Guess Which President Was The Smallest Spender Since Eisenhower...

**313WX** · November-08-12, 12:05 PM

Yep, Barack Hussein Obama.

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

BTW, exactly 46% of the stimulus package was tax cuts/credits and not actual cash spending from the government.

**sturge** · November-08-12, 12:36 PM

Better link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

Rebuttlal article [[didn't read it yet): http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...world-history/

**oladub** · November-08-12, 12:57 PM

There was another rebuttal argument attached to the the first Forbes article.Yep, Obama's a Big Spender...Just Like His Predecessors The first article should have been retitled to something more like "Obama spending increases less then previous presidents". That would have been startling enough.

**poobert** · November-08-12, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by sturge

Better link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

Rebuttlal article [[didn't read it yet): http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...world-history/

The Forbes article is the typical neo-conservative dribble. Somehow they managed to work in how Reagan "won" the Cold War on the first page, and derision of "Swedish socialism" on the second page. Jackasses.

**rb336** · November-08-12, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by sturge

Better link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

Rebuttlal article [[didn't read it yet): http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...world-history/

The rebuttal arguments calling parts of the original argument "factually incorrect are, in fact, incorrect. That cracks me up

JVB · November-09-12, 11:30 AM

I despised Bush [[and Romney), but this is a good example of using fuzzy math if I've ever seen one. Most of the added costs from Obama have been kicked down the road, so just because we don't start paying them until 2014 doesn't mean it doesn't belong to him. The national debt went from $10 trillion to $16 trillion under Obama - if we're going to assign some of that increase to Bush, then we have to assign the coming increases to Obama.

**gnome** · November-10-12, 10:11 AM

With statistics you can prove the world is flat.

**ghettopalmetto** · November-10-12, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

I despised Bush [[and Romney), but this is a good example of using fuzzy math if I've ever seen one. Most of the added costs from Obama have been kicked down the road, so just because we don't start paying them until 2014 doesn't mean it doesn't belong to him.

Uh, what???

JVB · November-10-12, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Uh, what???

What part don't you understand? Do you think nationalized health care is gonna be cheap? We haven't borne those costs yet, but Obama owns that. Do you think the coming student loan bailout is gonna be cheap? Obama nationalized student loans, so he owns that too. Wait until those costs are accounted for - it will make the irresponsible spending of Bush look like nothing. The national debt has gone up $6 trillion in Obama's first 4 years and they want to put some of that on Bush. Fair enough, since some of those costs are the result of policies Bush put in place. But then we need to account for the coming costs of the policies that Obama has put in place. You have to use the same standard across the board if you want an accurate representation of spending.

**ghettopalmetto** · November-12-12, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by JVB

What part don't you understand? Do you think nationalized health care is gonna be cheap? We haven't borne those costs yet, but Obama owns that. Do you think the coming student loan bailout is gonna be cheap? Obama nationalized student loans, so he owns that too. Wait until those costs are accounted for - it will make the irresponsible spending of Bush look like nothing. The national debt has gone up $6 trillion in Obama's first 4 years and they want to put some of that on Bush. Fair enough, since some of those costs are the result of policies Bush put in place. But then we need to account for the coming costs of the policies that Obama has put in place. You have to use the same standard across the board if you want an accurate representation of spending.

In short:

1. There is no nationalized health care in the United States [[aside from the VA Hospital system). Nor does the Affordable Care Act establish nationalized health care.

2. Student loan bailout? This is news. Who are we bailing out and why? Stafford and Perkins Loans have always been provided and insured by the federal government. Why should we be paying banks to transfer federal money to students when the federal government can transfer its own money just fine?

3. Any more unsubstantiated panics you care to bring to our attention?

**oladub** · November-12-12, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

In short:

2. Student loan bailout? This is news. Who are we bailing out and why? Stafford and Perkins Loans have always been provided and insured by the federal government. Why should we be paying banks to transfer federal money to students when the federal government can transfer its own money just fine?

The federal government does have some role to play in education. For instance, providing educational opportunities for the military, Washington DC residents, and other federal employees. But why should the federal government even be generally involved in education? What specific delegated power allows, for instance, the nationalization of student loans or food stamps or birth control for people who choose to be students? The federal government has created a student loan bubble with all the free money it is handing out allowing schools to charge more. Now there are calls from students who spent too much of the federal taxpayers' money earning useless degrees, to have their loans forgiven. That would constitute a student bailout.

JVB · November-12-12, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

In short:

1. There is no nationalized health care in the United States [[aside from the VA Hospital system). Nor does the Affordable Care Act establish nationalized health care.

2. Student loan bailout? This is news. Who are we bailing out and why? Stafford and Perkins Loans have always been provided and insured by the federal government. Why should we be paying banks to transfer federal money to students when the federal government can transfer its own money just fine?

The Student Loan industry was nationalized when Obama put the federal government in charge of originating and servicing all federally backed student loans. And if you don't think a student loan bailout is coming you haven't been paying attention. And if you think the "Affordable Care Act" [[ie Obamacare) isn't going to cost taxpayers a ton you really haven't been paying attention.

I'm not sure why it's so hard for some people to wrap their head around the fact that NOTHING IS FREE. Somebody always has to pay...

**ghettopalmetto** · November-12-12, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

The Student Loan industry was nationalized when Obama put the federal government in charge of originating and servicing all federally backed student loans. And if you don't think a student loan bailout is coming you haven't been paying attention. And if you think the "Affordable Care Act" [[ie Obamacare) isn't going to cost taxpayers a ton you really haven't been paying attention.

I'm not sure why it's so hard for some people to wrap their head around the fact that NOTHING IS FREE. Somebody always has to pay...

That's funny. My STAFFORD DIRECT LOANS were originated and serviced by the federal government...in 1996. Maybe you should *ahem* do your homework.

I think I see what your beef is. You just don't like paying for anything. Or rather, you'd prefer to see our government engaged in fascism, funneling guaranteed profits to banks for doing a job the government has already been doing for decades.

**Zacha341** · November-12-12, 01:30 PM

Good points relative to the new health scheme we're now in! Some form of health care reform is needed, but not only is president Obama's affordable care going to cost a ton, it is going to under-deliver! Useless to discuss it in a way though [[smile), were not far enough out in the waters to see how this ship is going to founder...

As Nancy Pelosi said while find out what "in it" now that is has passed.

**oladub** · November-12-12, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

That's funny. My STAFFORD DIRECT LOANS were originated and serviced by the federal government...in 1996. Maybe you should *ahem* do your homework.

I think I see what your beef is. You just don't like paying for anything. Or rather, you'd prefer to see our government engaged in fascism, funneling guaranteed profits to banks for doing a job the government has already been doing for decades.

No we don't want to pay for your federal loan. You bought it. You pay for it. Make a mistake? Too bad. My kids payed their own tuition. What's your problem? Why should they support your choices?

You didn't answer questions regarding what delegated power the federal government has to be handing out most educational loans or nationalizing that industry in the first place.

The State of North Dakota used to offer interest free educational loans until Obama nationalized student loans. Now, ND students have to pay interest like everyone else. Obamacare is a better example of corporatism [[economic fascism) as it is a collusion of wealthy corporate and government interests. My local small town banker, knows the local kids and their families and is less likely to be bailed out for giving out bad loans than federal schemes. That is a huge hidden cost for the initial lower interests rates.

**ghettopalmetto** · November-12-12, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

No we don't want to pay for your federal loan. You bought it. You pay for it. Make a mistake? Too bad. My kids payed their own tuition. What's your problem? Why should they support your choices?

Why should you? I'll tell you why. Because of that degree, not only am I paying interest on that loan to the federal government, but that degree allows me to have a job where I will make, on average, double the income of a high school graduate. That means far more tax revenue to support the Bitching and Moaning Segment of Society that wants free shit like roads and defense and a functioning well-regulated internet for their diatribes, but doesn't want to pay for it.

**oladub** · November-12-12, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Why should you? I'll tell you why. Because of that degree, not only am I paying interest on that loan to the federal government, but that degree allows me to have a job where I will make, on average, double the income of a high school graduate. That means far more tax revenue to support the Bitching and Moaning Segment of Society that wants free shit like roads and defense and a functioning well-regulated internet for their diatribes, but doesn't want to pay for it.

Why don't you just pay off your loan if you have such a good job and get off our backs? I'm not the one at the public trough narcissistically "bitching" for student loans. Roads are pretty much a state expense. Defense spending should be cut although, as you may be suggesting, the internet was partly developed with government funding for military purposes and the rest was a bonus.

**ghettopalmetto** · November-12-12, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Why don't you just pay off your loan if you have such a good job and get off our backs?

I am, thank you very much.

Now let's talk about your mortgage interest deduction, shall we? What are we, the taxpayers, getting from that investment?

JVB · November-12-12, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

That's funny. My STAFFORD DIRECT LOANS were originated and serviced by the federal government...in 1996. Maybe you should *ahem* do your homework.

Not all student loans are Stafford loans, you do realize that don't you? Besides why should I have to pay for your student loans? I worked my way through Wayne State and it took me longer to get my degree as a result but I graduated with zero debt.

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Why should you? I'll tell you why. Because of that degree, not only am I paying interest on that loan to the federal government, but that degree allows me to have a job where I will make, on average, double the income of a high school graduate. That means far more tax revenue to support the Bitching and Moaning Segment of Society that wants free shit like roads and defense and a functioning well-regulated internet for their diatribes, but doesn't want to pay for it.

A degree doesn't guarantee you a great job, or any job for that matter. A degree guarantees you nothing. I know a lot of people with college degrees, tens of thousands of student loan debt, and stuck without a decent job. It's not my fault that they decided to live like a king while studying art history, why should I have to subsidize their poor decision making? All that does is encourage more people to make poor decisions.

**oladub** · November-12-12, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I am, thank you very much.

Now let's talk about your mortgage interest deduction, shall we? What are we, the taxpayers, getting from that investment?

The taxpayers are getting nothing. Again, the federal government should get it's nose out of housing. The higher one's income bracket, the higher the percentage of tax deductions. It's a program that favors the rich. Scrap it!

**ghettopalmetto** · November-12-12, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by JVB

Not all student loans are Stafford loans, you do realize that don't you? Besides why should I have to pay for your student loans? I worked my way through Wayne State and it took me longer to get my degree as a result but I graduated with zero debt.

The only portion of federal student loans that the public incurs is the interest accrued while the student is enrolled full time. And even that is only for subsidized Stafford loans. The principle and subsequent interest are repaid by the borrower.

I think there are bigger battles to fight, are there not?

JVB · November-12-12, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

The only portion of federal student loans that the public incurs is the interest accrued while the student is enrolled full time. And even that is only for subsidized Stafford loans. The principle and subsequent interest are repaid by the borrower.

I think there are bigger battles to fight, are there not?

You seem to be forgetting the cost of the inevitable bailout. Student loan debt has become one of the biggest drags on the economy and just last year it eclipsed credit card debt for the first time ever. Most experts have accepted the fact that a bailout is inevitable. There are tons of articles about it: http://www.businessweek.com/finance/...dent_loan.html and http://www.cnbc.com/id/47171658/Stud...e_Next_Bailout or just google it for yourself to see. It's coming.

**Zacha341** · November-13-12, 04:07 AM

Indeed this is going to be one of 'many' debt battles we going to have to deal with. Thanks for posting the information.

Originally Posted by JVB

You seem to be forgetting the cost of the inevitable bailout. Student loan debt has become one of the biggest drags on the economy and just last year it eclipsed credit card debt for the first time ever. Most experts have accepted the fact that a bailout is inevitable. There are tons of articles about it: http://www.businessweek.com/finance/...dent_loan.html and http://www.cnbc.com/id/47171658/Stud...e_Next_Bailout or just google it for yourself to see. It's coming.

**TKshreve** · November-13-12, 10:28 AM

Now that we're on the topic....

Why don't we examine the factors that have influenced the mushrooming costs associated with education?

Why does a textbook cost $300 and remain in service for only two years? Seems like a racket to me.

Why have tuition rates annually risen 2%-3% faster than the rate of inflation for this entire century?

It's been said that through heavy competition between private schools to be the best, spending increases seem to hold higher value than cost reduction and cost efficiencies.

This bubble wouldn't exist if it was in the best interest of Colleges and Universities to reduce tuition costs first and foremost while maintaining and/or raising the quality of learning.

**rb336** · November-13-12, 11:55 AM

textbooks used to be subsidized until the Reagan administration. They are expensive to produce, from the graphics to the usage rights for copyright covered material. The best reflect the most current thinking on their subject matter as well as the current thinking on the most effective way to learn that material.

Tuition rates have risen recently [[I haven't seen stats for the entire century, but I'd love to look at them)due in part to cuts in funding. Further, maintenance and renovation costs for old buildings, including upgrades for energy efficiency, have risen. Most colleges and universities have a high proportion of old buildings. Adjunct faculty in many colleges are taking pay cuts