Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Republicans ready to raise taxes.Follow

#52 Nov 30 2012 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,238 posts
I love love love my front loader. You can prevent the mildew without leaving the door open if you keep a can of lysol around and give the rubber gasket a quick spray when you're done for the day. (We use the orange scented stuff.)

but yeah, our washer dryer set was about $2,000 for the whole set. We got awesome matching red pedestals and use that to store junk.

The big repair we're facing is a newly discovered drip where the faucet connection to the pipes has rusted. I'm going to buy a new faucet today and the plumbers are coming by to fix and install it on Monday. Then we have to get a carpenter to fix the now rotten baseboards. Smiley: crymore
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#53 Nov 30 2012 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
****
7,806 posts
catwho wrote:
I love love love my front loader. You can prevent the mildew without leaving the door open if you keep a can of lysol around and give the rubber gasket a quick spray when you're done for the day. (We use the orange scented stuff.)

but yeah, our washer dryer set was about $2,000 for the whole set. We got awesome matching red pedestals and use that to store junk.

I really don't mind leaving the door open cause like I mentioned, there's a locking tab there to keep it being pulled fully open by the cat.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#54gbaji, Posted: Dec 04 2012 at 4:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Again. Let's ignore 2009 then. Lets look at the years in which the one time TARP spending isn't on the table and compare. There's a point at which it should become obvious that the issue isn't about short term or one time spending to stave off economic problems, but that high(er) spending has become the norm under Obama.
#55 Dec 04 2012 at 4:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Kastigir wrote:
catwho wrote:
I love love love my front loader. You can prevent the mildew without leaving the door open if you keep a can of lysol around and give the rubber gasket a quick spray when you're done for the day. (We use the orange scented stuff.)

but yeah, our washer dryer set was about $2,000 for the whole set. We got awesome matching red pedestals and use that to store junk.

I really don't mind leaving the door open cause like I mentioned, there's a locking tab there to keep it being pulled fully open by the cat.


Mine doesn't have a locking tab (or at least I don't think it does), but the washer/dryer sits in a closet sort of thing with a slatted door. I just leave the washer door ajar and close the other door and all is well. And yeah, I crammed the largest capacity stacking front loading washer/dryer unit possible in there.

Front loading washers are night and day better than top loading. Because there's no agitator you can actually fit large items (like bedding, which was a pain with the old unit) without any problems. They use far less water, less detergent, and are a lot more quiet. Which is a huge issue when your washer is in a closet literally in the middle of your condo like mine is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Dec 04 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,895 posts
gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Always amuses me how the likelihood that someone will call someone else stupid is directly proportional to how wrong they are themselves.


rdmcandie wrote:
So yes you are @#%^ing stupid go look at the CBO numbers, do a little bit of @#%^ing math and learn something..


There's some irony for ya! I'll give you a hint: I did look at the CBO numbers. I even did the math for you.

rdmcandie wrote:
You really need to start taking facts on as reliable sources of information. The tablet budget increased spending by some 700 billion, largely on the back of the corporate welfare program Bush initiated at the end of fiscal year 2008, and began paying out in fiscal year 2009. Obama at best could be on the hook for maybe a third of total increased spending over the course of 2009, which would put him in the area of about 6% in the 2009 fiscal year. Since 2009 his spending has been minimal at best... and the majority of the money he spent in 2009 (from the Stimulus package) has been repaid (the primary source GM has repaid their debt in full and the government continues to make money off of its holdings in GM stock.)


Yeah. I already did the math for you. If we completely ignore 2009 because of the "whose fault is this" issue, and look at the years prior and the years after, spending is massively higher in 2010/2011 than it was in 2007/2008.

Quote:
Obama spent less money than Bush did in 2009, and he made what money he did spend back.


Again. Let's ignore 2009 then. Lets look at the years in which the one time TARP spending isn't on the table and compare. There's a point at which it should become obvious that the issue isn't about short term or one time spending to stave off economic problems, but that high(er) spending has become the norm under Obama.

Well, sure, if you cherrypick your info and ignore the relevant data, then it looks good to you.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#57 Dec 04 2012 at 8:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Again. Let's ignore 2009 then. Lets look at the years in which the one time TARP spending isn't on the table and compare. There's a point at which it should become obvious that the issue isn't about short term or one time spending to stave off economic problems, but that high(er) spending has become the norm under Obama.

Well, sure, if you cherrypick your info and ignore the relevant data, then it looks good to you.


I'm not sure how removing an outlier from a set of data in order to assess broader trends between two portions of the set qualifies as "cherry picking".

Is the question really whether Obama spent more or less relative to 2009 alone, or whether he "spends more/less than Bush"? It's the latter, right? So instead of obsessing over that one year and arguing about who's responsible for which spending in that year, why not ignore it and look at all the other years during each presidents term and use that to make the determination? One year of spending isn't the issue, right? It's about ongoing spending trends. And it's not like we can't make an pretty easy assessment of this just by glancing at the numbers.

Obama has consistently spent more money than Bush. He's spent more in total over time. More when adjusted for inflation. More when taken as a percentage of GDP. There's no measure you can do with the actual spending levels that has Obama being less of a spender than Bush. And it's not even close. Cherry picking is digging through each spending bill over time and assigning blame, then trying to massage the numbers to make it seem like Obama didn't really raise spending while ignoring the very clear fact that total spending went up dramatically since he has taken office and has stayed at that high level.

The funny thing though is that even including 2009 and attributing it to Bush, Obama comes out poorly. If 2009 was an outlier that should not be counted against Obama, then how come spending in 2010 was only $60B less? Remember, spending increased by $535B in 2009 over 2008 spending. If it was a one time expense that can be blamed on Bush, then why didn't spending drop by some similar amount the next year? And even if we imagine there was some hidden hold over or something which could still be blamed on Bush or his policies, why then did spending increase by another $100B in 2011? Yes. We spent more in 2011 than the outlier year in which Bush supposedly lumped TARP on Obama. Why then didn't spending come down? Why was it higher in 2011 than 2009?

At some point, you kinda have to lose the whole "it's leftover spending from the Bush administration" and place responsibility squarely on Obama's shoulders. He's been president for nearly 4 years. When does it become his responsibility?

Edited, Dec 4th 2012 6:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Dec 04 2012 at 11:28 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,895 posts
I thought we were discussing the chart that shows the stimulus spending attributed to Obama? And that shows the rate of growth of spending, not absolute spending? Which says that yes, Obama spent more than Bush, but not as much more as Bush spent than before? Just curious if you're talking about something completely different here...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#59 Dec 05 2012 at 8:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,476 posts
gbaji wrote:
At some point, you kinda have to lose the whole "it's leftover spending from the Bush administration" and place responsibility squarely on Obama's shoulders.
You get that most presidents also don't embark on massive spending increases in their first year in office, right?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Dec 05 2012 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,636 posts
gbaji wrote:
If it was a one time expense that can be blamed on Bush, then why didn't spending drop by some similar amount the next year?


Ask and you shall recieve.

billions	increased spending on 
37.6	--Unemployment compensation (603) 
30.7	--Health care services (551) 
30	--Department of Defense -- Military (051) 
27.5	--Other income security (609) 
23.7	--Social security (651) 
23.3	--Higher education (502) 
21.5	--Medicare (571) 
20.1	--Elementary, secondary, and vocational education (501) 
16.5	--Other undistributed offsetting receipts (959) 
16	--Food and nutrition assistance (605) 
7.8	--Housing assistance (604) 
6.7	--Ground transportation (401) 
5.2	--International security assistance (152) 
4.6	--Veterans education, training, and rehabilitation (702) 
4.1	--International financial programs (155) 
3.8	--Hospital and medical care for veterans (703) 
3.8	--Energy supply (271) 
3.6	--Health research and training (552) 
3.6	--Energy conservation (272) 
3.6	--Water resources (301) 
3.2	--Income security for veterans (701) 
2.5	--Pollution control and abatement (304) 
2.2	--Training and employment (504) 
2.2	--Social services (506) 
2.2	--Community development (451) 
1.8	--Federal employee retirement and disability (602) 
1.7	--General science and basic research (251) 
1.7	--Atomic energy defense activities (053) 
1.4	--Conduct of foreign affairs (153) 
1.1	--Veterans housing (704) 
1.1	--Central fiscal operations (803) 
1	--Federal litigative and judicial activities (752) 
1	--General purpose fiscal assistance (806) 
1	--Conservation and land management (302) 
0.8	--Defense-related activities (054) 
0.6	--General property and records management (804) 
0.6	--Other natural resources (306) 
0.6	--Air transportation (402) 
0.4	--Federal correctional activities (753) 
0.4	--Rents and royalties on the Outer Continental Shelf (953) 
0.3	--Water transportation (403) 
0.3	--Consumer and occupational health and safety (554) 
0.3	--Legislative functions (801) 
0.3	--Postal Service (372) 
0.3	--Recreational resources (303) 
0.2	--Other labor services (505) 
0.2	--Other veterans benefits and services (705) 
0.2	--Foreign information and exchange activities (154) 
0.2	--Criminal justice assistance (754) 
0.2	--Central personnel management (805) 
0.2	--Agricultural research and services (352) 
0.1	--Research and general education aids (503) 
0.1	--Other transportation (407) 
0.1	--Energy information, policy, and regulation (276) 
0.1	--Federal law enforcement activities (751) 


billions	decreased spending on 
-255.6	--Other advancement of commerce (376) 
-64	--Mortgage credit (371) 
-54.6	--Deposit insurance (373) 
-6	--Disaster relief and insurance (453) 
-5.7	--Employer share, employee retirement (on-budget) (951) 
-3.1	--International development and humanitarian assistance (151) 
-1.6	--General retirement and disability insurance (excluding social security (Disc. 2005) (601) 
-1.6	--Other general government (808) 
-1	--Farm income stabilization (351) 
-0.7	--Employer share, employee retirement (off-budget) (952) 
-0.7	--Deductions for offsetting receipts (809) 
-0.6	--Emergency energy preparedness (274) 


Curiosity of the CBO webpage and some excel math. Smiley: cool

Edit: Removed income stuff I missed on the first pass.


Edited, Dec 5th 2012 8:53am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#62 Dec 06 2012 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,636 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
What was the national debt when obama took office. What is it now. That's all you need to know about Obama's drunken spending spree.


Wait what?

How there was beer and no one told me? Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#63 Dec 07 2012 at 8:50 AM Rating: Good
******
43,476 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Gonna make this real simple even for you.
More to do with your inability to be complicated.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 Dec 07 2012 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh.
Political wire wrote:
A move to embarrass Democrats backfired on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as the Kentucky Republican "proposed a vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling -- then filibustered it when the Democrats tried to take him up on the offer," the Huffington Post reports.

"The minority leader apparently did not think Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would take him up on his offer, which would have allowed McConnell to portray President Barack Obama's desire for such authority as something even Democrats opposed. Reid objected at first, but told McConnell he thought it might be a good idea. After Senate staff reviewed the proposal, Reid came back to the floor and proposed a straight up-or-down vote on the idea."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Dec 07 2012 at 9:22 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,262 posts
A move to embarrass Democrats backfired on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as the Kentucky Republican "proposed a vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling -- then filibustered it

Oh, Republicans. No doubt he "assumed" that it was "obvious" that Reid would oppose it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#66 Dec 07 2012 at 6:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If it was a one time expense that can be blamed on Bush, then why didn't spending drop by some similar amount the next year?


Ask and you shall recieve.


I have no clue what context those numbers are in. What is the time frame? Increased from what? Decreased to what? What year to what year? You didn't answer my question, you just tossed a big list of numbers at me. You need to also maybe explain what you think those numbers mean. Because I just see a list of spending increases and decreases, but nothing else.


I also think you're getting too caught up on specifics and missing the bigger picture. I'm not arguing about this spending or that spending. You can get lost in those details. I'm talking about in general. How much spending actually happened. We can make excuses for it all day, but that's just what it is: an excuse. Here's the numbers I'm using. These are from a fairly recent release of the CBO historical budget data (from Nov 12th in fact):

 
                                                 Social                          Debt held by 
Year        Revenue     Outlays     On-Budget   Security    Social      Total       Public 
2001        1,991.1     1,862.8     -32.4       163.0       -2.3        128.2       3,319.6 
2002        1,853.1     2,010.9     -317.4      159.0       0.7         -157.8      3,540.4 
2003        1,782.3     2,159.9     -538.4      155.6       5.2         -377.6      3,913.4 
2004        1,880.1     2,292.8     -568.0      151.1       4.1         412.7       4,295.5 
2005        2,153.6     2,472.0     -493.6      173.5       1.8         -318.3      4,592.2 
2006        2,406.9     2,655.1     -434.5      185.2       1.1         -248.2      4,829.0 
2007        2,568.0     2,728.7     -342.2      186.5       -5.1        -160.7      5,035.1 
2008        2,524.0     2,982.5     -641.8      185.7       -2.4        -458.6      5,803.1 
2009        2,105.0     3,517.7     -1,549.7    137.3       -0.3        -1,412.7    7,544.7 
2010        2,162.7     3,456.2     -1,370.5    81.7        -4.7        -1,293.5    9,018.9 
2011        2,302.5     3,598.1     -1,362.8    68.0        -0.8        -1,295.6    10,127.6 



It's an "at a glance" view of spending and revenue over a relevant portion of time. It's kinda hard to not see a massive change starting in 2009, but then continuing for the following years (and if the projections are any indication, 2012's numbers will follow that trend). If 2009 was some outlier in terms of spending which can be blamed on Bush and TARP, then why does the same level of spending continue for the year after that, and the year after that?


It should also be very clear why trying to attribute the first years spending to the previous president is not going to provide an accurate picture in this case. Comparing spending in 2002 to spending in 2009 makes Bush look like he massively increased spending during his period as president. But the reality is that spending only went up modestly during that time period (remember that these numbers are not inflation adjusted). 2009 represents by far the largest single year spending increase during this time frame, so it creates an unfair comparison if you try to use that calculation.

Also, because 2009 is such an outlier in terms of Bush's spending patterns, it provides cover for Obama's spending if you do that sort of math. Because his spending looks modest relative to 2009, but relative to spending in the prior decade it's massive. He continues a high spending trend, which should have been a one year thing.


Here's the same data, represented as percentage of GDP. This gives you a better idea of the relative values involved:

 
                                                 Social                          Debt held by 
Year        Revenue     Outlays     On-Budget   Security    Service     Total       Public 
2001        19.5        18.2        -0.3        1.6         0.0         1.3         32.5 
2002        17.6        19.1        -3.0        1.5         0.0         -1.5        33.6 
2003        16.2        19.7        -4.9        1.4         0.0         -3.4        35.6 
2004        16.1        19.6        -4.9        1.3         0.0         -3.5        36.8 
2005        17.3        19.9        -4.0        1.4         0.0         -2.6        36.9 
2006        18.2        20.1        -3.3        1.4         0.0         -1.9        36.6 
2007        18.5        19.7        -2.5        1.3         0.0         -1.2        36.3 
2008        17.6        20.8        -4.5        1.3         0.0         -3.2        40.5 
2009        15.1        25.2        -11.1       1.0         0.0         -10.1       54.1 
2010        15.1        24.1        -9.5        0.6         0.0         -9.0        62.8 
2011        15.4        24.1        -9.1        0.5         0.0         -8.7        67.7 



As you can see, Bush's spending does go up, but it's not beyond historical levels (18% spending is actually sorta low historically, and was largely because of military spending cuts in the 90s. The so-called "peace dividend"). Spending jumps in 2003 (can you guess why), then stays relatively constant. Revenues drop slightly in 2002, but then also remain relatively constant. More significantly, the resulting debt percentage rises slightly, but then also stabilizes and becomes somewhat constant (hitting its high point in 2005), only spiking again in 2008 (when the recession started).


Look at the numbers in 2009 though. Low revenue and high spending. Way way way too high spending. Again, if this were just a one time thing due to TARP, we should have seen spending drop back down in 2010 and 2011. But we didn't.

If we take a before/after picture, ignoring 2009 at an outlier which we can't fairly blame on either "side", it's still very very obvious where our economic problems are coming from, and which party is responsible. We can sit around and get lost in the details of which spending went where, and make up excuses for each one, but the end result is the end result and it kinda can't be denied. Something changed between the years prior to 2009 and the years after 2009 and we're suffering as a result.


EDIT: Finally got the stupid formatting right.

Edited, Dec 7th 2012 4:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Dec 07 2012 at 6:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Sorry about the incredibly ugly formatting. Apparently, whatever version of Firefox I'm trying out this month does some "strange" attempted wysiwyging of text I enter. So even when cutting and pasting clean formatted text into the pre tags, it comes out mangled in the end. I gave up after about 30 minutes of trying to get the columns to even remotely line up. Stupid fonts I'm sure.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Dec 07 2012 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,636 posts
gbaji wrote:

I have no clue what context those numbers are in. What is the time frame? Increased from what? Decreased to what? What year to what year? You didn't answer my question, you just tossed a big list of numbers at me. You need to also maybe explain what you think those numbers mean. Because I just see a list of spending increases and decreases, but nothing else.


Why didn't spending decrease after TARP? Because more money was spent on everything in the top part with the "increased spending on" was someplace more money was spent in Obama's first year. Everything under "decreased spending on" was someplace less money was spent in Obama's first year. All I did was copy those 2 columns from the webpage into excel, and subtract 1 column from the other. Well I also took out some income changes as well, since this was about spending I figured I'd stick to that. If you want the income numbers (which not surprisingly changed too in a recession) you'll have to wait until Monday, because they're on my work computer. Smiley: tongue

Not too surprisingly most of the stuff where spending decreased under Obama 1st term could be tied to TARP and similar. The big things that went up under Obama are things Republicans have been attacking him on: Welfare, Heath services, etc. (Wish I knew WTF "Other income security" was, you got any idea).


Anyway without getting into the argument about how much of the spending was Obama's "fault" versus how much was Bush's, the reason why spending didn't decrease is that more money was spent on everything in the top list.

Or something. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#69 Dec 11 2012 at 7:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

I have no clue what context those numbers are in. What is the time frame? Increased from what? Decreased to what? What year to what year? You didn't answer my question, you just tossed a big list of numbers at me. You need to also maybe explain what you think those numbers mean. Because I just see a list of spending increases and decreases, but nothing else.


Why didn't spending decrease after TARP? Because more money was spent on everything in the top part with the "increased spending on" was someplace more money was spent in Obama's first year. Everything under "decreased spending on" was someplace less money was spent in Obama's first year.


Ok. That at least supplies some context.

Quote:
Not too surprisingly most of the stuff where spending decreased under Obama 1st term could be tied to TARP and similar.


Yes. So the one time spending from TARP should have resulted in spending in 2009 spiking and then dropping back down, as I said. But instead of allowing spending to drop back down, Obama decided to increase spending to match that higher level.

Quote:
The big things that went up under Obama are things Republicans have been attacking him on: Welfare, Heath services, etc. (Wish I knew WTF "Other income security" was, you got any idea).


Yes. He increased regular spending to match a single higher one year spending level. Which is the precise point I've been making. This is why it's completely unfair to compare Bush's spending in 2002 to the one time TARP spending in 2009 and say that spending increased a bunch under Bush, and then use that same one time spending in 2009 as the baseline to compare to Obama's ongoing spending and declare that he didn't increase spending at all. It's just like that example I gave earlier of one person ending their "term" with a one time necessary expense (replacing a washer/dryer), and the other person deciding to use that increased spending as a baseline for their regular spending. We would all rightly say that the second person increased monthly spending in that case, not the first person.

Quote:
Anyway without getting into the argument about how much of the spending was Obama's "fault" versus how much was Bush's, the reason why spending didn't decrease is that more money was spent on everything in the top list.


Ok. So you can't blame that increased spending on TARP. Wasn't that the whole point? Someone earlier in the thread insisted that Bush should be blamed for 2009 spending levels because TARP passed during his watch. But even if we accept that, it doesn't explain why spending continued to remain at similarly high levels in 2010 and 2011 (and will likely do so again in 2012). It took a pretty significant one year increase in spending to bump us up to that spending level in 2009. A spending level that was repeated in 2010 and 2011 without the benefit of a one time necessary spending program.

That's why it's absolutely correct to say that spending has massively increased under Obama. We can sit here and quibble about what exactly the money was spent on, but you really can't refute the fact that regular year to year spending has increased, not just a little bit, but a whole **** of a lot. He took a one time spending increase and made it a permanent ongoing spending rate.

And that can absolutely be blamed on Obama. Who else do you blame it on? The first two years of his term he had complete control of both Congress and the White House. During that same time period yearly spending increased massively. It's kinda hard to insist that it's somehow not his fault. He passed nearly every single spending bill he wanted in 2009 and 2010, many of them with nearly unanimous opposition by Republicans. So if we're to somehow blame Republicans for being the "party of no" because of that opposition, we need to also squarely place responsibility on the Dems for that spending. But it seems like some people want to blame Republicans for opposing the spending, but then not take responsibility for the spending after the fact. It's like they're admitting that they spent too much but can't bring themselves to acknowledge that maybe the Republicans were right to oppose it at the time.


So yeah, some of us get a bit annoyed when today, after it's become obvious that our spending is too high and we're generating a massive debt, to hear liberals insist that the spending isn't really Obama's fault. Um... So what was all that jumping up and down and complaining about the GOP trying to block spending bills about back then? You can't have it both ways.

Edited, Dec 11th 2012 5:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Dec 11 2012 at 11:33 PM Rating: Excellent
My biggest **** about all this is the giant bait and switch con the GOP is pulling.

Back in the Bush days, they slash taxes, and hike spending, Two wars and Medicaid part D go into the deficit.

Now it's time to pay the piper. The GOP of course says no to all tax increases, big surprise. The only real way to pay down the deficit is to raise taxes. Eventually, ALL tax rates will have to go up.

It sucks, but that's reality for you.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#71 Dec 12 2012 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
******
43,476 posts
gbaji wrote:
This is why it's completely unfair to compare Bush's spending in 2002 to the one time TARP spending in 2009 and say that spending increased a bunch under Bush, and then use that same one time spending in 2009 as the baseline to compare to Obama's ongoing spending and declare that he didn't increase spending at all. It's just like that example I gave earlier of one person ending their "term" with a one time necessary expense (replacing a washer/dryer), and the other person deciding to use that increased spending as a baseline for their regular spending. We would all rightly say that the second person increased monthly spending in that case, not the first person.
If you completely ignore that because of that one time spending increase it became necessary to continually purchase washer/dryers, sure. But no one ever said you were good with analogies, or writing, or economics, or politics, so I'm sure the concept is entirely alien to you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Dec 12 2012 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,636 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ok. That at least supplies some context.


Takes some of the fun out of posting a giant complicated spreadsheet though. Smiley: frown

gbaji wrote:
And that can absolutely be blamed on Obama. Who else do you blame it on?


No one for some of it, same way I wouldn't blame Bush for TARP there are things I wouldn't place on Obama's shoulders. Unemployment and similar expenses were going to rise regardless. Health care and medicare care are trending upward. Of course, there's something to be said about the cost associated with extending unemployment benefits, for example. I could certainly see putting that kind of spending squarely on his shoulders.

Blaming someone for costs beyond their control just doesn't make sense, and I see a lot of the 'result of recession' stuff in that manner. Now the reaction in subsequent years bears closer examination. Unemployment expenses are still high, and that rightly bothers people. His solution to healthcare spending was controversial at best, and its still too early to say (IMO) whether or not it will work in the long run.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#73 Dec 12 2012 at 6:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Technogeek wrote:
My biggest **** about all this is the giant bait and switch con the GOP is pulling.


My biggest **** (one of them really) is all the folks repeating this claim despite a complete lack of evidence and math to support it. It's easy to say this. Show me mathematically that this is the case though and your claim falls apart.

Quote:
Back in the Bush days, they slash taxes, and hike spending, Two wars and Medicaid part D go into the deficit.


None of which has anything to do with our current deficit level. Medicaid part D cost a fraction of the amount that the Left claimed it would when opposing it, but liberals continue to use those earlier (wrong) estimates when assessing cost. And the two wars cost more while they were actively running than they do today. Despite continuous claims of some kind of "hidden costs" pushed from the Bush administration onto Obama from the wars, that simply does not exist. The data I posted earlier is the final tally numbers, not budget plans or estimates. It's how much we actually took in revenue and how much we actually spent. Every single dollar spent on the wars is accounted for in those yearly figures.

To put this directly in mathematical terms, in 2007 we spent $547.9B on defense and had a $160.7B deficit. In 2011 we spent $669.8B on defense and had a $1295.6B deficit. Even if we blame every single cent of increased defense spending on hold over expenses from the Bush presidency, we're still left with the hard fact that total yearly defense spending only increased by $121.9B while our yearly deficit increased by 1134.9B. So the absolute most we can say is that about 10% of the deficit increase could be attributed to increased defense spending, some percentage of which can be blamed on hold over costs from Bush's wars.


That's not such a strong argument, is it? The math doesn't lie. The fact is that defense spending hasn't increased by nearly enough to make up more than a small portion of the increased deficit, but whenever this subject comes up it's those two things that everyone tries to blame that deficit increase on instead of the much more obvious culprits. I just find it an odd sort of self delusion when the same people who constantly attack Republicans for opposing social spending then refuse to even consider that increases in social spending might just have something to do with our increased deficit when they finally have enough numbers in congress to pass it anyway.

If you want to take credit for the recovery act and obamacare and you think these are great things, then also be mature enough to take responsibility for the economic costs of those things. They were not (and will not be) free.

Quote:
Now it's time to pay the piper.


But not for anything the GOP did.

Quote:
The GOP of course says no to all tax increases, big surprise.


Of course. Lowering tax rates didn't cause our increase in spending and our decrease in revenue. So why assume that raising tax rates will fix them? I'm serious. Tax rates are not the same as tax revenue.

Quote:
The only real way to pay down the deficit is to raise taxes. Eventually, ALL tax rates will have to go up.


False. Why do you assume this?

Quote:
It sucks, but that's reality for you.


No, it's not. It's the fallacy you've been taught to assume is true though.

Edited, Dec 12th 2012 4:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Dec 12 2012 at 11:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
It should also be very clear why trying to attribute the first years spending to the previous president is not going to provide an accurate picture in this case. Comparing spending in 2002 to spending in 2009 makes Bush look like he massively increased spending during his period as president. But the reality is that spending only went up modestly during that time period (remember that these numbers are not inflation adjusted). 2009 represents by far the largest single year spending increase during this time frame, so it creates an unfair comparison if you try to use that calculation.


Are you joking?

Even if you ignore 2009, Spending under Bush increased 1.1 Trillion by 2008. In his first 3 years spending increased by a total of about 400Billion. (600Billion by year 4). With the projected 2012 Budget expected at 3.7Trillion Obama over the same first term has increased spending by 200 Billion. Over 3 years (with 2013 being his 4th and obviously no data can be confirmed until years end).

So Bush's spending increase was moderate, yet Obamas Spending increase is out of control.

Both parties agreed to TARP, and it is about the most bi-partisan act that has happened in the last decade, both parties and their leadership should be held accountable for the gross spending increase because of it (and its gross not because of the amount, its gross because it went no strings attached. Unlike Obama's Stimulus package that Republicans staunchly opposed, that is now actually making the government money through stock options that GM in particular still has not purchased back).

As for the reason that the government spending has maintained its height, the states themselves are bleeding money, in order to keep state level programs running they turn to the federal government for loans, directly increasing the amount of cost to the federal government. This is why moving programs to the state level is redundant, all it does is sweep the cost under the rug. Move health care to the state level, and you now have it as a state loan on federal receipts instead of Health Care.

You really have no idea how Macro-Economics works do you? Of course you would first need to understand simple addition and subtraction to begin to understand that.

How rich, Bush ramping up spending 400 billion is moderate, Obama adding 200Billion is out of control...you are a funny guy Gbaji ill give you that.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#75 Dec 13 2012 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
******
43,476 posts
gbaji wrote:
The math doesn't lie.
It's obviously being oversampled.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#76 Dec 14 2012 at 3:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Are you joking?


No, I'm not.

Quote:
Even if you ignore 2009, Spending under Bush increased 1.1 Trillion by 2008. In his first 3 years spending increased by a total of about 400Billion. (600Billion by year 4). With the projected 2012 Budget expected at 3.7Trillion Obama over the same first term has increased spending by 200 Billion. Over 3 years (with 2013 being his 4th and obviously no data can be confirmed until years end).

So Bush's spending increase was moderate, yet Obamas Spending increase is out of control.


Yes, that is correct. I already mentioned this. You can't just put markers in the calendar and calculate the differences between the values on those days. I'll also point out that while you are ignoring 2009 for Bush, you'd not ignoring it for Obama as his starting point. Use 2008 (which is still somewhat of an outlier, but at least somewhat usable in this case) and you get a $615B yearly spending increase ($720B if we use the projected 2012 number you mentioned). How many years we count that as gets tricky though.


It's not just about dollar spending increase over time (although Bush's was pretty standard for 8 year periods of time relatively speaking). It's about what the actual value is relative to the economy as a whole. Look at spending as a percentage of GDP and there's a whole different picture. Historically, spending in the US tends to sit around 20%. The highest spending rate in the past 40 years (prior to the last few years) was in 1983 at 23.5%. Spending went up again in the early 90s spiking to 22.3% in 1992 (this is why Clinton's spending record looks so good btw, he also started at a high point). Spending under Bush was historically very very low. It was only in the 20s two years out of 8. Interestingly enough it was 20% or higher for every single year from1975 to 1996. It was then under 20% for every year until 2006. Then dropped below for one year, then the recession hit in 2008 and it went over again. I could point out the correlation between this and GOP influence/control in congress, but it would be a bit too obvious.

Spending spiked in 2009 to 25.2%. The problem is that instead of dropping back down, it's stayed in that range since then. It was 24.1% in both 2010 and 1011. Now, some of that is low GDP growth, but remember that spending is above the trend line and has stayed there as well. You can't discount this. Obama took a one time spending increase and turned it into the "normal" spending level.

That's why it's absolutely correct to say that spending has increased under Obama. Because it has. In every measurement that actually matters. Worse, his spending increased and stayed increased during a time period when revenues were down due to recession. This has created massive debt. Deficits and debt were falling during the last few years of Bush's term. That trend reversed and has been speeding out of control since Obama took office. Sure, you can say it was because of the recession and whatnot, but it's presumably Obama's job to counter such economic problems and not just use them as an excuse.


Quote:
Both parties agreed to TARP, and it is about the most bi-partisan act that has happened in the last decade...


You're kidding, right? Do you remember anything that went on in 2008 with regard to TARP? You don't remember Bush coming up with a plan, with modest spending that targeted just those assets in the marketplace that had become massively undervalued? You don't remember this plan being simple and relatively inexpensive? And you don't remember the Democrats (who controlled congress at the time) swooping in and writing their version of TARP, which bore little resemblance to the original, spent far more money than was needed, but did at least deal with the problem (but in a less efficient way)? You don't remember this being used as a political club by Democrats in the middle of a presidential campaign to force Republicans to go along with this? You don't remember congressional Democrats berating McCain for wanting to be involved in the process (the news reported them saying that he "wasn't wanted in Washington").

To say TARP was bi-partisan is a joke. Only in the sense that both parties had to vote for it because it really was necessary. But the GOP had a radically different plan they had wanted to implement. But the Democrats controlled congress and got to write the law, and who was going to vote against it in the middle of a financial crisis? Don't take that to mean that both parties were equally responsible for the details of the law, or both agreed equally to all parts of it.

Quote:
...both parties and their leadership should be held accountable for the gross spending increase because of it (and its gross not because of the amount, its gross because it went no strings attached. Unlike Obama's Stimulus package that Republicans staunchly opposed, that is now actually making the government money through stock options that GM in particular still has not purchased back).


Yes. The auto bailouts in TARP were one of the things the Democrats added to the original plan. So how about we place blame on the guys who used the crisis and the need to pass TARP to insert wasteful spending into it? That would just be crazy!

You get that all the evil big banks have paid back their TARP money with interest, right? Absent the money handed to the auto companies and teachers unions (yes, TARP money was spent propping up teacher union pensions, did you know that?), the US government would have made money on TARP, not lost money.

The big spending occurred *after* Obama took office. TARP didn't hurt us much in the big picture. The recovery act, and numerous other spending bills and amendments passed in 2009 and 2010 added up to a very significant increase of ongoing spending. That's why our spending levels haven't dropped to what they should be.

Quote:
As for the reason that the government spending has maintained its height, the states themselves are bleeding money, in order to keep state level programs running they turn to the federal government for loans, directly increasing the amount of cost to the federal government. This is why moving programs to the state level is redundant, all it does is sweep the cost under the rug. Move health care to the state level, and you now have it as a state loan on federal receipts instead of Health Care.


Yes. I get that. There obviously is automatic spending that is related to economic factors. Point being that Obama choose to pass his health care bill during the same time period instead of waiting until things had settled. He choose to pass his big green energy initiative during the same time period instead of waiting for things to settle. Need I go on? When money is tight you don't go out and buy a new car. You make do with the one you have because you realize that other costs are more important.

Quote:
You really have no idea how Macro-Economics works do you? Of course you would first need to understand simple addition and subtraction to begin to understand that.


I understand macro economic better than you do. I also understand that no amount of fiddling with the numbers to find a result that fits what you want to say changes the very real fact that total spending as a percentage of GDP over time has increased since Obama took office and yearly deficits as a percentage of GDP has increased over that same time period. Also total public debt has increased over that time period. Those are the numbers that matter. We can sit here and quibble out each set of dollars of spending or dollars of revenue that contribute to that fact, but at the end of the day we hold the party and president in power responsible for those outcomes. His job is to prevent exactly the sort of economic problems we're having. His party line has been to keep insisting that the problem was so big, so massive, that it's not his fault that he wasn't able to fix things.

But that's what he's supposed to do, right? He's supposed to be fixing these things. But instead he's making excuses for why he can't fix things while pursuing an agenda that at best doesn't help us and at worse hurts us quite a bit.

Quote:
How rich, Bush ramping up spending 400 billion is moderate, Obama adding 200Billion is out of control...you are a funny guy Gbaji ill give you that.


How rich that you are repeating the exact flawed calculation that I thoroughly debunked in the first page of this thread. Maybe you should read through it again?

Do you even understand that the big spending is still yet to come? Obamacare will come into effect next year. We will see spending significantly increase from that. We're in bad shape right now. We haven't recovered as we should have. So lets' just spend more money? He's spent the last 4 years spending money to buy votes so he could get another 4 years. Now what? Keep making excuses for 4 years and then hand over a complete disaster to whomever takes over after he leaves?

We should be fully recovered right now. We're not even remotely close. And that's absolutely Obama's fault. And now the spending that he deliberately pushed out to after the 1012 election is going to come due (along with all the other stuff pushed to after the election). It's going to get really really ugly.

Edited, Dec 14th 2012 1:50pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 68 All times are in CDT