|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Sept 4, 2012 21:05:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Sept 4, 2012 22:25:21 GMT -5
Yet govt. spending under Obama has grown at roughly 1.4% per annum, lower than at any time since the Depression.
If spending is essentially flat, then why the growth in debt?
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Sept 5, 2012 15:12:57 GMT -5
"roughly!" Is that 1.4% under Obama? From years 2009,2010,2011? Please educate us Mr economist.
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Sept 5, 2012 18:27:20 GMT -5
Dude, its widely available data......from BEA, or the St. Louis Fed site etc. etc.
Many economists have written about it too.
The growth in federal spending, adjusted for inflation, has only been 1.4% in the Obama admin. so far. MUCH lower than all presidents since WWII.
The increase in the deficit, and therefore the debt, is almost totally made up of a drop in federal revenue, and the cost of both wars.
Look, you seem pretty passionate about the national debt. Its a major long term problem. But the key is an understanding of the basic data.
At this moment, PRIVATE sector GDP is growing at about 3.3%. The average since 1947 is 3.26%. Its the drop in PUBLIC sector spending that is cutting into growth. Same with employment numbers. PRIVATE sector employment keeps looking better and better. What is fueling the high unemployment rate, at least right now, is that PUBLIC sector jobs are declining.
We can debate whether that's a good thing or not, but we can't debate the fact that its happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Sept 5, 2012 18:37:14 GMT -5
With the national debt eclipsing $16T today, I thought it might be fun to take a little stroll down memory lane. So let’s go back to 2008 when then-candidate Obama has this to say about the national debt: So adding $4T to the national debt is “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic?” Got it. National debt on January 20th, 2009: $10.62T National debt as of today: $16.01T So, if adding $4T to the national debt over 8 years is irresponsible and unpatriotic, what exactly would adding $5.39T to the national debt in less than 4 years be? www.therightsphere.com/2012/09/flashback-candidate-obama-says-adding-4t-to-debt-is-unpatriotic/ |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Sept 5, 2012 19:12:15 GMT -5
I was just asking for you to explain the 1.4% per annum....what was the spending in
2009-
2010-
2011-
...under Obama?
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Sept 6, 2012 10:10:34 GMT -5
Growth in spending? Its a widely published stat. I'll find it for you if you wish. But by all measures its lower than ALL presidents since Eisenhower. But realize, if spending is as close to flat as can be, or has been, and revenue is at a 50 year low, then the spending was there before he was inaugurated, and the loss of revenue is essentially the heart of the matter. articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor Not the numbers in raw form, I know you're not a big fan of data-graphs. And remember, the biggest "new" spending item is/was the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The total for those two will approach $3 TRILLION, and the architects of those wars never offered an approach to pay for them, which is unprecedented. Again, the problem with our budget/debt is that NOBODY wants to take the measures necessary to get it under control. Its political suicide, because the population isn't willing to "eat it" yet. The idea that one political party will base its entire attack on the other on the notion that the debt is "their" problem is INSANE, and especially dubious this election cycle when you compare the current president with the last several. I kind of feel like you're asking me to explain why the square root of 9 is 3. Its not opinon, its data, and I don't know if you don't believe it, think I'm making it up, or just don't want to approach raw data yourself. The argument, especially about the Market Watch piece in the WSJ, is about what gets calculated where. What part of the stimulus gets attributed to Obama, and what part gets put on Bush. The numbers don't lie, but there are different estimates. And you can argue that Congress kept Obama from spending more, because it certainly did. But the point remains, spending under Obama isn't any worse, and may be better, than under previous presidents. So the growth in debt is a matter of structure and revenue. |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Sept 6, 2012 18:22:40 GMT -5
Alleluia!
Now you are starting to get it! I've been telling you this for quite some time now.
You said: The argument, especially about the Market Watch piece in the WSJ, is about what gets calculated where. What part of the stimulus gets attributed to Obama, and what part gets put on Bush. The numbers don't lie, but there are different estimates.-Driveshaftgrunt
The numbers don't lie....your charts/data don't lie
there are different estimates....the way you, Mr. Rex Nutting, any many other democarts who love to use charts/data do...
....you posted 1.4 spending by Obama, lowest since sliced bread was invented, blah, blah ,blah.... but as you pointed out before above "what gets calculated where" that number is kinda deceiving don't you think?
Mr Rex Nutting WTJ piece, doesn't count most of Obama first year in office(2009)stimulus spending as Obama spending....I know why, but it would be nice if you explain it....I would love to read what an economic expert such as yourself has to say about 2009.
|
|
