PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
LOL........are you one of those who isn't bright enough to look at that chart and realize it means Obama spent 1.4% MORE than Bush?.......
Pelosi: No Spending Problem; Obama: Yes Spending Problem
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
LOL........are you one of those who isn't bright enough to look at that chart and realize it means Obama spent 1.4% MORE than Bush?.......
Because it becomes a religion where they cannot accept any deficiency in "their" team. And one or two think he hasn't spent enough regardless of understanding he spends more than any other before him.
Actually, no. I was talking about projected spending and PMP was just plain wrong.
Also, too, here's an interesting chart:
Forgive me if I think that we now suddenly have a spending problem as spending has leveled off after continuous increase since 1950 or so.
Actually, no. I was talking about projected spending and PMP was just plain wrong.
Also, too, here's an interesting chart:
Forgive me if I think that we now suddenly have a spending problem as spending has leveled off after continuous increase since 1950 or so.
Forgive me if I recognize that it leveled off with Obama's "Stimulus" figured into the baseline, and only hasn't increased since because they won't pass budgets in the Democratically controlled Senate.
Hilarious, particularly the part about budgets. You betray your ignorance, Damo. THe absence of a budget has exactly no effect on what the government actually spends.
Actually it does. The fallback is the spending from the year before (with inflation) and excess spending above that level would have to pass each on its own merits.
It's one of the reasons I am not too upset for them not passing budgets. It, at the very least, keeps things on a level spending field and how that "stimulus" spending didn't die off after the first year causing a drop in spending the next year. That money is now figured into the baseline.
Whether Congress passes a budget has nothing to do with that.
You're just flat out wrong, Damo. The stimulus isn't "figured in the baseline." In fact, 2010 spending was lower than 2009 spending and 2012 spending was lower than 2011 spending.
The title of that graph says current expendatures, not baseline increase or decrease. Now Im not vouching for the validity of the chart, but if it is what it proports to be Damocles, you are flat out wrong!
According to your graph, 2010 spending was (slightly) higher than 2009 spending. It flattens because spending above and beyond the baseline must be passed through congress when they fall back to the baseline and automatic increases.
That the baseline is based on the previous year's funding does effect current spending, it is what they are allowed to spend, adjusted for inflation. Continued repetition of "your wrong" notwithstanding, Dung. Your chart doesn't show what you say here (that 2010 was less than 2009), nor does it support your assertion that the stimulus spending is not factored into the baseline used.
The graph (using BEA data) is not completely inclusive of all federal spending. That's why spending appears slightly higher in 2010 than 2009. The CBO includes everything and shows the actual decrease in 2010 from 2009 and the decrease in 2012 from 2011. See Table 1:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...ts/43904-Historical Budget Data-corrected.pdf
The sentence beginning "It flattens . . ." is nonsense. All spending must be passed through Congress. If Congress doesn't pass any appropriations bills nothing gets spent. There is no baseline spedning that occurs without Congressional approval or automatic increases.
You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the process works. Look at the CBO numbers and get back to me.
It isn't "nonsense" considering they didn't pass any budget for quite a while seems to slip your mind, automatic growth is figured into all "mandatory" spending pretending it doesn't exist is just pretense.
I've looked at them, and while there is a minor drop in 2010, it certainly wasn't due to dropping the trillion dollar stimulus, it isn't even close, it was due to the debt limit, while "discretionary spending" is passed through appropriations which enacts a limit based on the previous year's spending, they haven't even done that they've simply passed "continuing resolutions" with a cap on spending. Calling it a "budget", as Reid has, is flat disingenuous, a total fabrication. It is simply a fallback to the previous year's spending capping it and allowing it to reflect inflation.
Changes in spending levels comes through budgets, not simple caps on the hike in spending passed through approps.
Well, it all goes back to the unimportance of budgets. They don't actually do much. They are congressional resolutions and do not have the force of law. Their purpose is to set limits on what the appropriations committee can appropriate. "Automatic growth" ins't figured into all mandatory spending such that increases in mandatory spending suddenly become the baseline for the following year. Growth in mandatory spending is based largely on people claiming benefits.
This is just a bunch of nonsense. The drop in 2010 was due to a huge drop in mandatory spending from 2009 (which goes back to your misunderstanding above). It wasn't due to the debt limit. The drop in 2012 from 2011 was due to the negotations relating to the debt limit which resulted in year over year cuts in discretionary spending. Whatever the hell you want to call it, spending dropped in 2012 from 2011 and dropped in 2010 from 2009.
Changes in spending levels can come through budgets, but that's not the exclusive means. And the budgets only change spending levels by setting the spending levels the apprpriations committes are permitted to appropriate. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about in the bold.
Rubbish, it was due to the slight slowdown in spending created with the debt limit crisis. According to your link to the CBO, spending went right back up in 2011 and still higher in 2012. (slightly higher, as it was right up to that cap passed in appropriations).
Whether you know about it or not continuing resolutions and negotiations on spending caps are what is currently being referred to by Harry as a "budget". If we are ever going to get our spending under control we will need a Senate leader who is courageous enough to simply follow the law and negotiate a budget.
You may think it is "unimportant" but it is the law. He referred to exactly that when he said they already "passed" a budget for this year back in August.
They haven't, one hadn't even been proposed.
According to the law governing budgets...
The Congressional Budget Act requires the president to submit a budget to Congress by Feb. 1 every year. The Senate Budget Committee is to report a budget resolution to the full Senate by April 1. The House and Senate are to reach agreement on a concurrent budget resolution by April 15. Senate Budget Democrats haven’t submitted a budget since 2009.
Maybe you should just look at Table 3 from the CBO link and get back to me. Yes, spending increased in 2011 from 2010, but spending then decreased in 2012 from 2011. Discretionaary spending was flat from 2010 to 2011 and down in 2012 from 2011.
All of this is irrelevant to that fact that spending has actually decreased. As I have said I don't know how many times now, budgets are relatively unimportant.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
apparently they haven't been keeping the chart current, since spending hasn't leveled off.....you have to actually cut spending for spending to decrease and so far, we haven't cut anything......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
true....he has to fix the mess the administration made in 2008 through 2012.......
He's trying to "misread" the stats. Spending increased above the 2009 level in 2011 and stepped up the next year. He's also trying to claim that less than 100 Billion in spending was caused by dropping the 1 trillion in spending from the baseline. It's nonsense. He's scrambling for a hold now.
The reality is, in both years it "dropped" (2010 and 2012 by about 50 Billion each year) it was due to the frickin' limit "crisis" that happened in each year. Appropriations stalled due to limits and dealing with the "crises" (in 2012 it was both a debt limit and "sequestration")... In both of them he outspent Bush's worst year by nearly a trillion... In neither was there a sudden drop due to the spendulus suddenly not counting on the baseline...
This, "spending is going down" is just lefties trying to take a second type of "advantage" from the self-manufactured "crises" we now run our government by...
A
Except spending was lower in 2012 than in 2011. That's a cut and not even in a 1990s cuts to projected spending way. It was an actual reduction spending year to year. Other than the 2009 to 2010 reduction, you have to go back to the 1960s to find the last time that happened.
I realize it'd be a damn shame to let the facts get in the way of your beliefs about Obama, but the denialism on display in this thread is truly remarkable.
Except spending was lower in 2012 than in 2011. That's a cut and not even in a 1990s cuts to projected spending way. It was an actual reduction spending year to year. Other than the 2009 to 2010 reduction, you have to go back to the 1960s to find the last time that happened.
I realize it'd be a damn shame to let the facts get in the way of your beliefs about Obama, but the denialism on display in this thread is truly remarkable.