Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Dec 29, 2013.
3.52 - 3.1 = ??
So you want to apply the entire amount of the difference between what Bush's budget said spending would be and what spending actually ended up being to Obama. I'll ask again: You do realize that what a budget says is no more than a projection, much like the CBO projection of what the 2009 deficit would be, right?
Then how could you possibly blame Bush for money he did not propose in the budget after he wasn't even president anymore? That's absolutely insane, partisan cognitive dissonance.
So assuming that 719 billion of the stimulus was spent in 2009 and 2010, you're saying that 400 billion was spent in the last 6 months or so of 2009 and 319 was spent in the entirety of 2010? Like everything else you are saying, this makes no sense.
After all, if you say a budget is just some rough, pliable guideline, then you'd have to attribute ALL of it to Obama (this is equally stupid).
The most accurate gauge is to look at the budget as it was proposed, additionally appropriated spending after the presidential change and take column A to the former president and column B to the next.
That leaves ~$850-$900B to Bush, ~$420B to Obama.
That means to have halved an "inherited" deficit, our 2013 deficit would have to be $425-$450B.
Not spent, amortized. The money was "spent" immediately.
You understand that budget proposed before the fiscal year even starts isn't written in stone, right? Things can be added and changed. Was TARP in Bush's 2009 budget?
Again, you're attempting to apply someone's spending to someone else and just chalk it up to "welp, a budget's a loose thing."
I wish I had a more elegant word for it, but it's just ignorant.
I mean, if this is really confusing, look at the final expenditures of 2009 and 2010:
That would - at least on paper - be the first federal budget decrease since the 60s. If the actual costs hadn't been budgetarily amortized, you would have seen $3.9T in 2009.
Not even close to being true. You think they just wrote a 500 billion dollar check out? You think the 280 billion in tax cuts took effect immediately and reduced federal revenues for 2009 only?
No, in this sense it's allocated rather than directly spent.
That's sort of what amortized means in this sense but I feel like you're struggling with it.
Long story short - the "inherited" deficit has not yet been cut in half.
As far as the treasury is concerned, the deficit is the difference between what comes in and what goes out. It has nothing to do with what is allocated. Stimulus money that was spent in 2009 shows up in the 2009 deficit. Stimulus money spent in 2010, shows up in the 2010 deficit. Allocated has nothing to do with calculating the actual deficit.
And what about the 280 billion in tax cuts? What year do they get allocated to? The answer is to which ever year they actually occurred in, just like the spending does. The deficit is calculated as actual revenues minus actual outlays, not allocated revenues minus allocated outlays.
Precisely right, and that's what I used. You cannot apply actual spending to someone who was not president when it occurred. That should be self-evident.
Huh? Now you are completely contradicting yourself. Now you are trying to say that the only 2009 spending that should be attributed to Bush is was what was actually spent between Oct 1 2008 and Jan 20 2009, while Bush was still president. This is just getting comical.
No, I'm actually not saying that at all. I'm not convinced you're even reading what you're replying to at this point.
And I'm pretty sure you are not reading what you are writing. You said "You cannot apply actual spending to someone who was not president when it occurred.". This means that you are saying any money that was actually spent after January 20 2009 can not be attributed to Bush.
on top of what was allocated which I've said several times. Obviously if he proposed a budget of $X, that goes to him.
Good lord. Reading comprehension, my friend.