PDA

View Full Version : Obama: most fiscally conservative POTUS in decades



Soflasnapper
03-27-2012, 09:19 AM
At the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/obama-most-fiscally-conservative-president-in-modern-history/254658/)

This is based upon how much of an increase in real (inflation adjusted) per capita percentage spending occurred from Q1 when they took office, through to most recent Q1, and then looking at them all through to this point.

Both Reagan and W saw larger percentage increases than Obama through to this point in their first terms, per imposible.

eg8r
03-27-2012, 09:52 AM
It is a shame he cannot add Obama's overbearing debt which he cannot get under control. It is also a shame that all the future costs incurred due to this horrible HC bill cannot be added into this. People like you will probably lump that into what ever President is presiding at the time it is incurred.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-27-2012, 12:58 PM
To be clear, this covers only the spending side, not the debt side.

The debt side is the difference of the spending vs. the income (tax revenues), and the tax revenues are depressed by the economy.

If we were even at what used to be considered full employment (about 6%), roughly 30% or more of the deficit would be reduced automatically through normal tax payments, even with the very low tax regime that remains in place.

But the key takeaway is that people assume the large deficit is purely the function of additional huge spending, ignoring the income side of that equation.

Also of note is that if the law is followed, and the Bush tax cuts expire, the deficits stabilize and the growth of the debt stabilizes.

eg8r
03-27-2012, 01:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To be clear, this covers only the spending side, not the debt side.
</div></div>Why would you need to clarify that when it is perfectly clear. I simply said it is a shame the debt could not be added. To be clear that means I am acknowledging this covers only spending and misses the big picture.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-27-2012, 03:29 PM
LOL, duly noted!

I think most people assume there has been exactly as much 'new' spending as there is 'new' debt, which would be a picture of fiscal profligacy, when the opposite of that is the case.

After all, we are a very innumerate society as a whole. I am always happy to find any exceptions to that general rule.

eg8r
03-27-2012, 07:35 PM
To be honest I don't think this Congress is allowing much of anything to happen.

eg8r

Qtec
03-28-2012, 03:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To be honest I don't think this Congress is allowing much of anything to happen.

eg8r </div></div>

No kidding! That's the understatement of the year! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif The Republicans have broken ALL the records on obstructionism...and then you complain that Obama hasn't done all that he promised to do?

Listen, in the last Pres Election, both Obama and McCain agreed that HC costs were killing the country.
They both pledged to do something about it.
Obama spent more than a year trying to do something about it and faced total obstruction from the GOP. He even dropped the Public Option, the key ingredient in his plan- against the wishes of most Dems!
He made comprise after compromise to get a deal and in the end, the GOP voted to a man against it!

IT WAS A WASTE OF TIME!

As you say, the republicans are trying to bring Govt to a halt for political gain. They don't give a rats ass about real people.
The guy has absolutely no idea.
Q

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Mitt Romney hired lobbyist to secure permits for beachfront fantasy home complete with car elevator </div></div>

Willard, salt of the earth..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mittens is apparently getting ready for Roger Ailes' newest show, FNC Cribs:

At Mitt Romney’s proposed California beach house, the cars will have their own separate elevator.

There’s also a planned outdoor shower and a 3,600-square foot basement — a room with more floor space than the existing home’s entire living quarters.

Those are just some of the amenities planned for the massive renovation of the Romneys’ home in the tony La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, according to plans on file with the city.

Apparently, however, there's a problem: Projects like this require permits and must clear an approval process with city planners. So, in order to speed that process along, <span style='font-size: 23pt'>Mitt Romney has hired a lobbyist. For his house.</span> At the cost of $21,000.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Can you say tone deaf?</span> </div></div>

People are losing their homes and what does Willard do to bond with these people?



Willard says,

"Mornin Ye..aaall."

"I eat grits, cheesy grits, vote for me. Obama is a Vampire, its true, I saw it on Fox."

Q

eg8r
03-28-2012, 07:10 AM
LOL, like the true partisan hack you are, it was quite easy to guess when you would open your mouth and insert your foot. I enjoy having this power over you. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-28-2012, 04:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To be honest I don't think this Congress is allowing much of anything to happen.

eg8r </div></div>

Then why is the deficit so high? The large spending he put in place admittedly is expired, substantially, having been spent mainly in the 1st 2 years.

The answer is that the macro factors of the economy, the tax rates prevailing prior to his arrival, and the spending set in law, was already showing that $1.2 trillion in deficit before he got in.

LWW
03-28-2012, 05:51 PM
Let's review, in inflation adjusted dollars the entire outlays of the US gubmint was $1,724.1B at the end of the Reagan regime.

Currently it was $3,341.3B in 2011.

All figures adjusted to 2005 dollars.

eg8r
03-29-2012, 08:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The answer is that the macro factors of the economy, the tax rates prevailing prior to his arrival, and the spending set in law, was already showing that $1.2 trillion in deficit before he got in. </div></div>That is not exactly the full answer, because it does not include the interest on the large spending Obama put into place. We can thank Congress for not allowing any more spending or the deficit would be increasing at an even higher rate than it already is.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-29-2012, 10:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's review, in inflation adjusted dollars the entire outlays of the US gubmint was $1,724.1B at the end of the Reagan regime.

Currently it was $3,341.3B in 2011.

All figures adjusted to 2005 dollars. </div></div>

The spending EACH AND EVERY YEAR in the meantime has gone up. You've only missed 5-3/4s presidential terms amounting to 23 years of ratcheted up spending, AND the now second year of boomer retirement age achieved by 3.5 million people each year. Oh, and double digit annual increases in Medicare expenditures annually each of those years, which has doubled federal health care spending each 10 years in the meantime. Doubling the previously doubled figure, in fact-- SEVERAL TIMES.

And as you may recall, in review, from the last president (whose name cannot be spoken!), two wars totaling over $1 trillion in direct expenses already laid out, continuing expenses from them that will reach as high as $3 trillion over time, the over $1 trillion cost of the Medicare D unpaid for benefit, and even apart from the war spending, about $600 billion extra a year on military spending (x about 10 years of that in the meantime), to fight maybe a couple 10,000 jihadis instead of, you know, the world's largest country spanning two continents with 10s of thousands of nuclear weapons and the world's largest conventional military arrayed against our national interests in a global cold war.

Do you have memory problems or what?

Soflasnapper
03-29-2012, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The answer is that the macro factors of the economy, the tax rates prevailing prior to his arrival, and the spending set in law, was already showing that $1.2 trillion in deficit before he got in. </div></div>That is not exactly the full answer, because it does not include the interest on the large spending Obama put into place. We can thank Congress for not allowing any more spending or the deficit would be increasing at an even higher rate than it already is.

eg8r </div></div>

He put about $200 billion a year extra into spending, and at extremely low interest rates (as in 2%). The interest on what Obama newly put into spending is about $4 billion a year.

eg8r
03-29-2012, 11:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And as you may recall, in review, from the last president (whose name cannot be spoken!), two wars totaling over $1 trillion in direct expenses already laid out, continuing expenses from them that will reach as high as $3 trillion over time,</div></div>Two things to note from this sentence...First off Obama can thank Bush for taking care of business. Second, when talking about Obama spending you limit yourself to only the couple years he has been in office however when talking about spending for Bush you start referring to future costs of the war that have not been spent yet but will be spent due to the need to continue what was started. This is exactly what I was pointing out in my posts.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-29-2012, 02:01 PM
First off Obama can thank Bush for taking care of <s>business</s> DEFENSE CONTRACTORS AND BIG PHARMA.

Most of what HWSRN (he should remain nameless) did was not taking care of the nation's business at all, but screwing over the nation for personal and class aggrandizement. As he told his would-be campaign biography writer prior to the election, he had already determined he would cause the country to go to war in order to become a successful president (?!?!), to use the sky-high approval ratings that wartime creates at first to create personal political capital for him, to push through his policy agenda using his high approvals.

Indeed, at his first meeting of the NSC, he told them he wanted to go to war (for this reason, although he didn't say that to them of course), and they should figure out how to accomplish that end. I take the entire blood and treasure invested there now and in the future aftermath (at twice the initial costs) to be lost because of personal vanity, to the great harm to this country, and tantamount to treason.

By comparison, what O did was in response to the financial crisis and hollowing out of the banking system's solvency was necessary, not done out of personal vanity or cupidity, finite, if anything overly small, and now over, excepting the on-going debt service of a relatively quite small amount of money.

Qtec
03-29-2012, 02:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> First off Obama can thank Bush for taking care of business.</div></div>

Is that a joke?


Q

pooltchr
03-31-2012, 10:11 AM
How can you possibly support the lie that the Republicans are the obstructionists? The Republican majority in the House are actually passing bills designed to cut spending, create jobs, and increase our domestic energy production. Meanwhile, the Senate Democrat Majority leader stops all the bills at his desk and won't even allow them to get to the Senate floor for a vote? Now just who is obstructing progress in congress????????????

Oh yeah, it's the same Democrat controlled Senate who can't even produce an annual budget, which they are supposed to do every year...and which they haven't done in 3 years.

Who did you say is holding up the business of the country??

Steve