Gov't Spending 2009

[sully800]

Do you think you could repost the first with a scale, like the second one has? Otherwise it's kind of worthless...

Sure, I just cropped Obama's presidency off the end which meant the scale went with it. This is more informative.

Obama:


Bush:


And here is Clinton for fun:

[jaimito101]

the economy ran smoothly for almost 7 years 2000-2007.

I don't think many people in 2002/2003 thought the economy was running smoothly. And why leave out 2008? Not much important happened?

This comparison is no more informative or misleading than the first post in this thread. Just facts.

haha yes you caught Phats with his pants down he has selective memory it seems, as i also stated he chose specific years, even some wich bush wasn't even in power!

[Phatscotty]

yeah i like ron paul, he has great ideas and good points, but... would it be acceptable to the public for a president to do nothing? let companies go bankrupt?

Why should the govt buy something that is bankrupt? if it has no value......seriously.....wtf? and as far as I know, if a company goes under, someone else takes the opportunity to build a new company, bigger and better. If that's how bad the company is, f*ck yeah let it go bankrupt! i dont know what else to say about it

[Phatscotty]

the economy ran smoothly for almost 7 years 2000-2007.

This comparison is no more informative or misleading than the first post in this thread. Just facts.

Facts? like what? That the president completely controls the Dow Jones????? that, im so sorry to point out.....is your statement.

FAIL

[sully800]

As for the earlier discussion about why no one blamed Clinton for problems during Bush's presidency - they certainly did after the dotcom bubble burst. The recession in 2002/2003 was largely blamed on the Clinton administration (of course it is important to distinguish that the president is not the only factor on the economy and especially not the DJI). And it is right to blame that recession on the previous administration because Bush had not been in office long enough to have any real effect.

Bush inherited a great economy but it was on it's way down (not due to his policy). Obama inherited a plummeting economy (not due to his policy) which will probably start to turn back up. Job gains/losses always lag behind changes in the stock market.

[Phatscotty]

As for the earlier discussion about why no one blamed Clinton for problems during Bush's presidency - they certainly did after the dotcom bubble burst. The recession in 2002/2003 was largely blamed on the Clinton administration (of course it is important to distinguish that the president is not the only factor on the economy and especially not the DJI). And it is right to blame that recession on the previous administration because Bush had not been in office long enough to have any real effect.

Bush inherited a great economy but it was on it's way down (not due to his policy). Obama inherited a plummeting economy (not due to his policy) which will probably start to turn back up. Job gains/losses always lag behind changes in the stock market.

I have always blamed it on the congress 1998-2000, specifically Chris Dodd and Barney Frank on repealing glass-steagal. Of course, Clinton should not have signed it.....but HE DID.

well said sully, except one thing. home ownership and wages had huge gains 2001-2005, and there was actual job creation

[sully800]

well said sully, except one thing. home ownership and wages had huge gains 2001-2005, and there was actual job creation

Quite true! However that huge gain in home ownership didn't turn out to be a very good thing for 2008 or 2009. Drastic sudden positive changes in the economy will almost always be met with drastic sudden drops. Especially when they are built upon the kind of risky deals that allowed the housing bubble to temporarily balloon.

In any case steady, sustainable job creation should be every US politician's priority until unemployment is back under 8% at least.

[Phatscotty]

well said sully, except one thing. home ownership and wages had huge gains 2001-2005, and there was actual job creation

Quite true! However that huge gain in home ownership didn't turn out to be a very good thing for 2008 or 2009. Drastic sudden positive changes in the economy will almost always be met with drastic sudden drops. Especially when they are built upon the kind of risky deals that allowed the housing bubble to temporarily balloon.

In any case steady, sustainable job creation should be every US politician's priority until unemployment is back under 8% at least.

well of course. 90% of investors lose money, and that is a fact. only 1 out of 10 people really make a profit when investing. humans only buy shit when its most expensive, and wont touch it and even curse you for trying to get them into something when it's at an all time low. And trust me, being a former commodities broker, NOBODY WANTED GOLD AT $350, and I mean NOBODY. I only started making real commissions after gold had doubled.

Everybody I knew bought a house, even the idiots. and they turned to me, like i was the fucking idiot, and bragged about cashing 10k out of their "equity". The opportunity for home ownership was there nonetheless. If it didn't turn out well, you have to blame it on the home-owner FAR before you say "it's bushes fault"

They got their foot in the door, and if they had the slightest clue, it was within their own power to keep the house.

[sully800]

well of course. 90% of investors lose money, and that is a fact. only 1 out of 10 people really make a profit when investing. humans only buy shit when its most expensive, and wont touch it and even curse you for trying to get them into something when it's at an all time low. And trust me, being a former commodities broker, NOBODY WANTED GOLD AT $350, and I mean NOBODY. I only started making real commissions after gold had doubled.

Everybody I knew bought a house, even the idiots. and they turned to me, like i was the fucking idiot, and bragged about cashing 10k out of their "equity". The opportunity for home ownership was there nonetheless. If it didn't turn out well, you have to blame it on the home-owner FAR before you say "it's bushes fault"

They got their foot in the door, and if they had the slightest clue, it was within their own power to keep the house.

I really do appreciate your views on personally responsibility - the bankers knew better and screwed the country anyway. The brokers did the same but that's expected. The politicians are crooked and not to be trusted. But despite all that if the average American was living within their means and not buying a large house than they needed, this mess would never have happened. Greed and irresponsibility are the basic culprits, and they occurred on many levels.

In spite of that, if it's not Bush's fault that it didn't turn out well then it's not Bush's fault that the real estate market was good and the economy booming before it crashed.

[Phatscotty]

well of course. 90% of investors lose money, and that is a fact. only 1 out of 10 people really make a profit when investing. humans only buy shit when its most expensive, and wont touch it and even curse you for trying to get them into something when it's at an all time low. And trust me, being a former commodities broker, NOBODY WANTED GOLD AT $350, and I mean NOBODY. I only started making real commissions after gold had doubled.

Everybody I knew bought a house, even the idiots. and they turned to me, like i was the fucking idiot, and bragged about cashing 10k out of their "equity". The opportunity for home ownership was there nonetheless. If it didn't turn out well, you have to blame it on the home-owner FAR before you say "it's bushes fault"

They got their foot in the door, and if they had the slightest clue, it was within their own power to keep the house.

I really do appreciate your views on personally responsibility - the bankers knew better and screwed the country anyway. The brokers did the same but that's expected. The politicians are crooked and not to be trusted. But despite all that if the average American was living within their means and not buying a large house than they needed, this mess would never have happened. Greed and irresponsibility are the basic culprits, and they occurred on many levels.

In spite of that, if it's not Bush's fault that it didn't turn out well then it's not Bush's fault that the real estate market was good and the economy booming before it crashed.

Yeah the bankers and brokers too, a pox on them.

has there ever been a crash that was not preceded by a boom?

glad to have that discussion, however we have strayed from what I had hoped the discussion could become, which is Gov't spending.....2009 in particular. what implication does the deficit compared to GDP have on the US dollar?

[rockfist]

It depends on the size of deficits other countries are running really and I don't know enough about that to opine on that.

[Phatscotty]

It depends on the size of deficits other countries are running really and I don't know enough about that to opine on that.

I think Argentina hit 5%-6% debt/GDP. The IMF said "crisis!"

[beezer]

Actually, Reagan took credit for a boom that was created by his predecessors.

[Phatscotty]

Actually, Reagan took credit for a boom that was created by his predecessors.

[Aradhus]

I'm confused, Mr Scotty, could you explain this topic to me, in detail?

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, let's just forget the fact that economic changes are the result of actions taken 2-3 years MINIMUM and more often about 5-8 years.

Just so I'm clear, you're crediting the huge economic boom throughout the 90s to the policies of Reagan and Bush (the first one)? I'm not trying to defend G. W. Bush. I think he, and the rest of the Republicans have a great deal to answer for given their small government ideology that managed to increase the size of the federal government by 50% in 7 years. But fair is fair.

You forgot Carter (lol).

I am not really making any such specific assertion. Reagan was credited for the boom in the 80's, but did not really create that boom.

I am saying that it takes time for the effects of economic policy changes to take hold. I was told some years ago that there was a minimum 5-8 year lag. However, now, things have sped up so I believe the lag is much shorter.

As for Reagan ... he did benefit from policies that were created before he came into office. He also changed a great deal and caused things to happen later for which he escaped blame.


Crediting Bush for the good economy when he first took office was silly. Blaming Obama for an economy that was on the brink of collapse 6 months before he took office is beyond silly.

[Phatscotty]

I'm confused, Mr Scotty, could you explain this topic to me, in detail?

If I had to break it down in one sentence, I would say this discussion (I had hoped) would be about the sudden jump in USA's debt/GDP ratio. I am also pointing out the impact of the cost of the stimulus bill (825-35 billion), and of course whether it was worth it to go into debt this far/raise the deficit for the stimulus bill. If you look at spending for 2009, and you subtract the stimulus bill, we still have roughly 600 billion dollars of gov't spending, which was still way too much IMO. I have published, on the record, in 2004 as being "up in arms" about Bushes 400+ billion dollar deficit(along with all of my predictions of the consequences, which surely did come to pass). Of course I am shitting a brick over 1.4 trillion. I have seen and published the consequences of running deficits that BIG. It was a bad move for Bush and the congress to run 400+ in 2004. But they did reign it in, and went back to more acceptable deficits of 100-200 billion. Foreigners incentive to buy US debt returned also. Now that I see these deficits, and huge future deficit plans (which are far more skewed now that the economy is nowhere near where the administration thought it would be at this time) and along with Obamas plans of freezing parts of federal spending, which is laughable, (which Mccain also proposed in the election, upon which Obama responded....

You freeze federal non-discretionary spending now would be to use an AXE, when what is required is a SCALPEL

Obama has picked up the exact some Axe he attacked Mccain for wielding. Further proof he doesn't know what he's doing, and there will be a price to pay.

I will also note that this entire discussion is completely devoid from:
health care reform
cap n trade
Jobs bill
omnibus spending

To me, the writing is on the wall, and I am reading it....

[Aradhus]

So Obama got into Office and went crazy on the spending, cranking up the budget an all that Jazz, spending will nilly? You'll have to forgive my ignorance, but didnt' Bush craft the budget for 2009. Obama added an extra 200 billion, but 2010 is when Obama gets to set the budget. I dunno

One thing I take major issue with is the wole Scalpel hachet analogy. Obama has bent over backwards to get the republicans to join him in helping THEIR country, but they spit in his eye, again and again. If he does things that are contrary to his position its because he trying to win over the other side. The oterh side who don't give a flying f*ck, are not interested in helping the American people, and its all a game to them, destroy Obama so they can get back inot power( and inflict your country with more of the same failed horrific policies)

[hecter]

So Obama got into Office and went crazy on the spending, cranking up the budget an all that Jazz, spending will nilly? You'll have to forgive my ignorance, but didnt' Bush craft the budget for 2009. Obama added an extra 200 billion, but 2010 is when Obama gets to set the budget. I dunno

One thing I take major issue with is the wole Scalpel hachet analogy. Obama has bent over backwards to get the republicans to join him in helping THEIR country, but they spit in his eye, again and again. If he does things that are contrary to his position its because he trying to win over the other side. The oterh side who don't give a flying f*ck, are not interested in helping the American people, and its all a game to them, destroy Obama so they can get back inot power( and inflict your country with more of the same failed horrific policies)

But it's Obama's fault for even attempting to do that. He should be putting into action the policies that HE wants and that HE platformed on. He does have a majority, after all, so he can pretty much do what he wants. I hope he figures that out for this year.

[PLAYER57832]

So Obama got into Office and went crazy on the spending, cranking up the budget an all that Jazz, spending will nilly? You'll have to forgive my ignorance, but didnt' Bush craft the budget for 2009. Obama added an extra 200 billion, but 2010 is when Obama gets to set the budget. I dunno

One thing I take major issue with is the wole Scalpel hachet analogy. Obama has bent over backwards to get the republicans to join him in helping THEIR country, but they spit in his eye, again and again. If he does things that are contrary to his position its because he trying to win over the other side. The oterh side who don't give a flying f*ck, are not interested in helping the American people, and its all a game to them, destroy Obama so they can get back inot power( and inflict your country with more of the same failed horrific policies)

But it's Obama's fault for even attempting to do that. He should be putting into action the policies that HE wants and that HE platformed on. He does have a majority, after all, so he can pretty much do what he wants. I hope he figures that out for this year.

Except Democrats represent many views, not just one.

Republicans decide that once they get elected, no matter how slim the margin, they suddenly have a carte blance to do whatever they wish and no need at all to even try to work with anyone else.

THAT is why nothing has gotten done.

You blame Obama, but Congress works on its own. Obama signs bills that Congress puts forward, but its up to Congress to put thing forward first. Unless Congress puts something on his table, Obama cannot sign bills.

And its nice that so many want to have it both ways. If Obama does come out and say "I want this and this" in specific detail, then everyone is free to criticize him for being too dictatorial. When he doesn't, when he steps back and says "OK, Congress.. do your job and I will support what you come up with, as long as it really does the job" And suddenly Obama is "fiddling".

[Ray Rider]

[jaimito101]

how can you project the deficit 10 years from now? suddenly i'm starting to question your source... Also how can it be planned to increase after 2012? what are they accounting for?

[Doc_Brown]

Economists are paid to project profits, losses, and (in this case) deficits years in advance. Most Government programs receive a fairly consistent budget increase from one year to the next. You add in some projections about other types of spending increases and incorporate a model for the expected economic growth (or decline) over the next decade, and you can make a reasonable guess about future deficits. The Congressional Budget Office (a non-partisan and generally fairly reliable group) does that all the time.

Now, a couple quick points about budgets and deficits. First, the fiscal year for the US Federal Government is Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. I don't know whether those CBO charts are by calendar year or fiscal year. Either way, the huge spike in 2009 is largely due to the two stimulus packages. I believe they combined for something around $1.2T. Add that to the deficit from 2008, increase it a bit for a worse economy, and then add just a bit more for additional money spent under the new administration, and there you go.

Second point: The deficit is closely related to the economy. When the economy declines, so does revenue (and the decline is far worse than any that can be attributed to lower taxes). Notice that we went from a budget surplus in 2000 at the height of the tech/dot com bubble down to a peak deficit in 2004, shortly after the stock markets reached their bottoms. We had steady recovery, growth, and declining deficits that all coincided with rising stocks up through 2007. If we were to see a similar projection over the next few years, I would be a lot more comfortable. I would like to see deficits climbing towards 0 around 2012-2014 (when we'll supposedly be well on our way to full economic recovery). Indeed, the projections do have the deficit declining until 2012, but then they start increasing again. Even the highly optimistic White House projections have the deficit increasing, though at a slower pace than the CBO expects.

I understand the argument that conservatives put up with higher deficits under Bush, so they shouldn't complain now. But that argument is flawed. I'm willing to ride in a car with someone driving 10 over the speed limit. I might be a bit concerned depending on the conditions, but it's generally okay. If he hits the gas pedal momentarily to accelerate around another car, I'll probably grit my teeth a bit, but I'd understand the motivation. However, if that driver gets out and someone else jumps in and immediately starts going 30 over the speed limit, I'm going to protest loudly, especially if my 1-year old son is in the car. It's not so much the concept of a deficit (though some of us do favor a balanced budget amendment) as it is the size of the deficits.

[thegreekdog]

A few general comments on this thread:

(1) All presidents blame their predecessors for problems, usually in at least the first year of the presidency. I certainly hope that President Obama will stop doing this in a couple of months. That being said, it is rather interesting that of the things that President Obama blames President Bush for, there are virtually none that President Obama has fixed (whether gay marriage issues, economic regulation, tax cuts for the rich, the war in Iraq, civil liberty violations, and deficit spending). So, I question President Obama's sincerity, at least with respect to these issues.

(2) President Obama's excuse for increasing the deficit is that he was trying to pull the economy out of its duldrums. While I do not think what he did was as effective as across the board tax cuts would have been, I do think he genuinely believes it has worked (and will take credit that it has worked). Therefore, while I can understand his logic in increasing the deficit.

(3) I really wish you'd all stop believing that President Obama has gone to the Republicans to assist him with things. It's very annoying and pretty naive. The evidence does not bear out that President Obama has reached out to Republicans (although, if one merely listens to the president's speeches, one thinks the Republicans are helping out with all of this). Before the State of the Union address, there were no meetings with Republicans, everything was done behind closed doors by Democrats only. The Republicans were not brought in on the bailout and they have not been brought in on healthcare until now.

[Aradhus]

So Obama got into Office and went crazy on the spending, cranking up the budget an all that Jazz, spending will nilly? You'll have to forgive my ignorance, but didnt' Bush craft the budget for 2009. Obama added an extra 200 billion, but 2010 is when Obama gets to set the budget. I dunno

One thing I take major issue with is the wole Scalpel hachet analogy. Obama has bent over backwards to get the republicans to join him in helping THEIR country, but they spit in his eye, again and again. If he does things that are contrary to his position its because he trying to win over the other side. The oterh side who don't give a flying f*ck, are not interested in helping the American people, and its all a game to them, destroy Obama so they can get back inot power( and inflict your country with more of the same failed horrific policies)

But it's Obama's fault for even attempting to do that. He should be putting into action the policies that HE wants and that HE platformed on. He does have a majority, after all, so he can pretty much do what he wants. I hope he figures that out for this year.

That's who Obama is, his view is that he's not the democratic(fucking obviously) president, he's the republicans president, he's the president of America(specifically wall street and corporate Am), if the republicans would actually work with him, and do the job they were elected for, The Us would be in much better shape.