Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Obama spending binge never happened

i don't understand why you would target only certain years

the reality is since 1934 (please download the data) in only 11 years was Congress able to appropriate budget coming in less than revenues ... the explanations are fairly obvious and have nothing to do with predicting revenues

the problem is long term and not one sided ... both parties are complicit so it is nonsensical to blame only Pres Obama

well a lesson in supply side economics is necessary at this point ... in the case of tax cuts, conservatives predict the cuts will be made up by economic expansion, thus the money was not "out of the budget" as you put it

now this is unbelievable

you just stated that tax cuts would be out of the budget and now you say more tax cuts ... you see the direct result of tax cuts is rising budget deficit, so while you are partying the country is tanking

if you use mathematical statement at least use them correctly
<superscript>=raised to the power of

$5T = $5 x 10 <superscript>12

$5<superscript>12=$244,140,625

deficits are run each year which are added to national debt and no one, absolutely no one, has suggested running deficits are cute

this is an example of confusion

here is a real life example of out of control spending
Budget Revenue +/-
35 14 -21
78 24 -54
92 43 -47
94 45 -47

yes real life from 4 consecutive years Congress with the presidents approval overspent like the proverbial drunken sailor ...

where the confusion lies is conservatives look at only one number without looking at other factors ... had Congress followed your advice and could have predicted revenue loss we would be in a situation where all mandatory spending would have been cut by conservatively 40% ... i recommend we ask every SS benefit recipient if that is what they are willing to forgo ... and it gets even worse if there are additional tax cuts ... o and it doesn't stop there ... the removal of $1.2T from the economy which is only from lost revenues with no consideration of tax cuts, is both devastating from the consumer impact but from lost jobs ... and note this is not the same as a tax cut (i'll let you figure that out)

selective hindsight must be a glorious thing

the return has been saving the country from economic collapse. I would ask you to present the case for the hypothetical had nothing been done based on facts such as this: when Pres Obama took office the Bush administration left him facing the following economic problems ...
2 consecutive Q's with -5% GDP, unemployment trending at -750k jobs per month, the stock market lost over 50% of its value between 2007 and Mar 2009. In comparison last 2 Q's GDP were 3% and 2.2% (not great but better than -5%), unemployment was created 115k jobs last month (not great but better than -750K), and the stock market went from 6500 in Mar 2009 to 12400 friday ... of course one could interpret those numbers as indicating the world has come to an end but when i took advanced accounting, I learned that all of those numbers are better than when Pres Obama took office

that and the fact we are still functioning is the return which you have ignored

Yes, both parties have exhibited lack of fiscal discipline to one degree or another. But it is very useful to examine those degrees.

In order to balance the data, I have gone back to a point that gives us three Presidents from each party and begin with the debt at the end of 1976.

On the Republican side, the debt rose by 160.8% during the administration of Ronald Reagan, by 56.2% under George H.W. Bush and by 72.6% under George W. Bush.

Under the last three Democrat administrations, the debt rose by 46.3% under Carter, 28.6% under Clinton, and 56.6% so far under Obama. The very best Republican record is less than one half of one percent better than the worst Democrat!!

Taking a 36 year perspective on the issue, it appears Democrats are better stewards of the deficit concerns than Republicans, by a very healthy margin!!

Indeed, given that the thread began with the premise of evaluating whether there was an Obama spending binge, it is entirely rational and logical to deduct from the Obama deficit numbers the two wars that he didn't start and indeed opposed when they were started; Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless one is of the opinion that he should have ended both of these foreign intrigues launched by his predecessor, the current deficit gets trimmed by $2.7 trillion.

That places the Obama record only slightly behind Clinton. With this no-binge adjustment, the very best steward of government fiscal responsibility, G.H.W. Bush, was far more irresponsible at 56.2% than the worst Democrat, Jimmy Carter, at 46.3%.

So if we are concerned about the budget or the deficit, Obama is more responsible fiscally than any President in the last 36 years except William Jefferson Clinton.

Given the facts, it is a mystery how the poster who promised to give Obama credit where credit was/is due persists in attacking the man who has done so much to toe the line he has drawn in the sand. Unless, of course, it's high tide and the line gets redrawn continuously. And it does appear that the high tide of reason is wiping out the sand castles the GOP has been hawking since 1968!

During Jimmy Carter's administration,

Gentlemen, with those two very worthy posts I now believe I understand why Republicans see President Obama as The Great Satan.
If they don't destroy him with their poorly reasoned lies he will show them to be the complete fools they are. No offense intended here, Tim, you know I love you like a brother, but you are just wrong. History has shown that the economy fares better when taxes are higher. Promising lower taxes is a great way to win votes but in the end taxes can only go so low. President Reagan realized this and raised taxes to avoid just the sort of situation we face now.

Greger, you have struck the central point exactly, and why it is oft noted that Reagan could not get elected in the current environment. Reagan understood what current Republicans do not - that the only realistic way to reduce the deficit is to increase revenues - if a robust economy won't do it, it can only be addressed through taxes. It should also be noted that Reagan absolutely rejected the capital gains giveaway to the rich that has been the absolute worst fiscal decision ever made by Congress or any President, and extended to dividends by Bush junior.

Open question - does anyone know of any supporting evidence for the theory that cutting taxes stimulates the economy? A graph where the possibility of a correlation is suggested? I don't recall anything other than assertions that it can happen. Actually, the assertions always seem to be that it is a fact that it does happen. It would seem that the evidence could be clearly graphed now that we have had the lowest tax rates since the '50's for quite a number of years. The graphs I have seen clearly show the opposite to be true.

Anyone? One supporting graph showing positive effects on the economy from tax cuts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

But when you look at it, say the name out loud to understand the true meaning it imparts.

What makes the Laffer curve so laughable is that we have been on the losing end of it since it was drawn on the back of a napkin. It is logical - in theory - but has never been demonstrated in the real world, because the real world doesn't work like that.

The most reliable models show that the optimal tax rate is between 55&65%. Odd, since the economy has generally boomed when the tax rates were highest. In the real world, there is almost no correlation between the tax rate and the health of an economy - except that tax rates need to be high enough to support the societal infrastructure. The Bush tax cuts have been a net drain on the economy.

Indeed. If we back the cost of Bush's wars and the cost of Bush's tax cuts off the current Federal deficit, it stands at $9.5 trillion, or $524.7 billion LESS than when Obama took office. Not only no spending binge but President Obama, he has actually REDUCED spending compared to the Bush spending levels!

Funny the story the real numbers tell. What I simply don't understand is why Republicans simply won't give Bush credit for his actual legacy; they keep trying to hand it to his successor! Odd.

Of course, the Laffer curve.

"In economics, the Laffer curve (sometimes referred to as the Laffer-Khaldun curve) is a hypothetical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation." (wikipedia)(emphasis added)

I was looking for something made using actual data, and not someone's hypothesis. It's looking like the NonCon position is all based on imagination and not data?