Did Obama really raise the deficit that much?

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

Mandatory spending programs should be dropping as unemployment drops. That’s not happening because Democrats increased eligibility.

Can you support both of those statements please?

They may have extended benefits, but that’s because there are lots of people out there who have been out of a job for a long long time. But I’m not sure how you increase eligibility for unemployment benefits overall. In general, you’re either unemployed or you’re not.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

The average of the postwar era is 21%. And there is absolutely no excuse for the President to ask for a 5.2% increase in spending in FY2013. That’s huge and mandatory spending should be going down from 2012 to 2013 as unemployment falls.

So Obama is bringing down unemployment?

[monavis]

@Ravenman

Off the top of my head, Obamacare and extension of unemployment benefits are the biggest changes to mandatory programs I can think of that were enacted in the last several years. Obamacare spending is quote low right now, and unemployment benefits cost around $44 billion a year.

And by the way, what is the deal with the argument that the jobless rate is going down so mandatory spending should be coming down? I thought conservatives were all about arguing how high unemployment is, and how it isn’t coming down. Well, anyway.

If you look through table 8.5 (pretty much right in the middle) you’ll see what mandatory spending is increasing. Medicare has gone from $385 billion in 2008 to $478 billion in 2012 (with more increases expected in future years). Unemployment compensation went from $42 billion in 2008 to $105 billion in 2012, and it is indeed projected to taper off. Food and nutrition assistance went from $53 billion in 2008 to $105 billion today, and is slowly tapering off. Social Security went from $612 billion in 2008 to $772 billion today, and will continue to climb unless a right-wing government comes in and decides to cut Social Security for retired and retirement-age Americans, which is something that even George Bush and Paul Ryan never proposed to do.

I’ve said several times in this thread that Obama is in charge and has responsibility for what goes on in the country. However, right-wingers incorrectly charge that Obama has done things other than the stimulus to permanently raise government spending. As I’m showing you, the rise the government spending has much, much more to do with the recession and baby boomers retiring than any secret spending bill that was passed without anyone noticing.

How many times can you repeat something that is literally untrue? This fabricated right-wing meme is just unsupported by the facts. Here’s the deal, as I’ve repeated several times but you cannot actually respond to other than by repeating this baseless charge: the stimulus that you get all worked up about – the roads, the rural broadband, the energy subsidies, all that kind of stuff – was discretionary spending. Look on my previous link at table 8.7. That shows how much is proposed to be spend on discretionary programs: it went from $1.134 trillion in 2008, up to $1.3 trillion or so from 2010-2012, and is proposed to taper back off again in the $1.1 trillion range over the next few years. Accounting for inflation, government is going to shrink under the Obama budget plan for the next few years.

Keep in mind that the stimulus wasn’t spent in one year, most of the outlays were in 2009 and 2010, and we’re still spending the last of that money today.

The fact is that entitlements payments, like Social Security, are growing faster than the rest of the budget is shrinking. Every single American who pays attention to this stuff should know that Social Security benefits are going to cost more and more as baby boomers retire, it’s just friggin’ obvious. But you cannot look at the top line spending and leap to the conclusion that Obama has implemented some secret plan for more spending… you can’t even correct identify what parts of the budget are growing.

Again: most of the growth in government spending is due to the cost of complying with current (and long standing) benefits laws. Just because that cost goes up, doesn’t mean “Obama increased spending,” no more than if revenues go down that would mean that “Obama must have cut taxes.”

There is just one comment I would make; Social Security is not an entitlement it is an Insurance policy that many people pay in to for many years, the pay is based on wht they paid in to the fund, I had a brother in_law that died at age 83, he only got $500.50 a month. Some people payed in for as much as 30 years or more and didn’t collect anything since they had no dependents.

[monavis]

@lance_strongarm

So Obama is bringing down unemployment?

Obama can’t do a whole lot about unemployment when the big business people send their jobs overseas,(and Romney won’t either). Too much greed, yes people have the right to make all the momey they can,( greed is still legal) but there are other rights that the extreme right doesn’t want people to have.

The big money people set the price of oil, and that is a cut in wages for the average working man, so many have to drive to work every day, then they pay more for necessities because of the cost of oil. The same with people who are on Social Security and can’t work, their checks don’t go as far as they used to and many skip on food etc. to keep their head’s above water. A good friend died because she skimped on eating to pay for heat etc.. There is no easy way to fix the economy, the extremeists want to keep a woman from birth control by making her believe it is wrong, but if she can’t afford to feed the child, or care for it, they complain about that as well!

[Ravenman]

@monavis

There is just one comment I would make; Social Security is not an entitlement it is an Insurance policy…

I agree that Social Security is a social insurance program. However, it is also an entitlement, or mandatory spending, or direct spending: all three terms are interchangeable when it comes to federal budgeting.

Saying that a particular program is an entitlement isn’t a criticism, opinion, or derogatory term. Veterans health care is another example of an entitlement program.

[lance_strongarm]

@monavis

Obama can’t do a whole lot about unemployment when the big business people send their jobs overseas,(and Romney won’t either). Too much greed, yes people have the right to make all the momey they can,( greed is still legal) but there are other rights that the extreme right doesn’t want people to have.

The big money people set the price of oil, and that is a cut in wages for the average working man, so many have to drive to work every day, then they pay more for necessities because of the cost of oil. The same with people who are on Social Security and can’t work, their checks don’t go as far as they used to and many skip on food etc. to keep their head’s above water. A good friend died because she skimped on eating to pay for heat etc.. There is no easy way to fix the economy, the extremeists want to keep a woman from birth control by making her believe it is wrong, but if she can’t afford to feed the child, or care for it, they complain about that as well!

Long answer. The short answer is “yes.”

I was just having fun watching adaher admit it.

[monavis]

@Ravenman

I agree that Social Security is a social insurance program. However, it is also an entitlement, or mandatory spending, or direct spending: all three terms are interchangeable when it comes to federal budgeting.

Saying that a particular program is an entitlement isn’t a criticism, opinion, or derogatory term. Veterans health care is another example of an entitlement program.

I don’t believe the vetrans pay into their fund, but they sure deserve all the help they can get, If it were not for them we would not be able to do the things the rest of us do.

The Social Security was used (and by rights) it should never have been used for anything but the main purpose it was created for:to Insure that people had a way to live after they were too old to work. The interest on the money over the years was to also go to their account.Many people died before they could collect.

[adaher]

You’re better off thinking of SS as an entitlement. If it’s social insurance, then benefits are reliant on how much money is in the trust. There’s only enough to pay 75% of promised benefits after 2036.

However, if it’s an entitlement, you’re well, entitled to it. But hey, we can go with the social insurance label. Then it’s subject to the same rules as any other defined contribution insurance plan.

[Ravenman]

It is both a social insurance plan and an entitlement. There is no conflict between the two, the descriptions are not mutually exclusive, and it’s perfectly fine for a program to be both.

The word insurance is all over Social Security (and Medicare, for that matter). Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. Hospital Insurance. There is no doubt that those are government-run insurance programs… that are also entitlements.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

You’re better off thinking of SS as an entitlement. If it’s social insurance, then benefits are reliant on how much money is in the trust. There’s only enough to pay 75% of promised benefits after 2036.

Thank you for getting the facts right. Lots of people are confused and think SS will be completely out of money in 2036.

BTW, you didn’t answer my question from above.

[adaher]

About Obama bringing down unemployment? Yes, unemployment is lower. I think it would be lower if we had a different President though.

[Sam_Stone]

During the Bush recovery, the Democrats hammered him because of low job growth, the rise of ‘McJobs’, etc. Every criticism of his recovery can be laid at the feet of Obama as well. This recovery has been extremely weak, very slow, with sub-standard job growth and an increase in lower-paying jobs.

If this was grounds for kicking Bush out of office in 2004, why does Obama escape the same judgment? Why should he?

[Ravenman]

@Sam_Stone

If this was grounds for kicking Bush out of office in 2004, why does Obama escape the same judgment? Why should he?

Oh yeah. That’s why liberals wanted Bush out, because of McJobs. Get real.

[adaher]

True. It was mainly his warmongering. Another thing that’s okay when Obama does it. And it is! I’m glad Qaddafi’s gone. But let’s be clear: if Bush had responded that way, or McCain, there would have been hundreds of thousands in the streets, talks of WWIII being started by a crazy man, and calls for war criminal trials.

[Ravenman]

It is true, Obama has not been criticized for sending 200,000 Americans into harm’s way for all the wrong reasons.

However, there seems to be a good reason why Obama has avoided such criticism: nothing like that has happened.

[lance_strongarm]

@adaher

True. It was mainly his warmongering. Another thing that’s okay when Obama does it. And it is! I’m glad Qaddafi’s gone. But let’s be clear: if Bush had responded that way, or McCain, there would have been hundreds of thousands in the streets, talks of WWIII being started by a crazy man, and calls for war criminal trials.

Completely unfair.

Every war or military action can and should be judged on its own. Some wars are in our interest and appropriate, others are not.

I supported the war in Afghanistan. I thought the war in Iraq was sheer idiocy. (Which is, by the way, the same position Obama had on those two wars.) If Obama had taken us to war in Iraq, I would have opposed it just as much. I thought the action in Libya was appropriate, and I wouldn’t have opposed it if Bush did it.

[Learjeff]

@lance_strongarm

I supported the war in Afghanistan. I thought the war in Iraq was sheer idiocy. (Which is, by the way, the same position Obama had on those two wars.) If Obama had taken us to war in Iraq, I would have opposed it just as much.

I agree completely.

I thought the action in Libya was appropriate, and I wouldn’t have opposed it if Bush did it.

I’m not sure it was appropriate, but I bet Fox News coverage would have been different had it been Bush.

[monavis]

@Sam_Stone

During the Bush recovery, the Democrats hammered him because of low job growth, the rise of ‘McJobs’, etc. Every criticism of his recovery can be laid at the feet of Obama as well. This recovery has been extremely weak, very slow, with sub-standard job growth and an increase in lower-paying jobs.

If this was grounds for kicking Bush out of office in 2004, why does Obama escape the same judgment? Why should he?

Bush Jr. inherited a huge surplus,started an unnecessary war to kill one man with faulty reasons. One of the reason’s Obama was elected,even his own party members admitted to this, when they chose MCCain to run.

The starting point for Obama had a great many problems to solve even as he started his term. The country is very divided and “united we stand divided we fall” I hope I am wrong ,but Romney isn’t going to work some Magic to make it any better, perhaps if the pacs, and people who spent millions of dollars to get him elected would put that money in the treasury we would have a balanced budget..I wonder if all the big money people even care?They must expect to get their money back and then some?