It's Official! President Obama is # 1 Economic President!!

The total you give is DOD spending only. It does not include Military spending such as veterans pensions, homeland security, and a raft of other Military related items.

Here the Total includes veterans stuff but does not include "Civil Defense" Homeland security and so on.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_defense_spending_30.html

The total given is 820 Billion. Add in Homeland Security, and a raft of other military related expenses and it is over 1 Trillion.

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus...as-one-trillion-national-security-budget.html

Its shocking I know.

 

While I agree that it is terrible that the Feds steal money from SS it is not "creative bean counting". Not sure when it started but it was decades ago that the Feds started counting interest from SS into general revenue.

In any case I always use the term "roughly" balanced.

Clinton was by far the most fiscally responsible president since prior to Reagan.

The measure of fiscal responsibility is increase/decrease in the deficit. For fiscal 2000 Clinton had the deficit down close to zero (18 Brillion) for all intensive purposes this is zero.

Reagan, and the Bush's were ridiculous spenders, the opposite of fiscal conservative.

 

It isn't the interest it was theft and "borrowing" the funds and replacing them with IOU's even after raising the retirees taxes to an absurd amount.

In 1993 President Clinton sought to increase taxes on Social Security benefits of the elderly and disabled. The final version of the bill passed by the Democratically controlled Congress increased taxes on beneficiaries from the first 50% to 85% of benefits (or “annuity payments” as they were originally called). Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding tie-breaker vote in the Senate to make the tax increase law.

The Clinton-Gore tax increase on Social Security benefits imposed a 70% income tax rate on a retired couple making as little as $22,000 per year. The bonds in the Social Security ‘trust fund’ are not real wealth held by the Social Security Administration, thus they do not protect it and its beneficiaries from any fiscal problems.

An I.O.U. that you write to yourself and that you yourself hold might be a useful accounting device, but it is not wealth. Unfortunately, many politicians and bureaucrats enamored with Social Security lie repeatedly about the nature of these bonds and what they imply about the solvency of Social Security. Clinto creatively bean counted social security funds into the US budget and replaced them with bonds that showed up no where on the books.

 

All the more reason to shrink the power of government.

One of the worst forms of cronyism is the corrupt and incestuous relationship between Big Government Democrats and their public sector union sugar daddies who are bankrupting governments from the local to the federal level. Until we get that Augean stable cleaned up we are going to continue to have the record deficit problems we're experiencing under the Obama administration.

 

Without exact numbers and years over which this happened it is difficult to comment.

 

Of course, Mr_Truth again does not tell the whole truth.

A) The source of the article in the OP is not Forbes
B) The author is a prominent liberal activist
C) The original Forbes article referenced says nothing like 'Obama being the #1 economic president', and was written by a 'Forbes Contributor'.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

You can find all the years debt and fiscal information here.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current
Looks like we are rapidly climbing to the 18 trillion mark. Its been awhile since I looked at it.
09/10/2014 17,753,539,449,528.81

 

I know those numbers. Was talking about the SS creative financing.

 

I agree it is hard to find info on this subject now also. I did a search to. I had to go back to an article that was written almost 15 years ago.
This is how I remember it also.
"Clinton’s lock-box plan is nothing more than a scheme to use more than $3 trillion in Social Security surpluses to buy down federal debt. In exchange, the Social Security trust fund gets another $3 trillion worth of IOUs. To be sure, most Americans would rather pay down the debt than use Social Security’s surpluses to fund pork barrel projects. But make no mistake, once that money is spent – to buy down debt or fund new programs – it will not be there to cover Social Security’s long-term liabilities.

And those liabilities are enormous. As most Americans are becoming aware, in 2014 Social Security will begin spending more on benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Ten years later, its annual deficits will reach $370 billion, and by 2034, when today’s 33-year olds begin to retire, the program will be mired in $800 billion deficits. Over the next 75 years, those deficits total $122 trillion, or $19 trillion after adjusting for inflation.

As most Americans are also learning, there are only three ways to deal with this financial crisis: raise taxes, cut benefits, or borrow more money. These options will be the same regardless of how many IOUs are in the Social Security trust fund or how much debt is retired over the next decade. Indeed, even if Washington were to retire the entire national debt this afternoon, Social Security would still begin deficit spending by the time today’s five-year olds enter college.

But Clinton’s plan is likely to appeal to most Americans because it plays to their desire to reduce the national debt and it takes advantage of their misperceptions (as well as the media’s) of Social Security’s fictional bookkeeping system. The bottom line is that adding $3 trillion in IOUs to the Social Security trust fund, as the president’s plan would do, can make the system look healthier on paper, but it does not create any real assets that can be drawn down to cover the system’s shortfalls.

Most government experts acknowledge that Social Security’s trust fund is little more than a ledger entry. Indeed, in last year’s budget documents, experts within the Clinton’s own Office of Management and Budget wrote:

"These balances [within the trust fund] are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense. Unlike the assets of private pension plans, [government trust funds] do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits."
The Congressional Research Service has written much the same thing:

"While the trust funds have an important role in monitoring the finances of the program and maintaining its fiscal discipline, they are basically accounting devices. The federal securities they hold are not assets for the government…[they are] a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another…Those claims are not resources the government has at its disposal to pay for future Social Security claims. Simply put, the trust funds do not reflect an independent store of money for the program or the government…"
There is only one "lock-box" that will honestly keep politicians from raiding Social Security – a personal retirement account owned by individual workers. So instead of using these surpluses to buy down debt and create a mountain of IOUs, Congress and the White House should allow workers to divert their portion of the surplus payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts under their control. Personal retirement accounts are not only the best way of building individual retirement wealth, they effectively "pre-fund" Social Security which will dramatically reduce its long-term liabilities.

This year, the Social Security surplus will total $167 billion – equal to more than $1,100 for every worker who currently pays taxes into the program. Rebating this surplus to workers would finance a payroll tax cut of about 4 percentage points (out of the 12.4 percent payroll tax) without affecting current benefit payments. This means that a couple making $50,000 annually could put $2,000 into their account each year, or $20,000 over the next decade.

If American workers were allowed take the money Clinton wants to use to buy down debt, and invest it in their own personal retirement accounts earning, say, 8 percent annually, they would own nearly $6 trillion in assets by the time Social Security goes into deficit in 2014; and, they would own $56 trillion in assets by the time the trust fund runs out of IOUs in 2034. Talk about owning a piece of the rock.

Americans clearly want to "save" Social Security and pay down the national debt. But they should not fall for gimmicks, such as Clinton’s "lock-box," that promise to do both with the same money. If we’re going to pay down the debt we should use the savings from spending cuts or the sale of unneeded assets, not a raid Social Security’s surplus. There is only one place to put the Social Security surplus, in the personal retirement accounts of hard working Americans."

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/clinton’s-3-trillion-raid-social-security

This one was written in 1991.
Funny how these things are removed from internet searches even though they still haven't been repaid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/security/stories/retire052799.htm

Hope this helps. It is quite an illusive "magic trick" that they pulled off but I have a long memory.

 

That's a brilliant plan . Interest on the debt at that time was around 6% which amounted to hundreds of billions per year in interest payments.

You do not have to pay interest on the SS IOU and so that puts an extra few hundred billion dollars into the coffers each year.

A good plan "if" those that follow can maintain fiscal restraint. And then came Bush.

 

Seems like NJ has a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a thread on the economics of the 2.

 

Really. Putting the economy in a growth direction as opposed to creating the largest bubble ever and then busting it is worse? You like major booms and busts?

- - - Updated - - -

 

Just how many years will you post this stuff? Clearly deficit spending hasn't tanked us. Seems to be working, and the deficit will come down.

 

I sure hope this debt bomb doesn't explode

 

Ok, so let's see.

Usually when I compare the economical politics of different governments I pay attention to the techs and the tools they have used to improve [or to try and improve] the economical conditions of the country, keeping in suitable consideration the starting context [always contextualize, always contextualize ...].

Reagan was President while the USSR was making its maximum effort to survive [since at Moscow they knew well that it was matter of time before of the collapse of the Russian economy] and this meant the maximum military and economical action to spread its sphere of influence.

If we make a bit of brainstorming and we think to the world in 1984 [let's use this date], we could realized that:

* substantially all continental Asia was Communist and quite hostile towards US, with the incoming [but still not that relevant] differentiation of Chinese socialism
* Indochina was Communist and hostile
* Indian Subcontinent wasn't "aligned", and its economy was still well weak, so it doesn't offer a very interesting work mark or an increasing internal demand
* Africa was still a total mess with dictatorship and socialist countries ... and South Africa was still a "White racist system"
* Central and South America saw the presence of Communist / Socialist parties and movements and the policies of the countries weren't so friendly with US and US economy in general.
* In Europe Communist parties were still strong [in Italy the Communist Party still collected around 1/3 of the electorate!] and this forced Western European countries not to be too pro-American [McDonald's has arrived in Italy in early 80's, but it's diffusion, real diffusion on the territory was well later].
* the US dollar had a value around [making a calculation LIT / EURO] 0.91€
This was the context in which Reagan acted.

US have got a giant internal market, but they need external partners and now, let's see the context in which Obama acts.

* substantially Asia is no more Communist and no more hostile towards US, with the Chinese economy embedded as a strong column in US economy itself
* Indochina is no more hostile [also EU societies make business with Vietnam today]
* Indian Subcontinent has got a strong and growing economy and its connection with US market is stronger and stronger
* Africa [!!] is still a total mess with dictatorship and less or more socialist countries and some terror organization here and there ... South Africa has recovered ...
* Central and South America see a moderate presence of Communist / Socialist parties and movements and the policies of the countries are no more so unfriendly with US and US economy in general.
* In Europe Communist parties are gone, totally, and the American model of society / economy is winning everywhere. This is making the exchange between the sides of the Atlantic Ocean grow a lot.
* the US dollar has got a value around 0.78€
--- The strong EU is aiding a lot the US exports

So Obama is using deficit spending [like Reagan, the difference stays in the fact that Obama has spent his "stimulus" in the social field, while Reagan spent public money in the defense sector] in a well more favorable international context and this context has helped him a lot to make US recover from the financial disaster ...

 

Very well - let's begin by closing the Pentagon, eliminating the military industrial complex, demilitarizing the police, and ending all foreign tax shelters.

Deal?

 

This is very true and the Weekly EURUSD chart backs it up (1995 through Now):

Not only hoarding it to the tune of Trillions of dollars, but they've been keeping it offshore and out of the United States Economy. Trillions left out of U.S. economic recovery because they successful avoiding U.S. taxes at a time in our nation's history where investment in our country is needed most.

Correct. Anyone who predicates economic health with market volume is missing the point entirely. There are a lot more traded instruments around the world today as well, constantly shifting volumes all the time. But, the fact of the matter is that shares traded in the aggregate are way up since 2000, and the U.S. equities exchanges prove that every single day and the U.S. Bond yield curve as long since been corrected with shorter terms (3-6-12) coming in at almost 400% differential form the top tier 30yr, which sits at about 4% right now.

Destabilization in the Middle East, typically and that comes from bad foreign policy, namely the boneheaded decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. OPEC, takes advantage of such foreign policy decisions and uses it as an excuse to squeeze.

I posted the Retail Sales chart but they ignore it. They love to ignore facts.

 

This is delusional. Only someone having absolutely no understanding of economics could ever come up with such clueless misunderstanding. This was no ordinary "recession." This was the closest thing to "depression" we could have come without tipping over the edge and making it "official." There was REAL capital loss in this "recession," to the turn of Trillions world wide. The impact was staggering on the Global Supply Chain (you desperately need to GO LEARN about how Supply Side Economics works). The United States was hemorrhaging liquidity. Banks shut down lines of credit to the most vital job producers in our economy. We lacked the Middle Income stability to sustain the hit and that's when the slide began to accelerate.

You don't make a $14 Trillion economy that has its economic engine stalled "worse." It is GOING to stall and you cannot stop that momentum on a dime - most certainly, not in six months. Wake up! Mass times Velocity equals Momentum. This economy had enormous momentum to the downside BEFORE Obama came to office. He made things worse? On what planet is that nonsense even remotely true? Where did you go to school to learn about the chain reaction of the business community on its understanding that supply side liquidity will be drying up with no foreseeable end in sight? You don't turn that around in a $14 Trillion economy in six (6) months. Investment in the United States came to a near halt, both Foreign and Domestic. There was global financial devastation that some countries has STILL not recovered from fully and some of them never will in my lifetime.

You need to get educated on facts and stop proliferating these nonsensical meandering rumors that some politician or late night talking head put into your brain. LEARN how our economy works and please, go learn how the Supply Side works because that got hit extremely hard - I mean REALLY hard. They were eaten alive for a long time, forcing lay-off after lay-off after lay-off and that resulted in even more foreclosures and defaults to hit the fan.

There are no textbooks that you can pull down out of the White House Library, where you can then turn to a specific page number and read a chapter titled: How To Slow Down A Multi-Trillion Global Liquidity Crunch. Don't embarrass yourself with such posts. No president anywhere, certainly not McCain, who told you that he knew nothing about Economics (remember), would have been able to prevent the fallout that did happen. What this president most certainly did, was help to put a floor under a falling economy, and inject some liquidity back into a stalling engine. Those programs took time to have a net impact, until the banks could be worked-out and put back into service providing liquidity to small and medium companies who provide the jobs in our country.

Your post simply lacks facts and it speaks to a much deeper problem in our society - people who refuse to properly educate themselves on how our economy works. It is not rocket science, but you do need to take the time to learn the fundamentals, at least. The president took plenty of action. Recall, that it was his political adversaries in Congress, who said that the money being used for stimulus and recovery was not needed! That somehow, the economic engine that had stalled would restart itself. Obama, was blamed for spending too much money by the utterly clueless among us. Now, here you are in your post, saying that he did not do enough. Make up your mind.

If there had not been so much outsourcing of Middle American Incomes and Jobs since the 1980's, there would have been enough girth in the underlying economy to prevent the foreclosure fiasco because a sufficient number of people would have had JOBS to pay their mortgages. No. That would not have solved the problem of injecting mortgage backed paper into marketable derivatives, but the number of foreclosures would have been considerably less.

There are a number of different structural problems that caused the latest economic turmoil in this country and President Obama, helped to create exactly NONE of them. He was there to help clean up the mess after the fact, not before.

Stop with the Steakhouse Lies.