Republicans ready to raise taxes.Follow

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.

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

You get that most presidents also don't embark on massive spending increases in their first year in office, right?

Wait what?

How there was beer and no one told me?

Heh.

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

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.

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.

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.

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



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.

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.

No, I'm not.



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.




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.



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.



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.



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.



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