Federal spending under Obama has grown at the slowest pace since the 50's

[dank69]

Those statements are in no way contradictory. As long as the minority party retains filibuster power in the Senate, which except for the brief interlude during which Obamacare was passed has been true all my life, the majority party is never completely in control.

...

That's some beautiful pretzel logic you have there. Somehow control no longer means just majority, but filibuster proof majority.

 

[Craig234]

And this is why people are refusing to consider tax increases, increased spending, etc. They know if more is given more will just be spent. At 2+ Trillion a year, we don't have an income problem. We have a spending problem. Demonstrably fix the spending problem please, then get back to Us with requests for more many to spend.

Good point, just the way Clinton only increased the deficit, wasting any revenue gain.

 

[werepossum]

That's some beautiful pretzel logic you have there. Somehow control no longer means just majority, but filibuster proof majority.

Well, admittedly it would work better if the Democrats had the same negative feelings about Republican pork as Republicans have about Democrat pork. Unfortunately that isn't the case. And if we have a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate, we'll continue to get judicial nominees who believe that Americans have a right to bear arms only when government drafts them and sends them to war. That greatly dampens my enthusiasm for divided government, although I still wish for Democrat minority powerful enough to shut down the abuses of a Republican majority. A Democrat minority large enough to filibuster can and will do that for human rights and environmental issues, if not for irresponsible spending. Since Democrats don't believe government is capable of spending irresponsibly we're screwed on that front, but better screwed in one area than screwed in many.

A Democrat President and a Republican Congress is clearly the best compromise for spending, and were that the only control, I'd be all for it.

 

[chucky2]

Good point, just the way Clinton only increased the deficit, wasting any revenue gain.

He did? Or he and Congress did? And to the extent they did, was it - the yearly surplus - meaningful? So meaninful they were able to pay down the Federal debt by any amount? How significant was that amount?

I know we vastly increased it under Bush with Righty control, and we further increased it with Bush with Lefty. Now we've increased it with Obama with Lefty control, and Obama with Righty control.

Take me back to the .com crash Clinton inherited, with an almost simultaneous national magnitude event that further depressed the national mood...and then a few years later, yet another regional specific event that further depressed the national mood.

I'm sitting down...wow me with the numbers in answer to my first paragraph. I know I am going to be wowed how far down the national dept was payed down during Clinton (and we both know Clinton was the sole reason for the booming economy, only He was responsible)...I can't wait! :thumbsup:

Chuck

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

And this is why people are refusing to consider tax increases, increased spending, etc. They know if more is given more will just be spent. At 2+ Trillion a year, we don't have an income problem. We have a spending problem. Demonstrably fix the spending problem please, then get back to Us with requests for more many to spend.

Has 2 trillion been determined to be an amount that is good or bad?

What would be a correct amount?

Who determines it?

 

[jackstar7]

Sorry, no derailing found.

At least you admit you cannot see it. That's something.


What would you cut from the budget, but the way?

 

[First]

Those statements are in no way contradictory. As long as the minority party retains filibuster power in the Senate, which except for the brief interlude during which Obamacare was passed has been true all my life, the majority party is never completely in control.

Too bad none of those words were uttered in his post. Nor is it particularly accurate, btw. A filibuster-proof majority isn't needed to pass a bill in the Senate.

 

[JTsyo]

Anyone have a chart that shows US revenue and spending from 2006 to 2011? It would be easier to see that revenue drop is a bigger cause for the deficit than spending drop.

Another interesting chart is one that shows what revenue would have been without the tax cuts, though that's tricky since you don't know if overall growth would have been lower.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Here you go.

  Year    Revenues           Expenditures
  2005    2,153.6            2,472.0
  2006    2,406.9            2,655.1
  2007    2,568.0            2,728.7
  2008    2,524.0            2,982.5
  2009    2,105.0            3,517.7
  2010    2,162.7            3,456.2
  2011    2,303.5            3,603.1

Source

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here you go.

  Year    Revenues           Expenditures
  2005    2,153.6            2,472.0
  2006    2,406.9            2,655.1
  2007    2,568.0            2,728.7
  2008    2,524.0            2,982.5
  2009    2,105.0            3,517.7
  2010    2,162.7            3,456.2
  2011    2,303.5            3,603.1

Source

The rent is too damn high!

 

[chucky2]

And this just shows the reason people are Fed up. Year after year of deficits. The Fed revenue takes a dump in 2008 and onward. What does Fed do? Add a Trillion in unfunded spending.

If spending at these amounts isn't a problem, what is the need for increased taxes? By this type of logic we can just have 20% tax for everyone, lots of people will get to keep more of their own money, and we'll run a huge deficit. Wow. That's what we do now just with higher taxes. Who runs companies like this??? I know it doesn't work this way where I'm at, maybe we're just not the norm...

 

[jackstar7]

I think a better comparison would be a non-profit clinic or shelter.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And this just shows the reason people are Fed up. Year after year of deficits. The Fed revenue takes a dump in 2008 and onward.

I only seem to recall the "tea party" getting "fed up" after Obama got into office.

Before that, I heard not a peep out of them.

Funny how that works.

 

[piasabird]

Under the O'Bammah utopian scale spending numbers are counted differently???

What freakin universe do you people live in? How come the defeceit keeps going up?

Does this have something to do with the Negative growth in revenues or what?

O'Bammah has chased more investment outside of this country than any other president with his monetary policies and increase in government regulations. He has run more coal plants out of operation than any other president!

 

[chucky2]

Fine. A non-profit. The gist is the same. The link that CharlesKozierok tells it all:

Tons of negative balances, very small number of positive ones. What does that say? It says they are cutting their budgets far too close and not accounting properly for spend and adjustment - not to mention the 'Oh Sh1t' factor.

It also tells us those that are advocating for deficit spending in the short term and then saving when the economy is good in the long term are either totally ignorant of how the Fed actually behaves, or are complete and total liars (I consider saying something deliberately misleading a lie...pretty much everyone I know does as well). It will never happen. Ever. And even in the extremely off chance it does/would, it is not going to consistently happen to the degree needed to even matter.

If Obama wants my vote he needs to show how he's going to balance the yearly budgets while he's POTUS. No BS how he's going to balance them 10 years down the road with a projected budget that will never happen. Put his presidency on the line today with his plan for a balanced budget. If he comes out in a serious manner and says We're going to chop Defense $250B a year, I would respect that. I might not agree with it (well, maybe I would), but at least it'd be a real start towards taming the beast.

Enough is enough...

Chuck

P.S. No more posting for me here until I read the rest like I said I would...

 

[Fern]

This is factually wrong, there's no getting around it. Spending never needs to drop to less than income.

Ever.

Debt as a percentage of GDP cannot continue upwards forever, this is true. Debt as an absolute number most certainly can however. This is indisputable.

Indisputable?

According to who?

To have debt with an unlimited ceiling requires willing lenders who will allow it. There is no evidence of such a pool of mythical lenders. Greece eventually learned this.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

He did? Or he and Congress did? And to the extent they did, was it - the yearly surplus - meaningful? So meaninful they were able to pay down the Federal debt by any amount? How significant was that amount?

I know we vastly increased it under Bush with Righty control, and we further increased it with Bush with Lefty. Now we've increased it with Obama with Lefty control, and Obama with Righty control.

Take me back to the .com crash Clinton inherited, with an almost simultaneous national magnitude event that further depressed the national mood...and then a few years later, yet another regional specific event that further depressed the national mood.

I'm sitting down...wow me with the numbers in answer to my first paragraph. I know I am going to be wowed how far down the national dept was payed down during Clinton (and we both know Clinton was the sole reason for the booming economy, only He was responsible)...I can't wait! :thumbsup:

Chuck

LOL. Your side took a nearly balanced budget and created huge deficits; Democrats inherited your massive deficits and cut them every year for 8 years to zero.

And you attack the Democrats in that picture.

And you lie that Democrats 'only waste any revenue', disproven by the facts, so you try to change the subject. It's not about wasting the revenue, it's about the surplus size.

Idiocy.

 

[Darwin333]

And this is why people are refusing to consider tax increases, increased spending, etc. They know if more is given more will just be spent. At 2+ Trillion a year, we don't have an income problem. We have a spending problem. Demonstrably fix the spending problem please, then get back to Us with requests for more many to spend.

While I completely agree with the premise of your argument I don't think that the majority of the people calling for the above truly understand the consequences of doing it.

What about you? What will happen to the economy if the .gov does not increase revenue yet runs zero deficit next year?

 

[piasabird]

I guess everyone should study how New York State went into default. There came a time when no investors would buy the bonds to fund the government. Do we have to wait till we come to a crisis so bad that there is no returning from oblivion?

Are we doomed to repeat history???

 

[Darwin333]

I only seem to recall the "tea party" getting "fed up" after Obama got into office.

Before that, I heard not a peep out of them.

Funny how that works.

You are wrong. The Tea Party was originally created because people were pissed the hell off at the bailouts. That was a short time before Obamma took office but that was the original tipping point. It has since been corrupted into another bullshit "movement" but it didn't start after Obamma got into office.

 

[jackstar7]

If Obama wants my vote he needs to show how he's going to balance the yearly budgets while he's POTUS. No BS how he's going to balance them 10 years down the road with a projected budget that will never happen. Put his presidency on the line today with his plan for a balanced budget. If he comes out in a serious manner and says We're going to chop Defense $250B a year, I would respect that. I might not agree with it (well, maybe I would), but at least it'd be a real start towards taming the beast.

Enough is enough...

Chuck

P.S. No more posting for me here until I read the rest like I said I would...

Well, he was aiming $100B in cuts per year, but was held back to around $50B in cuts I believe.* I'm not sure how far defense can be cut before you start to create issues for our national and global interests though. I mean even with billions being wasted in Iraq, they didn't have properly armored vehicles. It seems reasonable to try and keep a smaller military, but that requires keeping the personnel alive, too.

*back in January.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You are wrong. The Tea Party was originally created because people were pissed the hell off at the bailouts. That was a short time before Obamma took office but that was the original tipping point.

I'll need to see a source to back that up. I cannot find any references to any tea party protests prior to 2009.

Regardless, even if it was in late 2008, the outcome of the election was already known by then, and these same people allegedly "fed up" about the deficit apparently weren't "fed up" with the huge debts that Bush ran up -- none of which happened during a serious recession.

Republicans only care about deficits when they aren't in power.

 

[Darwin333]

So basically 9 Trillion in 2008 was not noticeable?

Chart it against GDP growth and you will quickly see the "noticeable"

 

[dank69]

You are wrong. The Tea Party was originally created because people were pissed the hell off at the bailouts. That was a short time before Obamma took office but that was the original tipping point. It has since been corrupted into another bullshit "movement" but it didn't start after Obamma got into office.

Oh, right. Before he got into the office but after he got elected.

 

[Darwin333]

I'll need to see a source to back that up. I cannot find any references to any tea party protests prior to 2009.

Regardless, even if it was in late 2008, the outcome of the election was already known by then, and these same people allegedly "fed up" about the deficit apparently weren't "fed up" with the huge debts that Bush ran up -- none of which happened during a serious recession.

So you are arguing that they were protesting Obama's deficit spending before Obama was sworn in?

As I stated earlier, it formed due to Bush and Paulson's bailout and grew legs (as in corrupted by influence and money) from there after.