Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

So you question those stubborn facts from CBO and OMB? No surprise there.

How about another set of facts.

In the second quarter of this year, government spending (technically called “government consumption expenditures and gross investment”) represented 19.5 percent of the overall economy. Since 1947, the earliest date available, government spending has averaged about 20.2 percent of the economy.

For context, note that during Reagan’s administration, government spending represented 20.7 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, just above the country’s longer-term average.



The "tax and spend" label is a myth. You have data to show otherwise, post it.

And the republican chicken little screaming about "government spending" is just the latest attempt to impose their failed policies on the back of the middle class/working poor.

Any serious discussion of the separate issue of reducing the US debt must include more revenue (tax increase) as well. Economists across the board, including many supply siders, recognize this. But you cant accept that either.

Demagogued?

Nowhere near as much as the Affordable Care Act, the first comprehensive health reform since Teddy Roosevelt.

 

I wrote this, post #269

Prophetic.

This is what followed in my post.

Your reply, post 273?

and

My reply, post 275

and

Now you go off into some BS about the difficulty in planning.

This is clearly wrong - I pointed it out, and you had a problem with it. Again, read what what written, there are patterns. I write my post, you take something out of context, focus on trivial matters or post something that is clearly wrong, I respond, you have a problem with it. Wash, rinse, repeat.
--- merged: Aug 1, 2012 at 7:03 PM ---

I am getting frustrated with the density. They used a methodology, data points and assumptions. That is what is in question! Are you saying you don't get the difference????????

 

The latest BEA figures on government spending as percent of gdp is real time data, not methods, assumptions or models for future projections. As are COB and OMB data (using current real time data and then modeling for future projections). It may be appropriate to question the modeling (but only when its counter to your assumptions) but not the current data.

And, with the exception of the Clinton years, current government spending as percent of gdp is at its lowest since the 1950s...as are taxes, btw.

Where is the data that Obama is just another "tax and spend" liberal?

 

Why don't you read what has been written? In post 281 I wrote this:

If you don't understand, which it appears you don't or you are just trying to be difficult, I try to use analogy and example to make the point understandable. Hence, plan for the weather.

Here is another - running is not difficult. Being a good runner can be difficult. Being a world class runner is exceptional. Just like planning is not difficult, but doing it well or being world class is difficult and the exception.

I am explaining my point of view to the best of my ability. All you are doing is making it personal. If you can explain or support your view point, please do so.
--- merged: Aug 5, 2012 at 11:14 AM ---

Here is an interesting editorial from Friday's IBD, pointing out some of the differences between Obama and Clinton in the context of Obama always saying let's go back to the Clinton era polices:

President Obama No Bill Clinton On Economic, Budget Policies - Investors.com

Why is Bill a keynote speaker at the D. Convention?

Another thing I find interesting, If Obama really believes in Clinton eera policies, why do we need Obama? They should simply nominate Hilary Clinton!

 

Is this the best you can do to ignore the fact that current govt spending as percent of gdp is lower than under any recent Republican president....those big spenders and big tax cutters most responsible for the current debt?

Or will continue with the myth of Obama as typical Democrat big government spender?

 

I got that. However, there are people who believe that global climate change is the result of human activity. Some of these people are prepared and are speculating on the weather based on this.

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire - Telegraph

I keep saying you are wrong, and I keep giving the same explanation. Don't know what to add. We disagree. I am going to speculate against Gore. All this will happen without your awareness - until one of us needs to be bailed out or until one of us creates a major financial crisis. Gee, now I know why these things repeat themselves! Thanks, this has actually been helpful to me.

 

No it is not the best I can come up with, I am not even going to dispute the claim. Nor am I going to dispute the claim that Obama has created over 4 million jobs, when in fact fewer people are actually employed since he took office. I am simply confident Obama will be defeated because people won't be voting on statistics.

I repeatedly say that Obama did not start government big spending and that it is a Washington problem -both parties. The Tea Party, which does include some Democrats, is gaining strength and will put pressure on Washington to change.
--- merged: Aug 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM ---

This is a perfect example of what I have been saying the problem is. This is beneath you. This is trifling.

 

Well, finally you are not disputing the facts abut government spending.

But you still want to persist with the nonsense the Tea Party nonsense that a balanced approach between spending cuts and revenue (tax) increases is the best way to deal with the US debt.

An overwhelming majority of Americans would disagree which might explain while that the Tea Party might have gained a bit of strength among the Republican party, voter approval of the Republican brand is at its lowest in recent history.

 

Al Gore might become the first anti-carbon billionaire. But, there are plenty of oil, coal, and natural gas billionaires who are raking in the money each day and doing major damage to the air we breathe. Plus, they are funding the GOP and other groups to prevent any taxes or restrictions on their businesses. I'll take Al Gore over them any day.

 

I support a "balance approach". I have stated how you can get my buy in. First, cut spending. Second, re-do the tax code. Third, adjust tax rates to reduce the debt. Many Tea Party people feel the same, if you want compromise there is your outline. What is the problem?

 

Explain how Al Gore is different? He is doing what he is doing for his personal gain, same as everyone else. Some believe oil is in the best interests of people and act accordingly, Gore believes carbon off-sets and carbon foot-print shrinkage alternatives is in the best interests of people and acts accordingly. They both can be 100% right or wrong or degrees in between. Who should decide which direction we should go? Who is entitled to the billions in profits? I say let the free market decide, what do you say?

 

The problem is putting debt reduction on the backs of the middle class and working poor (per the Ryan budget cuts) and lowering the tax rates on the top 1% that contributes far more to the debt than it does in economic or job stimulus.

 

I have learned not to take things personally a long time ago. Like I said, I gained some benefit from the exchange. I am always looking to gain insight and to learn.
--- merged: Aug 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM ---

The problem form the other side is the promise of spending cuts after tax increases. It won't happen.

In addition, start with the easy cuts. If it is a question of priority, establish the priority to minimize the impact on people in need. Give an alternative to the Ryan budget and advocate for it.

 

Again, I will point to the fact that annual government spending as percent of gdp has decreased in each of the last three years under Obama.

It wont happen? It did happen.
--- merged: Aug 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM ---
What never happened was a stimulus or job creation as a result of supply side economics...as opposed to the 28 most recent consecutive months of private sector job creation.