Quantifying Obama’s economic failure and demagoguery
Carlos Latuff | Wikimedia Commons | Modified by Dan
President Barack Obama delivered to America the worst economic performance of any president in modern times, and in return, America delivered to him a second term.
I could rant endlessly in this column about how in 2007 Obama promised health-care reform that will contain middle-class insurance costs, but instead raised their insurance costs in order to create universal health care, a massive wealth-redistribution scheme.
Or, how Obama promised a giant stimulus package that would focus on “shovel ready projects” that would rebuild our physical infrastructure for the next 50 years, but instead delivered the largest pork–laden spending spree in history. As a stimulus package, it was terribly ineffective. However, as candy for traditional Democratic constituencies, it was sweet indeed.
But such rants would only rehash old debates. Instead, I will focus on macroeconomic facts, many from the White House’s Office Of Management and Budget (OMB).
All four of Obama’s annual budgets produced historic deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product, according to the OMB table 1.2: 2009 – 10.1%; 2010 – 9.1%, 2011 – 8.7%; and in 2012 – 8.5% (estimated). Excluding the World War II years, these are the four highest deficits in modern American history.
President Obama likes to compare the situation he inherited to the Great Depression. However, during the Great Depression, the comparatively low 5.9% budget deficit in 1934 was the worst, as a percentage of GDP. The average deficit during the 1930s was only 3.1% of GDP. And yet Roosevelt was able to deliver massive amounts of New Deal Era shovel-ready projects. Many, like the Hoover Dam, are still key parts of America’s infrastructure. Roosevelt gave Americans the New Deal; Obama gave them a pork meal.
It should be noted that like Obama, President Bush also inherited a recession from his predecessor, Bill Clinton. The Clinton recession was a very nasty one that included bursting of the tech bubble and the NASDAQ stock market crash. To Bush’s credit, he did not whine to the American people for four years about the Clinton recession.
Obama also likes to blame his predecessor’s tax cuts for our current budget-deficit disaster. However, by comparison, the Bush-era deficit trend line is positively impressive: 2004 – 3.5%; 2005 – 2.6%; 2007 – 1.9%. In Bush’s last year, 2008, it jumped to 3.2%, which is reasonable deficit spending at the depth of recession.
The cause of the Obama budget deficit is not a lack of revenue. The OMB estimates 2012 government receipts of $2.468 trillion. That is the 3rd highest amount in U.S. history, exceeded only in Bush’s last two years.
In fact the government revenue trend line also makes a strong argument in support of the Bush era tax cuts, as shown in OMB table 1.3. Each year during Bush’s entire second term (2005-08) government receipts were greater than 2000, Clinton’s best year. Even in Bush’s last year, the recession- and crisis-wracked 2008, government receipts of $2.524 trillion were 24.6% higher than Clinton’s last year.
Yes, increased revenue followed the Bush tax cuts, just as Republicans predicted.
Indisputably, OMB historical tables make clear that the causes of Obama’s runaway deficits are entirely on the spending side. Obama’s $3.795 trillion record outlay in 2012 is 30.2% greater than in Bush’s last year, 2008.
Nevertheless, President Obama spent the whole reelection cycle arguing that the key to deficit reduction is raising taxes. Raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 is the cornerstone of every speech he makes on deficit-reduction solutions.
USA Today’s recent front page article exposes this naked class warfare demagoguery for what it is. If the 2001 and 2003 Bush era tax cuts are entirely eliminated for this group, at best it would raise $40 billion annually. That is less that 3.6% of the 2012 budget deficit. It is astounding that Obama spends so little time explaining how he will reduce the remaining 96.4% of the budget deficit.
Sadly, America has nothing to show for Obama’s spending orgy. We did not build any great multi-generational infrastructure projects akin to the FDR and Eisenhower eras. Not only does Obama own the four worst annual deficits in modern history, excluding WW II years, but he also owns the four worst years of unemployment since the early Reagan era, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In fairness to President Reagan, he and Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker broke the Carter-era double-digit inflation crisis by inducing the 1982 recession. That strategy led to one of the greatest and longest bull markets in history.
Actually, Obama’s pork-laden spending orgy did produce one clear tangible result; he bought himself a second term.
November 19, 2012 - 6:00 AM
Dan?
Is it April 1st already?
A fact-based screed about Obama’s spending and lack of ability to understand taxes and revenues?
It is 6:43 AM. I must still be asleep and dreaming.
Obama and the Democrats need to drive full throttle over the physical cliff. Only then will the ignorant US pheasents finally realize that they hav been lied to. Welcome to the Obama economy.
You fail to understand that the drivers of the deficit during the last four years is two Buch tax cuts, two Bush wars and Medicare Part D, not of which was paid for by the Bush administration. Every effort to reinstate the tax cuts or stop the two wars has been met with opposition by Republicans. The Medicare Part D law even prevents the goverment from negotiation with drug makers on price reductions. Very little of the current spending is new Obama spending. If tax on the one percent is small, how does it compare with spending on Big Bird. Of all new revenue produced in the US in 2010-2011 93% has gone to the top 1% of earners. These “job creators” didn’t create any jobs. The stimulus did make a difference. Money to states kept teachers, firefighters and policemen working for an additional two years until states refused to take up their pay when the stimulus ceased. Obamacare hasn’t even gone into full effect and you believe that it is driving up costs already? Insurance costs have gone up every year without the new law and will continue to increase every year with the new law. Obamacare should bend the cost curve downward. If it doesn’t then you can complain, but not yet. In summary, your beliefs are in contradiction with facts.
Surprised but thankful Dan would allow criticism of Obama. This assessment is what I’ve been feeling. Nice job explaining the truth.
Please make the case that Romney was a viable alternative.
Folks, be careful about numbers and statistics. Here are a few more from another point of view. Deficit spending jumped in 2009, mostly because FY2009 started in October 2008, well before Obama took office. Obama has actually decreased the deficit as a part of GNP each year since he took office, as Mark correctly points out. If you use the same measure of for revenue (spending/revenue as percentage of GNP), then you can accurately say taxes are at a 50 year low under Obama (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/28/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-taxes-families-are-their-lowest-/) .
And, to prove my point about numbers, here is a chart from “conservative” Forbes magazine that shows Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower. (The article also explains why the 2009 budget deficit balloon was owned by Bush.)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
I don’t have the time to “cherry pick” more numbers for my point of view, but I am sure others will chime in with helpful and thoughtful information.
OMG. The unvarnished truth is allowed to have its own thread in Dan Casey’s blog. Astonishing!!
I can’t tell you how pleased I am to see someone else say this, Mark J. There has been no honesty in the MSM. A media who did its job would have shouted these facts loud and long months BEFORE the election. In fact, they would have done it all along. But we know why the media not only didn’t tell the truth; they promoted the 0bama lie that the first term was a stunning success: the media has been infiltrated by extreme leftists as per the Communist Party goal #20 published in the Congressional Record in 1963.
My estimation of you went up dramatically today, Mark J. Thanks for telling the truth in no uncertain terms.
Kristen#5 – A very wise comment, Kristen. For very different reasons, mostly foreign policy related, I find it very difficult to satisfy your request.
Matt#6 – Click on the links for where my statistics come from – Its the OMB for main ones – black and white. I am getting it from the white house. Look at the link.
Thanks for posting this, Dan.
OK, my fellow commenters Left and Right. I think these criticisms are justified. I voted for Obama, but could not muster very much (or any) enthusiasm for his economic record. I believed the alternative was worse, as the Republicans seemed to be (and continue to be) out of touch.
We cannot have a rational discussion about the debt if
a. Tax increases are off the table. (Republicans)
b. Defense spending cuts are off the table. (Republicans)
c. Reductions to, but not elimination of, Social Security and (especially) Medicare are off the table (Democrats).
For my part, I am willing to listen to any rational, bipartisan debt reduction plan, even one that requires sacrifices on my part. But sacrifices need to be shared. Social Security and Medicare are Earned Benefits. Workers pay into them their entire working lives. Companies match those payments. It’s a lot of money. Any plan that wants to “fix the debt” by reneging on Earned Benefits for seniors and the poor is no plan at all.
MarkJ, Obama is not my ideal president and wasn’t my ideal the first time I voted for him either. What he is and was then is the best candidate and the only one who even talks about the issues I care about. ACA isn’t perfect (I think it’s just a precurser to single payer), but at least Obama’s willing to TALK about health care. The GOP never even bothered.
#2, awesome post. The pheasants might just be revolting.
#8 Then what other choice did we have but to reelect Obama, Mark J?
Is it “pheasents” [sic] season yet?
Mark J,
I think you wrote a good piece, and I detected no bs. it’s nice to read those kind of pieces.
Thanks Suzie, no need to waste precious seconds reading anything you praise.
Good call, Ms. Saunders!
Careful. Don’t get too excited about this article just yet. There’s more to this than meets the eye. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet. I’m waiting on the other shoe to fall……
Debbie, Kristen, Obama voters et. al. – Just because you believe Obama was the best of the two alternatives you had, does not mean you have to endorse everything he does and stands for.
My essay is hard cold facts based. The core facts for this essay come from the White House (OMB). Click on the links – they are very easy to read tables. The reciepts side (basically incoming revenue) are in great shape.
Why do people accept Obama’s demagoguery that more taxes are necessary to solve the deficit? I agree that there is a wealth gap issue that needs to be addressed, and tax policy is a part of that.
But the urgent matter is the deficit. Focusing purely on that, the hard cold facts are its a spending issue, not a revenue issue.
Democrats and Republicans alike should not let Obama pull wool over their eyes on this reality. This is our government, not our sports team. It OK to generally support our president, but be against him on certain issues. And even hard core Democrats should not accept being decieved by the leader of the Democrats.
Again – this essay is based on cold hard facts. I am basically presenting you facts that the White House must assemble, does assemble,and must make available to the public, but prefers not to advertise.
These facts are on the White House web pages, and the links are in the essay
Mark Jurkevich:
“Actually, Obama’s pork-laden spending orgy did produce one clear tangible result; he bought himself a second term”
Absolutely. Great post mark J!
I guarantee you that when taxes go up on the “wealthy”, they will sit on more real estate. I had a call to that explicit effect from one of my investor clients on Saturday. This will not only cost me those commissions (two each if they wanted to do a 1031 Tax exchange), but will cost the home inspectors, termite inspectors, title companies, closing attorneys, contractors, home warranty providers, insurers, loan offciers and mortgage companies, appraisers, well testers, septic companies, and the list of those who will pay for it goes on and on.
The unintended consequenses for wringing that 3.6% out of the wealthy will be costly indeed.
Excellent Mark J! I doubt the folks on this board will do anything other than be critical of your article and ultimately of you. This article was a great summation of the fears many of us had and have if Obama was re-elected. Your article exposes the the real truth about our fiscal nightmare. Kristen, Romney touted a 5 point plan for the economy the entire campaign. Hopefully you know these items.
Dan, thanks for posting this!
I’m not disagreeing with your facts, Mark J. I’m just saying he was reelected because he was the only viable choice.
Mark Jurkevich’s post:
“Sadly, America has nothing to show for Obama’s spending orgy. We did not build any great multi-generational infrastructure projects akin to the FDR and Eisenhower eras.”
Obama has made America like a real life Brewster’s Millions. Can the lefties here seriously deny that this will kind of spending will eventually bankrupt us? Mark J, you asked for our opinions on who to vote for, once this thread has wound down, please tell us who you ultimately pulled the lever for.
Kristen:
“What he is and was then is the best candidate and the only one who even talks about the issues I care about.”
And if free stuff and sockin’ it to the rich were what you cared about, did they ever have a candidate for you…
Debbie:
“I’m just saying he was reelected because he was the only viable choice.”
No. They were both sorry candidates, but the one who promised to give away more ice cream won. Our votes are not all grown responsible adults. That’s what Obama counted on and that’s what got him reelected.
They took a vote among people who were a little bit hungry and a majority of those who cared enough to vote, foolishly voted to divide up the seeds and eat those. It was quicker and easier than working and sacrificing for a harvest. Of course, when we’re all starving because there is no harvest, nothing growing, and no seeds…
Why don’t you drop that crap, JohnW. It’s old, sad and lame. I have a perfectly fine job, willing to bet I make as much as you do and support 2 children on it, and have never taken a dime from the government. Neither have any of the Obama voters I personally know…everyone’s comfortably middle class, owns their own home and floats their own boat. Just give up your droning repetition of Obama standing on street corners handing out cash…it’s BS.
Chuck, as Dan R pointed out poetically, Romney’s ‘plan’ was rooted in harnessing the power of uniforn farts. I’d also like to point out that the economy, although certainly an important topic, is NOT THE ONLY TOPIC I VOTE ON. I voted to preserve women’s rights. I voted to ensure the rights of minorities, including gays. I voted to expand access to quality health care in this country, even to *gasp* poor people. I voted to keep people like Scalia and Alito off the future bench. I voted to stop inciting pointless military conflict. I voted for a lot of things, the economy being one of them, but among them quality of life issues for other people – in spite of the fact that I have never in my life been without healthcare, a job, a good roof over my head and excellent food on my table, or suffered discrimination. Or my kids, ever. I’m just crazy enough to vote for something other than my own selfish interests.
Sandi Saunders:
“You can always tell when a thread topic or commentary makes sense, the Right Wingers lose theirs. It is predictable as sunrise.”
You can always tell when a thread topic or commentary makes sense, the Left Wingers pout and don’t participate.
Kristen:
25.”Why don’t you drop that crap, JohnW. It’s old, sad and lame.”
…and true!
Kristen#25 – Its OK to vote for Obama, but still make clear to him and the Democrats that you demand they stop spending like drunken sailors.
Its like loving your spouse, but demanding that he knock off some bad habit. Or in fact, telling your spouse to stop spending because the family budget is out of control.
The government revenue is near record high. The White House OMB declares this – see the link. The Bush tax cuts did not cause a revenue problem.
Houston – we have a spending problem. Again – follow the links to the OMB tables. They are vey plain and easy to see.
Mark. Yes the tables are easy to read. The 2009 Budget was Bush’s, and Obama has reduced the deficit as a percentage of GDP every year after that. I agree, simple enough.
BS, pure BS! MarkJ, you have produced an “essay” rather devoid of facts and reality unless you allow your twisted version, and claiming it is “hard cold facts based” is not the same as proving it. I would expect this drivel from the intellect of Suzie.
First of all, no President delivers “economic performance”. That is a right wing meme that is conveniently pulled out when a Democrat is in the White House. The Congress of the United States controls the purse strings, makes the laws and writes policy. When there is divided government, the President has even less “control”. At no time did President Obama have a functioning Congress to work with on the worst economic collapse and financial implosion in this nation since the Great Depression.
You may indeed “rant endlessly” to your own and Suzie’s heart’s content, but the reality of the nation’s economic collapse voided all of anyone’s campaign promises from 2007 and much of any kind of effort to staunch the blood.
You are flat our wrong about Obama’s health-care reform and there is no way to know whether something that has not even taken full effect yet will “contain middle-class insurance costs”, but don’t let a little thing like the truth stand in the way of your snipe. Even now, states are fighting not to do their part.
We already have “universal health care”, we simply have never paid for it. And it is a lie to claim “a massive wealth-redistribution scheme” is even seminal to the reforms. President Obama did not create the insurance model, the insurance industry did. That all should be paying in when all will use the system is as fair a system as can be created by business.
No matter your opinion on the Stimulus funds, there is much evidence that it worked and helped states, industries and workers. But again, no need to let facts enter your radar.
Compared to even recent Congress’ and their pork it is ludicrous to call the Stimulus “the largest pork–laden spending spree in history”. You have simply bought the meme that he gave it to the unions without even acknowledging the reality of the financial collapse.
“Trouble is, “you can make the numbers tell you what you want if you torture them enough,” said Rudolph Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.”
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/22/news/economy/obama-spending/index.htm
Comparing budgets and spending in the middle of a full blown world economic crisis with historic data as if all things are equal is childish and stupid on the face of it and partisan and ineffectual at the core.
The Bush deficits and spending set the table for the Obama deficits as did the economic reality. You and the Suzie’s of the world can refuse to believe that, but it does not make you correct.
Your sour grapes are enough to make me understand the oddities you toss out and your need to denigrate what you could not destroy.
Our country faces many challenges since 30 years of chickens and wealth service came home to roost but people like you will never see the truth for the chip on your shoulder and the lies you believe make your case.
Try some real reading for a change:
This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly
“Throughout history, rich and poor countries alike have been lending, borrowing, crashing–and recovering–their way through an extraordinary range of financial crises. Each time, the experts have chimed, “this time is different”–claiming that the old rules of valuation no longer apply and that the new situation bears little similarity to past disasters. With this breakthrough study, leading economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff definitively prove them wrong. Covering sixty-six countries across five continents, This Time Is Different presents a comprehensive look at the varieties of financial crises, and guides us through eight astonishing centuries of government defaults, banking panics, and inflationary spikes–from medieval currency debasements to today’s subprime catastrophe. Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, leading economists whose work has been influential in the policy debate concerning the current financial crisis, provocatively argue that financial combustions are universal rites of passage for emerging and established market nations. The authors draw important lessons from history to show us how much–or how little–we have learned.
Using clear, sharp analysis and comprehensive data, Reinhart and Rogoff document that financial fallouts occur in clusters and strike with surprisingly consistent frequency, duration, and ferocity. They examine the patterns of currency crashes, high and hyperinflation, and government defaults on international and domestic debts–as well as the cycles in housing and equity prices, capital flows, unemployment, and government revenues around these crises. While countries do weather their financial storms, Reinhart and Rogoff prove that short memories make it all too easy for crises to recur.
An important book that will affect policy discussions for a long time to come, This Time Is Different exposes centuries of financial missteps.”
Rogoff is also the one who has admitted the “average” recovery for such a collapse is 10 years.
Bailout Nation, with New Post-Crisis Update: How Greed and Easy Money Corrupted Wall Street and Shook the World Economy
“Bailout Nation offers one of the clearest looks at the financial lenders, regulators, and politicians responsible for the financial crisis of 2008. Written by Barry Ritholtz, one of today’s most popular economic bloggers and a well-established industry pundit, this book skillfully explores how the United States evolved from a rugged independent nation to a soft Bailout Nation-where financial firms are allowed to self-regulate in good times, but are bailed out by taxpayers in bad times.
Entertaining and informative, this book clearly shows you how years of trying to control the economy with easy money has finally caught up with the federal government and how its practice of repeatedly rescuing Wall Street has come back to bite them.”
The Betrayal of the American Dream
It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (Institutions of American Democracy)
The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted
“Mike Lofgren retired on June 17 after 28 years as a Congressional staffer. He served 16 years as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees.“
Goodbye to All That
I am not an Obama apologist by any means, he has made mistakes and he has been hogtied with an alarming alacrity but the truth of this situation remains the truth and it is patently unfair to pretend there was so much more he could have done if he had only wanted to, or that the failures are his alone. The scope of this economic situation and the players who STILL have not grasped the significance to our future need to be discussed, but they need to be discussed honestly and with facts, not cherry picked stats that are worthy of Suzie or Frank.
In fact, if you know so much, why don’t you tell us what President Obama could or should have done differently? Not the fantasy version, tell us how, with this Congress he could have done a better job with the economy, policy or the ACA reform.
From Mark’s spiel: “It should be noted that like Obama, President Bush also inherited a recession from his predecessor, Bill Clinton. The Clinton recession was a very nasty one that included bursting of the tech bubble and the NASDAQ stock market crash”.
That’s it right there; Mark and others who wish to indict the president for his economic record would see no difference between a recession and a near meltdown of the interlocked western economies, with an actual prolonged freezeup in large cap lending markets, cratering business and consumer demand (not merely recessionary retrenchment, however severe), and an inventory of bad counterparty debt relationships that were quantitatively incomparable to any other event since the early 1930′s.
The President did not, as Mark says, spend the entire election cycle arguing that the key to deficit reduction is raising taxes. It’s true that he always made that detail of his bargaining position plain, but he also discussed spending items like military refocus. And to say that the spending in FY’s ’09 and ’10 didn’t accomplish anything is to ignore the way that it cushioned the impact of the economic disaster (recession is too mild a term) on state and local governments. But then, that is a domestic result that might be harder to ascertain from afar.
And to simplistically think that taking a relatively short term measure like the few years after the Bush tax cuts and compare them to the meltdown period, and then to ascribe most growth to the single factor of tax policy instead of seeing tax policy as one of a number of factors in economic growth, is a rather pure and easy example of cherry picked sophistry.
Sorry, Mark, but with all due respect, the darker man younger than yourself, with an international background greater than yourself, and more political experience than yourself, whose literate fluency has advanced his ideas at least as effectively as your own, has adddressed an unprecedented economic challenge with results that are more nuanced than the responsibility evading right wing narrative you endorse. No sale.
“And if free stuff and sockin’ it to the rich were what you cared about, did they ever have a candidate for you…”
Comment by John Wilburn — November 19, 2012 @ 1:21 pm
So John, do you count the “free” stuff Romney was going to provide for the wealthy corporate plutocrats?
The effective corporate tax rate is already at a forty year low, Romney promised his fat cat plutocrats a further reduction.
With profits at big U.S. companies breaking records last year, bonuses and pay for CEOs also broke records, and Romney wanted to reduce their effective tax rates.[his own tax rate was about 10%]
Romney – the gift that would have kept giving – wanted to reduce or eliminate EPA regulations that protect the environment and the health of every single American in order to increase the profits of coal and oil owners…
These are some the “free” goodies that would have been provided by Romney to his fat-cat friends…please stop talking about freebies to those who voted for the President. You look disingenuous at best when you don’t mention the giveaways to the wealthy through tax benefits, deregulation, and dismantling employee protections and benefits…I have no family members or friends who take from the government, other than my 90 year old mother who worked all her life and collects medicare. Do you consider her not grown up or responsible if she voted for President Obama? Your sweeping assessments turn your statements into untruths.
Kristen, I totally agree with your statement, “I’m just crazy enough to vote for something other than my own selfish interests.” It is not often that people like ourselves come along and stand up for our societies and countries for selfless reasons. One thing I have noticed about most teapubs is if you threaten one little thing of theirs, they will fold. I think that is why Bush lasted so long.
Wow, it’s a good thing this guest post didn’t run before the election. I might have changed my vote. NOT. When the GOP puts forth a Bat&hl* crazy, bullying egomaniac who obviously does not like 47% of Americans, does not want to be president of all Americans, just the “good” ones, we have no real choice but to vote for Obama.
I wonder how all the teachers, police and firefighters feel about the money Obama sent to the states who would have been cut without the stimulus spending?
Frankly, the time for tearing each other down is past. Let’s get both parties to the table and fix the problem. Yes that means everything is on the table. Revenue, military, social programs, everything. Just do it.
OK. I am not crazy about Obama’s economic record. But all this talk about buying the election with gifts is misleading at best. ALL candidates pay off their supporters once they are elected, and government ALWAYS distributes wealth.
Farm subsidies? Wealth redistribution.
Oil depletion allowance? Wealth redistribution.
Bank bailout? Wealth redistribution.
Auto bailout? Wealth redistribution.
Progressive tax system? Wealth redistribution.
Mortgage deduction? Wealth redistribution.
You get the picture. We say there is a free market. We say government shouldn’t pick winners. But neither of those statements is true. Government uses tax policy to influence behavior (pick winners, if you will). Government is influenced in those policies by lobbyists, among others. Now who do you suppose has better lobbyists? The rich (Banks, large corporations, Big Medicine, Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, etc.)? Or the poor.
Mark J – Although you have much information and criticism – where are your thoughts on what the President could have done differently?
Let the auto industry fail?
Let millions of Americans continue to go uninsured?
Let republicans voucherize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid so that eventually the elderly and poor would have no safety net?
Do as Bush did, and fool the public by not including military expenditures for two wars in the budget but sneaking those millions of dollars into “supplemental” spending?
Play the “austerity” card like the Europeans who have no better economies now? Mimic England’s austerity model – which now has double dip recession and decreasing GDP.
In case you forgot…
From the NYT – “the level of economic activity is so low chiefly because the recession itself was so severe; indeed, on many economic indicators, the Great Recession was the deepest (and longest) downturn since the Great Depression.”
There is no magic wand this president, nor anyone, could have waved to make the economy grow faster or make the debt lessened. President Obama has been in office not even a full four years, and people such as you want to blame him for the fiscal folly that had occurred long before he became president. Exactly how long do you think it should take to bring an economy back from the brink of disaster? Four years, eight years, twelve?
These are not excuses, but the fact is “the recession itself was so severe; indeed, on many economic indicators, the Great Recession was the deepest (and longest) downturn since the Great Depression.” [New York Times]
Presidents get more blame for the economy than they should. Congress, since it actually passes the tax policies when it isn’t obstructing, is more responsible for the running of the economy as they hold the purse strings.
Constructive criticism is helpful, carping is not.
I agree with Kristen. Furthermore, I still like President Obama. I think he has remained classy and dedicated in the midst of very ugly stuff. I don’t agree with everything he has suggested and/or done but it is the first time since Bill Clinton was president that I haven’t been embarassed by the POTUS. (And Clinton got embarassing eventually.)
Kristen@1:45
Bless you. And that’s what Democrats do and have done since the days of FDR. The Republicans have become a party without a soul. The pretend to have one by esp[ousing the views of the extremists on the religious fringe.
But when it comes down to caring for and identufying with real people, they no longer have a clue. The days of the Linwood Holtons, Caldwell Butlers, Gerald Fords, Jack Kemps, and Bob Doles have passed them buy and now they have the Michelle Bachmanns, Sarah Palins, Jim Demints, Todd Akins, Richard Mourdocks, Sharon Angles, and Allen Wests. They have become the nutso party.
“But the urgent matter is the deficit.”
But…but…Ronald Reagan proved deficits don’t matter, remember? Thanks, but if I ever need a weekly dose of wingnuttery, I’ll read Kathleen Parker.
JW@12:34
You have commented about tightening your belt and struggling to make it through the debacle that began in 2008 and extended through 2010. I watched the same period of time. I have watched the number of realtors in the Roanoke valley drop from over 1900 to justover 1200. I have watchednrealtor firms crash and burn or forced to consolidate and retrench to make ends meet. But maybe you’ds like to enlighten me on how you and many other of us Realtors who survived the crash would have made out without the homebuyer tax credits thyat were n important art of the stimulus spending. Those tax credits accounted for over 40% of the business that was transacted in 2009 and 2010. How quickly we forget.
Business still isn’t great, but without those programs, and without the cash for clunkers program that helped kickstart auto sales, where do youy think your business or the economy would be today. Where will it go when the interest deductionfor mortgages disapears. Where would you be today without the actions of the federal reserve which have held doiwn interest rates so that people can afford to buy homes in a down economy. Where would you be if we had taqken Mitt Romney’s advice and just let the home market go ahead and crash so that “investors” could pick up all that real estate and turn it into rental property. Where would your business be in a marketplace where every home purchaser had to come up with a 20% down payment instead of being able to use FHA or the USDA program that you so frequently bitch about. Maybe your business is wholly made up of a few rich investors who could take advantage of the catastrophe that all that would bring ? I think you have your eyes closed to what all that would mean or would have meant to the real estte market and to your businessw
without the stimulus programs and the steps taken to at least stabilize the market. Oh well, maybe youcould have still made a living teaqching clkasses on gun safety and how to get a CCP.
Guys – Like it or not, on the revenue side of the ledger the U.S. looks very good (that’s what they call “reciepts”). Most people don’t know that – and partisan Democrats want to erase this inconvenient fact. They want to go right past it. But, the White House OMB – Obama’s White House, puts this fact in writing.
On the spending side of the ledger, the US looks catastrophic for each of the Obama years. That is also a fact published by Obama’s White House (the OMB to be specific.
Put these two facts together and you have the deficit crisis – America’s number one problem.
Given these two facts about America’s number one problem, isn’t it obvious which side of the ledger America needs to work on?
Combining these two facts, you have a deficit crisis.
Most people don’t know that, and a lot of Obama
Oops. Strike the last two lines. Sorry working on to many things in parallel, on to many computers.
dave:
“Those tax credits accounted for over 40% of the business that was transacted in 2009 and 2010. How quickly we forget.”
You’re right about this. I did get a few sales out of that, but not 40% as I work with more investors. It didn’t make or break my income.
“Where would you be today without the actions of the federal reserve which have held doiwn interest rates so that people can afford to buy homes in a down economy.”
I sold as much when the rates were 100% higher. The key has been longevity in the business and getting a better market share when the herd thins out. Yeah, I’m having to work a lot harder, but that’s the way it goes. 3% for 30 year loans is NOT the real cost of money and you know it. It will have to go back up or we will see the same problems.
“Business still isn’t great, but without those programs, and without the cash for clunkers program that helped kickstart auto sales…”
Auto repossession was sky high. The auto parts businesses were hurting. It put brand new shiny vehicles under the people who needed to be trading up to a nicer used car tey could afford and destroyed perfectly good vehicles, most of which certainly were not clunkers. The junkyards were not even allowed to sell engines or engine parts and the vast majority of the used parts supply it should have created was destroyed to please the tree huggers. Cash for Clunkers was a disaster. There’s a good reason most lefties don’t even bring it up.
“Where would you be if we had taqken Mitt Romney’s advice and just let the home market go ahead and crash so that “investors” could pick up all that real estate and turn it into rental property.”
In time…a stable market.
“Oh well, maybe youcould have still made a living teaqching clkasses on gun safety and how to get a CCP.”
Nah, I should just collect benefits and live off the dole. That is the better tomorrow you voted for. I’m a good Realtor and can survive just fine in a real market that is not manipulated. In fact, I frequently disagree with the very stuff you’re talking about that are mostly GOP measures backed by the NAR because I put my principles first.
Didn’t Dan say Mark once wrote 2 opposing views and got recognized as writing the best paper. For Both sides of the argument?
Methinks Mark has found a way to generate hits….
Anyway, thanks for getting us thinking Mark.
Kristen, re: 1:45
I understand that one’s reason’s for voting are completely individual. However one must consider the consequence in virtually ignoring the primary driver of all that you point out as other “topics”.
It is good that you have never been “without” a job, healthcare, roof, and excellent food, or suffered discrimination”. Personally, I have been “without” all these except the “roof”, at one point or another in my life. Sometimes being “without” gives us a drive and to be “with” these things and therefore an ethic that those without experience may not understand.
If you truly believe it is the “government’s” responsibility to provide “healthcare, job, roof and excellent food” for everyone, then what would make an individual choose to actually work to provide for themselves?
We have moved “WAY” beyond supporting the “poor”, when we are providing 2 years of unemployment and no work mandate, when the DHS advertises benefits, when recipients are cashing out their TARP cards or using them for less than sustenance reasons… etc.
If we won’t fix our economy and continue along the path to an “entitlement” society eventually there will be nothing left for those who are truly “in need” and therefore counterproductive. You will probably never see that time, but your kids very well may.
John Wilburn,
I agree with essentially all your posts on economic points. And, I think over the next 12-22 months we will see what it will look like when the barkning dog finally catches the bus.
shrill/sandi,
As usual you are incorrect on most of your comments…
Obama had virtually carte blanche for almost two years and look what “the people” received.
The “stimulus” funds should have gone to “infrastructure” (you might remember those “shovel ready jobs” that were “not so shovel ready”?).
The ACA is a farce that will ultimately create a two tiered system, which has already started, where the “rich” continue to receive great healthcare while the “poor” continue to have their benefits (medicare) denied at twice the rate of insured.
Does “anyone” think we need “thousands” of new EPA regulations (except lawyers).
Regarding the question of what obama could have done differently… he could have taken a page from Kennedy and stated “ask not what your country (government/taxpayers) can do for you ask what you can do for your country”.
Btw ladies?… in your opinion, when does obama take responsibility for the deeper mess he created?… 2013… 2014…15…16…20.. never?
Realtors spent a great many years sucking up commissions on selling houses for well over what they were really worth. If they felt the pinch after the inevitable correction, tough.
Justin True, the implication seems to always be that only gays care about equal rights. Only the uninsured are worried about getting health care. Only the hungry care about WIC. And so on. The smart money looks around and sees that until these issues are attended to, the nation as a whole is weaker.
The deficit is not the “urgent issue” at hand. The “urgent issue” is the ongoing inability of the GOP to gain traction with the 97% or 98% of the population they’ve rudely and obnoxiously voted off their sad little island. The ongoing benefit we’ve ALL realized from Obama’s “spending orgy” is that we were spared a second Great Depression. Not that I don’t think that the Republicans would heartily welcome a depression if they thought it would have gotten Obama from being reelected.
You want to win an election, run a winning candidate. In 2 years the GOP is looking at Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton, and they’ve got nothing but bitter, tired old hate-filled rhetoric to offer. They will have less than no chance against either of those two.
dave:
“Where would your business be in a marketplace where every home purchaser had to come up with a 20% down payment instead of being able to use FHA or the USDA program that you so frequently bitch about.”
Right now, the NAR is trying desperately to prevent the population growth of places like Christiansburg and Radford from disqualifying them for USDA loans. These were designed to be “rural development” loans. Right now, one cannot go through USDA to buy a modest house with an acre of land on the outskirts of Blacksburg, but they can buy an upscale townhouse in that sea of vinyl townhouses in a heavily developed area of Christiansburg. USDA loans are way off of their original mission and I don’t support fighing to keep them for the areas they’re in now.
Mark J the most significant item in the article is that the social justice motivated tax increases on the rich will only solve 3.6% of our deficit (not our debt). I too would love to know what he plans for the other 96.4% of the deficit. At this point, I think Obama could not care less about any spending reductions…. And most of the liberal posters on this board feel the same.
dave, re: “that’s what Democrats do”
You are correct… democrats “do” want to spend “other peoples money” and are very adept at it.
I like to know that when I provide my “earned” money to those in need, I can be assured they are truly “in need”, and this support goes (virtually) 100% to where it is needed, instead of having 70% funneled off in a bureaucracy.
You may color me “without soul” if you believe that I want the 90 year old grandmother receiving the majority of my assistance instead of it going to a government “worker” who gets taxpayer benefits, 6 weeks vacation, multiple “paid” holidays, etc…; or worse yet, some able bodied person who finds it more “comfortable” to sit home and collect benefits than be productive.
“I’m just crazy enough to vote for something other than my own selfish interests.”
You voted for the Party bosses’ interests. EVERYBODY else got screwed; rich, poor; black, white; gay, straight; male, female.
Gosh, when you read “issues important to Kristen”, it reads just like the Communists’ wish list of 1957. Nobody really thinks this way. No woman I know or have ever heard of “wants to preserve the right to abortion and birth control” “wants social justice for gays” ahead of the economy. In reality, women want a responsible government where their kids don’t get destroyed by debt.
Now the women like those on welfare in Melrose precinct? Different story. They’re looking for a government daddy for their kids to take the place of the real one.
What I love about this thread is the guy who wrote it has been widely regarded as a liberal on here. He’s a pal of Dan and has been heavily praised by Dan and the other liberals. So none of them can really beat him up. The truth is more effective coming from him. I sense some in here are starting to wake up a little to what’s REALLY going on.
It is not “Obama’s demagoguery” that has most of America agreeing that “more taxes are necessary to solve the deficit”. We all know that we will be sacrificing some service or policy that affects our lives, our parent’s lives or our children’s lives. Therefore it is only fair that a nation asks that ALL of its citizens sacrifice, not just the middle class, workers and the poor.
Yes, the “urgent matter” is the deficit, and the cuts needed to lower it will impact the middle class, workers and the poor in this nation. What we are “Focusing purely on” is that it is proven that lower taxes for the wealthy has only widened the abyss between the middle and rich classes and not spurred the economy or jobs.
Therefore, “the hard cold facts are” it is both a spending and a revenue issue.
By and large, it was not the workers, not even government workers who wrecked the financial structure of our economy, there is no reason we should be the only ones to help fix the mess.
Mark, as always, I am challenged by your post. I have read and re-read it today, and a few things keep popping into my mind. First, you seem to be making an argument that Trickle-Down Economics works. I don’t think that is so, given that two of the worst economic times in my life were closely linked to Presidents Reagan and GW Bush. Budget deficits increased dramatically as a result of their policies. Second, President Obama said throughout the campaign that deficit reduction must include $2 (maybe $3) of spending cuts for every $1 of tax revenue. Seemed reasonable to me and still does. Finally, you make no mention of the cost of the wars of the past 10 years. Don’t know how that can be excluded from a discussion about current deficits.
Your points are provocative, and I suspect we are having a discussion that needs to happen at a national level. I am sure I have much still to learn.
Interesting information Mark, but I don’t interpret it the same…
It is important to note that Obomba inherited a burning building. The economic crisis was as bad as 1929, but the flames were tamped down because we added 15 million people to food stamp programs, unemployment benefits went as long as 2 years, they stalled the hell out of foreclosures (I didn’t say stopped – I said stalled), and the massive debt you noted was the only thing that kept the banks open.
Yet, like you, I still think he has some serious issues as president, because the middle class continues to sink and be even more enslaved to wealthy masters under his guidance. And of course, we continue to rape vulnerable nations. (Hence Obomba.) He extended the Patriot Act that destroyed our Constitution. He extended the tax cuts instead of seeking to raise income tax to 90% on multi-million dollar incomes like it was under Roosevelt, (and such percentages actually do make a difference in debt then). He is a power tripper who makes jokes about bombing with drones, and has actually ordered the assassination of U.S. citizens. (And this guy was a Constitutional Law major… Ha!) Even at the start, he screwed us by keeping the same banking cronies that Dubya had. In short, Obomba is a lot like a National Spokesmodel, who does the bidding of our wealthy slave masters. And yet Romney would have been profoundly worse as Hillary, Kristen, Warren and a host of others here have mentioned.
Meanwhile, as Asia rises, our economy can only get worse. It’s going to be a downward spiral for the common man until we end mutant capitalism. People earning 200,000 times more than minimum wage is criminal. “Class war” you say? Damn right, and they won. And billionaire tax dodgers should be demonized as much a U.S. slaveholders were in 1860.
There is nothing wrong with Socialist governments except that we have been brainwashed to think it’s a dirty word by our masters… Schools are socialist. Police, Fire and EMT services are socialist. Medicare is socialist. Social Security is socialist. Duh. It means there are at least basic minimum for every citizen, just like a family. The Scandinavian countries have figured this out, and while far from perfect, they embarrass the hell out of the United States of Selfishness.
Kristen:
48.”Realtors spent a great many years sucking up commissions on selling houses for well over what they were really worth. If they felt the pinch after the inevitable correction, tough.”
Great dump-on-business line, but the reality is that commission splits were lower in the more highly competitive market of five years ago. We also had nearly twice as many Realtors sharing the market too. Also, the Realtors didn’t decide what the houses sold for, the over-inflated buyer pool did! Your bias is SO selective.
Insurance….. now there’s a racket!
.
Nosaj#55 – I am not suggesting anything in this essay. I made the “novel” decision to simply bring to the readers’ attention hard cold facts. The source of these facts are the White House (OMB). Please make the effort and click on the links and look at the tables. They are so simple simple to understand…and they were generated in recent months by Obama’s White House.
If you make this effort, I trust you will withdraw your declarations about when deficits occured, and disavow claims that Bush’ 2001 and 2003 tax cuts caused government receipts to fall in the following years (2004 – 2008).
Really, I gave all the readers the simple links to simple to understand facts about Obama’s fiscal policies. Obama apologists may not like them, but they come from the Obama White House.
Obama won the election, so we have for more years of his leadership or lack thereof. My quesion is, what will it take for Obama supporters to admit his economic policy is harmful to our country? Obviously, his economic measurables the last 4 years were good enough to earn your vote….somehow. Will another drop in our credit rating move you to question his policys? How about another month like October 12 where we had the highest deficit spending ever, or what if unemployment goes back to 10%? What if you can’t get an appointment to see your primary care doctor because of the 40 million more people added into the HC system? How low do we have to go?
So Dan, where was this critical and factual analysis of Obama’s economic policy fiasco and inaccurate justifications BEFORE the election?
Oh John Wilburn, you can dump on consumers and any other group as you like but woe unto anyone who tries to “dump-on-business”? Not quite.
You deny as you like but the housing bubble began when the real estate industry decided that the value of housing would always continue to grow. That the growth would always mean if a loan went bad (as they always have done) that the value of the property would assure another buyer, that loaning therefore was not so much of a risk as no one within the real estate industry, from Realtor to appraiser to inspectors to loan sharks actually saw any bubble at all.
That the Congress had conveniently passed the laws to allow more and more financial shenanigans with less and less actual oversight and accountability was also based on the premise that property would continue to grow in value and be a good investment like it always had been. Letting people use all of the equity in their existing home, borrow with no money down, no real credit check and no real stability (as if such can be known any more) in employment or families was simply business as usual for most in the industry.
You sir, may continue to deny the real estate industry had a large part in the bubble but it remains the truth.
Expecting the customer to regulate and control the industry is bassackwards.
Mark,
You made many great points, all of which were supported by facts.
One of your points that I could never understand why the President was never questioned on was the talking points of taxing the rich and the wealthy can afford to pay a little more.
Well sure they can, but as you pointed out that amounts to very little. The so-called rich could be taxed at 100% and the resulting revenues would be immaterial in regards to balancing the deficit. You’re talking tens of billions when the annual deficit is over a trillion and we’re around sixteen trillion in debt.
It may sound good and win votes but it avoids the real problems and does very little to balance the budget.
There will come a time when the can is unable to be kicked any further down the road. That will most likely come after another four years of trillion dollar deficits and many short term patches.
Numbers that MarkJ forgot to include in his post:
Obama inherited a deficit of nearly $1.3 trillion from Bush/Cheney the moment he took the oath of office.
This year, however, according to the official data published by the Treasury Department, the deficit was LOWERED to $1.089 trillion.
The September [2012] budget surplus of $75 billion, which topped analyst expectations for a surplus of $42 billion, marked only the second month in the fiscal year ended September 30 that the country was in the black.
http://tinyurl.com/cwc6yyd
We need to be fair and balanced, no?
Another Chuck:
“My quesion is, what will it take for Obama supporters to admit his economic policy is harmful to our country?”
Never. There is and has been ample proof of the failure; if they haven’t seen it by now, they never will. They aren’t busines people either, so as long as they have a check to sign….. what problem????
Another Chuck@7:28
And “what if” none of that doomsayer trash turns out mto be true, just like all the stuff you’ve already posted about the first term was distorted and viewed through the same dark glass? What if Republicans in Congress wake uyp and stop being obstructionist and think about the country for a change. What if Obama’s jobs program is passed and creates several million new jobs which will then beget several million new jobs, etc? What if health care costs actually do moderate, as they have already stared to do? What if unemployment declines to 6%? What if we get out of Afghanistan and use part of the moneyt to bring down the deficit and part to begin financing the infrastructure improvements that are long overdue?
What if those 40 million people ctually get health care that isn’t in the high cost of the emergency room and allows them to get the care when they first need it instead of having to wait until its too late and the problem getsb worse and more expensive to treat?. What if improvement in the economy allows us to get our credit rating bumped back up? What if we stop providing welfare to corporations, oil companies, agribusiness, big phqrma, etc. in dollars greaterthan what we spend on programs for the poor and down and out? What if the obscene wealth gap between the haves and have nots actuaslly shrinks for a change and middle class people have more money to spend which in turn creates more demand for goods and services which in turn creates more jobs? And why aren’t these scenarios just as likely to happen as the ones you are so certain are coming?
Mark says Obama’s term were the 4 worst years for unemployment since the Reagan era. While that may be true it is not as if this happened in a vacuum, i.e. Obama was elected and employment began to slide. What he chose not to say is that this trend in the increase of unemployment actually began under Bush (as did the entire recession). In May ’07 unemployment bottomed at 4.4% and then began a steady rise reaching 7.8% in Jan ’09. The next month, Obama’s first full month in office, it hit 8.3 and I’m sure Mark would like to attribute that increase solely to Obama as if previous 20 months of increasing unemployment under Bush never happened.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Again Mark would have us believe this recession occurred in a bubble. But what he failed to mention is that this recession, which began under Bush (nobody’s whining Mark BTW, it’s a fact) was also accompanied by an even more severe recession in Europe which in some countries grew into a depression. Not being an economist, I have to take the word of those that are when they say that when one country,in this case the U.S., is in recession and many of it’s trading partners are in even worse economic straits then all the economies involved are seriously impacted. From my reading, I have also learned that the recession here and overseas has been so difficult to recover from not because of Obama’s ineptness, as Mark would have us believe, but because in today’s global economy, we are much more closely interconnected with all the economies throughout the world. none of this was mentioned.
Again I’m not an economist but the idea of reducing spending during a recession is just outright stupid. And Mark claims as proof the stimulus has not worked is the lack of any grand New Deal type projects such as the Hoover Dam. Yet in Virginia alone over 6 billion dollars of awards have been made creating almost 3,000 jobs this fiscal quarter alone.
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecoveryData/Pages/RecipientReportedDataMap.aspx?stateCode=VA&PROJSTATUS=NPC&AWARDTYPE=CGL#
I agree with Jason about needing much to learn but it won’t be at the feet of this guy.
“So Dan, where was this critical and factual analysis of Obama’s economic policy fiasco and inaccurate justifications BEFORE the election?”
Chuck, that’s a question better put to MarkJ. He sent this essay to me Saturday.
Can’t argue with what MarkJ has reported — albeit a bit more on the role of the world economy might well have been in order, IMHO. It is not what is said as much as what is not said that caught my eye.
However, IMHO, the election was far more about social issues than it was about the economy, due to the RW wanting that way — what with all their war on women, Rape…, vote suppression, and other TP social issues.
Re: the last four years — I, too, would far rather have seen more CCC, CWA, NYA, PWA, TVA, WPA type infrastructure building and putting folk to work type programs rather than the seed-money hope-it-grows-on-its-own versions of trickle-down.
JohnW, I realize the poor and weak are the only acceptable populations to “dump on”.
So are you right wingers now pretending that there would have been no “another four years of trillion dollar deficits and many short term patches” if your candidate had won? Seriously? I don’t think ANY of you, Mark J included, understand how economies work or how quickly they can change.
And can you even be delusional enough to think this ill-informed rant would have swayed the election? Wow, you all really are too far gone for words.
Facts and statistics can be manipulated to say most anything, especially the generalities that ignore the economic collapse like those presented here.
Chuck, if you would put the question to me as Dan suggests, my answer would be – Check out my column this coming Wednesday, same time, same channel.
Second, President Obama said throughout the campaign that deficit reduction must include $2 (maybe $3) of spending cuts for every $1 of tax revenue. Seemed reasonable to me and still does.
That might be fine if 0bama didn’t already have a $6 trillion head start. He’s forfeited his right for “revenue”. It now needs to be all cuts.
You know those people who always, whenever leaving a voicemail message, will only say annoyingly: “I have a message, call me” rather than offering any basis for the return call, no matter how general or even banal the message?
Mark J wrote: #71. “Chuck, if you would put the question to me as Dan suggests, my answer would be – Check out my column this coming Wednesday, same time, same channel”
Just out of curiosity MarkJ, why did you even bother to include paragraphs 2 and 3 if your 4th paragraph says But such rants would only rehash old debates. Instead, I will focus on macroeconomic facts? Did you feel so insecure about the “macroeconomic facts” that you needed to begin by hurling invective that you admit isn’t relevant to your argument?
It should be noted that like Obama, President Bush also inherited a recession from his predecessor, Bill Clinton. The Clinton recession was a very nasty one that included bursting of the tech bubble and the NASDAQ stock market crash.
That’s a false equivalency – the size and scale of the two were incomparable.
In Bush’s last year, 2008, it jumped to 3.2%, which is reasonable deficit spending at the depth of recession.
Several problems:
1) That wasn’t Bush’s last budget year. The 2009 budget for October 2008 – September 2009 is Bush’s.
2)I’m pretty sure that the 2008 budget year (October 2007 – September 2008) did not coincide with the depth of the recession. I think that would correspond to the time-frame of the 2009 budget (Bush’s last budget) or the 2010 budget year.
OMB historical tables make clear that the causes of Obama’s runaway deficits are entirely on the spending side.
That’s not true.
1) And did you see that receipts as a % of GDP has been 15% since the 2009 budget year? The last time any single year (let alone a 4 year period) was less was in 1950. There’s a “revenue” problem too!
2) The OMB historical tables show receipts in 2009 and 2010 were $400 billion less than 2008 (and $220 billion less in 2011 than 2008). President Obama’s first budget (2010 budget) actually resulted in $61.5 billion less in actual outlays. Did you see how many times that happened? It happened in ’46 & ’47 after the war, it happened in ’54 & ’55, and it happened in ’65. Then it happened 45 years later under President Obama.
President Obama has proposed fixing both parts. We could have had a balanced deal for debt reduction almost a year and a half ago if the Republicans hadn’t been afraid of the TP fringe and also been willing to increase taxes on the 1%.
So instead of letting the truth of the Republicans “revenue problem” be the story the Republicans turn it around and claim that there is an Obama/Democratic “spending problem”. Alinsky would be proud!
Dave Gresham in #56 said … a whole bunch of truthful things that should be said more. Bravo.
@70 Sandi,
No I am not pretending there would not have been more deficits. North of a trillion dollars per year? Maybe not. This has however become a chronic problem for both parties.
However you want to say we don’t understand how economies work, or how quickly they change? Perhaps I don’t realize how quickly they change, but I do realize that for the past four years we have been stuck with mediocre growth that has now become acceptable and a drop to 7.9% unemployment that is not a accurate representation of the true state of the economy is celebrated.
I do not accept the anemic growth and I realize how fragile the economy still is to this day. Four years later. Bush can be blamed for however long you would like, but that doesn’t make the results under Obama any better.
Am I wrong for expecting better results after four years? The current administration doesn’t have a clue when it comes to improving the economy, if indeed that is their goal.
Yet in Virginia alone over 6 billion dollars of awards have been made creating almost 3,000 jobs this fiscal quarter alone.
Comment by scott whitaker — November 19, 2012 @ 8:01 pm
That’s awesome scott. At only $2 million per job that’s a steal.
You may be right Sandi. We may not understand how the democrats’ fanciful notions of fiscal policy work, but clearly neither you nor Obama understand the simple fact that if your spending hugely outpaces your revenues, you aren’t going to reduce the deficit. You may be in love with the tired old meme that this is Bush’s fault, but that is fast becoming laughable. Even if we grant the notion that Bush started us down the wrong road as far as the economy and spending went, so far Obama’s only answer has been to naively scream “go faster.”
And by the way, with your so-called “mandate”, you and your ilk forfeited the “it’s Bush’s fault” tripe. This is now Obama’s economy. He owns it and everyone knows it. If he flies this thing into the ground, you guys need go no further than the closest mirror to see who’s to blame.
Re: the last four years — I, too, would far rather have seen more CCC, CWA, NYA, PWA, TVA, WPA type infrastructure building and putting folk to work type programs rather than the seed-money hope-it-grows-on-its-own versions of trickle-down.
Is Dave H saying 0bama practiced a trickle-down philosophy? Oh, he meant trickle down government.
Mark, I studied the OMB charts that you linked, and they indeed reflected the numbers you represented. In a vacuum, these numbers are alrming. There is little doubt that spending must be brought under control, but most every reasonable source I reviewed acknowledges that doing so will require a combination of revenue and spending cuts. My only quarrel with your essay involves what I consider an ill-advised war and the economic catastrophe that followed. No doubt that Obama has continued the war in Afghanistan, so he must take responsibility for these costs. But if GWB had not taken us to war, I doubt seriously we would be in such bad financial condition. For me, principally and economically, it has been all about illegitimate war.
A number of folks on this post have claim that the 2009 budget numbers are not Obama’s responsibility, as the incoming president. Actually incoming presidents have enormous impact on the budget of their incoming year.
For example the Obama 2009 stimulus bill was passed in 2/09. Spending was as follows: $241.9 B in fiscal 2009. That’s over 33% of that package.
The Obama fans and administration have been blaming Bush for most of its failures since day one. But to blame the failed 2009 Obama pork feast (aka Obama stimulus package) on Bush takes this to a whole new level of absurdity.
Did all the left wing extremists sleep alright last night? Good god, it’s just a little light on the situation at hand. I’ve never seen such denial, whining and crying. Dan was oddly silent on this thread.
Mattyr:
“Dan was oddly silent on this thread.”
As soon as I read the post, I didn’t expect him to weigh in. Don’t worry, though; there will be a huge counterpoint coming that will have the lefties singing, I’m sure. As for the denial, Sandi practically convulsing in #30 made it all worthwhile.
.
Mattyr @ 6:26 a.m. You read this guy’s “essay” and you do not call it “denial, whining and crying”? OMG since the election I’ve not heard so much whining and crying from the GOP since I had two kids in diapers.Give me a break, this “essay” was as much about denial and twisting the facts as any TP screed I’ve read.
Big Momma @ 9:58 p.m. The almost 3,000 jobs was for the third quarter of 2012 alone. The over $6 billion stimulus figure was for the entire stimulus. The link, you didn’t read the link.
Mark, of course the deficit as a percentage of GDP is going to look bad during a recession. By definition, a recession is what, 4 quarters or more of negative GDP? As GDP is the denominator in the percentage you reference, of course the deficit as a percentage of GDP looked bad – we were in the greatest recession since the Great Depression.
Obama’s stimulus created about 3 million jobs and in fact provided funds for infrastructure investment.
Your article sounds like sour grapes to me. Like Romney saying Obama’s “gifts” won him re-election…baloney!!
Mark, you keep talking about high revenues. In a strict dollar sense, this may be true, but as a percent of economic output our tax revenues are the lowest since about WWII. You do correctly point out that Bush had the two highest tax revenue years, while the economy was on the brink of collapse. The revenues have gone down under Obama, which is good and bad bad depending on your viewpoint. Here is an article that touches on the complexities of the issue, which you tried to explain with a single chart.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/17/60-year-low-tax-revenues-contribute-deficit-growth/?page=all
Mark, you’ve ignited a great discussion with differing viewpoints. I now look forward to your Wednesday column. Since you have used the term “demagoguery” in reference to the President’s campaign, I assume that you will educate us on the demagoguery of the Republicans’ positions.
“Mattyr: “Dan was oddly silent on this thread.”
John Wilburn: “As soon as I read the post, I didn’t expect him to weigh in. Don’t worry, though; there will be a huge counterpoint coming that will have the lefties singing, I’m sure. As for the denial, Sandi practically convulsing in #30 made it all worthwhile.”
This is a busy week for me, folks. I’m kind of pressed for time.
LOL. . .what a treat this thread be. . .the liberals do not like the truth. LOL.
Sorry, I see no need to buy into the RW narrative that we need to dissolve into hysterics over the deficit. It’s one of many issues that need to be addressed in this country and my suspicion is that we’ll survive it.
It’s also helpful to keep in mind that Obama has been saddled with a borderline treasonous opposition nakedly willing to send the country down the toilet to keep him from being reelected. They failed in a humiliating fashion, thank goodness, but to think that their attitude doesn’t play into the national economic climate we’re facing is just stupid.
If you fools think I run that hot and cold you obviously do not know me. I am tired of MarkJ and his freaking superiority complex, he reminds me of Romney.
“Lies, damn lies and statistics” never tell the whole tale! They never have and they never will.
Big Momma, according to these two Republican economists, Bruce Bartlett and several other very knowledgeable (and not left wingers) folks, yes, you are “wrong for expecting better results after four years“. They claim the average recovery is more like 10 years.
This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly
It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
You may not like it but it remains the truth that you all display a staggeringly simplistic view of the Presidency, the economy and the financial crisis.
Dan:
“This is a busy week for me, folks. I’m kind of pressed for time.”
I don’t doubt this, but I also don’t think you wanted to engage in disputing Mark J’s reality either. It’s just one post…. It’ll be all lefty from here out for a long time, I’m sure. In your position, I would likely have kept a low profile on a thread like this too.
#77 Gee, BM, you really blew that one.
“Thanks Suzie, no need to waste precious seconds reading anything you praise.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 19, 2012 @ 10:52 am’
sandi would rather stuff her mouth than learn something..typical libbie, stuff mouth, close ears and eyes..lol..you are proving daily how pathetic your beliefs are
Sandi Saunders:
“I am tired of MarkJ and his freaking superiority complex, he reminds me of Romney.”
More Mark J columns please.
John Wilburn and Sandi Saunders, Seems like a virus is going around to the teapubs… evidently no shift keys at all for Frank and pammala. Whats next, no space bar?
I’m just going to mention something regarding stimulus funding for infrastructure projects…the bulk of the costs wind up going into materials and expenses to construct the finished product. A small portion of the funding goes to employees paid mfor doing the work. That’s why it appears to be such a horrible deal when you simply divide the money by the jobs. But you fail to grasp that at the end of the project, the state has a finished highway, bridge, water treatment facility, etc that it then has functional use of for 50 years or more.
I’ve been involved in several of these projects, and last week I was at the partial opening of a $69.5 million stimulus-funded project in Fairfax County. It’s a huge upgrade and eliminated a major traffic bottleneck in the area, giving the citizens and visitors to the region a road project that will benefit them for decades to come. That’s a good use of Federal stimulus funding…it employs people and churns out something useful at the same time. Without the stimulus, that project would still be on the wish-list for Fairfax and VDOT, languishing on the ever-growing shelf of unfunded and under-funded projects.
Oh the irony…
Justin True:
97.”John Wilburn and Sandi Saunders, Seems like a virus is going around to the teapubs… evidently no shift keys at all for Frank and pammala. Whats next, no space bar?”
ohnoithinkicaughtit!
Excellent point Other John!
Mark J could just as easily be a fishing net..
Just to get the carp out of the pond.
I hope it works…I hope your nets get
a few largemouth too.
Visit the new blog…suckers-r-us.com
Bill#86 wrote: “By definition, a recession is what, 4 quarters or more of negative GDP? As GDP is the denominator in the percentage you reference, of course the deficit as a percentage of GDP looked bad – we were in the greatest recession since the Great Depression.”
Bill:
1) a receision is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, not 4.
2) You justify the bad deficit as a % of GDP due to the fact that the recession was the worst since the Great Depression. But, please note in my essay that the Obama deficits as a % of GDP are far worse than those during the Great Depression. That is a key fact that is referenced in the essay.
Sandi#92 wrote: If you fools think I run that hot and cold you obviously do not know me. I am tired of MarkJ and his freaking superiority complex, he reminds me of Romney.
“Lies, damn lies and statistics” never tell the whole tale! They never have and they never will.
Wow. Loosen up Sandy, baby – as John Riggins once suggested to Chief Justice O’Connor at a black tie dinner.
I can’t believe how fundamentally similar Suzie and Sandi are. They just happen to be rooting for different teams.
Sandi’s ranting against facts is even straight out of the play book of far right religious fanatisism. To hell with reason. Sandi has faith, and she is not going to let facts get in her way.
But jeez, she seems to want to even kill the messenger, which happens to be me. Ouch. This is positively mideval.
Anyway, I certainly wouldn’t want to be one of those “fools” who thinks Sandi runs hot and cold. The thought never crossed my mind.
Dear folks who are still plugged into this thread – I would like to thank Dan for the fantastic graphic on this column. I gave Dan a very vague idea of what I would like, and he more or less created the art-work.
The originality and creativity is great. But the technical aspects he had to put in were very time consuming.
And he put that effort in for a column that is contrary to his political views. The art work is contrary to his political views.
But his efforts were true to his profession as a journalist. And they also reflect his character and his nature. Dan can be respectful to those who have well reasoned opposing views.
It is no coincidence that he has freinds like terps who has very different views.
Dan – Thank you for your time and effort to have built and nursed this blog community along. Thank you for the opportunity to post on this blog. I am fortunate and grateful that our paths crosse so many years ago.
MarkJ:
“I can’t believe how fundamentally similar Suzie and Sandi are. They just happen to be rooting for different teams.”
Exactly. I made that same comparison to Dan, recently. They are both passionate authoritarians, but one is right and the other, left. I suggested he create a new tag: “more authoritarian nonsense” to compliment the “more Right Wing nonsense” and feature Sandi and Suize…perhaps a Sandi vs. Suzie on an issue.
“Sandi’s ranting against facts is even straight out of the play book of far right religious fanatisism. To hell with reason. Sandi has faith, and she is not going to let facts get in her way.”
Reason is too heavy for some folks to carry. Dude, you should try debating gun rights with her!
I’m guessing the furious, flying-off-the-handle reaction by Sandi will be 375 words and drag the underprivileged into it as a prop…..
In 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3……..
John W is always a man of pure logic, unflinching reason and intellectual courage. We’re expected to accept that’s so because he makes it clear that’s his own impression of himself, in myriad ways that reflect such a self-image. Galileo Wilburn!
Z dowodów swoich postów tutaj dotąd, znak J jest również dużo jak Suzie, nie tylko w jego refleksyjnym konserwatyzmu, ale także w sposób, że stara się kontrolować dialog przez cherry picking wąski zakres statystyk i faktów, aby utworzyćfalse narracja, a następnie z namacalny samozadowolenia nazywa się tylko “reporter”, w taki sposób, że zakłada, jego doświadczenie jest tak unikalny i szeroki, że jest to godne dając innym swoimi spostrzeżeniami, ale które następnie często okazują się już aktualny banały , a przede wszystkim przez sposób oboje po prostu zignorować i lotu, gdy istnieje więcej rzeczywistości opiera się reakcje, które skłaniają ich preferowane opinie niż byśmy chcieli, często twierdząc, że nie mają czasu, aby zaangażować. Przypuszczalnie, agenci wydawnicze są zainteresowani pisarzy, którzy będą mieli czas na sali oni wybrany, i może produkować utwory, które wykraczają poza zwykłe echo analiz innych osób, ale powodzenia na nowej ścieżce kariery tak, MJ. Twoja głęboka wiedza na temat Azji, Afryki i Ameryki Południowej polityki może być tylko to, co ludzie w Tiranie zostały spragnioną.
This column by Mark and my introduction of the 45 Goals of Communists that appeared in 1963 in the Congressional Record have delivered a seismic one-two punch to the fantasies heretofore held by some of the blog’s leftwingers. They appear shocked and blindsided by both. I think the ‘aha’ light is coming on.
You can just hear the wheels turning “Gee, maybe I have been duped all these years”. “Maybe I’ve been a pawn”. You can tell this through the relatively meek responses that some soul-searching is going on. And I don’t mean this as a dig or a negative at all. I’m glad of it. Hats off to Mark J. for authoring the piece, and hats off also to Dan for making it a thread.
I don’t care who does the teaching. As long as the learning gets done.
Warren:
“On the evidence of your posts here yet, sign J is also a lot like Suzie”
Не трудом, но рад видеть вас прет, чтобы защитить честь вашего питомца Сэнди
Cool idea on the foreign characters there; how’d you ever think of such a thing, Gunileo?
I did not rant against facts, I ranted against the abuse of cherry picking facts.
I was not responding to you Mark J when I made the comment about hot and cold but rather to the lunatic who thinks he has everyone figured out saying I would be changing my tune after your next offering. I won’t.
I am not “like Suzie” but I most certainly have passion and show it. My passion is not hate, it does not insult minorities, it does not hide in the safety of anonymity and attack anyone, it does not lie.
What is it that makes me an “authoritarian” and John Wilburn not?
Sandi:
“What is it that makes me an “authoritarian” and John Wilburn not?”
She didn’t ask me…
Mark, check out this article:
http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm
Big Momma @ 9:58 p.m. The almost 3,000 jobs was for the third quarter of 2012 alone. The over $6 billion stimulus figure was for the entire stimulus. The link, you didn’t read the link.
Comment by scott whitaker — November 20, 2012 @ 8:31 am
Scott,
Thanks for keeping me honest. I did look at the link and poke through some of the individual awards. However you are correct that I assumed the grants were quarterly as were the jobs.
Does the website identify cumulative jobs associated with the $6.5 billion in awards?
#77 Gee, BM, you really blew that one.
Comment by gdad — November 20, 2012 @ 10:39 am
Gdad,
I was wrong and I have acknowledged that fact to Scott.
The only thing you every blow is hot air and spew others opinions/thoughts.
This Thanksgiving I am thankful of the ability to think for myself,form my own opinions and for not being a puppet for others.
#117 Awww, BM, sorry I offended you.
When I posted, I had not yet read that scott had already pointed out your error. And do you know why, at least in part, you made that error? Because you weren’t thinking for yourself; you were parroting one of the standard right-wing lines about the stimulus. Next thing we know, you’ll be telling us there’s nothing being done with that money — as you drive by one of the interstate projects. Nice puppetry, BM.
The odds are that I will never meet Mark J, but John Wilburn, you may rest assured that the cordiality you experienced at the last gathering will not happen again. There is no lower blow and you knew that when you announced it.
119… what? Odd. Her choice.