Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's
By golfplan18 Follow Tue, 14 Aug 2012, 8:28pm 9,747 views 166 comments
Watch (1) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (3) Dislike (1) « First « Previous Viewing Comments 127-166 of 166 Last » See most liked comments
|
golfplan18 is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,210 comments
tatupu70 says
Good point.
Follow
Befriend
17 threads
1,604 comments
lenar says
Well, you are anything but patient, but I didn't realize my first post hurt your feelings so much, so I apologize. Let me start over, then.
To say that the Obama administration spends "more than any" administration ignores a crucial point. ALL presidents spend more than the previous president. If you look at the chart in the article, you can see that NONE of the presidents on the chart spent less than the previous president.
So I would ask you, why do you criticize Obama IN PARTICULAR for simply doing what EVERY OTHER president has done, and arguably less so than the other presidents? Please explain why Obama is singled out for criticism when ALL presidents are guilty.
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
111 comments
If you apologize - don't do it in a weasel form.
If you don't - don't make it seem like you do.
I don't care either way, frankly.
Obama is singled out for a simple reason - that the article is about Obama. If the article were about Bush (either one), and it said that Bush (either one) spends less than the predecessor, I'd call bull on that as well.
As soon as you add a single dollar to already bloated budget - you spend more. Bottom line. Let's take a loan on a Kirby vacuum and add it to underwater home mortgage! It's only a vacuum, and the mortgage was taken long ago!
On the other hand, I can't help but notice that those big shots at Wall Street deserved their bailout-paid bonuses. Good for Obama to have sided with them. They meant well.
Follow
Befriend
17 threads
1,604 comments
lenar says
O.K., fuck you then. You're a sniveling little whiner who can't come up with a better argument than calling people child molesters.
You are stating the obvious. ALL presidents spend more than their predecessor. Like I said before, you may as well point out that Obama breathes oxygen. If I could get this one point through that thick skull of yours, I would consider my time here well spent.
The article, if you even bothered to read it, is about how the right claims Obama is the biggest spender ever, and how in fact, the presidents before him increased spending MORE than he did.
Now you're just blathering. You obviously don't have a point.
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
111 comments
Homeboy says
I wouldn't let anyone like you anywhere near my privates, boy. Not even if you can suck tennis ball through a garden hose.
Here, ladies and gentlemen of the left, is a prime example of who keeps you company.
It's not you, it's me, boy. You are not my type. Don't call.
Follow
Befriend
17 threads
1,604 comments
lenar says
More blather. Still no point.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
lenar says
Nothing changed, that's the point.
You can't make any conclusions about the 1920 recession regarding government intervention because government intervention in the economy was a foreign concept and didn't really exist in any form.
FDR was considered radical for suggesting that government had a role in helping the economy recover and he's considered the pioneer for such efforts.
Follow
Befriend (4)
2 threads
787 comments
FDR would not implement a tax on wheelchairs, like OB has....
iwog says
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
xrpb11a says
Everything you believe is a fraud brainwashed into you by the Republican party, including this. When are you going to grow up and start checking this sewage for yourself before you post it and make yourself a liar?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/rnc-tax-attack-goes-too-far/
Follow
Befriend (4)
2 threads
787 comments
But I'm a democrat.
I heard this on "The last word with Laurence O'Donnell".
So, who's lying to me???
iwog says
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
iwog says
When are you going to read the complete article you link for the facts??? Read your own sewage (...factcheck.org)
From your link:
snip:
."....an official conceded that the wheelchair pictured would not be subject to tax, but added: "However, that leaves a range of wheelchairs, such as motorized, special grade, stair climbing, stand up, and others hit by the tax."
Follow
Befriend (4)
2 threads
787 comments
LOL...
Call it Crazy says
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
iwog says
Interesting thing is the Medical Device excise tax (wheelchair tax) is tucked into Obamacare.... go figure.....
I wish those damn Republicans didn't write such a terrible health care bill.... /sarc
Obamacare's Medical-Device Tax Kills Patients, Not Just Jobs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/06/06/obamacares-medical-device-tax-kills-patients-not-just-jobs/
...."My colleague Robert Book has written a compelling analysis of Obamacare’s medical-device tax, which concludes that it will destroy about 14,000 and perhaps up to 47,100 jobs. The 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices is a savage blow to innovation. Note that this tax is on sales, not profits. It cuts into the top line, not the bottom line. If not repealed, this tax will start hitting medical-device makers on January 1, 2013."
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
111 comments
iwog says
Hoover was the original pioneer - new tariffs, public projects, Hoover Dam, tax increase up to 63% in the top bracket. FDR was a devoted follower and successor, despite the cross-party differences, but not a pioneer.
In many regards comparing 1920 and 1929 is as close to apple-to-apple as it gets in inherently non-repetitive world. Same place, same culture, similar level of government involvement at the get-go. Different strategies and different results - one is "Forgotten Depression", the other one is "Great Depression", bump on the road vs. chasm. Plus, the legacy - government intervention is now considered a norm.
Ignoring lessons of 1920 is like studying effects of heroin and removing non-user from control group.
Follow
Befriend (4)
2 threads
787 comments
And here I thought all this time you were a man/women of intelligence....
thanks for straightening that out...
iwog says
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
Ruki says
It's funny how he disappears from a thread once his "facts" are proven wrong....
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
lenar says
Is this supposed to be a joke? Here's what ACTUALLY happened under Hoover's administration, and is why there was a huge depression. It also shows why things improved under FDR. Hoover dam? Jesus.........:
lenar says
The only lesson from 1920 is that the government shouldn't allow banks to set fiscal policy. It is ridiculous to make any conclusions about government intervention in an era without government intervention.
You might answer this question: Why did depressions happen on a regular basis before FDR but not afterwards?
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
iwog says
mostly because we changed the term "depression" to "recession"?
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M15001USM144NNBR
is an interesting chart because it goes back to 1870 and shows the position (if not depth) of pre-Fed "recessions".
As for post-FDR recessions, something broke ca. 1980 and we're in a new regime now, where the Fed has little control over the economy.
We didn't get into the current recession via Fed raising rates (even though they did), what happened was the free money from the housing bubble showering the middle quintiles ended abruptly in 2007.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=9Ge
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Bellingham Bill says
You can't compare any recession from 1946 to 2008 with the Great Depression or any depression prior. Either they were larger in gdp drop, or much longer in duration.
Follow
Befriend
31 threads
1,534 comments
Bellingham, WA
Premium
We also had a much smaller economy and much more brittle way of doing things.
Kinda dumb to be even talking about 100 years ago, really.
There are a few lessons to be learned, mostly about human nature (ie what Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressives were attempting to reform), not about macro economies per se.
Real GDP per worker, 2005 dollars
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
111 comments
iwog says
Are you referring to this list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States ?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Yes. Doesn't the fact that FDR essentially cured depressions for many decades factor in to your hypothesis? How about the fact that deregulation and the elimination of progressive taxes by Republicans brought them back again?
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
111 comments
iwog says
Look at that list. Just look at it. Does it make sense that, according to it, 1933-1937 there was no recession? Or that there was no recession 1938-1945?
Or that recession of 2007 apparently ended in 2009 and apparently things were rosy ever since?
Or it makes more sense that whatever metric of recession they use has no relevance to health of economy, as it's felt by common folks?
I already discussed this particular list. It's is either inaccurate or useless. I'd vote for later. It's likely a list of local minimums. List of local minimums give almost no idea about form of a graph. It could grow, it could decline, or it could plato - there is zilch info. Put inflation on top of that (which became much bigger issue in post New World Order world) - and you don't even know what it is that you are measuring.
Do you really believe that 2009 was the last year of 2007 recession?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
lenar says
Yes. It makes perfect sense. The economy was growing through both periods, not shrinking which is the definition of both depression and recession. Unemployment lags a recovery so obviously people were still suffering in 1937.
lenar says
You have yet to make a logical argument why.
lenar says
With respect to GDP yes it was. With respect to unemployment, no however the reasons have far more to do with your free market than the lack of a recovery.
You didn't answer my question. Why are there no depressions after FDR and numerous depressions prior?
Follow
Befriend (1)
3 threads
111 comments
iwog says
I did. See above about local minimums. Did you miss it?
If this is correct (sounds like it is), that list give no idea about form of a graph. I can draw 2 graphs, one growing, the other declining, first one having many more cyclical local minimums. Do I really need to go through the trouble?
iwog says
I'm tempted to rest my case. Some recovery, eh? Yet in terms of some technical parameters you are correct. What's the merit of judging health of economy by those parameters, again? Not much. By the way, that GDP... was it adjusted for inflation? And if so, how was the inflation calculated?
iwog says
Sit on it. Let me first make sure you understand the part about local minimums (not patronizing, just bringing to the same page).
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
lenar says
Yes. Your explanation was pretty much "It's wrong because of local minimums." I have no idea what you're talking about or why it would disqualify standards used by economists for hundreds of years.
lenar says
Again it seems like your entire argument is that the parameters are invalid because you say so. I have no idea if GDP is corrected for inflation, however without even checking I can assert that every recession and depression on that chart either is or is not adjusted for inflation. They aren't using mixed data.
lenar says
We're not on the same page. I'm extremely educated when it comes to economic issues and historical context. For example I know that the national depressions of 1837, 1873, 1893, and 1929 have no modern parallels in either depth or duration. To even try and make the claim is utterly absurd and without merit. Yet you want to dismiss them with a wave of your hand.
Therefore my question still stands. Why are there no events comparable to 1837, 1873, 1893, and 1929 after FDR's New Deal? Why was it after a long period of deregulation and tax cutting that we finally had an economic crisis on par with those of the Great Depression and prior?
You don't have answers for this, so you change some basic assumptions that have been agreed upon by economists and historians for decades. I'm not going to allow you to get away with it. Either make an argument why the horrific depression of 1873 is the same as a post-WWII recession, or give up and answer me.
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,210 comments
Bellingham Bill says
Yes.
I have a simple and intuitive view that I can not prove. It goes like this.
Because of the timing of the computer technology blossoming in the 90s causing irrational exhuberance about the internet, and a natural expectations of great futuristic living and prosperity in the 21st century, we were very much set up for a severe global recession at the beginning of the last decade.
But these events (not necessarily planned for the purpose of postponing this recession/depression) postponed it:
1)Bush Tax cuts
2)Iraq war
3) artificaillly low interest rates
4)the housing boom
causing a 7 to 8 year postponement of the inevitable.
OF course there was the larger credit boom that started in the Reagan years, which is a massive boom bust cycle of which we are still in the early recovery stages (maybe).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave
Clearly there are economic cycles. I don't think that the Kondratiev cycle idea is very much accepted, but it's obviously true that long cycles occur. It's just that there isn't any uniformity to their length.
The question of what technologies, or economic or political changes or other big influences might drive the next cycle is an interesting one.
Follow
Befriend
249 threads
2,915 comments
marcus says
Postponed it??? I guess I missed something... didn't we have a recession in the beginning of the last decade that affected both the US and Europe???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,210 comments
Call it Crazy says
Postponed the big recession/depression.
marcus says
IT only started to kick in when we had 9/11, which was followed by stimulus, tax cuts and war. Again, not saying this was all a conspiracy to postpone the severe depression that would have otherwise occurred. But that was the effect.
But yes, technically we did have a few quarters of decreasing GDP in 2002 or so. Just a little tremor compared to what was brewing.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,564 comments
iwog says
I don't think someone who is so well educated in historical context would fail to note a small matter of the 1800's being a rural agricultural society with about 75-80% of people living on farms is not very comparable economically with post wwII industrial society of 75-80% living in urban areas. It's apple and oranges.
The only common thread is crashes are almost always caused by investors/banks running wild with speculation. It seems that a lack of crashes correlates directly to Glass-Steagall being in effect. Less than 10 years after the repeal, bang big crash. I don't believe any of the rest of the new deal had any relevance.
Follow
Befriend (13)
787 threads
1,542 comments
bob2356 says
LOL.
How about the fact that the velocity of money was dead prior to FDR presidency?
How about the fact that the dollar was devalued into gold ($20 to $35) to increase liquidity and get the economy moving again?
How about Emergency Relief appropriation act of 1935?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
bob2356 says
It's not material to long term economic trends, which is why something as simple as a rural farm economy, or as complex as a global high tech economy can be modeled with a Monopoly game.
In fact you can take wealth disparity problems back to ancient Rome and you still have the same economic stagnation if too few people end up with too few farms.
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,564 comments
uomo_senza_nome says
WWII got the economy moving, not the new deal.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
bob2356 says
That's not true. It's a lie created by free market lunatics.
Follow
Befriend (13)
787 threads
1,542 comments
bob2356 says
The money velocity was increased with the stroke of devaluation. This is a well-established fact.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says
End the communist takeover of the White House - vote Obama out.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
You're not qualified to vote if you believe Obama is a communist.
Follow
Befriend (4)
2 threads
787 comments
If that's the case, he should get a full tax refund for all taxes paid since he started working.....
no vote...no pay tax.
iwog says
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
xrpb11a says
No one said he couldn't vote or wasn't allowed to vote, which you are mistakenly implying for some reason. I said he's not qualified to vote. Obviously labeling Obama as a communist requires a massive amount of ignorance and denial, and I don't think people that uninformed should vote.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Iwog, I maintain YOU are not qualified to vote if you don't understand obama's communist mentors and mentality.
To learn more about obamas communist upbringing, go see the current #1 movie in America, you'll change your tune - unless you're too inflexible to admit you're wrong.
Besides obama has failed to deliver on any of his "promises" to the American people and needs to be given his pink slip and walking papers back to Chicago, where he probably belongs.