PDA

View Full Version : Economics Hows this make you feel? R or D, this is not good on any level


HonestChieffan
02-14-2012, 03:47 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html

Lots of links and in depth info here on The budget the big O has proposed.

One very telling set of figures:

"Adding all of this up, deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00.

To help put that colossal sum of money into perspective, if you take our deficit spending under Obama and divide it evenly among the roughly 300 million American citizens, that works out to just over $17,000 per person — or about $70,000 for a family of four."


Now before we launch off into oh yea but Bush....Bush's numbers were bad but pale in comparison.

"The previous record for most deficit spending during a presidency was set by President George W. Bush (see table 1.3 in the White House’s Historic Tables). During Bush’s 8-year administration, total deficit spending was $3.402 trillion. That’s a truly extraordinary and reckless sum. It’s also $1.768 trillion less than deficit spending in just four years under Obama. Per year, deficits under Bush averaged $425 billion. Per year, deficits under Obama (according to his own numbers) will average $1.293 trillion — or more than three times as much."

Some day in the future, soon I hope, we can move to a fix and stop the insanity of he said she said and delaying the inevitable sucking up, cutting the mad spending and get back to work on fixing this disaster. If this is what 4 years of Obama gets us, we damn sure cannot afford 4 more.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 03:49 PM
He's pulling a Lenin to destroy a free system.

HonestChieffan
02-14-2012, 03:49 PM
You read all that in two minutes? Good lord.

ClevelandBronco
02-14-2012, 05:30 PM
He can't spend it if Congress doesn't give it to him.

patteeu
02-14-2012, 05:31 PM
...more than three times as much...

Thanks. You know who you are.

petegz28
02-14-2012, 05:36 PM
I heard something today that if we keep up this pace in like 10 years we will be paying $20 bil a week in just interest.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 10:28 AM
Can't keep going at this pace. Absolutely cannot. BUT, let me point out a few key facts:

1. part of the problem here is reduced government revenues. The deficit is the spread between federal revenues and expenditures. In constant 2005 dollars, the federal government took in $400 BILLION less in 2009 (Obama's first year), then it had in 2008. That's a direct result of the recession that he inarguably inherited, and not from any change of tax policy.

2010 revenues were $350 BILLION less than 2008. So that's $750 billion in deficit that he didn't really do anything to create/cause.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200


2. a massive percentage of the federal government's expenditures are mandatory/automatic. Nothing Obama did or didn't do cause them to stay steady or, more often, increase.


Now that DOES NOT get him off the hook for all of the deficit. Not even close. I was very disheartened by the deal earlier this week to continue the 2% payroll tax break without a related cut in spending, which the Republicans were advocating for. VERY annoying.

We need a dramatic and fundamental change before this problem gets addressed in any kind of serious way. It's absurd that more people aren't talking about this in the mainstream of politics and political debate. We're heading for Greece at breakneck speed, and the longer we wait the worst it will be.

mlyonsd
02-15-2012, 10:32 AM
Can't keep going at this pace. Absolutely cannot. BUT, let me point out a few key facts:

1. part of the problem here is reduced government revenues. The deficit is the spread between federal revenues and expenditures. In constant 2005 dollars, the federal government took in $400 BILLION less in 2009 (Obama's first year), then it had in 2008. That's a direct result of the recession that he inarguably inherited, and not from any change of tax policy.

2010 revenues were $350 BILLION less than 2008. So that's $750 billion in deficit that he didn't really do anything to create/cause.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200


2. a massive percentage of the federal government's expenditures are mandatory/automatic. Nothing Obama did or didn't do cause them to stay steady or, more often, increase.


Now that DOES NOT get him off the hook for all of the deficit. Not even close. I was very disheartened by the deal earlier this week to continue the 2% payroll tax break without a related cut in spending, which the Republicans were advocating for. VERY annoying.

We need a dramatic and fundamental change before this problem gets addressed in any kind of serious way. It's absurd that more people aren't talking about this in the mainstream of politics and political debate. We're heading for Greece at breakneck speed, and the longer we wait the worst it will be.

Obama doesn't have a clue or doesn't care. You pick.

go bowe
02-15-2012, 10:40 AM
Obama doesn't have a clue or doesn't care. You pick.

option 3: romney has bought him off...

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 10:49 AM
Obama doesn't have a clue or doesn't care. You pick.


I didn't notice Reagan or Bush2 having a clue or caring about deficits either, to be honest.

Donger
02-15-2012, 10:51 AM
Can't keep going at this pace. Absolutely cannot. BUT, let me point out a few key facts:

1. part of the problem here is reduced government revenues. The deficit is the spread between federal revenues and expenditures. In constant 2005 dollars, the federal government took in $400 BILLION less in 2009 (Obama's first year), then it had in 2008. That's a direct result of the recession that he inarguably inherited, and not from any change of tax policy.

2010 revenues were $350 BILLION less than 2008. So that's $750 billion in deficit that he didn't really do anything to create/cause.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200


2. a massive percentage of the federal government's expenditures are mandatory/automatic. Nothing Obama did or didn't do cause them to stay steady or, more often, increase.


Now that DOES NOT get him off the hook for all of the deficit. Not even close. I was very disheartened by the deal earlier this week to continue the 2% payroll tax break without a related cut in spending, which the Republicans were advocating for. VERY annoying.

We need a dramatic and fundamental change before this problem gets addressed in any kind of serious way. It's absurd that more people aren't talking about this in the mainstream of politics and political debate. We're heading for Greece at breakneck speed, and the longer we wait the worst it will be.

And, with the knowledge that tax revenue was going to go down, the fucking last thing that should have happened was a spending spree. Which is what Obama did. That's on him 100%

patteeu
02-15-2012, 10:57 AM
I didn't notice Reagan or Bush2 having a clue or caring about deficits either, to be honest.

Do you remember how we had a triple A bond rating under those administrations and how it was pretty inconceivable that that could change? Do you remember how we were able to grow ourselves out of the Reagan deficits by the end of the 90s? Bush2 deserves some criticism for his administration's spending, but the answer to it wasn't dramatically greater spending.

I think it's time to stop trying to equate the spending and deficit levels between relative pennypinchers like Reagan and Bush2 and drunken sailors like the current administration.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 11:34 AM
And, with the knowledge that tax revenue was going to go down, the fucking last thing that should have happened was a spending spree. Which is what Obama did. That's on him 100%


Keynesian economics, which is what we've primarily followed for, oh, 75 years or so, says that that is exactly what he should have done.

And I didn't notice Reagan or Bush doing anything about closing the deficit during their terms of office either.

Donger
02-15-2012, 11:38 AM
Keynesian economics, which is what we've primarily followed for, oh, 75 years or so, says that that is exactly what he should have done.

And I didn't notice Reagan or Bush doing anything about closing the deficit during their terms of office either.

I don't think that you've ever heard me defend any of that, expect perhaps Reagan spending versus the Soviet Union.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 11:42 AM
Do you remember how we had a triple A bond rating under those administrations and how it was pretty inconceivable that that could change? Do you remember how we were able to grow ourselves out of the Reagan deficits by the end of the 90s?


The end of the Reagan deficits by the late 90s wasn't entirely growth. In fact, Bush1 got voted out of office for having the guts to increase some taxes due to the increasing deficit. A move that got him excoriated by his own party and may have cost him the election.

All too often that's what happens to politicians who do the right thing...


Bush2 deserves some criticism for his administration's spending, but the answer to it wasn't dramatically greater spending.

The recession of the early 2000s after the dot-com bubble wasn't nearly so bad. The bursting of that bubble didn't have anywhere near the same kind of effect as the housing market collapse that Obama inherited.

But Bush2 cut taxes, which also started increasing the deficit (along with the downturn in the economy). Tax cuts that remain in effect to this day, despite the desperately deficit situation, I note.

I think it's time to stop trying to equate the spending and deficit levels between relative pennypinchers like Reagan and Bush2 and drunken sailors like the current administration.


Spare me. Obama inherited a really freaking awful situation. Between the Republican refusal to reinstate the Bush2 tax cuts (which had sunset provisions in them for a reason!) and the recession (less tax revenues) and the usual response to such a situation (spend more), I'm not at all certain how much different a McCain Presidency would really be, deficit-wise.

All that said, I have seen zero interest in deficit reduction from Obama, and largely as a result, I am more likely than not to vote Republican in 2012. Of course, I haven't exactly heard too much carping about the deficit from the Republicans either...except for occassional grandstanding.

patteeu
02-15-2012, 11:43 AM
Keynesian economics, which is what we've primarily followed for, oh, 75 years or so, says that that is exactly what he should have done.

And I didn't notice Reagan or Bush doing anything about closing the deficit during their terms of office either.

Reagan did the most important thing for closing the deficit. He got the economy growing again after the Carter years. Hopefully, Mitt Romney will be able to do the same.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 11:43 AM
I don't think that you've ever heard me defend any of that, expect perhaps Reagan spending versus the Soviet Union.


True.

patteeu
02-15-2012, 11:45 AM
The end of the Reagan deficits by the late 90s wasn't entirely growth.

No one said it was, but it was the most important factor.

In fact, Bush1 got voted out of office for having the guts to increase some taxes due to the increasing deficit. A move that got him excoriated by his own party and may have cost him the election.

All too often that's what happens to politicians who do the right thing...

Spending restraint was the second most important factor. Taxes were only the third contributor.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 11:46 AM
Reagan did the most important thing for closing the deficit. He got the economy growing again after the Carter years. Hopefully, Mitt Romney will be able to do the same.


You, like so many others, overstate the impact of the President on the economy. One of the main reasons the economy started moving again is because Volcker choked the crap out of the inflation. 95% of people think Carter killed the economy and Reagan then saved us. It's not nearly that easy.

Some of what happened during the Reagan administration, incidentally, helped build up towards the housing collapse 30 years later. But that was neither reasonably foreseeable, nor was it Reagan alone -- the Democrats went along with it -- so I cast no blame on him for that, really. But deregulation has an impact...and sometimes it's a long time in coming.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 11:46 AM
Spending restraint was the second most important factor. Taxes were only the third contributor.


I'm sure there are plenty of studies that go either way on that, depending on one's political biases.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 11:48 AM
Reagan did the most important thing for closing the deficit. He got the economy growing again after the Carter years. Hopefully, Mitt Romney will be able to do the same.



Oh, and the economy is very likely to get growing again in the next four years no matter WHO wins.

Just like the economy was clearly going to be completely screwed from 2009-12, no matter who won.


You're a really bright guy and a wonderful poster on this board, but I'm amazed that it's always just pro-Republican / anti-Democrat with you. The black/white world you live in doesn't reflect reality. I imagine you know that, but carry on.

patteeu
02-15-2012, 11:55 AM
Spare me. Obama inherited a really freaking awful situation. Between the Republican refusal to reinstate the Bush2 tax cuts (which had sunset provisions in them for a reason!) and the recession (less tax revenues) and the usual response to such a situation (spend more), I'm not at all certain how much different a McCain Presidency would really be, deficit-wise.

Obama hasn't proposed rolling all of the Bush tax cuts back. He just seems interested in gaining political advantage by dividing the nation along class lines.

The reason for the sunset provision wasn't because there was any unanimity behind the idea that they should be temporary. It was because there wasn't quite a majority to make them permanent.

All that said, I have seen zero interest in deficit reduction from Obama, and largely as a result, I am more likely than not to vote Republican in 2012. Of course, I haven't exactly heard too much carping about the deficit from the Republicans either...except for occassional grandstanding.

This is all that really matters. If Obama didn't want to inherit whatever it was he inherited, he shouldn't have run for office promising that he had solutions. He didn't inherit a bad economy, he voluntarily accepted it. If he can't get the job done, it's time to find someone with a different plan or at least with more interest in addressing it.

patteeu
02-15-2012, 12:03 PM
Oh, and the economy is very likely to get growing again in the next four years no matter WHO wins.

Just like the economy was clearly going to be completely screwed from 2009-12, no matter who won.


You're a really bright guy and a wonderful poster on this board, but I'm amazed that it's always just pro-Republican / anti-Democrat with you. The black/white world you live in doesn't reflect reality. I imagine you know that, but carry on.

When democrats start acting like they're more interested in growing the economic pie than in reorganizing the way it's sliced, I'll give them more credit. When I boil the two parties down to their raw essence on economic issues, this is where I arrive even though there are lots of less important details on which I agree with democrats or disagree with Republicans.

For example, I'm sympathetic with the idea of a health care insurance mandate (right now that's a democrat thing and Republicans are opposed), but democrats were more interested in universal health care coverage than they were in breaking the upward spiral of health care costs with Obamacare. That's by far the less important of the two concerns and they picked the wrong one because they want to shift resources rather than protect the overall viability of the system.

go bowe
02-15-2012, 01:20 PM
When democrats start acting like they're more interested in growing the economic pie than in reorganizing the way it's sliced, I'll give them more credit. When I boil the two parties down to their raw essence on economic issues, this is where I arrive even though there are lots of less important details on which I agree with democrats or disagree with Republicans.

For example, I'm sympathetic with the idea of a health care insurance mandate (right now that's a democrat thing and Republicans are opposed), but democrats were more interested in universal health care coverage than they were in breaking the upward spiral of health care costs with Obamacare. That's by far the less important of the two concerns and they picked the wrong one because they want to shift resources rather than protect the overall viability of the system.

how would one go about protecting that?

how can health care costs be reduced or have the upward spiral broken?

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 01:40 PM
This is all that really matters. If Obama didn't want to inherit whatever it was he inherited, he shouldn't have run for office promising that he had solutions. He didn't inherit a bad economy, he voluntarily accepted it. If he can't get the job done, it's time to find someone with a different plan or at least with more interest in addressing it.



Just because he voluntarily accepted it doesn't mean he didn't inherit it. If you parents die and you "accept" their inheritance, does that mean you didn't inherit their stuff? Of course not.

Of course, I see little interest from the Republicans on deficit reduction. It may be that serious deficit reduction is functionally impossible because of the political cost that can be extracted by the other party if you do anything truly significant. If so, then we're probably pretty fucked no matter who we elect.

patteeu
02-15-2012, 01:42 PM
how would one go about protecting that?

how can health care costs be reduced or have the upward spiral broken?

Health care cost inflation is the primary driver behind our fiscal problems. If you don't address that, you're just nibbling around the edges.

Some form of rationing is required to get health care costs under control. We can't afford to pay for limitless bleeding edge health care for everyone regardless of likelihood of success. Tort reform is another idea and probably has a place in a comprehensive solution. Maybe there are others too, but those are a couple that come to mind.

jiveturkey
02-15-2012, 01:44 PM
We can't afford to pay for limitless bleeding edge health care for everyone regardless of likelihood of success.Are you pushing a socialist death panel solution here?

patteeu
02-15-2012, 01:45 PM
Just because he voluntarily accepted it doesn't mean he didn't inherit it. If you parents die and you "accept" their inheritance, does that mean you didn't inherit their stuff? Of course not.

Of course, I see little interest from the Republicans on deficit reduction. It may be that serious deficit reduction is functionally impossible because of the political cost that can be extracted by the other party if you do anything truly significant. If so, then we're probably pretty ****ed no matter who we elect.

If you voluntarily accept an inheritance from your rich parents and then proceed to blame all that inherited wealth for your problems, the excuse rings hollow.

If we don't punish incumbents who fail to seriously address the issue, we contribute to the paralyzing political fear you describe in your second paragraph.

patteeu
02-15-2012, 01:45 PM
Are you pushing a socialist death panel solution here?

Nope. I'm against letting the government control the rationing.

Pure capitalism would adequately ration care (i.e. you get what you can pay for). I'm somewhere in between because I favor a universal insurance scheme as long as we're not going to let people die in our streets, but I'm closer to the capitalist solution than the centralized death panel solution.

jiveturkey
02-15-2012, 01:46 PM
Nope. I'm against letting the government control the rationing.Are you for privatizing death panels?

patteeu
02-15-2012, 01:51 PM
Are you for privatizing death panels?

I edited my post to add more explanation.

jiveturkey
02-15-2012, 01:56 PM
I'm not sure how any type of rationing would work with pissing off a ton of people.

I agree that it needs to happen in one form or another but I can't figure out how to implement it.

And I was just fucking with you about death panels.

FAX
02-15-2012, 01:57 PM
Our money is worthless. Our manufacturing is extinct. Our political system is corrupt. Our food is poisonous. Our borders are meaningless. Our military is manipulated. Our environment is polluted.

Other than that, we're doing great. Pass the Prozac.

FAX

LiveSteam
02-15-2012, 02:08 PM
And I didn't notice Reagan or Bush doing anything about closing the deficit during their terms of office either.

What grade were you in during the Reagan years? Like 3rd grade 5th tops. Im sure you payed close attention

LiveSteam
02-15-2012, 02:11 PM
Our money is worthless. Our manufacturing is extinct. Our political system is corrupt. Our food is poisonous. Our borders are meaningless. Our military is manipulated. Our environment is polluted.

Other than that, we're doing great. Pass the Prozac.

FAX

Are you trying to scare me? If you are Its working.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 02:13 PM
What grade were you in during the Reagan years? Like 3rd grade 5th tops. Im sure you payed close attention

Graduated high school his last year in office, but I was paying pretty close attention to national issues during pretty much his entire second term in office, and I have read books subsequent to that timeframe that deal, partially or entirely, with that timeframe.

LiveSteam
02-15-2012, 02:15 PM
Graduated high school his last year in office, but I was paying pretty close attention to national issues during pretty much his entire second term in office, and I have read books subsequent to that timeframe that deal, partially or entirely, with that timeframe.

I stand corrected. For some reason,I thought you were in your early 30s

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 02:19 PM
If you voluntarily accept an inheritance from your rich parents and then proceed to blame all that inherited wealth for your problems, the excuse rings hollow.


Except what Obama inherited, despite being voluntarily accepted, wasn't good, it was BAD. Accepting the challenge doesn't mean that he is responsible for it. It also doesn't mean that he (or anyone else) can't point out that the challenge he inherited (voluntarily) was not a massive one.

If we don't punish incumbents who fail to seriously address the issue, we contribute to the paralyzing political fear you describe in your second paragraph.


Sure, but Reagan during his first term didn't do a helluva lot better than Obama, who IMHO inherited a situation that was even worse than Reagan did, in the sense that it was earlier in the downward cycle. By year three under Reagan, things were clearly getting very substantially better (again, not all due to Reagan). Here in year three things seem to be slowly getting better, but many external problems (European debt crisis) over which we have NO control are definitely exacerbating the situation and lengthening the recovery.

Amnorix
02-15-2012, 02:19 PM
I stand corrected. For some reason,I thought you were in your early 30s


Wish I was, but no.

patteeu
02-15-2012, 02:36 PM
Except what Obama inherited, despite being voluntarily accepted, wasn't good, it was BAD. Accepting the challenge doesn't mean that he is responsible for it. It also doesn't mean that he (or anyone else) can't point out that the challenge he inherited (voluntarily) was not a massive one.

He voluntarily accepted the problems and won the job by promising that he could solve them. He even went so far as to say that if he wasn't successful within three years, he'd be a one term President. Accepting the challenge means he's accepting responsibility for the results.

Sure, but Reagan during his first term didn't do a helluva lot better than Obama, who IMHO inherited a situation that was even worse than Reagan did, in the sense that it was earlier in the downward cycle. By year three under Reagan, things were clearly getting very substantially better (again, not all due to Reagan). Here in year three things seem to be slowly getting better, but many external problems (European debt crisis) over which we have NO control are definitely exacerbating the situation and lengthening the recovery.

Reagan made economic growth his top priority. Obama didn't.

FAX
02-15-2012, 03:46 PM
Are you trying to scare me? If you are Its working.

It's scary all right, Mr. LiveSteam. Next thing you know, they'll be taking away our turkey and cheese sandwiches and force-feeding us de-frosted chicken nuggets. Deep fried, pumped with hormones, and breaded with dehydrated vomit.

The really scary thing is that, while we're getting screwed right and left, the citizenry is occupying itself by hating on each other. Rs vs. Ds. Ds vs. Is. Is. vs. Ts. Find somebody to hate, demean, and despise and you fit right in.

The sheer stupidity of the Amerikan public is scarier than Freddie and Jason and Joan Rivers combined. We allow this to happen. Hell, we enable it.

FAX