Obama Spending

[xfire]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ng-exclusive-estimate-of-the-true-number.html

Nothing unites Republicans quite like the unshakable belief that Barack Obama has become the Carrie Bradshaw of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, unable to stop himself from frittering away ridiculous sums of money on frivolous things. But what Republicans never mention when railing against Obama’s alleged fiscal recklessness is how much money he has spent, and what exactly he’s spent it on.

Obama has slashed one tax dollar for every dollar he’s spent on government programs.

To rectify the situation, Newsweek and The Daily Beast have come up with an exclusive estimate of the amount the president has spent on new legislation since taking office in January 2009. This isn’t the sum total of all government outlays; that number would include spending on mandatory entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which no president can control, as well as spending on income-support programs such as food stamps and Medicaid, which automatically increases as citizens get poorer (i.e., during a recession). Instead, we focused on the times when Obama decided to spend money that wouldn’t have been spent if the government had simply been humming along on autopilot.

What we—along with the economic analyst Loren Adler at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank founded in 2007 by Republicans Howard Baker and Bob Dole and Democrats Tom Daschle and George Mitchell—found may surprise people who see Obama as the Big Spender in Chief. Over the last two years, the president has decided to “spend” $21 billion more on tax cuts—the GOP’s preferred policy response to, well, everything—than on government programs.

The math isn’t particularly complicated. So far, the Obama administration has pushed for six major, immediate spending increases that aren’t offset elsewhere in the budget: the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (aka “ the stimulus package”), which had a 2009-10 price tag of $340 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office; the GM/Chrysler bailout and other portions of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which have largely been paid back ($25 billion); unemployment-insurance extensions ($67 billion); COBRA extensions ($9 billion); Cash for Clunkers ($3 billion); and loans to automakers for energy-efficiency improvements ($8 billion). That’s $452 billion. Factor in $296 billion in stimulus funds that have yet to be spent and $136 billion in refundable tax credits that passed in December as part of Congress’ bipartisan tax compromise, and you wind up with $884 billion on the spending side of the equation.

That’s a hefty sum of money. But here’s the interesting thing: Obama’s tax cuts have been even bigger. The first of them, $238 billion in cuts for taxpayers and businesses, came as part of the stimulus package. The second portion, $721 billion worth, arrived in December, again as part of Congress’ bipartisan tax compromise. Subtract $54 billion in forthcoming stimulus-related tax hikes, and you’ve got a grand total of $905 billion in tax cuts. In other words, Obama has slashed one tax dollar for every dollar he’s spent on government programs.

(One yet-to-be-implemented program worth considering: Obama’s new health-reform law. In March 2010, the CBO estimated that “Obamacare” would produce a 10-year spending increase of approximately $250 billion and a tax increase of slightly more than $400 billion, totals that will tilt the equilibrium between Obama’s spending and tax cutting toward the former in future years. The CBO also estimated that the new law will reduce the deficit by $118 billion over the same period.)

Regardless of reality, Republicans have a strong incentive to keep characterizing the president’s spending as an “out-of-control,” “unprecedented” “spree” that “threatens” “our children’s future.” During a recession, especially a Great Recession like the one we’re only just beginning to emerge from, individuals and families tend to react by spending less and saving more, so they balk, despite the dictates of Keynesian economics, when the federal government doesn’t do the same. Accusing Obama of wasting money is an easy way to score political points with voters who’ve been forced to pinch their own pennies in recent months.

But during an accounting argument, it’s useful to have real, live numbers to battle over. On the rare occasion Republicans do allude to real stats, they tend to shout about the growing short-term deficit, a problem that has a lot more to do with declining recession-era tax revenues and increasing safety-net outlays than anything Obama has done, or not done. Instead, Republicans should be referring to the amount the president has decided to spend so far: $884 billion. They can say it’s too much, and that a thriftier approach would’ve been better for the country. Democrats can reply that rescuing the U.S. economy from a second Great Depression for less than the price of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was a relative bargain. Both sides, meanwhile, can debate the wisdom of cutting more than $900 billion in taxes while spending is going up. At least they’ll be arguing about facts, not fantasies.

http://reaganbushdebt.org/

The Current ReaganBush Debt is: $14,702,773,039,383.00 which means that in a total of 20 years, these three presidents have led to the creation of 94.02% of the entire national debt in only 8.4746% of the 236 years of the existence of the United States of America.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

In 1981, the supply siders commandeered the Reagan Presidency and employed their Voodoo economics, as Bush senior had called it in 1980. He was saying that tax cuts would not increase government revenues. As you can see above, the Voodoo failed just as Bush predicted, and the supply siders turned a 32-year winning streak into a debt disaster that continues to this day. For 20-years, under Reagan and the Bushes, the national debt increased compared to GDP every single year. In most other years it decreased. Twenty years in a row can't be just an accident, but to understand you need to learn the voodoo strategy.

Bush senior fought against it, so the Republicans didn't support him and he lost to Clinton, who put an end to it supply-side economics. G. W. Bush brought it back full strength, with V.P. Cheney saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Currently supply siders are in full control of the Republican party.

The green line shows what would have happened to the national debt if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets as Reagan claimed he would. G.W. Bush, in all modesty, claimed he would "retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time."

Conservatives are quite embarrassed by this performance, so they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. Nice try. But for 12 of the 20 years the Congress was not Democratic. Also, presidents can veto, and when it was Democratic, Congress passed smaller budgets on average than the Republican Presidents asked for. Presidents propose the budget, and they have the most influence.

You want to call yourself "conservative" with this current Republican party? Only if you're concerned with social issues.

 

[Mayhem]

Hey man, Sam gives us 3 minute youtube videos, you make us read and comprehend. I mean fuck, you got numbers in there and everything. It's an election year. WHO HAS TIME FOR NUMBERS? And quoted, reputable sources? C'mon man. That is no way to get conservatives on your side. :nono: I suggest you step up your game if you want to play in the big leagues, young man.

 

[PirateKing]

Why bother? Morons won't even acknowledge what you just posted. They're dogmatic by nature.

 

[robot_r0ck]

Why bother? Morons won't even acknowledge what you just posted. They're dogmatic by nature.

Yep. The morons don't care about facts. They're delusional.

 

[xfire]

 

[Sam Fisher]

Hey man, Sam gives us 3 minute youtube videos, you make us read and comprehend. I mean fuck, you got numbers in there and everything. It's an election year. WHO HAS TIME FOR NUMBERS? And quoted, reputable sources? C'mon man. That is no way to get conservatives on your side. :nono: I suggest you step up your game if you want to play in the big leagues, young man.

The reason they can say this is because 1 trillion in spending was added to deficit spending Obama's first year, an increase of 200%. It's pretty much the same since. Technically, growth of government spending has been small but only because the baseline is so high compared to previous budgets, they don't have to raise it because it's already so much higher.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/poli...nding-slower-under-obama-2.html#ixzz1tFwo3QEw

 

[Rattrap]

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/poli...nding-slower-under-obama-2.html#ixzz1tFwo3QEw

You know this thread contains a graph that supports xfire's position, right? I imagine the one you wanted us to focus on was the one with no context and is brought to us by an out-and-out conservative who throws 'liberal' around like an insult on his (many) websites (clearly a credible, unbiased source of information).

...also, are you thecoalman on that forum? You've copy and pasted this direct from that thread:

The reason they can say this is because 1 trillion in spending was added to deficit spending Obama's first year, an increase of 200%. It's pretty much the same since. Technically, growth of government spending has been small but only because the baseline is so high compared to previous budgets, they don't have to raise it because it's already so much higher.

The thing I really like about facts is that they're either right or wrong. Of course, one's interpretation of the facts and the context of the facts - in this case, of government finances - is another story...

 

[Sam Fisher]

Point / Counter Point to xfire's post, concerning spending.

The Folly Of Obama's Spending - He Has Already Spent The Trillion Dollars We Gave Him

In a little publicized news item late last tear, President Obama let it be known that he soon wants to raise the nation's debt limit another $1.2 TRILLION. This comes on the heels of raising the debt limit $1 TRILLION back in August, only about five months ago. Unfortunately, since then, neither Obama or anyone in Congress has come up with a plan to rein in out of control government spending, preferring to blame each other for the failure and the impending financial disaster and destruction that will occur shortly unless we get our debt under control.
To illustrate how inept both the executive and Congressional branches of our government are, even the formulation of a Congressional Super Committee, whose only job was to come up with some reasonable expense cuts for the Federal budget, walked away with nothing after four months of trying.

This failure is all the more telling when just in this blog, we have identified TRILLIONS of dollars worth of necessary and sane spending cuts that would have minimal impact on the average America. However, these cuts would have substantial impact on defense contractors and lobbyists, the size of the all-all-to large Federal workforce, and the criminal elements that defraud the Federal governments' programs (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, etc.) of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Many different American organizations have already done the legwork and analysis on how to efficiently and compassionately cut spending, including Obama's own deficit reduction commission They have all identified more cuts than twelve members of Congress could do with their extensive staffs over a four month period, a sad commentary on our political processes, members, and situation.

And President Obama does not get off scot free in this calamity either. He has chosen to stay in the background of this whole crisis, lest it cost him some votes for his precious reelection, hardly a leadership position. He ignored his own deficit reduction commission's findings and recommendations. The long term, ten year budget he proposed back in the spring was so ridiculously expensive that the Senate UNANIMOUSLY rejected it.

But let's get back to his request for another $1.2 TRILLION worth of debt ceiling relief and try to make sense of it at the household level. If his administration has already burned through the $1 TRILLION relief that was granted to his administration just five months ago, I think is safe to assume that he will conservatively require at least another $1 TRILLION worth of relief, in addition to the $1.2 TRILLION, by the end of 2012, a total 2012 debt relief ceiling number of $2.2 TRILLION.

If his $1 TRILLION from last August only got him five months or so of breathing room, the $1.2 TRILLION is not going to get him through the rest of 2012. It is also a good bet that given his traditional lack of leadership, he will not propose any budget reduction initiatives in 2012, no matter how necessary, in order to not risk losing any votes prior to the November elections.
Some simple math shows that if he does need another $2.2 TRILLION worth of debt ceiling relief in 2012 added on to our national debt and there are about 113 million households in the U.S. today, then this $2.2 TRILLION would burden every American household with an additional $1,600 worth of debt expense every month in order to pay for his $2.2 TRILLION debt increase.

How does this additional debt load compare to what U.S. households pay every month today in order to just operate their own lives? The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks household spending on an annual basis in their Consumer Expenditure Survey. According to their 2010 report, the average American household earned about $62,000 a year and had average monthly expenditures of the following:

- Monthly housing expense = $1417
- Monthly transportation expense = $633
- Monthly food expense = $500
- Monthly health care expense = $258
- Monthly entertainment expense = $217
- Monthly clothing expense = $142

Thus, the theoretical $1,600 monthly expense that Obama's 2012 requests for debt relief will impose on every U.S. household is larger than what the average American family pays for ANY other typical expense. It is equivalent to about what an average household spends on food, transportation, health care, and entertainment COMBINED. This onerous household burden does not include the TRILLIONS of debt the Obama administration has already run up in the first three years of this administration.

As you can see, the above list does not include what an average American family pays every year on income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, social program taxes (e.g. Social Security), excise taxes, gas taxes, etc. Putting all of this information together, it becomes obvious that we are quickly losing our freedom since you cannot be living in a free society where the biggest expense and burden in your life is the burden of keeping an ever growing, wasteful government functioning.

You cannot have political freedom if you do not have economic freedom. By continuing to increase the debt load of the country, a load that has to be paid by every American via increased taxes, we each have less freedom to send our kids to the schools we want, less freedom to contribute to our favorite charities, less freedom to own the home we want, less freedom to enjoy life.

To Obama, it is just another TRILLION or two. To us, it is a loss of freedom today and for many future generations who will have to pay for the folly of Obama's TRILLIONS.

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/blog/14692#ixzz1tGVct2fz

 

[xfire]

Re: Point / Counter Point to xfire's post, concerning spending.

You fail to address the trillions spent by the Reagan/Bush/Bush administrations.

http://reaganbushdebt.org/

The title of this thread is a lie. You don't point/counterpoint shit.

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details

According to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on September 30th, 1980, was $907,701,000,000. On September 30th, 1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20th, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.

Bill Clinton was the first president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt after the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981.

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np), and Clinton became president on January 20th, 1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency.

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton became president), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm).

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush.

The debt was at $5,727,776,738,304.64 on January 19th, 2001, the last business day before George W. Bush took the office of president. The debt was at $10,628,881,485,510.23 on January 16th, 2009, the last business day before Barack H. Obama became president.

During his administration, George W. Bush
increased the national debt by $4,901,104,747,205.59
and personally approved of the creation of 46% of the entire national debt,
in only 8 years.

Starting in 2003, George W. Bush destroyed the world economy by encouraging U.S. banks to make loans to those who could not afford them, through schemes such as the "American Dream Downpayment Initiative", and through the destruction of oversight, such as lawsuits to prevent state securities laws from being enforced on Bush's watch. Once Bush's policies led to their inevitable result of economic collapse, the United States found itself in a situation where it had to take on debt in order to restore the economy.

This means that all of the money spent to restore the economy, until it is restored, is also attributable to George W. Bush.

Further, with our interest payments on the current debt at almost half a trillion dollars per year, that amount will be attributed to Borrow-And-Spend Republicanism as well.

That means that Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush's borrow-and-spend Republican administrations oversaw, approved, or caused to be spent, almost all of the national debt, except for as much as $935,364,693,151.00.

The current calculation on the site is based on the U.S. Treasury's published Total Public Debt Outstanding as of Wednesday, April 25, 2012, when the debt was $15,623,285,528,454.40. On Tuesday, September 04, 2007, the debt was $8,995,145,905,720.62.

This means that with the current national debt around $15,633,041,931,071.80, we're adding $3,910,406,857.07 per day, or $45,259.34 per second.

 

[xfire]

1 trillion in spending was added to deficit spending Obama's first year

Obama was handed an economy that George W. Bush and his Republican cronies fucked without lube for eight years. You can thank Bush for the lions share of the spending. Tell me again, Samantha, are you voting for Romney?

 

[PirateKing]

Re: Point / Counter Point to xfire's post, concerning spending.

You couldn't post this in his thread? Typical Sam. How long did it take you to look for this cut n paste answer that doesn't even really offer a a contradiction to xfire's post. Just more nonsense.

Your smiley should be replaced with the more appropriate :dunno:

 

[Rattrap]

Re: Point / Counter Point to xfire's post, concerning spending.

This really belongs in the other thread. Can somebody merge it?

 

[Rey C.]

You want to call yourself "conservative" with this current Republican party? Only if you're concerned with social issues.

That's actually what many/most of these faux fiscal (or as Sarah P@lin spelled it: "physical") conservatives are concerned about. Social issues are actually what concerns them most. That, they can understand. The tea bagger/fiscal thing is just a ruse for many of them. Like parrots, most of them are only able to chatter what they've been taught to say, as solutions to EVERY fiscal concern: "all you got to do is deregulate and cut taxes!" That's all they know. It's like a religious ceremony for them.

I think it was you who mentioned that you do work using statistics? OK, imagine trying to explain trend regression analysis to people who are generally no more intelligent than our pal Sammy Fisher. Would you rather do that for 5 minutes or just hit yourself in the head with a hammer for 20 minutes? Give me that hammer!

 

[bobjustbob]

Exit Clinton. What were the choices? Al Gore? It didn't take too much time to find out he was a nut. Who would you trust after 911? Gore or Bush? Blame Bush for spending? Sure. Only after 911, tsunami aid, and Katrina. The money for that stuff had to be spent. The rest was bullshit.

Obama had to rescue the banks and auto. Shit that was handed to him just like Bush was handed. If Bush was handed the mortgage problems set up by Clinton then someone should have seen what was coming and slowed it down. You know the times. No money down. Buy it, throw a new kitchen in and flip it. Pay less for your mortgage than renting now and pay for the rest later. CRASH! Time to pony up for your higher mortgage payments everyone. Banks don't get the money because the people don't have the money.

What to do? I have no money to buy a new car because I have more mortgage to pay. No one buys cars so my job gets lost. Banks don't get paid. They aren't lending to car buyers since there are no buyers. Sell my house? To who? They ain't got the money. Obama is handed this shit and what could be the solution?

People need to be bailed out or let them fry. When banks crash so do your investments. Pensions, 401ks, your house. Your job doesn't support your life style so you spend less. At the market. At the clothes stores. At the restaurants. Vacations and movie spending gets cut. The economy has to be stimulated through an infusion of cash.

The banks and auto got their cash and paid it back. What have they done with it? Open new jobs? Lend? No. That pisses me off. Sure the banks have given relief to some mortgage holders. But if I could see the numbers I think it would show a large amount of assets socked away for larger profits and not relief or stabilization.

Bob Just Bob

 

[xfire]

Exit Clinton. What were the choices? Al Gore? It didn't take too much time to find out he was a nut. Who would you trust after 911? Gore or Bush? Blame Bush for spending? Sure. Only after 911, tsunami aid, and Katrina. The money for that stuff had to be spent. The rest was bullshit.

Obama had to rescue the banks and auto. Shit that was handed to him just like Bush was handed. If Bush was handed the mortgage problems set up by Clinton then someone should have seen what was coming and slowed it down. You know the times. No money down. Buy it, throw a new kitchen in and flip it. Pay less for your mortgage than renting now and pay for the rest later. CRASH! Time to pony up for your higher mortgage payments everyone. Banks don't get the money because the people don't have the money.

I mostly agree with the parts I left out. To address the two paragraphs above, none of that takes into account the deficits Reagan and Bush 41 ran up. Got a good explanation for that? I don't.

That's actually what many/most of these faux fiscal (or as Sarah P@lin spelled it: "physical") conservatives are concerned about. Social issues are actually what concerns them most. That, they can understand. The tea bagger/fiscal thing is just a ruse for many of them. Like parrots, most of them are only able to chatter what they've been taught to say, as solutions to EVERY fiscal concern: "all you got to do is deregulate and cut taxes!" That's all they know. It's like a religious ceremony for them.

I think it was you who mentioned that you do work using statistics? OK, imagine trying to explain trend regression analysis to people who are generally no more intelligent than our pal Sammy Fisher. Would you rather do that for 5 minutes or just hit yourself in the head with a hammer for 20 minutes? Give me that hammer!

I'm afraid I'll have to take the hammer, as well. To address the first paragraph second, I would like to see these "conservative" rubes explain to Barry Goldwater what exactly makes them conservative.

 

[bobjustbob]

I mostly agree with the parts I left out. To address the two paragraphs above, none of that takes into account the deficits Reagan and Bush 41 ran up. Got a good explanation for that? I don't.

No, I don't either. Reagan got us out of the Carter home economical and lots of the world political shit. Carter helped get the Shah out and Reagan had to keep him safe. Iran contra was such a cover up that is soon forgotten about Reagan. Bush kept the economy going fine but that war was a funny thing. Wipe Saddam Husein out and have the world hate you or stop short and let the world manage the situation.

These are too few words for 30+ years of mess. We can't go back to Carter and Reagan for an Obama discussion.

 

[xfire]

We can't go back to Carter and Reagan for an Obama discussion.

You have to take Reagan into consideration because the roots of the deficits we're currently running were planted by Reagan. In one of the biggest turns of irony in history Reagan campaigned against deficit spending then turned around and raised the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. You trace the history of our current debt and THAT is where the debt rocket took off.

http://reaganbushdebt.org/

 

[bobjustbob]

You have to take Reagan into consideration because the roots of the deficits we're currently running were planted by Reagan. In one of the biggest turns of irony in history Reagan campaigned against deficit spending then turned around and raised the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. You trace the history of our current debt and THAT is where the debt rocket took off.

http://reaganbushdebt.org/

I don't think a site called reaganbushdebt.org is the proper place to look for info. I did do my own search and you are right about his spendings. Consider that when Carter left, the military was in a shambles. He built it back up with space, military, and tech spending. Reagan pumped money into technology so much that it helped to create todays silicone valley. A great idea since Russia didn't go in the tech direction at the time.

This came at a cost. Tripling the debt with TONS of waste. Star Wars was a flop but the Russians didn't know this at the time. They got scared and eventually backed down. It's hard to argue against the plan because it worked. The choice to fund it could have come from only 2 places, tax the people now or print more money now and let the citizens grow to pay for it later. I don't know how the US would look today without that build up. Russia and China continue sell to anyone that hates us.

 

[xfire]

I don't think a site called reaganbushdebt.org is the proper place to look for info. I did do my own search and you are right about his spendings. Consider that when Carter left, the military was in a shambles. He built it back up with space, military, and tech spending. Reagan pumped money into technology so much that it helped to create todays silicone valley. A great idea since Russia didn't go in the tech direction at the time.

This came at a cost. Tripling the debt with TONS of waste. Star Wars was a flop but the Russians didn't know this at the time. They got scared and eventually backed down. It's hard to argue against the plan because it worked. The choice to fund it could have come from only 2 places, tax the people now or print more money now and let the citizens grow to pay for it later. I don't know how the US would look today without that build up. Russia and China continue sell to anyone that hates us.

http://reaganbushdebt.org/ is a great place to start, right along with http://zfacts.com/ particularly considering the second sentence of your first paragraph above. You can justify the deficits however you like, my point is that we need to assign responsibility where it's due and not hold Obama to a standard different from that of other presidents.

 

[bobjustbob]

You are right. I shouldn't hold Obama to a different standard. I'm the first to admit that he was handed what he had to deal with. 2 wars and other conflicts. He promised that troops would be gone in a year. Once he took office, all of the details were plopped on his desk and reality set in. Can't do it now. Troops not going home this year. I don't take this as a broken promise. It was an administrative decision.

If the case is that spending got us here under certain circumstances, what is the solution this president has to turn this trend back? Energy policies would be a great solution but we need a short term along with a long term to do this. I don't know if he's got this in his bag.

Bob.