Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

Yes. Others spent, but the others were willing to raise taxes (Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton). Bush 2 engaged in two wars (i.e. massive expenditures) and only kept cutting taxes.

He stands out as egregiously over spending...

 

I'm not sure what Bush's point was this instance.

"It's just funny money anyway?"

Which is mostly true. The real value of any currency is the faith based these days.

 

the idea of "overspending" by a state is close to entirely meaningless. the united of states pisses away around 40% of federal outlays on the military and god only knows how much on the national-surveillance state. because the budgeting is secret, you see. eisenhower was right about the national-security state. at this point, it's a successful parasite, replacing the subjectivity of its host with its needs. reagan and bush one threw money at this sector to prop up the american war economy and pay off one of the right's main patronage systems. clinton continued it. bush two had this idiot "war on terror", which was a gift from the gods for the national security parasite. obama has done little to alter the continued metastasis of the national-security/surveillance state. stopping iraq was a good thing---of course it never should have happened and is a gift that keeps on giving in ways that amuricans seem unable to quite get their heads around (think syria for example)....afghanistan continues to be a fiasco...but the "legitimate war on terror" that is the spinning wheel at the center of the metabolism of the military-entertainment complex...that has spurred a continued expansion and institutional normalization of the national-security apparatus under obama. because it's all legal, you see. because, in significant measure, of the utter collapse of anything like oversight from congress after 9/11/2001. insofar as the parasite is concerned, then, obama has done a fine job.

 

I agree. The important metric is the efficiency of resource allocation. Spending does not gauge efficiency.

For example if 100% of a nations resources are directed towards social needs and 0% to national defense. That spending can easily be rendered meaningless if an invading country enslaves or kills the nation's population.

 

so...therefore pissing away approximately half of total federal outlays (likely more) on shiny military and/or surveillance related toys is justified, and along with that all conservative whinging about those evil social programs that would have the appalling effect of making the lives of actual human beings better.

because the united states faces a grave danger from the canadian hoardes. and, of course, mexico. and grenada. as you know, the history of the united states is much like that of poland, invaded by first one outside power then the other.

if that's not the case, then your argument is simple, stupid hyperbole.

 

I think my point was clear. Spending on military can be inefficient. Spending on social issues can be inefficient. In either case the measure of total dollars spend is meaningless until put in some context - the context I suggest is efficiency.

My view as presented is not ideological. I have an ideological point of view on the issue, but here I am simply agreeing with your premise that the idea of "overspending" is meaningless. And I say so because it is context that is required. I would further argue that "relative" spending is meaningless.

I agree that the example was simple and hyperbolic. I am not sure about your use of the term "stupid". Simplicity combined with hyperbole is something I routinely do as a literary devise. If you want to discuss the effectiveness or efficiency of this, do so without me. But I will read what is written on the subject.

 

policy goals are shaped by political objectives. efficacy is measured with respect to those goals. this creates a circularity, of course. but the same circularity characterizes any indexing.

what that an indexing tells you about the world is a function of the factors that are included in the measures. for example, if you were politically inclined to see a more equitable distribution of wealth than is possible under the tyranny of markets, you might calculate wealth in ways that include measures of overall quality of life--access to education and/or health care and/or morality rates for example---which would make of wealth a social relation.

"efficiency" is not some magic term; it is not "objective"---what is "efficient" is so with respect to certain criteria. in the context of industrial production, for example, "efficiency" is typically connected to increasing the rate of production and minimizing costs incurred through such pesky obstacles to total accumulation as labor. efficiency can be figured otherwise, but that presupposes a politics of industrial production quite distant from the tyranny of markets and assumptions on the order of the only function of a business is to maximize shareholder returns.


to suggest "efficiency" as some meta-criterion is merely to substitute one circular problem for another.
the preference for it is merely aesthetic, like whether you prefer food spicy or bland.
so all ace is doing is suggesting an aesthetic preference.
at that level, there's not even an argument in his post--merely a series of restatements of his aesthetic preference.

but to suggest that "efficiency" is somehow not ideological...that is just stupid.

 

It also requires leaders that are willing to listen to the advice of their managers.

 

rogue49:

so what you're saying is on the order of: "o all those ill-considered notions that lay at the heart of your position are just fine. politeness requires we gloss over them."

suffice it to say that it's pretty hard to get anything of interest from a discussion if the basic assumptions that put positions into motion don't make sense. it's not that hard to be a little precise. it really isn't.

i will say that i find the lack of movement in discussions to be exasperating.
but it's summer and there are many things to do.

 

I think any spending depends on context. We always have to analyze spending in some context. For example - Spending billions on defense systems when the population lacks education to operate them would be wasteful. Some balance is needed in this example between education and defense spending.

I think his point is correct, we may disagree on how one arrives at the point.
--- merged: Jul 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM ---

I disagree with the above. Primarily the underlying assumption that political objectives drives policy goals. Somewhere in this we have to account for the none political needs and desires of individuals. For example - for me 99% of my daily activities have nothing to do with politics, but are related to my personal needs and goals. I act accordingly. And so does 99% of the rest of the population.

Efficiency is the context I prefer. I have no issue with you defining your context. I simply ask what is it?
--- merged: Jul 17, 2013 at 3:05 PM ---

One can be effective and not efficient. In theory (not my view) one can be efficient and not effective - meaning you do not accomplish a goal. For example a surgeon can be efficient (doing everything the best way and the most timely way) yet the patient still dies - lack of being effective. personally I would argue that without effectiveness the suggestion of efficiency lacks credibility.

I think both are needed.