|National/World News & Issues
viewing the Annualized Spending By President topic in the National/World News & Issues
Annualized Spending By President, Kelly, 6/3/2012 11:01:39 AM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Jeri Dalbec, 6/3/2012 11:40:42 AM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Renegade, 6/5/2012 6:44:57 AM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Kelly, 6/5/2012 7:07:06 AM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Gunnar Emilsson, 6/5/2012 10:18:35 AM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Kelly, 6/5/2012 1:15:15 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Renegade, 6/5/2012 2:17:28 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Bridgier, 6/5/2012 2:21:22 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, David Schott, 6/5/2012 2:29:06 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Renegade, 6/5/2012 2:33:32 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Bridgier, 6/5/2012 3:05:58 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Kelly, 6/5/2012 3:13:37 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, David Schott, 6/5/2012 3:19:14 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Bridgier, 6/5/2012 3:38:15 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Dean Antonelli, 6/14/2012 2:36:20 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Jan Cornutt, 6/14/2012 8:21:19 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Gunnar Emilsson, 6/14/2012 8:26:25 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Jan Cornutt, 6/14/2012 9:41:50 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Gunnar Emilsson, 6/14/2012 9:59:46 PM
RE: Annualized Spending By President, Dean Antonelli, 6/14/2012 11:19:01 PM
|I thought this was a very interesting graph and wanted to share.
|Thanks for this one, Kelly. Just sent it to my Facebook page.
|How can you add 5 trillion to our national debt if you aren't spending ?
What Knoller doesn't specify, naturally, is what the debt was when Bush began his presidency. And that's a glaring omission, because unless you don't know that, you can't accurately compare the records. So here it is.
In 2001, the national debt Bush inherited was around $5.7T, give or take. Some of that debt in 2001 has to be attributed to Clinton, just as some of the debt in 2009 when Obama took office has to be attributed to Bush. When W. left office in 2009, the debt was nearly $11T. That's an increase of 89 percent.
Under Obama, the debt has increased from about $11T to about $15T, about 40 percent.
And what's behind that increase? Historically low taxes and historically low revenues - and the worst financial crash since the 1930s. There's been no "binge" in spending, as Knoller wants you to believe.
|The entire Republican economic philosophy is built on lies and BS. The Kruginator has an excellent column on this:
If you believe the Republicans, if they come to power, would help the economy, you really are a pretty stupid idiot. I have way more respect for the Danny Allens of the world, who vote Republican because they loathe and fear their neighbors, than I do anyone who thinks the Republicans are going to help anyone except the ultra rich.
With the presidential election just months away, one Nobel Prize-winning economist seems to have made up his mind.
Left-leaning economist and Columbia professor Joseph Stiglitz told Bloomberg Monday that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's plan to slash government spending would send the economy into a downward spiral.
"The Romney plan is going to slow down the economy, worsen the jobs deficit and significantly increase the likelihood of a recession," Stiglitz told Bloomberg.
He went on to say that President Obama "recognizes the need to stimulate the economy" and sees income inequality as a "significant problem," while Romney does not.
During other stops on the promotional tour for his new book, "The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future," Stiglitz touched on income inequality, CEO pay and other economic issues, but was particularly critical of austerity measures that cut government spending while raising taxes.
"No large economy has ever recovered from recession through austerity," Stiglitz warned during an interview Bloomberg reporter Betty Liu.
A number of recent studies lend support to this view. Both the IMF and United Nations released studies last September that found austerity can have negative effects on the economy. The IMF reported that austerity hurts incomes and worsens long-term unemployment, while a United Nations study warned that nations' continued pursuit of austerity could result in a "permanent recession." More recently, the International Labor Organization found that worldwide "austerity has not produced more economic growth."
Stiglitz's criticism of austerity is also shared by fellow progressive economists Robert Reich and Paul Krugman, among others. Krugman wrote in a New York Times column last October that austerity both in the U.S. and Europe had been an "abject failure."
|Bush was in 8 years and Obama only a little over 3. Your figures also don't include Obama care which will add trillions , but as a usual liberal response you are blaming someone else .
Your figures also don't include Obama care which will add trillions
And how will it do that?
|What does "annualized" mean?
|Who do you think will pay for it, we will. Where will we get the money, borrow it. Simple economics for simple minds.
Simple economics for simple minds.
Truer words never spoken.
However, do you have ANY factual data to support your argument that the PPACA will add trillions to the deficit?
|an·nu·al·ize [an-yoo-uh-lahyz] an·nu·al·ized, an·nu·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)
to calculate for or as for an entire year: Investors earned an annualized rate of seven percent paid quarterly.
|In light of that definition, consider this comment:
"Bush was in 8 years and Obama only a little over 3."
Is this a person who knows what they are talking about?
|The graph in question is "Annualized Federal Spending Growth", which I assume means that the average growth for spending while Obama has been president was 1.4%, much less the either of GWB's terms, which is helpfully broken out into two different bars. Perhaps "annualized" isn't the best term here, but I'm not an accountant, so I can't say one way or the other.
So no, I don't think "renegade" knows what he's talking about. He/she either didn't read the graph, or didn't understand it.
TBH, the graph is actually a fairly damning critique of Obama's financial team. He's spending exactly as people like renegade imagine the federal government should, and the economy is reacting accordingly.
[This message has been edited by Bridgier (6/5/2012)]
|The spending figures are in percent so the 8 years vs 3 is insignificant. If Obama continues to spend at the same RATE his percentage will not change.
|He and congress have doubled the debt since he took office. How that correlates to 1.4 % is beyond any math I ever learned. With all that knowledge yall have floatin around in yer head ya better run for office so you can fix all the problems afore ya git too old and lose it....korkyII
How that correlates to 1.4 % is beyond any math I ever learned.
Captain Kangaroo blocks does not readily translate to percentages.
With all that knowledge yall have floatin around in yer head ya better run for office so you can fix all the problems afore ya git too old and lose it
You wouldn't vote for us even if we were endorsed by Glen Beck, so why bother?
|I might agree with you Gunnar, but then we'd both be wrong, and your'e right, I wouldn't vote for you any more than I'd vote for Obama
|and there you have it.
|"How can you add 5 trillion to our national debt if you aren't spending ?"
To begin, it is four trillion and if one were to acknowledge that the first trillion was baked in the cake then it is three trillion. For Obama to have avoided that first trillion he would have had to slash Social Security, Medicare, and terminate support for our troops in the two wars in progress on his FIRST DAY in office.
Debt is incurred TWO ways (1) more outgo than income or (2) the SAME outgo (in this case spending at a 1.4% increase) and a sharp reduction in income. (ie. drastic decrease in federal revenues - at the individual level this is similar to a layoff).
(2) is the answer to the question above. It's called a recession. And in this case its exacerbated by a congress more interested in defeating Obama than solving the problem.