By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

WSJ - "Obama spending binge never happened"

but the guy is a democrat... are you saying the Tea Party lied to me?

Those Nobel-Prize winning economists on the Tea Party Express staff have assured me there is nothing hypocritical about they way they stayed DEAD SILENT on spending from 2001-2009, then immediately began railing about it after Obama took office.

It had nothing to do with there being a dem in the White House... it was all the result of a careful study conducted by said experts on fiscal policy that the US debt level just happened to exceed acceptable levels after Obama took office.

they would've complained if this happened under Bush too...

(heh)
 
michchamp said:
but the guy is a democrat... are you saying the Tea Party lied to me?

Those Nobel-Prize winning economists on the Tea Party Express staff have assured me there is nothing hypocritical about they way they stayed DEAD SILENT on spending from 2001-2009, then immediately began railing about it after Obama took office.

It had nothing to do with there being a dem in the White House... it was all the result of a careful study conducted by said experts on fiscal policy that the US debt level just happened to exceed acceptable levels after Obama took office.

they would've complained if this happened under Bush too...

(heh)
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are experts that were concerned with the Bush levels of spending, it's the people marching around with signs that I question the motives of. Is there a term for that? ...the token guy with a legit beef that everyone else rallies around when it's convenient?
 
I mean he increased spending by 0.4% annually over 4 years. That's basically keeping spending exactly the same and is a much better record than any President in a generation. I'd love to see this become a national topic for discussion, but I imagine the myth of Obama as a big spender is too ingrained in the Conservative psyche to be dislodged, but maybe swing voters can actually look at simple numbers and see what actually happened.
 
Increasing spending 1.4% over a massive supposedly one off trillion dollar stimulus is not exactly fiscal restraint.

But the real problem isn't Bush or Obama but taxpayers at all levels who want to pay increasing lower and lower taxes, making every possible government service hamstrung for future generations.
 
johnny2x2x said:
I mean he increased spending by 0.4% annually over 4 years. That's basically keeping spending exactly the same and is a much better record than any President in a generation. I'd love to see this become a national topic for discussion, but I imagine the myth of Obama as a big spender is too ingrained in the Conservative psyche to be dislodged, but maybe swing voters can actually look at simple numbers and see what actually happened.
Click to expand...


Well, don't make too much out of this, the bailouts started under Bush, so maintaining that spending level isn't that great of an accomplishment. I think staying in bailout mode was the right thing to do for the time, but this stat is taking advantage of the huge spike in spending at the end of Bush's 2nd term. Go back to that article and hold a ruler up to the screen. Line the ruler up to fit the trend from 02-07. There's no miracle here. 02-07 were not years of austerity and the spending chart easily looks like a continuation of 02-07 growth + bailout spending which started strong and then rolled off.

Tate Forcier was a hero following Nick Sheridan.

800px-Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png
 
cheeno said:
Increasing spending 1.4% over a massive supposedly one off trillion dollar stimulus is not exactly fiscal restraint.

But the real problem isn't Bush or Obama but taxpayers at all levels who want to pay increasing lower and lower taxes, making every possible government service hamstrung for future generations.
Click to expand...

the Obama stimulus wasn't one trillion dollars, and a significant portion of it was in the form of tax cuts, which do nothing, but make a lot of people who don't actually know shit about economics happy.

economists like Krugman argued all along the stimulus had to be larger and in the form of actual spending in order to be effective. SO... when the President - as a form of compromise with House & Senate Republicans - agrees to a watered down bill that doesn't really achieve much, who is really to blame? seems a little ridiculous to allow the GOP to sandbag the bill, then blame the president for failing to do anything.
 
cheeno said:
Increasing spending 1.4% over a massive supposedly one off trillion dollar stimulus is not exactly fiscal restraint.

But the real problem isn't Bush or Obama but taxpayers at all levels who want to pay increasing lower and lower taxes, making every possible government service hamstrung for future generations.
Click to expand...

Exactly. "supposedly one off"
 
Red, your chart is based on %'s. Of course, you have to take into account the fact that the economy tanked (GDP fell) at the end of Bush's 2nd term amidst one of the biggest financial scandals and busts in history. SO... yes, expenses, esp. the bailout, rose as a % of GDP in 2008-2009...
 
michchamp said:
the Obama stimulus wasn't one trillion dollars, and a significant portion of it was in the form of tax cuts, which do nothing, but make a lot of people who don't actually know shit about economics happy.

economists like Krugman argued all along the stimulus had to be larger and in the form of actual spending in order to be effective. SO... when the President - as a form of compromise with House & Senate Republicans - agrees to a watered down bill that doesn't really achieve much, who is really to blame? seems a little ridiculous to allow the GOP to sandbag the bill, then blame the president for failing to do anything.
Click to expand...

You want to complain that the GOP prevented Obama from spending as much as he wanted while johnny is celebrating his fiscal restraint...seems like you could have raised your point in contradiction to the OP.
 
michchamp said:
Red, your chart is based on %'s. Of course, you have to take into account the fact that the economy tanked (GDP fell) at the end of Bush's 2nd term amidst one of the biggest financial scandals and busts in history. SO... yes, expenses, esp. the bailout, rose as a % of GDP in 2008-2009...
Click to expand...


Yeah, I think that's worth considering. You don't need to look at it that way for my point to hold, but spending as a % of GDP is a better way to look at it in my opinion...if you want to compare Obama to Regan. You can still hold a ruler up to the OP's plot like I suggested if you disagree.
 
redandguilty said:
You want to complain that the GOP prevented Obama from spending as much as he wanted while johnny is celebrating his fiscal restraint...seems like you could have raised your point in contradiction to the OP.
Click to expand...

....but you stayed "DEAD SILENT" when you liked the point he was making.

edit: too aggressive? Am I being an ass? I'm just playing, MC.
 
Last edited:
The fact is that budgets aren't independent of each other, Obama inherited a $3.52 Trillion budget, that's the annual number he had to work from for 2009 and into 2010 (his 1st fiscal year), that's the starting point. He has kept overall spending almost completely static for 3 years, that's a fact.
 
redandguilty said:
You want to complain that the GOP prevented Obama from spending as much as he wanted while johnny is celebrating his fiscal restraint...seems like you could have raised your point in contradiction to the OP.
Click to expand...

not at all. I agree with the initial point in the article: that the GOP criticism has been baseless. I disagree with Johnny's glorification of fiscal restraint to some extent. it's bad policy in a down economy. but like I said, I thought this was more due to pressure from the GOP than anything else. although Obama himself has said he wants to cut SS and other entitlement programs more... I think all of that is generally a bad idea.

now... if he did spend a lot in the stimulus, well... the unemployment would be lower, GDP higher, and the deficit much smaller in relation to GDP... and the retards would have to find some other thing to attack him over.

or maybe not. I mean, $15 trillion or whatever... that's a big number. Way higher than they can count. So, it must be bad period.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
johnny2x2x said:
The fact is that budgets aren't independent of each other, Obama inherited a $3.52 Trillion budget, that's the annual number he had to work from for 2009 and into 2010 (his 1st fiscal year), that's the starting point. He has kept overall spending almost completely static for 3 years, that's a fact.
Click to expand...

I get all that. I just think it's too much to describe our current gov as showing fiscal restraint. We've been in a situation where we've needed to spend a lot, and we've been spending a lot. Obama inherited exceptional circumstances. To act like that is the norm you should judge him from is a little like calling current tax levels the norm and claiming that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is the same thing as raising taxes.
 
I cite the article mainly to dispel the myth that Obama spent like a drunken sailor. He obviously didn't and the numbers bear that out. Now should the stimulus have been bigger? Most economist would say yes, but I doubt they could have gotten one through that was even moderately larger and in this case they were thinking something is better than nothing.

They did what they could. It's the same with Healthcare, when I hear those on the left complaining about the Health Care Reform that got passed and that it's basically a Republican plan, I ask them, do you remember the vote on it? That thing passed by the skin of its teeth, they had to stay late and were dealing to the last minute. It was a pretty conservative bill, but it was better than nothing and just one more sentence in that bill could have prevented it from passing.

You pass what you can.
 
Last edited:
And if Romney is elected, his economic policy will substantially increase the debt far beyond where Obama's policy will.

Of course Obama didn't get the country into the mess he inherited, nor is it reasonable to think things would change overnight (or revert back to the "good old days" when you could deregulate, borrow and spend and enrich your corporate buddies).

Spending is spending. Whether it's giving billions to Halliburton and Lockheed Martin or R&D for alternative energy.
 
Last edited:
michchamp said:
why? it's in the WSJ, owned by NewsCorp, the same company that owns your official source of opinions on everything: Fox News. So you can trust them.
Click to expand...
I'll keep this short...

Obama authorized $1.1 Trillion dollars of extra spending during fiscal 2009. Nancy Pelosi was the 1st to put all the 2009 spending on Bush( I suspect this clown just dusted off her charts). The Fact is Bush didnt even sign the 2009 budget. Bush, upon Obama's request, turned over around $250 of discretionary spending under TARP to Obama so he could spend on anything he wanted. Obama also authorized $40 B on S chip, $140 B on Stimulus II, $800 B on Stimulus I all during fiscal 2009.

All this spending by Obama increased the base line for his future budgets....the fact is 2009 should have been a one time spending blitz......why 2010, 2011 budgets have to be so high since Tarp was already spent(some paid back) and stimulus has been exhausted??

Obama the most fiscal president since Eisenhower?? LOL...sure a fiscal president who racks up almost $6 Trillion in debt in his first 4 years......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
32,912
Messages
1,109,239
Members
942
Latest member
Proud Pheasant

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top