This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Bush vs Obama: Facts And Observations
Even as the political posturing over who spent what, how much and when reaches ridiculous levels, courtesy of the St. Louis Fed it is a short 5 minute process to fact check (thanks to the St Louis Fed's Fred) what the average annual federal expenditures, investment and consumption were/are under the regimes of Bush and Obama respectively. It also allows us to see what the average government saving, or rather, borrowing has been under the two administrations. The result, or rather the step function contained therein, may surprise some. Furthermore, we present a few observations from Sean Corrigan's latest later on the proclivity of the Obama administration to spend.... and spend... and spend... which demonstrates that while there certainly may be carryover from the previous administration, the eagerness of the current one to fund a record amount of disposable income via state transfer funding can not be blamed on the Bush by any sane person.
First, a head to head comparison of expenditures, investment and consumption. Net result: a 332% difference when it comes to net average annual savings (or rahter the opposite). Guess in whose favor.
And some follow up observations from Corrigan:
Come on, people! This is NOT the fiat money equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis, for goodness’ sake! We are not going to reduce the world to cinders on the morning of August 2nd if the imperial presidency actually has to hew to the Constitution for a change!
While there would no doubt be occasion for some interim difficulty in speculative markets if the US did not get to borrow even more next week, the Federal government need not actually default on that fateful day: one should not overlook that it does still face the option of simply not writing as many uncovered cheques as has been its all-too profligate wont.
Be aware that the world’s largest economy still luxuriates in a soaring deficit of over 12% of private sector net domestic product (the wealth-creating rump out of which such debt must be serviced and redeemed) despite the ostensible recovery being enjoyed there. This gap comprises no less than forty, potentially inflationary percentage points of a vast, $3.6 trillion level of annual expenditure which is not only bigger than the output of the entire German economy, but which amounts to an initiative– and responsibility- crippling 30%+ of PNDP—a proportion heretofore unprecedented in peacetime.
Post-crisis, the Obama administration currently doles out three times as much as did the hardly parsimonious first Bush one, as recently as 1990, burning through as much in a year as its predecessors in office managed cumulatively to consign to the flames in the entire first three decades of the post-WWII experience.
To imagine that one could not make a meaningful attempt at good housekeeping within such broad confines—without having to confiscate more private means or to penalise more individual endeavour along the way—is, frankly, risible: a fact of which the erudite, considered, and entirely sane Ron Paul (a man we would back over the likes of that elder statesman-manqué, Vince Cable, in almost any field of endeavour) is just as fully cognisant as he is aware that this game of brinkmanship is one of the few methods possessed by a no longer supine legislature to bring an arrogant executive to heel.
The punchline:
Absent the expectations of a renewed policy of monetization from the Fed, US Treasury rates are therefore likely to back up far more from the simple return of a modicum of free market pricing, regardless of their attached rating, than they are from a belated recognition by the zero-credibility agencies that no amount of politically-convenient pretence to the contrary can seem to put cloth on the back of a thoroughly naked emperor.
The fewer free rides the global hegemon enjoys— either in the debt or currency markets (and the two are, naturally interlinked - the more responsible his behaviour might become toward both us and his own oft-afflicted citizenry. This battle could just conceivably bring about exactly such a curtailment of his ‘exorbitant privilege’.
Can this be entirely a bad thing of which to dream?
And the chart the summarizes it, together with the caption:
For the first sustained time since the Great Depression, the stretch since May 09 has seen government handouts exceed contributions. Currently, a net 13.5% of personal disposable income comes directly from the state, the highest fraction in the eighty-year record. The swing from pre-crisis levels is ~$845 billion pa: what must this must mean for the deficit and debt?
As well as some other charts:
»
- 42487 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Washington's picks of winners and losers don't match mine.
It's all of them.
Chaos is called for from time to time.
I just gotta say...Sean Corrigan rocks!
Mother Fucking Republicans ...
In 1995 Republican Morons shut-down the Government in over-reach stupidity,
Then these Idiots impeached Clinton over his private sex life,
Then these Fools took a 2000 budget surplus and strong dollar and TRASHED THE FUCK,
Then these A-holes started the 1st pre-emptive war in our history looking for weapons that never exisited,
Then these Cocks destroyed our national integrity with the 1st Torture in our history,
Then these Dicks atttacked the 1st Black President in our history, from Day 1, as in destroy that NIGGER,
...The best thing for America is CIVIL WAR to send these Pricks Forever 2 Their Political Eternity.
you posted this same comment, verbatim, 4-5 hours earlier.
07-30 19:30: Mother Fucking Republicans 07-30 14:54: Mother Fucking Republicans you have been "registered" on zH for 14 months but have only been "activated for posting" for less than 3 weeks. whether you know it or not, you are a troll, a moronic shithead, and an asswipe. pls get fuking lost. tyvm!not that i haven't done it myself, of course...
hell, the first time i read it, i didn't even mind it that much; what s/he's actually saying isn't nearly as outrageous as the way s/he's saying it.
but let's try a new post now & then, too, ok?
And, you know, I gave him the correct URL for this comment/rant in that post. But maybe he doesn't know what a URL is?
Well Ken, here's where need to go: (the French would simple say: Allez en fer)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Just type it in that little box thingy at the top of your browser. Its not that hard, unlike thinking-obviously not your strong suit. If you acquire another neuron to make a synaptic connection let us know in a future comment. And, in the meantime remember, the bell shaped IQ curve wouldn't be symmetrical without people like you.
The stupid is strong in Ken
Bush Derangment Syndrome
Republi Ken
Have you read the article yet retard? Bush was diabolial, Obumma is even worse (financial mis-management, suicide socialist spending and just as many, if not more, murderous wars) ...take your pills, you're definately dysfunctional without them
Many people here have swallowed the blue pill. Many. CAUSE AND EFFECT, BITCHEZ!
Bush tax cuts cost $2.5 trillion - Obama extended them. Depriving the Nation of needed money.
That Pres. Bush took projected budget savings resulting from Clinton and turned them into trillions in deficits.
The Great Republican Recession is a direct response to fiscal mismanagement over 30-40 years, in particular - Republican mismanagement. Reaganomics. Tax-cuts produce jobs. Etc.
The greatest financial meltdowns occurred on Bush's watch. Enron. The Great Republican Recession, ongoing.
That President Bush signed TARP. Continued by Obama.
That the greatest regulatory failures occurred under Bush. And continue under Obama.
That Obama continues, and expands, many Bush initiatives.
That The Great Republican Recession has reduced government revenue and contributes directly to the deficit.
That the Bush-Obama tax cuts contribute directly to the deficit.
That unfunded wars started by Bush (Iraq - in which 4000 Americans lost their lives, murdered by Bush's lies)contribute to the deficit. Continued and expanded by Pres. Obama.
In 2008 for FY2009, the first trillion-dollar budget deficit was signed by... President George W. Bush.
That unfunded Medicare Part D, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bush, increases the deficit. Mandated. Pres. Bush's White House intentionally hid the costs, like the mythical Iraqi oil paying for the Iraq War.
The costs of both wars, left unfinished by Pres. Bush, will total more than $4 trillion, both now and future outlays (medical care for wounded veterans, re-equipping the military, etc.) and, thus, will continue to add to deficits.
That, in the last two years of Pres. Bush's Presidency and catastrophic ineptitude, a Democrat-controlled Congress aided and abetted. Whereas, in the first six years of his Presidency, Republicans destroyed what little fiscal soundness was left of America. And 'soundness' is used very f*cking loosely.
That Deficits add to the Nation's debt.
Pres. Obama is a moderate Republican. That is determined by his actions. Unless you believe politician with a (D) or (R) after their name. Consider ACA, similar to previously Republican-supported proposals. That drive millions of Americans into the arms of the same failed health care corporations. That money Americans receive in subsidies to purchase health care will go directly to health care corporations - a subsidy from the government by taxpayer money. That Pres. Obama continues the bank bailouts. That corporate America has increased their profits under Obama - just not the little guys, the untermensch; who get pissed off that they are not getting some of the pie.
Furthermore:
Clinton did some things also. Repeal Glass-Stegall. NAFTA. And some other things.
G.H.W. Bush before him almost doubled Reagan's debt.
Carter had poor- to no- leadership during his Presidency.
Ford, well, he was Ford. And Nixon took us off the Gold Standard.
All-in-all, Democrats and Republicans led to this. With Republicans shouldering almost $10 trillion out of $14 trillion in blame (by debt numbers) for it. Historically, debt is greater under Republicans than Democrats - FACT.
How do "tax cuts" cost anything? none of that money belongs to the government. they didn't earn it. Technically were responsible for creating it, but it is worthless script without someone creating underlaying assets/wealth/productivety that gives it value. They are just taking it, at ever increasing levels, to pay for projects with ever decreasing returns.
If they were a business, it would be way past time to bail on them.
As for Repugs being responsible, yes Virginia, the GOP and DNC are both owned and operated for the benefit of the same group of TPTB. The sooner the masses realize that team red/team blue is a scam being run on them, the greater the chances of fixing this before it's too late.
You are side-stepping the mathematics of the problem by addressing your subjective beliefs regarding the (im)morality of taxes. The cause for the rising debt has far more to do with lowered revenues than increased spending. Whether we want to blame Bush solely or also blame Obama for keeping them going, it's this lowered revenue that's to blame for the rising debt.
Whether or not this money 'belongs' to those who we've elected to represent us is the wrong question. That money is spent back into the economy which is why the economy works. The reason we are able to make money in the first place is because there exists a certain infrastructure and codified and enforced agreements which allow us to have a functioning system. Without it, our economy would resemble a 3rd world country where the vast majority of resources are controlled by a few syndicates and everyone else dwindles in poverty. Of course, trickle-down Golden shower economics has brought us a step closer to this. Your implied anrcho-capitalism would lead us further toward such a system.
So aside from the labels & marketing, no matter who you vote for, you get the same FUBAR?
Almost makes you think the real decisions are made elsewhere & the voting booth is only theater. Nah, that would be impossible.
FUBAR, it's what's for dinner.
FUBAR, it's got what plants crave.
Choose one. Now go vote, simpleton.
Yes, green for you!
It amazes me to no end how virulent the Syndrome continues to be so long after Bush has been gone.
Maybe it's a father-figure thing...
The article was fun to read... and fantasize about, but one cannot simply draw a line at the inauguration dates. Trajectories, slopes, and all that, are all important in determining the propensity for debt accumulation. The nearly vertical direction of the debt/deficit the last day Bush left office, and the day Obama was sworn in, is not easily changed. I'll agree that by now it should be making a more gently downward trend line at least, but there are too many Keynesians surrounding the President (of his own doing) that make any improvement impossible.
@ Republi-Ken,
I guess the above figures did not impress you. Just wait another year, the numbers that Obama adn Ds are going to spend (and further add to our debt burden) will likely take even YOUR breath away.
Unless you are one of the priveledged ones (.gov worker, D lobbyist, D Party honcho). Then I hope you feel BAD when our country goes into the furnace.
"Oh, and it's all George Bush's fault." Cocktail party talk over at R-Ken's Mahattan dinner parties...
Bring that shit on...the left's been calling for revolution for years it is about time that they got on with it. The most incompetent fucks in the world will make a revolution against the most competent folks in the world...America's Silent majority. Fun fun fun till the daddy takes the t-bird away. You fucks probably don't realize just how fucking pissed off we are about the left. Start a revolution and fuck with us and you will find out.
Asshole
We are better armed than the Left is too.
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Progressive/Socialist doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed. If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a Progressive/Socialist is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A
Progressive/Socialist non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
Good observation! Its a difference in basic psychology. There are many people in this world who possess an inate compulsion to exert control over the people around them. The group that does not possess this compulsion, are often baffled by the behavior of those who do.
>> .the left's been calling for revolution for years
Unfortunately, I think you morons actually believe the crap. What left are you talking about? In this country, there is right, and extreme right, no left. Please point out the leftist goups out there.
Who the fuck are the gun fanatics? Hard to have a revolution without guns. Left wing militias? I don't think so.
Stop and think for yourselves for a change. Left, what a dumb fuck.
Oh good now we get to watch a leftist argue about who is more pure...fuck off. Been watchin that show for the last 40 years and it is bullshit. "There is no left"...yea I know and communism has never been tried and it is a misunderstood system and my goodness if we could only make it more fucking pure.
Graybeard, you say there's "no left" but isn't America drowning in toxic debt from suicide socialist spending on healthcare, social security, State education, State subsidised transport etc? ...how about the toxic bankrupt scandal the US Govts "social housing" subsides/policies caused in the US property market?
Have you ever looked in your blinkered ideological life what the US Govt pisses away every year on socialist spending programs? Are you not familiar with reality?
isn't California, NY, Detroit and Chicago rotting and utterly bankrupt following every dumb socialist policy ever there was? No matter how much of other peoples money you rob (tax) and pour into these shitholes they keep being shitholes decade after decade. Voting 'Democrat' just hasn't delivered the socialist wonderland has it? Sorry reality disappoints year after year, State after State, but maybe you should start dealing with it
That old ruse of transfering wealth (tax robbery) from productive peple to unproductive Govt parasites for redistribution has failed in every US State it's practised. Funny but it's failed in every country in history it's practised too. Don't you get a reality news channel in ZombieWorld?
100 years of socialist ideological garbage has been 100 years of miserable bankrupt failure (see USSR, China, North Korea, Europe, America). Before you go back into your idealogical vacuum check the reality of socialist spending in those crumbling countries
>>> isn't America drowning in toxic debt from suicide socialist spending on healthcare,
Partly true. We're drowning in health care costs, but that is not because of governement spending providing health care to citizens. The problem is runaway pro corporate policies that allow both the health care industry and insurance companies a free hand at profiteering off the backs of the working man. We have by far the highest health care costs in the world but nohwere near the best care. And the average schlep who would benefit from socialist type of health care system is pretty much kicked to the curb when it comes to health needs.
.>> social security,
Help me out here, how much of the deficit is social security spending?
>> State education,
No doubt a bloated system, but the bloat is not due to socialist polices.
>> State subsidised transport etc?
This I have to hear. What state subsidized transport? Are you talking about the pretty much non-existent public transportation?
>> ...how about the toxic bankrupt scandal the US Govts "social housing" subsides/policies caused in the US property market?
Follow the money. Who benefited from the property situation? Not the public. It was corporate profiteering all the way. Big banks, big insurance, developers, etc.
The problem in this country is corporate fascism, not socialism.
They won't get it greybeard.They see government spending and call it socialism because their talking heads told them that's what it is. They don't see the corporate lobbyists behind all of it because they don't want to see it.
You guys didn't even mention the right's most sacred spending: the military. How much has that unproductive waste drained from our country?
Well dumbfuck, what the hell are they spending $3.8 trillion a year on if there is no socialism? What is social security, medicare, medicaid, HUD, section 8?
You forget to mention that 0bozo hasn't ended the wars and started a new one. You forget to mention clinton's bombing of Serbia and Somalia. You forgot to mention it was the dimwitcrats that got us into Vietnam and Korea. You dimwits hate the military, but you don't mind sending them into war.
Doesn't Obozo's unwillingness to end the wars show he's owned by the military industry? Just like Bush?, Just like Clinton, Bush I and Reagan?
Don't include me in the "you don't mind sending them to war" crew. I'm neither. Korea was beforei was born, Vietnam was before the fadscists took over during Regan. Since then they have ruled it all.
The main point being, there's no true left in this country. But hey, keep building that hate and anger toward your strawman. It's a really nice one you've built.
No it's you who don't get it. You're falling victim to the divide and conquer ploy. It is both corporate fascism and government. ALL power corrupts. The founders tried to shackle government as best they could. And it used to be that it took and act of legislature to charter a corporation, and corporations were strictly monitored to insure that that complied with the purposes expressed in their charters. The charter had to be for the greater public good.
TPTB want to pit the peasants against one another.
No, I do get it. What I'm saying is the so-called "LEFT" as imagined, hated and feared by all of the self-style "conservatives" is nearly a complete myth. This country has few to no actual socialists of the type so many here hate so much. If we do have them, they are politically impotent and just serve as lame examples for the rabid idiots to hate.
If the socialists have so much power, please show me any legislation passed since Reagan that gives "the people" money and power while not giving more money and power to the corporations.that will administer the programs and likely wrote the legislation. Everything I've seen so far shows that wealth has been moving to the top the past several decades. How is this socialism? Please fill in this dumbass as to how this is so since I'm so stupid.
Yes, all of this is part of the divide and conquer strategy you mention in that the owners take the largest share, then have the rest of us fighting over the crumbs, making sure to have some inept social programs for the lesser minds to focus their hate towards. That is what I was trying to explain, but apparently I missed the mark. I brought up the wars since the military consumes about 50% of the budget, yet it received few mentions while SS, and all the usual suspects get all of the attention. Seems to me the elephant in the room consuming 50% of the resources is something to consider, but as soon as you mention it some folks go apeshit.
You're missing it.
The leftists in America tend to be of the fascist variety. The left talks about the honesty of poverty, the beauty of a starving artist, or the need of more sacrifice, while attending their post opening cocktail party and discussing how to route the gov grants through a network of non-profit front companies, then subcontracting the work to their for-profit corporation.
As long as the socialist money grabbing and the corporate money grabbing doesn't cross paths, neither side interferes with each other. Often, they work together. Nothing spells guaranteed cash flow like administering government progams. But as this pie is disappearing at a faster and faster rate, expect more push back from each group.
Actually, BOTH are the problem.
Corporate fascism is pretty plain. No realistic environmental enforcement (Oh, we have "environmentalism" - as long as it benefits the corporations),, NAFTA (signed by Clinton), CAFTA (signed by Shrub), MFN for China (Clinton) South Korea (Obama), the positive tax incentives to send jobs offshore, etc.
OTOH, you have the "education" system which is STRONGLY socialist/collectivist. "Thinking right thoughts" is more important than learning the facts and skills required to function in a modern workplace. With a kid in school, I have seen this up close and personal. By making the government the arbiter of what is and what is not acceptable in society, we have, in essence, created a Pavlovian social machine. "I am a victim, so GIMME!" I am still amazed by the vegetarian telling me, and I quote, "Meat eaters are the problem, they are the fascists." And she meant it, all the while trying to roll over ne verbally - it was like listening to a machine gun of words.And as for the environmentalists, check this one out:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/26/we-had-to-nuke-the-planet-to-save-...
As a people, we have been told by both the Left and the Right everything we used to like is bad, whether it is meat, sun, or a good job. Ultimately, this means we are being told WE are bad.
Our society has fractured. The Left wanted it, and the Right wanted it. The fight now is between the "thought leaders" of the competing sides, which the people will lose.
>> fuck off.
Ok, so there are no "leftist" groups pushing for revolution. Thank you.
fuck your mother, graycunt
which right-wing groups are calling for violent revolution? name some
Here's a start since typing a few search words into a search engine seems a bit difficult for you (and I'll bet you complain about all those lazy fuckers who want nothing but a handout):
http://www.examiner.com/special-interests-in-washington-dc/chuck-norris-...
>> fuck your mother, graycunt
Ah, the true mark of a man without an argument.
>> which right-wing groups are calling for violent revolution?
And then the old tried and true straw man. There was a claim made that "left wing" groups have been wanting a revoloution for a long time. I refuted that claim. I never said anything about right wing groups wanting violent revolution. Can you please try and follow a simple thread?
bill ayers? van jones? cloward-piven? saul alinsky?
the left adjusted tactics and rhetoric, not the underlying goals. now instead of the force of arms, they rely on the force of law.
Anything short of Karl Marx is considered extremist right-wing to you moonbat fuckers
Thanks for getting everyone's attention Ken. A bit harsh... but you didn't mention Tea Bagger once, and no dead-beat dad Joe Walsh advising the country on sound fiscal policy... "I won't put one more dollar of debt on the backs of my children," 'cause I already owe them over $100K in child support... I'll stop there (TP'ers have problems with multi-para text).
Back to the facts in this latest ZH hit piece... a bit like calling out those overpaid firefighters for using all that water to put out the fire of the century... dontcha think? Oh, and don't worry about the civil war... 2012 is coming on fast (how about a bill to claw back all TP Congress members pension benefits if they can't last more than one term), then it's back to teaching poor kids to read using public social support funding (yes that's what Joe Walsh did before he discovered the TP cash cow for those willing to drink the right wing "we have a spending not a tax problem" koolaide)!
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Perjury is against the law. If you support lying under oath you do not respect the law.
Facists love minds such as yours.
"Then these Idiots impeached Clinton over his private sex life."
Well, yeah. That and lying to a grand jury under oath and obstruction of justice.
I have been just reading through your site it is very well crafted, I am looking around on the net searching for the best way to start this blog thing and your website happens to be extremely professional.
Ford Fiesta / Ford Focus / Honda Civic - Audi A4 . bmw uk
Time to Abolish Congress and Replace it with Internet Voting...
http://seenoevilspeaknoevilhearnoevil.blogspot.com/2011/07/time-to-aboli...
OT: Vid...Hilarious 2 Min...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Uju3tYS2s
Whoever junked you about direct democracy is an idiot. Tyranny of the majority..bla bla bla
Socrates and Aristotle would turn over in their graves.
"representative democracy"...what a con job
well i junked you both for not thinking anything through (ie. not thinking)
we can represent ourselves thanks, no centralised 'system' to ratchet the wlll/opinions/policies of a majority over anybody. The majroity are usually behind the curve, conservative and block change. You might like to live according to a dumbed down average, i don't
Free Society and Free Markets ...both self-regulating, no Govt or internet voting system required... it works for nature, it's worked for humans for 2million years... we are individuals not a collective, with respect to the mediun average it can go fuk itself
I have to go with Zero Govt on this one. In addition to what he writes, please do not think that there would be no manipulation of counting votes on the Internet.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the guards?)
"Thre is nothing new under the sun." -- Ecclesiastes
"Facts don't do what you want them to" - Talking Heads
Too true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOOhfS1hZVo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY3tHQJegOM&feature=related
Article is way beyond misleading.
Why no row for tax revenues? Because that would show that taxes collected are less under Obama, due to the economic ruin caused by Bush, and these lowered revenues are part of the reason for the increased deficit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_...
Much of the current administrations disbursements were not authorized by the current administration. It did not start the wars, did not ruin the economy and make the bailouts necessary. Did not make the baby boomers come of age now.
A comparison of actual spending policy changes shows Bush at 4x Obama. The reason you don't remember the big 'handout' legislation passing is because it didn't. Obama is the fall guy, sucker, and throw-in play par excellence. Never had a chance when shallow and duplicitous analysis like that found in this article can sway Americans and even ZH'ers
http://www.alan.com/2011/07/29/obama-vs-bush-on-the-deficit-in-one-simpl...
So true.
It's sort of like comparing the height of a guy before and after he lost his legs and not taking into account whatever it was that cost him his legs.
Bush took over with a near-balanced budget, no wars, and a much healthier economy.
Obama took over in the midst of a disaster. yes, I blame Obama for not doing more to fix the problem, but it is insane to blame him FOR the problem.
Ummm, there was not really a healthy economy when Bush took over. The economy was already in the midst of the tech stock implosion. Nothing was going to stop that. Plus, Wall Street had already been given the ultimate gift of the repeal of Glass-Steagall under Clinton. The course was set even before Bush got in.
I won't say anything about September 11th because that is a topic fraught with disagreement.
agree, this started before Bush became Prez...
look at all of obama's accomplishments...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/?page=1
it amazes me how many people are STILL giving O a pass...
O is cOmplicit...As bad as W in this ex-Dem's mind.
O could have saved the country from depression imo...instead he came in all Crony binezz brutha as usual suspects n shit...
"The country is being raped, the cop comes in, shoves the bad guy off, and resumes raping the victim"
THAT'S Obama.
Bottom line: they both suck, Obama looks mostly like Bush's 3rd term. God save us from Republicans and Democrats.
I agree with the sentiment, but you must be under 40. obummer looks exactly like jimmy carter's second term.
Obama inherited 2 legacy wars. And an economy in tatters. Without exoribant federal expenditures to make up for the lack of business invesments, the economy would have gone into a full blown depression.
So the article is comparing events during two different economic conditions: moderate growth vs recession. It's an unfair, and uncharitable comparison
Without exoribant federal expenditures to make up for the lack of business invesments, the economy would have gone into a full blown depression.
Government interference extends depressions, it doesn't cure them. Compare 1921 to the Great Depression.
Obama inherited 2 legacy wars.
The US is currently engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somolia. The Commander-In-Chief is a man named Barack Obama. George W. Bush is a private citizen.
Don't go messing up this thread with all of your FACTS.
Agreed - it does not fucking matter who inherited what.... even hypothetically assuming that O inherited hell, while bush started off with heaven, the question open remains, why is it that O is only making it worse, not better? O did almost nothing to fix the state of things, only make it worse.... isn't in the naive world of representative democracy, a president supposed to address problems, rather than willfully making them worse?
Bottom line: In the current type of "governance", any politician that has a chance of being elected, will not act for the benefit of the nation. They're all assholes.... all the article and commenters are debating, is who is the bigger asshole... well, i don't fucking care, just shoot 'em all.
It does not matter what kind of junk you inherited. It is all about what you do with it. Don't history much, do you? http://oregoncatalyst.com/2112-The-Other-Great-Depression.html
Or another more Fed-centric take....http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-depression-youve-never-hear...
Rachael, is that you?
Stop doing keg stands and regurging MSM. It's sloppy and embarassing.
Here, study: http://academy.mises.org/
What? ...ummm, oh, yeah.
Lovely avatars...
I see "Operation infect Zero Hedge with lefty propaganda" is in full swing. Our "Federal Expenditures" at work. Listen up, because I'm going to say this once. You don't inherit something you bust your ass to get .. you earn it. Big difference. He didn't inherit jack, fucking, shit. He wanted to own the legacy left to him.. well... "[He] Won".
Obama sucks and is owned by the Global Bank Cartel. Of course this has been true of every President at least since first-term Reagan. Anyone who defends any of the Washington political bums is new to ZH, or slow.
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby... hate to break it to you but that TP hero was in reality the Grandfather of capitulation to the Elite Banking Cartel, and is much more responsible for the current situation than President Obama. He made a pact with the Devil to get elected president... and the right has worshipped him ever since... hmmmmm!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcL6Xc_eMM
... anyone know where the spellcheck went... budget cuts?
+1 since the website won't let me vote a +1 on your counter. Maybe it's the usual Reagan dsciples who won't let anything negative be said about him, one of the worst presidents in history.
Kinda like how you have you 0bots have your heads shoved so far up 0bama's ass that you can French kiss him. You retards were drooling over Jimmy Peanut Brain Carter too.
Try this one;
Obama should have quit the second he heard the country was bankrupt, then he wouldn't have been stuck with this legacy.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda, but now he owns it.
Not his fault, but he owns it.
Again, it's what you get when you campaign to own it and get elected to its ownership. He is part of the "fault"; maybe not the originator.. but he is definitely part of it.
That and the fact that he voted for the bailouts, continued the bailouts, and continued the wars and started another one. Other than that, nothing is his fault. He was just sitting at home community organizing and the Secret Service swooped in and snatched him and his family up. The next thing he knew, he was sitting in the Oval Office.
> I see "Operation infect Zero Hedge with lefty propaganda" is in full swing.
Leftist propaganda would declare that tax revenue data in the chart was omitted because it shows that drastically lower taxes have been collected since Obama took over, contributing significantly to the increased deficit.
And the kinds of people swayed by duplicitous nonsense such as the original article might actually have a hard time realizing that they have not been wrong all this time about Obama.
I love this fucking argument.. it makes me drip. "lower taxes contributing to increased deficit". I've tried to wrap my head around this one, but my 8 year old told me that if I spend more than I make it was my stupid choice to do so and if I make less next year without updating my bugets and continue to over spend, then I'm double plus stupid. The ONLY thing that "contributes" to a deficit is CHOICE. A reduction in revenue means you make a choice between decreasing your spending or ignorantly and wantonly spending more than you are receiving.
..oh.. did your head explode? I'm sorry..
That's the start of an almost good idea there.
Instead of Congress passing laws which dictate what the government does with revenues, every single dollar of taxes and fees collected could just be given to the President, or the Treasury Secretary, or whoever, and he would then simply decide who to pay that day, week, or month. So if there were a natural disaster or something, he could just skip paying debt interest and pay per diem to emergency responders. Or maybe just dock pay for all the Federal prison guards for a few months. Skip military pensions or Medicare checks or whatever.
It's so simple you wouldn't even need your 8 year old to explain it to you.
It always seemed pretty fucking simple to me. Don't spend more than you make. Save for the times you need shell out some extra cash for those things that you don't expect. Unfortunately for you, everything you've described has some predictability. To make it even juicer... how about not debasing the value of our currency making it that much easier to adjust. Ah, the one thing about gov't is its' predictiability.
Seems to me that a lot of our problems have stemmed from the absolute catasrophe that is our dollar and the gov't painted us into a corner. It would be nice to not have to have 2 working parents so one of us could raise the children. I remember those days.. we weren't rich, but we weren't poor and there was always a parent around as it should be.
So please spare me your poke-n-jab bullshit and pull the wool back over your eyes, because for all the complexities you might THINK exist in this system, it was only engineered that way to make people like you think it needed to be that way.. oh those crafty little fuckers, eh?
You're making some unwarranted inferences about my beliefs just because I'm attacking you.
I'm attacking you because your simplistic conception about how things should be is as sophisticated as your 8 year old kid's, not because I'm in favor of deficit spending.
We can all play king of the world. I say eliminate the US government.
People have a tendency to make things more complex than they need to be in some weird effort to tip the scales in their favor. That's just what we do. So I will always continue to believe that economics/finance etc. are rather simple concepts made extraordinarily complex by people (bankers) who want to tip the scales in their favor by making the system so complex that the average joe can't catch up unless he dedicates an enormous amount of time digging through the twists and turns.
I evidence this by the system we have today which I could not follow were it not for this site and the people who reply. I have no need for the extraordinariliy complex. My job as a software developer is to make complex things really simple and as a result of spending a majority of my waking moments thinking about these logic pathways, it has become abundantly clear that my supposition is very likely.
I have no wish to play king of the world, I have no wish to eliminate the US Government. I simply wish to pull the web of confusion off of the system because it really is, or rather, it really CAN be more simple than it is today. You see, not only do systems get complex as a means to an end, but also to cover lies over lies over lies; and so I reference things like this (Marco Rubio tells it like it is)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_68GjR6V6zI to further my point. We are being lied to consistently in an attemp to completely fuck the average American.
Good post. I agree with both the overall gist and the premises.
I'm a computer guy by trade, but there's nothing "natural" about software systems. I say the far more useful analogy for government comes from biology. Extremely complex life-forms evolved because tiny things got together and clawed and fought and killed in order to benefit their own survival.
That's government.
The "top-down" approach envisioned by folks who design schema isn't how history is written, because you'll never get the screaming teemers to agree with your theoretical model.
Ooh, I wasn't trying to make an anology between software and the government. I was more or less trying to say that as a software developer it has enabled me to be able to see systems, that are seemingly complex when you just look at the biz logic, and then break them down into rediculously simple units often times with the ability to throw away certain branches of logic because they are either reduntant or just plain stupid.
I would, however, say that the government follows a code smell that we term "Abstraction for the sake of Abstraction", only for gov't it's "Abstraction for the sake of obfuscation".
My point is that "government" by nature evolves into an increasingly complex and abstract system because of the interactions of the moving parts. You want simplicity, but the structure of the universe will not bend to your wishes.
You look at a 200-year old government and see how fucked up it is and pine for what it used to be, but you can't amputate the pieces you don't like to get "back" there, just like you can't remove a person's lungs to cure them of cancer.
You have to kill the thing or let it die.
It's natural.
Typical leftist. Calling for a dictatorship and trashing of the USConstitution now that their Messiah is in power. They can't help themselves. I wonder if blunderdummy and the rest of the lefties felt the same way when Bush was president.
I'm a leftist?
OK. What's a leftist?
You're confusing tax rates, which have not changed, with tax revenue dollars, which have declined because the economy is in shitsville, hence fewer dollars collected even though rates are the same. So yes, the math is simple.
No. I'm not confusing anything. My error in the post you replied to was rectified in a following post I made declaring REVENUE. But thank's for proving my point. The economy IS in shitsville and we are collecting less.. which makes it pretty-much, blindingly obvious that we need to balance the budget which hasn't been done in 2 years (illegally I might add). The math is simple.. I make 100 widgets one year, I can spend 100 widgets. If I make 80 the next year, I can't spend 100 widgets unless I saved 20 widgets from the year before. Reduce spending in accordance with your revenue. This is not rocket science.
And 3 years later he has 4 wars and the economy is worse off than when he started.
Now if that stupid "war is good for the economy" meme would only die.
The new war is peace.
Inherited two wars and refused to end them then started a third war
An economy in tatters which he made worse
Federal revenues decreased by $300 billion but spending went up by $1.2 trillion. A responsible president would not have increased spending when revenues are down
If 0bama didn't play 500 rounds of golf, the economy would have gone into a full blown depression. I sure am glad he's playing so much golf.
Exactly! I have no idea why people think Clinton was such a good president.
He started wars in Somalia and Serbia without congressional approval as well.
The only reason there was a 'surplus' those years is because of capital gains taxes from the overinflated stock market.
They are trying to do the same now, pump up the damn stock market as much as possible so they can tax the shit out of this fake 'wealth'.
Income tax bracket creep through double digit inflation (as we are experiencing now) will result in higher NOMINAL tax receipts, but everyone's true wealth will be much smaller due to debasement of the US $.
The problems go beyond Clinton, beyond Reagan and beyond Nixon even, it's almost impossible to know when it started, since the slippery slope took so long, each president and Congress in at least the last 100 years has contributed to our current fiscal and monetary mess.
The current administration is just accelerating the problems more, I guess they have no choice, the last 100 years set the (debt) ball in motion, there is nothing the current administration can do, except step out the ball's way and let it fall off a cliff. If not through 'notional' default, then through currency debasement.
There was no surplus under Clinton, just bullshit accounting tricks.
Here is a decent article explaining it:
http://quaap.com/D/clinton-surplus-factcheck
Don't ever tell a democrat this, they will cry and flail and tell you how wrong you are.
thanks for that link, brother. If you ever want to see a lefty head explode.. this is the way to do it.
I was at a conference where Joe Scarborough was the keynote speaker. That fucking jerkoff must have mentioned that "surplus" at least 10 times. Vomit inducing bullshit.
no Socialist in history has ever made a surplus, they've just inherited a booming economy ..it's only a matter of time before their suicide spending is exposed left long enough in office ...all Socialist scum suck. Period
Gave you the green for speaking truth to Socialism. And to balance whoever junked a good comment.
Was it not some time in the '50s that was the last time we paid any principle down on the debt? (can't find the link, but it's been posted here) Clinton didn't - that "surplus" was the usual projection, based on the usual utter BS the government spins for itself. It never materialized at any rate.
Every president inherits crap from the last one, and that alone usually eats the first 4 years in office. We don't have knowedge that I know of if that means the next guy is usually being set up by the last one, it could be.
Seems like to find an honest president you have to go back to about Eisenhower, who I believe, was a bit rare even then when there were more people with morals.
Not Eisenhower -- his record with the German POWs speaks for itself.
You need to go back to Grover Cleveland to get an honest president.
Eisenhower basically committed genocide against the Germans. I believe nearly 3 million Germans starved to death under his watch. It wasn't different from how the Soviets and Germans treated each other.
"it's almost impossible to know when it started, "
Try 1913..
1. Beginning of Woodrow F’ing Wilsons Presidency
2. Federal Reserve Act (Established Federal Reserve Bank as the nation’s bloodsucker)
3. 16th Amendment (established the F’ng Income Tax)
4. 17th Amendment (ended state’s control of Senate and turned it into a special interest circus)
5. The start of genuine socialism in America and the beginning of the (to date) 95% devaluation of the US dollar
And lets not forget that Wilson campaigned as the candidate who would keep America at peace and out of (the latest) bloody, stupid, banking and armaments industry instigated, European war. After being elected he promptly fired up the propaganda machine and led a generation of young American men out of the workshops, off of the farms, and into the insane killing fields where they died and were maimed in their thousands. Of course he also presided at Versailles where the stage was set for the next generations' conflict. Every American who wonders what the fuck is going on can start with studying 1913/1914 and Woodrow Douchenozzle Wilson. O' Bummer is just the latest incarnation of the fine Wilsonian tradition of Clueless, Vapid, DANGEROUS, Douchenozzlery.
I think someone asked about the Tax.
What will stop the 1% rate from becoming 10%?
Reference Fabianism
Yes, this bad economy has been a long time coming. They've been stimulating the economy since the recession before the NASDAQ bubble. Plus, both dems and reps have done things to contribute to the bad. Reagan started the trickle down crap. Clinton started the free trade parade. Bush & Obama started wars. It's the system, not right vs. left.
Agreed. He is a disaster, but it would be simply dishonest to blame him for all the uncontrollable spending going on.
Yeah, there are at least 535 other jerks to add to the list!
Of course he shouldn't get all of the blame, but some 0bots think he deserves none of the blame despite having been president for 2 1/2 years and having congress on his side for 2 of those years. If he has absolutely no control over anything, why did they bother voting for "hope & change"?
Revisionist History ahoy!
One of the reasons they came close to balancing the budget, was because they cut the average maturity of treasuries. Hey, what's a little added risk amongst friends.
It did not start the wars...
So Obama has happily carried on and expanded US military adventures and that's Bush's fault?
you DARE question the nobel peace prize winner?
He's 'protecting the innocents' in Libya... you know.. because they love our freedom or something.
When a Humanitarian Peace Bomb is dropped by a Nobel Laureate it doesn't actually turn the village children into piles of smoking meat. No, no. It bursts in a beautiful shower of scented flower petals and touchy-feely rhetoric.
<-- I CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH!
<-- HEAD IN ASS IS HOW I LIKE IT!
Obama pulled the trigger to bailout the banks.
Obama allowed the bankers to give themselves billions in bonuses.
Obama did nothing to regulate the markets
Obama did nothing to create jobs.
Obama INCREASED millitairy spending
Obama did not pull back from Afghanistan
Obama did not pull back from Irak
Obama did not close down guantanamo
Obama did not cut the Bush tax
Obama did not create "transparency
Obama did nothing for the environnement
Obama did not end Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas
Obama did not reduce the big government
Obama made dozens of promises. Can you tell me on which he delivered? Don't blame others for his faillures. What did he do? Not what did others. Bush sucked, oké.
Was Obama a good president? I am not asking if Obama was better than Bush. But did he deliver what people expected from a president?
He has not delivered for the hope & change crowd, in fact, he has ridiculously under achieved for the folks who bought the close-gitmo, end-the-wars, prosecute-W crowd.
I, on the other hand, think that if he manages to avoid the destruction of civilization he is a success. I know, pretty low expectations, but thats where we are...
Amen, brutha hand flapper....
That Sudden Debt list was right on. Who can remember when Bush got re-elected in 2004 and he said he had political capital and was going to use it.
The amount of political capital Obama had would have dwarfed any that Bush ever even dreamt of. Obama had a clear mandate to change shit for the better, and both houses of Congress on his side, and he didn't do one fucking positive thing. Instead he drooled on Jamie Dimon's balls, telling us all how great a banker Jamie is.
Obama is an epic failure, no matter how you look at it.
The top of my list is NO INVESTIGATION, INDICTMENT, OR PROSECUTION whatsoever of the fraud that led to the financial crisis.
This is 100% in the control of the executive branch.
This kind of action by his Attorney General would have been readily accepted by his political base, and by law-and-order folks across the aisle.
Inexcusable.
No, it was Bush that pulled the trigger to bail out the banks.
NO! It was Obama who constantly called on Bush on television speeches to start these bailouts as fast as possible.
He fooled the country in believing this was needed so much and got the public oppinion with him. Bush cracked under the pressure in the last month of his term.
Obama didn't had a plan. Obama just wanted to solve problems by throwing good money to bad problems.
Obama fooled everybody.
AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT BUSH. IT'S WHAT DID OBAMA DO! NOTHING! THE MAN IS A FAILLURE!
HE DESTROYED AMERICA AND ROBBED IT BLIND FOR HIS BUDDIES!
Or perhaps you still believe you'll get a invitation to his countryhouse and coctail parties with his banker friends?
He'll talk to you! Sure! If you pay him a million dollar per hour.
Yep, I think both Obama and McCain halted their campaigns to campaign for giving the bailouts to their benefactors.
"He'll talk to you! Sure! If you pay him a million dollar per hour."
I'd pay $100 to hear him shut the fuck up.
It was Barry Soetero that rallied the congressional black caucus to secure votes necessary to pass TARP on the second round by promising goodies under his administration. This bit of history has been memory holed but it is history none the less.
SD, I agree on most points. But the article we are posting under is utter disingenuous bunk.
He fooled the country in believing this was needed so much and got the public oppinion with him. Bush cracked under the pressure in the last month of his term.
He did not get public opinion with him. Polls were very against it at the time, and people were calling their representatives telling them to not do it.
When it comes to bankers and wars, Bush and 0bama are on the same team.
You are without doubt my favorite ZH poster. It's not just the GIF, thats kinda like the belgian chocolate frosting on the hilarious (and serious) posts. ;-p
Sudden Debt, my green for you was No. 23.
You forgot to mention three things he DID DO:
Obama DID give us Obamacare!
Obama DID give some more wars!
Obama DID spend and run up the debts faster than enyone else!
WHHHeeeee as we circle down the drain...
"But did he deliver what people expected from a president?"
Well, if you want the military to have it delivered from the rear flank, he did.
W started TARP, everything else applies to W as much as Obama
Exactly. So how can one hate Bush but love 0bama? 0bama is like Bush on steroids when it comes to the economy and wars.
link to the original nytimes article showing the second graph above....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Whoever believes that article you linked has mush for brains.
Obamapaloosa campaigned on hope and change. So there was no way he did not know how enormous the problems were that he so confidently said he could solve. He has been a failure. I would argue that his immediate pivot to creating a massive take over of the US health care is what has brought us to where we are in the economy today. The housing collapse and the debt crisis are not easily solvable problems. However entertaining a complete take over over 20% of the economy by the federal government was a collasal mistake. This has lead to employers completely unwilling to hire new employees and this will not change until Obama's health care plan is declared unconstitutional.
The premiums on our plan at work went up 30% after Obamacare was shoved up the anal canal of the American populace.
Clinton.
The 1990s were the longest period of growth in American history. The collapse of the speculative dot-com bubble, a fall in business outlays and investments, and the September 11th attacks,[46] brought the decade of growth to an end. Despite these major shocks, the recession was brief and shallow.[47] Without the September 11th attacks, the economy may have avoided recession altogether.
Try some facts on for size...not to say that Bush wasn't a motherfucker for enacting "No Child Left Behind" Prescription Drug Benefit" and such but Obama is making a motherfucking hash of the economy with Obamacare, and everywhere leftists in government enacting this and that regulation all to fuck over the economy so he can remake it in his Lefist vision of eutopia.
Fuck modern politicians...give me back Calvin Coolidge.
No discernible difference.
Fair enough but George W. Bush did have a little more soul.
you used the words Bush and Soul in the same sentence....
"Even Richard Nixon has got soul."
Neil Young - CAMPAIGNERhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CVsEzbNMYE
At least Bush was funny.
Who doesn't remember the picture of him holding the book upside down?
Or with the glasses that had the cap still on it?
Obama just keeps his nose up. Makes big speeched. Does not deliver. Changes topic every day so nobody really notices that he does shit....
Bush was hilarious. He turned into Gabby Hayes right before our eyes. What a hoot!
Bush was a really expensive comedian.
Obama is a really expensive motivational speaker.
Also he's not that motivating anymore.
I think we need a drama queen next.
With nice tits to look at just in case . . .
Shay Laren in 2012. She couldn't do worse.
Pelosi
I didn't think he was funny, but I have Bush Derangment Syndrome (BDS)
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/35000/George-W-Bush-Glasses--35178.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jeetJTfzUoU/SKOGjna58WI/AAAAAAAABLA/AJgNXIVoJw...
Obama should have spent even less than W. If he had the system would have collapsed in 09 and we would be starting to see 'green shoots' now. Either that or things would be all Mad Maxi... People just want to keep the dream alive, even if it makes the nightmare worse later.
Bush, for the most part, presided over the bubble. Obama is dealing with the aftermath. This is an apples to golf balls comparison.
Right, Obama turned a steaming pile of shit from Bush into freight train full of shit. That's the only difference.
And for the record, Obama was in the Senate during the bubble, so he's not blameless.
Thank-you Bob, to re-iterate, bambi was in the senate during all of President Bush's 'mistakes' and had input into all of the problems left to him. Second, bambi RAN FOR THE F-ING OFFICE. He did not inherit the problems, they were not a surprise. He contributed to them via his senate seat and asked the US population for the job.
The US was on the road to ruin long before Bush took office. And Obama isn't dealing with anything other than propping up that particular portion of the status quo which fills his campaign coffers. That can't possibly be news to you, can it?