djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 0:53:41 GMT -5
Seriously. Of course any reduction in deficit spending is a great thing right now but you really have to look at the fundamentals and if they have changed. The answer remains NO. If health costs soar and increase the GDP number relative to spending on a percentage basis would you cheer? This is kind of a tough spot for many liberals who still support increased spending but also want to clap and claim credit when this percentage drops because the damm conservatives hold the line on spending increases. what increased spending?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 18, 2013 8:46:01 GMT -5
what increased spending?
Exactly. Those damm conservatives just keeping standing in their way right?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 10:22:07 GMT -5
what increased spending? Exactly. Those damm conservatives just keeping standing in their way right? i guess so. so long as you acknowledge that spending has not increased in real terms under Obama, we are good.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2013 11:10:25 GMT -5
Um, a decent chunck of the approved spending growth in FY2009 was after W left office. What do you call the bills.... continuing resolutions? And if you want an honest view of spending growth, you'd also have to normalize interest rates. Pay attention to those two things, and the picture looks a little different.
And quite frankly, the FY2009 stimulus spending should have been ramped back, not used as an excuse for a new level of annual spending.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 11:28:06 GMT -5
Um, a decent chunck of the approved spending growth in FY2009 was after W left office. no. not really. the projected deficit in January of 2009 was $1.2T. it is $0.62T this year.What do you call the bills.... continuing resolutions? And if you want an honest view of spending growth, you'd also have to normalize interest rates. Pay attention to those two things, and the picture looks a little different. yes, it does. the spending of Bush is still part of the budget.And quite frankly, the FY2009 stimulus spending should have been ramped back, not used as an excuse for a new level of annual spending. that might be true, but congress is responsible for spending, right? you already said it.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 18, 2013 11:42:00 GMT -5
"i guess so. so long as you acknowledge that spending has not increased in real terms under Obama, we are good."
These numbers can be presented in many ways to show what one wants to show....but... if spending has not increased in real terms or relative to GDP would it be more accuarte to say it was because of Obama or in spite of him and his best efforts? Really hard to see it both ways.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 11:49:30 GMT -5
"i guess so. so long as you acknowledge that spending has not increased in real terms under Obama, we are good." These numbers can be presented in many ways to show what one wants to show....but... if spending has not increased in real terms or relative to GDP would it be more accuarte to say it was because of Obama or in spite of him and his best efforts? Really hard to see it both ways. impossible to say. but as you and others would rightly say, it is not up to the president to determine how our money is spent. again, i am just stating a fact. spending has not really increased since Obama has taken office. has it decreased? not really.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 18, 2013 11:57:19 GMT -5
Again it will always come back to how it is calculated or most likely by who. So if your conclusion is correct that should put him on the same level as that "most hated Bush" he replaced. As I said earlier. The fundamentals have not changed and uless they do soon we are screwed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2013 12:29:32 GMT -5
You said spending under Obama, not spending by Obama. Both branches are responsible for spending. And your point about deficits is not relevant to what I said. Or what you originally said about spending growth.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 12:37:49 GMT -5
Again it will always come back to how it is calculated or most likely by who. So if your conclusion is correct that should put him on the same level as that "most hated Bush" he replaced. in terms of spending? sure. if that is all that matters to you, then hate away. As I said earlier. The fundamentals have not changed and unless they do soon we are screwed. that is a fairly cynical view in terms of budgeting. if the budget continues to stabilize, and GDP continues to grow, eventually revenues will overtake expenses. when i say "eventually" that is not a very long eventually. of course, you could claim that MC and SS and interest on the debt will continue to consume larger and larger fractions of the budget, and that might be true. but it might not be true, too- depending on MANY factors, including taxation and demographics.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 12:41:02 GMT -5
You said spending under Obama, not spending by Obama. Both branches are responsible for spending. not really. the executive has no ability to spend that is not congress enabled. And your point about deficits is not relevant to what I said. Or what you originally said about spending growth. my point about deficits is absolutely related to what i said about spending growth (or lack thereof). what WOULD be relevant to what you said?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2013 14:52:31 GMT -5
I feel like either you're playing dumb or we're not talking about the same thing. Hypothetically, if revenue goes up $1T and spending goes up $0.5T, the deficit goes down $0.5T. Saying the deficit went down is not proof that spending did not go up. Correct?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 15:28:19 GMT -5
I feel like either you're playing dumb or we're not talking about the same thing. Hypothetically, if revenue goes up $1T and spending goes up $0.5T, the deficit goes down $0.5T. Saying the deficit went down is not proof that spending did not go up. Correct? correct. but dispensing with hypotheticals: spending not going up is proof that spending didn't go up. also correct? edit: ib, i am not trying to be a smart alek. my point was that if we cap spending, eventually we can grow out of the problem. the % of expenses -vs- GDP will steadily decline, and the revenue should grow with GDP. it may not be the best way to do it. i am not arguing that. but it might be the only way that has sufficient political basis to qualify as realistic. if you are talking about the % of the 2009 budget that was the result of spending that took place in the last half of that FY, i think the number was somewhere between 15 and 25%. so yeah, Obama was in a position to do something about that. but that wasn't even close to the total budget for that year. if you are being fair about it, you would proportion the deficit that year the same way, but most people don't. they are working on LIFO accounting, i guess.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2013 15:52:15 GMT -5
OK friends, lets get real here. I was a volunteer for this Org. for few months last year. Is any of you in here would like to joining the effort.
www.fixthedebt.org/
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2013 16:44:45 GMT -5
Your point about capping spending is true, but your point about Obama not increasing spending is not. As I said, in 2009 Obama proposed a significant spending increase beyond what happened under Bush. And other increases were masked by falling interest rates and repayment of loans authorized under Bush.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 19:35:11 GMT -5
Your point about capping spending is true, but your point about Obama not increasing spending is not. As I said, in 2009 Obama proposed a significant spending increase beyond what happened under Bush. yes, but that was not HIS budget year. and less than 1/4 of the $ spent during FY 2009 were his.And other increases were masked by falling interest rates and repayment of loans authorized under Bush. i am not following the last statement. every penny spent prior to Jan 21st, 2009 was spent under Bush. about half the spending that took place during the balance of the year was authorized under Obama. according to my really fancy abacus, that means Obama was largely off the hook for the first budget year, and therefore largely off the hook for the increase in spending. spending UNDER OBAMA has been largely unchanged. was it higher than Bush? sure. i will grant that. but it is not increasing. that was my point. and the longer it does not increase, the more balanced the budget will become- until the next recession or tax cut hits. edit: 2008 outlays were $2.704T. outlays in 2012 were $3.022T. that is 11.8% inflation during that period was 7.4% that means that the budget grew 4.4% in real terms INCLUDING THE ATROCIOUS 2009 BUDGET. since 2009, it has fallen in real terms by more than 5%. i know we all like to think that these budget bumps are just imagination. but a 3 year REAL decline in budget? has that happened since WW2?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 19:36:53 GMT -5
NOTE: i can never remember what the budget year is called that ends in July. i think it is called by the year it stops in, but it might be called by the year it starts in. whatever it is, presidents have little influence over their first budget year (their first half year in office).
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 18, 2013 20:31:12 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 20:40:13 GMT -5
theoretically (publicly) EVERYONE hated them. are we going to agree on this, or do you want me to pull the statements at the time by the GOP and Democratic leadership. the GOP HATED the defense cuts. the Dems hated everything else.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 18, 2013 21:08:23 GMT -5
The source of these charts is The Us Office of Management and Budget and apparently is the way they historically what the deficit or surplus is under every President. Now there are a million ways to change the picture and some would probablly make much more sense. If we want to talk the deficit under any administration then these are the facts. Do I believe the President is responsible for what the deficit is under their adminstration I would say no because I happen to believe that most things that happen under any president are likely the results of decisions made years and sometimes decades before they even got elected. I tend to judge them based more on what they support while in office and how well they can bring the parties together to solve issues. Obama has failed in a big way from my perspective and some poor sucker will deal with the consequences. The budget ultimately will be mostly controlled by the majority in congress and thats when the picture on Obama's chart gets real ugly for the Democrats.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 21:09:43 GMT -5
if it continues to go as expected, here are the top (10) worst budgets on a GDP basis since WW2 by those that were in charge when the FY started:
W Bush 2009 = 10.1% Obama 2010 = 9% Obama 2011 = 8.7% Obama 2012 = 7% Reagan 1983 = 6% Reagan 1985 = 5.1% Reagan 1986 = 5% Reagan 1984 = 4.8% Bush 1992 = 4.7% Bush 1991 = 4.5%
FY 2013 won't make the top 10 in the last HALF CENTURY. seriously- the deficit hawk in me is stoked. i can't figure out why nobody else is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 21:13:40 GMT -5
The source of these charts is The Us Office of Management and Budget and apparently is the way they historically what the deficit or surplus is under every President. Now there are a million ways to change the picture and some would probablly make much more sense. If we want to talk the deficit under any administration then these are the facts. Do I believe the President is responsible for what the deficit is under their adminstration I would say no because I happen to believe that most things that happen under any president are likely the results of decisions made years and sometimes decades before they even got elected. I tend to judge them based more on what they support while in office and how well they can bring the parties together to solve issues. Obama has failed in a big way from my perspective and some poor sucker will deal with the consequences. The budget ultimately will be mostly controlled by the majority in congress and thats when the picture on Obama's chart gets real ugly for the Democrats. you realize that your last paragraph is internally contradictory, right? i hightlighted it so you can see it better. trust me on this- deficits don't matter to most people. i know because i was literally freaking out under Reagan and nobody gave a F(*K about it, other than people like me, who were derided as fringy at the time. the debt either doubled or tripled under Reagan, and yet he has achieved sainthood among conservatives, and for the life of me i can't figure out why. like Obama, he was an effective messenger, but his policies were atrocious.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 18, 2013 21:16:52 GMT -5
"theoretically (publicly) EVERYONE hated them. are we going to agree on this, or do you want me to pull the statements at the time by the GOP and Democratic leadership. the GOP HATED the defense cuts. the Dems hated everything else."
Theoretically the majority did oppose these cuts and that included me. Not because I or many others oppose budget cuts but we want them to be structured, and well planned instead of aimed to cause the maximum amount of damage and pain at the most visible areas. The president was offered the option to structure these cuts at his discretion but decided to let them happen in hopes of gaining political position. Now that is sad and his poll numbers fell as a result. Theoretically it is also very hypocritical to hate the cuts and then take credit for the resulting reduced deficit projection!
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 18, 2013 21:20:48 GMT -5
"you realize that your last paragraph is internally contradictory, right? i hightlighted it so you can see it better."
Me thinks you should read the whole thing. Not just the highlighted parts.
"I tend to judge them based more on what they support while in office and how well they can bring the parties together to solve issues. Obama has failed in a big way from my perspective and some poor sucker will deal with the consequences."
Now does that sound contradictory?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 21:21:03 GMT -5
"theoretically (publicly) EVERYONE hated them. are we going to agree on this, or do you want me to pull the statements at the time by the GOP and Democratic leadership. the GOP HATED the defense cuts. the Dems hated everything else." Theoretically the majority did oppose these cuts and that included me. Not because I or many others oppose budget cuts but we want them to be structured, and well planned instead of aimed to cause the maximum amount of damage and pain at the most visible areas. The president was offered the option to structure these cuts at his discretion but decided to let them happen in hopes of gaining political position. Now that is sad and his poll numbers fell as a result. Theoretically it is also very hypocritical to hate the cuts and then take credit for the resulting reduced deficit projection! first of all, i don't think Obama "took credit for them". second of all, i didn't GIVE him credit for them. i merely stated that they happened under his watch. why does it matter? because the basic facts are what people remember- not the details. you and i can sit here and argue all day about who deserves credit for it. honestly? maybe it is the Tea Party. i dunno. i am not saying who deserves credit. that is not what this thread is about. I AM HAPPY IT IS HAPPENING. aren't you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 21:23:14 GMT -5
"you realize that your last paragraph is internally contradictory, right? i hightlighted it so you can see it better." Me thinks you should read the whole thing. Not just the highlighted parts. i really hate it when people think i have a reading proficiency problem. do you realize that i read every post THREE TIMES before i comment on it. did you ever consider the fact that it JUST MIGHT be possible to INTERPRET what you say MORE THAN ONE WAY?
i take it that you changed the subject somewhere in your paragraph?
"I tend to judge them based more on what they support while in office and how well they can bring the parties together to solve issues. Obama has failed in a big way from my perspective and some poor sucker will deal with the consequences." Now does that sound contradictory? not at all. so you weren't talking about deficits in the SECOND half of your paragraph? i was. note the thread title. edit: does anyone recall me saying that i didn't dread the sequester? you can look it up. i was hoping it would happen. for a lot of reasons. if anyone needs me to explain them NOW, i would gladly do so.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 18, 2013 21:25:22 GMT -5
"trust me on this- deficits don't matter to most people. "
Agree. Otherwise we (the voter) would have stppoed it a long time ago. It doesn't change ny opinion about them though or what I think the result will be becasue of them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 21:26:15 GMT -5
"trust me on this- deficits don't matter to most people. " Agree. Otherwise we (the voter) would have stppoed it a long time ago. It doesn't change ny opinion about them though mine neither or what I think the result will be becasue of them. what do you think WILL be the result of them, rockon?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 18, 2013 21:32:26 GMT -5
"I AM HAPPY IT IS HAPPENING.
aren't you?"
I am absolutely very happy to see this projection and hope more than anyone that they are right. I am just not nearly as optomistic as some that any of the fundamentals have changed and if the fundamentals have not changed we are no closer to changing direction than we were before. AND THAT MAKES ME MAD because it just don't need to be this way.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 21:36:23 GMT -5
"I AM HAPPY IT IS HAPPENING. aren't you?" I am absolutely very happy to see this projection and hope more than anyone that they are right. I am just not nearly as optomistic as some that any of the fundamentals have changed and if the fundamentals have not changed we are no closer to changing direction than we were before. AND THAT MAKES ME MAD because it just don't need to be this way. agreed. you are a good guy, rockon. i appreciate your concern, and i share it. edit: however, i am not sure that we have not changed the direction. we will know a LOT more in a few years.
|
|