Cost of Policy Changes, Bush v. Obama

[TechDawg09]

Originally Posted by Pleading the Fif

Do the continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to add to the Bush costs even when he's no longer president?

Interesting. You could leave the Iraq costs in there since the costs incurred in Iraq under Obama were to wrap it up. But Obama intensified the U.S. presence in Afghanistan after he took office. I don't know how the OP's chart accounts for that.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Beast

We're going to be paying interest on the debt created by the tax cut.. In fact, there was an article awhile back pointing out that it was the 10th anniversary of the US borrowing money to pay for the tax cuts.. I will see if I can dig it up.

Nearly 10 Years Ago Today, The U.S. Began Borrowing Billions To Pay For The Bush Tax Cuts | ThinkProgress

[dtc]

Originally Posted by 6stringslide

Please explain. I can't see how me not giving the government more of money is costing them anything. If I don't give you any of my money how much does it cost you?? Nothing, it just means you don't have as much to spend. Washington doesn't have a revenue issue they have a spending issue.

I don't know why I'm going to waste my time, but here goes.

If when Bush came into office he changed absolutely nothing then we would have had all the predecessors' policies and no changes would be attributable to Bush. In reality, Bush's policies departed from those that came before him and, as such, there are differences between what would have been and what was.

Let's use the economic term "ceteris paribus" and pretend that all things as of the day before Bush's inauguration were held constant. Then, we plot what would have happen given no change and compare the results with what happened as a result of the change.

The difference is what would be considered the "cost" of the policy changes.

The changes Bush and friends put through resulted in a doubling of the Federal Debt over his two terms. They also are directly responsible for many of the woes we're still suffering today and a major proportion of the economic collapse we suffered in 08. As such, those policies which Bush enacted and for which the bills are now coming due under Obama are still Bush's fault except, imho, in the case where Obama continued unabated the policies.

[6stringslide]

Originally Posted by dtradin

I don't know why I'm going to waste my time, but here goes.

If when Bush came into office he changed absolutely nothing then we would have had all the predecessors' policies and no changes would be attributable to Bush. In reality, Bush's policies departed from those that came before him and, as such, there are differences between what would have been and what was.

Let's use the economic term "ceteris paribus" and pretend that all things as of the day before Bush's inauguration were held constant. Then, we plot what would have happen given no change and compare the results with what happened as a result of the change.

The difference is what would be considered the "cost" of the policy changes.

The changes Bush and friends put through resulted in a doubling of the Federal Debt over his two terms. They also are directly responsible for many of the woes we're still suffering today and a major proportion of the economic collapse we suffered in 08. As such, those policies which Bush enacted and for which the bills are now coming due under Obama are still Bush's fault except, imho, in the case where Obama continued unabated the policies.

I know what you are saying, it is a big waste of time to try to get the truth out to some of these brain dead liberals and it just doesn't do much good. You are right that Bush doubled the debt over two terms. Roughly 5 trillion dollars and how we got there doesn't matter at this point. Obama has already spent almost $7.72 trillion in just over 3 years and we aren't even counting the cost of Obamacare if it makes it through the SC.

[6stringslide]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

Forget?

It's in the graphic you said was wrong without backing that up with any data or facts claiming otherwise.

Umm no it's not in the graphic and I can get the facts if I need to I'm just kinda lazy tonight. It's been a long day.

[Cosmic201]

Originally Posted by 6stringslide

Umm no it's not in the graphic and I can get the facts if I need to I'm just kinda lazy tonight. It's been a long day.

The Recovery Act was part of stimulus spending.
Stimulus spending is right there in the graphic.
Don't be so lazy that you forget how to even read.\


I have no idea what Omnibus spending bill you are upset with considering we pass one every single year when the house and senate can not agree on a budget.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by 6stringslide

I know what you are saying, it is a big waste of time to try to get the truth out to some of these brain dead liberals and it just doesn't do much good. You are right that Bush doubled the debt over two terms. Roughly 5 trillion dollars and how we got there doesn't matter at this point. Obama has already spent almost $7.72 trillion in just over 3 years and we aren't even counting the cost of Obamacare if it makes it through the SC.

As a brain dead liberal with an MS in Economics and an MBA, I'd like to point out to you that Obama hasn't spent 7.72 more than Bush already spent over the past 3 years. So, while you can whine and moan about Obama's spending, you've got to accept the fact that much of that spending was done prior to his coming into office and only now being counted.

Economics are not liberal or conservative. Economic analysis is a factual interpretation of measurable effects of policy. You may hate Obama, but you may as well use factual arguments to state your case.

[6stringslide]

Originally Posted by dtradin

As a brain dead liberal with an MS in Economics and an MBA, I'd like to point out to you that Obama hasn't spent 7.72 more than Bush already spent over the past 3 years. So, while you can whine and moan about Obama's spending, you've got to accept the fact that much of that spending was done prior to his coming into office and only now being counted.

Economics are not liberal or conservative. Economic analysis is a factual interpretation of measurable effects of policy. You may hate Obama, but you may as well use factual arguments to state your case.

Hey I am glad that you have you degree in economics and not in teaching. You see if you were a teacher you might have to read something before you try to teach it to someone. Obviously you didn't read what I posted. I didn't say Obama had spent $7.72 trillion more than Bush. I said that Obama had spent $7.72 trillion AND that he had spent money at a rate that was 3 times faster than Bush.
You guys can try and defend this guy all you want, but he hasn't done a good job, and he will have to defend his sorry record before November. Blaming Bush after he has been in office for 3 years won't work this time.

[6stringslide]

Originally Posted by TechDawg09

If you cut taxes without cutting spending, I don't see how those tax cuts aren't a cost. The money was given up.

If you make $5,000 a month and your bills are $4,000 a month, but your boss says he is going to cut your salary to $3,000 a month then that salary cut definitely cost you $2,000 a month. And now you have to borrow $1,000 a month to pay your bills since you and your wife can't agree on cutting food for the kids or your super ridiculous security expenses. (I know how people like making the household analogous to the government, so I thought I would try it as well.)

You guys are acting like the money belongs to the government in the first place. It doesn't it's yours. One of the huge reasons we have the bills to pay is the government doesn't know how to manage money they get and they keep borrowing money when they should stop spending.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by 6stringslide

Hey I am glad that you have you degree in economics and not in teaching. You see if you were a teacher you might have to read something before you try to teach it to someone. Obviously you didn't read what I posted. I didn't say Obama had spent $7.72 trillion more than Bush. I said that Obama had spent $7.72 trillion AND that he had spent money at a rate that was 3 times faster than Bush.
You guys can try and defend this guy all you want, but he hasn't done a good job, and he will have to defend his sorry record before November. Blaming Bush after he has been in office for 3 years won't work this time.

The TOS requires that I not answer this in the way that I would prefer so I'll just state that the facts are 1. Obama has not spent money 3 times as fast as Bush. 2. Superman couldn't have done what you would define as a "good job" in this economy if by "good job" you mean return us to 4% unemployment and 5% growth and, 3. your implication was clearly to make it appear as if the facts were that Obama had spent $7.7 more than Bush.

[TechDawg09]

Originally Posted by 6stringslide

You guys are acting like the money belongs to the government in the first place. It doesn't it's yours. One of the huge reasons we have the bills to pay is the government doesn't know how to manage money they get and they keep borrowing money when they should stop spending.

Those damn brain dead liberals

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Bush's last budget (FY2009) was $3.1 trillion. FY2012 was roughly $3.5 trillion. That growth has been pretty much in line with federal budget growth for a long time (For comparision FY2006 spending was $2.7 trillion).

Please point out the unprecendented spending that Obama has done.

I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying it's pretty much the same as it has been for a while. We cut taxes without cutting spending. This isn't an Obama thing.

[TechDawg09]

Originally Posted by UncleTrvlingJim

Bush's last budget (FY2009) was $3.1 trillion. FY2012 was roughly $3.5 trillion. That growth has been pretty much in line with federal budget growth for a long time (For comparision FY2006 spending was $2.7 trillion).

Please point out the unprecendented spending that Obama has done.

I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying it's pretty much the same as it has been for a while. We cut taxes without cutting spending. This isn't an Obama thing.

Don't show them this graph:



Then they might see that the Republican party is not the party of fiscal responsibility after all.

Source: http://blog.mises.org/16107/bushs-hu...amed-on-obama/

[champ76]

Originally Posted by dtradin

I don't know why I'm going to waste my time, but here goes.

If when Bush came into office he changed absolutely nothing then we would have had all the predecessors' policies and no changes would be attributable to Bush. In reality, Bush's policies departed from those that came before him and, as such, there are differences between what would have been and what was.

Let's use the economic term "ceteris paribus" and pretend that all things as of the day before Bush's inauguration were held constant. Then, we plot what would have happen given no change and compare the results with what happened as a result of the change.

The difference is what would be considered the "cost" of the policy changes.

The changes Bush and friends put through resulted in a doubling of the Federal Debt over his two terms. They also are directly responsible for many of the woes we're still suffering today and a major proportion of the economic collapse we suffered in 08. As such, those policies which Bush enacted and for which the bills are now coming due under Obama are still Bush's fault except, imho, in the case where Obama continued unabated the policies.

Are you saying Obama could not have ended the two wars when he took office? Didn't he promise to immediately end at least one, and close Gitmo, etc etc.

You can't have it both ways. If you promise hope and change, and nothing changes, and debt increases by five trillion dollars, then I think you as president have to accept responsibility.

I doubt he will, though. It's always someone elses fault.

The public ain't buying it.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by 6stringslide

You guys are acting like the money belongs to the government in the first place. It doesn't it's yours. One of the huge reasons we have the bills to pay is the government doesn't know how to manage money they get and they keep borrowing money when they should stop spending.

You're being obtuse. It doesn't matter who the money belongs to before it goes to the government. Government requires revenue and has preordained and determined spending obligations. When policy changes the amount of revenue the spending continues until changes can be made and, during the interim, deficits result.

It's the same as any other entity. If money stops coming in savings is depleted or debt incurred.

Now, how about you argue that Obama should have come in and slashed government spending and killed medicare and entitlements so everything would be better.