Spending binge?

[Iowa Auto Guy]

Originally Posted by Miwingman

They state an assumption in the article that a President's first budget year is the second year of their first term because the first year budget is passed by their predecessor.

I'm not sure how they can use 2009 as the base year when the President passed significant spending in that year. The stimulus act $787 billion, additional spending bill for 2009 of $410 billion, and the cost of auto bailout which was about $65 billion in 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...54411920090311

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/20/t...lion-with-a-b/

The article's methods ignore all if this spending. I would like to see Obama's spending increases with a base year of 2008 or 2009 less all of this additional spending.

1. Passing "spending" is not necessarilly spending.
2. Passing spending relative to others is not necessarilly high spending.
3. It was calculating increase in spending, which would of course be lower for obama is bush was very high in the last years, which he was.
4. None of the big bills had all their payouts loaded into the first year.

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by Ian in Ohio

Thank you for clarifying. I really had no idea why you groaned me.

And considering my experience with Lance I don't think it is harsh, but if you want to get involved I'm open to talking about it.

Although, I am sure that a mod will tell us to stop once we start.

I think my real mistake was answering Lance without answering to his snarky remarks.

If it was just directed at Lance, yes I can see a reflection of past experience. However, to say being open to learning is a rarity around here takes it from Lance and applies to everyone else. Everyone advises against ad hominim attacks, but sometimes they may be needed. For clarity anyway.

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by Iowa Auto Guy

Really guys?

We want to start up that thread again?

Hell to the no.

(Rhetorical, hopefully)

Everyone just stick to this thread please.

Thanks.

[Ian in Ohio]

If it was just directed at Lance, yes I can see a reflection of past experience. However, to say being open to learning is a rarity around here takes it from Lance and applies to everyone else. Everyone advises against ad hominim attacks, but sometimes they may be needed. For clarity anyway.

Oh, yeah. I see that. That miswording should not have been so general. Sorry.

[USMC-Fox]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-has-lowest-s/

Important caveat:

During the same time that spending is poised to be increasing by 1.4 percent per year under Obama, the debt will be increasing by 14.6 percent per year. The reason? Year by year, federal revenues haven’t been keeping up with spending, due to the struggling national economy (which has held back tax revenues) and a continuation of tax cuts. And each year there’s an annual deficit, the national debt grows.

This is why the "slash-and-burn" approach to taxation is killing our economy.

[Ian in Ohio]

Originally Posted by USMC-Fox

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-has-lowest-s/

Important caveat:

This is why the "slash-and-burn" approach to taxation is killing our economy.

It is ironic that the slow economy and low interest rates is actually good at keeping the deficits and the costs of our debt in check.

I posted this in another thread but this it is relevant here as well. I'm still learning on this issue, but is it possible that our borrowing is lower in part because of how cheap it is for the government to borrow money? Maybe I'm missing something.

NY Times - low cost borrowing benefits Fed

And related to that - it is interesting that Germany just lowered the rate to borrow money to below zero @ 0.7% and they have a line out the door of people wanting to give their money at that rate.

WTF is going on? Who is controlling the rates - the borrowing and what is the long term strategy?

[BubnTX]

Originally Posted by Ian in Ohio

It is ironic that the slow economy and low interest rates is actually good at keeping the deficits and the costs of our debt in check.

I posted this in another thread but this it is relevant here as well. I'm still learning on this issue, but is it possible that our borrowing is lower in part because of how cheap it is for the government to borrow money? Maybe I'm missing something.

NY Times - low cost borrowing benefits Fed

And related to that - it is interesting that Germany just lowered the rate to borrow money to below zero @ 0.7% and they have a line out the door of people wanting to give their money at that rate.

WTF is going on? Who is controlling the rates - the borrowing and what is the long term strategy?

I completly agree. THe low interest rates are screwing over those foreign interests in the amount of the debt that they own of us. Of course this also screws the general poplulation over wiht the investments that we all own in the nation as well. It would not suprise me that this may be one part of the reason why that China refuses to stop artifically depressing their own currency. A tit-for-tat.

[Ian in Ohio]

Or maybe it's the other way around; China won't stop artificially depressing its currency, so we've done the only legal thing we can - shrink our economy. We buy less and owe less.

But that would take a global ruling class, wouldn't it?

As long as the financial markets are protected then all's good.

[BubnTX]

Originally Posted by Ian in Ohio

Or maybe it's the other way around; China won't stop artificially depressing its currency, so we've done the only legal thing we can - shrink our economy. We buy less and owe less.

But that would take a global ruling class, wouldn't it?

As long as the financial markets are protected then all's good.

I have no doubt that there is a global ruling class calling the shots. Just look at how they have used the media to convince enough people to blame the downfall of the economy of the exact people who had no power to effect the economy in the first place.

[Iowa Auto Guy]

Originally Posted by BubnTX

I have no doubt that there is a global ruling class calling the shots. Just look at how they have used the media to convince enough people to blame the downfall of the economy of the exact people who had no power to effect the economy in the first place.

Actually i dont have the link anymore, but they have basically linked the vast majority of corporate holdings and wealth to like 500 people or something.

[Lance in Manassas]

Originally Posted by Ian in Ohio

Was that another of your rhetorical questions?

I'll answer anyway.

Absolutely -

I did not miss the point that it counters the lie that Obama is accused of causing the biggest growth in history.

I wanted to point out that '10 and '11 are in line with the standard growth indicated in previous years, - no change in growth of spending - and we can't know what Obama would have spent in '12 '13 because the GOP are such contrarians, that they could easily earn the credit for the stop in growth more so than Obama deserves to be relieved of the talking point that he is as bad as the GOP claims.

I read the article, but if you think I've missed something I'm open to learning.
I know. It seems a rarity around here.

Took me a while but I figured out what struck me as wrong about your point. You drew a straight line and said it looked like Obama was increasing the budget right on track with previous increases.

What is wrong with that is that a compounding percentage increase would have the line curving up, not straight. That is, if Obama had maintained the average of about 4% growth year after year, you'd see a distinct upcurve in the outyears. Since the line if flat, the percentage the increase represents is actually smaller.

If you have access to Excel or some other graphing tool just put a chart together where each year is 1.04 times as large as the last. You'll see the curve happens pretty fast.

[Ian in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Lance in Manassas

Took me a while but I figured out what struck me as wrong about your point. You drew a straight line and said it looked like Obama was increasing the budget right on track with previous increases.

What is wrong with that is that a compounding percentage increase would have the line curving up, not straight. That is, if Obama had maintained the average of about 4% growth year after year, you'd see a distinct upcurve in the outyears. Since the line if flat, the percentage the increase represents is actually smaller.

If you have access to Excel or some other graphing tool just put a chart together where each year is 1.04 times as large as the last. You'll see the curve happens pretty fast.

Awesome point. Thank you for clarifying because I just learned something. I'm not much on math and anything helps.

Here's a question you might be able to answer.
Why does the line look straight through all those years?

[BubbaMorse]

Originally Posted by USMC-Fox

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-has-lowest-s/

Important caveat:


This is why the "slash-and-burn" approach to taxation is killing our economy.

How about just SPEND less?

[USMC-Fox]

Originally Posted by BubbaMorse

How about just SPEND less?

You act as if it's so simple, and you can't possibly be so dense as to believe it is. When the economy took a nosedive, federal revenues plummeted. So much so that it would have been impossible to course-correct by just slashing spending by the same amount that revenues fell. If the reasons for this are not apparent and obvious to you, then you need to learn more.

[BubbaMorse]

Originally Posted by USMC-Fox

You act as if it's so simple, and you can't possibly be so dense as to believe it is. When the economy took a nosedive, federal revenues plummeted. So much so that it would have been impossible to course-correct by just slashing spending by the same amount that revenues fell. If the reasons for this are not apparent and obvious to you, then you need to learn more.

It's simpler than you think. I'm not talking in absolutes, but the reality is spending hasn't decreased at all in the past 10 years. It needs to...

[USMC-Fox]

Originally Posted by BubbaMorse

It's simpler than you think. I'm not talking in absolutes, but the reality is spending hasn't decreased at all in the past 10 years. It needs to...

Read the second link I posted again.

Here are the results using inflation-adjusted figures:

 

President
Fiscal year baseline
Last fiscal year
Average percentage increase per year
Johnson	 	 1964	 1969	 6.3
George W. Bush	 2001	 2009	 5.9
Kennedy	 	 1961	 1964	 4.7
Carter		 1977	 1981	 4.2
Nixon	 	 1969	 1975	 3.0
Reagan	 	 1981	 1989	 2.7
George H.W. Bush 1989	 1993	 1.8
Clinton	 	 1993	 2001	 1.5
Obama		 2009	 2013	 -0.1
Eisenhower	 1953	 1961	 -0.5

So, using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by BubbaMorse

It's simpler than you think. I'm not talking in absolutes, but the reality is spending hasn't decreased at all in the past 10 years. It needs to...

Maybe total 100% govt spending hasn't decreased, (thanks war, expensive healthcare, etc) but government workers are being thrown out of jobs all the time. Maybe we just need to get our priorities in order.

[Lance in Manassas]

Originally Posted by Ian in Ohio

Awesome point. Thank you for clarifying because I just learned something. I'm not much on math and anything helps.

Here's a question you might be able to answer.
Why does the line look straight through all those years?

Good question. Not enough years to show the curve, and clearly 07 and 08 are outliers. Not sure why, other than the new Democratic congress wasn't buying what 'W' was selling.

[Iowa Auto Guy]

Originally Posted by Ian in Ohio

Awesome point. Thank you for clarifying because I just learned something. I'm not much on math and anything helps.

Here's a question you might be able to answer.
Why does the line look straight through all those years?

Because it is charting increase and not actual dollars?

For example, if I chart a 10% yearly increase two different ways...

If I chart the amount of increase every year it stays constant:
Year 1 = 10%
Year 2 = 10%
Year 3 = 10%
Year 4 = 10%

However, if I chart the actial number, saying I start with 100:
Year 1 = 100
Year 2 = 110
Year 3 = 121
Year 4 = 133.1
Year 5 = 146.41

Now if I chart the amount of numerical increase it is different yet:
Year 1 = 0
Year 2 = 10
Year 3 = 11
Year 4 = 12.1
Year 5 = 13.31

You can see how representationally they would be different on a graph, especially if I alter the scale of my axis.

[Ian in Ohio]

Now I'm back to being confused.
Does the chart show compounding percentage increase, or just numerical increases.

To me, the chart seems to show about half a trillion in growth once every three years -
The starting point of 2 trillion in '02,
by pausing at '05 we see the first half trillion,
pausing at '08 we see the next half trillion,
pausing at '11 we see another half trillion.

And then the Tea Party came into power.
Spending growth decreased.

It would be nice to see a chart where the war spending is pulled out of this, and the budget increases could be shown that way.

If these numbers have validity, it is then true that Obama is not responsible for the greatest spending in a forever. But I don't think he deserves credit for the flat-line in recent years, unless you count ending the war in Iraq - which he claimed to want to end, but we were pretty much kicked out anyway, as I understand it.

So the Iraq war spending is no longer adding itself to the budget, which probably helps.