(05-26-2012 10:53 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 12:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Gov't and household are not comparable.

What, the term "budget" is different to each of them?

The US govt has the ability to create and float its own currency. You can't do that.

Can we get back to the OP, the article it was based on and the total bullsh!t it turned out to be?

It was a lie. So of course, Obama had to tout it publicly.

(05-27-2012 01:26 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 10:53 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-26-2012 12:28 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Gov't and household are not comparable.

What, the term "budget" is different to each of them?

The US govt has the ability to create and float its own currency. You can't do that.

No, but he can do the family equivalent: Develop a crack habit.

(05-27-2012 01:37 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Can we get back to the OP, the article it was based on and the total bullsh!t it turned out to be?

Okay...you're right. The Obama number should be 5%. Still well below the majority of his predecessors!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/...hp?ref=fpa

The fact-checks did find some questionable premises from MarketWatch. For one, it effectively treated the paybacks from President Bush’s one-time bailouts of the financial sector, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as spending cuts under Obama. The outlets also argued that baseline changes in the president’s budget tweak the spending figures in friendly ways.

Tallying that up, the Wall Street Journal editorial board concluded: “To anyone who really knows the numbers, Mr. Obama’s spending has increased by closer to 5% a year,” as opposed to the 1.4 percent in the MarketWatch numbers. The Republican National Committee touted the Journal’s figure in its rebuttal of Obama’s point.

The problem with that is 5 percent is still low by historical standards. That’s especially true of modern Republican presidents: President George W. Bush’s two terms saw spending increases of 7.3 and 8.1 percent, respectively; President George H.W. Bush’s figure was 5.4 percent and President Ronald Reagan’s were 8.7 and 4.9 percent. (Spending increases under President Bill Clinton were under 4 percent.)

RNC spokesman Sean Spicer told TPM, “The overarching point is that almost every outlet disagrees with Carney’s spin on spending.”

Ultimately, Obama may have exaggerated his ostensible frugality, but even according to the figures Republicans cite, his spending is still low by the standards of modern presidents. The firestorm of criticism Obama receives on the debt often papers over that fact.

I haven't read the thread but are the porkulus bills in those numbers?

EDIT: I found this

Now how much of the future spending he has budged (e.g. when Obama Care is fully implemented) did he include? None I suspect because it makes no sense to include them.

It is however money Obama wants to spend, just after he gets reelected.

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, he failed miserably.

(05-29-2012 03:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-27-2012 01:37 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Can we get back to the OP, the article it was based on and the total bullsh!t it turned out to be?

Okay...you're right. The Obama number should be 5%. Still well below the majority of his predecessors!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/...hp?ref=fpa

The fact-checks did find some questionable premises from MarketWatch. For one, it effectively treated the paybacks from President Bush’s one-time bailouts of the financial sector, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as spending cuts under Obama. The outlets also argued that baseline changes in the president’s budget tweak the spending figures in friendly ways.

Tallying that up, the Wall Street Journal editorial board concluded: “To anyone who really knows the numbers, Mr. Obama’s spending has increased by closer to 5% a year,” as opposed to the 1.4 percent in the MarketWatch numbers. The Republican National Committee touted the Journal’s figure in its rebuttal of Obama’s point.

The problem with that is 5 percent is still low by historical standards. That’s especially true of modern Republican presidents: President George W. Bush’s two terms saw spending increases of 7.3 and 8.1 percent, respectively; President George H.W. Bush’s figure was 5.4 percent and President Ronald Reagan’s were 8.7 and 4.9 percent. (Spending increases under President Bill Clinton were under 4 percent.)

RNC spokesman Sean Spicer told TPM, “The overarching point is that almost every outlet disagrees with Carney’s spin on spending.”

Ultimately, Obama may have exaggerated his ostensible frugality, but even according to the figures Republicans cite, his spending is still low by the standards of modern presidents. The firestorm of criticism Obama receives on the debt often papers over that fact.

(05-29-2012 03:54 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I haven't read the thread but are the porkulus bills in those numbers?

EDIT: I found this

Reagan took the debt from 1 to 5 Trillion to improve the economy. Bush 1 raised taxes to pay for it. Clinton raised taxes and reduced spending more. Economy booms, deficits turn to surpluses. Very simple model to follow folks. Rinse. Repeat.

Let's not forget however, who is in charge of the purse strings for the US. And no, it ain't the President.

(05-29-2012 05:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Let's not forget however, who is in charge of the purse strings for the US. And no, it ain't the President.

It was for the first two years of his presidency, which is when the majority of his new spending took place.

(05-29-2012 04:59 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Reagan took the debt from 1 to 5 Trillion to improve the economy. Bush 1 raised taxes to pay for it. Clinton raised taxes and reduced spending more. Economy booms, deficits turn to surpluses. Very simple model to follow folks. Rinse. Repeat.

Um, no.

The national debt when Reagan took office was a little over a trillion. When he left it was 2.8 trillion.

Second he didn't take the debt upward to improve the economy. He cut taxes and increased defense spending. The dems controlled the purse strings during Reagan's 8 years and entitlement spending skyrocketed.

The boom of the 80's had very, very little to do with government spending.

5 trillion? Seriously?

Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into decreasing spending by a republican controlled Congress.

Geez dude at least make an effort to research this stuff before you post.

5 trillion?! Lol!!

Reagan had the highest change in national debt of any president at +189%. Bush Jr. was second at +89%. Third was Bush Sr at 55.6%.

(05-29-2012 10:54 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Reagan had the highest change in national debt of any president at +189%. Bush Jr. was second at +89%. Third was Bush Sr at 55.6%.

Shrub had eight years Obama has taken it up 5 trillion in a little over 3

Percents is a reasonable way of looking at budgets and the seeds were sewn for this mess for years. It's going to take both parties to put partisan bickering aside and put country before party. Problem as I see it though. I think one party is actively trying to incorporate their agenda by starving the beast. Their agenda is strengthened with a bankrupt federal govt.

(05-29-2012 10:54 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Reagan had the highest change in national debt of any president at +189%. Bush Jr. was second at +89%. Third was Bush Sr at 55.6%.

Perhaps, but that's not going from 1 trillion to 5 trillion firm. You were completely wrong in stating that.

It also doesn't change the fact that the economic boom had virtually nothing to do with it. I'm sorry firm but there is no rational case to be made that government spending led to the economic boom of the 80's. Especially that Federal spending as a share of GDP was, at it's peak under Reagan, only 18%. Conversely Obama is at 24% of GDP. So under your original premise, that government spending spurs economic growth, we should be going gang busters right now because Obama is spending far more than Reagan did as a % of GDP. But we're not. That's you're clue your premise is wrong.

Also, Regan's debt as a % of GDP topped out at around 41% of GDP. Obama's has taken us to 99% of GDP. Meaning that, practically speaking, we have 1 dollar of debt for every 1 dollar produced. He did in 3 years what it took Bush 8 to do.

(05-30-2012 04:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Percents is a reasonable way of looking at budgets and the seeds were sewn for this mess for years. It's going to take both parties to put partisan bickering aside and put country before party. Problem as I see it though. I think one party is actively trying to incorporate their agenda by starving the beast. Their agenda is strengthened with a bankrupt federal govt.

Percentages are useful tools if used responsibly, but they may also be easily used to create false impressions, as has been done more than once in this thread.

As for your attempt to blame on one party, be honest enough to apply the same standard both ways. One party is trying to starve the beast by cutting taxes to force spending cuts. The other party is--and has been for fifty years--trying to gorge the beast by increasing spending and forcing tax increases to pay for it. For the first part of that fifty years, the other argued for lower increases and largely gave in on taxes. It's when the the party that you called out started to fight "gorge the beast" with "starve the beast" that the deficit began to get out of hand. Face it, starving the beast hasn't succeeded in reducing spending, and gorging the beast isn't going to succeed in raising taxes any more, so BOTH parties need to abandon their positions. I'm not sure that either can. And that spells disaster.