Obama's Real Fiscal Performance

[Schneibster]

You're welcome to call anything you don't understand "astrology" if you like.

[Hermit]

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]

Never heard of him, so I googled. Turns out he describes himself as a libertarian. I then sampled some more of his output, and sure enough, his political and economic attitudes are bog-standard lolbertarianism. Just like in that Youtube clip.

[Schneibster]

Snicker. Marxist Libertardian.

Good one.

[JimC]

Snicker. Marxist Libertardian.

Good one.

Both extremes are for fantasy-fuelled absolutists anyway...

[Schneibster]

Snicker. Marxist Libertardian.

Good one.

Both extremes are for fantasy-fuelled absolutists anyway...

Marxist Libertard is a bit much, though. It's like a black member of the KKK, he'd have to burn a cross on his own front lawn, know what I'm sayin'?

[Atheist-Lite]

Some say he's a anarchist. It is matter of choice with the controversial figures willing to throw out a 'plan for the world' and amplify it with a audience.

[Schneibster]

He's a Libertard. Just another Internet anarchist.

[Atheist-Lite]

He's a Libertard. Just another Internet anarchist.

I think we have common ground, here.

[Hermit]

Obama - 2010 - 1.41 trillion dollars. Plus, estimated 1.65 trillion for 2011. Let's just call it the $1 trillion through July of 2011 -- fair enough. Total - $2.41 trillion in spending through about 30-45 days ago, yes?

Bush - $3.2 trillion in 8 years.

When Bush succeeded Clinton, he inherited a budget that was in surplus. Busch's first budget immediately put a stop to four consecutive budgets that were in the black, and there was not a single budget under Bush that was not in the red. But there's worse: Bush's last budget finished up with a deficit of $1.4 trillion. That environment, plus a debt of $12.9 trillion is what Obama inherited in turn, when he succeeded Bush.

In light of Bush's last fiscal year (2009) consisting of a $1.4 trillion budget deficit and a public debt of $12.9 trillion Obama's results of a $1.41 trillion deficit in 2010, a $1.65 trillion deficit in 2011 and public debt that has grown by accrual from $12.9 trillion to $14 trillion in the same time, do not at all seem as drastically worse than your judicious use of averages make them out to look.

The way you (plural) contextualised the figures you provided is grossly misleading. There is only one among this forum's libertarians who outdoes you in the "let's see how we can twist real world statistics in such a way that they no longer represent what is actually going on in the real world" stakes.

[Schneibster]

He's a Libertard. Just another Internet anarchist.

I think we have common ground, here.

Looks like you're right.

[Schneibster]

Obama - 2010 - 1.41 trillion dollars. Plus, estimated 1.65 trillion for 2011. Let's just call it the $1 trillion through July of 2011 -- fair enough. Total - $2.41 trillion in spending through about 30-45 days ago, yes?

Bush - $3.2 trillion in 8 years.

When Bush succeeded Clinton, he inherited a budget that was in surplus. Busch's first budget immediately put a stop to four consecutive budgets that were in the black, and there was not a single budget under Bush that was not in the red. But there's worse: Bush's last budget finished up with a deficit of $1.4 trillion. That environment, plus a debt of $12.9 trillion is what Obama inherited in turn, when he succeeded Bush.

In light of Bush's last fiscal year (2009) consisting of a $1.4 trillion budget deficit and a public debt of $12.9 trillion Obama's results of a $1.41 trillion deficit in 2010, a $1.65 trillion deficit in 2011 and public debt that has grown by accrual from $12.9 trillion to $14 trillion in the same time, do not at all seem as drastically worse than your judicious use of averages make them out to look.

Excellent point. Hey, how many times does the difference between 12.9 trillion and 14 trillion go into the difference between zero and 12.9 trillion? Isn't that about eleven times? Gee, I was wrong- it wasn't eight times, it was eleven times more debt Bush got us into than Obama. In fact, more than eleven times, pedantically.

Thanks, seraph.

The way you (plural) contextualised the figures you provided is grossly misleading.

That seems to be a habit the Republicans have. Just sayin'.

There is only one among this forum's libertarians who outdoes you in the "let's see how we can twist real world statistics in such a way that they no longer represent what is actually going on in the real world" stakes.

Workin' the refs. Gaming the system. It's what they do.

[JimC]

There is only one among this forum's libertarians who outdoes you in the "let's see how we can twist real world statistics in such a way that they no longer represent what is actually going on in the real world" stakes.

Workin' the refs. Gaming the system. It's what they do.

Actually, I think it's what most people with strong political opinions do; it is not something confined to one political stance. Also, in most cases, it is not particularly damning, but simply a natural tendency to select data and quotes which support the opinion they are trying to advance. Of course, it can get stronger than that, and we are all entitled to an opinion about which groups tend to take the twisting of the stats the furthest...

[Hermit]

Hey, how many times does the difference between 12.9 trillion and 14 trillion go into the difference between zero and 12.9 trillion? Isn't that about eleven times? Gee, I was wrong- it wasn't eight times, it was eleven times more debt Bush got us into than Obama. In fact, more than eleven times, pedantically.

Misapplication of statistics is no worse than ignoring them or getting them wrong altogether. This is an example of the latter. When Bush succeeded Clinton, public debt was not zero. It was $5.8 trillion. You may commence blushing now, and expect others to parody your tedious epithets concerning lies and gaming.

[Schneibster]

There is only one among this forum's libertarians who outdoes you in the "let's see how we can twist real world statistics in such a way that they no longer represent what is actually going on in the real world" stakes.

Workin' the refs. Gaming the system. It's what they do.

Actually, I think it's what most people with strong political opinions do; it is not something confined to one political stance. Also, in most cases, it is not particularly damning, but simply a natural tendency to select data and quotes which support the opinion they are trying to advance. Of course, it can get stronger than that, and we are all entitled to an opinion about which groups tend to take the twisting of the stats the furthest...

Confined to? Sure, no, it's not. Vastly more likely for one stance to another? Yeah, pretty much. It's the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives always think it's OK to game the system. And they always do game the system, and they always try to rig the system so they can keep gaming it. That's how they get rich. <- evidence.

[Schneibster]

Hey, how many times does the difference between 12.9 trillion and 14 trillion go into the difference between zero and 12.9 trillion? Isn't that about eleven times? Gee, I was wrong- it wasn't eight times, it was eleven times more debt Bush got us into than Obama. In fact, more than eleven times, pedantically.

Misapplication of statistics is no worse than ignoring them or getting them wrong altogether. This is an example of the latter. When Bush succeeded Clinton, public debt was not zero. It was $5.8 trillion. You may commence blushing now, and expect others to parody your tedious epithets concerning lies and gaming.

You're good.