Republicans lie about "explosion of spending" under Obama

[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 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.

I really don't think it matters what words one chooses to describe that difference. The only important fact here is that the difference in how fast the spending grew under Obama vs under Bush can account only for a small fraction of the jump in deficit.

In other words, blaming deficits on Obama's excessive spending would be misleading, to put it mildly.

And the rest wasn't only the result of falling tax revenues; revenues only fell $400 billion as I recall.

Nope. If you want to estimate the effect the recession had on deficits you have to compare the actual revenue level with the level they would be at if the recession didn't happen. If the revenues were supposed to increase by 400 and instead they fell by 400, then the combined effect is 400 + 400 = 800 billions.

Remember that CBO projected the 2009 FY deficit to reach 1.2 trillion even before Obama took the office.

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."

Sure, Obama cut some taxes as well, but then again, that has nothing to do with making the government bigger.

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.

In the big scheme of things, the rates and inflation do not matter. What matters is that economy has low unemployment and runs close to its potential (and the inflation matters only to the extent it can help or prevent the economy from achieving full employment).

That is what makes this crisis bad -- we have a lot of people who want to work, but are unemployed. And, as the result, each year the US economy is producing about a trillion dollars less in goods and services than it is capable of. That gap has a huge impact on the living standards (and on the government revenues).

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.

Well, I am sure you are making that argument in good faith, and I appreciate it. Not too many people here seem to be capable of that

But you cannot compare the situation in the late 70s / early 80s with what we have now. The problem with the situation we are currently in is that the usual and the most effective methods of pulling the economy out of recession were quickly exhausted with little effect -- the impact of the housing bubble collapse was simply too great. See, usually the Federal Reserve can provide enough stimulus by lowering the interest rates -- and that works great for shallow recessions we were accustomed to in last decades. But this time lowering the rates to zero was not enough -- by standard measurements it had to be lowered to -5%! So the economy was stuck in a state called "liquidity trap".

Another way to speed up the recovery is an increase in the government spending (the idea is that government would substitute the fleeing customers, although that is not a perfect substitute). Obama tried that, but again, his efforts were far too little to make a significant impact (substituting 1.5 or 2 trillion fall in private sector demand with 700 billion package, only half of which was direct spending, the rest were tax cuts, aid to the states and so on).

So here we are. Bottom line -- these are complex problems. And the biggest one is that the leading politicians, far from trying to understand the economy and educate the voters, are instead misleading the very same voters on basic facts. Instead of an intelligent discussion we have people throwing slogans at each other.

 

[ilia25]

Bernanke can't wave the magic Volcker wand.

Yup. I think the most important lesson we have learned is that 2% inflation target is too small. This is the second time in the past 10 years the Fed had hit the zero-lower bound. Fed needs more room to fight the recession, but I'm afraid it will take a few more before 4-6% inflation would become an acceptable policy.

 

[zonly1]

So the President hasnt borrowed more money in three years than all the time from George Washington to Bill Clinton?

I'm SURE, that it has NOTHING to do with this:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/overview_tax_gap_2006.pdf

The gross tax gap is defined as the amount of true tax liability faced by taxpayers that is not paid on time. For 2006 it is estimated to be $450 billion.

The growth in the tax gap over the five years was concentrated in the underreporting and underpayment forms of noncompliance, which jointly account for more than nine out of ten tax gap dollars. The nonfiling portion of the gap hardly changed. The underreporting gap grew by 32%; the underpayment gap grew by 38%; and the nonfiling gap grew by 4%. The overall gap grew by 30%, slightly more than the growth in overall tax liabilities.

More than a third of the growth in the underreporting gap was attributable to corporate income taxes.

This was from 2001-2006. So if we aren't getting the money that we need because some people aren't paying their taxes, where the hell is it going to come from to keep our head above water? And of these asshats who aren't paying their taxes, who do you think makes up the difference? You and me.

So have these taxes been collected in full yet; or has the amount continued to grow?

so you believe in punishing capitalism
can i borrow this for a sig line you moron?
tanks lib

 

[auditor0007]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

While I agree with you for the most part, your chart is flawed. Spending during Obama's first three years has been higher than what your chart is showing. Yes, lost revenue was actually a bigger problem and contributed more to the deficit than the increased spending, but spending has also been a problem, and again, your chart is off. Federal outlays for 2009 were $3.5 trillion, just a little less for 2010, 2011 $3.8 trillion, and 2012 is estimated at $3.7 trillion. Your chart suggests all years were between $3.1 or $3.2 trillion.

 

[rdean]

Of course they're lying. I remember when Obama finally added Bush's "hidden" wars to the deficit. Republicans screamed, "Look how wildly he's spending". They finally got a dose of reality and it was just too much for their tiny minds. We know what Bush spent the money on. I just can't figure out how they think they can trick the American people into believing it was from Obama? We aren't ALL Republicans. Some of us actually can think.

 

[ilia25]

While I agree with you for the most part, your chart is flawed

The chart is adjusted for inflation, I don't know why I did that Here is the current dollar version:

 

[ilia25]

Of course they're lying. I remember when Obama finally added Bush's "hidden" wars to the deficit. Republicans screamed, "Look how wildly he's spending". They finally got a dose of reality and it was just too much for their tiny minds. We know what Bush spent the money on. I just can't figure out how they think they can trick the American people into believing it was from Obama? We aren't ALL Republicans. Some of us actually can think.

What baffles me is why Obama does not comment on this nonsense? It almost like he thinks that he should not dignify it with response, and if American voters would fall for it, then too bad for them.

 

[Article 15]

Of course they're lying. I remember when Obama finally added Bush's "hidden" wars to the deficit. Republicans screamed, "Look how wildly he's spending". They finally got a dose of reality and it was just too much for their tiny minds. We know what Bush spent the money on. I just can't figure out how they think they can trick the American people into believing it was from Obama? We aren't ALL Republicans. Some of us actually can think.

What baffles me is why Obama does not comment on this nonsense? It almost like he thinks that he should not dignify it with response, and if American voters would fall for it, then too bad for them.

Why bother getting into a long drawn out fight over it? You should know just as well I do that even when their bullshit is set straight they will act like it never happened and trot out the same line of crap the next day.

I think he's been letting them do all the talking....letting them dig themselves a nice deep hole and then he will start hitting back on the campaign trail when it's going to count.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

You are. You're a fucking retard. Your party is a party of fucking financial illiterates starting with Obama and Krugman

 

[ilia25]

Of course they're lying. I remember when Obama finally added Bush's "hidden" wars to the deficit. Republicans screamed, "Look how wildly he's spending". They finally got a dose of reality and it was just too much for their tiny minds. We know what Bush spent the money on. I just can't figure out how they think they can trick the American people into believing it was from Obama? We aren't ALL Republicans. Some of us actually can think.

What baffles me is why Obama does not comment on this nonsense? It almost like he thinks that he should not dignify it with response, and if American voters would fall for it, then too bad for them.

Why bother getting into a long drawn out fight over it? You should know just as well I do that even when their bullshit is set straight they will act like it never happened and trot out the same line of crap the next day.

I think he's been letting them do all the talking....letting them dig themselves a nice deep hole and then he will start hitting back on the campaign trail when it's going to count.

That may be, but this is not just about winning the next elections. The way the Republican politicians distort the facts makes it impossible to debate the real issues and real solutions. And it is not going to change unless Obama and Democrats start calling Republican lies.

To me it is obvious that whatever Obama's strategy might be, a great communicator he is not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course they're lying. I remember when Obama finally added Bush's "hidden" wars to the deficit.

More idiocy, more partisan bigotry and moire dishonesty.

Every year, the spending for the war was included in the CBO yearlyspenidng figured.
Every year.

To argue that the spending was hidden or otherwise not included in the deficit calculations is an outright lie.

But then, liberals have noting else, so...

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[The T]

Of course they're lying. I remember when Obama finally added Bush's "hidden" wars to the deficit.

More idiocy, more partisan bigotry and moire dishonesty.

Every year, the spending for the war was included in the CBO yearlyspenidng figured.
Every year.

To argue that the spending was hidden or otherwise not included in the deficit calculations is an outright lie.

But then, liberals have noting else, so...

But they act before things settle and we are treated to stories in the media when figures didn't meet expert expectations...

Leaves me to wondering just whom the experts are...and WHY they try to predict what Americans wom vote are going to do next...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, I guess I just have to keep posting these links:
Why government must keep spending through recession
The paradox of thrift

The economy during a recession is a paradox -- what was a virtue in the good times becomes a vice.

Nothing you have posted changes the fact that deficit spending is a willful choice.

I never disputed the fact that US has been running deficits by a willful choice of its government.

The you admit your premise that the government "had to borrow a trillion each year to keep financing the military and keep sending those social security checks" is unsound.
Thank you.


But that choice saved the economy from a complete collapse -- so that was the right thing to do![/QUOTE]

 

[Greenbeard]

Every year, the spending for the war was included in the CBO yearlyspenidng figured.
Every year.

To argue that the spending was hidden or otherwise not included in the deficit calculations is an outright lie.

A trip down memory lane: Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise

WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials. [...]

The White House budget office calculates that over the next decade, the [alternative minimum] tax would add $1.2 trillion in revenues. But Mr. Obama is not counting those revenues, and he is adding $218 billion to the 10-year deficit projections to reflect the added interest the government would pay for its extra debt [due to AMT patches].

As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.

Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt.

He will also budget $273 billion in that period for natural disasters. Every year the government pays billions for disaster relief, but presidents and lawmakers have long ignored budget reformers’ calls for a contingency account to reflect that certainty.

 

[Intense]

Of course they're lying. I remember when Obama finally added Bush's "hidden" wars to the deficit. Republicans screamed, "Look how wildly he's spending". They finally got a dose of reality and it was just too much for their tiny minds. We know what Bush spent the money on. I just can't figure out how they think they can trick the American people into believing it was from Obama? We aren't ALL Republicans. Some of us actually can think.

What baffles me is why Obama does not comment on this nonsense? It almost like he thinks that he should not dignify it with response, and if American voters would fall for it, then too bad for them.

Why bother getting into a long drawn out fight over it? You should know just as well I do that even when their bullshit is set straight they will act like it never happened and trot out the same line of crap the next day.

I think he's been letting them do all the talking....letting them dig themselves a nice deep hole and then he will start hitting back on the campaign trail when it's going to count.

I think he suffers from premature ejaculation. No chance.

 

[Intense]

Every year, the spending for the war was included in the CBO yearlyspenidng figured.
Every year.

To argue that the spending was hidden or otherwise not included in the deficit calculations is an outright lie.

A trip down memory lane: Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise

WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials. [...]

The White House budget office calculates that over the next decade, the [alternative minimum] tax would add $1.2 trillion in revenues. But Mr. Obama is not counting those revenues, and he is adding $218 billion to the 10-year deficit projections to reflect the added interest the government would pay for its extra debt [due to AMT patches].

As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.

Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt.

He will also budget $273 billion in that period for natural disasters. Every year the government pays billions for disaster relief, but presidents and lawmakers have long ignored budget reformers’ calls for a contingency account to reflect that certainty.

I suspect he is temperamental about using other peoples gimmicks. What ya gonna do?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Every year, the spending for the war was included in the CBO yearlyspenidng figured.
Every year.

To argue that the spending was hidden or otherwise not included in the deficit calculations is an outright lie.

A trip down memory lane: Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise

WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials. [...]

The White House budget office calculates that over the next decade, the [alternative minimum] tax would add $1.2 trillion in revenues. But Mr. Obama is not counting those revenues, and he is adding $218 billion to the 10-year deficit projections to reflect the added interest the government would pay for its extra debt [due to AMT patches].

As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.

Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt.

He will also budget $273 billion in that period for natural disasters. Every year the government pays billions for disaster relief, but presidents and lawmakers have long ignored budget reformers’ calls for a contingency account to reflect that certainty.

Right, Bush's fault. That's new, we never heard that one before

 

[The T]

Every year, the spending for the war was included in the CBO yearlyspenidng figured.
Every year.

To argue that the spending was hidden or otherwise not included in the deficit calculations is an outright lie.

A trip down memory lane: Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise

WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials. [...]

The White House budget office calculates that over the next decade, the [alternative minimum] tax would add $1.2 trillion in revenues. But Mr. Obama is not counting those revenues, and he is adding $218 billion to the 10-year deficit projections to reflect the added interest the government would pay for its extra debt [due to AMT patches].

As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.

Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt.

He will also budget $273 billion in that period for natural disasters. Every year the government pays billions for disaster relief, but presidents and lawmakers have long ignored budget reformers’ calls for a contingency account to reflect that certainty.

Right, Bush's fault. That's new, we never heard that one before

Obama acts as if He has no other course to follow but Bushs' path...(which he follows while blaming him in the same breath)...

Obama has NO business at 1600...and needs to go. He refuses to MAN UP.

 

[Dot Com]

While giving the Republican Response to the State of the Union, Mitch Daniels repeated the lie about how government spending grew under Obama:

"In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt."

Well, that is a blatant lie. Here is how the spending really increased:

As anyone can see in the chart above, the government spending grew under Obama at the same rate they were growing under Bush's 8 years. There was an uptick in 2009 (that was the stimulus package), but since then there was no increase at all.

It is true, that the budget deficit exploded ten-fold around the time when Obama moved to the White House. But the reason for that were falling tax revenues as the economy tanked in the end of 2008 -- not an increase in the spending.

So why respected Republican leaders -- and not just Tea Party nuts -- keep repeating such an obvious lies? That is a good question, but it speaks a lot about the state of US democracy.

Translation: We blew a Trillion plus hole in the deficits our first year and we've been holding steady ever since. We even got our first ever credit downgrade

Why do you always bring up the T-Party Downgrade 57Frank?