Open Side Menu Go to the Top

05-24-2012 , 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotton Hill
Where were all the fiscal conservatives when Bush was throwing money down the drain?

And where did all the anti-war, pro-civil liberty lefties go now that Obama is prez?

HOORAY POLITICAL PARTIES!
just want to say that there are plenty of pro civil liberties/anti-war lefties out there who are grossed out by Obama. What sucks is that a viable alternative does not exist and I suspect most still think the crappy Obama is still the lesser evil then Romney.
Obama Didn't Overspend
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Obama Didn't Overspend
05-24-2012 , 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kowboys4
Who is most spending controlled by then?
The rises and falls from one year to the next are largely controlled by the President, either due to requests of his Executive Dept agencies in President's Budget, legislation he has spearheaded, or other spending bills he signs. Of course, he can't veto everything, but the President clearly drives most of the spending agenda. Things that are hard-coded in due to legacy Presidents generally aren't the cause of much swings year to year.
05-24-2012 , 02:50 PM
the non-suzzer/phil/iron lefties itf are generally critical of obama re civil liberties, drones etc
05-24-2012 , 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotton Hill
Where were all the fiscal conservatives when Bush was throwing money down the drain?

And where did all the anti-war, pro-civil liberty lefties go now that Obama is prez?

HOORAY POLITICAL PARTIES!
I was and am pro-civil liberties. I was doubtful about the wars under both president. However in the end Bush's plan was great. I oppose crazy overspending under both. Since Obama is the greatest nut on this issue I oppose him more on this.
On the Arab spring issue, overall I think Obama has done a great job under very tricky circumstances. Bush's lack of credit for a good outcome in Iraq and the lack of credit given Obama for the current conditions in the Arab world should both be corrected by fair minded historians. On Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea, I think Obama's record has been poor but no worse then Bush II or Clinton. I am not sure he could have done better. But for all those who think I am a bad person bc I do not agree with them on all issue, KMLIAA.

Last edited by JohnWilkes; 05-24-2012 at 03:04 PM.
05-24-2012 , 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kowboys4
This is how keynesian economics works. The problem is he didn't spend enough. If he had spent as much as Reagan did than maybe the numbers wouldn't be so ugly right now.
If he would have spent as much???? You understand the difference between rates of change and absolute dollars, right?
05-24-2012 , 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctyri
The ARRA is a separate bill which he signed in Feb. The budget is another bill (Omnibus Appropriations Act) signed in March. I believe that they are separate and the second bill doesn't include the ARRA appropriations. But will check...

Edit: Here's the text of the budget bill he signed in March 2009. I don't think it includes ARRA. Let me know if you find something contrary.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1105/text
I was trying to figure this out too. I wonder if the stimulus is integrated into the budget. It obviously isn't implemented in one year, anyway.
05-24-2012 , 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurto
just want to say that there are plenty of pro civil liberties/anti-war lefties out there who are grossed out by Obama. What sucks is that a viable alternative does not exist and I suspect most still think the crappy Obama is still the lesser evil then Romney.
And this does not bode well for Obama. Obama haters are much more motivated this time around than Obama supporters. I've actually contemplated staying home myself for the first time since 1990 when I turned 18.
05-24-2012 , 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kowboys4
This is how keynesian economics works. The problem is he didn't spend enough. If he had spent as much as Reagan did than maybe the numbers wouldn't be so ugly right now.
It sort of tilts me when what has been going on for the past 12-ish years or so is called Keynesianism. I mean in general, not trying to attack you personally.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with Keynes' economic philosophy, there's always room for differences of opinion which lead to healthy debate, but what we're seeing and what we have seen is NOT what Keynes advocated.
05-24-2012 , 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashington
And this does not bode well for Obama. Obama haters are much more motivated this time around than Obama supporters. I've actually contemplated staying home myself for the first time since 1990 when I turned 18.
This doesn't matter for lots of the country b/c of the electoral system
05-24-2012 , 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Effen
This doesn't matter for lots of the country b/c of the electoral system
Not for the presidency, but it has a whole host of implications for Congressional races, not to mention state elections. Just look at 2010. Sheer motivation/determination of will/hatred of Obama swept what became the least-popular Congress in history into office.
05-24-2012 , 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kowboys4
Who is most spending controlled by then?
****tards
05-24-2012 , 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashington
I have no problem with people disagreeing with Keynes' economic philosophy, there's always room for differences of opinion which lead to healthy debate, but what we're seeing and what we have seen is NOT what Keynes advocated.
/agree

for all the flaws in Keynes ideas, what we have right now is drunken keynesian krugtard idiocy. i would give my left nut for some keynesian sensibility right now.
05-24-2012 , 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashington
Sheer motivation/determination of will/hatred of Obama swept what became the least-popular Congress in history into office.
That wasn't anti-war pro civil liberty hatred though, it was the wave of the tea-party mentality enforced by the deficit=spending fallacy.
05-24-2012 , 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashington
And this does not bode well for Obama. Obama haters are much more motivated this time around than Obama supporters. I've actually contemplated staying home myself for the first time since 1990 when I turned 18.
As someone who thinks Obama is largely a dissapointment, I personally still wouldn't stay home. Seeing what Republicans do in states like Arizona and Wisconsin, voting against them is still more important then sending any message to Obama.

I assume I'm not alone thinking this way.
05-24-2012 , 04:18 PM
Spending per day:

Clinton 4.1 Billion per day

Bush 6.8 Billion per day

Obama 9.7 Billion per day (and the big dollars of obamacare haven't even kicked in yet)

I think it is safe to say we have hit "full ******" spending levels.

lolobama isn't a big spender
05-24-2012 , 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
So, what would be the "fair" way to divide the 2009 budget between Bush and Obama. Serious question.

Edit: The chart in the OP already gives the stimulus to Obama.
$1.4 trillion of 2009 spending was authorized by Obama, not Bush, including the stimulus, the GM Bailout and the Omnibus Reconciliation Act.
05-24-2012 , 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kowboys4
This is how keynesian economics doesnt work.
FYP
05-24-2012 , 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by insidemanpoker
You realize every single time a president spends even .01% more than their predecessors they bear the burden of all the spending increases of the past? Obama is spending MORE than Bush. Bush was incredibly idiotic and irresponsible on spending (let's not get into the rest for the sake of this thread) so the idea that Obama is one upping that even just 1% (if these numbers are correct) is certainly not an argument that he is fiscally responsible. It means he is just 1% worse on spending than one of the worst presidents of all time.
You realize people make babies?

Quote:
In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).
05-24-2012 , 05:03 PM
Is the spending broken out by individual years? Might argue as much not to elect Dems to Congress as to elect Obama.
05-24-2012 , 05:28 PM
This is nice graph that shows the debt, spending and revenue. Obviously comparing Obamas spending to Bushes worst year is silly (OP's graph). The fact that he has still increased spending every year is troubling. Who cares who owns 2009, spending is still increasing and the gap between spending and revenue is huge, hence the steep line on the debt.

Government Debt Graphic (USAToday)
05-24-2012 , 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
Is the spending broken out by individual years? Might argue as much not to elect Dems to Congress as to elect Obama.
the problem is if you reelect Obama but House and Senate go GOP youve got gridlock. He is not a compromiser ala Clinton, and we cannot afford 4 years of status quo.
05-24-2012 , 05:30 PM
"In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars). "

Hell, it may drop to 9 k in 2009 dollars. Aint inflation wonderful?
05-24-2012 , 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleaz_Dog
This is nice graph that shows the debt, spending and revenue. Obviously comparing Obamas spending to Bushes worst year is silly (OP's graph). The fact that he has still increased spending every year is troubling. Who cares who owns 2009, spending is still increasing and the gap between spending and revenue is huge, hence the steep line on the debt.

Government Debt Graphic (USAToday)
It looks like this graph is saying Obama is increasing spending at a decreasing rate? Which still means he's increased spending.

Has any President in the modern era ever decreased spending over their term?
05-24-2012 , 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus
the problem is if you reelect Obama but House and Senate go GOP youve got gridlock. He is not a compromiser ala Clinton, and we cannot afford 4 years of status quo.
LOL we better be able to because we are getting it if Obama or Romney gets elected
05-24-2012 , 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus
the problem is if you reelect Obama but House and Senate go GOP youve got gridlock. He is not a compromiser ala Clinton, and we cannot afford 4 years of status quo.
He should learn to compromise more, like Boener and McConnell imo



























































Obama Didn't Overspend
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Obama Didn't Overspend

      
m