PDA

View Full Version : Obama spending lowest in 60 years!



DiabloViejo
05-24-2012, 04:09 PM
Obama Is The Most Fiscally Responsible President In a Generation
By: Ray Medeiros, May 23, 2012
PoliticusUSA.com (http://www.politicususa.com/obama-fiscally-responsible-president-generation.html)


Obama is slowing the growth in spending better than any other President in 60 years (http://www.usaprogressive.com/2012/05/wsj-federal-spending-growth-is-at-60.html) ! The growth in the federal budget has grown 1.4% in President Obama’s first term, compared to President Reagan who increased the rate of spending by 8% in his first term.

In fact in fiscal year 2010, Obama’s first budget, the growth fell, 1.8%. If President Obama wasn’t facing the Bush era financial collapse, the outcome would be even better.

http://data.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/romneyworld.jpg

In fact let’s take the recession factor out of the Obama budgets, and see where that leads us.

In 2010, the federal budget increased unemployment insurance by 58%. If we take out the recession factor, it would have only increased by 2%, taking into consideration historical budgets. The same is true for Medicaid.

The baseline we are using is the 2009 budget which was passed in October of 2008 under George Bush. Unemployment insurance was about $360 billion and Medicaid was $224 billion. This is just in line with historical increases of about 2%.


So, in Obama’s budget for 2010, rather than $571 billion dollars, it would have only been $367 billion. ($360 billion + 2% = 367 billion)

That is already a $204 billion dollar savings! If we add on Medicaid, the 2010 budget for that was $290 billion. If we take out the recession, it would have only been about $230 billion, a savings of $60 billion. ($224 billion +2% = 230 billion)

Actually if we took out the entire stimulus package of $900 billion growth in spending would have DROPPED more than 2%, something that hasn’t happened in generations.

My point here is that President Obama is not a spending obsessed socialist, in fact contrary to what conservatives believe, he is very responsible. A drop in growth of 1.8% in 2010 during the height of crisis is pretty significant.

President Obama is turning out to be a very tight walleted leader, and more fiscally responsible, than George W Bush and Reagan, both of whom saw growth in federal spending of 7- 8% in their terms.

Additional links:

Obama Spending Binge Never Happened (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2)

PolitiFact.com Obama Spending Record (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/23/facebook-post-gets-it-right-about-obamas-record-sp/)


https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/292220_317932931620098_107410302672363_754066_1848 545456_n.jpg

cushioncrawler
05-24-2012, 05:23 PM
This iz bullshit.

[1] At a time when theusofa needs gov spending to fix employment, a fiscally responsible prez would lift spending.

[2] The prez haz little power re gov spending. Congress haz the power. The report shood look at what Obama wanted, not just what he got.
mac.

Soflasnapper
05-24-2012, 05:37 PM
Interesting points, and true, mac.

However, Obama also wanted the expiration of the top bracket as of when it first expired. That should be figured in as well, despite his inability to wrangle it through Congress.

He also negotiated the roughly $1 trillion in cuts from baseline spending, which the GOP is now perversely reneging on as to the share of it that was agreed to come from the defense spending side, while actually increasing that budget beyond what O and the Pentagon asked for.

It's a tricky thing to parse out the presidents' roles and their Congresses' roles in what was spent, as well as what is happening under the governing law as to entitlement spending.

sack316
05-24-2012, 10:07 PM
Without time to dig too deep into this, I'd say this "analysis" is at best inconsistent and at worst (and more accurately) blatant manipulation of numbers. But then again that is the fun of statistics... you can make 'em say anything you want.

Usually I'll crunch numbers and provide my own reasoning... but with a lot going on (will make another thread explaining) I'll just borrow someone else's work for now:

http://www.politicalmathblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/MarketWatchObamaSpendingInfographic2.jpg

Sack

DiabloViejo
05-24-2012, 11:34 PM
WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2012 03:10 PM CDT
Barack Obama: Shoestring president
Spending has grown more slowly under Obama than either Reagan or Bush. Will the media stop parroting the GOP?
BY JOAN WALSH
Salon.com

Updated with video

Read article here: Salon.com "Barack Obama: Shoestring President" (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/barack_obama_spendthrift/)

http://media.salon.com/2012/05/obama_debt-460x307.jpg

eg8r
05-25-2012, 03:25 AM
Thanks, this proves that Ray Medeiros is an idiot.

eg8r

Qtec
05-25-2012, 03:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks, this proves that Ray Medeiros is an idiot.

eg8r </div></div>

LOL. No, it proves you are are an idiot for swallowing it.

Did you bother to check one single 'fact' he states?

Naaaaahhhhhhhhh.

All you need to know about Bush is that he was a colossal failure.
He tripled the Nat debt and took a surplus and turned it into a Trillion $ deficit.
He handed Obama a country on the brink of financial collapse, a housing market in chaos and unemployment going through the roof, etc etc etc etc etc .

I could go on and on about his failures but there is no point. Like I said before, the truth goes right through you.

The only thing that bothers me is that your hatred of Obama seems to be based on things he has not done.

Q

Qtec
05-25-2012, 03:54 AM
What I usually do is just take the first claim and see if its true.

Does this post pass that test?

Q

eg8r
05-25-2012, 05:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL. No, it proves you are are an idiot for swallowing it.

</div></div>LOL, nothing was swallowed. I read the first line and was able to easily discern this man was an idiot fooled by the data or smart enough to manipulate it enough to make people like you eat it up.

eg8r

Qtec
05-25-2012, 06:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I read the first line </div></div>


...and you loved it. you wanted it to be true.



Q

Sev
05-25-2012, 06:39 AM
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Emoticons/36_2_34-1.gifhttp://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Emoticons/36_2_34-1.gifhttp://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Emoticons/36_2_34-1.gifhttp://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t278/Sevelli/Emoticons/36_2_34-1.gif

Soflasnapper
05-25-2012, 10:50 AM
Your source wants to have it both ways.

Complain bitterly that W gets booked with the huge $20 billion extra that never got spent to make him look bad. This shows contempt for the reader, relying on the fact that in normal terms, $20 billion is a fairly large amount of money, so obviously, putting another $20 billion on his account skews the numbers badly. Really? Out of $3,520 billions, $20 billion is 0.568% one way or another, up or down, which is to say (in the proper context of the entire budget) a trivial rounding error of no actual consequence to the numbers except out on the 3rd/4th decimal place.

Then slide over to the attack on Obama's record, and then book his own PROPOSALS that did not materialize into spending and use that to say spending has indeed skyrocketed (when it didn't)? Neat trick, but the kind of accounting/statistical manipulation you appear to recognize sometimes occurs but don't notice here. (Or maybe you did, and you're in on the joke?)

Then tell people not to believe their own eyes, by stating that looking at the spending curve shows a very unwelcome picture for Obama? When the steep rise begins in the last part of the Bush term, momentum carries it further up for a brief period, only to then plateau to flat and then go downward? That's right-- downward.

This is bold propaganda, telling you something false that you can look at with your own eyes, and see the opposite is true? Wow! Did you notice that, in the curve that is reproduced?

Somehow, according to this guy, who is only 'correcting' (= lying about) the analysis, the clear fact which he reproduces that shows spending under Obama peaked further along the increasing spending line started under Bush (under obvious and understandable circumstances) and then <u>went down</u>, shows what a wild spender this guy was. And claim this graph just looks bad for the record of spending under Obama.

Interesting set of tricks, but considerably more slanted against the truth than what he complains about.

And there's another trick not mentioned. W put all the war spending supplemental appropriations all during his time in office into an off-budget category, as 'emergency' spending that doesn't get counted in 'the (stated) budget.' Obama put it IN the budget, so without spending any more money at all, it appears that he jacked up spending by that total, which was about $400 billion a year. Now, was that really NEW spending? Or the same spending, just properly accounted for in the budget?

How much larger than $20 billion is a $400 billion miscount? That would be 2,000% of the former figure.

How much is $400 billion as a percentage of $3,520 billion? 11.35%. OMG! Obama in one stroke 'raised (stated on-budget) spending' by 11.35%!!! What a profligate spendthrift!! Except of course, no extra spending was actually incurred in this one.

I love such 'corrections' as this guy provides that are so incredibly dishonest and aimed at the rubes who cannot think for themselves and rely on partisan spin to decide what to think.

Now, to be fair, it is absurd to call the still very large levels of spending 'the lowest in 60 years.' I agree that is wrong and misleading. That's an artifact of a misleading truncation in the headline, which should have read more accurately as 'the lowest rate of increase in 60 years.'

Sev
05-25-2012, 11:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Now, to be fair, it is absurd to call the still very large levels of spending 'the lowest in 60 years.' I agree that is wrong and misleading. That's an artifact of a misleading truncation in the headline, which should have read more accurately as 'the lowest rate of increase in 60 years.'



</div></div>

The level of spending is what is critical. It needs to be reduced substantially.
However it cant be addressed until there is a budget in place.
One thing that needs to be done is to eliminate baseline budgeting. That has led to endless budgetary shenanigans.

Another debt ceiling battle is brewing. Unfortunately they will most likely raise it again.

Soflasnapper
05-25-2012, 03:16 PM
Your (presumptive) boy Rmoney said just a day ago that any major drop in spending will tank economic growth. Occasionally he's right, or willing to state the truth as he understands it.

Among the most significant parts of the deficit is the underemployment and concomitant reductions in tax revenues, at the same time the safety net expenditures rise to meet the need, under the existing laws.

Cutting the spending would be counterproductive if it led to additional weakness in the jobs markets and as to gdp growth, and Rmoney just admitted it would.

The only reason to think there would be a benefit is the crowding out theory, that if the government takes too much of the capital out there by borrowing, then the private sector is starved for capital, and/or has to pay a significantly higher rate for it.

However, even as large as the federal government borrowing has become, there is still less borrowing across the board, in total, than before.

Your position reminds me of a family who has made a line in the sand about any new spending, but then gets 3 flat tires. Although there is room on the credit card, which must be used as there is no cash available, and the car is necessary to get to the job to keep the wage coming in, the family decides not to do it, to honor their commitment to NO NEW SPENDING (even if it is necessary, and counterproductive to not take a step like this).

Sure, it would go against an ideal that actually is important in the long run, but which in the short run, is still required.

An old adage says sometimes you have to spend money to make money. That's often true in business. If you are struggling to get enough business, is that the time to cut your advertising?

Sev
05-25-2012, 03:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your (presumptive) boy Rmoney said just a day ago that any major drop in spending will tank economic growth. Occasionally he's right, or willing to state the truth as he understands it.

Among the most significant parts of the deficit is the underemployment and concomitant reductions in tax revenues, at the same time the safety net expenditures rise to meet the need, under the existing laws.

Cutting the spending would be counterproductive if it led to additional weakness in the jobs markets and as to gdp growth, and Rmoney just admitted it would.

The only reason to think there would be a benefit is the crowding out theory, that if the government takes too much of the capital out there by borrowing, then the private sector is starved for capital, and/or has to pay a significantly higher rate for it.

However, even as large as the federal government borrowing has become, there is still less borrowing across the board, in total, than before.

Your position reminds me of a family who has made a line in the sand about any new spending, but then gets 3 flat tires. Although there is room on the credit card, which must be used as there is no cash available, and the car is necessary to get to the job to keep the wage coming in, the family decides not to do it, to honor their commitment to NO NEW SPENDING (even if it is necessary, and counterproductive to not take a step like this).

Sure, it would go against an ideal that actually is important in the long run, but which in the short run, is still required.

An old adage says sometimes you have to spend money to make money. That's often true in business. If you are struggling to get enough business, is that the time to cut your advertising? </div></div>

Unfortunately businesses that are not run properly still go bankrupt no matter the quality of their advertising.

Maxing out your credit and only being able to make your interest payments is not a solid personal or business strategy.

Going into the 92,0000 odd pages of federal regulation and red tape and stream lining and eliminating much of it would be a great benefit to both small and large business.
Defunding and eliminating the EPA would also be of great help.

Repealing the 16th Amendment and introducing The Fair Tax would also be advantageous. That would eliminate both Payroll taxes and the IRS.
When you have just shy of 50% of the population not paying any federal income tax that is a problem.
A consumption tax is the best tool to approach the problem with.

As far as the safety nets go. Unless they are revisited at some point they are going to collapse under their own weight.

Soflasnapper
05-25-2012, 05:40 PM
It's easier to fix a company with a lot of gross but little net with cost cutting and efficiencies. It's impossible to cut your way out of a no gross business situation. ("Hey, fire ALL the employees! That is our largest expense category!" -- but Mitt, we have almost no gross as it is, and we can only do gross business if we have some employees.)

Here's a little puzzle for you. Based upon how long you think it should take to pay off the national debt, which of course requires first that we balance the budget so as not to take on extra debt, how large a surplus should the government run on average? And how is that at all possible with maybe 20% unemployed, or underemployed, or discouraged and out of the job market? Which of the raft of proposals you mention would do the job best? Making the poorer people pay taxes when they do not now? Ending the EPA? Really, serious question.

sack316
05-25-2012, 09:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your source wants to have it both ways.
</div></div>

Agreed. As did the original source from this topic. I felt the absurdity of my source was warranted to balance the absurdity of the original claim /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

P.S. original claim also fails to mention republicans at all. What is usually touted as the great "Republican obstructionism" is also conveniently credited to Obama when speaking in terms of spending.

Qtec
05-26-2012, 12:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Agreed. As did the original source from this topic. I felt the absurdity of my source was warranted to balance the absurdity of the original claim ;\)

Sack </div></div>

What absurdity? The post was a reply to Mitt,s absurd claim.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/292220_317932931620098_107410302672363_754066_1848 545456_n.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">P.S. original claim also fails to mention republicans at all. What is usually touted as the great "Republican obstructionism" is also conveniently credited to Obama when speaking in terms of spending. </div></div>

Now <u>you</u> want to have it both ways.

Q

Sev
05-26-2012, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's easier to fix a company with a lot of gross but little net with cost cutting and efficiencies. It's impossible to cut your way out of a no gross business situation. ("Hey, fire ALL the employees! That is our largest expense category!" -- but Mitt, we have almost no gross as it is, and we can only do gross business if we have some employees.)

Here's a little puzzle for you. Based upon how long you think it should take to pay off the national debt, which of course requires first that we balance the budget so as not to take on extra debt, how large a surplus should the government run on average? And how is that at all possible with maybe 20% unemployed, or underemployed, or discouraged and out of the job market? Which of the raft of proposals you mention would do the job best? Making the poorer people pay taxes when they do not now? Ending the EPA? Really, serious question.

</div></div>

The central government brought us here through its ever increasing size, power and incompetence.

The no growth business situation was created by government regulation.
Remove the government. Remove the problem.

Businesses exist to make profit for their owners. Not to hire employee's. They are tangential to the growth and success of any business.
Unfortunately Washington appears to believe businesses exist for the opposite reason.

We are never going to pay off the national debt unless the power of the federal government is severely curtailed and the anti business regulatory environment is removed.
America needs to retool, re-industrialize and become the worlds foremost manufacturer of products and services.
As the Japanese have stated. Business is war.
US businesses need to be able to be in a position to have the power to exterminate their competition globally by any means.
Removing the IRS, Payroll taxes,, intermediate taxes, fees and surcharges found at all levels of production instantly drops the cost of manufacturing and production and at the retail level. It also puts money back into the pockets every working American.

Nixons executive order concerning the EPA should be rescinded and that organization should be put back in its box. It has far to much power over US citizens and has become very close to being a terrorist organization.

ugotda7
05-26-2012, 11:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama Is The Most Fiscally Responsible President In a Generation
By: Ray Medeiros, May 23, 2012
PoliticusUSA.com (http://www.politicususa.com/obama-fiscally-responsible-president-generation.html)


Obama is slowing the growth in spending better than any other President in 60 years (http://www.usaprogressive.com/2012/05/wsj-federal-spending-growth-is-at-60.html) ! The growth in the federal budget has grown 1.4% in President Obama’s first term, compared to President Reagan who increased the rate of spending by 8% in his first term.

In fact in fiscal year 2010, Obama’s first budget, the growth fell, 1.8%. If President Obama wasn’t facing the Bush era financial collapse, the outcome would be even better.

http://data.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/romneyworld.jpg

In fact let’s take the recession factor out of the Obama budgets, and see where that leads us.

In 2010, the federal budget increased unemployment insurance by 58%. If we take out the recession factor, it would have only increased by 2%, taking into consideration historical budgets. The same is true for Medicaid.

The baseline we are using is the 2009 budget which was passed in October of 2008 under George Bush. Unemployment insurance was about $360 billion and Medicaid was $224 billion. This is just in line with historical increases of about 2%.


So, in Obama’s budget for 2010, rather than $571 billion dollars, it would have only been $367 billion. ($360 billion + 2% = 367 billion)

That is already a $204 billion dollar savings! If we add on Medicaid, the 2010 budget for that was $290 billion. If we take out the recession, it would have only been about $230 billion, a savings of $60 billion. ($224 billion +2% = 230 billion)

Actually if we took out the entire stimulus package of $900 billion growth in spending would have DROPPED more than 2%, something that hasn’t happened in generations.

My point here is that President Obama is not a spending obsessed socialist, in fact contrary to what conservatives believe, he is very responsible. A drop in growth of 1.8% in 2010 during the height of crisis is pretty significant.

President Obama is turning out to be a very tight walleted leader, and more fiscally responsible, than George W Bush and Reagan, both of whom saw growth in federal spending of 7- 8% in their terms.

Additional links:

Obama Spending Binge Never Happened (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2)

PolitiFact.com Obama Spending Record (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/may/23/facebook-post-gets-it-right-about-obamas-record-sp/)


https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/292220_317932931620098_107410302672363_754066_1848 545456_n.jpg
</div></div>


You have got to be retarded to believe this at face value.............seriously. Keep being a good little fish..............hook, line and sinker.

ugotda7
05-26-2012, 11:14 AM
http://cdn4.diggstatic.com/story/how_to_make_obama_s_spending_look_small/o.png

DiabloViejo
05-26-2012, 11:27 AM
Please pay attention, this was already posted on page 1 and subsequently addressed. Of course, it comes as no surprise that you didn't read the entire thread before re-posting it.

ugotda7
05-26-2012, 11:51 AM
No it wasn't......at least properly - now go on and be a good little fish.

But here's a simple question for you genius - where did this extra oh, say, about 5 trillion in debt come from in the past three years?

Like I said - retarded.

Soflasnapper
05-26-2012, 01:25 PM
The no growth business situation was created by government regulation.

Remove the government. Remove the problem.


I think that is backwards. The problem was that corporations, especially in the financial sector, captured what regulatory bodies that existed, and then bought the policy to make sure other necessary regulations over financial derivatives were never put in place. This is not new, since FDR wrote that he and his correspondent both knew that Congress had been a wholly bought body of government by Wall Street interests some 30 years before FDR came into power. It's reached a critical tipping point in more recent years, and it is the sum and total of the real problems in this country.

This is both a GOP and a Democratic Party problem, as both parties have been suborned to financial power (necessary to raise the kinds of money that are required to win elections). Back in Clinton's day, the Congress even over-rode one of his vetoes about loosening regs, with the effort co-led by Christopher Dodd (D-CT/Insurance giants). Obviously, to get the 2/3rds required to overturn a veto, both parties went heavily to the side of the banks and insurance companies.

Please remember, or acquaint yourself with, the immense problem that is represented by phony Monopoly money in the derivatives market that amount to over $1 QUADRILLION DOLLARS. Since we don't often see that word, I'll mention it is $1,000 TRILLION DOLLARS. By comparison, the US gdp is about $15 trillion, and the world gdp, about $50 trillion.

If the Fed is controllable at all in this situation (which I doubt), IT holds the largest amount of federal debt of anyone. Oddly, the Fed is required by law to RETURN those interest payments paid on those Treasuries to... yes, the Treasury (after expenses). We have a situation of great promise, and great moral hazard, whereby the beneficial owner of those Fed-held bonds, which is the Treasury, can and probably will have to, and maybe should, simply wash those away, cancel them and zero them out.

Soflasnapper
05-26-2012, 01:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No it wasn't......at least properly - now go on and be a good little fish.

But here's a simple question for you genius - where did this extra oh, say, about 5 trillion in debt come from in the past three years?

Like I said - retarded. </div></div>

The inherited huge spending areas-- the over $1 trillion in total defense spending annually, partially because of the war spending, but still at double the old Cold War spending levels for the military without the war spending (~$700 billion), and the cost of Medicare-D, incurred entirely without any funding mechanism whatsoever, and vastly more expensive than necessary because the law requires Medicare not bargain to receive a discounted price on the meds. Those ARE ABOUT THE SAME now as before, and that's why spending increases have not been involved.

Likewise the continuation of the Bush marginal tax rate cuts, not new, but the same, costing about $400 billion a year in lost revenues. Obama, bowing to the GOP ideology, pushed his own relatively large other tax cuts, and that adds to the reduction in revenues.

Basically, CBO estimated the FY'09 deficit at $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, which Obama's initiatives (and the worse economy than forecast) took up to $1.4 trillion for that year, and while each year has seen a smallish reduction of deficit, it is still in the $1.2 trillion range. Take that deficit number x 3.5 years, and there you go.

Sev
05-26-2012, 05:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The no growth business situation was created by government regulation.

Remove the government. Remove the problem.


I think that is backwards. The problem was that corporations, especially in the financial sector, captured what regulatory bodies that existed, and then bought the policy to make sure other necessary regulations over financial derivatives were never put in place. This is not new, since FDR wrote that he and his correspondent both knew that Congress had been a wholly bought body of government by Wall Street interests some 30 years before FDR came into power. It's reached a critical tipping point in more recent years, and it is the sum and total of the real problems in this country.

This is both a GOP and a Democratic Party problem, as both parties have been suborned to financial power (necessary to raise the kinds of money that are required to win elections). Back in Clinton's day, the Congress even over-rode one of his vetoes about loosening regs, with the effort co-led by Christopher Dodd (D-CT/Insurance giants). Obviously, to get the 2/3rds required to overturn a veto, both parties went heavily to the side of the banks and insurance companies.

Please remember, or acquaint yourself with, the immense problem that is represented by phony Monopoly money in the derivatives market that amount to over $1 QUADRILLION DOLLARS. Since we don't often see that word, I'll mention it is $1,000 TRILLION DOLLARS. By comparison, the US gdp is about $15 trillion, and the world gdp, about $50 trillion.

If the Fed is controllable at all in this situation (which I doubt), IT holds the largest amount of federal debt of anyone. Oddly, the Fed is required by law to RETURN those interest payments paid on those Treasuries to... yes, the Treasury (after expenses). We have a situation of great promise, and great moral hazard, whereby the beneficial owner of those Fed-held bonds, which is the Treasury, can and probably will have to, and maybe should, simply wash those away, cancel them and zero them out. </div></div>

Whats odd or rare about the word quadrillion?
I would say it's more likely that most individuals have never heard of Novemdecillion or Vigintillion. Which are pikers decimal point wise to vastly larger numerals.

I disagree. The problem today is government comprised of individuals that are singularly ill equipped and unqualified to be interfering with business and the market place. The unintended consequences of their melding is constantly surfacing. The Glass Seagull Act and Community Reinvestment act are two prime examples.
It took decades for the cancer they caused to strike. But here we are.
Remove the federal government from the equation as much as possible and let the individual states make their own rules.
A small limited central government is the solution.

The Fed is another facet of the problem. An all powerful central bank is an extremely dangerous beast.
Our founders new it and that is why it was argued against so strongly. Its been going on for quite some time and is nothing new to the world.
Going off the gold standard was a mistake.
If people were educated in Fractional banking and derivatives they would be horrified about what is going on and would not stand for it.
Its a shame Kennedy was assassinated. He started the ground work to end the fed. Johnson rescinded the executive order. I've been of the opinion that Johnson was involved in the assassination because of that executive order.
If I had the chance I would resurrect it.

sack316
05-26-2012, 11:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What absurdity? The post was a reply to Mitt,s absurd claim.</div></div>

Yeah... (?)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now <u>you</u> want to have it both ways.
</div></div>

The hell I do. I've said for several years on here now that both sides suck, both sides are letting us down, and nobody in Washington cares about anything other than being re-elected.

I don't think republicans deserve credit for "cutting spending" or "slowing spending" because the premise this whole thread is based on is completely false in itself. Beginning from Romney's claim, to Nuttings "analysis", to the response I posted, and so on.

But what I WAS pointing out is that the same lib-wads such as Nutting who cry republican obstructionism will in the next breath claim Obama is "reducing spending" because the proposals stalled/rejected by republicans did not come to pass. Just as the same righties will do the very same thing (reversed of course).

It's ridiculous really. Obama won't be "charged" with spending to create jobs (for example) yet will be credited for creating the jobs coming from that same spending. And as I said, the righties will twist and perverse stats to go against him in much the same way.

And then we'll sit here and toe our party lines, pretend to sound smart and act like we have some semblance of a clue what's going on because what we were spoonfed fits perfectly into our own individual palates.

We complicate and twist the issues to try to justify the persons supposedly representing our own belief system. When reality is, breaking it down very simply, they have failed us. Left, right, middle... they have failed us and have been doing so for quite some time. But hey, if they can instigate and create dividing lines while passing blame and sheltering themselves from responsibility... then maybe just maybe we'll all argue among ourselves long enough so that we won't pay attention to what's really happening.

Sack

*editing to add that I myself am not free from my own criticism above, either

Qtec
05-27-2012, 12:37 AM
Lost revenues.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This week, Rex Nutting of the MarketWatch caused a stir with his analysis correctly showing that federal spending has hardly budged under President Obama, rising at the slowest pace since the Dwight Eisenhower was in the White House. Predictably, James Pethokoukis of the conservative American Enterprise Institute cited the jump in Washington's spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy to comically "prove" that "actually, the Obama spending binge really did happen." Comically, that is, because Pethokoukis conveniently ignores the staggering economic contraction resulting from the Bush recession, with GDP only last year having returned to 2008 levels. Even less surprising, the perpetual tax-cutters of the right neglected to mention that thanks to the steep recession and the Treasury-draining Bush tax cuts, total federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP hit their lowest level since 1950. </div></div>

link (http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/obama-tax-revenue-drought-not-spending-binge)

Also.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For those Republicans who claim "tax cuts pay themselves," it's worth noting that federal revenue<u> did not return to its pre-Bush tax cut level until 2006.</u> </div></div>

Q

Qtec
05-27-2012, 01:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The hell I do. I've said for several years on here now that both sides suck, both sides are letting us down, and nobody in Washington cares about anything other than being re-elected. </div></div>

What has that got to do with the topic?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But what I WAS pointing out is that the same lib-wads such as Nutting who cry republican obstructionism will in the next breath claim Obama is "reducing spending" because the proposals stalled/rejected by republicans did not come to pass. </div></div>

What he said was,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. </span>Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's ridiculous really. Obama won't be "charged" with spending to create jobs (for example) yet will be credited for creating the jobs coming from that same spending </div></div>

Like the stimulus you mean?????????????

Isn't he constantly 'charged' for that?
Q

Qtec
05-27-2012, 01:14 AM
The Problem is NOT both sides.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today’s conservatism is about low taxes, fewer regulations, less government — and little else. Anyone who dares to define it differently faces political extinction. Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana was considered a solid conservative, until conservatives decided that anyone who seeks bipartisan consensus on anything is a sellout. Even Orrin Hatch of Utah, one of the longest-serving Republican senators, is facing a primary challenge. His flaw? He occasionally collaborated with the late Democratic senator Edward M. Kennedy on providing health insurance coverage for children and encouraging young Americans to join national service programs. In the eyes of Hatch’s onetime allies, these commitments make him an ultra-leftist.

I have long admired the conservative tradition and for years have written about it with great respect. But the new conservatism, for all its claims of representing the values that inspired our founders, breaks with the country’s deepest traditions.

</div></div>

Q

Qtec
05-27-2012, 02:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your (presumptive) boy Rmoney said just a day ago that any major drop in spending will tank economic growth. </div></div>

A statement totally ignored by the RW here.

Mitt is all for spending, especially when the money goes to the right people!

When he says "digital learning' he means Wall St committing their next rip off.

Q

Sev
05-27-2012, 06:14 AM
It constantly amazes me that people actually believe that a large centrally planning government that sucks up vast swaths of wealth to do with as it sees fit is actually a good thing.

Hopefully when the EU collapses in the next few years it will be a teachable moment.

The Authority and power of the US federal government needs to be severely diminished and authority needs to restored to the individual states as was envisioned by the founders.

sack316
05-27-2012, 09:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Problem is NOT both sides.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today’s conservatism is about low taxes, fewer regulations, less government — and little else. Anyone who dares to define it differently faces political extinction. Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana was considered a solid conservative, until conservatives decided that anyone who seeks bipartisan consensus on anything is a sellout. Even Orrin Hatch of Utah, one of the longest-serving Republican senators, is facing a primary challenge. His flaw? He occasionally collaborated with the late Democratic senator Edward M. Kennedy on providing health insurance coverage for children and encouraging young Americans to join national service programs. In the eyes of Hatch’s onetime allies, these commitments make him an ultra-leftist.

I have long admired the conservative tradition and for years have written about it with great respect. But the new conservatism, for all its claims of representing the values that inspired our founders, breaks with the country’s deepest traditions.

</div></div>

Q </div></div>

Today's conservatism is not conservatism at all. The SUPPOSED "about low taxes, fewer regulations, less government" you mention is nothing more than lip service. In practice, as we've seen for well over a decade now, they don't follow through on that.

Sack

Soflasnapper
05-27-2012, 12:51 PM
Whats odd or rare about the word quadrillion?
I would say it's more likely that most individuals have never heard of Novemdecillion or Vigintillion. Which are pikers decimal point wise to vastly larger numerals.

We always hear about how hard it is to envision or understand a trillion dollars. The American people are basically innumerate, except for the very small number who extensively studied math or use it professionally (engineers, scientists, some medical researchers, statisticians, actuaries, etc.). Even they cannot really understand numbers like a google, or the titanic googleplex, with the first alone larger than the estimated numbers of <u>protons</u> in the visible universe (which is about 10 ^ 65th power). If the size of a quadrillion is allegedly well know (which I doubt), it is still important to size it up relative to the economy of the world, to see its full enormity. But congrats on knowing the next couple up orders of magnitude! I think no more than 1% of the American people have heard of such numbers.

The problem today is government comprised of individuals that are singularly ill equipped and unqualified to be interfering with business and the market place.

That's why they have experts on their staff. It's no worse now than in years past, when the Congress was even more blatantly corrupt, composed of extremely hard-drinking alcoholics who shamelessly hired family and cronies for staff, in the 'spoils' system mainly started by Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party regime.

The unintended consequences of their melding is constantly surfacing. The Glass Seagull Act and Community Reinvestment act are two prime examples.

It took decades for the cancer they caused to strike. But here we are.

I think you're mistaken here. The Glass-Steagall Act caused no problems decades later-- it was allegedly its repeal that caused the problem-- and that occurred within 8 years of its repeal. There's an argument that the repeal was not implicated, as no such law ever prevented foreign banks from mingling commercial banking activities with investment bank activities (gambling), but this global inflagration did not originate overseas but here (1), and the banks here that did so co-mingle those activities were NOT the ones that went bust (2). Between the sub-prime lending fraud that was primarily by non-bank mortgage brokers such as Country Wide, and the wholly allowable pre-GS repeal investment in rated-AAA financial instruments that were not that (the fraud of the finance industry puppets, the credit agency bureaus), you'll find the proximate causes. The other is the very low interest rate regime put in place that had banks scrambling for anything with a better return, and these fraudulent AAA-rated MBSs offered that (although hiding a poison).

As for the CRA, it was in place for 30 years before the problems were allegedly caused, making it likely that something changed to blow things up. That something was the 'ZERO DOWN PAYMENT' initiative W pushed into law, and then W's Comptroller of the Currency Office preventing 50 states' Attorneys General from prosecuting predatory lending practices, in federal court.

Remove the federal government from the equation as much as possible and let the individual states make their own rules.
A small limited central government is the solution.


Except that is contradicted by Glass-Steagall itself. And banks that have NA in their names ('national association') are nationally chartered, subject to national authorities, not state authorities. If your suggestion had been followed in the '30s, the feds couldn't have done the bank holiday closure, the backstopping against bank runs of deposit insurance, or the institution of measures like uniform reserve requirements, etc. We do not live in a simple agrarian society as prevailed during the Founders days, or even the 40% percentage of people living on farms as during the Depression time.

The Fed is another facet of the problem. An all powerful central bank is an extremely dangerous beast.
Our founders new it and that is why it was argued against so strongly.

Some did argue against it, and they lost that argument to key intellectual Founder and COTUS and Federalist Papers author Alexander Hamilton who as SecTreasury under some guy, G. Washington or something, put one into place in the first presidential term under the new COTUS. So in the standoff of key COTUS proponent and thinker Hamilton and Father of the Country Washington vs. Jefferson and Adams, which of the two factions (Whig and Republican-Democrats) were the real Founding Fathers? Both, I'd say.

Going off the gold standard was a <s>mistake</s> necessity, actually.

This country has been living beyond its means, considering our global garrisoning of the entire world, for a very long time. It was only sustainable if people overseas having surpluses of the US$D that we couldn't sell enough goods to in return for those dollars were not able to get the gold equivalent. Most didn't ask, at first, and then France under DeGaulle saw through the insolvency and began to demand gold for those dollars. Under a gold standard, it's fairly tough if all your gold gets exhausted, and that was the point of Nixon's action-- to stop the gold hemorrhaging out.

If people were educated in Fractional banking and derivatives they would be horrified about what is going on and would not stand for it.

That was the Henry Ford statement-- riots in the streets immediately if it were known. (Just about the fractional banking system, as derivatives hadn't yet been created.) His wisdom has been removed from history, because of his alleged anti-Semitism.


Its a shame Kennedy was assassinated. He started the ground work to end the fed. Johnson rescinded the executive order. I've been of the opinion that Johnson was involved in the assassination because of that executive order.
If I had the chance I would resurrect it.

True, in my view. It's important to realize that Kennedy was not the first president assassinated by the money power, to get, keep, or regain their central banking powers. Andrew Jackson's was the first attempted assassination (and he succeeded in killing the renewal of the 2nd or 3rd charter). Lincoln was the first to be killed (with his greenback issues rather than borrowing at 15% for the war spending), and then both Garfield and McKinley, who were opponents of the re-establishment of the national bank.

It's the root and branch of our problems today, in great measure. Nobody goes against them, as there are bloody consequences. Nobody gets to be POTUS without their imprimatur, and financial backing.

Sev
05-27-2012, 06:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whats odd or rare about the word quadrillion?
I would say it's more likely that most individuals have never heard of Novemdecillion or Vigintillion. Which are pikers decimal point wise to vastly larger numerals.

We always hear about how hard it is to envision or understand a trillion dollars. The American people are basically innumerate, except for the very small number who extensively studied math or use it professionally (engineers, scientists, some medical researchers, statisticians, actuaries, etc.). Even they cannot really understand numbers like a google, or the titanic googleplex, with the first alone larger than the estimated numbers of <u>protons</u> in the visible universe (which is about 10 ^ 65th power). If the size of a quadrillion is allegedly well know (which I doubt), it is still important to size it up relative to the economy of the world, to see its full enormity. But congrats on knowing the next couple up orders of magnitude! I think no more than 1% of the American people have heard of such numbers.

The problem today is government comprised of individuals that are singularly ill equipped and unqualified to be interfering with business and the market place.

That's why they have experts on their staff. It's no worse now than in years past, when the Congress was even more blatantly corrupt, composed of extremely hard-drinking alcoholics who shamelessly hired family and cronies for staff, in the 'spoils' system mainly started by Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party regime.

The unintended consequences of their melding is constantly surfacing. The Glass Seagull Act and Community Reinvestment act are two prime examples.

It took decades for the cancer they caused to strike. But here we are.

I think you're mistaken here. The Glass-Steagall Act caused no problems decades later-- it was allegedly its repeal that caused the problem-- and that occurred within 8 years of its repeal. There's an argument that the repeal was not implicated, as no such law ever prevented foreign banks from mingling commercial banking activities with investment bank activities (gambling), but this global inflagration did not originate overseas but here (1), and the banks here that did so co-mingle those activities were NOT the ones that went bust (2). Between the sub-prime lending fraud that was primarily by non-bank mortgage brokers such as Country Wide, and the wholly allowable pre-GS repeal investment in rated-AAA financial instruments that were not that (the fraud of the finance industry puppets, the credit agency bureaus), you'll find the proximate causes. The other is the very low interest rate regime put in place that had banks scrambling for anything with a better return, and these fraudulent AAA-rated MBSs offered that (although hiding a poison).

As for the CRA, it was in place for 30 years before the problems were allegedly caused, making it likely that something changed to blow things up. That something was the 'ZERO DOWN PAYMENT' initiative W pushed into law, and then W's Comptroller of the Currency Office preventing 50 states' Attorneys General from prosecuting predatory lending practices, in federal court.

Remove the federal government from the equation as much as possible and let the individual states make their own rules.
A small limited central government is the solution.


Except that is contradicted by Glass-Steagall itself. And banks that have NA in their names ('national association') are nationally chartered, subject to national authorities, not state authorities. If your suggestion had been followed in the '30s, the feds couldn't have done the bank holiday closure, the backstopping against bank runs of deposit insurance, or the institution of measures like uniform reserve requirements, etc. We do not live in a simple agrarian society as prevailed during the Founders days, or even the 40% percentage of people living on farms as during the Depression time.

The Fed is another facet of the problem. An all powerful central bank is an extremely dangerous beast.
Our founders new it and that is why it was argued against so strongly.

Some did argue against it, and they lost that argument to key intellectual Founder and COTUS and Federalist Papers author Alexander Hamilton who as SecTreasury under some guy, G. Washington or something, put one into place in the first presidential term under the new COTUS. So in the standoff of key COTUS proponent and thinker Hamilton and Father of the Country Washington vs. Jefferson and Adams, which of the two factions (Whig and Republican-Democrats) were the real Founding Fathers? Both, I'd say.

Going off the gold standard was a <s>mistake</s> necessity, actually.

This country has been living beyond its means, considering our global garrisoning of the entire world, for a very long time. It was only sustainable if people overseas having surpluses of the US$D that we couldn't sell enough goods to in return for those dollars were not able to get the gold equivalent. Most didn't ask, at first, and then France under DeGaulle saw through the insolvency and began to demand gold for those dollars. Under a gold standard, it's fairly tough if all your gold gets exhausted, and that was the point of Nixon's action-- to stop the gold hemorrhaging out.

If people were educated in Fractional banking and derivatives they would be horrified about what is going on and would not stand for it.

That was the Henry Ford statement-- riots in the streets immediately if it were known. (Just about the fractional banking system, as derivatives hadn't yet been created.) His wisdom has been removed from history, because of his alleged anti-Semitism.


Its a shame Kennedy was assassinated. He started the ground work to end the fed. Johnson rescinded the executive order. I've been of the opinion that Johnson was involved in the assassination because of that executive order.
If I had the chance I would resurrect it.

True, in my view. It's important to realize that Kennedy was not the first president assassinated by the money power, to get, keep, or regain their central banking powers. Andrew Jackson's was the first attempted assassination (and he succeeded in killing the renewal of the 2nd or 3rd charter). Lincoln was the first to be killed (with his greenback issues rather than borrowing at 15% for the war spending), and then both Garfield and McKinley, who were opponents of the re-establishment of the national bank.

It's the root and branch of our problems today, in great measure. Nobody goes against them, as there are bloody consequences. Nobody gets to be POTUS without their imprimatur, and financial backing. </div></div>

I have lot of science in my quiver. Most people dont under stand the time and space and how vast it is on both a micro and macro scale. Infinity is a difficult concept formulate in ones mind.

Correct on Glass-Steagall. I meant repeal not its inception. Mental fart. However not the entire act was repealed. Sections 16 and 21 are still in force.

Their experts are continually surprised and many if not most have never run a business or cut a paycheck. They have no real world experience. The ones in the top echelon always seem to work for the Bilderberg group or similar organizations. They have an agenda and are not necessarily to be trusted.
I would also remind you that their experts are also responsible for writing such things as the health care law.

I agree. Something did change with the CRA. It is the foundation of the problem. Once the crack in the dam was achieved our legislators managed to completely corrupt a bad idea made with good intentions.
Changes in a system some times take a long time to metastasize into something unforeseen. With the government it is the norm. Not the exception.

Business may cause problems at times. That is why they need to be left to fail no matter how many people are affected. The void is always filled when a niche opens.
However. Only the government can set the stage for abuses that can reach a global extent.

I agree the country has been living beyond its means for a long time. However the federal reserve is not helping the situation. Abolishing it in the end may be far less risky than keeping it.
Keep a keen eye on the EU. If it collapses what is in the east is going to come west.
Massive bank runs are not pretty. The panic that follows is generally very ugly. Especially when you are dealing with a highly armed population. Mob mentality, anger, desperation and lots of firepower do not often mix very well.

As far as the gold standard goes. The hemorrhaging may have been preferable to having nothing but worthless paper with little to nothing to back it. The full faith and credit of the US means little if the faith in it is lost. Precious metals however always have value.

Henry Ford was a Eugenicist if I recall correctly. He was not perfect and may very well have been an antisemite. However in other aspects he was a visionary. His words may have been the words of prophecy. The internet may yet change the stage.