Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 9:07:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 12:05:07 GMT -5
Since Congress controls the spending not the president wouldn't graphs pertaining to who is in control there, be more pertinent? The downturn at the end of "Obama's" chart might be more explained by the congressional spending logjam that occurred when the Republicans took over the House while Democrats still retained control of the senate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2012 12:09:34 GMT -5
Since Congress controls the spending not the president wouldn't graphs pertaining to who is in control there, be more pertinent? no. the first reason is that the president is supposed to lead and set priorities for congress. congress does not lead the president.
the second is that the president has wide latitude in discretionary spending.
and finally, if you look at how it breaks down by party, since Democrats have been basically in control since WW2, there is no way to explain the difference between someone like Reagan and someone like Carter without looking at presidential spending priorities.The downturn at the end of "Obama's" chart might be more explained by the congressional spending logjam that occurred when the Republicans took over the House while Democrats still retained control of the senate. i think that is fair to say. but it also reflects the national mood, which has gone from being blissfully unaware of deficits to being a fairly high priority issue. as the old adage goes: when the people lead, the leaders will follow.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Mar 20, 2012 12:10:38 GMT -5
So lets start with the very basics of my questions.
(1) Are these the three worst spending increases in recent history? (2) What should we do about it? (Reagan is dead, Bush has been tossed out on his ear, one to go?) (3) Is spending controlled by the President or Congress?(or the Tea Party) (4) What do the eleven points on each chart represent? (point1=day1?) (5) If the difference between each represents the increase then one would have to average the increase to do a comparison over three years. (someone might have a big increase early and then bring it down it later years but could have still spent more money during that time period.)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2012 12:17:03 GMT -5
So lets start with the very basics of my questions. (1) Are these the three worst spending increases in recent history? very doubtful. just in "recent memory"(2) What should we do about it? (Reagan is dead, Bush has been tossed out on his ear, one to go?) this might make a good thread topic. but i am imagining it has been discussed MANY times before here, to the point of tedium. no?(3) Is spending controlled by the President or Congress?(or the Tea Party) controlled? congress. however, then the question becomes who sets congressional priorities?(4) What do the eleven points on each chart represent? (point1=day1?) each point is approximately 100 days.(5) If the difference between each represents the increase then one would have to average the increase to do a comparison over three years. (someone might have a big increase early and then bring it down it later years but could have still spent more money during that time period.) again, you are averaging the increases- and, ftr- i think that is a valid idea. i wasn't. i was just taking the absolute = day 1100 - day 0. my point was simply this: Obama is accused of being some sort of wildman of spending increases, and i just don't think that is historically accurate. sure- the spending is bad- and the increases are not justified- and the deficits are tremendous- but this is not historically without precedent. this is NOT intended to justify anything. it is just intended to give perspective to those who have lost it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 16, 2024 9:07:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 12:18:06 GMT -5
I was thinking more along the line of strictly numbers and not who was leading the country. I do that too much.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2012 12:24:13 GMT -5
I was thinking more along the line of strictly numbers and not who was leading the country. I do that too much. this argument pretty much goes nowhere. and truthfully, there is no clear answer. and because of that, there will be people who play party with this, which i am NOT doing. i think this last 30 years, with the exception of Clinton's second term, have been one disaster after another in terms of spending. is Obama's disaster the worst ever, in absolute terms? of course. however, what we can see from the graphs in post 1 is that he was handed a bag of rocks. one can't really expect gravy to come from them. and, indeed, it hasn't. it may surprise more than a few people that i gave Bush the benefit of the doubt for his first two years. i never uttered a public word of criticism about him. i did the same with Obama. however, i have been saying since early last year that his foreign policy is terrible, and his domestic policy in terms of political freedoms and privacy is worse than Bush. i have serious doubts as to whether McCain would have done any better with this situation economically than Obama, but people are going to blame Obama for that, and i am comfortable with that idea, as long as they take the long view, and realize that the situation was really crappy for any sitting president in 2009.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 20, 2012 12:24:18 GMT -5
It's amazing that hard core D and R voters are completely unable, or unwilling, to see that simple truth. Our current spending levels are completely unsustainable. they are not only unsustainable, but none of the candidates are going to do anything about it. that means trouble, imo. In a way, you are correct. Spending can remain over 25% GDP if tax revenue increases to +25% GDP. I think we have a better chance of seeing pigs fly before we see tax revenue increase that much.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2012 12:27:06 GMT -5
they are not only unsustainable, but none of the candidates are going to do anything about it. that means trouble, imo. In a way, you are correct. Spending can remain over 25% GDP if tax revenue increases to +25% GDP. I think we have a better chance of seeing pigs fly before we see tax revenue increase that much. i concur. spending will have to decrease at least 10% in GDP weighted terms, imo. i am not optimistic.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Mar 20, 2012 12:32:44 GMT -5
"my point was simply this: Obama is accused of being some sort of wildman of spending increases, and i just don't think that is historically accurate. sure- the spending is bad- and the increases are not justified- and the deficits are tremendous- but this is not historically without precedent. this is NOT intended to justify anything. it is just intended to give perspective to those who have lost it. "
I have to agree we have had a string of "wildmen" but do we pat the Tea Party on the back for helping make Obama's numbers look better? ( his most recent numbers have not been because of his decisions or preference) I am to the point of making a major decision personally regarding how much effort should be put into fighting against the flow. It might be time for the Independents to pull the plug, throw in the towel, abandon ship, and let 'er go. We are now fighting a losing battle against our own two party system that have consistently driven us in the wrong direction and the quickest way out might be the route taken by the automakers. File for bankruptcy, stiff your creditors and start over. It's the new American way.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 20, 2012 12:50:56 GMT -5
"my point was simply this: Obama is accused of being some sort of wildman of spending increases, and i just don't think that is historically accurate. sure- the spending is bad- and the increases are not justified- and the deficits are tremendous- but this is not historically without precedent. this is NOT intended to justify anything. it is just intended to give perspective to those who have lost it. " I have to agree we have had a string of "wildmen" but do we pat the Tea Party on the back for helping make Obama's numbers look better? ( his most recent numbers have not been because of his decisions or preference) I am to the point of making a major decision personally regarding how much effort should be put into fighting against the flow. It might be time for the Independents to pull the plug, throw in the towel, abandon ship, and let 'er go. We are now fighting a losing battle against our own two party system that have consistently driven us in the wrong direction and the quickest way out might be the route taken by the automakers. File for bankruptcy, stiff your creditors and start over. It's the new American way. i can't quite yield to utter pessimism, yet. there is a good chance that we will "grow out of this". all that is required is that we STOP GROWING SPENDING. the last couple of years have given us "real declines" in spending, and that is very encouraging. but we need revenues to come up on a GDP basis to historical norms to stop the bleeding.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 21, 2012 0:31:43 GMT -5
"my point was simply this: Obama is accused of being some sort of wildman of spending increases, and i just don't think that is historically accurate. sure- the spending is bad- and the increases are not justified- and the deficits are tremendous- but this is not historically without precedent. this is NOT intended to justify anything. it is just intended to give perspective to those who have lost it. " I have to agree we have had a string of "wildmen" but do we pat the Tea Party on the back for helping make Obama's numbers look better? ( his most recent numbers have not been because of his decisions or preference) I am to the point of making a major decision personally regarding how much effort should be put into fighting against the flow. It might be time for the Independents to pull the plug, throw in the towel, abandon ship, and let 'er go. We are now fighting a losing battle against our own two party system that have consistently driven us in the wrong direction and the quickest way out might be the route taken by the automakers. File for bankruptcy, stiff your creditors and start over. It's the new American way. i can't quite yield to utter pessimism, yet. there is a good chance that we will "grow out of this". all that is required is that we STOP GROWING SPENDING. the last couple of years have given us "real declines" in spending, and that is very encouraging. but we need revenues to come up on a GDP basis to historical norms to stop the bleeding. I agree. There are two parties responsible for the problems we face. "Tax-and-spend" Democrats and "Borrow-and-spend" Republicans. The common denominator is, of course, "-and-spend." If one truly wishes to play politics with the subject, I recall reading that since at least WWII (and until the current administration) the national debt has risen more and faster under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones, with as I recall only one presidential term as an exception. This is perfectly understandable, since in their anti-tax fervor, the Republicans simply resort to borrowing the money for their favored programs instead. Certainly spending must be cut, but just as certainly, revenues have to be part of the equation as well. As bad as things are, how much worse would they be if interest rates were at even average historical levels? Would we even have had annual deficits over most years if we were not spending so much in interest on the debt? Not in any full year of Clinton's presidency, at least. (And Reagan was by far the worst, by all measures, in terms of increasing the national debt. Enough in itself for me to view his presidency negatively.)
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 21, 2012 8:44:49 GMT -5
Adding 4 trillion over 8 years was unpatriotic
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 21, 2012 9:56:20 GMT -5
i can't quite yield to utter pessimism, yet. there is a good chance that we will "grow out of this". all that is required is that we STOP GROWING SPENDING. the last couple of years have given us "real declines" in spending, and that is very encouraging. but we need revenues to come up on a GDP basis to historical norms to stop the bleeding. I agree. There are two parties responsible for the problems we face. "Tax-and-spend" Democrats and "Borrow-and-spend" Republicans. The common denominator is, of course, "-and-spend." If one truly wishes to play politics with the subject, I recall reading that since at least WWII (and until the current administration) the national debt has risen more and faster under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones, with as I recall only one presidential term as an exception. This is perfectly understandable, since in their anti-tax fervor, the Republicans simply resort to borrowing the money for their favored programs instead. Certainly spending must be cut, but just as certainly, revenues have to be part of the equation as well. As bad as things are, how much worse would they be if interest rates were at even average historical levels? Would we even have had annual deficits over most years if we were not spending so much in interest on the debt? Not in any full year of Clinton's presidency, at least. (And Reagan was by far the worst, by all measures, in terms of increasing the national debt. Enough in itself for me to view his presidency negatively.) tremendous post. KUDOS!
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Mar 22, 2012 19:34:59 GMT -5
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 23, 2012 11:21:56 GMT -5
The law of large numbers does come into play here. We see it in China and their economy right now. China has a "slowing economy". It cannot continue to grow double digit percentages every year, adfinum. It is physically impossible. They are slowing down. In dollar terms, over years, the dollar spending/growth total number will be greater than when the growth was double digit, due to increasingly higher dollar totals. The same thing is apparent here with the Presidents. Another example is commodity useage. Historically China had increased coal purchases (imports) by 25% every year for several years. If that percent continued, there wouldeventually be no coal left in the world in a few years. Even though the coal percent of imports are slowing, they are still importing more tonnage every year, hence more dollars spent.
|
|