socal2 says
Dan8267 - that chart and Max Nutting's hack analysis was debunked 2 weeks ago by both the AP and Washington Post (not exactly right-wing news sources)
Thank you for at least coming back with the right approach to debating this issue. At least now we can have an intelligent discussion of this issue.
But first, I am stating on the record that as someone who clearly does not and has never supported Obama -- hell, I'm his biggest detractor on this site and that's including all the right-wing lies that other people have spread. As I clearly am not pro-Obama, I have absolutely no political motivation to make him look good. If anything, one would expect me to want him to look bad on this issue, particularly since I also completely disagree with the way he handled the depression.
That said, the crux of the argument that the Haver data behind the Maher chart is incorrect is
The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama's 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.
OK, fair enough. Let's go with that now for the sake of argument -- it would be nice if someone could confirm that. But what does that change? $150 billion in spending cuts when the spending is $3.8 trillion is only 3.9%. So, add that to Obama's 1.4% and you get 5.3%. By that math, Obama is still spending less than Republican president up to and including Reagan. Only during Reagan's second term did he spend less, but Reagan still spent way more overall.
So even accepting the proposed adjusted to the Haver data, Obama still comes out as a sprendthrift and the only massive spending he did (3.9% / 5.3%) or 66% of his spending increase was to stimulate the economy which is something that every politician Democrat or Republican (including Bush II) was for. And why, because everyone in Washington is a Keynesian who believes that aggregate demand is the cure-all for all depressions. Republican and Democrats do not differ on Keynesian economics.
However, I cannot wholeheartedly accept the assertion that Obama increased spending by 5.3% based solely on the assertion of an associated press article that doesn't include the actual evidence. Normally, I'd give the press some benefit of a doubt, but I have the evidence. I've linked to it.
The archive data I've linked to shows in detail both the revenue and the outlays of the federal government including the totals, the budgeted, and the non-budgeted. It also includes detailed analysis of the data. The data I've gotten from government historians does not count the payback as decrease spending but as revenue. I don't know off the top of my head if it was budgeted or non-budgeted. And my graph is based on that data.
My graph shows Obama -- and to be fair, all presidents -- as spending less than on Maher's graph. However, the relative size of the bars are the same. Obama hasn't spent as much as Bush despite having to continue to pay for wars that Bush started, which quite frankly are what is responsible for the vast majority of the spending increases. Those wars -- note the plural -- are damn expensive. The worse case you can make against Obama is that he didn't cut-and-run, but that's exactly what the Republicans universally said America shouldn't do.
Now I disagree with those wars and never supported them. I only supported strategic strikes to take out Al Qaeda, which was accomplished quickly and inexpensively. But the red states universally supported the wars and wanted them expanded through various surges. Well surges of troops and equipment means surges of spending. War is expensive and provides zero returns (since you can't pillage and enslave anymore, well, at least not enslave).
As such, I don't seen any evidence that Obama is the biggest promoter of spending in all history. The only straw you can possible grasp at is that Obama is the most recent president and since federal spending has been going up crazy since Reagan, inertia is going to force later presidents to spend more than previous ones. The next administration, Republican or Democrat, is almost certainly going to spend more than this one. And the administration after that, Republican or Democrat, is almost certainly going to spend more that that one.
Before you can decrease spending, you have to zero-out the differential, the growth in spending. It's like driving a car. You start at 40 mph and keep accelerating to 60 mph. Before you can bring the car to a stop, you have to first stop accelerating, and then decelerate.
And finally, I've been complaining about the national debt since 1984 when Reagan was running for his second term after massively increasing the debt. I find it very suspicious that all of a sudden the right is concerned about a debt when it didn't mean anything when Bush II was running it up. I also find it very suspicious that the right opposes military spending, which accounts for 24% of federal spending and 54% of the income tax.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
So, if you are truly for greatly reducing federal spending, which I am, based on the first chart above, the places you need to cut in order are: defense, health care, government pensions, and too some degree welfare. But the big three are about the same size and almost twice what we spend on welfare.
And the thing about defense -- and I use that term very loosely because it's not really defense -- is that we could cut it by 80% and still be spending as much as the next highest spending country, China, which has a population 1.3 trillion or about 4.43 times as many people as the U.S. We would have to cut defense by 95.5% to spend as much per capita as the second highest spending country. But let's just cut it by 80%, and we'll still be spending over 4 times as much per capita as China, and our military is still way ahead of theirs anyway.
By the way, if you think China is a threat that demands military spending, then maybe we shouldn't be trading so heavily with them. Just saying.
To conclude, Obama is not the big spender. In fact Democrats aren't big spenders. The facts clearly show that Republicans way out-spend Democrats. It's just that Republicans put us in debt for that spending instead of taxing for it, which quite frankly is worse. And Republicans are all for spending on the wrong things, things that destroy wealth like war instead of creating wealth like building infrastructure.
Put simply, Republicans aren't fiscally responsible. The facts don't support that claim. And this is coming from someone who paid his own way through college working, and has been debt free since paying off his college/car loans within four months of graduating. I know fiscally responsibility.
san diego chargers san diego chargers j.r. martinez lance ball lance ball kansas city chiefs chiefs
No comments:
Post a Comment