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

[woolfe9999]

Obama maintained an overinflated budget. While I think the republicans painting of the picture isnt true and would not pass the truthiness test. And they certainly are full of shit when it comes to cutting a budget. I think the fact he continued to spend at that overinflated level says he had every intention of spending that kind of money anyways. And because Bush blew out his budget in his last year due to a crisis is a technicality that makes Obama's rate increase look good by comparison.

And to that I ask who cares? The fact is his budgets are well beyond our means to pay for them and running up deficits the likes we havent seen since a world war.

Truth is it wasn't "over-inflated" to begin with, not considering this recession going on. The CBO issued a statement just today that the economy may well double dip next year if the $2.3 trillion in spending cuts passed into law last year and set to implement next January take effect. You're essentially suggesting that his response to recession should have been radical cutting of government spending, laying off government workers and putting them on the unemployment roles, and cutting their personal spending.

Small government dogma should not trump economic prosperity.

 

[dank69]

OMG there are facts coming in here! Quick get rid of them. Typically liberal.

Schneider, is that you?

 

[Genx87]

You realize that most of those 'overinflated' expenditures came from already enacted laws that have been on the books for generations, right? I hardly think that allowing already enacted law to operate as intended shows an intention for creating new laws to spend at the same rate. (not to mention that it probably wouldn't have happened through Congress anyway)

Well which way do you want it? Bush and Republicans are overspending drunk sailors? Or they are constrained by the laws that increase the budget that have been on the books for generations?

I also don't view it as a technicality, Bush's budgets led to increased spending due to similar circumstances that Obama has been in his whole presidency. He simply hasn't enacted many new expenditures outside of the stimulus.

This is a contradiction of what you said above. Was the spending bump in 09 from laws that have been on the books for generations or because of laws Bush helped to get enacted?

And I have already acknowledged he maintained an overinflated budget. Bush did the leg work for him. That is a technicality in my book. He had every intention of spending money like this from the get go. Even your article mentions he wanted to spend more but was cock blocked by those obstructionists.

 

[fskimospy]

Well which way do you want it? Bush and Republicans are overspending drunk sailors? Or they are constrained by the laws that increase the budget that have been on the books for generations?

This is a contradiction of what you said above. Was the spending bump in 09 from laws that have been on the books for generations or because of laws Bush helped to get enacted?

And I have already acknowledged he maintained an overinflated budget. Bush did the leg work for him. That is a technicality in my book. He had every intention of spending money like this from the get go. Even your article mentions he wanted to spend more but was cock blocked by those obstructionists.

It's not a contradiction at all, I think you misunderstand my point. I don't believe that Bush and the Republicans overspent in 09, and so I'm not 'blaming' Bush for it at all. If anything, they underspent. Obama has also underspent during his presidency, he should have enacted far, far more federal spending.

Also, every president is prevented from pursuing things they want to pursue by Congress. Each president is 'cock blocked' and so I don't see why that would matter since we are comparing presidents.

 

[xBiffx]

Schneider, is that you?

Are you going to add anything substantive to the thread or just stick to the usual callouts, baiting, and derailment? (Rhetorical question, btw).

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Bush sank himself when he pulled the incredible mistake of Iraq.

Wasn't just that. It was also the prescription drug giveaway and the tax cuts.

It seems that everyone likes to spend, it's a matter of on what.

Yes, everyone likes to spend. But one party likes to spend while pretending that only the other party likes to spend.

I believe that spending doesn't address the core problems of unemployment and stagnant wages, which I attribute to outsourcing and the drive to downsize further.

I agree. But at the same time, it is well-documented that austerity during a financial crunch makes things worse. It is happening in Europe right now.

 

[dank69]

Are you going to add anything substantive to the thread or just stick to the usual callouts, baiting, and derailment? (Rhetorical question, btw).

Oh, right, claiming that federal spending should include state and local spending is a-ok in your book but calling someone out who spouts such nonsense, that's where you draw the line.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Math has a well-known liberal bias.

 

[xBiffx]

Oh, right, claiming that federal spending should include state and local spending is a-ok in your book but calling someone out who spouts such nonsense, that's where you draw the line.

I didn't say that at all but you, yet again, provide no substance. I fail to see where you brought this up. Instead, all I see is what I mentioned. If you want to discuss something, perhaps bring it up rather than pussy footing around playing your little games.

Quoted because you can't even read.

Quoted in line for the lulz.

This is the kind of blatent trolling that needs to be banworthy if the mods really ever want to get this forum under control.

Schneider, is that you?

 

[xBiffx]

Math has a well-known liberal bias.

Math has no bias, but then again we aren't talking about math here since the OP doesn't want to recognize the problem with only looking at spending and not at the revenue that goes with it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Math has a well-known liberal bias.

ROFL. Perhaps you should think about that one a little more.

 

[jackstar7]

Does that work with your employer? When you start spending too much, do you just go to your boss and demand a raise to cover the extra spending? I think not. Most probably adjust spending according to their income.

Go ahead and blame republicans all you want for opposing tax increases but you still wouldn't have debt problems if spending was adjusted accordingly. Basically, spending is 99.9% of the problem here and not the amount of revenue coming in. If $2.5T is not enough revenue, you are doing it wrong.

Prove it.

Firstly, a country does not run like a business, nor should it.

Secondly, can you map out the consequences nationally and globally for this reduced spending you'd like to see?


If you want to talk about the topic instead of scolding people and not responding blankly to joke-posts...

 

[dank69]

I didn't say that at all but you, yet again, provide no substance. I fail to see where you brought this up. Instead, all I see is what I mentioned. If you want to discuss something, perhaps bring it up rather than pussy footing around playing your little games.

I didn't claim to provide substance. I point out nonsense. It's what I do. Take this nonsense for example:

Math has no bias, but then again we aren't talking about math here since the OP doesn't want to recognize the problem with only looking at spending and not at the revenue that goes with it.

The thread is about federal spending, not federal spending and revenue. Yet here you are claiming that 'we aren't talking about math here' because the OP isn't discussing revenue. That's like saying 'discussing addition isn't talking about math because you aren't also discussing multiplication.'

 

[xBiffx]

Prove it.

Firstly, a country does not run like a business, nor should it.

Secondly, can you map out the consequences nationally and globally for this reduced spending you'd like to see?


If you want to talk about the topic instead of scolding people and not responding blankly to joke-posts...

Prove what? That if you spend within your means you won't go into debt. Do you really need proof of that? Do you really need proof that if you had X but spent X+shitload that X isn't the problem but the shitload part is?

As has already been stated, mathematics is key here.

 

[fskimospy]

The thread is about federal spending, not federal spending and revenue. Yet here you are claiming that 'we aren't talking about math here' because the OP isn't discussing revenue. That's like saying 'discussing addition isn't talking about math because you aren't also discussing multiplication.'

Exactly. Believing that Obama has presided over big deficits and wanting to reduce them is a perfectly reasonable position to hold, even if I believe it is deeply wrong. Believing that Obama has presided over a spending explosion is factually false however, and it is something that I see repeated fairly often. That was what this thread was created to talk about.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Math has no bias, but then again we aren't talking about math here since the OP doesn't want to recognize the problem with only looking at spending and not at the revenue that goes with it.

Revenue means taxes.

Virtually every Republican in the country has bent down and kissed Grover Norquist's toes, swearing undying fealty to his pledge never to raise taxes under any circumstances.

 

[xBiffx]

The thread is about federal spending, not federal spending and revenue. Yet here you are claiming that 'we aren't talking about math here' because the OP isn't discussing revenue. That's like saying 'discussing addition isn't talking about math because you aren't also discussing multiplication.'

Finally, some actual words of meaning that might lead to a real discussion.

This thread, it appears, was posted as some sort of defense on the amount of spending of Obama vs. other presidents. The only way to make this look somewhat appealing is to ignore and entire side of the equation. Sure that works for you and others of your ilk but there are many members here who are able to see through that bullshit. Sorry, but this thread is about what members want to make it about within the scope of the OP and revenue is within that scope. But go ahead and try silencing the opposition because you don't like the message and don't think it fits within this discussion. Go right ahead.

 

[xBiffx]

Revenue means taxes.

Virtually every Republican in the country has bent down and kissed Grover Norquist's toes, swearing undying fealty to his pledge never to raise taxes under any circumstances.

And? Perhaps, since the spenders haven't been given the power to collect more revenue, they should focus and control what they have been given power to do and that is spend. Or perhaps they could just spend like a kid in a candy store and bitch when the money runs out.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And? Perhaps, since the spenders haven't been given the power to collect more revenue, they should focus and control what they have been given power to do and that is spend. Or perhaps they could just spend like a kid in a candy store and bitch when the money runs out.

If you don't want to consider the revenue side, then don't. But blaming Obama for it when he wants to increase revenues and is prohibited from doing so is irrational.

I'll also point out two more points:

1. Republicans claim in the abstract that they want to cut spending, but when it comes to specific suggestions, they come up empty. They can't and won't identify substantive program cuts.

2. Romney's stated policy aims, so far, would *increase* the deficit. He has identified no meaningful program cuts, wants to vastly increase defense spending *and* cut taxes.

It's easy to whine about the other guy. Not so easy to do better yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

And? Perhaps, since the spenders haven't been given the power to collect more revenue, they should focus and control what they have been given power to do and that is spend. Or perhaps they could just spend like a kid in a candy store and bitch when the money runs out.

If you believe that they 'haven't been given the power to collect more revenue', then by the same token they 'haven't been given the power to spend less'. Both are simply functions of Congressional majorities.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Secondly, can you map out the consequences nationally and globally for this reduced spending you'd like to see?

Perhaps you can map out the national and global consequences resulting from the fiscal irresponsibility of Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

 

[fskimospy]

If you don't want to consider the revenue side, then don't. But blaming Obama for it when he wants to increase revenues and is prohibited from doing so is irrational.

I'll also point out two more points:

1. Republicans claim in the abstract that they want to cut spending, but when it comes to specific suggestions, they come up empty. They can't and won't identify substantive program cuts.

2. Romney's stated policy aims, so far, would *increase* the deficit. He has identified no meaningful program cuts, wants to vastly increase defense spending *and* cut taxes.

It's easy to whine about the other guy. Not so easy to do better yourself.

Republicans don't get specific because they don't want people to understand the real consequences of the policies they are proposing. Most people favor a nebulous cut of X amount from federal spending, but when you actually detail what that cut means that support tanks. It's the strange dichotomy of American life where we hate government as an abstraction but love government in the specifics.

It is a sad testament to the poor status of the media and people's own judgment that a guy can run on the principle of deficit reduction while simultaneously running on a plan that would cause a larger deficit than his opponent. That's Romney's fundamental dishonesty in a nutshell though.

 

[dmcowen674]

"Don't confuse us with facts, we've made up our minds."

Republicans lie, Democrats die

 

[Jaskalas]

Funny. The GOP controlled the House and Senate from 2000 to 2006, with a Republican president, and spending exploded.

That's the joy of Neocons, the moderates of the GOP. Try work hard to out-Democrat the Democrats.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Republicans don't get specific because they don't want people to understand the real consequences of the policies they are proposing. Most people favor a nebulous cut of X amount from federal spending, but when you actually detail what that cut means that support tanks. It's the strange dichotomy of American life where we hate government as an abstraction but love government in the specifics.

Most Americans favor lower taxes, greater benefits and a reduction in federal debt, for the same reason that most Americans want to eat chocolate and potato chips all day, never exercise and still lose weight.

You know what that reason is.