Obama's Real Fiscal Performance

[Atheist-Lite]

Still too small. It's all the stupid Republicans will vote for, not to mention the conserva"Dem"s. But at least it will keep us out of a double-dip recession... or there'll be hell to pay in the Republican party after the next election. If I could pick something I wanted Obama to pick a fight with them on, this is it. They're gonna squirm but I suspect the mood of the country is against them.

The mood of the country is that Obama is not doing well, and people don't agree with the concept that in bad times you respond by driving yourself deeper in debt. They understand that belt-tightening occurs in bad times. That's what is intuitive to most folks.

Fly by instruments not by visuals....never trust visuals.

[JimC]

Still too small. It's all the stupid Republicans will vote for, not to mention the conserva"Dem"s. But at least it will keep us out of a double-dip recession... or there'll be hell to pay in the Republican party after the next election. If I could pick something I wanted Obama to pick a fight with them on, this is it. They're gonna squirm but I suspect the mood of the country is against them.

The mood of the country is that Obama is not doing well, and people don't agree with the concept that in bad times you respond by driving yourself deeper in debt. They understand that belt-tightening occurs in bad times. That's what is intuitive to most folks.

Is it possible that what is sensible for a household economy is not necessarily sensible for a country's economy?

During the GFC, we had this same debate. Over the opposition of the conservatives, a newly elected Labour government went down the Stimulus Package route. Many aspects of it were stuffed up due to poor governance, but the concensus seems to be that it was probably a useful thing to do. However, our circumstances and yours may not be easily comparable...

[Coito ergo sum]

Still too small. It's all the stupid Republicans will vote for, not to mention the conserva"Dem"s. But at least it will keep us out of a double-dip recession... or there'll be hell to pay in the Republican party after the next election. If I could pick something I wanted Obama to pick a fight with them on, this is it. They're gonna squirm but I suspect the mood of the country is against them.

The mood of the country is that Obama is not doing well, and people don't agree with the concept that in bad times you respond by driving yourself deeper in debt. They understand that belt-tightening occurs in bad times. That's what is intuitive to most folks.

Is it possible that what is sensible for a household economy is not necessarily sensible for a country's economy?

Of course, but the idea of spending gobs of money to boost the economy hasn't been shown to actually work.

Moreover, a lot of it is just an accounting game anyway. The way they figure GDP, any government stimulus expenditures are automatically counted as an increase in GDP, even if the money is not put to any productive use. So, it just cooks the books, so to speak.

And, the average Joe on the street is not looking at Obama's performance and seeing any real success, that's why Obama's numbers are in the toilet.

During the GFC, we had this same debate. Over the opposition of the conservatives, a newly elected Labour government went down the Stimulus Package route. Many aspects of it were stuffed up due to poor governance, but the concensus seems to be that it was probably a useful thing to do. However, our circumstances and yours may not be easily comparable...

The main Exhibit offered as proof that this kind of thing works is the Great Depression. Folks say, "see, we raised government spending dramatically on different things and it got us out of the Depression." But, the numbers tell a different story. The Depression started in 1930, and 8 years later in 1938, unemployment was still something on the order of 19%. it took the advent of WW2 in 1939 to get the the US out of the Great Depression.

[Atheist-Lite]

I'd suggest stop buying slave made shit from China and go to war with them instead. Stop paying money to stalinists to prop up a inhumane barbaric system that makes cheap crap for walmart on the back of immense human suffering. Show a bit of backbone.

[Schneibster]

Still too small. It's all the stupid Republicans will vote for, not to mention the conserva"Dem"s. But at least it will keep us out of a double-dip recession... or there'll be hell to pay in the Republican party after the next election. If I could pick something I wanted Obama to pick a fight with them on, this is it. They're gonna squirm but I suspect the mood of the country is against them. And I think Boner looked like he swallowed a frog. It was fun to watch him try not to squirm in front of the cameras.

Especially when Obama mentioned veterans the second time and he didn't stand up. Stand up for the veterans you fucking Boner.

I liked "Jobs Act." Nice, short, to the point. Go ahead, Republicans, vote against Jobs. Good luck with that. You should pass this legislation right away.

Well you must love Maxine Water's trillion dollar plan.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ogram.html

FIFY (really).

I have no idea. I haven't seen the details, and I don't trust her enough to endorse it without knowing them first. However, she is performing a valuable service by making the Democratic position left of the Republican one, so I like the fact she proposed it no matter whether I agree with it or not.

[Schneibster]

Still too small. It's all the stupid Republicans will vote for, not to mention the conserva"Dem"s. But at least it will keep us out of a double-dip recession... or there'll be hell to pay in the Republican party after the next election. If I could pick something I wanted Obama to pick a fight with them on, this is it. They're gonna squirm but I suspect the mood of the country is against them.

The mood of the country is that Obama is not doing well, and people don't agree with the concept that in bad times you respond by driving yourself deeper in debt. They understand that belt-tightening occurs in bad times. That's what is intuitive to most folks.

Is it possible that what is sensible for a household economy is not necessarily sensible for a country's economy?

Of course, but the idea of spending gobs of money to boost the economy hasn't been shown to actually work.

Except in the last five recessions, and WWII.

In the real world (which appears to be a consideration in this case).

[Schneibster]

Haven't we been over this?

That is patently not true.

Lie. Look at the graph. 80% is eight times 10%, last time I checked.

Lie.

We can do this forever. I will never respond to a post that begins with a lie or an insult except to point out the lie or the insult. It is not harrassment. Lying about the subject at hand, and insulting me, however, are. Sorry you're having trouble. Hope you get better soon.

[Schneibster]

Still too small. It's all the stupid Republicans will vote for, not to mention the conserva"Dem"s. But at least it will keep us out of a double-dip recession... or there'll be hell to pay in the Republican party after the next election. If I could pick something I wanted Obama to pick a fight with them on, this is it. They're gonna squirm but I suspect the mood of the country is against them.

The mood of the country is that Obama is not doing well,

And Congress is doing worse, and Republican congresscritters worst of all.

and people don't agree with the concept that in bad times you respond by driving yourself deeper in debt. They understand that belt-tightening occurs in bad times. That's what is intuitive to most folks.

We did that. It didn't work. Remember the debt ceiling thing? The really bad approval ratings came after that. Maybe you didn't notice.

[Schneibster]

Still too small. It's all the stupid Republicans will vote for, not to mention the conserva"Dem"s. But at least it will keep us out of a double-dip recession... or there'll be hell to pay in the Republican party after the next election. If I could pick something I wanted Obama to pick a fight with them on, this is it. They're gonna squirm but I suspect the mood of the country is against them.

The mood of the country is that Obama is not doing well, and people don't agree with the concept that in bad times you respond by driving yourself deeper in debt. They understand that belt-tightening occurs in bad times. That's what is intuitive to most folks.

Is it possible that what is sensible for a household economy is not necessarily sensible for a country's economy?

During the GFC, we had this same debate. Over the opposition of the conservatives, a newly elected Labour government went down the Stimulus Package route. Many aspects of it were stuffed up due to poor governance, but the concensus seems to be that it was probably a useful thing to do. However, our circumstances and yours may not be easily comparable...

Actually I think they are. Sounds real familiar as a matter of fact. Teh stupid knows no national boundaries. As the German Finance Ministry is currently engaged in proving.

[Atheist-Lite]

Talking to yourself ruins the flow of a thread...

[Schneibster]

Still too small. It's all the stupid Republicans will vote for, not to mention the conserva"Dem"s. But at least it will keep us out of a double-dip recession... or there'll be hell to pay in the Republican party after the next election. If I could pick something I wanted Obama to pick a fight with them on, this is it. They're gonna squirm but I suspect the mood of the country is against them.

The mood of the country is that Obama is not doing well, and people don't agree with the concept that in bad times you respond by driving yourself deeper in debt. They understand that belt-tightening occurs in bad times. That's what is intuitive to most folks.

Is it possible that what is sensible for a household economy is not necessarily sensible for a country's economy?

Of course, but the idea of spending gobs of money to boost the economy hasn't been shown to actually work.

Other than in the last several recessions and WWII. Oh, and BTW, you'll want to check those graphs above; the ARRA stopped the ever-increasing unemployment jumps and started them decreasing, and actually has pushed things to the point where unemployment was decreasing; unfortunately it ran out, which is why August unemployment is flat.

Then there's the fact that there actually has been a large increase in private employment, but public employment has seen massive layoffs because the stupid Republicans either won't fund the states or are governors of the states and rejected the funding. That's stopping now; apparently they woke up.

In any case, the proof that it worked is in those graphs. Anyone who tries to tell you Obama increased the deficit, or that the stimulus didn't work, is misled, or trying to mislead.

Moreover, a lot of it is just an accounting game anyway.

Bush used whatever accounting method is currently in use. Of course, you want Obama to use a different one, preferably without anyone understanding that Bush was lying. That way you can get that nigger out of the White House, right?

The way they figure GDP, any government stimulus expenditures are automatically counted as an increase in GDP, even if the money is not put to any productive use. So, it just cooks the books, so to speak.

Link?

And, the average Joe on the street is not looking at Obama's performance and seeing any real success, that's why Obama's numbers are in the toilet.

And Congress' numbers in the P-trap, and Republican congresscritters' in the sewer. Your point?

During the GFC, we had this same debate. Over the opposition of the conservatives, a newly elected Labour government went down the Stimulus Package route. Many aspects of it were stuffed up due to poor governance, but the concensus seems to be that it was probably a useful thing to do. However, our circumstances and yours may not be easily comparable...

The main Exhibit offered as proof that this kind of thing works is the Great Depression.

Do you know anything about stagflation?

Just askin'.

Folks say, "see, we raised government spending dramatically on different things and it got us out of the Depression." But, the numbers tell a different story. The Depression started in 1930, and 8 years later in 1938, unemployment was still something on the order of 19%. it took the advent of WW2 in 1939 to get the the US out of the Great Depression.

And we didn't spend any government money at all fighting WWII. And stagflation never happened. And monetary policy never controlled five recessions.

And jebus loves you. (Yes, I know you're an atheist. That's sarcasm. You probably missed it.)

[Tyrannical]

Still too small. It's all the stupid Republicans will vote for, not to mention the conserva"Dem"s. But at least it will keep us out of a double-dip recession... or there'll be hell to pay in the Republican party after the next election. If I could pick something I wanted Obama to pick a fight with them on, this is it. They're gonna squirm but I suspect the mood of the country is against them.

The mood of the country is that Obama is not doing well, and people don't agree with the concept that in bad times you respond by driving yourself deeper in debt. They understand that belt-tightening occurs in bad times. That's what is intuitive to most folks.

Is it possible that what is sensible for a household economy is not necessarily sensible for a country's economy?

Of course, but the idea of spending gobs of money to boost the economy hasn't been shown to actually work.

Except in the last five recessions, and WWII.

In the real world (which appears to be a consideration in this case).

Did that get us out of a recession, or did it just prolong the recession?
Ron Paul's view is that the stimulus after the 1929 stock market crash prolonged the recession, and we didn't exit the recession until after WWII when taxes were slashed and the troops came home.

[Atheist-Lite]

For a marxist he's showing more understanding of this crisis of capatalism than a lot of capatalists. The devil knows the bible like the back of his hand, as Tom Waits said in one of his songs.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSObh8SV ... re=related[/youtube]

[Schneibster]

I'm going with the economics professors, not Wrong Paul. Sorry.

The inflection point in the GDP per capita is the election of FDR. Check it on Wikipedia. The point where GDP per capita surpasses 1929's value is the point where the US starts rearming, in 1940, and starts lend-lease with Britain. The point where it reaches where it would have been had it grown as it was before the 1929 crash is in 1942. Looks pretty much like spending gobs of money boosted the economy and ended the Depression. Borrowing that money, I'll point out.

The recession was prolonged because even FDR didn't have the balls to spend enough. Just like ARRA was too small. It's fairly obvious if you actually look at the figures.

Public Wikipedia graph

[Atheist-Lite]

I'm going with the economics professors, not Wrong Paul. Sorry.

The inflection point in the GDP per capita is the election of FDR. Check it on Wikipedia. The point where GDP per capita surpasses 1929's value is the point where the US starts rearming, in 1940, and starts lend-lease with Britain. The point where it reaches where it would have been had it grown as it was before the 1929 crash is in 1942. Looks pretty much like spending gobs of money boosted the economy and ended the Depression. Borrowing that money, I'll point out.

The recession was prolonged because even FDR didn't have the balls to spend enough. Just like ARRA was too small. It's fairly obvious if you actually look at the figures.

depression.png

Astrology.