Obama: Biggest government spender in world history

[Isgrimnur]

Hopefully tomorrow they'll tell us who these countries with the budget resources are.

Greece, Spain, and Ireland?

[Pyperkub]

Hopefully tomorrow they'll tell us who these countries with the budget resources are.

Greece, Spain, and Ireland?

You forgot Italy and Portugal

[Zarathud]

Cheney declared "Deficits don't matter" when passing the tax cuts responsible for the foreseeable part of the deficit. The Bush administration deferred and hid the cost of their spending. Demanding that Obama fix the deficit problem created by the GOP while fighting the simplest fix -- unaffordable tax cuts -- is the height of hypocrisy.

[YellowKing]

I was against the Bush spending spree. My hope was that Obama wouldn't play the blame game, throw up his hands, and say well if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. And I don't buy the "Republican obstructionism" argument. The Democrats had two years of free reign in which they were able to push through massive spending packages and a healthcare plan. Where were their concerns about the deficit then?

The first time they got concerned about the budget was when they lost seats to Republicans specifically elected to curb their spending.

[Mr Bubbles]

I was against the Bush spending spree. My hope was that Obama wouldn't play the blame game, throw up his hands, and say well if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. And I don't buy the "Republican obstructionism" argument. The Democrats had two years of free reign in which they were able to push through massive spending packages and a healthcare plan. Where were their concerns about the deficit then?

The first time they got concerned about the budget was when they lost seats to Republicans specifically elected to curb their spending.

I still think democrats aren't as concerned about the deficit as they should, but my issue was the Republicans were only concerned about the deficit once a democrat took office. What did Cheney say.. Oh yeah.. Deficits don't matter. I would have been happy to hear about how republicans would pay for the Bush tax cuts. I understand not everyone gave Bush a free ride, but the republicans in power certainly didn't act concerned.

[Isgrimnur]

And I don't buy the "Republican obstructionism" argument. The Democrats had two years of free reign in which they were able to push through massive spending packages and a healthcare plan. Where were their concerns about the deficit then?

They were trying to replace private sector drops in demand with government spending through the stimulus so that the economy didn't enter a complete tailspin.

[GreenGoo]

And I don't buy the "Republican obstructionism" argument. The Democrats had two years of free reign in which they were able to push through massive spending packages and a healthcare plan. Where were their concerns about the deficit then?

They were trying to replace private sector drops in demand with government spending through the stimulus so that the economy didn't enter a complete tailspin.

Which is pretty standard approach for heading off a down turn in an economy. The Dems didn't start spending willy nilly because they felt like it, and they certainly didn't invent this approach.

[LordMortis]

I was against the Bush spending spree. My hope was that Obama wouldn't play the blame game, throw up his hands, and say well if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. And I don't buy the "Republican obstructionism" argument. The Democrats had two years of free reign in which they were able to push through massive spending packages and a healthcare plan. Where were their concerns about the deficit then?

The first time they got concerned about the budget was when they lost seats to Republicans specifically elected to curb their spending.

That all makes sense to me except for the part that it's not getting fixed now while republicans control congress just like it didn't get fixed when republicans had the presidency.

Obama did say "It was going to be tough" and cost money and such. He didn't say who it was going to tough on (when he made his mainstreet versus wallstreet lines in the sand), or how much of the farm he was going to give away to whom with programs like Cash for Clunkers and Making Homes Affordable, etc...

I don't buy that republicans are about cutting spending and as long as you continue to reelect the absolute worst of the entire congress lot when it comes to pork spending on a regular basis and the republican portion of congress continues to support their efforts, no Tea Party hocus pocus is going to change my opinion of that.

If we start with Senators:

Thad Cochran (R-MS) (since 1978)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (since 1985)
Richard Shelby (R-AL) (Since 1987 and was a Rep before)
John McCain (R-AZ) (Since 1987 and was a Rep before)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK) (Since 1994)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) (Since 1995 and was a Rep before)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) (Since 1995 and was a Rep Before)
Pat Roberts (R-KS) (Since 1997 and was a Rep Before)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) (Since 1997)
Susan Collins (R-ME) (Since 1997)
Mike Enzi (R-WY) (Since 1997)
Mike Crapo (R-ID) (Since 1999 and was a Rep before)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) (Since 2002)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) (Since 2003 and was a former rep)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (Since 2003 and was a former rep)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) (Since 2003)
Jim DeMint (R-SC) (Since 2005 and was a former rep)
Tom Coburn (R-OK) (Since 2005 and was a former rep)
John Thune (R-SD) (Since 2005 and was a former rep)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA) (Since 2005 and was a former rep)
David Vitter (R-LA) (Since 2005 and was a former rep)


Every last one of these extreme pork spenders have to go before I give any benefit of the doubt to the Republican Party. (And no that list is not nearly every republican Senator. Merely the most tenured Republican Senators who also take the most Federal money out the budget while contributing the least. To the tune of their state spending 20% more in federal dollars than they contribute every year)

Sources example:

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02 ... -HYcpE-ooM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_ ... tes_Senate

It's the fact that republicans keep putting all of this garbage in office that keeps me at least considering voting for a democrat. There is no amount of fake strong arming you could possibly put on me to hand the traitor Shelby more power.

[Anonymous Bosch]

And I don't buy the "Republican obstructionism" argument. The Democrats had two years of free reign in which they were able to push through massive spending packages and a healthcare plan. Where were their concerns about the deficit then?

They were trying to replace private sector drops in demand with government spending through the stimulus so that the economy didn't enter a complete tailspin.

Japan did much the same in the 1990s, and that did not work out so well for them. And there's no shortage of financial folk that think that what happened to them could well be happening to us. After all, the road to hell is paved with (shovel-ready!) good intentions.

[YellowKing]

That all makes sense to me except for the part that it's not getting fixed now while republicans control congress just like it didn't get fixed when republicans had the presidency.

They don't control Congress. They have control of one house of Congress.

As far as the stimulus spending, I don't blame Obama for that -Bush started the stimulus packages. I do blame him (and Pelosi, et al) for using it as a way to piggyback all the other social pork they wanted to push through.

[Edit] I had "slight" control of one house but as far as modern Congresses go the Republican hold is pretty substantial.

[noxiousdog]

And I don't buy the "Republican obstructionism" argument. The Democrats had two years of free reign in which they were able to push through massive spending packages and a healthcare plan. Where were their concerns about the deficit then?

They were trying to replace private sector drops in demand with government spending through the stimulus so that the economy didn't enter a complete tailspin.

Which is pretty standard approach for heading off a down turn in an economy. The Dems didn't start spending willy nilly because they felt like it, and they certainly didn't invent this approach.

Nor did they rollback the Bush tax cuts.

[hepcat]

MSD's taken a powder from this discussion. Logic is to him what garlic is to a vampire....

Edit: oh, and let's not forget your typical practice of showing up and tossing insulting statements or outright name calling at me. That's always cool.

As opposed to showing up in a thread about a black teen's death and "joking" that President Obama has deployed the Black Panthers to enforce his will?

Up until that point I viewed your diatribes as being harmlessly partisan. Now? Not so much.

[Pyperkub]

Obama - lowest Government Spender in recent history:



Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch, citing the OMB.

[LordMortis]

Obama - lowest Government Spender in recent history:



Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch, citing the OMB.

The "good news" is that this give credence to the idea that he inherited his fiscal problems from W.
The bad new is that all it shows is that he's managed to not really spend that much more than his predecessor when his tax base evaporated a predecessor who went bat shit insane with federal spending.

[Exodor]

Obama - lowest Government Spender in recent history:

Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch, citing the OMB.

As rm9 points out this is comparing spending to the unusual fiscal '09 year.

I'm glad Obama hasn't increased spending appreciably from the year when we paid for Tarp and the initial costs of the Stimulus.


EDIT forgot two very important letters...

[noxiousdog]

It also doesn't appear to be inflation adjusted.

[Pyperkub]

I hope you all read my sig .

Ultimately I'm of the opinion that until the economy is on decent footing, the Deficit should take a back seat to the Economy, and then we should explore a Keynesian process of tax hikes and spending cuts as the economy gets better, giving us room to cut taxes and raise spending when the next recession comes around.

As the old Deficit graph has shown, the biggest problem going forward has always been extending the Bush Tax cuts - which were made in a rising economy - and are making the process (Deficit costs) of getting out of this depression/recession that much more difficult, because the Tax Cut solutions are adding to the Deficit (payroll tax cut, other tax cuts in the stimulus, etc.).

And disagreeing with the premise that the economy is more important than the deficit is fine. But I do tend to have more disdain for the position of cherry picking numbers like the original article does in order to try to say that Obama is the worst president evar, especially when taking such blatant efforts to munge what they are talking about, even moreso than the OMB graph and article I posted (with my tongue somewhat positioned in my cheek) does.

Frankenly, the title of the book seems to ring more and more true - "Lies, and the lying liars who tell them".

[Isgrimnur]

It also doesn't appear to be inflation adjusted.

How do you adjust percentage increases for inflation?

[noxiousdog]

It also doesn't appear to be inflation adjusted.

How do you adjust percentage increases for inflation?

Yearly.

For example:
If spending rises 10% in a 3% inflation environment, then it would be 7% inflation adjusted.

year 1 spending $100
year 2 inflation at 3% means you have to spend $103 to to get the same goods as the year previous. Spending rises 10% to $110. $3 allocated to inflation, $7 for increased goods.

[Kraken]

Ultimately I'm of the opinion that until the economy is on decent footing, the Deficit should take a back seat to the Economy, and then we should explore a Keynesian process of tax hikes and spending cuts as the economy gets better, giving us room to cut taxes and raise spending when the next recession comes around.

Stop being reasonable. This is a political forum.

[Pyperkub]

Ultimately I'm of the opinion that until the economy is on decent footing, the Deficit should take a back seat to the Economy, and then we should explore a Keynesian process of tax hikes and spending cuts as the economy gets better, giving us room to cut taxes and raise spending when the next recession comes around.

Stop being reasonable. This is a political forum.

Sorry, I was feeling sick yesterday, and I'm probably still lightheaded...

[Victoria Raverna]

And I don't buy the "Republican obstructionism" argument. The Democrats had two years of free reign in which they were able to push through massive spending packages and a healthcare plan. Where were their concerns about the deficit then?

They were trying to replace private sector drops in demand with government spending through the stimulus so that the economy didn't enter a complete tailspin.

Japan did much the same in the 1990s, and that did not work out so well for them. And there's no shortage of financial folk that think that what happened to them could well be happening to us. After all, the road to hell is paved with (shovel-ready!) good intentions.

I was under the impression that Japan's problem was caused by not enough spending, not that the government spent too much trying to save the economy. Japan was an example on why you need to have large stimulus spending.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I was under the impression that Japan's problem was caused by not enough spending, not that the government spent too much trying to save the economy. Japan was an example on why you need to have large stimulus spending.

As noted in the article I posted earlier in the thread:

Another argument, most notably made by Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, is that the high level of unemployment simply proves that the stimulus was too small. But by any objective measure, the fiscal stimulus was very large. Total government spending ballooned from approximately $4.5 trillion before the crisis to $5.5 trillion per year thereafter, adjusted for inflation.

Total government deficit spending during the three years since the crisis was $4 trillion. This $4 trillion—not just Obama’s $0.8 trillion “Recovery and Reinvestment Act”—is the total amount of Keynesian stimulus poured into the economy. Comparing deficit spending before and after the recession, post-recession spending has been larger by about 6 percent of GDP each year.

These are massive numbers, larger than the relative magnitude of the New Deal. If Keynesian fiscal policies have failed, it is unlikely to have been because of insufficient deficit spending.

It is worth noting that Paul Krugman has used the same explanation for the failure of Japanese stabilization policy, i.e. that the failure of aggressive Keynesianism to achieve growth proves that deficits were too small.

In the decade following the 1991 crash, Japanese deficit spending was on average 5 percent of GDP per year, and 7 percent of GDP in the decade that followed. Japan’s debt increased from normal levels to a staggering 233 percent of GDP today, far higher than in every other advanced country, including Greece. None of this managed to stimulate growth.

In this vulgar form, Keynesianism is turned into a non-falsifiable theory. If borrowing and spending 150 percent of GDP fails to achieve growth, why, that merely proves Japan should have borrowed and spent 300 percent of GDP!

Such circular reasoning strikes me as a fairly obvious logical fallacy.

[LawBeefaroni]

"Fxing the economy" just means borrowing from banks. The same banks that the Federal Reserve (comprised of these same banks) lends money to a 0% interest (on behalf of the US government). So the Federal Reserve lends banks money at 0% and they in turn lend it to the government (and its citizens) at a substantial markup.

Why not just cut them out of the equation and lend directly? They failed miserably (sub prime crisis) acting as a "necessary" third party. So yes, why not cut them out? Well, because it's these same banks that set our fiscal policy for us uneducated, unsophisticated muppets.

"Fixing the economy" doesn't just mean ignoring debt, it means increasing it substantially. It's digging a hole that will eventually become our grave while financial instututions inherit the country. It's quite an endgame.

[Pyperkub]

Austerity vs. limited stimulus:

In the UK:

At the start of its term in 2010, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government announced the biggest cuts in state spending since World War II.

Savings estimated at about £83bn are to be made over four years. The plan is to cut 490,000 public sector jobs. Most Whitehall departments face budget cuts of 19% on average. The retirement age is to rise from 65 to 66 by 2020.

And the comparison (UK vs. US:

But, as the graph below shows, those 2012 Q2 figures just represent a continuation of the divergent economic paths the two countries have been on since 2010. In America: steady if unspectacular growth. In the UK: stagnation followed by a second recession.