Republicans lie about "explosion of spending" under Obama

[Quantum Windbag]

If Obama had not signed that bill [ARRA] the deficit for 2009 would have been just over $500 billion even with the drop in revenue.

"The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019," issued in January 2009 before Obama's inauguration:

• CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package [ARRA] would add to that deficit.

I forgot who I was talking to. You are trying to argue that the the CBO projection was accurate. The actual deficit for 2009 was $1.4 trillion after the ARRA was enacted. That means that one of two things happened, the CBO was wrong about the projected deficit, or a bill that cost over $800 billion added less than $200 billion to the deficit.

The choice is yours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If Obama had not signed that bill [ARRA] the deficit for 2009 would have been just over $500 billion even with the drop in revenue.

"The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019," issued in January 2009 before Obama's inauguration:

• CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package [ARRA] would add to that deficit.

I forgot who I was talking to. You are trying to argue that the the CBO projection was accurate. The actual deficit for 2009 was $1.4 trillion after the ARRA was enacted. That means that one of tow things happened, the CBO was wrong about the projected deficit, or a bill that cost over $800 billion added less than $200 billion to the deficit.

The choice is yours.

He'll get back to you after David Plouffe tell him how to respond

 

[Greenbeard]

I forgot who I was talking to. You are trying to argue that the the CBO projection was accurate. The actual deficit for 2009 was $1.4 trillion after the ARRA was enacted. That means that one of two things happened, the CBO was wrong about the projected deficit, or a bill that cost over $800 billion added less than $200 billion to the deficit.

What're the odds of it being near $200 billion in 2009? Oh, right--very good. Two sides of the deficit:

Spending:

In February 2009, CBO issued its estimate of spending from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)—commonly referred to as the stimulus package. At that time, CBO expected that federal agencies would spend about $120 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009. [...] Setting aside those payments, the estimate of roughly $106 billion in outlays proved to be quite accurate: At the close of fiscal year 2009, agencies reported spending a little under $108 billion in ARRA funds—about 1 percent higher than CBO’s initial estimate (see the table below). In a few cases, agencies that received stimulus funds for certain programs spent less than CBO expected from their regular appropriations for those programs, so the net change in outlays that can be attributed to the

Reduced revenues:

ARRA also included provisions that reduced taxes, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the legislation would reduce federal revenues by about $65 billion in 2009. Adjusting for the reclassification of payments for health insurance premiums, that total would be $79 billion. It is not possible to determine how closely the 2009 revenue effects of ARRA were to the initial estimates because detailed data on 2009 tax collections are not yet available.

Now comes the addition.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I forgot who I was talking to. You are trying to argue that the the CBO projection was accurate. The actual deficit for 2009 was $1.4 trillion after the ARRA was enacted. That means that one of two things happened, the CBO was wrong about the projected deficit, or a bill that cost over $800 billion added less than $200 billion to the deficit.

What're the odds of it being near $200 billion in 2009? Oh, right--very good. Two sides of the deficit:

Spending:

In February 2009, CBO issued its estimate of spending from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)—commonly referred to as the stimulus package. At that time, CBO expected that federal agencies would spend about $120 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009. [...] Setting aside those payments, the estimate of roughly $106 billion in outlays proved to be quite accurate: At the close of fiscal year 2009, agencies reported spending a little under $108 billion in ARRA funds—about 1 percent higher than CBO’s initial estimate (see the table below). In a few cases, agencies that received stimulus funds for certain programs spent less than CBO expected from their regular appropriations for those programs, so the net change in outlays that can be attributed to the

Reduced revenues:

ARRA also included provisions that reduced taxes, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the legislation would reduce federal revenues by about $65 billion in 2009. Adjusting for the reclassification of payments for health insurance premiums, that total would be $79 billion. It is not possible to determine how closely the 2009 revenue effects of ARRA were to the initial estimates because detailed data on 2009 tax collections are not yet available.

Now comes the addition.

The addition of what? Your fantasies? If you read your link you will see that the CBO explains why the math does not add up.

CBO’s original estimate of outlays for the Department of Labor included $13.8 billion for payments of health insurance premiums for unemployed workers under COBRA (the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985). Those payments ended up being classified as reductions in revenues as opposed to outlays (as CBO initially expected). The numbers shown in the table for the Department of Labor reflect an adjustment for that change in classification.

Accounting gimmicks reclassifying spending as revenue reductions, imagine that. My guess si that, because those revenue reductions were not part of the ARRA, they were not counted against it.

 

[Greenbeard]

The addition of what?

Net increase in spending + |net reduction in revenues|. You know, the deficit impact of the ARRA.

Why is this difficult?

If you read your link you will see that the CBO explains why the math does not add up.[...]

Accounting gimmicks reclassifying spending as revenue reductions, imagine that. My guess si that, because those revenue reductions were not part of the ARRA, they were not counted against it.

Oy. I see the reading comprehension hasn't improved. What you quoted says that instead of counting ~$14 billion in COBRA money as spending, it's instead being counted as a reduction in revenues (meaning revenue lost goes up from $65 billion to $79 billion).

It doesn't matter which one it's classified as because, again, we're adding the two together anyway to get the net effect on the deficit. Which by the end of FY09 was south of $200 billion. Which is completely in line with everything posted above.

 

[ilia25]

Since you obviously do not have a dictionary here is the definition of deficit spending.

Government spending, in excess of revenue, of funds raised by borrowing rather than from taxation.

Look at that, spending in excess of revenue.

That, my dictionary wielding friend, is the definition of "deficit". Those who call it "deficit spending" do it in order to create an impression that the deficit was caused by excessive spending, not by falling revenue. Which is a lie.

Isn't it funny how, even without additional stimulus packages to inflate the deficit, we still are running $1 trillion dollar deficits?

You know, that's a mighty good question -- if the stimulus package of 2009 was the primary cause of the exploding deficit, then why we are still running comparably huge deficits even w/o additional stimulus? Sure, I answered that question at the start of the thread and countless times after that -- but that is no reason for you to give up! Keep working hard, better yourself by setting ambitious goals and who knows, maybe one day you'll learn to read!

 

[BillyV]

Total Federal government spending by year

2000: $1.789 trillion.

2001: $1.863 trillion. (8.3% increase over 2000)

2002: $2.011 trillion. (7.9% increase over 2001)

2003: $2.159 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2002)

2004: $2.293 trillion. (6.2% increase over 2003)

2005: $2.472 trillion. (8.0% increase over 2004)

2006: $2.655 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2005)

2007: $2.729 trillion. (2.8% increase over 2006)

2008: $2.983 trillion. (9.2% increase over 2007)

2009: $3.518 trillion. (17.9% increase over 2008)

2010: $3.456 trillion. (1.8% decrease over 2009)

2011: $3.601 trillion. (4.2% increase over 2011)


If we attribute 2009 - 20011 to Obama, we see spending has increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years.

If we attribute 2001 - 2003 to Bush, we see spending increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years!


Amazing!

Interesting approach, but you know what they say: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Let's look a these numbers another way. The total linear increase in spending for both presidents was about 21%. So they seem the same. But Obama increased spending in his first year and maintained it, while Bush steadily increased each year. So if you look at the total added spending over the baselines (2000 and 2008), Bush spent an additional $666 trillion (hmmm!) over the 3 year period, a 37% increase. Obama spent an additional $1.626 trillion over the 3 year period, a 55% increase (and 50% more than Bush over the same time period). The latter was on top of a significant increase for 2008 relative to the other years. Bush did spend more than you would expect from a conservative, but he did have 9/11 and the dot.com bust to deal with, and at the time, the deficits were much more manageable (and much smaller than recent history) because the debt was well below the almost 100% of GDP level of today.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The addition of what?

Net increase in spending + |net reduction in revenues|. You know, the deficit impact of the ARRA.

Why is this difficult?

If you read your link you will see that the CBO explains why the math does not add up.[...]

Accounting gimmicks reclassifying spending as revenue reductions, imagine that. My guess si that, because those revenue reductions were not part of the ARRA, they were not counted against it.

Oy. I see the reading comprehension hasn't improved. What you quoted says that instead of counting ~$14 billion in COBRA money as spending, it's instead being counted as a reduction in revenues (meaning revenue lost goes up from $65 billion to $79 billion).

It doesn't matter which one it's classified as because, again, we're adding the two together anyway to get the net effect on the deficit. Which by the end of FY09 was south of $200 billion. Which is completely in line with everything posted above.

Except that the same post also says they cannot accurately figure revenue loss because the figures aren't in, which means the lost revenues are not being counted at all, just guessed at. Like I said, accounting gimmicks, since lost revenues are not actually a cost because no business ever counts revenues until they actually get them, so lost revenues are never counted.

 

[Meister]

Total Federal government spending by year

2000: $1.789 trillion.

2001: $1.863 trillion. (8.3% increase over 2000)

2002: $2.011 trillion. (7.9% increase over 2001)

2003: $2.159 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2002)

2004: $2.293 trillion. (6.2% increase over 2003)

2005: $2.472 trillion. (8.0% increase over 2004)

2006: $2.655 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2005)

2007: $2.729 trillion. (2.8% increase over 2006)

2008: $2.983 trillion. (9.2% increase over 2007)

2009: $3.518 trillion. (17.9% increase over 2008)

2010: $3.456 trillion. (1.8% decrease over 2009)

2011: $3.601 trillion. (4.2% increase over 2011)


If we attribute 2009 - 20011 to Obama, we see spending has increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years.

If we attribute 2001 - 2003 to Bush, we see spending increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years!


Amazing!

Interesting approach, but you know what they say: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Let's look a these numbers another way. The total linear increase in spending for both presidents was about 21%. So they seem the same. But Obama increased spending in his first year and maintained it, while Bush steadily increased each year. So if you look at the total added spending over the baselines (2000 and 2008), Bush spent an additional $666 trillion (hmmm!) over the 3 year period, a 37% increase. Obama spent an additional $1.626 trillion over the 3 year period, a 55% increase (and 50% more than Bush over the same time period). The latter was on top of a significant increase for 2008 relative to the other years. Bush did spend more than you would expect from a conservative, but he did have 9/11 and the dot.com bust to deal with, and at the time, the deficits were much more manageable (and much smaller than recent history) because the debt was well below the almost 100% of GDP level of today.

Try looking at the bottom line. That is where the rubber meets the road.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since you obviously do not have a dictionary here is the definition of deficit spending.

Government spending, in excess of revenue, of funds raised by borrowing rather than from taxation.

Look at that, spending in excess of revenue.

That, my dictionary wielding friend, is the definition of "deficit". Those who call it "deficit spending" do it in order to create an impression that the deficit was caused by excessive spending, not by falling revenue. Which is a lie.

Isn't it funny how, even without additional stimulus packages to inflate the deficit, we still are running $1 trillion dollar deficits?

You know, that's a mighty good question -- if the stimulus package of 2009 was the primary cause of the exploding deficit, then why we are still running comparably huge deficits even w/o additional stimulus? Sure, I answered that question at the start of the thread and countless times after that -- but that is no reason for you to give up! Keep working hard, better yourself by setting ambitious goals and who knows, maybe one day you'll learn to read!

Wrong again, that is the specific definition of deficit spending. A deficit, on the other hand, is more general, being the amount which a sum of money falls short of a desired amount. A deficit is not having enough money to pay a $70,000 dollar hospital bill because you only have $500 dollars, which would make the deficit $60,500. Deficit spending, on the other hand, is the government deciding that it wants to buy a $700 billion hospital, and not caring that it only expects to take in $500 dollars.

You seem to think that claiming Obama is not responsible for the laws he signs is an answer to a question. I disagree.

 

[Intense]

Since you obviously do not have a dictionary here is the definition of deficit spending.

Government spending, in excess of revenue, of funds raised by borrowing rather than from taxation.

Look at that, spending in excess of revenue.

That, my dictionary wielding friend, is the definition of "deficit". Those who call it "deficit spending" do it in order to create an impression that the deficit was caused by excessive spending, not by falling revenue. Which is a lie.

Isn't it funny how, even without additional stimulus packages to inflate the deficit, we still are running $1 trillion dollar deficits?

You know, that's a mighty good question -- if the stimulus package of 2009 was the primary cause of the exploding deficit, then why we are still running comparably huge deficits even w/o additional stimulus? Sure, I answered that question at the start of the thread and countless times after that -- but that is no reason for you to give up! Keep working hard, better yourself by setting ambitious goals and who knows, maybe one day you'll learn to read!

That argument goes over very well with DA's across the Country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because the economy will probably improve, which will lead to rising government revenues, which will reduce the sums that the government has to borrow in order to pay for the military and to send those social security checks.

So.... you dont have any REAL reason to think so, just a hope.

No, it is not just a hope, I just did not want to go into details. The fact is that economy will eventually come out of depression and the unemployment will fall to the pre-crisis level. To understand why, you have to understand why the crisis happened in the first place -- it was because households took too much debt. So when the hopes of further fast growth evaporated, the households cut on their spending, sending the economy into a recession (the sales fell, businesses had to lay off workers -- you've got the picture).

But since then the private sector significantly reduced its indebtedness. Consumers are about to start spending again, and businesses will start hiring to satisfy the increased demand. It very well could happen this year -- although one has to be careful with predictions. We had a few false starts before, and the situation in Europe looks grim. Which is ironic because Europeans are in trouble because they are doing the same mistake that you are blaming Obama for NOT doing -- they are aggressively trying to cut spending in order to reduce the deficits, and so far the only result is their sliding into recession.

You also fail to address the growth of spending relative to the growth of revenue

Please, stop accusing me of failing to do something that no one asked! The reason revenues will grow faster than spending is that the economy will be growing faster once it really starts to pick up the slack -- that is when the unemployment rate will start coming down. In fact, the high unemployment is the root cause of the depressed tax revenues and the swollen deficits. So fall in the unemployment rate will automatically reduce the deficits.

You continue to base your position on hope and supposition of what will happen.
Fact is, you have no idea of that growth will come and that spending will not out-oace it.

 

[ilia25]

Total Federal government spending by year

2000: $1.789 trillion.

2001: $1.863 trillion. (8.3% increase over 2000)

2002: $2.011 trillion. (7.9% increase over 2001)

2003: $2.159 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2002)

2004: $2.293 trillion. (6.2% increase over 2003)

2005: $2.472 trillion. (8.0% increase over 2004)

2006: $2.655 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2005)

2007: $2.729 trillion. (2.8% increase over 2006)

2008: $2.983 trillion. (9.2% increase over 2007)

2009: $3.518 trillion. (17.9% increase over 2008)

2010: $3.456 trillion. (1.8% decrease over 2009)

2011: $3.601 trillion. (4.2% increase over 2011)


If we attribute 2009 - 20011 to Obama, we see spending has increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years.

If we attribute 2001 - 2003 to Bush, we see spending increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years!


Amazing!

Interesting approach, but you know what they say: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Let's look a these numbers another way. The total linear increase in spending for both presidents was about 21%. So they seem the same. But Obama increased spending in his first year and maintained it, while Bush steadily increased each year. So if you look at the total added spending over the baselines (2000 and 2008), Bush spent an additional $666 trillion (hmmm!) over the 3 year period, a 37% increase. Obama spent an additional $1.626 trillion over the 3 year period, a 55% increase (and 50% more than Bush over the same time period). The latter was on top of a significant increase for 2008 relative to the other years. Bush did spend more than you would expect from a conservative, but he did have 9/11 and the dot.com bust to deal with, and at the time, the deficits were much more manageable (and much smaller than recent history) because the debt was well below the almost 100% of GDP level of today.

You are still talking peanuts here -- if Obama had increased spending over 3 years to just 37%, the deficit over that period would be only 13% smaller. And the rest 87% is still the result of falling tax revenues.

And yes, Bush had reasons for increasing spending, but so had Obama -- he was managing the the worst crisis since the Great Depression. If anything, his stimulus was way too small.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Total Federal government spending by year

2000: $1.789 trillion.

2001: $1.863 trillion. (8.3% increase over 2000)

2002: $2.011 trillion. (7.9% increase over 2001)

2003: $2.159 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2002)

2004: $2.293 trillion. (6.2% increase over 2003)

2005: $2.472 trillion. (8.0% increase over 2004)

2006: $2.655 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2005)

2007: $2.729 trillion. (2.8% increase over 2006)

2008: $2.983 trillion. (9.2% increase over 2007)

2009: $3.518 trillion. (17.9% increase over 2008)

2010: $3.456 trillion. (1.8% decrease over 2009)

2011: $3.601 trillion. (4.2% increase over 2011)


If we attribute 2009 - 20011 to Obama, we see spending has increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years.

If we attribute 2001 - 2003 to Bush, we see spending increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years!


Amazing!

Interesting approach, but you know what they say: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Let's look a these numbers another way. The total linear increase in spending for both presidents was about 21%. So they seem the same. But Obama increased spending in his first year and maintained it, while Bush steadily increased each year. So if you look at the total added spending over the baselines (2000 and 2008), Bush spent an additional $666 trillion (hmmm!) over the 3 year period, a 37% increase. Obama spent an additional $1.626 trillion over the 3 year period, a 55% increase (and 50% more than Bush over the same time period). The latter was on top of a significant increase for 2008 relative to the other years. Bush did spend more than you would expect from a conservative, but he did have 9/11 and the dot.com bust to deal with, and at the time, the deficits were much more manageable (and much smaller than recent history) because the debt was well below the almost 100% of GDP level of today.

You are still talking peanuts here -- if Obama increased spending over 3 years to only 37%, it would reduce the deficit over that period by only 13%. And the rest 87% would still be there as result of falling revenues.

And yes, Bush had reasons for increasing spending, but so had Obama -- he was managing the the worst crisis since the Great Depression. If anything, his stimulus was too small.

$2 Trillion increase in annual spending from 2000 to 2011 is "peanuts"

Fucking retard

 

[Intense]

Interesting approach, but you know what they say: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Let's look a these numbers another way. The total linear increase in spending for both presidents was about 21%. So they seem the same. But Obama increased spending in his first year and maintained it, while Bush steadily increased each year. So if you look at the total added spending over the baselines (2000 and 2008), Bush spent an additional $666 trillion (hmmm!) over the 3 year period, a 37% increase. Obama spent an additional $1.626 trillion over the 3 year period, a 55% increase (and 50% more than Bush over the same time period). The latter was on top of a significant increase for 2008 relative to the other years. Bush did spend more than you would expect from a conservative, but he did have 9/11 and the dot.com bust to deal with, and at the time, the deficits were much more manageable (and much smaller than recent history) because the debt was well below the almost 100% of GDP level of today.

You are still talking peanuts here -- if Obama increased spending over 3 years to only 37%, it would reduce the deficit over that period by only 13%. And the rest 87% would still be there as result of falling revenues.

And yes, Bush had reasons for increasing spending, but so had Obama -- he was managing the the worst crisis since the Great Depression. If anything, his stimulus was too small.

$2 Trillion increase in annual spending from 2000 to 2011 is "peanuts"

Fucking retard

1001 reasons why not wanting to apply the brakes.

 

[ilia25]

Interesting approach, but you know what they say: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Let's look a these numbers another way. The total linear increase in spending for both presidents was about 21%. So they seem the same. But Obama increased spending in his first year and maintained it, while Bush steadily increased each year. So if you look at the total added spending over the baselines (2000 and 2008), Bush spent an additional $666 trillion (hmmm!) over the 3 year period, a 37% increase. Obama spent an additional $1.626 trillion over the 3 year period, a 55% increase (and 50% more than Bush over the same time period). The latter was on top of a significant increase for 2008 relative to the other years. Bush did spend more than you would expect from a conservative, but he did have 9/11 and the dot.com bust to deal with, and at the time, the deficits were much more manageable (and much smaller than recent history) because the debt was well below the almost 100% of GDP level of today.

You are still talking peanuts here -- if Obama increased spending over 3 years to only 37%, it would reduce the deficit over that period by only 13%. And the rest 87% would still be there as result of falling revenues.

And yes, Bush had reasons for increasing spending, but so had Obama -- he was managing the the worst crisis since the Great Depression. If anything, his stimulus was too small.

$2 Trillion increase in annual spending from 2000 to 2011 is "peanuts"

Fucking retard

LOL! You keep cheering and voting for bastards who lie to you, regard you as an idiot and rob you. So who is fucking retard here?

 

[g5000]

Total Federal government spending by year

2000: $1.789 trillion.

2001: $1.863 trillion. (8.3% increase over 2000)

2002: $2.011 trillion. (7.9% increase over 2001)

2003: $2.159 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2002)

2004: $2.293 trillion. (6.2% increase over 2003)

2005: $2.472 trillion. (8.0% increase over 2004)

2006: $2.655 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2005)

2007: $2.729 trillion. (2.8% increase over 2006)

2008: $2.983 trillion. (9.2% increase over 2007)

2009: $3.518 trillion. (17.9% increase over 2008)

2010: $3.456 trillion. (1.8% decrease over 2009)

2011: $3.601 trillion. (4.2% increase over 2011)


If we attribute 2009 - 20011 to Obama, we see spending has increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years.

If we attribute 2001 - 2003 to Bush, we see spending increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years!


Amazing!

Interesting approach, but you know what they say: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Let's look a these numbers another way. The total linear increase in spending for both presidents was about 21%. So they seem the same. But Obama increased spending in his first year and maintained it, while Bush steadily increased each year. So if you look at the total added spending over the baselines (2000 and 2008), Bush spent an additional $666 trillion (hmmm!) over the 3 year period, a 37% increase. Obama spent an additional $1.626 trillion over the 3 year period, a 55% increase (and 50% more than Bush over the same time period).

Regardless, the rate of growth in spending is identical between the two. And that is all that matters when comparing them.

Your logic is atrocious. If you have a bigger baseline to start with, and maintain the exact same rate of growth, then of course the additional spending will be a larger and larger percentage of the baseline as time passes.

[

The latter was on top of a significant increase for 2008 relative to the other years. Bush did spend more than you would expect from a conservative, but he did have 9/11 and the dot.com bust to deal with, and at the time, the deficits were much more manageable (and much smaller than recent history) because the debt was well below the almost 100% of GDP level of today.

A terribly weak argument. 9/11 and the dot com bust pale in comparison to the 2008 crash. And you are using the same horrible logic. The reason Obama has a higher debt to GDP ratio to deal with than Bush is precisely because of Bush!

 

[BillyV]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the numbers are what they are. Please feel free to provide whatever argument is in dispute with what I wrote. Your point was that Obama and Bush increased spending at the same rate and implied the effect was the same; I simply showed that wasn't the case. Please point out the error in logic that you have implied.

 

[BillyV]

Total Federal government spending by year

2000: $1.789 trillion.

2001: $1.863 trillion. (8.3% increase over 2000)

2002: $2.011 trillion. (7.9% increase over 2001)

2003: $2.159 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2002)

2004: $2.293 trillion. (6.2% increase over 2003)

2005: $2.472 trillion. (8.0% increase over 2004)

2006: $2.655 trillion. (7.4% increase over 2005)

2007: $2.729 trillion. (2.8% increase over 2006)

2008: $2.983 trillion. (9.2% increase over 2007)

2009: $3.518 trillion. (17.9% increase over 2008)

2010: $3.456 trillion. (1.8% decrease over 2009)

2011: $3.601 trillion. (4.2% increase over 2011)


If we attribute 2009 - 20011 to Obama, we see spending has increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years.

If we attribute 2001 - 2003 to Bush, we see spending increased by 20.7 percent in his first three years!


Amazing!

Interesting approach, but you know what they say: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Let's look a these numbers another way. The total linear increase in spending for both presidents was about 21%. So they seem the same. But Obama increased spending in his first year and maintained it, while Bush steadily increased each year. So if you look at the total added spending over the baselines (2000 and 2008), Bush spent an additional $666 trillion (hmmm!) over the 3 year period, a 37% increase. Obama spent an additional $1.626 trillion over the 3 year period, a 55% increase (and 50% more than Bush over the same time period). The latter was on top of a significant increase for 2008 relative to the other years. Bush did spend more than you would expect from a conservative, but he did have 9/11 and the dot.com bust to deal with, and at the time, the deficits were much more manageable (and much smaller than recent history) because the debt was well below the almost 100% of GDP level of today.

You are still talking peanuts here -- if Obama had increased spending over 3 years to just 37%, the deficit over that period would be only 13% smaller. And the rest 87% is still the result of falling tax revenues.

And yes, Bush had reasons for increasing spending, but so had Obama -- he was managing the the worst crisis since the Great Depression. If anything, his stimulus was way too small.

The point was, the 21% increase for both presidents, which was presented as if it had an equal effect, was actually quite unequal, even in percentage terms. And the rest wasn't only the result of falling tax revenues; revenues only fell $400 billion as I recall. In any case, the point that was being made only related to spending, otherwise I could have addressed the revenue side. Obama also gave significant tax breaks that affected revenues, most notably the 100% expensing deduction for corporations which was effective beginning in September 2010, the "Making Work Pay" credit, and the payroll tax cut. Those were not at issue, so I didn't bring them up, but they also led to reduced revenues much like the so called "Bush Tax Cuts."
By the way, it's convenient to continue to talk about the "Worst Crisis Since the Great Depression", but I graduated from college in 1979, and mortgage interest rates were at 18%, unemployment peaked in the mid-teens, and inflation was through the roof. I'm not sure what makes this time much worse. You know what? No herculean measures were taken that I can recall to extend unemployment benefits past the normal term or triple food stamp recipients; it was a tough time, but it turned around pretty quickly. Maybe the lack of additional response shortened the hard times, I don't know, but it may be worth a try, because what we're doing now doesn't seem to be working.

 

[Greenbeard]

By the way, it's convenient to continue to talk about the "Worst Crisis Since the Great Depression", but I graduated from college in 1979, and mortgage interest rates were at 18%, unemployment peaked in the mid-teens, and inflation was through the roof. I'm not sure what makes this time much worse.

The amount by which GDP shrank, primarily.

And maybe something to do with our financial sector teetering on the brink of collapse.

You know what? No herculean measures were taken that I can recall to extend unemployment benefits past the normal term

Remember harder:

The Federal Supplemental Compensation (FSC) program, established by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, was amended by the Surface Transportation Act of 1982 to increase the minimum and maximum weeks of unemployment benefits available and to change the triggers for which each level of benefits was payable. To ensure that the long-term unemployed will continue to receive assistance while looking for work, the FSC program was further amended by the Social Security Amendments of 1983 to extend the program through March 1985, but the maximum weeks of benefits available were reduced from 16 to 14.

Reagan thought extending benefits was a good enough idea to pitch in his 1983 State of the Union:

Shortly, I will submit to the Congress the Employment Act of 1983, designed to get at the special problems of the long-term unemployed, as well as young people trying to enter the job market. I'll propose extending unemployment benefits, including special incentives to employers who hire the long-term unemployed, providing programs for displaced workers, and helping federally funded and State-administered unemployment insurance programs provide workers with training and relocation assistance.

The reality is that the deficit increased (the impetus for the 1982 tax increases), food stamp participation increased, and additional aid was scraped together for the long-term unemployed. It happened in Reagan's first term and it happened in Obama's because that's what happens during recessions.

Maybe the lack of additional response shortened the hard times, I don't know, but it may be worth a try, because what we're doing now doesn't seem to be working.

The recession(s) of the early '80s had a different cause and thus a different policy solution than that of '07/'08/'09. Bernanke can't wave the magic Volcker wand.