jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (30 posts)

Factual thread on the economy, cite sources.

  1. Josak profile image59
    Josakposted 4 years ago

    I think it would be great if we could debate the economy not on the basis of "commonly known" or presumed but on the basis of provable facts with sources.
    I'll start, US deficit for 2009 (last budget made by Bush administration) 1.41 trillion, 2013 budget deficit is 901 Billion, meaning Obama has cut half a trillion dollars from the deficit in his term.
    http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-oba … 09-deficit
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Unite … ral_budget
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Unite … ral_budget
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedet … T-2011-BUD
    note: alternative links provided to cover Wikipedia links for verification, Wikipedia is easier to view however.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It would probably help as well to compare apples to apples rather than make true statements comparing apples to oranges that are designed to get people to believe something is true when it's not.

      Comparing a 2009 deficit to a 2013 budget is apples to oranges, even though it does convince people that Obama did a better job.  If you want a reasonable comparison you'll have to wait until the expenditures for 2013 are done and then compare deficit to deficit instead of comparing a deficit to what our lying politicians promise us they'll spend.

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I saw that one coming, so fair enough, in 2012, the deficit was less than 1.1 trillion which is still well over 300 billion saved, (about 315).

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Unite … ral_budget

        Satisfied now? Oh also last year we spent less than the allocated deficit, no reason to believe we won't do the same this year so even that half a trillion could be looking god if judged by recent performance.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Yep he did good.  He even beat Bush's deficit for one out of the 8 years he was in office.  Now if he would just his average deficit down to Bush's...

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            See above, if you can prove that Obama inherited Bush's average deficit to reduce then you win, otherwise your argument is irrelevant.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

    Deficits for years 2002 to current, adjusted for inflation.  Years 2001 and 2009 not included; who is responsible for spending in the year a president takes office, and who is responsible for over spending a budget they did not create?  Ignore those years, then, and bypass that argument.

    2002  555,000 B
    2003  596,000 B
    2004 554,000 B
    2005 574,000 B
    2006 501,000 B
    2007 1,017,000 B
    2008 1,885,000 B

    2010 1,228,000 B
    2011 1,224,000 B

    Average deficit for Bush: 811,000 B
    Average deficit for Obama: 1,226,000 B.  If (IF) he holds to budget for 1012/1013 the average becomes 1,117,000 (using your figure for 2013 budget deficit of 901 B)

    Yes - Obama has done a great job of reducing the deficit, hasn't he?

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That is incredibly weak and you know it tongue
      It's not the average of a presidents term it's the reduction from year to year, Obama did not inherit Bush's average deficit he inherited nearly 1.9 Trillion in deficit, and he has been cutting it steadily.

      Let's also not forget that interest has to be paid on those loans meaning it gets harder to reduce a deficit every year and yet he has done exactly that.

      A president is responsible for improving what he receives, and what Obama received is almost a trillion dollars more in deficit per year.

      So yes Obama has done a great job of reducing the deficit he received.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I'm sure it is incredibly weak.  It doesn't agree with what you want to see, so it's weak and improper to mention.  And we can always find excuses, too.

        But yes, there are many factors to consider, which makes this kind of comparison weak no matter what you do.  The cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan war and the recession are both major contributors, for instance.  Obama chose to spend his way out of the recession, and he's continued to raise the cost of the war.  Neither or both may or may not have been necessary - there may have been other options - but they are done and are a part of the deficit.

        Side note - I see that I managed to confuse myself (not difficult! smile ) in the years of the budget.  The largest one there should have been ignored, with one more big one added to Obama.

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          No it's just factually incredibly weak, if you can prove that Obama received Bush's average spending deficit then you win. But the fact is he inherited massive deficit and had to reduce that did he not?

          I don't think you really believe you own argument here, if I find and put out a massive house fire I get credit for fighting the fire, people don't say "Well on average over it's 30 years of existence that house was barely on fire at all so you didn't do much."  It's beyond preposterous.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            And Bush inherited the Iraqi war - it was the primary reason for his big deficits.  He did his best to avoid it but in the end had to intervene and spend the money.  Which, of course, got passed to Obama who took the cost higher and higher even as the fighting subsided and troops came home.

            It's all in how you spin it, isn't it?  You can also look at Obama, and at a spend happy Democratic congress he had to work with, and say it isn't his fault at all, but that of congress.

            Or you can look at the future, where we will either see Obamacare completely emasculated or see deficits the likes of which have never been seen before.  And that one is directly attributable to the president and no one else.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Or, you can look at it free from party lines. Bush spent too much, especially his last year or so. Obama has spent much, much more, and hypocritically because he said a $450 billion deficit was 'immoral'.

              Then, of course, there is the pesky fact that spending doesn't come from the President, most Presidents just don't seem willing or able to veto a stupid budget. For more fun, check out deficits according to who controls congress.

              The simple fact is, there are a lot of politicians on both sides who are horrible, horrible people threatening the lifeblood of our country.

            2. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              OOOOH that is rich, Bush never ever should have intervened in Iraq, he in no way had to and Obama voted against it. Going to war was a decision made by Bush which was wholly a mistake that Obama is trying to correct and get us out of, the cost of getting out is high and it is spending that we should never have done.

              1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Obama didn't vote against it! He wasn't even in the U.S. Senate yet!

  3. Sapper profile image68
    Sapperposted 4 years ago

    What you, and most American's thanks to the media, are failing to realize is that the amount of spending means absolutely nothing at all. What really matters is what the money is spent on. They could triple the deficit and it would be fine if they spent it where it needs to be spent. Our infrastructure is pathetic. We like to think of ourselves as this great country, as a superpower, but our infrastructure points more to a third-world country than anything else.

    The worse part about it is our education system. We don't have a lack of jobs in this country, we have a lack of unskilled jobs. We also have a lack of skilled technical workers. Maybe if we spent more on domestic aid and less on foreign aid we would be in a better position now.

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I could not agree more, infrastructure and education sending are crucial, in that respect we should be following the lead of successful nations in sponsoring higher education, trade schools etc. etc. It's no secret that educated people create jobs.

  4. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    " A 2009 CBO report indicated that $245 billion, about half of the excess spending, was a result of the 2008 TARP bailouts. Tax cuts resulting from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 accounted for nearly half of the lost revenue.[4]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Unite … l_spending

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      1.4 trillion minus 407 billion = 1 trillion in "excess" spending.  245 billion is NOT half of 1 trillion.  Although they don't give numbers for lost revenue, I would have to say, based on the faulty math of the bailout, that it is just as worthless.

      In other words, this wiki entry isn't worth much.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Read it better.

        "About half of the excess spending..." Not deficit spending. The budget requested $3.1 trillion in spending, but enacted $3.5 trillion in spending. That $400 billion is the excess spending.

        TARP gets repaid, so we can actually knock that off our debt. That knocks the deficit down to $1.15 trillion.

        Then there is the Recovery Act. Budgeted revenue was $2.7 trillion, enacted was $2.1 trillion. Half of that loss was due to the Recovery act, so that's another $300 billion. That knocks the deficit down to $850 billion. That doesn't even count any of the actual Recovery Act spending that was enacted in 2009.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          "...resulted in an unusually large budget deficit of about $1.4 trillion, well above the $407 billion projected in the FY 2009 budget"

          I stand by my statement; the "excess" spending was 1 trillion dollars, of which less than 1/4 was due to TARP.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Lol, whatever.

            The $1 trillion extra deficit was a COMBINATION of increased SPENDING and decreased REVENUE. That's why they aren't talking about the deficit, they are talking about the excess spending over what was budgeted. You're as bad as the pro 2Aers who think the arms treaty which  "Recognizes the sovereignty of each state" is actually trying to infringe on that sovereignty.

            So, if you plan to spend $100, but spend $150, how much of that is in EXCESS of what you budgeted?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              If you plan to spend $100 and spend $150 the excess is $50.  If you plan to spend X and spend X+1 trillion the excess is 1 trillion.

              No other way to read it, as far as I can see.  You can claim that reduced income is the cause, but it isn't.  Reduced income should be reflected in reduced spending, not by increasing the deficit.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                That's not what happened. Seriously, READ THE ARTICLE.

                They planned to spend $3.1 trillion. They spent $3.5 trillion. How much excess spending was there?

                AND ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU CALL IT HALF OF $500 BILLION OR 1/4 OF $1 TRILLION, WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

                Not angry, you just ignored that small little tidbit.

          2. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Besides, if you call it 1/4 of the total deficit, it's still the same amount, and still knocks $250 billion off the deficit.

            But I'm sure you know better than the CBO!!!

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, it's the same number and presumably the CBO was correct.  The writer of the article, however, has spun the conclusion just a wee bit just as you are.

              Nothing was knocked off the deficit; it's still 1 trillion.  All you've done is explain why it was so large, not taken anything off the debt load.  An attempt, presumably, to shift blame, but who cares?  We still owe another trillion dollars.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Since that money was paid back, it's not a debt load to us.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  True, at least if it was paid back (and applied to the debt rather than general spending funds) and with interest.  It would be one in a thousand if it was, though.  Along those lines I keep seeing that the auto manufacturers have paid back all their debt, too.  No they haven't - they still owe billions.  Yes they have.  No they haven't.  Yes.  No. Yes.  No.

                  Who knows (and will tell the truth)?

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … taxpayers/

                    Technically they have, there are caveats however in the sense of those that went bankrupt.

  5. prettydarkhorse profile image64
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    Increase in GDP is the single most powerful indicator of growth in an economy. I checked and it slightly improved from 2011 to 2012.

      Real GDP increased 2.2 percent in 2012 (that is, from the 2011 annual level to the 2012 annual
    level), compared with an increase of 1.8 percent in 2011.

          The increase in real GDP in 2012 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal
    consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, exports, residential fixed investment,
    and private inventory investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from federal
    government spending and from state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in
    the calculation of GDP, increased.

    Source : http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nationa … elease.htm

  6. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
    BuckyGoldsteinposted 4 years ago

    I thought you said this thread had to be factual?

 
working