• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama spending binge never happened - true or false?

I lean left of center, but this feeble attempt to make Obama seem like a conservative government spender are laughable.

The two readily apparent flaws in this argument:

1. Gives the entire FY 09 to Bush in the effort to create an artificial baseline of the highest GDP spending since 1946.
2. Ignores that FY 09 had a bunch of supposed one-time spending programs (bailouts, stimulus) that have apparently been replaced with other government spending.

The Pubs will never get real on tax policy and the Dems will never get real on spending policy.
 
Last edited:
I have to say that the President walked into an enormous economic shit-soufle for which he was not responsible for cooking.

You can argue that he has done poorly but you cannot scurry around the incredible mountain he faced on arrival.
 
Lectro said:
I have to say that the President walked into an enormous economic shit-soufle for which he was not responsible for cooking.

You can argue that he has done poorly but you cannot scurry around the incredible mountain he faced on arrival.
Click to expand...

Now this is certainly true. However, he has done little to address our serious public policy deficiencies and has primarily pushed partisan political objectives instead of providing real leadership.

Not that I think Romney will do any better.
 
bobknightfan said:
Alan Greenspan is one of the biggest reasons we have this mess today. He kept interest rates artificially low far too long (to prop the economy up temporarily and help GWB squeeze thru a tight election in 2004) after he had clear evidence that the housing market was heating up toward a "bubble area". If Greenspan had raised interest rates back in 2003...when he should have...he could have taken a lot of air out of the housing bubble and prevented much of the problem it caused later.
Click to expand...

Asset price targeting isn't in the Fed's mandate, and is counterproductive.
 
1n 1996, the federal budget was 1.6 Trillion. In 2012, the federal budget is 3.7 Trillion. That is unsustainable growth in federal spending. Both sides spend to keep their jobs and the populace be damned.
 
bobknightfan said:
I think a couple more tax cuts and a couple more wars of choice would take care of the problem.
Click to expand...

??? I don't understand your point, BKF. Irrespective of tax receipts, the gov't has increased spending by 2 TRILLION dollars in less than 20 years.
 
And that has to do with tax cuts, how?

I don't know anyone is arguing that we need to spend more on defense.
 
bobknightfan said:
Looks to me like leaving interest rates too low for too long turned out to be pretty damned counterproductive. Isn't guarding against inflation part of the Fed's "mandate"?

(It served one purpose, though. It kept the economy propped up just long enough for Bush to eke out a win in 2004.)
Click to expand...

The overall rate of inflation was within the Fed's target range from 2001 to 2007. Targeting prices in a specific asset class is not in the Fed's mandate.
 
bobknightfan said:
Well, it really worked out well, didn't it? (And I don't agree with your opinion on interest rates, either.)
Click to expand...

I mean, pretty much. The Fed's interest rate policies didn't cause the housing bubble. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, National Bureau of Economic Research, and the Fed itself all came to that conclusion.
 
bnf won't be happy until the US is reshaped into Greece.
 
ChrisL68 said:
I lean left of center, but this feeble attempt to make Obama seem like a conservative government spender are laughable.

The two readily apparent flaws in this argument:

1. Gives the entire FY 09 to Bush in the effort to create an artificial baseline of the highest GDP spending since 1946.
2. Ignores that FY 09 had a bunch of supposed one-time spending programs (bailouts, stimulus) that have apparently been replaced with other government spending.

The Pubs will never get real on tax policy and the Dems will never get real on spending policy.
Click to expand...

it wasn't an attempt to make him look like a conservative government spender, but to counter claims that he is an unprecedented drunken sailor.
 
WakeandBake said:
it wasn't an attempt to make him look like a conservative government spender, but to counter claims that he is an unprecedented drunken sailor.
Click to expand...

He is a drunken sailor spender. If you are going to criticize Bush tax policies for lowering tax revenues to all time low rates, you have to criticize Obama spending policies for consecutive years of historically high spending.

When these stimulus plans were discussed, they were couched as temporary spending increases to help the economy. Instead, they have been replaced with other spending and right now there is no end to high % of GDP government spending in sight.
 
We are now longer in a massive recession.

The Pubs always have a good reason why it is never a good time to raise taxes and the Dems always have a good reason why it is never a good time to cut spending, particulary on entitlements.

Not only that, but Obama pushed through another giant entitlement program when the ones we have currently are on shaky fiscal ground during an economic crisis.
 
Last edited:
you lie
no, you lie
no, you lie
no, you lie
my numbers prove you lie
well, my numbers prove you lie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top