Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

What has Trump done right so far?

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Annachie   » Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:13 am

Annachie
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

CRC wrote:Yeah its really amazing how those progressive California policies have made this state an absolute Utopia!! (So glad I abandoned it 25 years ago!)


Certainly reads like you left California because it was too progressive for you.

Otherwise you probably would have left, or moved away.

You "abandoned" the state during a run of GOP govenors and complain about how progressive it is.




Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:06 am

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

Annachie wrote:
CRC wrote:Yeah its really amazing how those progressive California policies have made this state an absolute Utopia!! (So glad I abandoned it 25 years ago!)


Certainly reads like you left California because it was too progressive for you.

Otherwise you probably would have left, or moved away.

You "abandoned" the state during a run of GOP govenors and complain about how progressive it is.




Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


I abandoned it for simple selfish reasons - like a bunch of did in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Crime and Pocketbook (taxes) issues. Our sales tax had went over 10%, our income tax over 10% and the legislature had found away around Prop 13 limits.

In fact, the running gag in CO at the time was - 'Do you know that Californians are not having sex anymore - because they are all @#$%#^*@#%@ here!'

My first revelation in CO was my 1991 tax returns in which I had to pay in both states. My CA return was 30+ pages. My CO return was 1 page. (It's now up to 2 pages.)

One of the roots of today's progressivism is spending other people's money as a power play - not so much an income redistribution as it is pure self interest. Its not true socialism in the academic sense, but more of a power (money) corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

'What's your is ours and what's mine is mine.'

If progressives followed the Methodist model, then I would have far more respect for their positions, but they don't, so I don't.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:51 am

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

gcomeau wrote: Yeah, we're really going to have to do this again aren't we?

Like I already told you once. Signing the bills in a certain year doesn't make the money they call to be spent get spent IN that budget year. The majority of the spending from those bills you just listed occurred in the NEXT fiscal year and that spending therefore goes on the NEXT fiscal year's budget. Not 2009's. As I already told you a small portion of those bills spending occurred in FY2009, and that spending increased the deficit a marginal amount for that year. But Bush had ALREADY run that deficit up well north of a Trillion dollars before Obama even set foot in the White House. What part of this are you having such difficulty following?

And you do also realize that a huge chunk of the debt for the next many years was not spending driven, but revenue driven due to the collapse of the economy.... right? And who was presiding over the economic collapse?

Yes well, if you weren't taunting people for falling into your "trap" when you don't know what you're talking about AND when you deleted the part of their post where they stated the thing you claimed they didn't know you wouldn't earn the condescension.


Once again you fail the test. I am not blaming Obama because he signed the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, I am blaming Obama because it was legislated and passed on his watch.

Had you simply looked at the facts, rather than once again parading talking points, you would have seen that this particular piece of legislation (HR 1105) was introduced by Obey on 2/23/2009.

My recollection is that the Dems controlled both the house and the senate and Obama was president on 2/23/2009 when the bill was introduced, and he signed it (on March 11, 2009) after the house and the senate passed it.

It is also a fact that the bill increased spending, over and above the stimulus package, and had a godawful amount of earmarks.

So once again, these are FACTS that you conveniently fail to mention in your analysis and rebuttal.

Another FACT you fail to mention, is the CBO budget analysis of March of 2009 on the president's budget proposals, and I assume the impacts of the Omnibus budget because it does include "current law" - which included the impacts of Bush.

So the COB Baseline estimate vs CBO's estimate of the Obama Budgets vs actuals were:

2009 - $1.667T - $1.845T - $1.413T
2010 - $1.139T - $1.379T - $1.294T
2011 - $0.693T - $0.970T - $1.295T
2012 - $0.331T - $0.658T - $1.087T
2013 - $0.300T - $0.672T - $0.679T
2014 - $0.310T - $0.749T - $0.485T
2015 - $0.282T - $0.785T - $0.438T
2016 - $0.327T - $0.895T - $0.587T

So while Obama did beat the CBO's estimate of his budgets in certain year, the deficits far exceeded those projected under Bush budgets and "current law" as of the March 2009 analysis. (Note that the CBO analysis of 2009 was done when the Dems held the majority in both houses.)

But there is a further complication in that the House was taken over by the GOP in 2010 while the Senate Dems held the majority until 2014. Although the Sequester started in 2013.

So once again, the analysis turns to:

"How much is Bush to blame for the Obama run up in the debt?"

So now I will await your next vulgar and condescending post to follow up with another really interesting analysis that does not include any vulgarity as a substitute for facts.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Annachie   » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:31 am

Annachie
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Actually, I think you're both ignoring a key point.
The nature of how budgeted funds are spent by governments.

Typically, the majority of government spending on projects is Q3 and into Q4.

Q1 and Q2 are disecting the budget and planning/allocation.
Q3 is when the works typically get done and when the funds are actually spent.

Haven't looked into it properly but I'd expect a delay effect in Presidential election years if there's a new President as new administrators try to come to grips with the inherited budget and work out how to twist it.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Annachie   » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:15 am

Annachie
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

2009 HR 1105, been reading the summary.

It really needs a summary of the summary.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:28 pm

gcomeau
Commodore

Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

CRC wrote:
gcomeau wrote: Yeah, we're really going to have to do this again aren't we?

Like I already told you once. Signing the bills in a certain year doesn't make the money they call to be spent get spent IN that budget year. The majority of the spending from those bills you just listed occurred in the NEXT fiscal year and that spending therefore goes on the NEXT fiscal year's budget. Not 2009's. As I already told you a small portion of those bills spending occurred in FY2009, and that spending increased the deficit a marginal amount for that year. But Bush had ALREADY run that deficit up well north of a Trillion dollars before Obama even set foot in the White House. What part of this are you having such difficulty following?

And you do also realize that a huge chunk of the debt for the next many years was not spending driven, but revenue driven due to the collapse of the economy.... right? And who was presiding over the economic collapse?

Yes well, if you weren't taunting people for falling into your "trap" when you don't know what you're talking about AND when you deleted the part of their post where they stated the thing you claimed they didn't know you wouldn't earn the condescension.


Once again you fail the test. I am not blaming Obama because he signed the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, I am blaming Obama because it was legislated and passed on his watch.

Had you simply looked at the facts, rather than once again parading talking points, you would have seen that this particular piece of legislation (HR 1105) was introduced by Obey on 2/23/2009.

My recollection is that the Dems controlled both the house and the senate and Obama was president on 2/23/2009 when the bill was introduced, and he signed it (on March 11, 2009) after the house and the senate passed it.


NOBODY is arguing he didn't sign stimulus, or that the Demorats were not responsible for pushing stimulus. So what the hell are you talking about? What argument do you even think you're having?

What is being pointed out is that that stimulus didn't create the giant upswing in the deficit. That happened first while the economy was imploding. (Which, if you're following along, is why we *needed* a Stimulus). The stimulus added some to it, but the big jump had already happened.

It is also a fact that the bill increased spending,


No kidding! It was a stimulus. Spending was the entire point.

So once again, these are FACTS that you conveniently fail to mention in your analysis and rebuttal.


No, what is a FACT is that you still clearly are either not reading my posts, not understanding the words in them, or deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

What the HELL do you think this means?

"Like I already told you once. Signing the bills in a certain year doesn't make the money they call to be spent get spent IN that budget year. The majority of the spending from those bills you just listed occurred in the NEXT fiscal year and that spending therefore goes on the NEXT fiscal year's budget. Not 2009's. As I already told you a small portion of those bills spending occurred in FY2009, and that spending increased the deficit a marginal amount for that year. But Bush had ALREADY run that deficit up well north of a Trillion dollars before Obama even set foot in the White House. What part of this are you having such difficulty following?"


Do you see how many times I refer to the spending in those bills in there? I bolded them all just to help you find them. Does that give you the impression I "conveniently failed to mention" that those bills contained spending in my analysis and rebuttal? Does it?


Another FACT you fail to mention, is the CBO budget analysis of March of 2009 on the president's budget proposals, and I assume the impacts of the Omnibus budget because it does include "current law" - which included the impacts of Bush.

So the COB Baseline estimate vs CBO's estimate of the Obama Budgets vs actuals were:

2009 - $1.667T - $1.845T - $1.413T
2010 - $1.139T - $1.379T - $1.294T
2011 - $0.693T - $0.970T - $1.295T
2012 - $0.331T - $0.658T - $1.087T
2013 - $0.300T - $0.672T - $0.679T
2014 - $0.310T - $0.749T - $0.485T
2015 - $0.282T - $0.785T - $0.438T
2016 - $0.327T - $0.895T - $0.587T


A couple tips.

1. Links help. (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files ... budget.pdf)

2. Label your tables so people know what you're talking about.

Column 1 there is the CBO baseline deficit estimate before enaction of Obama's updated budget items. Column 2 is the new deficit projections with those proposed changes enacted. Table 3 is the difference between them.

So while Obama did beat the CBO's estimate of his budgets in certain year, the deficits far exceeded those projected under Bush budgets and "current law" as of the March 2009 analysis. (Note that the CBO analysis of 2009 was done when the Dems held the majority in both houses.)


NO KIDDING. It was a stimulus. You understand how stimulus works don't you? You trade short term increased deficits for increased economic activity, in exchange for the *long term* tradeoff of returning the economy to health sooner and making up the deficits in the future by bringing in increased revenue off the healthy economy once it's back on it's feet.


You DO understand that right?


But there is a further complication in that the House was taken over by the GOP in 2010 while the Senate Dems held the majority until 2014. Although the Sequester started in 2013.

So once again, the analysis turns to:

"How much is Bush to blame for the Obama run up in the debt?"


Sigh... we already covered this. And you didn't day a single thing that changed it. EVERYTHING you just said addressed deficits in the years after the handoff to Obama, NOTHING you just said had a thing to do with the size of the deficit Obama got handed in the first damn place.


So we are STILL at this:

1. Bush handed Obama a deficit well north of a Trillion dollars.
2. Obama massively reduced the deficit from those levels.

And nothing you just said had a single thing to do with changing that reality.




(If you want a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of those numbers however, try reading up on how much the deficit projections were revised wore NOT because of Obama's stimulus, but because of the progressive revisions to the actual GDP contraction in the close of 2008 as the BEA kept getting additional data that showed how much worse economic collapse actually was than they thought it was in early 2009 based on still incomplete economic indicators. Here's a good starting point for you:

https://bea.gov/faq/index.cfm?faq_id=1003)
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Tenshinai   » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:23 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2830
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

NOBODY is arguing he didn't sign stimulus, or that the Demorats were not responsible for pushing stimulus. So what the hell are you talking about? What argument do you even think you're having?


And at the time, it was more a matter of "something must be done NOW" rather than doing something better later.

So, Obama didn´t really have much choice in signing onto the stuff GWB left behind during transition. Had he instead rejected those stimulus, chances are VERY high that we had seen a massive crash AGAIN(sure it would have been at least partially fake and based on financial market voodoo, but that wouldn´t make the effects any less).
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:02 pm

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

Wow, some people can be so obtuse.

Let's refresh here:

Obama actually signed THREE spending bills in 2009.

1 - The $800B+ stimulus bill in February 2009
2 - The FY2009 Omnibus Bill in March 2009
3 - A supplemental appropriations bill in June 2009

I have been discussing #2. Others have been discussing #1 - which I don't understand why, since I am particularly focused on the importance of #2 here.

gcomeau has basically posited that all of the Obama deficits were Bush's fault. That Obama had nothing to do with them and that Bush ripped the hole in the boat and Obama actually sealed the hole to a 'small' drip.

Yet time after time, through contemporaneous budgetary figures, through Obama's signature on Obama budgets in March of 2009 - recognizing and accepting the future deficit projections as projected by both Obama and the CBO - and then having deficits worse than projected, even though the Great Recession ended in June of 2009 - I have shown to any reasonable person that while bush was partially at fault for Obama's poor deficit, the analogy of Bush ripping the hole in the boat and Obama patching it falls a bit short of reality.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:05 pm

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

Annachie wrote:Actually, I think you're both ignoring a key point.
The nature of how budgeted funds are spent by governments.

Typically, the majority of government spending on projects is Q3 and into Q4.

Q1 and Q2 are disecting the budget and planning/allocation.
Q3 is when the works typically get done and when the funds are actually spent.

Haven't looked into it properly but I'd expect a delay effect in Presidential election years if there's a new President as new administrators try to come to grips with the inherited budget and work out how to twist it.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


That might be true with discretionary spending, but entitlement spending, the majority of spending, is on autopilot. Let's see I think about 70% is mandatory, but of the remaining 30% a lot is required - like wages and benefits for military and civil service?
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:17 pm

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:45 am

Tenshinai wrote:
NOBODY is arguing he didn't sign stimulus, or that the Demorats were not responsible for pushing stimulus. So what the hell are you talking about? What argument do you even think you're having?


And at the time, it was more a matter of "something must be done NOW" rather than doing something better later.

So, Obama didn´t really have much choice in signing onto the stuff GWB left behind during transition. Had he instead rejected those stimulus, chances are VERY high that we had seen a massive crash AGAIN(sure it would have been at least partially fake and based on financial market voodoo, but that wouldn´t make the effects any less).


The Bush stimulus package was a $152B in 2008. That was pretty much law and taken in consideration in the March 2009 Budget act. (Even though the budget act had a lot of internal 'stimulus' to begin with.) The Obama stimulus was passed in February 2009 at $862B.

There are several papers on why the Obama stimulus did not "stimulate". The most interesting was a Hoover.org paper

(http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/f ... 1-2011.pdf)

that basically posited the poor performance of the stimulus was due to its use by the stimulee's to pay off debt, not buy things.

It essentially said the Federal government borrowed money to give to people to pay down their debts, or reduce their borrowing needs...

A zero sum game it seemed...
Top

Return to Politics