SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: The smallest government spender since Ike?, Forbes pop quiz< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 04 2013, 10:03 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Tried to post the damn link.

Screw it. It's Obama.

One more try.
http://tinyurl.com/c6b2acy

Yes! Thanks GBH!
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 15893
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 04 2013, 10:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Feb. 04 2013, 8:03 pm)
QUOTE
Tried to post the damn link.

Long link?  Try tinyurl or similar.

--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Online
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 3
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8204
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 04 2013, 11:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Well, now that doesn't fit, now does it?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 04 2013, 11:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I support the current GOP stance of fiscal responsibility!!!

My question to the GOP is why they tried to finance the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq with tax cuts?  And why weren't Tea Partyers mad about this back then?

So kudos to Obama and the Democrats -- but I still would like to see actual spending cuts -- not just a slowdown in spending growth.  And paying down some of the accumulated debt too.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3829
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 7:52 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Wailer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1756
Joined: Jun. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 10:02 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Feb. 05 2013, 5:52 am)
QUOTE

Why does it say "2009 stimulus reassigned to Obama" at the bottom. Does this mean they added in the stimulus money we often say should be attributed to Bush so his growth rate would look smaller? If so, I would rather see part of that money taken out and assigned to Bush. I appreciate the fact that the numbers would still likely show Obama in the same ball park as the others, but you can't have it both ways - take the money out when you want to show actual spending dollars and then put it back in when you want to show growth (or lack thereof). Perhaps they did this, just to make the numbers more comparable amongst the presidents without having to go back and decide how different values would be assigned to different president's begining and end of terms.

If this is not what is happening here, I stand proactively corrected.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6211
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 11:56 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Wailer @ Feb. 05 2013, 9:02 am)
QUOTE
Why does it say "2009 stimulus reassigned to Obama" at the bottom. Does this mean they added in the stimulus money we often say should be attributed to Bush so his growth rate would look smaller? If so, I would rather see part of that money taken out and assigned to Bush. I appreciate the fact that the numbers would still likely show Obama in the same ball park as the others, but you can't have it both ways - take the money out when you want to show actual spending dollars and then put it back in when you want to show growth (or lack thereof). Perhaps they did this, just to make the numbers more comparable amongst the presidents without having to go back and decide how different values would be assigned to different president's begining and end of terms.

If this is not what is happening here, I stand proactively corrected.

If you check this paragraph of the article:
QUOTE
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.


And the text of the article referenced at MarketWatch:
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05....-sailor
QUOTE
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

I think you'll quickly understand that what they are saying - and what that "2009 stimulus re-assigned to Obama" means - is that they are contending that, in their own personal calculations, the GOP consistently, and erroneously, at least IAW the contention of the article, assign responsibility for the last Bush fiscal year to Obama, stated pretty clearly here:
QUOTE
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6211
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Feb. 04 2013, 10:22 pm)
QUOTE
My question to the GOP is why they tried to finance the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq with tax cuts?  And why weren't Tea Partyers mad about this back then?
And that would be, primarily, because the GOP has no "fiscal responsibility" whatsoever - but you knew that, didn't you?


(Ben2World @ Feb. 04 2013, 10:22 pm)
QUOTE
So kudos to Obama and the Democrats -- but I still would like to see actual spending cuts -- not just a slowdown in spending growth.  And paying down some of the accumulated debt too.

But...but...but... and "BUTT".

Read here (Paul Krugman - "The Dwindling Deficit") to understand exactly why you're simply very, very screwy:
QUOTE
It’s hard to turn on your TV or read an editorial page these days without encountering someone declaring, with an air of great seriousness, that excessive spending and the resulting budget deficit is our biggest problem. Such declarations are rarely accompanied by any argument about why we should believe this; it’s supposed to be part of what everyone knows.

This is, however, a case in which what everyone knows just ain’t so. The budget deficit isn’t our biggest problem, by a long shot. Furthermore, it’s a problem that is already, to a large degree, solved. The medium-term budget outlook isn’t great, but it’s not terrible either — and the long-term outlook gets much more attention than it should.

It’s true that right now we have a large federal budget deficit. But that deficit is mainly the result of a depressed economy — and you’re actually supposed to run deficits in a depressed economy to help support overall demand. The deficit will come down as the economy recovers: Revenue will rise while some categories of spending, such as unemployment benefits, will fall. Indeed, that’s already happening. (And similar things are happening at the state and local levels — for example, California appears to be back in budget surplus.)
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Gabby @ Feb. 05 2013, 9:07 am)
QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Feb. 04 2013, 10:22 pm)
QUOTE
My question to the GOP is why they tried to finance the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq with tax cuts?  And why weren't Tea Partyers mad about this back then?
And that would be, primarily, because the GOP has no "fiscal responsibility" whatsoever - but you knew that, didn't you?

Gabby:

READ AGAIN!!!

The two you quoted above are meant to be read together -- to point out the hypocrisy of the GOP and its supporters -- along the lines of "do as I say but not as I do".  Get it finally?


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Gabby @ Feb. 05 2013, 9:07 am)
QUOTE
It’s true that right now we have a large federal budget deficit. But that deficit is mainly the result of a depressed economy — and you’re actually supposed to run deficits in a depressed economy to help support overall demand. The deficit will come down as the economy recovers: Revenue will rise while some categories of spending, such as unemployment benefits, will fall. Indeed, that’s already happening. (And similar things are happening at the state and local levels — for example, California appears to be back in budget surplus.)

Our problem isn't that we run an occasional deficit to help smooth out the troubles of a depressed economy.  Our problem, with very few exceptions, is that we run deficits in good times and bad!


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6211
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 12:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Again...

But, but, but - and "butt".

You are never clear because your mind is muddled.

If you're going to come out and say:
QUOTE
I support the current GOP stance of fiscal responsibility!!!

that certainly sounds like a "statement of belief". A not very surprising one, at least in the context of your other posts.

And, I noted above that you, as usual, always have a "but" after even the most reserved praise for anyone but the GOP. But I suspect, based only on observation of your posts here, that you're a very, very conservative type anyway. You simply wish the GOP would come round to your position on "foreign affairs" and "the military".

Let's see how long it takes them to change their spots...

You do remain a mite "muddled", at best.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Squaretop Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1296
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 07 2013, 3:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(HighGravity @ Feb. 05 2013, 6:52 am)
QUOTE

that's a bunch of horse hockeys.  No kidding.  If you believe that ...................

--------------
You can't buy time or memories.
"How'd I get involved".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 07 2013, 4:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Squaretop @ Feb. 07 2013, 12:49 pm)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Feb. 05 2013, 6:52 am)
QUOTE

that's a bunch of horse hockeys.  No kidding.  If you believe that ...................

So prove it?

Thanks in advance.

Here ya go!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 07 2013, 4:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Graphs can be interpreted all different ways.  Not saying it is one or the other, but just to illustrate:

Interpretation "A" - The GOP are the spendthrift -- and it is the Democratic Party that restores fiscal discipline -- as Clinton did after Reagan/Bush -- and again, with Obama cleaning up after Bush II.

Interpretation "B" - GOP leaders were the doers and heavy lifters -- both times followed by "do nothing" Democrats -- who merely coasted on the fruits of prior labor.

The truth, of course, is much more complicated than either "A" or "B" above.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 07 2013, 5:19 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

BUT, equivocating aside the "Annualized Growth of Federal Spending" WAS 1.4% for President Obama as the plot states. AND that percentage IS lower than any of the other Presidential terms as shown?

Or if that's disputed I linked to the source for all the historical numbers so some one have at it proving Forbes wrong.

"Interpretation" may be complex: the underlying math notsomuch.

"that's a bunch of horse hockeys." Is directly disputing that plot. Still waiting for the back up.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
SW Mtn backpacker Search for posts by this member.
Born to hike, forced to work ...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7085
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 07 2013, 7:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Squaretop @ Feb. 07 2013, 1:49 pm)
QUOTE

(HighGravity @ Feb. 05 2013, 6:52 am)
QUOTE

that's a bunch of horse hockeys.  No kidding.  If you believe that ...................

The graph is talking growth rate of govt spending.  

Realize the Democratic House didn't really do much 08-10 because they thought they had 2010 in the bag, waiting for Obama to come back after showing his Nobel peace prize to the world.  Should've got to work after the first photo session in Jan 09, IMO.


--------------
Usually Southwest and then some.

In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 07 2013, 9:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

It won't matter. Doubling the national debt is doubling the national debt. Unless your Reagan and you triple the national debt, and nobody notices.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
16 replies since Feb. 04 2013, 10:03 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply The smallest government spender since Ike?
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions