Obama's Real Fiscal Performance

[Schneibster]

Here's an article that boils Obama's fiscal performance down to three charts.

These three charts are billed as the ones to send your right wingnut brother-in-law. They show the reality of what Obama has done, and has had to deal with. They tell the truth about where the debt came from, and who spent it, and when jobs were created. They're from the historical US government 2012 data available from the government on-line, so the source is indisputable, because otherwise whoever posted the original data is in a shitload of trouble; lying in public documents is a felony. Here they are:







They show without ambiguity who spent the money, who raised (and who lowered) deficit spending, and what happened to jobs from the stimulus. I'll let them speak for themselves other than that. The article is worth a read too; it's short and goes into the interpretation of this economic data. Enjoy.

[mistermack]

I have to agree.
Obama would LOVE to have inherited what George Bush inherited.
Obama has had the worst inheritance of any US president. And he's quietly got his head down and dealt with it. None of it has been easy. When you inherit shite, you are tied to it. It's easy to set it all going.
Any moron can do that. George proved that.
It's far harder to stop stuff once it's been started. Guantanemo illustrates that.

[Rum]

How much of Bush's spending spree was on military in general and the 'war on terror' specifically I wonder.

[Tyrannical]

Funny how all the "projected" years show a down turn.
Guess you missed the news, Obama is announcing a $400 billion job stimulus tonight. Which actually takes the blue line off the top of the graph.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/ ... ontentBody

[Atheist-Lite]

Doesni matter who is trying to defy the force of gravity, it won't work for long.

[Coito ergo sum]

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Obama, of course, has said the economy made him do it. But the average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama's first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression. Even as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the average deficits in Obama's first two fiscal years will more than three times higher the average deficit during the Great Depression. The fact that Obama's deficits have, by any standard, more than tripled those of the Great Depression, cannot convincingly be blamed on the current recession.

And none of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) — and which, even under very rosy projections, the CBO says would increase the national debt by $341 billion by the end of 2019.

It's not often that one gets to hear a call for "responsible" fiscal stewardship from someone whose deficit spending is outpacing President Bush's by more than $1 trillion a year — yet that's apparently what we'll get to hear tonight. But President Obama's actions tell another, far clearer, story about his commitment to deficit reduction.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508 ... sh-on-debt

[Atheist-Lite]

All this money is being spent secretly on a new ark in preperation for nirubu next year. (make that two arks, one for the democrats and one for the republicans). They'll watch the earth burn from orbit? even without the arks....

[Schneibster]

Funny how all the "projected" years show a down turn.

They had that, you know, "debt crisis" thingie. And as stated above, all figures are from the government, not a partisan source. Maybe you forgot.

Guess you missed the news, Obama is announcing a $400 billion job stimulus tonight. Which actually takes the blue line off the top of the graph.

Well, actually not so much. That would depend on whether it jump-starts the economy, which would increase revenue and, hey, what do you know, decrease the deficit!

Oops. Reality bites.

[Schneibster]

dp

[Schneibster]

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget,

People who claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are either misled or are trying to mislead.

Source: http://www.truth-out.org/three-charts-e ... 1314626142
We done here?

[Coito ergo sum]

Funny how all the "projected" years show a down turn.

They had that, you know, "debt crisis" thingie. And as stated above, all figures are from the government, not a partisan source. Maybe you forgot.

Were the government numbers non-partisan in 2008? Just want to know if you'll accept government number published prior to January, 2009.

Guess you missed the news, Obama is announcing a $400 billion job stimulus tonight. Which actually takes the blue line off the top of the graph.

Well, actually not so much. That would depend on whether it jump-starts the economy, which would increase revenue and, hey, what do you know, decrease the deficit!

Oops. Reality bites.

Unless it's "too small" of course, which it is, according to you. Remember when you said that that the original stimulus needed to be double or quadruple what it was? Well an extra $400 billion doesn't even come close to doubling it. So...it would be irrational to support something that is doomed to failure, since it's too small...yes?

[Schneibster]

Funny how all the "projected" years show a down turn.

They had that, you know, "debt crisis" thingie. And as stated above, all figures are from the government, not a partisan source. Maybe you forgot.

Were the government numbers non-partisan in 2008? Just want to know if you'll accept government number published prior to January, 2009.

Depends which department. There's this thing called "burrowing," you might have heard of it. I won't impeach it without evidence to support that, if that's what you're asking.

I'm sorry, you've lied, quote-mined, and worked the refs. I don't trust you and won't believe anything you say without checking it carefully. You're certainly not going to get me to agree any source is unimpeachable, which is what you're fairly transparently trying to do here.

Guess you missed the news, Obama is announcing a $400 billion job stimulus tonight. Which actually takes the blue line off the top of the graph.

Well, actually not so much. That would depend on whether it jump-starts the economy, which would increase revenue and, hey, what do you know, decrease the deficit!

Oops. Reality bites.

Unless it's "too small" of course, which it is, according to you.

That's not the point. They'll massage the numbers based on that assumption, even if it's too small. We won't, therefore, find out until later. Again. You know, like the last time. And they're doing it, of course, obviously, because they think it'll work (or maybe because they think it's all they can get).

You appear to be working on the mistaken assumption that I'm an Obama partisan. While I like what he's done pretty well, and am fully aware of all the spin that's being applied by the conservatroids to try to get rid of the nigger, I certainly don't think he's a genius at economics, and I don't rubber-stamp agree with everything he does. Sorry if you've never imagined that anyone could behave reasonably about politics, or have an opinion that's not in lockstep with their party or its leaders, without lying, quote-mining, or working the refs, never having done it yourself.

Remember when you said that that the original stimulus needed to be double or quadruple what it was? Well an extra $400 billion doesn't even come close to doubling it. So...it would be irrational to support something that is doomed to failure, since it's too small...yes?

It's better than nothing, and the last one at least kept us out of the highest unemployment since the Great Depression. This one won't fix things, but it should keep us out of a double-dip recession unless the Republicans manage to fuck it up this time, too.

I am, however, hoping for a much larger stimulus, have been doing so since ARRA was first proposed, and will continue to do so. And it's my opinion that it's required to get permanently out of this problem; and it's also my opinion that worrying about the deficit right now is stupid. There, I just said Obama is stupid. You beginning to get it?

Wake up.

[Coito ergo sum]

Funny how all the "projected" years show a down turn.

They had that, you know, "debt crisis" thingie. And as stated above, all figures are from the government, not a partisan source. Maybe you forgot.

Were the government numbers non-partisan in 2008? Just want to know if you'll accept government number published prior to January, 2009.

Depends which department. There's this thing called "burrowing," you might have heard of it. I won't impeach it without evidence to support that, if that's what you're asking.

I'm sorry, you've lied, quote-mined, and worked the refs. I don't trust you and won't believe anything you say without checking it carefully. You're certainly not going to get me to agree any source is unimpeachable, which is what you're fairly transparently trying to do here.

You don't have to trust questions. I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you. You've certainly falsely accused me of lying, and falsely accused me of quote-mining, and your whole modus operandi is to bait me and verge on harassing me.

You're the one who said that "all figures are from the government, not a partisan source." I was asking if you considered governmental sources nonpartisan in 2008 too. I see that you have revised your position on that now, and you are saying SOME figures from the government are nonpartisan and others aren't. Clearly, you think the source cited by Truthout is nonpartisan. We'll take other sources on a case-by-case basis then.

Guess you missed the news, Obama is announcing a $400 billion job stimulus tonight. Which actually takes the blue line off the top of the graph.

Well, actually not so much. That would depend on whether it jump-starts the economy, which would increase revenue and, hey, what do you know, decrease the deficit!

Oops. Reality bites.

Unless it's "too small" of course, which it is, according to you.

That's not the point. They'll massage the numbers based on that assumption, even if it's too small. We won't, therefore, find out until later. Again. You know, like the last time. And they're doing it, of course, obviously, because they think it'll work (or maybe because they think it's all they can get).

Well, he'll have to get Congress to pass it. He can't do it by fiat. Let's see how many Democrats stay with him on this one.

You appear to be working on the mistaken assumption that I'm an Obama partisan. While I like what he's done pretty well, and am fully aware of all the spin that's being applied by the conservatroids to try to get rid of the nigger,

But, seemingly oblivious to all the spin the Democrats have put on it to make his record different than what it really is....

I certainly don't think he's a genius at economics, and I don't rubber-stamp agree with everything he does.

What are some things you don't agree with?

Sorry if you've never imagined that anyone could behave reasonably about politics, or have an opinion that's not in lockstep with their party or its leaders, without lying, quote-mining, or working the refs, never having done it yourself.

Well, frankly, nothing you've typed toward me has seemed in the least reasonable about anything. It is always full of baits and personal attacks, and you keep calling me a liar, when I haven't lied. It makes dealing with you difficult, because you make everything personal. You have an axe to grind, and it's plain as day that you are willing to say anything in order to try to put me in my place. You make things up, and you act horribly, uncivilly, and rudely every chance you get.

You are about as biased a person as I've encountered on this forum, hands down.

Remember when you said that that the original stimulus needed to be double or quadruple what it was? Well an extra $400 billion doesn't even come close to doubling it. So...it would be irrational to support something that is doomed to failure, since it's too small...yes?

It's better than nothing,

Is it? Raising the deficit another $400 billion is not necessarily better than nothing.

and the last one at least kept us out of the highest unemployment since the Great Depression.

Arguably, it already is the worst unemployment since the Great Depression: Note: "

Putting the February 2009 unemployment rate on a basis that is more directly comparable to the unemployment rate in 1982, the current rate rises from 8.1 percentage points to 9.5 percentage points, just 0.2 percentage points below the 9.7 percent average for 1982.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicati ... 009-03.pdf That was statistically adjusting the 8.1% to reflect for demographics differences.

Also, actual unemployment went up to 9.4% which is not exactly miles away from the 9.7% of 1982.

See also --- http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/09/ ... nt-number/

If we calculated unemployment the same way This one won't fix things, but it should keep us out of a double-dip recession unless the Republicans manage to fuck it up this time, too.

How non-partisan of you.

I am, however, hoping for a much larger stimulus, have been doing so since ARRA was first proposed, and will continue to do so. And it's my opinion that it's required to get permanently out of this problem; and it's also my opinion that worrying about the deficit right now is stupid. There, I just said Obama is stupid. You beginning to get it?

Wake up.

He's not even going to ask for a much larger stimulus. Obama isn't worried about the deficit. He's worried about reelection, like most other politicians. If he had his 'druthers, he'd raise taxes massively, and he would throw more borrowed money at the problem. The issue for him is that there are plenty of folks in his own party that don't agree with that course of action.

Naturally, you have wrap up with your typical personal attack nonsense. But, that's your gig.

[Schneibster]

Funny how all the "projected" years show a down turn.

They had that, you know, "debt crisis" thingie. And as stated above, all figures are from the government, not a partisan source. Maybe you forgot.

Were the government numbers non-partisan in 2008? Just want to know if you'll accept government number published prior to January, 2009.

Depends which department. There's this thing called "burrowing," you might have heard of it. I won't impeach it without evidence to support that, if that's what you're asking.

I'm sorry, you've lied, quote-mined, and worked the refs. I don't trust you and won't believe anything you say without checking it carefully. You're certainly not going to get me to agree any source is unimpeachable, which is what you're fairly transparently trying to do here.

You don't have to trust questions. I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you. You've certainly falsely accused me of lying,

Already proven. Quote published, no mitigating or contradicting evidence presented. Move on.

[Coito ergo sum]

Were the government numbers non-partisan in 2008? Just want to know if you'll accept government number published prior to January, 2009.

Depends which department. There's this thing called "burrowing," you might have heard of it. I won't impeach it without evidence to support that, if that's what you're asking.

I'm sorry, you've lied, quote-mined, and worked the refs. I don't trust you and won't believe anything you say without checking it carefully. You're certainly not going to get me to agree any source is unimpeachable, which is what you're fairly transparently trying to do here.

You don't have to trust questions. I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you. You've certainly falsely accused me of lying,

Already proven. Quote published, no mitigating or contradicting evidence presented. Move on.

That you made things up, and constantly bait and harass me? Yes, that has been proven, by the moderators.

You can keep repeating a lie as often as you like, it doesn't make it true.