Government Spending Per Capita

[carlfense]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/

[sd'sker]

Under Obama, Government Spending Has Grown More Slowly Than Under Any President Since Eisenhower

 

Obama has already agreed on $1.4 trillion in spending cuts with Congressional leaders, which, combined with new revenues and reduced interest payments, will reduce the deficit by $2.5 trillion over the next decade.

Spending is expected to fall 1.3 percent in fiscal 2013, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office. Annualized spending under Obama is growing slower than it hasunder the past four Republican presidents, as ThinkProgress noted in March. Meanwhile, a Goldman Sachs analyst told Bloomberg that a stronger economy will cut the deficit to $500 billion, to less than 3 percent of gross domestic product, by 2015.

[JJ Husker]

That's good news but, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't that statistic be more attributable to the house of representatives and/or the Senate? If I recall my civics, one of those chambers is primarily responsible for spending. I know the attempt was to silence Obama critics and show that spending is better or at least not significantly different with him in charge. I can appreciate that. But, the President cannot directly control spending the money.

[sd'sker]

That's good news but, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't that statistic be more attributable to the house of representatives and/or the Senate? If I recall my civics, one of those chambers is primarily responsible for spending. I know the attempt was to silence Obama critics and show that spending is better or at least not significantly different with him in charge. I can appreciate that. But, the President cannot directly control spending the money.

yeah, it is a lot like how he can not raise taxes.

[strigori]

That's good news but, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't that statistic be more attributable to the house of representatives and/or the Senate? If I recall my civics, one of those chambers is primarily responsible for spending. I know the attempt was to silence Obama critics and show that spending is better or at least not significantly different with him in charge. I can appreciate that. But, the President cannot directly control spending the money.

Someone better tell the members of that body how things work quickly. They spend a lot of time talking about Obama spending too much.

[carlfense]

That's good news but, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't that statistic be more attributable to the house of representatives and/or the Senate? If I recall my civics, one of those chambers is primarily responsible for spending. I know the attempt was to silence Obama critics and show that spending is better or at least not significantly different with him in charge. I can appreciate that. But, the President cannot directly control spending the money.

Good news . . . credit Congress.

Bad news . . . Obama's fault.

 

Providing evidence that disproves some commonly repeated talking points is hardly an "attempt to silence" critics.

[carlfense]

That's good news but, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't that statistic be more attributable to the house of representatives and/or the Senate? If I recall my civics, one of those chambers is primarily responsible for spending. I know the attempt was to silence Obama critics and show that spending is better or at least not significantly different with him in charge. I can appreciate that. But, the President cannot directly control spending the money.

Someone better tell the members of that body how things work quickly. They spend a lot of time talking about Obama spending too much.

Yeah . . .

[sd'sker]

That's good news but, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't that statistic be more attributable to the house of representatives and/or the Senate? If I recall my civics, one of those chambers is primarily responsible for spending. I know the attempt was to silence Obama critics and show that spending is better or at least not significantly different with him in charge. I can appreciate that. But, the President cannot directly control spending the money.

Someone better tell the members of that body how things work quickly. They spend a lot of time talking about Obama spending too much.

Yeah . . .

i think this is really funny considering the thread going on about obama lying about taxes.

[carlfense]

i think this is really funny considering the thread going on about obama lying about taxes.

That would be a bad thing . . . therefore it's Obama's fault. Don't over think it! Reduced per capita government spending is a good thing . . . so Obama definitely can't take credit.

 

(FWIW, I agree that the power of the President is often overstated. That doesn't mean that I don't laugh at the entirely predictable reactions.)

[carlfense]

That's good news but, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't that statistic be more attributable to the house of representatives and/or the Senate? If I recall my civics, one of those chambers is primarily responsible for spending. I know the attempt was to silence Obama critics and show that spending is better or at least not significantly different with him in charge. I can appreciate that. But, the President cannot directly control spending the money.

i think this is really funny considering the thread going on about obama lying about taxes.

 

Juxtaposed for posterity:

 

And, pray tell, how do you attribute that to republicans while letting Obama and the dems off the hook? The two links I followed both made reference to Obama claiming "if you make under 200k your taxes will not increase". I might be crazy but I'm pretty darned sure most Americans aren't going to equate a 2% payroll tax increase, on the firsts 113k of earnings with their taxes not going up. Ironically, if you make less than $113k, your taxes increase 2% but, if you make $200k, your taxes only increase a bit more than 1%. So when Obama doesn't keep his word, blame the repubs. Typical.

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/63780-obama-lies-again/page__view__findpost__p__1113164

[JJ Husker]

That's good news but, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't that statistic be more attributable to the house of representatives and/or the Senate? If I recall my civics, one of those chambers is primarily responsible for spending. I know the attempt was to silence Obama critics and show that spending is better or at least not significantly different with him in charge. I can appreciate that. But, the President cannot directly control spending the money.

i think this is really funny considering the thread going on about obama lying about taxes.

 

Juxtaposed for posterity:

 

And, pray tell, how do you attribute that to republicans while letting Obama and the dems off the hook? The two links I followed both made reference to Obama claiming "if you make under 200k your taxes will not increase". I might be crazy but I'm pretty darned sure most Americans aren't going to equate a 2% payroll tax increase, on the firsts 113k of earnings with their taxes not going up. Ironically, if you make less than $113k, your taxes increase 2% but, if you make $200k, your taxes only increase a bit more than 1%. So when Obama doesn't keep his word, blame the repubs. Typical.

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1113164

Carl- Why are you going out of your way to make it appear that I am being any less than fair and even handed on these two issues? I also went on to explain in that other thread;

 

"I'm fully aware that the mess, including this particular issue, in Washington is the fault of both parties and the President. However, your original comment "There's ample evidence that the $100 you're on about here is a direct result of Republican nonsense.", ignored the fact that democrats and the President were also involved. But I'm sure you would never purposely mislead us on something like this. It must've been an oversight on your part to mention only the republican nonsense while failing to apply any blame whatsoever to the other two entities. Maybe if you were more fair in doling out the blame, my questions would not seem quite so absurd.

 

The problem is that I am not here just to sling mud at democrats and the President. Accusing me of that, after your one-sided claim against republicans, is priceless. I've got no reason whatsoever to only defend republicans or only attack democrats. They all suck and I'm sick of all of them. But I am also tired of people ignoring the fact that they are all responsible and attempting to paint it as though it is a one-sided problem as you did in the post I quoted."

 

The sooner we all realize the us against them mentality should not be repubs vs dems but rather 'we the people' vs the government, the better off we'll be. The Republicans, Democrats, President, and even the USC, combined, are responsible for any and all spending, taxes, and laws that we do or don't like. The opposing sides of the aisle may have differing philosophical ideas about taxation, spending, and social issues but, in the end, neither really acts much different than other. They are all abusing our trust and their position.

 

Yes, I pointed out that Obama is not fully responsible for decreased spending and that Republicans are not fully responsible for increased taxes but I did not continue on to claim that the other guys were better or worse or that repubs=good or dems=bad. I simply provided reality in both threads, I can't help it that others posting before me had already begun to spin things towards repubs being responsible for tax increases or Obama being responsible for decreased spending.

[knapplc]

Yes, but JJ, you only said that quote in blue after I basically forced it out of you. Prior to that you were all in mocking me for trying to make the thread more evenly balanced. Your quote was a direct response to me saying that there's more blame there than simply Obama, and you chastize me for doing in that thread what you're doing in this thread.

 

For as "fair and even handed" as you're claiming to be here, your statements in these two threads paint a different picture.

[carlfense]

Carl- Why are you going out of your way to make it appear that I am being any less than fair and even handed on these two issues? I also went on to explain in that other thread

You seem to be saying that Obama can't take any credit for reduced per capita spending because spending originates in Congress. Two days before that statement you said that Obama shouldn't be let off the hook because of a tax increase . . . that also originated in Congress.

 

Do you really see that as fair and even handed?

 

The sooner we all realize . . . 'we the people' vs the government, the better off we'll be.

I don't believe that it's us versus the government. In fact I'd argue quite the opposite. I'm more inclined to agree with Lincoln: ". . . government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people . . ."

 

Yes, I pointed out that Obama is not fully responsible for decreased spending and that Republicans are not fully responsible for increased taxes . . .

Good and bad is probably oversimplified. I'll try to restate it:

 

1. Spending decreases: Obama shouldn't receive any credit because spending originates in Congress.

2. Taxes increase: People shouldn't let Obama off the hook even though taxes also originate in Congress.

 

(Also, for what it's worth, I didn't post this chart to imply that Obama deserves all of the credit but rather to dispel the myth of Obama's out of control spending increases. We've all seen those rants . . . there are probably examples right here on HB.)

[JJ Husker]

Yes, but JJ, you only said that quote in blue after I basically forced it out of you. Prior to that you were all in mocking me for trying to make the thread more evenly balanced. Your quote was a direct response to me saying that there's more blame there than simply Obama, and you chastize me for doing in that thread what you're doing in this thread.

 

For as "fair and even handed" as you're claiming to be here, your statements in these two threads paint a different picture.

Carl- Why are you going out of your way to make it appear that I am being any less than fair and even handed on these two issues? I also went on to explain in that other thread

You seem to be saying that Obama can't take any credit for reduced per capita spending because spending originates in Congress. Two days before that statement you said that Obama shouldn't be let off the hook because of a tax increase . . . that also originated in Congress.

 

Do you really see that as fair and even handed?

 

The sooner we all realize . . . 'we the people' vs the government, the better off we'll be.

I don't believe that it's us versus the government. In fact I'd argue quite the opposite. I'm more inclined to agree with Lincoln: ". . . government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people . . ."

 

Yes, I pointed out that Obama is not fully responsible for decreased spending and that Republicans are not fully responsible for increased taxes . . .

Good and bad is probably oversimplified. I'll try to restate it:

 

1. Spending decreases: Obama shouldn't receive any credit because spending originates in Congress.

2. Taxes increase: People shouldn't let Obama off the hook even though taxes also originate in Congress.

 

(Also, for what it's worth, I didn't post this chart to imply that Obama deserves all of the credit but rather to dispel the myth of Obama's out of control spending increases. We've all seen those rants . . . there are probably examples right here on HB.)

Look guys, we can go back and forth on this all day but the reality is, all three of us know that both parties and the President are all responsible for whatever happens, good or bad. You guys have posted things to illustrate that Obama is not all bad or that Republicans are not all good. I have simply done the same thing by pointing out that Obama is not all good or Republicans are not all bad. We've all done this in response to prior posts or thread titles that would lead us to believe that somebody is trying to claim it's a one-sided problem. At this point we are just arguing to be arguing. I realize we tend to approach these issues from opposite sides of the fence but that is just human nature based on our political preferences.

 

And Carl- It would be nice if it truly was ". . . government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people . . ." but, I'm pretty well convinced that isn't what has been happening for a long, long time. If you want to act like that is what is happening in Washington, go right ahead but we know better.

[knapplc]

If you recognize that, then why jump all over me in a thread with inherent ridiculous biases when I correct those biases? If this is something you're comfortable doing, that you feel needs doing, why the rancor in the "Obama lied" thread?