An Obama Spending Spree? Hardly

[Mav88]

I am not saying anything, CBO is saying that. The omnibus bill that was signed in March 2009 led to 31 billion increase in immediate spending i.e. FY 2009. Rest was for FY 2010, the omnibus bill wasn't just a FY 2009 appropriations bill, it was simply signed during FY 2009 since there is a lag between signing a spending bill and the time it takes to appropriate the money.

You don't know what you are talking about. CBO is not saying anything like what you are claiming. Your lack of understanding of how gov't finances work is so large you should stop talking about it.

The FY 09 omnibus act is attributed to FY09, period, and it was $410B. Never is ANY portion of money authorized in one fiscal year accounted for in another fiscal year budget as spending. IT DOES NOT MATTER if the money was expended or even merely obligated during FY2010, it is still in the FY2009 budget.

The $31B you are tossing around is the number used for the increase over 2008, it is not the amount of 'immediate' spending.

It take no time to appropriate money, in fact the signing of the bill is itself appropriating money. My god, get some education before spouting off.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from epiktetos:

Let me post this again....

No No I beg you not again.

 

[epiktetos]

You don't know what you are talking about. CBO is not saying anything like what you are claiming. Your lack of understanding of how gov't finances work is so large you should stop talking about it.

Wrong

"Legislation enacted since CBO prepared its March base-line results in additional projected outlays totaling $31 billion in 2009"

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/08-25-budgetupdate.pdf

The FY 09 omnibus act is attributed to FY09, period, and it was $410B. Never is ANY portion of money authorized in one fiscal year accounted for in another fiscal year budget as spending. IT DOES NOT MATTER if the money was expended or even merely obligated during FY2010, it is still in the FY2009 budget.


The $31B you are tossing around is the number used for the increase over 2008, it is not the amount of 'immediate' spending.

It take no time to appropriate money, in fact the signing of the bill is itself appropriating money. My god, get some education before spouting off.

This is why I keep telling you to read libertarian blogs instead of the crap you are currently reading.

Also I didn't say that the appropriations were for FY 2009, you are the one making that assumption. What I said was that it was only signed in Fy 2009 but the spending was for beyond September 30 of that year. You made a classic strawman argument.


The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.

It is also important to note that just because spending is authorized in a certain fiscal year doesn’t mean it’s actually spent in that same year. This is especially true when we’re talking about new stimulus programs and discretionary spending. In all likelihood, only a portion of the money authorized in the spending bills signed by Obama in 2009 would actually show up as spending that occurred before September 30.

One of the better resources for understanding how much the federal government has spent -and when it spent the money- is through the data on federal outlays provided by the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO provides easy-to-use data on federal outlays from 1971 to 2010. Outlays are federal moneys that have actually been spent. In the government budget process, moneys are budgeted, authorized and allocated, but they only become outlays once they’ve actually been used to pay government employees or contract services or buy things.

Naturally, there is a lag time between the time that taxpayer dollars are appropriated and when they are actually paid out to Lockheed Martin or Henry Paulson and his friends, for example.

For this reason, and since the budget for the first year of a president’s term had already been passed months earlier, it is generally more appropriate to attribute to a new president the outlays that occur during the first full fiscal year of his administration. In Obama’s case, this would be the 2010 fiscal year which began on October 1, 2009.

http://archive.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-blamed-on-obama/

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from epiktetos:

Wrong

Maybe I can save you some time. Except for the race obsessed, flaming liberals and die hard democraps. Almost everyone here is pretty much voting ABO in November.

 

[Max E.]

I gave up on him, it is incredibly frustrating trying to talk to him when he doesnt understand the most basic concepts, he is either hopelessly inept, or he is trolling, i suspect it is a little bit of both. Either way im sick of beating my head against the wall....

Quote from Mav88:

You don't know what you are talking about. CBO is not saying anything like what you are claiming. Your lack of understanding of how gov't finances work is so large you should stop talking about it.

 

[Max E.]

HAHAHA

I wonder who hes trying to convert? He should probably tak to cgroupman or indythink, apparently they are both well balanced centrists.....

Quote from Lucrum:

Maybe I can save you some time. Except for the race obsessed, flaming liberals and die hard democraps. Almost everyone here is pretty much voting ABO in November.

 

[epiktetos]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

I gave up on him, it is incredibly frustrating trying to talk to him when he doesnt understand the most basic concepts, he is either hopelessly inept, or he is trolling, i suspect it is a little bit of both.

Let's review.

You made a grand claim that Obamacare increases deficits but you couldn't back it up. Then you moved the goal posts talking about costs and then moved the goal posts again talking about what Obama said.

You made a grand claim that Obama held the high levels of spending form FY 09 baseline, again it was proven to be false.

You made a grand claim that Romneycare didn't reduce costs while posting 2009 numbers while I showed you 2010 numbers that proved I was correct.

You made a strawman argument when you said that I somehow claimed that Fy 09 appropriation could be spent in Fy 10 - I never made that claim.

It's clear who trolling or 'doesnt understand the concepts'.

 

[Mav88]

Wrong

"Legislation enacted since CBO prepared its March base-line results in additional projected outlays totaling $31 billion in 2009"

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...udgetupdate.pdf

do you know what the word additional means?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FY 09 omnibus act is attributed to FY09, period, and it was $410B. Never is ANY portion of money authorized in one fiscal year accounted for in another fiscal year budget as spending. IT DOES NOT MATTER if the money was expended or even merely obligated during FY2010, it is still in the FY2009 budget.


The $31B you are tossing around is the number used for the increase over 2008, it is not the amount of 'immediate' spending.

It take no time to appropriate money, in fact the signing of the bill is itself appropriating money. My god, get some education before spouting off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is why I keep telling you to read libertarian blogs instead of the crap you are currently reading

....

It is also important to note that just because spending is authorized in a certain fiscal year doesn’t mean it’s actually spent in that same year. This is especially true when we’re talking about new stimulus programs and discretionary spending. In all likelihood, only a portion of the money authorized in the spending bills signed by Obama in 2009 would actually show up as spending that occurred before September 30.

.....

Naturally, there is a lag time between the time that taxpayer dollars are appropriated and when they are actually paid out to Lockheed Martin or Henry Paulson and his friends, for example.
.....

For this reason, and since the budget for the first year of a president’s term had already been passed months earlier, it is generally more appropriate to attribute to a new president the outlays that occur during the first full fiscal year of his administration. In Obama’s case, this would be the 2010 fiscal year which began on October 1, 2009.

http://archive.mises.org/16107/bush...lamed-on-obama/

I'm trying to be polite, but since you insist on being such a dense troll I have to call you out. Your understanding is so egregiously bad that you should be ordered to just shut up, in fact your statement that appropriations take time after signing the bill is so bad that you ought to be embarrased, but I'm sure you will keep on a truckin.

The time lag between appropriation and obligation is about 3 weeks for all the levels of accounts to get their shit together. I know that well since I have been part of that process. I bet I have more experience than the author. The only issue is are the performers ready to get the work done by Oct. 1 or is it even scheduled by then.

IT DOES NOT MATTER when the money is actually obligated (set aside for a purpose) and expended (the check has been cashed)- if it was part of the FY2009 appropriations it will always be part of the 2009 budget . It happens all the time, in fact the law says that gov't agencies have up to about 3 years after the signing the bill to spend the money. This is because the rest of the world obviously does not operate on a government calendar. There is nothing in the article that contradicts what I am saying, it is only you who does not understand.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from epiktetos:

Let's review.

Let's DON'T and just say we did.

 

[epiktetos]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

....And If you hated Medicare Part D, like I did, then you should be equally outraged by Obamacare which will also add to the deficit, the only reason they ever got those numbers to work out was because they combined 10 years of paying for it with only 7 years of spending on it.....

I just want to point out the blatant lying that you did here.

This is what the CBO report actually says

Gross Costs Are Higher, but Offsetting Budgetary Effects Are Also Higher

The current estimate of the gross costs of the coverage provisions—$1,496 billion through 2021—is about $50 billion higher than last year's projection; however, the other budgetary effects of those provisions, which partially offset those gross costs, also have increased in CBO’s and JCT’s estimates—to $413 billion—leading to the small decrease in the net 10-year tally.

Over the 10-year period from 2012 through 2021, enactment of the coverage provisions of the ACA was projected last March to increase federal deficits by $1,131 billion, whereas the March 2012 estimate indicates that those provisions will increase deficits by $1,083 billion.

The net cost was boosted by:
An additional $168 billion in estimated costs for Medicaid and CHIP, and
$8 billion less in estimated revenues from the excise tax on certain high-premium health insurance plans.

But those increases were more than offset by a reduction of:
$97 billion in the projected costs for the tax credits and other subsidies for health insurance provided through the exchanges and related spending
$20 billion in the projected costs for tax credits for small employers, and
$107 billion in deficits from the projected revenue effects of changes in taxable compensation and penalty payments and from other small changes in estimated spending.

http://cbo.gov/publication/43080