Obama - Why is the Economy Growing so Slowly?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by akphidelt2007, May 23, 2012.

  1. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow, getting desperate for my attention.

    No one is even talking about the graph which is the purpose of this thread. Obama has increased spending less than the previous 4 President's and incredibly less than Bush and Reagan.

    Those are facts. Can't really argue against facts with out looking like an idiot. But you did anyways.
     
  2. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The joke must be on you.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You claimed that more spending is needed to help the economy, but you can't even explain how to determine how much spending is needed. Instead, you just insult and change the topic in the hope that no one will notice your repeated failure to demonstrate your position.

    So, how do you know that 100 trillion dollars is too much? Please, explain how this alleged "balancing act" works in practice.
     
  4. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most of you guys are all over the place. Can't even come up with a coherent argument. It's embarrassing.

    The graph tells the story. Most of you conservatives should be happy that Obama has spent less on a relative basis than anyone in the past 4 decades. The economy should be booming right now with the lack of Govt spending and the cutting of 1 million public sector jobs. I wonder why the economy was so great under Reagan and Bush and they decided to spend like it was going out of style. In Reagan's first 4 years he increased Govt expenditures 4 times as much as Obama has, Bush increased them by 2 times as much as Obama.

    Reagan in his 8 years increased the national debt by 184%. For Obama to do that he would have to rack up $12 trillion more in deficits his next 4 years.

    This is not looking good for conservatives.

    Keynes 1
    Conservatives 0
     
  5. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To aid fellow posters in analyzing the graph, I feel compelled to provide the percent change in government expenditures of the two Presidents:

    Bush: (In billions of USD)

    ((January 20, 2009 - January 20, 2001)/ (January 20, 2001))*100

    (($3,200-$2,000)/($2,000))*100

    (($1,200)/($2,000)*100= approx. 60 percent

    Obama:

    ((January 1, 2012-January 20, 2009)/(January 20,2009))*100

    (($3,710-$3,520)/($3,520))*100

    (($190)/($3,520))*100= approx. 5.3 percent

    If my math is wrong, please let me know.
     
  6. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Looks good to me. And I'm pretty sure Reagan was even worse than Bush. Bush and Reagan were huge Keynesians!
     
  7. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The market self-corrected relatively quickly in that recession, not because of a decrease in government spending or the decrease in taxes, but probably because of a massive influx of labor after WWI, which drove wages down and supply up.
     
  8. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do people keep lying? People say that Obama has spent more than every other President combined??

    When he walked in to office the National Debt was...

    $11.12 trillion

    Right now the debt is what? ~$15.5 trillion?

    If Obama was allowed to do what Reagan did, he'd be able to spend $12 trillion more. Unfortunately conservatives want this country to suffer just so they can win a game.
     
  9. Badmutha

    Badmutha New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,463
    Likes Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cutting taxes and cutting government spending, shrinking the parasite......will allow the host organism to grow. And a growing economy will bring in 10X more revenue than any tax increase.......

    Federal Revenue After The Reagan Tax Cuts
    [​IMG]


    Federal Revenue After The JFK/Johnson Tax Cuts
    [​IMG]


    Federal Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts
    [​IMG]

    100% success rate......so it gets zero support from Democrats.......
    .
    .
    .
     
  10. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How much more should he spend then? 100 trillion is too much (even though you can't explain why), so what's the magic number?
     
  11. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    HAHAHAHAHAH!!! Show me when they cut Govt spending. In fact between Reagan and Bush's tenures Govt spending increased 700% whereas tax revenue increased 500%. Looks like the Keynesian's win again. Unbelievable how uneducated conservatives are. Reagan and Bush were two of the biggest spending President's we have ever had. They were mighty good Keynesian's!!

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The total national debt was about $10.6 trillion when Obama took office.
     
  13. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An amount that doesn't exceed our output gap and cause unhealthy inflation.
     
  14. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess my source is quoting the number for the 3 month period ahead of it. Any case, Obama has not doubled the debt.

    2008-10-01 10699805
    2009-01-01 11126941
    2009-04-01 11545275
    2009-07-01 11909828
    2009-10-01 12311349
    2010-01-01 12773123
    2010-04-01 13201792
    2010-07-01 13561622
    2010-10-01 14025215
    2011-01-01 14270114
    2011-04-01 14343087
    2011-07-01 14790340
    2011-10-01 15222940
     
  15. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your charts are misleading and inaccurate, as I've pointed out to you before.

    Here are the actual numbers, comparing equivalent 8 year periods, for those who are interested.

    Year - Revenues 2005$:

    Kennedy
    1964 704.3
    1972 908.1
    % growth revenues: +28.9%

    Reagan
    1980 1197.6
    1988 1421.1
    % growth revenues: +18.6%


    Clinton

    1992 1467.5
    2000 2310..0
    % growth revenues: +57.4%


    Bush

    2000 2310.0
    2008 2286.8
    % growth revenues: -1.0%

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
     
  16. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is your source?
     
  17. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
  18. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you want to spend just enough money to close the output gap? How do you know that's the right amount of money to spend? And how do you determine the difference between healthy and unhealthy inflation?
     
  19. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
  20. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yea, which is why I said they probably have the value for 3 months in advance of the date. Most likely for graphing purposes I guess. Either way... not that big of a deal.
     
  21. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Too many questions dude. Basically you are a child. You are going to ask why to every single one of my responses until we reach a point where it gets boring.

    They want to put enough money in the economy to reach a target rate of growth. How they figure out what is the target rate of growth... go look it up on Google.
     
  22. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol

    Another failure on your part to explain your assertions. Don't you get tired of being made a fool?

    And weren't you the individual who kept telling me to explain my own positions using my own words? Yet when you're asked to explain your position (which, obviously, you cannot) you tell me to google it? The hypocrisy and inconsistency you continually display is amazing.
     
  23. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I explained it to you. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean I failed.

    It's simple stuff. It's complex to calculate, but to understand that they are trying to reach a target rate of growth and why is pretty simple.
     
  24. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You did not explain why closing the output gap was the right amount of money to spend, nor did you explain how to determine the difference between healthy and unhealthy inflation. Instead, you chickened out and hypocritically told me to google it even though you're the one who lectures people on speaking for themselves instead of relying on outside sources.

    So, yes, you have failed, like you always do, to explain your position and support it with evidence.
     
  25. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just know regardless of what I say, it will just lead to more never ending questions.

    The output gap is the difference between the potential GDP and actual GDP. As in what economists think the economy should produce vs what the economy actually produced. If there is slack, the theory is that the economy can take on more aggregate-demand. Policy is based on increasing this aggregate-demand. One way to do it is by the Govt increasing their expenditures and giving individuals who don't have incomes, income... so that they can fill the output gap.

    Healthy inflation is an amount of inflation that keeps the flow of money going with out drastically increasing prices that can not be sustained for the long term.
     

Share This Page