Economic Data
Two graphs...
[ Update; It's hard to see, but each bar on the lefthand graph is a month, starting from December 2007 and running to January 2010. ]
[ Update; It's hard to see, but each bar on the lefthand graph is a month, starting from December 2007 and running to January 2010. ]
posted by JimK at 5:03 PM
32 Comments:
interesting how Bush has 14 years and Obama has 12 years
is this from one of those alternative universe comic books where Nixon served extra terms after superheroes help him win the Vietnam War?
nice to see that six years after Obama leaves in 2012, we'll have a surplus
are they making a videogame too?
No, it's not a comic book. It's the sad but true facts about how deep the hole is that Bush left for us to fill. We won't bottom out from the Bush hole until 6 years after he's left office, or longer if GOP members in Congress keep sitting on their hands instead of doing their job.
that's not what this graph says, inane-B
but are you now saying Obama will not be responsible for anything until the last two years and an eight year presidency?
I've got a surprise for you: it's unlikely he'll be re-elected
in any case, the graph needs some 'splainin' cause it's as inane as you
Bush didn't have 14 budgets, Obama won't have 12
also, Obama's deficits depend on whether he ever passes any more of his socialist agenda
right now, it looks like the stimulus package was his first and last hurrah
we really appreciate him saving all the fat cats on Wall Street and pumping up Totota's bottom line with his Clunker program but...
these numbers will only stay as they are, for Obama's four years, if Republicans can stop him from passing any more socialist bills
you should hope the Repubs will save him from himself
if he cooperates, he'll get a lot of credit
ask Bill Clinton
"It's the sad but true facts about how deep the hole is that Bush left for us to fill."
looks like Obama intends to keep digging to me
don't these dubious numbers show him running a deficit every year?
the way to get out of hole is stop digging
Barry has no intention of that
Kaopectate can reduce the outflow.
You should try some, "Anonymous"
we really appreciate him saving all the fat cats on Wall Street
I'm sure you do. You appreciate it so much you and your repugnicans don't want Wall Street "fat cats" to pay the money back!
Obama told Congress during his SOTUS to enact legislation so Wall Street will pay back the money Main Street loaned them, while your Great Obstructionist Puppets sat on their hands. The GOPers in Congress intend to obstruct any such law and to allow Wall Street "fat cats" to keep it all.
Did you hear that the Cash for Clunkers program's cost to the taxpayer was TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND per car??? Check out the article on CNNmoney.com.
And that clunker was Obama's crowning jewel! Turns out it was a fake.
I actually don't mind that my tax dollars went to that dismal failure! It was worth the chuckle!
Bush and the Republicans (with a lot of help from uber-market oriented Democratic finance types) ran our economy into a ditch. The lesson we should learn is the lesson we learned from the Great Depression: That left to its own devices, unregulated capitalism tends to destroy itself.
The Republican Party is ideologically wedded to the idea is that unfettered capitalism is the best we can do -- even with all its flaws and occasional catastrophes. The Party will not admit that, because it is bad politics, but, in practice, it will not deviate from this ideology. Instead, the Party will rale against "big government" while trying to ignore that the alternative is the unfettered free market, which now twice in 80 years has proven to be a disaster. Likewise, the Tea-Baggers will continue to rale against "big government," and will, out of spleen, attack "big money," while opposing policies that would smartly rein in "big money" -- because such policies must involve government action. So how would a Tea-Bag Party actually govern?
Democrats are tempted to rale against unfettered capitalism, attacking capitalists, but failing to recognize that capitalism is (at least at this stage of human development) the best way to maximize a society's economic well-being. Obama clearly understands this danger, but it is hard to put this on a bumper sticker.
As with so many other issues, Obama is correct in his analysis: We must regulate the free market in order to safe it (and us) from the inevitable excesses of the free market. The open question is whether he (or anyone) has the skill to convince most voters of this complexity, in an environment in which so many people simply react with spleen rather than analysis.
"Prior to the 1980s, conservatives were fiscally conservative— that is, they were unwilling to spend more than they took in in taxes. But Reaganomics introduced the idea that virtually any tax cut would so stimulate growth that the government would end up taking in more revenue in the end (the so-called Laffer curve). In fact, the traditional view was correct: if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you end up with a damaging deficit. Thus the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s produced a big deficit; the Clinton tax increases of the 1990s produced a surplus; and the Bush tax cuts of the early 21st century produced an even larger deficit. The fact that the American economy grew just as fast in the Clinton years as in the Reagan ones somehow didn't shake the conservative faith in tax cuts as the surefire key to growth."[
guys, you're crazy
the significant number is debt as a percentage of GDP
at the end of Bill Clinton's first term, it was 67%
at the end of George W Bush's second term, it was 69%
up 2% in 12 years
not bad considering the major calamities that Bush had to face: 9/11, anthrax, two wars, Enron, Katrina, Barney Frank's "rolling the dice" with subsized housing...
in the last four presidential terms, here's how the debt as a % of GDP has changed:
Clinton I 3%
Clinton II -10%
Bush I 5%
Bush II 6%
if Obama only spends what he is currently planning, it will increase 32%
it will get worse if he can pass all his initiatives
his stimilus package increased a broad range of discretionary spending permanently
in middle of Clinton's first term, btw, Repubs pushed through welfare reform and the requirement that any new spending had to be met by either an equivalent spending cut or revenue increase
the internet bubble, also inflated tax revenues
thus, the decrease in his second term
because Clinton held taxes higher than spending, the economy was in recession when he left
small deficits that evaporate over time with inflation are healthy
Barack Obama's schemes are dangerous
if Obama only spends what he is currently planning, it will increase 32%
and that's in his first term
he won't get another one
"Bush and the Republicans (with a lot of help from uber-market oriented Democratic finance types) ran our economy into a ditch."
How so? Bush followed stimulative policies with some restraint. Obama is doing the same thing raised to the tenth power, that is, with no restraint.
The big difference is that Bush stimulated by returning money to the citizens to spend but Obama is giving it to government agencies to spend.
As to the difference, there's really no empirical case that the latter works.
"The lesson we should learn is the lesson we learned from the Great Depression: That left to its own devices, unregulated capitalism tends to destroy itself."
Not really. The Securities and Exchage Act was a needed reform but unregulated stock markets were not the real problem. The problem was when Hoover raised taxes and tariffs in a recessionary environment.
The only "regulation" necessary is to assure adequate disclosures. Other than that, the markets will work.
"The Republican Party is ideologically wedded to the idea is that unfettered capitalism is the best we can do -- even with all its flaws and occasional catastrophes."
Beside adequate disclosure, the other way government needs to support capitalism is to make sure monopolies don't develop that eliminate market forces. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was the pioneer here.
"The Party will not admit that, because it is bad politics, but, in practice, it will not deviate from this ideology."
No Republican favors repeal of the
Securities and Exchange Act or anti-trust laws. Those are the necessary "fetters" and Republicans are not against them.
"Instead, the Party will rale against "big government" while trying to ignore that the alternative is the unfettered free market, which now twice in 80 years has proven to be a disaster."
False dichotomy alert. Also, I think it's spelled "rail".
Government can provide the necessary enforcement of securities and anti-trust laws without trillions of dollars in discretionary deficit spending.
Small example: Obama suggested the federal government outlaw vending machines in schools this week. How did managing schools become a Federal government function?
It's a mentality.
"Likewise, the Tea-Baggers will continue to rale against "big government," and will, out of spleen, attack "big money," while opposing policies that would smartly rein in "big money" -- because such policies must involve government action. So how would a Tea-Bag Party actually govern?"
You're crazy, David. Teabaggers have never mentioned securities or anti-trust laws. Their most significant cause has been to prevent the government destruction of the best health care system in the world.
"As with so many other issues, Obama is correct in his analysis: We must regulate the free market in order to safe it (and us) from the inevitable excesses of the free market. The open question is whether he (or anyone) has the skill to convince most voters of this complexity, in an environment in which so many people simply react with spleen rather than analysis."
Markets are already regulated. The issue is whether to change the method and extent.
From your spleen, you make it an "either-or" proposition while Obama's chief vice is actually immoderation.
A moderate form of regulation is necessary to maintain capitalism but capitalism should remain the goal. Excessive regulation eliminates capitalism.
Barry Obama is drunk on socialism.
Wasn't the graph on the left "jobs lost per month" for the latter part of Bush's presidency and the beginning of Obama's? What do years have to do with anything?
rrjr
great news!!
"U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) has announced that he will not run for reelection. Kennedy is the youngest son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
In a video, Kennedy explains, "My father instilled in me a deep commitment to public service. Now having spent two decades in politics, my life has taken a new direction and I will not be a candidate for re-election this year."
The younger Kennedy first ran for office when he was 21 and won a seat in the Rhode Island legislature. He has represented Rhode Island in Congress since 1995. He serves on the powerful House Appropriations Committee and ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, a post known to groom rising stars in the party for future leadership positions.
Depression and substance abuse problems overshadowed Kennedy's most recent years in office."
well, you've cheered the rest of us up today, buddy!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Okay, that's it, Anon. I understand that the technique is to make so many outlandish and offensive assertions that no one wants to talk to you any more, and then announce that you've won the debate. But this site has a moderator, and I have reached my limit.
If you have something on-topic and sensible to say, please feel free to represent your point of view.
I have the feeling you're the only one who went in to work today, I understand you're bored and are running out the clock playing on the Internet on your boss's dime, but -- somebody recently recommend kaopectate for you, I think they made the correct diagnosis.
Take a break.
JimK
that was an interesting post about what gay religious people in political office opposing the religious views of others
back to the economy and debt:
Obama may not be able to carry out his agenda even if Congress approves
China has announced that it is cutting back on lending
who's going to give Barack a credit card now?
"NEW YORK -Stocks skidded Friday after China said it would force its banks to reduce their lending.
The Dow Jones industrial average fell 105 points in midday trading after China said it would require banks to increase reserve levels."
how stimulatin'!
the DSM-IV draft is out and the APA is playing politics again
using a euphemism to soften the description of those with gender identity disorder, they may wind up hurting thise afflicted with this disorder by making research for a cure seem less urgent
and these guys are supposed to be professionals:
"The American Psychiatric Association is considering changing Gender Identity Disorder (GID), to Gender Incongruity. GID is a conflict between a person's physical gender and the gender with which he or she identifies.
Dr. George Rekers, distinguished professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, said it's pure politics.
"I think they are bowing to activist groups to downplay the actual psychopathology involved by just calling it gender incongruence," he said.
Decades ago, similar pressure removed homosexuality from the list of disorders.
"They don't want to go back to put homosexuality as the disorder," said Rekers. "Now it looks like they're backpedaling on Gender Identity Disorder.""
Dr. George Rekers was on the founding board of the Family Reserch Council and is on the board at NARTH.
Dr. Rekers has testified in court that he believes the Bible is the infallible word of God, and that homosexuality is a sin. His personal beliefs regarding homosexuality, according to the ACLU, interferes with his being able to give an unbiased professional opinion on LGBT topics.
Rekers was an expert witness in a 2004 case involving gay adoption in Arkansas, which had banned LGBT people from adopting in 1999. In January 2005, Timothy White, Pulaski County's circuit court judge ruled against the state of Arkansas. Furthermore, he called Rekers' testimony "extremely suspect." He also accused Rekers of testifying solely for promoting his "own personal agenda."
In 2008, Rekers was also an expert witness in In re: Gill, a case defending Florida's gay adoption ban. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled against the state. In her decision, she said "Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."
"Dr. Rekers has testified in court that he believes that homosexuality is a sin. His personal beliefs regarding homosexuality, according to the ACLU, interferes with his being able to give an unbiased professional opinion on LGBT topics."
Thanks, ACLU.
Out of curiousity, why do you think that believing homosexuality is not a sin is unbiased?
If you believe that people that think homosexuality is a sin are wrong, doesn't that make you just as biased as if you hold the opposite opinion?
Are there any objective observers concerning sexual morality, and really, even if there were, do we want people without moral convictions trusted with the power of science?
"Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science."
How can beliefs be inconsistent with science? Science is a study of the physical world, not the metaphysical world.
Seems the ones with a bias are the ones who want to rename this disorder as an "incongruence".
They aren't making the argument that we should rename any other disorders.
Right?
the latest NY Times poll of all voters has Obama's approval rating dropping to 46%
I had a feeling Obama would do bad, but I didn't know he'd be this bad.
At least he's not as bad as the Republicans!
NYTimes: Poll Finds Edge for Obama Over G.O.P. Among the Public
There are lots of interesting findings in this poll.
Like these:
"Which comes closest to your feelings about the Obama administration?"
Enthusiastic - 10%
Satisfied but not enthusiastic - 37%
Dissatisfied but not angry 38%
Angry - 13%
Don't know - 2%
"How much longer do you think the effects of the recession will last?"
6 months - 4%
1 year - 23%
2 years - 25%
More than 2 years - 45%
"Who do you think is mostly to blame for the current state of the nation's economy?"
Bush Administration - 31%
Obama Administration - 7%
Wall Street and financial institutions - 23%
Congress - 13%
Someone else - 5%
All of the above - 9%
Combination - 10%
Don't know - 1%
Same question asked but "Wall Street and financial institutions" was not one of the options:
Bush Administration - 41%
Obama Administration - 7%
Congress - 24%
Someone else - 10%
All of the above - 10%
Combination - 7%
Don't know - 1%
"If you had to choose, would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services, or a bigger government providing more services?"
Smaller - 56%
Bigger - 34%
"Which comes closer to your view?"
"The federal government should spend money to create jobs, even if it means increasing the deficit." - 47%
"The federal government should NOT spend money to create jobs and should instead focus on reducing the deficit." - 45%
"The Obama administration has proposed letting the tax cuts passed in 2001 expire for households earning about $250,000 a year or more. This would increase federal income taxes for those people. Do you think this proposal is a good idear or a bad idea?
Good idea - 62%
Bad idea - 31%
Don't know - 7%
you're a riot, anon-B
Obama wins a poll against a generic Republican by 2 points: 45 to 43
just because they think Obama isn't to blame doesn't mean they think he has what it takes to improve the situation
the Tea Party will win the next election either by taking and transforming the Republican Party or working through alternative parties
"the line it is drawn
and the curse it is cast
the slow one now
will later be fast
as the present now
will later be past
the order is rapidly fading
and the one in first now
will later be last
'cause the times they are-a changin'"
Half of respondents were asked these two questions:
"Do you favor or oppose permitting homosexuals to serve in the military? Do you favor/oppose that strongly or not so strongly?"
Favor strongly - 34%
Favor not so strongly - 25%
Oppose strongly - 19%
Oppose not so strongly - 10%
Don't know - 12%
IF FAVOR, ASK: "What if they openly announce their sexual orientation? In that case would you favor or oppose permitting homosexuals to serve in the military?"
Favor - 44%
Oppose - 12%
Don't know - 3%
The other half of respondents were asked these two question:
"Do you favor or oppose permitting gay men and lesbians to serve in the military. Do you favor/oppose that strongly or not so strongly?"
Favor strongly - 51%
Favor not so strongly - 19%
Oppose strongly 12%
Oppose not so strongly - 7%
Don't know - 10%
IF FAVOR ASK: "What if they openly announce their sexual orientation? In that case would you favor or oppose permitting gay men and lesbians to serve in the military?"
Favor - 58%
Oppose - 9%
Don't know - 3%
Interesting question wording effect, Aunt Bea. The Nutty Ones like the word "homosexual" because it has the word "sex" in it and so picks up whatever queasiness people have imagining somebody else having sex. The word trick works. Here you can see that people are much more tolerant of "gay men and lesbians" than of "homosexuals."
JimK
I agree with your analysis 100%, Jim. Thanks. IMHO, this difference is why people like Peter Sprigg are paid by groups like FRC.
the Tea Party will win the next election either by taking and transforming the Republican Party or working through alternative parties
"If a third political party were created, do you think that would give people like you more say in government, or wouldn't a third party make that much difference?"
More say in gov't - 31%
Wouldn't make a difference - 60%
Depends - 4%
Don't know - 6%
"How much have you heard or read about the Tea Pary movement?"
A lot - 18%
Some - 27%
Not much - 21%
Nothing - 34%
Questions asked of those who answered "a lot, some, or not much:"
"Regardless of your opinion, do you think the views of the people involved in the Tea Party movement generally reflect the views of most Americans, or not?"
Reflect most Americans - 22%
Do not reflect most - 28%
Both/Some - 3%
Don't know - 19%
"Do you think the Tea Party movement will make the Republican Party stronger, will make the Republican Party weaker or will it have no effect on the Republican Party?"
Stronger - 20%
Weaker - 11%
No effect - 20%
Don't know - 16%
"Do you consider yourself to be a supporter of the Tea Party movement or not?"
Yes - 18%
No - 29%
Don't know - 9%
Jim and anon-B are amazed that the rhetorical trick of the lunatic fringe has worked: creating a euphemism for "homosexual"
interesting that anon-B's cited poll numbers add to considerably less than 100
she probably was daydreaming in public school math class when they did percentages
anyway, it's hard to discuss a poll that's blatantly wrong but polls consistently show Americans support the Tea Party's major issues: opposition to the socialism of health care, treating the struggle against terror as a war rather than a criminal prosecution, lower taxes, smaller government, sustainable deficits, opposition to cap and trade
slumber at your own risk, Dems
there's reason why you're losing
anon-B's cited poll numbers
I did not conduct any poll. The numbers cited are from the NYTimes poll mentioned here this morning.
For the RCC -- reading comprehension challenged -- some of the questions were only asked of respondents who answered previous questions in certain ways, hence not 100% of the respondents were asked every question.
For example, only those who said they'd heard of the Tea Party in some way ("a lot, some, or not much") were asked follow up questions about it. These pollsters wisely did not waste their time asking questions about the Tea Party of respondents who said they'd heard "Nothing" about it.
Duh, Anone.
as I said, the poll is worthless
It's "worthless" to you because its findings show that some of your views are among the minority.
If you don't like being in the minority, why do you keep coming here?
no, it's worthless because it doesn't seem to have any effect
btw, I love being a minority member
When C-SPAN‘s Brian Lamb said last month the network was ready to televise health negotiations, House Minority Leader John Boehner wrote Lamb to say, “House Republicans strongly endorse your proposal and stand ready to work with you to make it reality.” Then the president scheduled his health care summit for two weeks from today and invited the cameras. Now, Boehner says, “I think that‘s fine, but you know, is this a political event or is it going to be a real conversation?”
When the Democrats decided not to televise the all Democrat negotiations between senators and congressmen of their party, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona exploded, “There‘s no good reason to keep the negotiations of the health care bill a secret, unless, of course, the president and congressional Democrats know that Americans wouldn‘t like what they see, and the only way they can get this bill is to write it in secret and pass it quickly.”
But now, with the televised summit a reality, Kyl says, “The truth of the matter is, a lot of things here are done by staff behind closed doors. And it‘s not always the wrong way to put something together.”
Sometimes, Washington hypocrisy is difficult to see and it requires careful parsing and heavy-handed conclusions by analysts... Not this time, huh?
Post a Comment
<< Home