Obama's Expedient Debt Logic

[lomiller]

You specifically claimed that the graph was mislabeled,

This I will admit has some merit. Mislabeled implies an honest error, and presenting this graph again clearly was both deliberate and dishonest.

 

[Ziggurat]

This I will admit has some merit. Mislabeled implies an honest error, and presenting this graph again clearly was both deliberate and dishonest.

Nice goalpost moving. You claimed that the graph itself, and not merely its presentation, which was dishonest.

 

[lomiller]

I acknowledged and agreed with your point that labeling wasn’t actually the problem. How is that a goalpost move?

 

[Cain]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422449e280a170587.jpg[/qimg]

Now you were saying?

I've also seen you post this chart before as well. I am interested in learning what you think it demonstrates.

 

[mhaze]

I've also seen you post this chart before as well. I am interested in learning what you think it demonstrates.

Lomiller views the subject in partisian babble. I've said this problem is the culmination of 30 years of bad fiscal policy. What I infer from the chart is interest on the debt reaching a level within a decade or so equal to government receipts from all personal income tax. From that I conclude the rhetoric to be specious.

Therefore..

.

 

[BeAChooser]

Another view of the same growth in national debt:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/media/uploads/obama-national-debt-thumb.jpg

For some reason, Obama supporters apparently don't think that will create "problems for our fragile economy", be an "unfair burden on our children and grandchildren", force us to pay for it "with loans from China", or be bad for "national security". That just seems (to little ol' me) inconsistent with their view of the Iraq War costs ... which were much smaller.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Welfare is a mandatory spending program Obama inherited from the Bush administration. To cut it requires an act of Congress, yet for 12 years the Republican congress failed to do so. Somehow though, after 9 months in office it’s Obama’s fault even though the president has no actual say in Welfare spending. Interesting logic to say the least.

I knew this was going to be a fun thread when I saw BAC's moniker and "logic" in such close proximity to each other in the title

 

[MattusMaximus]

Lomiller views the subject in partisian babble. I've said this problem is the culmination of 30 years of bad fiscal policy. What I infer from the chart is interest on the debt reaching a level within a decade or so equal to government receipts from all personal income tax. From that I conclude the rhetoric to be specious.

Therefore..

.[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422449e280a170587.jpg[/qimg]

It's interesting that you state this is the result of "30 years of bad fiscal policy" when in the very same graph you continually reference the fiscal years 2000-2001 very clearly show a surplus

So we were on the right track around about 2001 or so, and then what happened?

 

[joobz]

I'm curious. Does TARP figure into the national debt?

 

[sugarb]

Welfare is a mandatory spending program Obama inherited from the Bush administration. To cut it requires an act of Congress, yet for 12 years the Republican congress failed to do so. Somehow though, after 9 months in office it’s Obama’s fault even though the president has no actual say in Welfare spending. Interesting logic to say the least.

"Welfare" spending came along before Bush. Mandatory programs existed before Bush. Any effort Bush made toward lowering the costs (ex., being able to opt out of SS, although technically not welfare) was met with massive criticism. Corporate welfare existed before Bush. I think I'd probably challenge you to name one welfare program IMPLEMENTED by Bush...because it seems to me he wasn't exactly a champion of the less fortunate.

Obama is going to have to spend more. In my opinion, exactly because the "welfare" of our people was ignored for so long. My only hope is that it will be a temporary spending increase, which will implement newer/better programs to replace those existing now that will run out of funding as they are currently run.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm curious. Does TARP figure into the national debt?

Yes.

 

[sugarb]

It's interesting that you state this is the result of "30 years of bad fiscal policy" when in the very same graph you continually reference the fiscal years 2000-2001 very clearly show a surplus

So we were on the right track around about 2001 or so, and then what happened?

Fair point. Clinton's terms had managed to turn things around somewhat...and incredible feat, really.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Fair point. Clinton's terms had managed to turn things around somewhat...and incredible feat, really.

Sugarb, you are very clearly pushing a socialist agenda!

 

[BeAChooser]

In my opinion, exactly because the "welfare" of our people was ignored for so long.

Guess you missed the fact that over $10 TRILLION dollars was spent on War On Poverty related programs over the last 40 years or so. But then perhaps you subscribe to the Michelle Obama view of America ... that there was nothing to be proud of about this country until Barack became the big cheese.

My only hope is that it will be a temporary spending increase,

Guess you didn't bother to actually look at the charts that mhaze and I posted. Or try to understand their implications.

which will implement newer/better programs to replace those existing now that will run out of funding as they are currently run.

Given how ineffective and wasteful the existing government run programs have been (oh ... and I forget to include Public Education ), what makes you think Obama can/will implement "newer/better" programs? Some of us would like to see him fix just one (say Medicare) before we hand over the future of our children and their children to his pie in the sky socialist promises.

And I'd still like you to explain the apparent inconsistency in the logic that Obama offered regarding the debt and war, versus the debt and his programs. But then that's a topic that all the Obama supporters on this thread seem desperate to avoid.

 

[BeAChooser]

Clinton's terms had managed to turn things around somewhat...and incredible feat, really.

You seem to have overlooked Gingrich and the Republican Congress, and the program of welfare cuts and fiscal responsibility that they finally got Clinton to adopt. And the Cold War dividend that helped Clinton temporarily balance the budget (too bad it also caused him to take his eyes off the national security ball). And the internet boon (which just happened to coincide with Clinton's term but which he had little to do with ... and pleassssse ... don't claim Al Gore was it's *father*), which greatly raised revenues before it went belly up (at the very end of Clinton's term).

 

[psychictv]

What does welfare spending mean here? He later says there are 70 programs. What are some of the big hitters? He mentions things we associate with the evil dead beat poor with their "disabilities" and their "families" and their "children," but what exactly is gobbling up these billions and trillions? The link to the Heritage Foundation, if it's intended as a link, is non-operational.

Here's the pdf they were trying to link to. I'm reading it now.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/upload/SR_67.pdf

 

[sugarb]

Guess you missed the fact that over $10 TRILLION dollars was spent on War On Poverty related programs over the last 40 years or so. But then perhaps you subscribe to the Michelle Obama view of America ... that there was nothing to be proud of about this country until Barack became the big cheese.



Guess you didn't bother to actually look at the charts that mhaze and I posted. Or try to understand their implications.



Given how ineffective and wasteful the existing government run programs have been (oh ... and I forget to include Public Education ), what makes you think Obama can/will implement "newer/better" programs? Some of us would like to see him fix just one (say Medicare) before we hand over the future of our children and their children to his pie in the sky socialist promises.

And I'd still like you to explain the apparent inconsistency in the logic that Obama offered regarding the debt and war, versus the debt and his programs. But then that's a topic that all the Obama supporters on this thread seem desperate to avoid.

Hello, BeAChooser. Criminitly, could you slow down and just understand what I'm saying? Please? I'm NOT an "Obama supporter", to begin with...I simply believe that once we have elected a President, that is the administration under which we must set ourselves to work. Erm...otherwise, what's the point? I will compliment Clinton, because he did do very well in certain areas. I won't compliment Bush much, because really, he didn't do much on the domestic front except continue to encourage people to spend money they didn't have...as became obvious toward the end of his last term, no?

So just slow down on painting me as opposition. Puh-leeeze???

War on Poverty, trillions and trillions of dollars. Forty years, you say. Okay...so...isn't it kind of obvious by now that whatever they're spending all that money on, something isn't going right? Of COURSE I haven't missed all that money being spent. I, right along with you, have watched it go to programs and state governments that do nothing but mismanage the funds and pay the government people who oversee it far too well for the pathetic jobs they do. (Well, maybe not as long as you...I dunno. And technically, I haven't watched it for forty years, as I've not been here that long).

Frankly, I don't know what Michelle Obama's view of America is. No one voted for her, right? So...I kind of pay about as much attention to her as I did to other first ladies, and I'm sorry if this bugs you, but...that attention? Wasn't that much. From what I can gather, she likes expensive shoes and nights out on the town. She thinks healthcare is a women's issue. That's...about all I know. So?

As for the inconsistencies you speak of...I think you had another thread about those as well, no? I don't recall disagreeing with you there on the inconsistencies, either. Then again, I didn't comment much on Bush's inconsistencies. Inconsistencies are to be expected, and I don't think there's always, or even more often than not, some big spectre of the boogeyman behind them. I think...people screw up, say things wrong, get confused, and, when it comes to politicians? I admit it: I don't think they always understand what someone else probably wrote down for them to say.

Then again, I don't know a single person, anywhere, that could keep that much information straight 24 hours a day/7 days a week, while constantly being bombarded by more and more information about thousands of different things. I know I can't. Which is probably why I'd never run for President. I think there are unrealistic expectations placed on them, as individuals.

Okay, what did I miss? I'm sure something.

 

[sugarb]

Sugarb, you are very clearly pushing a socialist agenda!

Stop pointing it out! You're making my assignment rather difficult!

 

[psychictv]

Aha, this is a tricky claim:

"Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency."

The first time I read this sentence it seemed to imply that Bush spent less on welfare than on Iraq but that's not the case. Using their definition of welfare which includes all state and federal spending on anything they consider "aid" to people with low incomes "in FY 2008 (the last full year of the Bush Administration), total federal and state means-tested spending rose to an estimated $714.1 billion while "According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion." So by their metrics Bush also spent more on welfare in a year than the entire cost of the Iraq war.

Most of the increase for 2010 seems to be in proposed changes to Medicare which they are counting as "welfare."

I don't agree with their conclusion on the Iraq question either. They say

Liberals habitually lament the unsustainable cost of the Iraq war, but under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President Bush spent on the Iraq war during his entire presidency. ...
This is an important point because, while campaigning for the presidency, Obama asserted that the cost of the war in Iraq had taken a “toll” on “our economy,” undermining our prosperity, ballooning “our national debt,” and
thereby placing “an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren who will have to pay for it.”...
If the cost of the Iraq war undermined “our economy” and placed “an unfair burden on our children” as Obama claimed, what are we to conclude about the far greater spending on the welfare state?

Of course they ignore the benefits and effects of each kind of spending. Since they define "welfare" as any means-tested program given to low income people, they include all sorts of programs that help stimulate the economy by helping people stay in the workforce. Job training programs, subsidized health care, housing subsidies, etc. all help keep the working poor at work and off the streets. What is the benefit in giving billions to private contractors to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure?

 

[sugarb]

BeAChooser, okay, I looked at your links and the charts. Might I suggest, though, that there are a few things you are leaving out of the equation in terms of why "welfare" spending will cost more than the entire war?

To begin with, the war was funded over a series of years (we aren't arguing that), and during those years, several things were going on, on the domestic front, at once. One, increasing prices with no complementary increase in income. Two, increasing unemployment. Three, rising health care costs. I think we could come up with quite a bit more if we put our heads together. Think, during the years of the war, about what was happening here on the homefront.

During the last year of the Bush Presidency, many states, due to these problems that we're for some reason not talking about with regards to increased welfare spending, decided to increase certain welfare benefits. Food stamps, especially. As job losses grew and incomes failed to rise, more and more people found themselves having to rely on state healthcare for their children, as well. As a result of THIS particular little bubble, in the end (again, towards the end of the Bush Presidency), states were having to decide which programs to cut in order to stretch their federal dollars far enough to take care of as many people as possible.

Now, right at the beginning of the Obama Presidency, unemployment is still a major problem, benefits have been extended and extended and will probably need to be extended some more...and if we elect not to extend benefits, then, once again, there you go--ANOTHER increase in demand for public assistance.

President Obama isn't just having to fund a war (which, if you think about it, was already pretty well funded given the training and equipment we already had, the healthcare and pay soldiers receive, the housing for their families...), he's having to do what the military was already doing for its personnel, only for regular citizens who have gone through quite a few years of struggling to keep up.

Have you ever been out of work? In an area without more jobs paying what you'd become accustomed to living with? Who provides for these families? There isn't "on base" housing. There is no automatic health care. For that matter, how many military families are there that also have to rely on foodstamps??? Did we not just find out in recent years what a problem THAT was?

See, it isn't just as simple as you're making it out to be.

Now, no, I don't know the best answer for this...but what I do know is that we cannot sustain these levels of unemployment. Not in an environment where people have lost so many homes (sometimes their fault, sometimes not, granted) and have so many health care expenses, on top of increases prices for things like food. Remember when everyone was freaking out about the price of a gallon of gas? Did you happen to notice how high a gallon of MILK got at that time? Or how about a gallon of diesel fuel?