"Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years," Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.The problem with your analysis of the "rosy claim" is that you ignore the fact that even at 3% annualized growth, Obama's statement is....wait for it....true.
The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama's 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.
It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did. . . .
A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
- Doove
- 05-27-2012, 08:26 PM
- I B Hankering
- 05-27-2012, 08:33 PM
The problem with your analysis of the "rosy claim" is that you ignore the fact that even at 3% annualized growth, Obama's statement is....wait for it....true. Originally Posted by DoovePerhaps you should actually read the article Doofus.
_A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama.
_A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over
2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the MarketWatch analysis.
- Doove
- 05-27-2012, 08:39 PM
Here's what you put in bold in your original post:
A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.
Now you want to change your tune.
Too late.
A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.
Now you want to change your tune.
Too late.
- I B Hankering
- 05-27-2012, 08:56 PM
Here's what you put in bold in your original post:Stop your ignorant dissembling, Doofus. Both quotes are in the original article @ Huffy:
A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just more than 3 percent over that period.
Now you want to change your tune.
Too late. Originally Posted by Doove
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1547737.html
- Texas Contrarian
- 05-27-2012, 09:05 PM
Here is the text of the previously referenced post #14 from the other thread on this same issue:
Consider the extent to which the FY2009 base was increased by measures initially intended to get us through the 2008 crisis. TARP, for instance, was passed in late 2008 (during FY2009) and was intended to be (and should have been) a burst of one-time spending. (I don't remember exactly, but think something like $300-350 billion from TARP was spent during that fiscal year.) The author notes that Obama should be responsible for about $140 of stimulus spending and a few other things, but doesn't mention that in normal times, a budget is put together before the start of a fiscal year -- and that's it. But there was a "reconciliation bill" Obama signed a couple of months into his term. There were objections that he had allowed congress to pork up the bill unjustifiably, but he was dismissive of those, saying that was "last year's business" and that we should move on. In other words, a number of bailout, stimulus spending, and reconciliation items were included that normally would not have seen the light of day.
Just a few weeks after taking office, Obama signed the ARRA, arguing that it was necessary to sustain a big spending binge in order to mitigate the severity of the recession and propel the economy to a robust recovery (although it obviously did no such thing).
So all in all, I don't think Nutting did a very objective job of painting a picture intended to show how Obama is supposedly not a big spender. The FY2009 surge should have been a one-off rather than part of something with which to form a new baseline.
My key point is that a president's fiscal record should not be judged simply on what his rate of spending increase over a certain base year may be. Rather, it should be judged on how he wants to spend the money, what the current fiscal outlook is, and what the prospects are for establishing a path toward fiscal sustainability.
By those criteria, I don't think Barack Obama deserves a very good grade.
(End of post.)
Doove failed to respond to it, offering the excuse that it contains "fancy phrases." Besides, in his mind, his incoherent non sequiturs in post #12 should be considered a blanket debunking of everything I posted before or after! Amazing logic.
And did anyone besides Doove see any "fancy phrases?" I think just about everyone knows what "TARP" is. And I doubt that many people who follow public policy don't know what the abbreviation "ARRA" stands for. If you don't know, google it.
The FY2009 budget was vastly greater than the prior year's, primarily because it contained a lot of "emergency" spending including the bailouts and "stimulus" package. (The bailouts should have been recognized as one-time events, not stuff with which to create a new baseline enabling and encouraging a permanently higher level of spending.) So the "base" year involved a jump over the prior year of a modern-era unprecedentedly large percentage.
Additionally, please note this: I posted earlier that a president's fiscal responsibility also ought to be judged on how he wants to spend the money. Even many economists who support fiscal stimulus gave the ARRA poor marks for squandering resources ineffectively. There's no evidence that the functional equivalent of paying one group of guys to dig ditches and another to fill them in does anything to create any lasting benefits for the economy.
Obama's neo-Keynesian advisors told us that all that debt-financed stimulus spending was going to produce a wonderful "fiscal multiplier" effect and propel us to a healthy recovery.
But just look what a sorry position we're in now, running a current budget deficit of about 9% of GDP while the year-over-year rate of GDP growth seems to be stuck at about one-quarter of that level. Put in simple, raw terms, that means that we're running up about four bucks of new debt for every dollar of real economic growth.
Does that really sound like a very good deal to anyone?
By the way, Glenn Kessler, the well-know "fact checker" of The Washington Post gave Jay Carney's statement three "Pinocchios."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...h6nU_blog.html
Consider the extent to which the FY2009 base was increased by measures initially intended to get us through the 2008 crisis. TARP, for instance, was passed in late 2008 (during FY2009) and was intended to be (and should have been) a burst of one-time spending. (I don't remember exactly, but think something like $300-350 billion from TARP was spent during that fiscal year.) The author notes that Obama should be responsible for about $140 of stimulus spending and a few other things, but doesn't mention that in normal times, a budget is put together before the start of a fiscal year -- and that's it. But there was a "reconciliation bill" Obama signed a couple of months into his term. There were objections that he had allowed congress to pork up the bill unjustifiably, but he was dismissive of those, saying that was "last year's business" and that we should move on. In other words, a number of bailout, stimulus spending, and reconciliation items were included that normally would not have seen the light of day.
Just a few weeks after taking office, Obama signed the ARRA, arguing that it was necessary to sustain a big spending binge in order to mitigate the severity of the recession and propel the economy to a robust recovery (although it obviously did no such thing).
So all in all, I don't think Nutting did a very objective job of painting a picture intended to show how Obama is supposedly not a big spender. The FY2009 surge should have been a one-off rather than part of something with which to form a new baseline.
My key point is that a president's fiscal record should not be judged simply on what his rate of spending increase over a certain base year may be. Rather, it should be judged on how he wants to spend the money, what the current fiscal outlook is, and what the prospects are for establishing a path toward fiscal sustainability.
By those criteria, I don't think Barack Obama deserves a very good grade.
(End of post.)
Doove failed to respond to it, offering the excuse that it contains "fancy phrases." Besides, in his mind, his incoherent non sequiturs in post #12 should be considered a blanket debunking of everything I posted before or after! Amazing logic.
And did anyone besides Doove see any "fancy phrases?" I think just about everyone knows what "TARP" is. And I doubt that many people who follow public policy don't know what the abbreviation "ARRA" stands for. If you don't know, google it.
The FY2009 budget was vastly greater than the prior year's, primarily because it contained a lot of "emergency" spending including the bailouts and "stimulus" package. (The bailouts should have been recognized as one-time events, not stuff with which to create a new baseline enabling and encouraging a permanently higher level of spending.) So the "base" year involved a jump over the prior year of a modern-era unprecedentedly large percentage.
Additionally, please note this: I posted earlier that a president's fiscal responsibility also ought to be judged on how he wants to spend the money. Even many economists who support fiscal stimulus gave the ARRA poor marks for squandering resources ineffectively. There's no evidence that the functional equivalent of paying one group of guys to dig ditches and another to fill them in does anything to create any lasting benefits for the economy.
Obama's neo-Keynesian advisors told us that all that debt-financed stimulus spending was going to produce a wonderful "fiscal multiplier" effect and propel us to a healthy recovery.
But just look what a sorry position we're in now, running a current budget deficit of about 9% of GDP while the year-over-year rate of GDP growth seems to be stuck at about one-quarter of that level. Put in simple, raw terms, that means that we're running up about four bucks of new debt for every dollar of real economic growth.
Does that really sound like a very good deal to anyone?
By the way, Glenn Kessler, the well-know "fact checker" of The Washington Post gave Jay Carney's statement three "Pinocchios."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...h6nU_blog.html
- IIFFOFRDB
- 05-27-2012, 09:25 PM
Here is the text of the previously referenced post #14 from the other thread on this same issue:I'm glad you are on my side Brother. Thank You. If they want birthcontrol subsidized by the tax payers. Why not Douche? Clean pussy for everyone...Why should I pay for your.....clean pussy....
Consider the extent to which the FY2009 base was increased by measures initially intended to get us through the 2008 crisis. TARP, for instance, was passed in late 2008 (during FY2009) and was intended to be (and should have been) a burst of one-time spending. (I don't remember exactly, but think something like $300-350 billion from TARP was spent during that fiscal year.) The author notes that Obama should be responsible for about $140 of stimulus spending and a few other things, but doesn't mention that in normal times, a budget is put together before the start of a fiscal year -- and that's it. But there was a "reconciliation bill" Obama signed a couple of months into his term. There were objections that he had allowed congress to pork up the bill unjustifiably, but he was dismissive of those, saying that was "last year's business" and that we should move on. In other words, a number of bailout, stimulus spending, and reconciliation items were included that normally would not have seen the light of day.
Just a few weeks after taking office, Obama signed the ARRA, arguing that it was necessary to sustain a big spending binge in order to mitigate the severity of the recession and propel the economy to a robust recovery (although it obviously did no such thing).
So all in all, I don't think Nutting did a very objective job of painting a picture intended to show how Obama is supposedly not a big spender. The FY2009 surge should have been a one-off rather than part of something with which to form a new baseline.
My key point is that a president's fiscal record should not be judged simply on what his rate of spending increase over a certain base year may be. Rather, it should be judged on how he wants to spend the money, what the current fiscal outlook is, and what the prospects are for establishing a path toward fiscal sustainability.
By those criteria, I don't think Barack Obama deserves a very good grade.
(End of post.)
Doove failed to respond to it, offering the excuse that it contains "fancy phrases." Besides, in his mind, his incoherent non sequiturs in post #12 should be considered a blanket debunking of everything I posted before or after! Amazing logic.
And did anyone besides Doove see any "fancy phrases?" I think just about everyone knows what "TARP" was. And I doubt that many people who follow public policy don't know what the abbreviation "ARRA" stands for. If you don't know, google it.
The FY2009 budget was vastly greater than the prior year's, primarily because it contained a lot of "emergency" spending including the bailouts and "stimulus" package. So the "base" year involved a jump over the prior year of a modern-era unprecedentedly large percentage.
Also note that I posted earlier that a president's fiscal responsibility ought to also be judged on how he wants to spend the money. Even many economists who support fiscal stimulus gave the stimulus package poor marks for squandering resources ineffectively. There's no evidence that the functional equivalent of paying one group of guys to dig ditches and another to fill them in doesn't do much to create any lasting benefits for the economy.
Obama's neo-Keynesian advisors told us that all that stimulus spending was going to produce a wonderful fiscal multiplier effect and propel us to a healthy recovery.
But just look what a sorry position we're in now, running a current budget deficit of about 9% while the year-over-year rate of GDP growth seems to be stuck at about one-quarter of that level. Put in simple, raw terms, that means that we're running up about four bucks of new debt for every dollar of real economic growth.
Does that really sound like a very good deal to anyone?
By the way, Glenn Kessler, the well-know "fact checker" of The Washington Post gave Jay Carney's statement three "Pinocchios."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...h6nU_blog.html Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
- Doove
- 05-28-2012, 06:42 AM
Here is the text of the previously referenced post #14 from the other thread on this same issue:Wow, i can't believe you went on and on like that (for the 2nd time, no less) about comments in another thread.
Blah blah blah.
Doove failed to respond to it, offering the excuse that it contains "fancy phrases." Besides, in his mind, his incoherent non sequiturs in post #12 should be considered a blanket debunking of everything I posted before or after! Amazing logic.
And did anyone besides Doove see any "fancy phrases?" I think just about everyone knows what "TARP" is. And I doubt that many people who follow public policy don't know what the abbreviation "ARRA" stands for. If you don't know, google it. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
Oh wait, yes i can....
Just for shits and giggles...more traits of a narcissist:
--Conversation controller. Must have the first and last word
--Convincing. Must convince people to side with him
--He has to be right. He has to win. He has to look good Originally Posted by Doove
- Texas Contrarian
- 05-28-2012, 10:02 AM
Everyone can see what's going on here. You posted a link to a biased, disingenuous article that you don't understand and can't defend. If you were capable of offering a cogent (sorry, I know you hate that word!) rebuttal to my post, you would have done so. You can't, so you didn't even try.
Instead, all you can do is try to deflect attention from the exposure of your ignorance by means of making frequent charges of "narcissism", often accompanied by copied & pasted definitions. How many times (and in how many threads) have you done that lately? You're obviously obsessed with this.
So here's a suggestion for you, Doove:
Why don't you start a thread titled "CaptainMidnight is a Narcissist!" It's possible that someone missed seeing one of your many posts in which you made that claim. I doubt that, but it could be the case. If you started your own thread on the subject, you could bump it a couple of times every day with "Doove's Daily Narcissism Update", or perhaps links to an endless series of articles on the subject. I'm sure everyone would await your posts with bated breath.
That could be something of a catharsis for you, Doove. You could let out all sorts of repressed emotions and feelings. Another advantage is that you could avoid the embarrassment associated with people believing that you're simply engaging in behavior defined thusly:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...ead%20crapping
This is a lightly moderated forum, unlike the old "Diamonds and Tuxedos." So, Doove, I don't think the mods would assess penalty points against you for starting such a thread.
Go for it!
Instead, all you can do is try to deflect attention from the exposure of your ignorance by means of making frequent charges of "narcissism", often accompanied by copied & pasted definitions. How many times (and in how many threads) have you done that lately? You're obviously obsessed with this.
So here's a suggestion for you, Doove:
Why don't you start a thread titled "CaptainMidnight is a Narcissist!" It's possible that someone missed seeing one of your many posts in which you made that claim. I doubt that, but it could be the case. If you started your own thread on the subject, you could bump it a couple of times every day with "Doove's Daily Narcissism Update", or perhaps links to an endless series of articles on the subject. I'm sure everyone would await your posts with bated breath.
That could be something of a catharsis for you, Doove. You could let out all sorts of repressed emotions and feelings. Another advantage is that you could avoid the embarrassment associated with people believing that you're simply engaging in behavior defined thusly:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...ead%20crapping
This is a lightly moderated forum, unlike the old "Diamonds and Tuxedos." So, Doove, I don't think the mods would assess penalty points against you for starting such a thread.
Go for it!
- Doove
- 05-28-2012, 11:34 AM
- CuteOldGuy
- 05-28-2012, 11:41 AM
You need glasses.
- Doove
- 05-28-2012, 12:10 PM
- Texas Contrarian
- 05-28-2012, 12:52 PM
Doove, I have a tendency do the same thing. I just call 'em as I see 'em!
This one's the easiest call anyone could ever make: You're an ignorant fool who got your sensitive little feelings hurt when your cluelessness was exposed for everyone to see, so you lashed out in the only way you know how. You don't even understand the article to which you posted a link, and now you realize that all the other thread participants know that. I'm sure this must be a bit embarrassing for you.
Why don't you start a new thread with the title I suggested? Then you'd be able to post about narcissism to your heart's content without engaging in thread-crapping (as defined in the urbandictionary.com link I posted above).
I don't think you have the cojones to do it.
This one's the easiest call anyone could ever make: You're an ignorant fool who got your sensitive little feelings hurt when your cluelessness was exposed for everyone to see, so you lashed out in the only way you know how. You don't even understand the article to which you posted a link, and now you realize that all the other thread participants know that. I'm sure this must be a bit embarrassing for you.
Why don't you start a new thread with the title I suggested? Then you'd be able to post about narcissism to your heart's content without engaging in thread-crapping (as defined in the urbandictionary.com link I posted above).
I don't think you have the cojones to do it.
- Doove
- 05-28-2012, 01:53 PM
Why don't you start a new thread with the title I suggested? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnightThe mere fact that you're going on and on about this.....and suggesting i start a thread devoted to you....makes it pretty much unnecessary.
I don't think you have the cojones to do it.Perhaps.
Or maybe there comes a point where you just bore me with your incessant whining about me.
- Guest123018-4
- 05-28-2012, 02:20 PM
Liberals have a hard time rebutting the truth without lying.
- Little Stevie
- 05-28-2012, 02:32 PM
I'm glad you are on my side Brother. Thank You. If they want birthcontrol subsidized by the tax payers. Why not Douche? Clean pussy for everyone...Why should I pay for your.....clean pussy.... Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB
What an idiotic statement! They haven't passed Single Payer health care.
The pharmaceutical industry has made a ton of money on birth control pill prices and so have the insurance companies profited on continually-increasing premiums that pay for birth control pills. They've both done it for DECADES!
The 20%-35% annual increases in health insurance premiums were unsustainable without rationing "for-profit" health care before just as much or more than people who don't like the "Affordable Health Care Act" and say that it will cost more.
They ration the care with price increases on premiums that force people who can't keep pace with the increases in premiums to go "bare" or to choose less coverage.
AT LEAST Obama got the blatantly unfair "pre-existing condition" loophole they used to ration care even further out of their "bag of tricks" and also forced them to include a person's children up to age 26! Good for him. I just wish the insurers hadn't been allowed to sit at the table in the first place and that there had been staunch consumer advocates on the panel as well.
The Affordable Health Care Act ain't perfect but it's a start at keeping Big Insurance from making health insurance too expensive for anyone not in the top 2%-4% of the wage-earners in the country.
Big Pharma and Big Insurance stand to profit EITHER way.
The current flap over contraceptives was just another manufactured fight by the wingnut right to rile up the even nuttier part of the party - the religious right. Those same intolerant morons would close down this board if they had their way. You idiots who are defending them are playing with fire by encouraging their encroachment into the bedroom.
At least Doove is keeping it real in between the straw man arguments posted by the righties.