Obama's Expedient Debt Logic

[BeAChooser]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=54400

Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals

Now contrast that fact with this speech by Obama back in March 2008 while running for President:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/15782

Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned. This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.

It also means we’re having to pay for this war with loans from China. Having China as our banker isn’t good for our economy, it isn’t good for our global leadership, and it isn’t good for our national security. History teaches us that for a nation to remain a preeminent military power, it must remain a preeminent economic power. That is why it is so important to manage the costs of war wisely.

Now a question for Obama supporters. Why is that same logic no longer true?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If conservatives get to say "everything changed after 9/11", then the left gets to say "everything changed after the crash" .

 

[volatile]

Remember that whole Credit Crunch thing, BaC? You may have heard about it on the news?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Or, to put it another way, in a time of massive unemployment, the government is going to spend a bit more in the next year on welfare than Bush did.

I rather thought that that was why people paid into Social Security. You know, so that when they need it, they can get some of that money back. But perhaps you know better.

What this has to do with the debt, you do not explain. The increase in welfare spending is nowhere near the cost of the war. The increased debt is overwhelmingly caused by deficit spending to prevent the economy from going to Hell in a handbasket.

 

[Dancing David]

We could always see who ran up the deficit as well.

 

[Cain]

A commenter on the site writes:

Frankly, fellow conservatives, something smells fishy about this story and I'm a skeptic at heart. Obama, in office for 8 months now, is blamed for all the entitlement programs that were enacted before he took office. He did sign the stimulus package but complaints have been that aside from the tax cuts in it, only 15% of it has been spent. Something doesn't compute. Is there anyone else here that finds this article using fuzzy math and reckless logic? I just want straightforward facts without the skewed statistics and grandstanding.

I recognize the name Robert Rector from years ago, and he is the article's sole(?) source for numbers. This thing is disingenuous from beginning to end.

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

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. It would help a great deal if we learned how much Rector thinks George W. Bush "spent" on "welfare" his last year in office. If we had that figure, then we could compare how much Obama increased it, as we can compare an increase in Iraq spending from Clinton to Bush.* We can also evaluate the costs/benefits of Iraq war spending. We should further take into account that the real costs are long-term, all of those "welfare" considerations due to troops with life-long injuries. (is the V.A. considered welfare spending? The G.I. Bill?)

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/movement-conservatism-and-debt.html


*For nitpickers: as in the article we're making the assumption that the President spends this money. The president does often set the agenda for Congress, and in the case of Iraq, it was most certainly Bush's war.

 

[mhaze]

....
*For nitpickers: as in the article we're making the assumption that the President spends this money. The president does often set the agenda for Congress, and in the case of Iraq, it was most certainly Bush's war.

Now you were saying?

 

[Dancing David]

It is even worse if you look at dollars rather than % of GDP.

 

[Fishstick]

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

Now you were saying?

It amuses me how you've been pointed out that that graph is disengenious multiple times but it still gets trotted out everytime someone brings up debt.

 

[mhaze]

It amuses me how you've been pointed out that that graph is disengenious multiple times but it still gets trotted out everytime someone brings up debt.

It's not.

And it needs to be continually brought out.

 

[Upchurch]

It amuses me how you've been pointed out that that graph is disengenious multiple times

Out of morbid curiosity, could you point me to a thread and/or give me a brief summary of how it is disingenuous?

 

[Fishstick]

Out of morbid curiosity, could you point me to a thread and/or give me a brief summary of how it is disingenuous?

I don't know how they're measuring deficit, because change in national debt was much larger. Heck, the fiscal year ending 9/30/08 (before anything like the bailouts, iirc) increased national debt by $1 trillion! (source)

For instance, in 07 in the graph you would be lead to believe there is "only" a 200 - 300bn defecit, but TreasuryDirect shows it to be around 600bn. So unlike the the claims from the source* not all debt is counted. It could be because Obama's budget includes the cost of the Wars while the previous doesn't - even though the source* claims it does.

I'll retract my statement if someone can explain the discrepancy.

Additionally I have a problem with finding sympathy for increasing debt when means of reducing it (say, by increases taxes on the top bracket by 3% and/or undoing GWB's tax cuts) is thought of as some form of class war. At least this time the money is being spent on infrastructure and healthcare (which, if properly done, would also reduce spending there) instead of blowing up brown people overseas - especially if the previous administration managed to turn a $200 billion surplus into a $477 billion deficit in 4 years. It's even better because the same document that brings up that graph also complains that Obama is raising taxes on the top bracket.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

*Heritage foundation

 

[lomiller]

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.

 

[lomiller]

What do you know, mhaze once again posts his falsely labeled graph that tries to blame Obama for Bush/Republican spending.

 

[lomiller]

It's not.

Then how come it labels the 1.75 Trillion defect form Bush's last budget as belonging to Obama?

edit to add some fun from the Presidents Statement in the 2009 budget.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/message.pdf

In my 2009 Budget, I have set clear priorities that will help us meet our Nation’s most pressing needs while addressing the long-term challenges ahead. With pro-growth policies and spending discipline, we will balance the budget in 2012, keep the tax burden low, and provide for our national security. And that will help make our country safer and more prosperous.
GEORGE W. BUSH

 

[Ziggurat]

At least this time the money is being spent on infrastructure and healthcare

Not quite. Only part of the stimulus money goes to infrastructure, and even there much of it is useless spending. Health care reform hasn't passed, so these debt/deficit numbers don't include that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then how come it labels the 1.75 Trillion defect form Bush's last budget as belonging to Obama?

That's funny, but I see nothing about that graph which indicates who the deficit "belongs to". It doesn't mention Bush or Obama. All it labels is the year in which the deficit occurs and whether or not the estimate is from the whitehouse or from the CBO. Really, lomiller, when you want to lie about something, at least don't make your lie so transparent.

 

[lomiller]

That's funny, but I see nothing about that graph which indicates who the deficit "belongs to".

Don’t act dense. It was presented as evidence of Obama spending habits when the facts clearly show Obama cleaning up the mess left by Bush and the Republicans.

 

[Ziggurat]

Don’t act dense. It was presented as evidence of Obama spending habits when the facts clearly show Obama cleaning up the mess left by Bush and the Republicans.

Oh, but that's a different complaint. You specifically claimed that the graph was mislabeled, not simply that mhaze was using it to imply something incorrect. And your claim about HOW it was mislabeled is clearly wrong.

 

[lomiller]

For a better picture of why the US has budget problems

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House...5.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to eliminate monthly premium increases for millions of Medicare patients next year.

It voted 406 to 18 to send the bill to the Senate, which is expected to act soon. Lawmakers said older Americans shouldn't have to pay higher Medicare Part B premiums because they are not expected to get a cost of living increase from Social Security.

The numbers on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security simply don’t add up and are not sustainable. Neither party, however has any interest in either cutting spending on these programs or increasing premiums. The programs are simply to popular to cut.

The Dems are at least willing to pay for them by raising taxes elsewhere, Republicans and our resident right wingers however truly believe they can have the programs, not pay for them and not run a deficit.