Obama to propose $3.99 trillion budget

[BoberFett]

If everyone is going to give Clinton credit for the surpluses then why not? And Bush significant increase in the US's debt to GDP ratio was when unemployment was just about where it is now.

Unemployment Jan 1, 2002 5.70%
Unemplyment Dec 1, 2014 5.60%

That was totally different. When Bush sent us into the gaping maw of debt, he was a Republican. When Obama stimulated us to climax, he was a Democrat. The situations are nothing alike.

 

[werepossum]

That was totally different. When Bush sent us into the gaping maw of debt, he was a Republican. When Obama stimulated us to climax, he was a Democrat. The situations are nothing alike.

lol +1

 

[Sonikku]

ISIS just decapitated two Japanese people. We can either gear our budget towards dealing with that or towards modernizing our infrastructure and giving greater access to education to our citizens. Can't have it both ways people.

 

[BoberFett]

ISIS just decapitated two Japanese people. We can either gear our budget towards dealing with that or towards modernizing our infrastructure and giving greater access to education to our citizens. Can't have it both ways people.

I'm sure we could reach a bipartisan agreement that carving out a piece of the federal budget to permanently disconnect you from the internet would be doable.

 

[Spungo]

That was totally different. When Bush sent us into the gaping maw of debt, he was a Republican. When Obama stimulated us to climax, he was a Democrat. The situations are nothing alike.

You're just mad that Obama succeeded in lowering home ownership to a 20 year low.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-29/u-s-homeownership-rate-falls-to-a-20-year-low

 

[BoberFett]

You're just mad that Obama succeeded in lowering home ownership to a 20 year low.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-29/u-s-homeownership-rate-falls-to-a-20-year-low

But thrilled that he increased wealth disparity to record highs!

Wait, what? Who?

LOL, partisans gonna partisan.

 

[Subyman]

You want to return to something determined by tea leaves?

Why not take your graph further back? Is it because when graphed started in 2000 that you can make the graph say what you want? From what I see between 2000 and 2002, it looks like our trend line is back on what it would have been before the bubble.

Here you go:

LOL, economics. Science for people who don't really care about facts.

Thanks for doing that. I was going to go through the trouble of making that exact same line, but had to go.

 

[alcoholbob]

Amazing I thought the budget was huge during the Clinton administration and that was "only" 1.5 Trillion. Now we are approaching a tripling of official budget from the mid-1990s, not even counting the growth of off-balance sheet spending.

 

[highland145]

And yet you somehow feel that borrowing ever more money plus more money to make your interest payments is the route to attain the "highest level of real Gross Domestic Product output that can be sustained over the long term". Go figure.

Until very recently that was the economic model of Greece. Eventually they found that no one would loan them any more money unless they stopped increasing the rate at which they went into debt. But I'm sure it will be different for us.

The obvious answer.

Roughly 60,000 Croatians are eligible for debt write-offs under a new government program aimed at improving the economy .

Starting on Monday, Croats whose bank accounts have been blocked for more than a year and whose debt is lower than 35,000 kunas (4,500 euros, $5,300) can apply to the state-run Financial Agency to have their debt written off as part of a scheme called "Fresh Start."

http://www.dw.de/croatia-starts-debt-relief-scheme-for-poorest-citizens/a-18230289

Give 60K bankruptcy protection...Welcome to my world of high interest loans... because the government may do it again. Profit.
:sneaky:

 

[Subyman]

Amazing I thought the budget was huge during the Clinton administration and that was "only" 1.5 Trillion. Now we are approaching a tripling of official budget from the mid-1990s, not even counting the growth of off-balance sheet spending.

Tax revenue has risen by the same factor, we just always seem to want to run a deficit.

 

[fskimospy]

If everyone is going to give Clinton credit for the surpluses then why not? And Bush significant increase in the US's debt to GDP ratio was when unemployment was just about where it is now.

Unemployment Jan 1, 2002 5.70%
Unemplyment Dec 1, 2014 5.60%

Do you think an unemployment rate of 5.7% in 2002 means the same thing as an unemployment rate of 5.7% in 2014? Additionally, debt/GDP continued to grow after those years.

Are you guys even trying to look at this objectively or are you desperately seeking a way to convince yourselves that what Bush and Obama did are somehow similar?

 

[fskimospy]

You want to return to something determined by tea leaves?

Why not take your graph further back? Is it because when graphed started in 2000 that you can make the graph say what you want? From what I see between 2000 and 2002, it looks like our trend line is back on what it would have been before the bubble.

Here you go:

LOL, economics. Science for people who don't really care about facts.

Wait, did you just draw a red line on that graph using 3 years of data? LOL. Are you kidding me? Potential GDP is a calculated output. To learn more about it read here:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/12/ES_2012-04-20.pdf

It goes back to 2000 because it makes the difference easier to see and the point remains the same. Hell, let's take it back another 10 years and see what it says, eh? By the way you can go back as far as you want, just visit FRED and do it yourself.

So did you get that from some other dishonest place, did you actually draw on that chart yourself, or something else? If it's option one, you were duped yet again. If it was option 2 or 3 you either did something really dumb, or really dishonest.

Boberfett economics, for people who want to draw on data with MS Paint.

 

[fskimospy]

Yup, idiot graph. You can't draw "trend" lines on a graph with a ~10 year range. Business cycles are measured in 5-15 years.

It's not a trend line. Boberfett either didn't understand what he was looking at or he tried to dupe you.

 

[Subyman]

That graph still isn't big enough to show our GDP growth and it needs to be adjusted on a logarithmic graph to better show the trend (to get rid of the exponential component):

As you can see, any dip that you are showing is nearly irrelevant to the steady state economic growth path. Perturbations can be as large as 15 years.

Notice in your graph the blue line is converging back with the red line off the chart.

 

[Matt1970]

Do you think an unemployment rate of 5.7% in 2002 means the same thing as an unemployment rate of 5.7% in 2014? Additionally, debt/GDP continued to grow after those years.

Are you guys even trying to look at this objectively or are you desperately seeking a way to convince yourselves that what Bush and Obama did are somehow similar?

It's you who is desperately looking for reasons why deficit spending is acceptable at this point.

 

[ivwshane]

That graph still isn't big enough to show our GDP growth and it needs to be adjusted on a logarithmic graph to better show the trend (to get rid of the exponential component):

As you can see, any dip that you are showing is nearly irrelevant to the steady state economic growth path. Perturbations can be as large as 15 years.

Notice in your graph the blue line is converging back with the red line off the chart.

Is the red line equal to the blue line at the end of the chart? No? Then what's your point?



I'm referring to Eskimospy's chart obviously.

 

[ivwshane]

It's you who is desperately looking for reasons why deficit spending is acceptable at this point.

If you knew what you were looking at you wouldn't be asking such a question.

 

[Jhhnn]

I like the infrastructure plan. But really?



So expect to see more companies not bringing money back stateside.

Please. They park profiits offshore because the govt lets them do it.

 

[Matt1970]

If you knew what you were looking at you wouldn't be asking such a question.

I thought I was looking at my mother's old douche-bag, but that's in Ohio.

 

[fskimospy]

That graph still isn't big enough to show our GDP growth and it needs to be adjusted on a logarithmic graph to better show the trend (to get rid of the exponential component):

As you can see, any dip that you are showing is nearly irrelevant to the steady state economic growth path. Perturbations can be as large as 15 years.

Notice in your graph the blue line is converging back with the red line off the chart.

This is wrong for several reasons. Above all else, your last argument is saying that the success of stimulative policies should be used as an argument against stimulus. haha.

All that aside, my graph wasn't intended to show trends, lol. It was intended to show that Bush was deficit spending at a time when real GDP growth closely matched potential GDP. ie: it was wasteful. Obama was/is deficit spending at a time when real GDP was substantially below potential GDP. People were attempting to argue that the two were equivalent, which they obviously are not.

Given what we know about fiscal multipliers, it should be obvious why the first is bad and the second is good.

Second, your chart not only doesn't support your argument but it's misleading as well.

1. Your chart ends right at the beginning of 2010, meaning it only includes one year out of six years of depressed GDP growth. If you're going to try to analyze trends you can't possibly show up in the graph you provided, as it only includes about 15% of the trend you're trying to analyze. That's a big no-no.

2. We're talking about a several percent change in overall GDP. That's very meaningful in real terms but you're trying to get people to eyeball a change like that out of a 120 years of economic data by using such a large graph. That's extremely misleading.

I could go on, but considering that this wasn't even about analyzing trends that seems pointless, no?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Bush significantly increased the US's debt to GDP ratio during a time where we were at or near full employment when he should have been decreasing it. That is extremely irresponsible. There's really no way around this.

What years were we at full employment where Bush significantly increased the US's debt to GDP ratio? Please be specific. Also, please define the term "full employment" in terms of an unemployment percentage.

Also, you're really going to credit Bush with low deficits for 2005 through 2007 when those lower deficits were fueled by a massive revenue increase from a catastrophic bubble that was about to explode and wreck the economy? Seriously? It seems pretty selective to credit Bush with his good deficit stewardship when he was taking advantage of a revenue bubble but then fault Obama for his perceived bad deficit stewardship when he is trying to clean up the aftermath of that same revenue bubble, no?

I'm not trying to credit Bush with anything...just trying to get the facts straight.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Obama was/is deficit spending at a time when real GDP was substantially below potential GDP. People were attempting to argue that the two were equivalent, which they obviously are not.

I don't understand why you think potential GDP is important. Are you trying to make "fair" comparisons using unrealized GDP numbers? I've never seen this particular "rationale" used before. Have similar analysis methods been completed for other recessions throughout our history? Or just the last one?

 

[fskimospy]

What years were we at full employment where Bush significantly increased the US's debt to GDP ratio? Please be specific. Also, please define the term "full employment" in terms of an unemployment percentage.

Mid 2005-mid 2008 (edited) the US was effectively at full employment. Full employment is not calculated as a percentage, it is the maximum level of employment that is not accompanied by above-target inflation.

Inflation in the US from around mid 2004 to mid 2008 was substantially above target. During this time Bush added about 4% to our debt/GDP ratio. That might not seem like much, but with higher than average inflation, decent GDP growth, and full employment that's the time to chop large amounts off your ratio, not keep adding to it. He did not do this, and this was extremely irresponsible.

I'm not trying to credit Bush with anything...just trying to get the facts straight.

If anything, you made understanding worse by asymmetrically attributing the effects of a fiscal crisis. Bad analysis.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't understand why you think potential GDP is important. Are you trying to make "fair" comparisons using unrealized GDP numbers? I've never seen this particular "rationale" used before. Have similar analysis methods been completed for other recessions throughout our history? Or just the last one?

Potential GDP is important because when we are running below that we're basically flushing money down the toilet.

Potential GDP has been used for a long time, and if you have an issue with it you should contact the Fed, the CBO, etc, etc. They seem to think it is a perfectly viable analysis method. Can you explain why you think they are wrong?

 

[Matt1970]

Mid 2005-mid 2008 (edited) the US was effectively at full employment. Full employment is not calculated as a percentage, it is the maximum level of employment that is not accompanied by above-target inflation.

Inflation in the US from around mid 2004 to mid 2008 was substantially above target. During this time Bush added about 4% to our debt/GDP ratio. That might not seem like much, but with higher than average inflation, decent GDP growth, and full employment that's the time to chop large amounts off your ratio, not keep adding to it. He did not do this, and this was extremely irresponsible.



If anything, you made understanding worse by asymmetrically attributing the effects of a fiscal crisis. Bad analysis.

So basically when we are at full employment, inflation is high, GDP is where you want it, all the planets align and the moon is full we can finally start cutting the budget?