Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?

[AUChizad]

What's the old saying?  There are three kinds of lies:  lies, damn lies, and statistics.  Anyone worth their weight in salt can twist numbers to make them look better (or worse).

I'll concede this to be true, no doubt.

Any version of that chart, though, shows that Obama is not increasing the debt at a faster rate than Bush. I know, I know, you can't bring Bush into this because he's not the gold standard of Republicanism. But were you equally outraged over Bush's presidency as you are Obama's? That's the only reason I've heard so far for the contempt, and while I also would prefer less spending, it's not as out-of-this-world compared to his predecessors as you would like to believe.

Also, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, which I believe is a good thing long term, but also increases the short term debt.

Chartz!

[CCTAU]

But were you equally outraged over Bush's presidency as you are Obama's?

You are becoming an excellent little liberal.

I know of many, many, many conservatives who were OUTRAGED by Bush's spending. And they screamed it at the top of their lungs.

So your little statement above is wold make the Bill Maher types  proud. Hang in there. You'll be a card carrying libtard in no time.

[AUTiger1]

Since we are posting charts and all......  I fell like Ross Perot!





Chad do you really think that Obama is not spending money that we don't have?  Really?  Where did he get the money for the stimulus packages?  Out of thin air?  No, we borrowed that money, in other words, "we spent money that we didn't have".   It's out of control.  It was out of control under Bush and it's worse under Obama.  Why do you think so many "right leaning independents" and those who labeled themselves "republicans" crossed the isle to vote for Obama in 08?  B/c they were tired of the way it was going and he promised to change it.  He is spending more money that any previous president.  Balance the budget, cap what we can borrow and get our fiscal house in order, if he would do that, then more people would like him.

[GH2001]

I'll concede this to be true, no doubt.

Any version of that chart, though, shows that Obama is not increasing the debt at a faster rate than Bush. I know, I know, you can't bring Bush into this because he's not the gold standard of Republicanism. But were you equally outraged over Bush's presidency as you are Obama's? That's the only reason I've heard so far for the contempt, and while I also would prefer less spending, it's not as out-of-this-world compared to his predecessors as you would like to believe.

Also, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, which I believe is a good thing long term, but also increases the short term debt.

Chartz!

It increased the debt because they didn't offset it with spending cuts. Spending stayed the same or went up while tax revenue decreased. Again, I don't like what Bush did either.

When Bush took office the Debt (all debts) was right at 6 trillion. When he left office it was right at 10 trillion.  Increased 4 trillion in 8 years. 500 billion per year deficit on avg.

When Obama took office it was right at 10 trillion. At the end of his first term it will be right at 16 trillion. Increased 6 trillion in 4 years.  Roughly 1.5 trillion per year deficit on avg.

1.5 trillion vs .5 trillion per year. He is sinking the budget into the red at 3 times the rate actually. Bush was bad, no doubt. Obama overspent into the red in one year what Reagan did in 8 - just to put it in perspective.

Below is a good picture of pure numbers and not %'s.  %'s in this discussion are futile to a degree because the larger the debt keeps growing, the smaller the number will get.

[GH2001]

To put it in pesepctive this way too (VERY SCARY ACTUALLY):

National Debt in 2008 Election: 10 Trillion
End of Obama's First Term (per the CBO): 16.4 Trillion
End of Obama's 2nd Term (hypothetically per the CBO): 20-22 Trillion Projected

The debt we accumulated from 1913 to 2008: 10 Trillion
The debt we accumulated from 2008 to 2016: 10-12 Trillion

I don't see how anyone can even start to compare that to any other President. This is unprecedented.

 

[Vandy Vol]

Also, this is a % increase in PUBLIC DEBT which is only a fraction of the entire debt. You are correct, this is something that the Democratic Leader put together as propaganda. This is a very out of context chart.

Public debt figures are usually used by economists for national indebtedness.  The gross debt figures aren't often used, so when you hear economists/political commentators talking about the national debt, they usually are referring to the public debt, at least in terms of calculating debt increases.  I don't know why, considering that the gross national debt is the figure you hear cited ($16 trillion), but economists use the public debt figures for some reason.

Aside from that, the chart actually doesn't use public debt figures, even though it claims to.  If public debt figures had been used, Obama would have an increase of approximately 60% (through 2011), whereas Bush would have a 70% increase (both terms).

Other than that, looking at the percentage increase is faulty to begin with.  Joe Schmoe increases his credit card debt from $10,000 to $20,000; that's a 100% increase.  Jane Schmoe takes Joe's credit card and spends another $10,000, increasing it to $30,000; that's a 50% increase.  Nonetheless, each person increased the debt by the same amount.

I'm not an economist in the slightest, but the best way I've seen it calculated is to look at how much the debt increased as a percentage of the GDP.  Even then, however, you'd have to take into consideration how recessions affect the total GDP, which would in turn cause spending to reflect as a higher percentage of a lower GDP.  At any rate, using this method, Bush's addition to the debt was about 11% of the GDP, and Obama's was/is about 20%.

At the end of the day, everyone's got to realize that the national debt is affected by a variety of things other than a President:  wars, economic depressions, new legislation, congressional acts, etc.  Although presidential actions do have an effect, they're not the only effect.  But, ultimately, the buck does stop with the President, and that's where everyone is going to place all of the blame despite these various details that get overlooked, especially during elections.

[Snaggletiger]

Question...and maybe take this in another direction because it's a line in the sand discussion with each side using the pie charts most applicable to their argument.  Let's assume for a second that Obama has increased the debt by $6.4 Trillion or whatever it might be in less than 4 years.  What exactly is the majority of this money being spent on?  Yeah, I know he came in shelling out the $$$ for this bailout or that, but there has to be something more specific draining all that cash.  Is it the war?  Is it the fact that we spent years fighting in Iraq, and now we're spending untold amounts to help rebuild it?  Is it financing the battle in Afghanistan? 

You guys know I don't follow politics that closely, certainly not on the level of most of you in here.  And this is not to defend Obama...or Bush...or attack either of them as well.  But it seems to me that both these Presidents were/are in office at a time when this country was/is basically at war.  I'm asking because I honestly don't know. Is that the biggest drain on the economy or were both these Presidents handing out skwazillions to their favorite special interest groups?

[Townhallsavoy]

Question...and maybe take this in another direction because it's a line in the sand discussion with each side using the pie charts most applicable to their argument.  Let's assume for a second that Obama has increased the debt by $6.4 Trillion or whatever it might be in less than 4 years.  What exactly is the majority of this money being spent on?  Yeah, I know he came in shelling out the $$$ for this bailout or that, but there has to be something more specific draining all that cash.  Is it the war?  Is it the fact that we spent years fighting in Iraq, and now we're spending untold amounts to help rebuild it?  Is it financing the battle in Afghanistan? 

You guys know I don't follow politics that closely, certainly not on the level of most of you in here.  And this is not to defend Obama...or Bush...or attack either of them as well.  But it seems to me that both these Presidents were/are in office at a time when this country was/is basically at war.  I'm asking because I honestly don't know. Is that the biggest drain on the economy or were both these Presidents handing out skwazillions to their favorite special interest groups?

My black friends say they've gotten bags of cash dropped off at their doorsteps each month. 

[GH2001]

Public debt figures are usually used by economists for national indebtedness.  The gross debt figures aren't often used, so when you hear economists/political commentators talking about the national debt, they usually are referring to the public debt, at least in terms of calculating debt increases.  I don't know why, considering that the gross national debt is the figure you hear cited ($16 trillion), but economists use the public debt figures for some reason.

Aside from that, the chart actually doesn't use public debt figures, even though it claims to.  If public debt figures had been used, Obama would have an increase of approximately 60% (through 2011), whereas Bush would have a 70% increase (both terms).

Other than that, looking at the percentage increase is faulty to begin with.  Joe Schmoe increases his credit card debt from $10,000 to $20,000; that's a 100% increase.  Jane Schmoe takes Joe's credit card and spends another $10,000, increasing it to $30,000; that's a 50% increase.  Nonetheless, each person increased the debt by the same amount.

I'm not an economist in the slightest, but the best way I've seen it calculated is to look at how much the debt increased as a percentage of the GDP.  Even then, however, you'd have to take into consideration how recessions affect the total GDP, which would in turn cause spending to reflect as a higher percentage of a lower GDP.  At any rate, using this method, Bush's addition to the debt was about 11% of the GDP, and Obama's was/is about 20%.

At the end of the day, everyone's got to realize that the national debt is affected by a variety of things other than a President:  wars, economic depressions, new legislation, congressional acts, etc.  Although presidential actions do have an effect, they're not the only effect.  But, ultimately, the buck does stop with the President, and that's where everyone is going to place all of the blame despite these various details that get overlooked, especially during elections.

Your point about the %'s is exactly what I was saying.

The reason Obama is getting a lot of heat (and much of it warranted) is because he is advocating things that are spiraling the debt out of control. Healthcare, entitlements, etc are all things he champions. These things cost lots of money. He is also trying to offset some of that by taxing more people who make a good living, even though they are already paying a disproportionate %. A lot of people are for this because, to use an old colloquial english phrase, when someone robs Peter to pay Paul, they can always count on the support of Paul. The occupier types are Paul.

But to your point, yes the buck stops with him. Ive yet to see him or his Senate pass or submit a balanced budget. All on him to round up the troops and get it done. In fact, I think the Democrats are the ones playing politics with Paul Ryan's budget proposal so as not to tick off their constituency (Paul).

[GH2001]

Question...and maybe take this in another direction because it's a line in the sand discussion with each side using the pie charts most applicable to their argument.  Let's assume for a second that Obama has increased the debt by $6.4 Trillion or whatever it might be in less than 4 years.  What exactly is the majority of this money being spent on?  Yeah, I know he came in shelling out the $$$ for this bailout or that, but there has to be something more specific draining all that cash.  Is it the war?  Is it the fact that we spent years fighting in Iraq, and now we're spending untold amounts to help rebuild it?  Is it financing the battle in Afghanistan? 

You guys know I don't follow politics that closely, certainly not on the level of most of you in here.  And this is not to defend Obama...or Bush...or attack either of them as well.  But it seems to me that both these Presidents were/are in office at a time when this country was/is basically at war.  I'm asking because I honestly don't know. Is that the biggest drain on the economy or were both these Presidents handing out skwazillions to their favorite special interest groups?

A lot of it IS DoD spending. Here ya go Snag. This is the 2013 Budget:

Incoming:
Total receipts (in billions of dollars)::
Individual income tax    1,359
Corporate income tax    348
Social Security and other payroll tax    959
Excise tax    88
Customs duties    33
Estate and gift taxes    13
Deposits of earnings and Federal Reserve System    80
Other miscellaneous receipts    21
Total    $2,902 billions or 2.8 trillion

Total outlays by agency (in billions of dollars):
Department of Defense including Overseas Contingency Operations       672.9
Department of Health and Human Services including Medicare and Medicaid    940.9
Department of Education       71.9
Department of Veterans Affairs       139.7
Department of Housing and Urban Development        46.3
Department of State and Other International Programs        59.5
Department of Homeland Security        55.4
Department of Energy       35.0
Department of Justice     36.5
Department of Agriculture        154.5
National Aeronautics and Space Administration    17.8
National Intelligence Program   52.6
Department of Transportation        98.5
Department of the Treasury       110.3
Department of the Interior       13.5
Department of Labor       101.7
Social Security Administration       882.7
Department of Commerce        9.0
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works       8.2
Environmental Protection Agency        8.9
National Science Foundation        7.5
Small Business Administration       1.4
Corporation for National and Community Service       1.1
Net interest       246
Disaster costs            2
Other spending       1,270.5
Total       3,803 or 3.803 trillion

[dallaswareagle]

National Intelligence Program   52.6

We all know this money (wherever its going) is being wasted.

[Kaos]

Public debt figures are usually used by economists for national indebtedness.  The gross debt figures aren't often used, so when you hear economists/political commentators talking about the national debt, they usually are referring to the public debt, at least in terms of calculating debt increases.  I don't know why, considering that the gross national debt is the figure you hear cited ($16 trillion), but economists use the public debt figures for some reason.

Aside from that, the chart actually doesn't use public debt figures, even though it claims to.  If public debt figures had been used, Obama would have an increase of approximately 60% (through 2011), whereas Bush would have a 70% increase (both terms).

Other than that, looking at the percentage increase is faulty to begin with.  Joe Schmoe increases his credit card debt from $10,000 to $20,000; that's a 100% increase.  Jane Schmoe takes Joe's credit card and spends another $10,000, increasing it to $30,000; that's a 50% increase.  Nonetheless, each person increased the debt by the same amount.

I'm not an economist in the slightest, but the best way I've seen it calculated is to look at how much the debt increased as a percentage of the GDP.  Even then, however, you'd have to take into consideration how recessions affect the total GDP, which would in turn cause spending to reflect as a higher percentage of a lower GDP.  At any rate, using this method, Bush's addition to the debt was about 11% of the GDP, and Obama's was/is about 20%.

At the end of the day, everyone's got to realize that the national debt is affected by a variety of things other than a President:  wars, economic depressions, new legislation, congressional acts, etc.  Although presidential actions do have an effect, they're not the only effect.  But, ultimately, the buck does stop with the President, and that's where everyone is going to place all of the blame despite these various details that get overlooked, especially during elections.
Every cent can be deducted from Obama's taxes.

[Vandy Vol]

Every cent can be deducted from Obama's taxes.

No, it will show up as taxable income on your return, as does everything apparently.

[Snaggletiger]

No, it will show up as taxable income on your return, as does everything apparently.

 

[AWK]

No, it will show up as taxable income on your return, as does everything apparently.

Deductions don't exist.

[GH2001]

Deductions don't exist.

What's a deduction?

[AUChizad]

Those dirty libruls over at Forbes spinning numbers...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

5/24/2012 @ 6:33PM |894,121 views
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –



So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

    In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
     In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
    In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
    Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare  only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.

[bottomfeeder]

The banks control the politicians regardless of party affiliation. All except one, Ron Paul.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-us-banks-told-to-make-plans-for-preventing-collapse-20120810,0,2404399.story

According to documents obtained by Reuters, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency first directed five banks -- which also include Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- to come up with these "recovery plans" in May 2010.

They told banks to consider drastic efforts to prevent failure in times of distress, including selling off businesses, finding other funding sources if regular borrowing markets shut them out, and reducing risk. The plans must be feasible to execute within three to six months, and banks were to "make no assumption of extraordinary support from the public sector," according to the documents.

Spokespeople for the five banks declined to comment. The Federal Reserve also declined to comment.

The following started during the dubya years.

Who got bailed out?

Mutual fund companies such as BlackRock, BNY Mellon, T. Rowe Price, Dreyfus, and Legg Mason took advantage of federal assistance, plus large banks that provide money market funds to customers, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo.

How much were taxpayers compensated for the bailout?

Despite the enormous size of the guarantees, the Treasury collected only $1.2 billion in fees from the participating funds.  By Wilson’s calculation, most participating funds paid just 0.04 percent, or 4 basis points, for a year’s worth of insurance.
http://dailybail.com/home/the-us-treasurys-24-trillion-secret.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD8viQ_DhS4&feature=youtu.be#t=130s

[GH2001]

Those dirty libruls over at Forbes spinning numbers...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Again, another somewhat "out of context" catchy headline because we are dealing with revenues, spending and %'s here in relation to previous Presidents. The % is hard to increase as the number goes up (simple math). This is simply refering to % increase over the last administration.

What matters really is how much into the RED they each go, aka the Deficit. His budgets of 3.5-4 trillion are still by far the biggest in history...This study also isn't putting into account the massive 18% budget increase from 2008 to 2009 which was Obama's budget, not Bush's (as the article tries to claim). The Budget for FY 2009 was merely a Budget Resolution under Bush. All of the monetary appropriations for FY 2009 was passed by 2009's congress and Obama, not Bush. They are basically giving Bush the credit for the huge jump from 2.9 to 3.5 trillion Obama's 1st Fiscal Year, and then when the budget only went from 3.5 to 3.6 trillion the next 3 years, giving Obama THAT credit. Very misleading.
 

[Kaos]

Again, another somewhat "out of context" catchy headline because we are dealing with revenues, spending and %'s here in relation to previous Presidents. The % is hard to increase as the number goes up (simple math). This is simply refering to % increase over the last administration.

What matters really is how much into the RED they each go, aka the Deficit. His budgets of 3.5-4 trillion are still by far the biggest in history...This study also isn't putting into account the massive 18% budget increase from 2008 to 2009 which was Obama's budget, not Bush's (as the article tries to claim). The Budget for FY 2009 was merely a Budget Resolution under Bush. All of the monetary appropriations for FY 2009 was passed by 2009's congress and Obama, not Bush. They are basically giving Bush the credit for the huge jump from 2.9 to 3.5 trillion Obama's 1st Fiscal Year, and then when the budget only went from 3.5 to 3.6 trillion the next 3 years, giving Obama THAT credit. Very misleading.

Just deduct it all.  That works.