Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

[Bfgrn]

.

Reminds me of the "global warming" debate.

Can't even agree on the raw data.

.

Yea, we must ignore raw data, instead let's go with sheer emotions like hate, fear and dogma.

Obama is a Democrat, so he MUST be an out of control spender. And Reagan and Bush were Republicans, so they MUST be fiscally responsible. RIGHT?

WHERE was all this angst about debt when Reagan and GW were in office? Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic.

Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!


Those 2 presidents are the ones who created most of our debt. But they are not at fault?

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is an often repeated misunderstanding on these boards. That is false. The UE rate is completely independent of unemployment collections. It is surveyed. Right from the horse’s mouth:

How the Government Measures Unemployment


How the rate is actually calculated:



The pool used:



Clearly, the UE rate has nothing to do with unemployment payments.

What are you on?

What happens when they stop collecting UE? They get jobs, get on disability, or quit looking. What is happening when they are collecting UE? they are counted in the UE rate. Are they counted in the UE Rate yes or no? Yes. What does it matter it they count on a survey of a random 60k or use the actual numbers? NOTHING

I am on reality RMK, try it.

Those are two COMPLETELY different claims. IF you want to make the case that UE raises the unemployment rate by incentivizing staying unemployed then, yes, that is correct. That is not what you stated though. You stated this:

‘When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate.’

Which is unequivocally false. If your unemployment runs out and you are still unemployed you STOP getting unemployment but you are STILL counted as unemployed in the UE rate. That is why your statement is completely false.

There is an argument that UE insurance causes higher unemployment and that is true BUT that does not mean that the unemployment rate takes UE into consideration or stops counting you as unemployed if you cease collecting benefits (the very definition of coming off unemployment).

So, got any more condescending tone because you got something incorrect?

You are incorrect. U-3, the most widely used rate is calculated by taking the number of people collecting Unemployment payments vs the number of people employed in full time jobs.
People who are out of work and do not collect or have their benefits exhausted, are no longer counted as unemployed. This is to skew downward the number of actual unemployed.
The more realistic and accurate table for measuring the plight of the unemployed is U-6.
This percentage is the number of unemployed, collecting or not, number of people eligible to work. I believe it also includes those who are 'underemployed'.
U-6 is about 14% right now.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Pretty much every post in this thread you've claimed that "unemployed" are paid to remain unemployed and that the government no longer counts them. Note that the question is what the government classifies as unemployed and you certainly seem to be saying they only count those receiving benefits. If you're not claiming that, then you'll have to explain why those no longer receiving benefits are no longer counted even if they're still looking.

A simple Google search would answer your question. The government does sampling, but they only count people who say they are actively looking for work. However, they do not count underemployed or people who want a job and have given up.

So you're correct they don't automatically stop counting you once you're on unemployment, but you're wrong if you think that the unemployment rate doesn't dramatically under count the unemployed.

I used to work at BLS and taught methodology regularly. I know what's done, I was questioning what's his name's bizarre claims.

And the rate does not undercount. Unemployed in the economic sense has always meant trying to work. Those not looking are not competing for jobs and so have no effect on the job market.

Ok..Explain the difference between U-3 and U-6 tables.
And if what you claim is correct, then why does the BLS require SIX rate tables?
If U-3 is THE most accurate rate, then why bother having these other tables?
I think U-3 is no longer just a statistic. It is now a political tool for whomever occupies the Oval Office.
U-3 is a fake number. It does not count ALL those eligible to work.
U-3 excludes those who've given up looking or have had their benefits expire.
Essentially U-3 says to the above people, "you no longer exist".
The BLS pulls all kinds of tricks to skew lower the unemployment rate.
One of those tricks is to reduce the number of actual "jobs" available.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

What if Obama spent like Reagan?

If I were in kindergarten, bfgrn, I'd ask to be assaulted with meaningless infographics and other minutia. It's simple math. Bush spent $5.2 trillion in 8 years, Obama has spent $6.4 in 5 years. Obama is set to spend double that of what Bush did when he leaves office. Liberals like you have no deductive reasoning skills whatsoever.

Translation: This is adult shit, way too complicated for the the simple right wing mind. You should be in kindergarten. That's a perfect place for simple minds.

Keep it up...So what's the source?
You don;t get to come on here and post charts and graphs and then expect everyone to buy them as though they were the gospel.
Next time, post the link and we will look for ourselves.
In the absence of links your charts are bullshit lib propaganda.

 

[Vox]

Those 2 presidents are the ones who created most of our debt. But they are not at fault?

NO, they did not.

The data do not support your libtard slogan

 

[Bfgrn]

If I were in kindergarten, bfgrn, I'd ask to be assaulted with meaningless infographics and other minutia. It's simple math. Bush spent $5.2 trillion in 8 years, Obama has spent $6.4 in 5 years. Obama is set to spend double that of what Bush did when he leaves office. Liberals like you have no deductive reasoning skills whatsoever.

Translation: This is adult shit, way too complicated for the the simple right wing mind. You should be in kindergarten. That's a perfect place for simple minds.

Keep it up...So what's the source?
You don;t get to come on here and post charts and graphs and then expect everyone to buy them as though they were the gospel.
Next time, post the link and we will look for ourselves.
In the absence of links your charts are bullshit lib propaganda.

How's THIS? More 'lib propaganda'?

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

 

[Vox]

Federal Spending Grew Nearly 12 Times Faster than Median Income

THE ACTUAL DATA do not support the libtard slogan "blame Bush and Reagan" for the spending!

 

[Vox]

 

[Vox]

The JUMP in spending is exactly with the start of Obama reign - from 2009.

Failed stimulus is the one to blame the most

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am being serious...are you old enough to understand how the world works? Do you understand automatic outlays that have nothing to do with Obama or any of his policies? Do you understand that if Obama did NOTHING our debt would increase?? Do you understand when an economy goes into a deep recession, revenues lag way behind outlays? Do you understand that when you add 2 wars that were off the books for 8 years into the budget, it will be reflected in our debt???

But you want to pile everything Obama walked into on his shoulders.

Ignorance is bliss...

Thus falls your argument. When a man claims to be serious in the midst of ad hominem and vitriol, he is not. This only reveals his own ignorance of the matter. Obama has the power to stop the spending, yet he continues to let it go on unabated. So therefore he is just as responsible for the out of control spending as Bush is. What Bush didn't do was spend more than Obama. Fact. You don't like the fact that Obama isn't flawless. Fact. You hate when someone rightly criticizes him. Fact.

Ignorance is indeed bliss, for you. You'd rather not see the man you voted for crash and burn the way he has.

Get your head out of your posterior, welcome to the real world, bfgrn.

I am not a big fan of Obama...now what?

And you are dead wrong, NO President has the power to just 'stop the spending'. You clearly DON'T understand automatic outlays. And now your ignorance of how the world works is confirmed.

In the area of discretionary spending, there are no such thing as "automatic outlays"....
The problems associated with federal spending have several layers.
One of the most insidious issues is 'baseline budgeting'...this practice ensures that all federal departments receive annual budget increases regardless of previous year's expenditures or the rate of inflation. When it is suggested that the next annual increase should be reduced, democrats label that as a "cut"....That plays well in the media to those on the public dole.
All budget proposals originate with the Executive Branch. By Feb 1 of each year except where a new President has been Inaugurated, the President must submit a budget request to the Congress.
Policy Basics: Introduction to the Federal Budget Process ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Bfgrn]

Federal Spending Grew Nearly 12 Times Faster than Median Income

THE ACTUAL DATA do not support the libtard slogan "blame Bush and Reagan" for the spending!

HELLO? Do you understand 'tax and spend'? Democrats PAID for what they spent with TAXES. JFK and LBJ were faced with the possibility of SURPLUSES.

See if you can figure out when that changed?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am being serious...are you old enough to understand how the world works? Do you understand automatic outlays that have nothing to do with Obama or any of his policies? Do you understand that if Obama did NOTHING our debt would increase?? Do you understand when an economy goes into a deep recession, revenues lag way behind outlays? Do you understand that when you add 2 wars that were off the books for 8 years into the budget, it will be reflected in our debt???

But you want to pile everything Obama walked into on his shoulders.

Ignorance is bliss...

Thus falls your argument. When a man claims to be serious in the midst of ad hominem and vitriol, he is not. This only reveals his own ignorance of the matter. Obama has the power to stop the spending, yet he continues to let it go on unabated. So therefore he is just as responsible for the out of control spending as Bush is. What Bush didn't do was spend more than Obama. Fact. You don't like the fact that Obama isn't flawless. Fact. You hate when someone rightly criticizes him. Fact.

Ignorance is indeed bliss, for you. You'd rather not see the man you voted for crash and burn the way he has.

Get your head out of your posterior, welcome to the real world, bfgrn.

I am not a big fan of Obama...now what?

And you are dead wrong, NO President has the power to just 'stop the spending'. You clearly DON'T understand automatic outlays. And now your ignorance of how the world works is confirmed.

"I am not a big fan of Obama."
You aren't?
Then why is your support of all things Obama almost in virtual lockstep?
Look, don't be a afraid to tell people what you are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

.

Reminds me of the "global warming" debate.

Can't even agree on the raw data.

.

For the same reasons too, Liberals lie and distort the data

 

[Oldstyle]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Why would you use graphs that end in 2011 to show what President Obama has or hasn't spent? Did 2012 and now 2013 not happen? Or do you not want to show the true extent of the spending that's been done under this President?

I wonder what Moynihan would say about your obvious manipulation of "the facts"?

Then here is what you do...provide what programs and policies Obama has spent money on. Because if you are going to put them on one man, you must be able to give us that information.

I'll do that if you provide what programs and policies Reagan, Clinton and W. spent money on. YOU are the one who used this graph to show what an out of control spender Reagan was but Reagan was working with Tip O'Neil's Congress, having to cut deals to get his agenda passed. Why is it THAT spending is all Reagan's fault but suddenly NOW Barry's not responsible for any of the spending that's going on? You progressives are still trying to blame W. for what's being spent FIVE YEARS after he left office and Barack Obama came in with huge majorities in the House and Senate.

The reason that you used a graph that stops in 2010 is that if you used one that continued on until now...it would make Obama look bad.

 

[Oldstyle]

By the way...I've gone over these numbers before and they're misleading because they assign the cost of Bush's TARP bailouts to his Presidency and assign the repayment of those TARP loans to the Obama Presidency...an accounting "sleight of hand". They also assign any TARP monies spent by Obama but approved by Bush to Bush. It's a total misrepresentation of what actually occurred.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That’s not true either. They count all those. The media usually not utilize those numbers because they use the U3 rate – something that the government does as well – but BLS actually takes several different levels into account. I know that you know this though so I don’t know why you left that out.

It is not a matter of them not counting those individuals; it is a matter of politicians using the numbers that suit them the most at that particular moment. Obama will use U3 whereas republicans blasting him will commonly bring out the U6 numbers.

What it all boils down to is what numbers are convenient to whom. The U6 is inconvenient for both, for which I mean the establishment in both parties.

What's inconvenient about the U6 is that it is very subjective (therefore bigger margin of error) and it only goes back to 1994 and so can't be compared to any earlier time period. And it Isn't a measure of unemployment since it includes people who have jobs.

Subjective in what manner? Give examples..
Define "working"...

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am not a big fan of Obama...now what?

And you are dead wrong, NO President has the power to just 'stop the spending'. You clearly DON'T understand automatic outlays. And now your ignorance of how the world works is confirmed.

Nope, you are the one who is wrong. When a president signs a budget bill he has the ability to stop or reduce spending in accordance with the provisions of the bill.

That is exactly why no house-passed budget bill has been allowed to reach the floor of the senate by Reid. the dems and obama are afraid that one might pass and then obozo would have to either sign it or veto it and admit that he does not give a shit about deficit spending and our ever increasing national debt.

One of obama's primary goals was to destroy the US economy, and he has almost accomplished that.

Econ 101 shit for shit for brains right wing turds...

Definition of Mandatory Spending

What is "mandatory spending"? What is the definition of the term "mandatory spending"?

"Mandatory spending" is government expenditures that are "automatically obligated by virtue of previously-enacted laws".

This compares to "discretionary spending", which is spending that is set on a yearly basis by Congress.

Some examples of "mandatory spending" expenditures in the United States are:

-Social Security
-Medicare
-Interest on National Debt
-Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program

"Mandatory spending" makes up the majority of US government expenditures.



Government Expenditure Theories - Automatic Spending vs Discretionary Spending - Who is really in control of spending?

Automatic expenditure (not surprisingly!) is expenditure that happens automatically. In other words, the government doesn't have exact control over the level of this type of expenditure. The most obvious example of this is spending on benefits. The government sets regulations for who is entitled to benefits, and it sets the level of the benefits. However, the one thing that it cannot dictate is the number of people who may then be entitled to them as this will often depend on the state of the economy. As the economy goes into recession and people lose their jobs, more people will be entitled to benefits. This will mean government expenditure will rise - not because the government chose to spend more, but simply because of the state of the economy. This spending is therefore automatic spending.

Discretionary spending is, by contrast, spending the government chooses to make. In a time of recession, it may choose to spend more to try to boost the level of aggregate demand and therefore equilibrium output. At other times, it may choose to lower the level of expenditure to avoid 'crowding out' private sector spending. Either way, it is operating a discretionary fiscal policy.

Here's the deal...Laws which are no longer practical or have worn out their usefulness can be changed.
Therefore, non discretionary spending does not exist in perpetuity.
On additional spending to "boost demand"..That has never worked. IN fact it has always made things worse.
Increases in federal spending is tantamount to the federal government manipulating the marketplace. And it feeds on itself.
When the economy slows, lower revenues to government follows. When the federal government borrows more to pump money into the economy in the form of spending, the creation of deficit is compounded.
It's the wrong path, yet politicians insist on practicing the insane idea of repeating what does not work with the expectation of a different result.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thus falls your argument. When a man claims to be serious in the midst of ad hominem and vitriol, he is not. This only reveals his own ignorance of the matter. Obama has the power to stop the spending, yet he continues to let it go on unabated. So therefore he is just as responsible for the out of control spending as Bush is. What Bush didn't do was spend more than Obama. Fact. You don't like the fact that Obama isn't flawless. Fact. You hate when someone rightly criticizes him. Fact.

Ignorance is indeed bliss, for you. You'd rather not see the man you voted for crash and burn the way he has.

Get your head out of your posterior, welcome to the real world, bfgrn.

I am not a big fan of Obama...now what?

And you are dead wrong, NO President has the power to just 'stop the spending'. You clearly DON'T understand automatic outlays. And now your ignorance of how the world works is confirmed.

"I am not a big fan of Obama."
You aren't?
Then why is your support of all things Obama almost in virtual lockstep?
Look, don't be a afraid to tell people what you are.

I am a Kennedy liberal, a huge JFK fan. If the Kennedy boys were alive today, Obama would have spent a weekend at Hyannis Port and left with his tail between his legs and orders to read Profiles in Courage.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Translation: This is adult shit, way too complicated for the the simple right wing mind. You should be in kindergarten. That's a perfect place for simple minds.

Keep it up...So what's the source?
You don;t get to come on here and post charts and graphs and then expect everyone to buy them as though they were the gospel.
Next time, post the link and we will look for ourselves.
In the absence of links your charts are bullshit lib propaganda.

How's THIS? More 'lib propaganda'?

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

Please....The term philosopher went out the window with Socrates.
This Rothbard person is whom?
You're going to tell me he has no political bias? No skin in the game?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am not a big fan of Obama...now what?

And you are dead wrong, NO President has the power to just 'stop the spending'. You clearly DON'T understand automatic outlays. And now your ignorance of how the world works is confirmed.

"I am not a big fan of Obama."
You aren't?
Then why is your support of all things Obama almost in virtual lockstep?
Look, don't be a afraid to tell people what you are.

I am a Kennedy liberal, a huge JFK fan. If the Kennedy boys were alive today, Obama would have spent a weekend at Hyannis Port and left with his tail between his legs and orders to read Profiles in Courage.

Whoops! So why are you defending Obama now? Saying he isn't a big spender for one in the face of facts to the contrary, posting obscure charts and links to back up your claim for two, and you say you aren't an Obama fan?