The Obama File

Discussion in 'Politics' started by eyeswideshut, Oct 5, 2011.

  1. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Yes, please bring on the next derivatives crash, E.coli burgers, and pipeline and oil rig blowouts. ...a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.

    But you keep on believing MAW. Don't ever let inconvenient facts make you begin to doubt your free market dogma. Laissez faire results in the best of all possible worlds, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

    Also, this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    All examples of "unreasonable" regulation.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Who cares what the Annenberg Foundation's zombie organization "PolitiFact" says?

    As I stated before, this foundation is run by interests that have in mind creating a dialectic. They really don't give a shit who wins or loses. They present non-issues. Both candidates are puppets. Their "non-partisan" fact checking is hogwash to distract people from the truth. Mr. Obama is one of their creations. He used to work for one of their organizations. Didn't you know that? The same people that funded PolitFact funded the only executive experience that Obama ever had before he was elected to the White house. A lot of people are screaming conflict of interest and that those facts you are quoting are completely meaningless. I say, who really gives a shit. They control both sides of the debate anyway. And they are lies anyhow. Think about it, it's completely counter-intuitive.

    Clearly she isn't "non-partisan."
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Hogwash, denial of reality is all too common these days by Republican devotees like you. Spending in 2009 hit an all-time high because of previous Republican fiscal irresponsibility (e.g. two unfunded wars, the largest unfunded entitlement expansion in a half century and unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy) and the nation was on the verge of complete economic collapse because of Republican deregulation originating nearly 9 years earlier. And by the way, it was the previous Republican administration that requested the emergency funding in the 4th quarter of 2008 that led to the spending in 2009 and that spending was approved with a bipartisan vote in congress. So your attempt to lay the fiscal irresponsibility of a Republican administration and congress on President Obama is simply dishonest.

    On the very day Obama was sworn into office the nation was running a trillion dollar plus deficit.Additionally, I suggest you pull out your pocket Constitution and remind yourself which branch of government is responsible for federal spending. I will give you a clue, it is not the executive. It is Congress. And as we all know Republicans in congress have been actively trying to thwart anything President Obama has attempted to do including deficit reduction. Obama went for the big deal; Republican Speaker Boehner couldn’t deliver the votes in the Republican controlled House. President Obama organized the deficit reduction task force which was rejected by Republicans.

    Ironically Ryan, the Republican nominee for vice president, voted for each and every one of the previously name Republican profligate spending measures while in congress. Ryan voted for the unfunded wars for 8 years. He voted for the unwarranted special interest giveaways in the entitlement expansions, and he voted for the unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy. He voted for everything that took a budget surplus to a trillion dollar deficit. And you want to make him the vice president.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, you cares about little things like truth and honesty? Fortunately Democrats do.
  8. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    It's useless Joe. You're debating with someone who is completely incapable of questioning his core assumptions about how the world works. We have to accept that we cannot change MAW's mind, because he's incapable of changing his mind. He's firmly convinced that President Obama is history's greatest monster, and that conviction is completely immune to any contrary evidence.
  9. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    He believes in lizard people. 'Nuff said.
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    He worked for the University of Chicago Law School.

    The Annenberg Foundation.

    BTW: The Founder was Walter Annenberg, who created Seventeen Magazine, The TV Guide, and the National Enquirer. He was certainly no Democrat:

    Last edited: Sep 1, 2012
  11. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    History's greatest monster? Certainly not. Now if he somehow manages to get a second term............
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    How so?

    Chart Key:
    Blue - Transfer to state and local
    Red - Federal direct spending
    Green- State direct spending
    Gray- Local direct spending
  13. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, that's what I am trying to get at. All the foundations work on this principle.

    "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
    — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Most foundations I can think of are formed for philanthropic purposes. They are often the result of some insanely wealthy people wanting to give back some of that wealth to the world. The operatives aren't as likely to be motivated by profit anymore. I'm not sure what you mean.

    You mean Walter Annenberg infiltrated the Republican Party like a double agent?
  15. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    I should report you for libel. Granted, I have a more open mind than some, but unless you can offer up proof of your scandalous accusations, I suggest you just quit posting as this just proves how little you investigate what you read and watch. Somethings are for entertainment only. You're lucky I have a thicker skin than most around here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


  16. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    The analysis you are all so gleefully refering to was done by Rex Nutting and is a complete snowjob. It was given "3 Pinocchios" by the Washington Post. To quote:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Furthermore, Obama's proposed budget was actually higer than what congress eventually passed each and every year of his presidency! But it gets worse;
    So the fact is, Obama is the biggest spender.
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    There was no glee in my post. I wrote only said "how so?"

    To cross check this, I went to the OMB, downloaded and plotted their data set. Here is spending, cited as total outlay as a % of GDP:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Federal spending since Jan 20, 2009, as a % of GDP, did not exceed the spending during WWII. This is correctly demonstrated in the first graph I posted, which means that your statement is false regardless of which source I use.

    Revenues have gone up, as you might expect, after the huge infusion of cash to recover from the crash of '08. In light of this, deficits (revenue minus outlay) have fallen in the last four years.

    I think there may be a data set to show the outlays by local and state governments, but I'm not sure.
  18. Balerion Banned Banned

    Every time I say the name of this thread out loud, I can't help but feel like I'm saying "The Obamaphile."
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    This is an interesting discussion:

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Is President Obama a big spender who has blown up the national debt?

    Republicans say he is, and Democrats say he isn't. And they both use numbers and past presidents' records to make their point.

    Trouble is, "you can make the numbers tell you what you want if you torture them enough," said Rudolph Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

    Here's what we know about spending and deficits during the Obama administration: They started climbing sharply in late 2008, even before he took office, and have remained high since.

    In fact, both spending and debt have been far above their historical norms as a percent of GDP. Revenue, meanwhile, has been treading near 60-year lows.

    But those numbers alone don't fully address the question. The context matters. Among the factors to consider:

    1. Obama took office when the economy was sinking: Economic conditions were seriously deteriorating at the end of the Bush administration and descended into God-awful during the first year that Obama was in office.

    For fiscal year 2008, which ended on Sept. 30, 2008, the country had racked up $459 billion in deficits, or 3.2% of GDP. In September, the world's financial system imploded and the U.S. economy's decline accelerated.

    Related: Obama's tax record

    The country racked up $563 billion in deficits in the first four months of fiscal year 2009 alone. Bush was president for three and a half of those months.

    For the whole of 2009, the deficit clocked in at $1.43 trillion, or 10.1% of GDP. The story improved only slightly for 2010.

    Those eye-popping numbers arose in large part because Congress passed the $700 billion TARP bank bailout in October 2008 under Bush and then the $787 billion Recovery Act in February 2009 under Obama.

    Safety-net spending on unemployment benefits, Medicare and Medicaid rose during that time. Tax revenue plummeted.

    "It was entirely appropriate to increase spending in the recession," Penner said.

    And since that kind of recession spending is intended to end, he added, "it doesn't tell you much about the long-term spending growth pattern for either Bush or Obama."

    What's more, the fact that safety-net spending automatically rose during economic distress was to be expected no matter who sat in the Oval Office.

    2. Tax cuts played a role in digging the fiscal hole: The story gets more complicated in fiscal year 2011. The economy was in the midst of a slow recovery and the deficit topped $1 trillion for the third year in a row.

    While Republicans often blame the outsized deficits under Obama on spending, a key reason the 2011 deficit was so high was tax cuts.

    Obama and the Republicans cut an $858 billion tax compromise that extended the Bush tax cuts for two years. It also enacted a one-year Social Security tax holiday and reduced the estate tax.

    All told, the tax cut compromise added about $410 billion to the 2011 deficit, the CBO estimated.

    3. When it comes to fiscal policy, no president is an island: That tax cut deal raises another factor to consider when judging Obama's spending record.

    Congress and prior presidents have a big say in determining the budget policies of a sitting president.

    For example, Obama walked into large increases in defense spending and veterans' health care because of the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Related: Was Romney a tax cutter or a tax hiker?

    And no president has control over the interest spending required on debt that accrued over the country's history. Because of the outsized growth in debt during the past few years, this is an issue that will be a big one for future presidents.

    "Assigning blame or credit to presidents ignores the fact that they must work with an entire Congress to pass legislation. [And] their budget can be significantly affected by the decisions of previous Congresses and presidents," the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted recently.

    4. Obama's future plans might be more telling: Given the economic circumstances Obama walked into, a better view on the question of whether he's a big spender may be in his 2013 budget proposal, Penner said.

    Under Obama's 2013 proposal, spending as a percent of the economy would average 22.5% over the next decade, below where it's been in the past few years but above the historical average of 20.8%, according to the CBO.

    Mandatory spending on entitlements would average 14.2% over the next decade, up from 13.5% today.

    That increase is partly due to demographics.

    "You can't blame Obama for the population aging," said Donald Marron, a former acting director of the Congressional Budget Office. The surge of baby boomer retirements is going to increase entitlement spending regardless of who is president.

    And partly it's due to health reform -- Obama's signature piece of legislation.

    The 2010 Affordable Care Act permanently increases entitlement spending because of a new insurance subsidy. But overall, it's estimated that health reform will reduce deficits modestly -- in the first decade -- because of cost-reducing measures and tax hikes.

    Of course, there is concern that some of those cost-saving measures won't deliver as hoped.

    Meanwhile, so-called discretionary spending under Obama's budget -- the money that goes to many of the government's most basic programs including defense -- would fall to the lowest level of GDP in 50 years, the CBO said.

    That's in part because of spending controls put in place under the Budget Control Act, which Republicans pushed hard for.

    So is Obama a big spender or not?

    The political answer will always be yes for Republicans and no for Democrats. For independent budget experts, the political debate is not productive at a time when policymakers face truly pressing fiscal decisions.

    Indeed, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted: "The blame game is much less important than trying to find a bipartisan solution to our budget problems." - CNN

    President Obama inherited a fiscal disaster. Tax revenues were in free fall for several reasons (all Republican induced – unfunded wars and unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy and the Great Recession). While federal spending was increasing due to higher unemployment costs resulting from The Great Recession. It is at best disingenuous to accuse or blame President Obama for the situation he inherited from the previous Republican administration.

    As the CNN article states, it is more important to find a bipartisan solution that works for our economy and our people. Republicans have yet to offer up a credible fiscal solution and for the 4 years they have been against anything the president attempts to do, even if he concedes 100% to the Republican position. The Republican preferred solution, following the European model into recession is not a good option and double digit unemployment is not a good solution. And repeating the deregulation mistakes of the past is not a good solution. Opening up public coffers to special interest raids (e.g. Medicare Part D) is not a good solution. Unfortunately Republicans are still advocating all of the above.
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Correction - the tail end of their data are projections.What OMB is saying is that this is what we can expect if we stay the course. I didn't catch that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In any case all that's evident about this is that spending looks correlated with the recovery from a crashing revenue stream to one that stays flat, and other than the massive outlays to recover from the crash, the second spike after Jan 2009 looks to be at the level of spending during the Reagan administration. I think it's within a percentage point.

    Raw spending goes up in every administration, as might be expected. Revenue varies with growth and unemployment. Comparing spending to GDP has its advantages in attempting to normalize all the causes of spending increases and reductions.

    In this case it's kind of bizarre to speak stridently about spending since the country was going over a cliff until the spending brought it out of its nosedive. If the spending weren't done, the President's opponents would be complaining that he was ineffective or indecisive, but in any case we'd have been in a severe crisis that would make the crash look like child's play.

    I don't understand the Right's issue with this, since they were not able to hammer out a solution of their own in the 2 years they've had the House. Ryan's plan, as far as I can tell, is not endorsed by the OMB. Furthermore, we can only speculate that the recovery would have succeeded if the chickens in Congress hadn't whittled down the bailout and stimulus spending.

    Notice, if you object to the spike in 2009, and the consequences to present levels of spending, then you are objecting to Ryan and his plan. Here he is on the TARP:

  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Not true. Only "true believers" don´t believe the facts, but the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget do. They should as they are the source of this bar chart published by pro business and right wing leaning Forbes whose journalistic dedication to truth over rides its Republican political bias.

    Obama has

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This bar chart is from Forbes, hardly a left leaning source!

    Note also, Clinton, (both terms) is much lower than any Republican too. Those FACTS however are no problem with with "True Believers" like you. They will also continue to support more tax relief for the "job creators" and ignore the fact that those jobs are in the more modern factories they built in China, which actually closed US factories or at least forced more "out sourcing" for US factories to compete!

    Note the above is recreation of post that got lost with Sciforum´s crash.
  22. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Did you read my earlier post regarding that chart? It has been rated 3 Pinocchio's by the Washington Post. The starting and ending points of the chart are questionable, exactly what gets allocated to Bush and what gets allocated to Obama is questionable (since many of the bills from 2008 were not passed until Obama came into office), and the method of comparison is questionable since it does not take inflation into account.

    A more honest and straightforward comparison is the percent of GDP government spending consumes under each president, and by that criteria, Obama is the biggest spender of the post war period.

    And here's another very effective anti-Obama ad:

  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    No your article is not more honest, it is a tortured misrepresentation of the data.

Share This Page