Thread: Which recent president was the biggest spender? Which was the smallest?

And +1 for Gumby too.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

Originally Posted by HeavyG

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Well, maybe I put too many "wrongs". Spending isn't always the answer. Increasing spending is not guaranteed to create jobs, and that money has to come from somewhere, right? So if you want more spending, it will require more taxes. The government can tax us all day long, but do you trust what they are doing with the money we currently give them?

No, he's right. Increasing spending during an economic downturn helps to replace money lost from a shrinking private sector. Will that save all the jobs that would be lost? Obviously not, but I'd gladly take that over not doing anything and losing all those jobs and making the situation worse. The problem is that during the good times, we should be running a surplus to save money for the downturns, when we spend those surpluses. But a certain former president and political party think that cutting revenue and running a deficit during an economic boom is a smart financial decision.

Originally Posted by HeavyG

So what is next? There isn't any magical thing we can do to simply create jobs. We are getting our asses kicked by the import business and outsourcing. So do we tax companies that choose to outsource/offshore labor? That might work, until the American workers realize how shitty they are going to get paid. I guess getting paid a shitty wage is better than not having a job at all, right?

Tariffs and the like would probably be better. You want to move your operation overseas so you can treat third-world countries shitty and screw the American worker? Well, any product you import then will face steep tariffs. I'm decidedly against this race to the bottom and assault on working class people being led by corporations and conservatives.

Originally Posted by HeavyG

Smart spending is the answer. If there isn't anything good to invest in at the moment, why should we spend a dime? So I guess I am not totally disagreeing with you, but spending is risky if it is on stupid stuff.

Like maybe spending money on our crumbling infrastructure or on educating the populace? That is where money SHOULD be spent.

He said it's not ALWAYS the best answer and I agree. Especially how it tends/appears to be done.

Tariffs of some sort would be a good idea in several (most?) instances.

And of course to stay true to memedom or mantra (you pick) it's ONLY ever conservatives who run corps who send job overseas or use foreign labor. Ever. Got it. This fallacy never gets old though. Corps (regardless of political affiliation) will outsource or offshore,depending, based on whether or not it makes financial sense for the corp. I don't say this as a way of agreeing with the practice but simply to offer counter to the "reps and corps" chip shot the seems to always make its way in. It's businesses period. Remember that. Doesn't make it right, but try not to distort the argument needlessly.


As for infrastructure spending, this is badly needed in many places in many different scenarios. BADLY. But a lot of the money that should be allocated to infrastructure spending (read repairs or updates) gets "reappropriated" (I'd say stolen) for useless pet projects all over the place.

As for education spending....I'm really of two minds about it. On the one hand I strongly value education and want to see our education system improve and regain some lost ground. However I think we are getting such a terrible return on that investment (and it's getting progressively worse imo) that I think throwing additional funds at it is foolish or at the very least naive in the hope that moar $$$ will magically solve the problems.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

Originally Posted by Alundil

He said it's not ALWAYS the best answer and I agree. Especially how it tends/appears to be done.

I'd say it is the ONLY answer, but that the results may not always be what one hoped for.

Originally Posted by Alundil

Tariffs of some sort would be a good idea in several (most?) instances.

At least we agree on something.

Originally Posted by Alundil

And of course to stay true to memedom or mantra (you pick) it's ONLY ever conservatives who run corps who send job overseas or use foreign labor. Ever. Got it. This fallacy never gets old though. Corps (regardless of political affiliation) will outsource or offshore,depending, based on whether or not it makes financial sense for the corp. I don't say this as a way of agreeing with the practice but simply to offer counter to the "reps and corps" chip shot the seems to always make its way in. It's businesses period. Remember that. Doesn't make it right, but try not to distort the argument needlessly.

I'd suggest rereading that line of mine, because you seem to have let your preconceived notions about my views affect your ability to completely understand what I said. I said "race to the bottom," as trying to pay people as little as they can, which is definitely being done by corporations and backed by conservatives who support "free trade" and all that good stuff. Then I said "assault on working class people" and conservatives and their union-busting ways are most definitely anti-worker/pro-management. I never, however, said anything about conservatives being the only people to run corporations or anything like that.

Originally Posted by Alundil

As for infrastructure spending, this is badly needed in many places in many different scenarios. BADLY. But a lot of the money that should be allocated to infrastructure spending (read repairs or updates) gets "reappropriated" (I'd say stolen) for useless pet projects all over the place.

The biggest problem is that there isn't enough money going to repairs or updates at all. There is no money to "reappropriate."

Originally Posted by Alundil

As for education spending....I'm really of two minds about it. On the one hand I strongly value education and want to see our education system improve and regain some lost ground. However I think we are getting such a terrible return on that investment (and it's getting progressively worse imo) that I think throwing additional funds at it is foolish or at the very least naive in the hope that moar $$$ will magically solve the problems.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

Well, I definitely agree that reforms should be made, but at the same time it is absolutely ridiculous to force kids to go into tens of thousands of dollars of debt just to get an education, if they can even afford it. It really shows how pathetic of a country we have become.

Originally Posted by Gumby

You are right, but the system is set up to prevent smart spending. I work for the federal government. This is how it works:

Department A has a budget of $1M dollars for fiscal year 2011. Chugging along and fulfilling their goals and being careful stewards of the people's money, they actually spend only $500K.
Department B has a budget of $1M for fiscal year 2011. Just doing their thing and not being good stewards of the people's money, they barely meet their goals while running out of funding in July.

When the budget gets done for fiscal year 2012 (ha! like that ever happens) the better performing department A will get underfunded and the wasteful Department B will get additional funding. Thus rewarding people who are not doing their jobs correctly.

So in the real world, what happens is that all departments, towards the end of the fiscal year, will start buying stupid things that they do not really need so as to not to receive less funds in the next budget. This is what needs to be fixed. No I do not have the answers. But I have a very close view of the problem. And it is very scary. My organization, for example, has never met a third party IT tool they did not like and buy. They wont let the fact that the OEM's tool is better and comes with the product at no additional charge stop them from buying the tools. Nor will they listen to us techy types that keep telling them that we do not need this crapware. This is caused by the scenario I mentioned above. I am sure that other government agencies have similar issues.

You forgot Department C. They make fiscally sound decisions all year long and create a surplus of 500k. Of which they spend all in Sep. so they dont get a budget cut the next fiscal year.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

At least we agree on something.

o7

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I'd suggest rereading that line of mine, because you seem to have let your preconceived notions about my views affect your ability to completely understand what I said. I said "race to the bottom," as trying to pay people as little as they can, which is definitely being done by corporations and backed by conservatives who support "free trade" and all that good stuff. Then I said "assault on working class people" and conservatives and their union-busting ways are most definitely anti-worker/pro-management. I never, however, said anything about conservatives being the only people to run corporations or anything like that.

No rereading necessary. I know exactly what you said. My counter point stands.
It is not only "conservatives who support free trade" that are driving corporate labor decisions that affect wages or domestic vs foreign staffing. There are hundred, if not thousands, of corporations that seek to pay the lowest wage the market demands per position. And those corporations are aligned all over the political spectrum, are owned/operated by people all over the political spectrum and donate to people all over the political spectrum. If you can't recognize that reality then there isn't much more to say on this topic. Businesses/Corporations seeking to maximize profits (to one degree or anther) is not the sole province of one type of business. It is the goal of all successful and profitable businesses. (See Apple and manufacturing/supply chain choices for starters).
As for the "union-busting" and "anti-worker/pro-management". Sigh. I have, and will continue to have, issues with many of the present-day unions and their practices. I think that they are not in it for the benefit of their members "first and foremost" but rather in it for the benefit of the Union itself. If the members of the union happen to benefit at the same time that's a bonus but not a requirement. I think that they have, in large part, outlasted their usefulness and in many cases cause at least as much harm as good. They represented a knee-jerk reaction to horrible conditions in the past and served a positive role (albeit not without some terrible stains as well) in correcting many of those and protecting against future issues. However, at this point in time I see them as a parasite in the enviable position of sucking off of two host bodies, that of the companies in the industries they operate within as well as off of the body of their own membership. I think that's wrong. I think they've become, to many of their members, the very thing that they were designed to fight (e.g. unions formed to protect members and shield them from the overbearing corporation - now the union is the overbearing corporation to its own members).

And of course business is "anti-worker".....this makes a lot of sense.... :/ Without the workers there is no business. I am pretty sure that the business knows that full well. But there is a noticeable difference between perspectives of the business versus the worker. That's kind of a no brainer if you ask me. Business' goal is to stay in business by out-competing the competition within the law (not all of them succeed at this I am aware). But that also means not out paying your competition on labor or supplies or etc. It's a cycle of things without question. But arbitrarily increasing the cost of labor (and everything downstream from that labor which = basically everything else) is, imo, not the best approach. Arbitrarily increasing the costs of labor, and therefore supplies/everything, also exposes that corporation or domestic industry to being undercut by a foreign company thus negating the labor increases right off the top because now those companies have to lower costs through some other manner (generally cheaper materials which equals shitty quality which further exacerbates the problem).

Needless to say, this is an extremely complex issue that involves far more than labor costs. But the gist of my argument is that today's Unions have, for the most part imo, contributed negatively to the flexibility of the US Economy and are, in no small part, complicit in the very problems they rail against and that most effect their members (those being lost jobs to overseas entities or off-shoring/outsourcing).

Originally Posted by Fovezer

The biggest problem is that there isn't enough money going to repairs or updates at all. There is no money to "reappropriate."

I am referring to money being appropriated (or re-appropriated) for other, imo, wasteful or useless or less useful programs that see funding (decent funding/growing funding/ridiculous funding). The federal government, and right on down to the state and local governments spend stupid amounts of money on "nice to haves" because those are "Sexy" and make for good campaign advertisements and speaking points as opposed to spending money on the important but relatively invisible things like power grid, roads, water treatment & sewage etc etc etc. Those things no one ever thinks about until there's a massive clusterfuck problem. Then everyone is on-board with "We gotta do something" until the next news cycle hits and then it's forgotten again and the money continues to go down the tubes to the visible, sexy and frivolous projects.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Well, I definitely agree that reforms should be made, but at the same time it is absolutely ridiculous to force kids to go into tens of thousands of dollars of debt just to get an education, if they can even afford it. It really shows how pathetic of a country we have become.

K-12 has 0 debt exposure to kids and is performing terribly. And it gets worse every year. It also represents a metric shit-ton of funding at the federal, state and local levels. We as a country are not getting our money's worth out of the existing mechanics. Throwing $$ at it won't resolve the fundamental failings of that system at this point either.

College level education; I completely agree that it is too costly. It's become a business, and a profitable one at that, for many of the colleges and universities. That's shameful and something needs to be done to address the costs of higher education. With that said and out of the way; There are too many people being "coerced" into the higher education system that have no business being there either because 1) of lack of aptitude and they're only there because they can afford it and have been led to believe it's mandatory for success or 2) lack of maturity or desire to learn or give a shit and they're only there because their parents forced them to go and can afford it.

They are driving up the costs of higher education and diluting its effectiveness at the same time. In addition to that, they are occupying valuable seats at those places of learning that should be occupied by some other more valuable (read: desires to be there and has the aptitude to warrant the exposure) candidate.

Maybe its just me but i dont buy it. I dont think bush was particularly good at balancing out shit but hasn't like 3 trillion been added to the deficit since obama took the reins? You dont get there by cutting back spending. We all know its not the whole picture but i dont agree with the numbers being given here.

It´s just you.

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

It´s just you.

Im ok with that. I like being a group of one. It just means theres only one asshole to keep in check.