I need a liberal or dem's take on this

[spence]

You could say the pie on the right is 40% larger or has gotten 40% larger but they're not the same equation. Personally I think there's far less value in comparing the relative size of the budgets than in understanding the amount of change which is why I picked the one I did.

Even this though holds little meaning unless it's in context with the budgetary trends. It's no accident that the author picked a moment in time right before the bubble burst and yet just before TARP and Stimulus spending kicked in. Given that it's the pie on the left which is perhaps the anomaly.

We've beaten this dead horse before.

Besides, who ever said I was in finance?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You could say the pie on the right is 40% larger or has gotten 40% larger but they're not the same equation. Personally I think there's far less value in comparing the relative size of the budgets than in understanding the amount of change which is why I picked the one I did.

Even this though holds little meaning unless it's in context with the budgetary trends. It's no accident that the author picked a moment in time right before the bubble burst and yet just before TARP and Stimulus spending kicked in. Given that it's the pie on the left which is perhaps the anomaly.

We've beaten this dead horse before.

Besides, who ever said I was in finance?

-spence

"You could say the pie on the right is 40% larger or has gotten 40% larger "

Thanks.

"but they're not the same equation"

What does that mean?

"Given that it's the pie on the left which is perhaps the anomaly."

Until this fascist Bolshevik leaves the White House, I agree that the pie on the right is the new norm.

"who ever said I was in finance?"

I got that impression from someone, was I wrong?

Spence, if spending has increased 40% since 2007 (and whether you like it or not, it has), but revenues have increased nearly that much...do you see that as a problem, or are the conservatives crying wolf about a silly little thing like a $16 trillion debt and a $100 trillion shortfall for SS and Medicare?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You could say the pie on the right is 40% larger or has gotten 40% larger "

Thanks.

"but they're not the same equation"

What does that mean?

It means that by one measurement it's 40% and by the other it's 30%.

"Given that it's the pie on the left which is perhaps the anomaly."

Until this fascist Bolshevik leaves the White House, I agree that the pie on the right is the new norm.

If you were to smooth the curve you'd see the pie on the right is a continuation of the Bush trajectory while the pie on the left is an abnormality.

"who ever said I was in finance?"

I got that impression from someone, was I wrong?

Yes.

Spence, if spending has increased 40% since 2007 (and whether you like it or not, it has), but revenues have increased nearly that much...do you see that as a problem, or are the conservatives crying wolf about a silly little thing like a $16 trillion debt and a $100 trillion shortfall for SS and Medicare?

I think most everyone agrees the debt and healthcare costs are an issue, it's just that there are differing options on how to address it.

Here's the rub, a president Romney would still have the same debt, same deficit and the same Republicans out to protect their spending interests.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If you were to smooth the curve you'd see the pie on the right is a continuation of the Bush trajectory while the pie on the left is an abnormality.


The trajectories are not the same. Nor are trajectories in and of themselves meaningful. Wars, for example, create a much steeper upward rise in spending than in peacetime.

What is your criterion for abnormality?

The nearly constant upward slope of the curve might be more meaningful than the periodic fluctuations in degree.

Besides, a perfectly smooth slope with an unchanging degree of rise would be an abnormality requiring a harmonious condition of rising stupidity (stupidity being gvt. spending beyond sustainable limits). That our politicians, as a class, might well be fiscally stupid is no surprise.

But there were actually periods in our history when the slope trended downward for sustained durations. Actually, those were times before progressive politics became the norm--times of Constitutional ascendency. Our post-constitutional era has loosed a centralized political class upon us whose appetite for spending seems limitless. And the constant upward rise of the slope might have a meaning beyond that of mere party differences. It might be an indication of the divide between progressivism and constitutionalism.

And, yes, what you call the Bush trajectory is due in a great degree to his progressivism.


I think most everyone agrees the debt and healthcare costs are an issue, it's just that there are differing options on how to address it.

The constitutional option would be to keep the Federal Gvt. out of the issue. It is this type of usurpation and thievery of our individual, local, and State rights that has created and continually expands an insatiable central gvt. which has forced us as a nation into insoluble debt.

Here's the rub, a president Romney would still have the same debt, same deficit and the same Republicans out to protect their spending interests.

-spence

That is more of an assumption than a rub. Romney, presumably, would have been more business friendly. He might have erased many of Obama's executive orders and their regulations, and that would have eased business burdens, and his policies might well have encouraged the spending of business money that is now being withheld due to uncertainty and fear of more of the coming regulations. Who knows what he could have done to Obamacare. But he might have brought a brighter more optimistic outlook, ala Reagan and Kennedy, to the American psyche and to the business climate, than the struggling gloom and discord that pervades us now.

But even that would just be a temporary bump until another election and the further encroachment of communitarian, progressive governance.

[ReelinRod]

Here is the epitome of liberal fiscal policy from where else, the land of fruits and nuts:

L.A. Unified uses ‘construction bonds’ to buy $500 million in iPads

Feb. 14, 2013

By Chris Reed

My five-month-old crusade to get the California mainstream media to acknowledge the insanity of “construction bonds” which take 30 years to pay off being used routinely by school districts for short-lived electronics and basic maintenance hasn’t gotten far yet. The most significant article from a respected mainstream education reporter about this outrage came in December from John Fensterwald in EdSource. State newspapers’ education reporters? They can’t be bothered.

Yes, the California media do care about nutty capital appreciation bonds, which can’t be prepaid and delay initial repayments for 20 years out, leading to such ridiculousness as the Poway Unified school district borrowing $105 million that will take $981 million to repay — beginning two decades from now. But the problem of using 30-year borrowing for short-term needs is much worse than CABs. It’s far more common; it’s everywhere.

- See more at: L.A. Unified uses ‘construction bonds’ to buy $500 million in iPads | CalWatchDog

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Here is the epitome of liberal fiscal policy from where else, the land of fruits and nuts:[INDENT]L.A. Unified uses ‘construction bonds’ to buy $500 million in iPads

My understanding is that 'construction bonds' are the primary mechanism for funding educational development regardless if it's actual construction or investment in the curriculum via no interest Federal loans. Reading a few articles on this subject I also don't see any mention of "iPad" just tablets which can be had for much less.

Also it looks like CA has some 2 million students in high school. That they would seek to purchase computers at a rate of roughly 1:4 doesn't seem that odd.

While I'd concede CA isn't exactly the archetype of how to run a state budget, what exactly is the epitome of again?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It means that by one measurement it's 40% and by the other it's 30%.



If you were to smooth the curve you'd see the pie on the right is a continuation of the Bush trajectory while the pie on the left is an abnormality.


Yes.


I think most everyone agrees the debt and healthcare costs are an issue, it's just that there are differing options on how to address it.

Here's the rub, a president Romney would still have the same debt, same deficit and the same Republicans out to protect their spending interests.

-spence

"It means that by one measurement it's 40% and by the other it's 30%."

Wrong. 3.8 is 41% larger than 2.7. That's fact. That's not 'spin'. The pie says that if spending was 2.7T, and now it's 3.8T, that spending is now 40% larger. You disagreed. You were wrong. You can't quite bring yourself to admit it, but you were wrong. Yet another example of liberals being hostile to arithmetic.

"If you were to smooth the curve you'd see the pie on the right is a continuation of the Bush trajectory "

Wrong again. Look at the post by ReelinRod at 1:43 PM on 2/27, it shows a bar graph of spending. If you look at that graph rationally (read: not the way you choose to look at things), you will see a distinct change in the trend in 2009.

Obama has taken spending to levels we have never seen. That's fact. Bush did increase spending compared to Clinton. Bush had to build a counter-terror infrastructure from scratch, and by most measures, it has been successful. Obama clearly chose to continue it. Bush also dismantled two brutal dictatorial regimes.

Obama spent his money to improve the economy. By any measure except the stock market perfoamance, he has failed (unemployment is the same, median income way down, GDP growth pathetic, slowest recovery in the history of our nation).

Facts. No spin. Facts.

"I think most everyone agrees the debt and healthcare costs are an issue"

Most everyone on your side? Really? Tell that to the people who made the Paul ERyan commercial, showing him pushing an old lady off a cliff. I didn't hear many liberals saying "Ryan is right that Medicare needs fixing, we just support a different approach"

What I hear liberals saying, is "mdicare works, and the mean Republicns want to take it away, because they don't care about sick old people".

What color is the sky in the world you live in, exactly?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"It means that by one measurement it's 40% and by the other it's 30%."

Wrong. 3.8 is 41% larger than 2.7. That's fact. That's not 'spin'. The pie says that if spending was 2.7T, and now it's 3.8T, that spending is now 40% larger. You disagreed. You were wrong. You can't quite bring yourself to admit it, but you were wrong. Yet another example of liberals being hostile to arithmetic.

I'm not wrong, I'm just looking at the chart a different way. The chart said "larger" not "increase". The formulas are not the same. I prefer to look at change.

Wrong again. Look at the post by ReelinRod at 1:43 PM on 2/27, it shows a bar graph of spending. If you look at that graph rationally (read: not the way you choose to look at things), you will see a distinct change in the trend in 2009.

The 2009 budget was set by Bush and approved by a Republican House in 2008. Yes, Obama signed it into law but to claim he alone instigated the spending would be false.

The chart posted was only about spending, the pies by comparison include both spending AND deficit.

Obama has taken spending to levels we have never seen. That's fact. Bush did increase spending compared to Clinton. Bush had to build a counter-terror infrastructure from scratch, and by most measures, it has been successful. Obama clearly chose to continue it. Bush also dismantled two brutal dictatorial regimes.

The counter-terror infrastructure could have been implemented without engaging in long-term massive scale wars that Obama inherited. Even considering the rampant fraud and waste of both actions...if this is legitimate spending under Bush I don't see how you can blame Obama for continuing it...you just refuted your own point.

Obama spent his money to improve the economy. By any measure except the stock market perfoamance, he has failed (unemployment is the same, median income way down, GDP growth pathetic, slowest recovery in the history of our nation).

Yes, good to note that the DOW is near an all time high. The recession was a massive correction and far worse than most imagined it would be. What you don't know is how much worse things could have been had we not bailed out the banks and shored up GDP via the Stimulus.

Most everyone on your side? Really? Tell that to the people who made the Paul ERyan commercial, showing him pushing an old lady off a cliff. I didn't hear many liberals saying "Ryan is right that Medicare needs fixing, we just support a different approach"

Never saw it.

What I hear liberals saying, is "mdicare works, and the mean Republicns want to take it away, because they don't care about sick old people".

What color is the sky in the world you live in, exactly?

Depends on the day...right now it's pretty gray.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not wrong, I'm just looking at the chart a different way. The chart said "larger" not "increase". The formulas are not the same. I prefer to look at change.


The 2009 budget was set by Bush and approved by a Republican House in 2008. Yes, Obama signed it into law but to claim he alone instigated the spending would be false.

The chart posted was only about spending, the pies by comparison include both spending AND deficit.


The counter-terror infrastructure could have been implemented without engaging in long-term massive scale wars that Obama inherited. Even considering the rampant fraud and waste of both actions...if this is legitimate spending under Bush I don't see how you can blame Obama for continuing it...you just refuted your own point.


Yes, good to note that the DOW is near an all time high. The recession was a massive correction and far worse than most imagined it would be. What you don't know is how much worse things could have been had we not bailed out the banks and shored up GDP via the Stimulus.


Never saw it.


Depends on the day...right now it's pretty gray.

-spence

" I prefer to look at change"

Spence, you need to learn to quit when you are behind.

The "change", if that's what you like, between 2.7 and 3.8, is 40%. The chart says that the spending of 3.8 is 40% more than when we spent 2.7. You said that was wrong. But it was not wrong, you were wrong. Every 4th grader who didn't flunk math, knows you were wrong.

"but to claim he alone instigated the spending would be false."

And where did I claim any such thing?

Obama is the president. The buck stops with him, at least it is supposed to stop with him.

"...if this is legitimate spending under Bush I don't see how you can blame Obama for continuing it...you just refuted your own point"

Do you ever, ever get tired of being wrong? Obama's spending hike is not a function of his continuation of the Bush anti-terror policies. In fact, Obama is benefitting from the fact that Bush's wars are winding down on his watch, which lowers spending. If Obama did nothing but allow Bush's policies to run their course, spending would be lower. Obama's spending increase comes from his desire for economic justice, as he sees it.. You really don't know that?

"What you don't know is how much worse things could have been had we not bailed out the banks and shored up GDP via the Stimulus."

No one can know what didn't happen. Any benefit of that stimulus, has to be weighed against the fact that your kids and my kids will be paying the bill for that.

When all you can do is say "the economy sucks, but it would have been worse without Obama's spending", that is pure speculation. Wild, rampant speculation. I like to deal with what we know as fact.

We know Bush freed millions of Muslims from other, monstrous Muslims, I saw that firsthand, unlike you, who get your news from The Daily Worker. Bush also managed to save more than one million lives in Africa, thanks to his AIDS initiative which he spearheaded.

Yet Bush gets called a racist, and Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize before he had done anything noteworthy. Kudos to you and your ilk. You added trillions to our debt, and all you have to show is a net gain of around zero jobs, pathetic GDP growth, and lower median wages. If that is the measure of "a job well done", if that's a good result for adding more than $5 trillion to the debt, then you have low standards indeed.

Oh, and if you say everyone knows SS and Medicare are in deep trouble...what exactly has your hero done about that, in 4 years? Precisely zip.

Spence, you cannot win. I'm holding all the cards.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you need to learn to quit when you are behind.

Spence, you cannot win. I'm holding all the cards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I'm not wrong, I'm just looking at the chart a different way.





I'm pretty sure he just looks at the cards a different way

you could be holding all ACES and he'd tell you that's not how he sees it and walk away with your money grinning while you were sitting there trying to figure out how he came to that conclusion...sometimes the mistake is ever sitting down at the table in the first place....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The 2009 budget was set by Bush and approved by a Republican House in 2008. Yes, Obama signed it into law but to claim he alone instigated the spending would be false.


By the same reasoning Bush's first year, which you call an abnormality in the higher spending curve, was a budget set by Clinton in 2000. So the "abnormality," by your reasoning, is due to Clinton, not to Bush. And the trajectory of Obama's first year, which you claim was a continuation of the Bush trajectory, actually contained about $200 billion in added spending above the Bush budget due to Obama's stimulus bill, and to it was added the spending that occurred in the last 3 months of the year after the Bush budget expired. So the steeper trajectory of spending was not due to the Bush budget and was not a continuation of it.

The counter-terror infrastructure could have been implemented without engaging in long-term massive scale wars that Obama inherited.

This "inherited" crap must either be applied equally to all presidents or it will just be cover for one president's malfeasance in blaming it on another. Bush, as well as Obama, "inherited" some pretty bad stuff such as Osama Bin Ladin and the burst Dot.com Bubble economy. During his administration, the economy recovered from the dot.com recession and the cost of wars so that it grew at a much higher rate in less time than Obama's "recovery," which still lingers at a much slower pace.

Even considering the rampant fraud and waste of both actions...if this is legitimate spending under Bush I don't see how you can blame Obama for continuing it...

Yes both presidents, as well as most before them all the way back to Hoover, were, in some degree, progressives. And as such they expanded the size of government and increased spending that was not "legitimate." We have to go all the way back to Coolidge to find a fully constitutional, not a progressive, president. And the national debt decreased under Coolidge.

Yes, good to note that the DOW is near an all time high. The recession was a massive correction and far worse than most imagined it would be. What you don't know is how much worse things could have been had we not bailed out the banks and shored up GDP via the Stimulus.

-spence

It is a wonder that the DOW can go through the roof while the "economy" drags. Isn't it amazing how that sector whose wealth in large doses is accessible to the top percent, many of whom do not "pay their fair share" of taxes, does so well while the bottom 40 to 50% go begging?

And, perhaps the recession was not so much worse than many other recessions, but made to appear so due to a recovery that is slower than other recoveries. It is beginning to look like the depression recovery, both in length of time and in the massive spending and regulation and growth of government which may be the real reason the recession appears to be much worse.

I thought Obama was going to fix all of that. The rich seem to be getting richer, even than before, and the "economy" languishes. Just needs more time.

Actually, the sequester may help by reducing the rate of spending a little bit. That might help the "economy" grow a wee bit faster. And if the less progressive Repubs in Congress maintain their solidarity against increased spending, maybe things will turn around in Obama's time. And he will get credit.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

By the same reasoning Bush's first year, which you call an abnormality in the higher spending curve, was a budget set by Clinton in 2000. So the "abnormality," by your reasoning, is due to Clinton, not to Bush. And the trajectory of Obama's first year, which you claim was a continuation of the Bush trajectory, actually contained about $200 billion in added spending above the Bush budget due to Obama's stimulus bill, and to it was added the spending that occurred in the last 3 months of the year after the Bush budget expired. So the steeper trajectory of spending was not due to the Bush budget and was not a continuation of it.

Spending under Bush rose dramatically during his entire tenure, not just in the first year. Certainly there's a big jump in 2009, but most of these appropriations were set before Obama was sworn in. I've seen the "extra" that Obama could take credit for around 140-200B and most of this was the Stimulus.

This "inherited" crap must either be applied equally to all presidents or it will just be cover for one president's malfeasance in blaming it on another. Bush, as well as Obama, "inherited" some pretty bad stuff such as Osama Bin Ladin and the burst Dot.com Bubble economy.

I see, so the actions of a previous President are off limits in political discussions? Good, now everybody can stop blaming Clinton for the housing bubble

During his administration, the economy recovered from the dot.com recession and the cost of wars so that it grew at a much higher rate in less time than Obama's "recovery," which still lingers at a much slower pace.

Gross oversimplification, almost recklessly so. Very, very different situations.

Yes both presidents, as well as most before them all the way back to Hoover, were, in some degree, progressives. And as such they expanded the size of government and increased spending that was not "legitimate." We have to go all the way back to Coolidge to find a fully constitutional, not a progressive, president. And the national debt decreased under Coolidge.

How long does some of this progressiveness have to stand before it's regarded as having durability?

It is a wonder that the DOW can go through the roof while the "economy" drags. Isn't it amazing how that sector whose wealth in large doses is accessible to the top percent, many of whom do not "pay their fair share" of taxes, does so well while the bottom 40 to 50% go begging?

And, perhaps the recession was not so much worse than many other recessions, but made to appear so due to a recovery that is slower than other recoveries. It is beginning to look like the depression recovery, both in length of time and in the massive spending and regulation and growth of government which may be the real reason the recession appears to be much worse.

I think it was worse in that the recovery was stalled because unemployment. Some of this is simply a global correction, companies who had to cut back found they could perform at a similar rate with what they had. The ripple of the credit bubble (both in housing and household savings) stalled "trickle up" market forces that would generate more employment.

Fortunately, despite Jim's best intentions to spread doom and gloom the economy is looking better. Housing is recovering and household debt is dropping.

I thought Obama was going to fix all of that. The rich seem to be getting richer, even than before, and the "economy" languishes. Just needs more time.

That's the nature of an economy where wealth generation has less emphasis on individual labor and more on service and speculation.

Actually, the sequester may help by reducing the rate of spending a little bit. That might help the "economy" grow a wee bit faster. And if the less progressive Repubs in Congress maintain their solidarity against increased spending, maybe things will turn around in Obama's time. And he will get credit.

If anything the Sequester will lower the GDP at least in the near term. I don't think we're going to see any real action until they reach a deal later this year.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

You could say the pie on the right is 40% larger or has gotten 40% larger but they're not the same equation.
-spence

I've read this 5 times now trying to understand how this spin can make any sense.

Then I remembered that in Obama-math, 2+2 doesn't equal 4. 2+2 equals whatever fits his agenda for that day.

[JohnR]

The problem is it is like a household making $80K per year and using another $20K on the credit card as income. Now that those credit cards have a $400K balance on them we are talking about taking out only $19K per year on the card.

Howze THAT for an analogy.

Two of the three branches of the government are failing us right now - party independent.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Two of the three branches of the government are failing us right now - party independent.

With a number of recent rulings by the Supreme Court giving the feds impunity when trampling Constitutional rights... All three branches are failing us.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The problem is it is like a household making $80K per year and using another $20K on the credit card as income. Now that those credit cards have a $400K balance on them we are talking about taking out only $19K per year on the card.

Howze THAT for an analogy.

.

It's a scary analogy, especially in that you left out the worst part. Using your scale, that household (making $80k a year) has also put their grandparents in a nursing home, and given that nursing home an IOU for exactly $2,760,000 that is payable in 50 years. Paying the IOU will require more than 30 years of that annual income of $80k a year.

But Nancy Pelosi says it's a "false argument" to say that family has a "spending problem".

[JohnR]

Jim - I was trying to keep it real simple. I could have mentioned we were only making minimum payments on the cards and that out interest rate was going up due to poor national FICO score.