additional spending for the amount that it will cost in the years it is actually spent. To do otherwise would be illogical.

For what it's worth, I agree that the payback of the loans under Obama shouldn't be counted towards reducing his spending totals. It does nothing to alter the fundamental calculus though. I have truly wondered at the epic right wing freakout that has ensued from this fairly simple recognition of reality. You guys are so wedded to your religious faith of Obama hating you can't see the world in front of your face.
eskimospy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2012, 10:42 AM   #482
werepossum
Lifer
 
werepossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 17,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy View Post
Much of what that guy wrote is simply factually incorrect. I already corrected you when you previously made similar assertions, but I highly suggest that you read less poorly informed commentators in the future.

1.) TARP was passed under Bush. Both the first AND the second funding releases for TARP took place under Bush's presidency. That's Bush spending, period.

2.) Nutting counts the total spending as the spending baseline, which is perfectly rational to do. It is those attempting to discredit this that continually jump through all sorts of hoops to try and declare various things 'not real spending'. Nutting simply uses OMB figures. Why all the mental gymnastics?

3.) Once again, factually false. First, the stimulus was not $862B of spending. Almost half of it was tax cuts. Secondly, Nutting credited the spending of the stimulus to OBAMA's spending figures, not Bush's, because it was clearly Obama's program. It was not added to Bush's baseline. This is in fact why Obama's rate of increase is 1.4% instead of about 0.4%. This is specifically mentioned in the article, I do not understand why you continue to repeat this falsehood.

4.) Bush failing to pass appropriations bills does not absolve him of the spending he budgeted for. To use that sort of argument would simply defy basic logic. Using your logic, years in which appropriations were delayed due to gridlock would see federal expenditures plunge 90%+, only to surge thousands of percent the next year when the funding was actually signed. This would be a breathtakingly inane way to look at budgeting. It would only be done in the service of someone trying to avoid uncomfortable figures.

5.) The ACA is not ignored, it is simply just counted as additional spending for the amount that it will cost in the years it is actually spent. To do otherwise would be illogical.

For what it's worth, I agree that the payback of the loans under Obama shouldn't be counted towards reducing his spending totals. It does nothing to alter the fundamental calculus though. I have truly wondered at the epic right wing freakout that has ensued from this fairly simple recognition of reality. You guys are so wedded to your religious faith of Obama hating you can't see the world in front of your face.
The "epic right wing freakout" has occurred because Obama is now attempting to take credit for something he very strenuously tried to avoid doing. That's a level of dishonesty and contempt for the electorate that is simply breathtaking. Even by political standards, this is simply beyond the pale.

As far as hating Obama, I don't. I grade him as a decent 'C' President, about the same or perhaps a bit higher than Bush. Or Bush I. Or JFK. Lower than Reagan, Truman or Eisenhower, higher than Johnson, Nixon or Carter. None of these except Reagan, Truman or Eisenhower would be my first, second or third choice.
__________________
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know,
72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the
tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you
guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy - Barack Hussein Obama
werepossum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2012, 10:54 AM   #483
dank69
Lifer
 
dank69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Corner of FORECLOSURE and BÅNKRUPTCY ST.
Posts: 11,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by werepossum View Post
The "epic right wing freakout" has occurred because Obama is now attempting to take credit for something he very strenuously tried to avoid doing. That's a level of dishonesty and contempt for the electorate that is simply breathtaking. Even by political standards, this is simply beyond the pale.

As far as hating Obama, I don't. I grade him as a decent 'C' President, about the same or perhaps a bit higher than Bush. Or Bush I. Or JFK. Lower than Reagan, Truman or Eisenhower, higher than Johnson, Nixon or Carter. None of these except Reagan, Truman or Eisenhower would be my first, second or third choice.
Is Obama attempting to take credit or is someone else entirely trying to debunk a false claim?
__________________
Nemesis 1: Above your age please. The climate is in fact warmer now . Maybe this erection will cool things down mother earth shes hot.

pcgeek11: IMO: Being gay is not a minority. It is a genetic defect

Idontcare: dank69 is hereby permabanned.
dank69 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2012, 04:31 PM   #484
werepossum
Lifer
 
werepossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 17,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dank69 View Post
Is Obama attempting to take credit or is someone else entirely trying to debunk a false claim?
That's a valid point, but considering that the President's press secretary had his talking points in line and pretty much all the usual suspects chimed in I'd say it's a team effort.
__________________
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know,
72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the
tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you
guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy - Barack Hussein Obama
werepossum is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.