The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/28/1011405/-Three-Charts-To-Email-To-Your-Right-Wing-Brother-In-Law

I don't know how to post the charts. Can someone help?

Here you go.

(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6088811201_96839c6977.jpg)

Government spending increased dramatically under Bush.  It has not increased much under Obama.  Note that this chart does not reflect any spending cuts resulting from deficit-cutting deals.
 
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6199/6089355018_3eea3fa4be.jpg)


Notes, this chart includes Clinton's last budget year for comparison.   
The numbers in these two charts come from Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012.  They are just the amounts that the government spent and borrowed, period,  Anyone can go look then up.  People who claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are either misled or are trying to mislead.


(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6088811219_7177d24faa.jpg)
In this chart, the RED lines on the left side -- the ones that keep doing DOWN -- show what happened to jobs under the policies of Bush and the Republicans. We were losing lots and lots of jobs every month, and it was getting worse and worse.  The BLUE lines -- the ones that just go UP -- show what happened to jobs when the stimulus was in effect. We stopped losing jobs and started gaining jobs, and it was getting better and better.  The leveling off on the right side of the chart  shows what happened as the stimulus started to wind down: job creation leveled off at too low a level.
It looks a lot like the stimulus reversed what was going on before the stimulus.

Conclusion: THE STIMULUS WORKED BUT WAS NOT ENOUGH!

More False Things

These are just three of the false things that everyone "knows."  Some others are (click through): Obama bailed out the banks, businesses will hire if they get tax cuts, health care reform cost $1 trillion, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme or is "going broke", government spending "takes money out of the economy."

Why This Matters

These things really matter.  We all want to fix the terrible problems the country has.  But it is so important to know just what the problems are before you decide how to fix them.  Otherwise the things you do to try to solve those problems might just make them worse. If you get tricked into thinking that Obama has made things worse and that we should go back to what we were doing before Obama -- tax cuts for the rich, giving giant corporations and Wall Street everything they want -- when those are the things that caused the problems in the first place, then we will be in real trouble.

Great headline. I have one of those. And a brother. I will send it to them but not holding out for any enlightenment.

My wife is constantly having to endure patients who blurt out anti-Obama'isms and she is at a loss as to how to respond. I will print this and give it to her.

My advice to her is always the same. Ask them specifically what Obama has done that is destroying America economically. Ask them specifically what it is about the Health Care act that they disagree with, and oh by the way, when exactly does the Health Care act go into effect. Most people can't answer with any specificity because they just don't know. But they know he's doing it all wrong.

To simplify, ask them what reporters are supposed to; who, what, why, when, where? Then ask them where they learned their answers.

Then just smile and nod your head.

Just goes to show you can use incomplete sets of data to try and create an illusion.  The Bush job losses start in '08 which we all know was the start of one Hell of a recession.  The Obama spending and debt numbers are "estimates".  Instead of reversing the alarming trend of spending under Bush, it's used as justification for even more spending. Curious to know if the '08 to '09 spending included "loans" under TARP and auto bail-outs, anyone know?

How is the data incomplete?

I agree that the time frame is arbitrary. It was the first thing I looked for, but not inaccurate, just arbitrarily chosen to make a point.

How is it being used to justify even larger spending? That's a jump from the figures provided.

These numbers could certainly be summarized differently but they are the numbers for that time period. January 2008 was not the beginning of the end of job growth. I remember reports of fears of job decline at least as far back as Katrina.

One other point largely ignored as well with the uptick in spending starting in 2007, was the House had been taken over by the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term.

I guess we can stop blaming Obama then. The House must be totally to credit and to blame.

The house holds the purse strings...

That's some funny stuff right there.

... "deficits don't matter".... that is, unless there's a Dem in office....  ::)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer


(http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I27480-2004Jun9)

Jeff, Reagan is so...so... 1988.  You need to get with the times, there's two Bushes to blame since then.

Reagan said that we would spend the russians into oblivion.  As much as people LOVE that guy, he was a big spending president. 

But it all started with Reagan.  Goes to the whole point that I rant on so much about the lack of a sense or knowledge of history.  But, hey, history is not kind to the writers of "The Script" now, is it?

But you see, Keynesians should be really happy about this and exploit it as that spending coincided with one of the largest economic expansions this country has ever seen.

I don't believe Reagan thought other presidents would continue to borrow heavily to supplement their budgets.  He actually did follow the Keynes model to a degree if you consider the deficit spending as well as tax cuts to put money in the hands of consumers, investors, entrepreneurs, and corporations.  Either his fiscal policies got the 1970's era trainwreck he inherited back on track or it simply was fortunate enough to  coincide with new technologies which rapidly developed in the 1980s like personal computers and all sorts of innovations made possible by integrated circuitry.  Much of the same can be said about the Clinton years, was he fortunate enough to preside as the internet, bio-tech, and telecom all took off during that time, or were his fiscal policies that sound?  I suspect it was a combination of both for each president. 

Oh, puleeezzzeee!!!

You do realize that Clinton's was the largest, longest and added the most jobs.  (The economic expansion that is...)

Kennedy/Johnson was second.

Reagan's was third.  With the largest tax hikes in the history of the world right after his tax cuts.  But somehow that little fact never seems to make it into the propaganda pages of "The Script".  Why do you suppose that is??  Yeah, he was the only privileged one who somehow had the "right" to make massive deficits, because no one else would continue it.  ??? What is that supposed to mean?

And the 70's trainwreck was a direct result of wage/price controls that Nixon (another Republican) put in place, plus the winding down of the war.  Ever notice how the economy always goes into recession after a war?  Ford tried to help and it didn't work, and Jimmie just got bulldozed by it.  But hey, nothing like a little revisionist history to cater to "The Scripters".

You brought something to mind, the Reagan expansion was the longest peacetime expansion the country had seen to that point.  I don't see how you can point to the failures of the Nixon/Ford admins as well as winding down of another MIC "project" yet completely ignore Carter's horrible handling of the economy.  He came close to making Coolidge look like a genius.  

And as is pointed out on another thread, Congress controls the purse strings.  Have you forgotten that Congress approved budgets in excess of the President's proposals every year Reagan was in office with the exception of FY 1984?  Certainly Congress doesn't deserve all the blame for the deficits of the time, but neither does the president.

I just find it interesting that the liberal think-tank which worships at the feet of John Maynard Keynes has consistently shat upon the economic policies of the Reagan administration when many of Keynes concepts were, in fact, employed to bring us out of the malaise of the late '70's and early '80's.

Conan, contemporaries of Reagan bring up his massive debt compilation because it shows the hypocrisy of current Reagan idol worshipers. Investment by the government in the economy works and Reagan proved it. It may have been a spend crazy congress at the time but he didn't present any balanced budgets either. Current Republican leaders tend to start mumbling when all that is brought up. Buchanan was the originator of the "greatest (peacetime) economic growth the country had ever had" up to the Clinton administration when that phrase became history. Peacetime. I guess he forgot the Cold War, and the other little skirmishes we engaged in while feeding the MIC. Honestly, just like Kennedy, Reagan was a good, not great, president who filled a need the country had at the time.

I do agree with you that blaming a president for all that happens on his watch is just crazy. The blame game is for bumper stickers. That is why I am surprised by your opinion of Carter. The times were such that most any president at the time would have more than he could handle. Carter's first order of business was to try and return honesty and integrity to the office. He did, but it was in the midst of an environment that was rife with a lack of both of those qualities in business and politics. He ended up looking dim, naive and powerless. The press treated him worse than the Bushes or Obama. Carter was just one more in a long list of leaders who totally underestimated the complexity of the office and the dedication by opponents to destroying whoever holds it.

You and I always have and always will look through opposite ends of the binoculars, AquaMan.  ;)

Keynes was explicitly addressing what to do during downturns, especially in downturns severe enough to lead to the paralysis of private markets.  He was writing during -- and to solve -- the Great Depression; this is why he gets trotted out so often now, since this is the worst economy since that era.

When Keynesians talk about deficit spending, they're talking about it solely in the context of an emergency use of government capital. They're not talking about using deficit spending in times of expansion or even in the slightly bad times.  It's only in the worst cases.  Some of the same mechanisms work in all times (investment in your nation, turns out, is usually a good thing), but the massive public investment into government programs like the WPA, the CCC, etc are all specific to the worst downturns. 

And pretty much what we can see in the graph that JeffM posted as deficits started to narrow in 1987 and 88.  What Reagan walked into in 1981 would be characterized as an emergency.  I don't have time at the moment to look up tax receipts and see how much of that was increased tax revenue due to the expansion or constraint in spending (like that would ever happen in DC).

One other interesting aspect of Reagan's presidency: I don't recall him ever blaming his predecessor for the mess after he took office.

No doubt. More likely a periscope.

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted." - Ronald reagan, 1983 State of the Union Address

"For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present.  To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.  You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but only for a limited period of time.  Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation?  We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.  And let there be no misunderstanding:  We are going to begin to act, beginning today."-Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural address, January 20, 1981

And the irony of this statement should be obvious:

"A trillion dollars would be a stack of $1,000 bills 67 miles high."
--President Reagan warning in February 1981 that the national debt, accumulated over the United States' 200 year history, is approaching $1 trillion.  (Under Reagan, the national debt would nearly triple to $2.9 trillion.)

ALL presidents blame their predecessors...even Reagan.

Turn them around and look through the correct end, then.


It took 200 years to get to about 900 billion.  Then 8 years to get to about 3 trillion.  How is that so difficult to grasp??

The problems Reagan inherited were directly from the Nixon years.  The wind down of war and its resulting recession.  Wage and price controls, which we have shown repeatedly are catastrophic to an economy. 

History people!!  It IS important!!

And here's a chart to show to your Obama-hunching brother-in-law:
(http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/obama-deficit-2011.jpg)

Azbad, wow, one instance where he talks about what he's walked into during the SOTU two years into his first term, another which simply talks about fiscal mistakes of many decades as he's inaugurated.

I don't recall him using Carter for an excuse at every turn.  That's been the Obama M.O. since he took office.  Continued stagnant economy under his failed policies to mitigate it: Blame Bush.  Oil spill in the Gulf: Blame Bush.  Financial crisis in Europe: Blame Bush.  Fails to back up his campaign promises on Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan: Blame Bush.

Are you seeing a pattern yet?

These are not the graphs you are looking for.

(http://philcouling.com/jedi-mind-trick.jpg)

Lets just forget the graphs and charts for a moment, and use liberal language.


Do you feel that the economy has improved over the last 3 years?

Have you received everything that was promised you?

Has president Obama been successful in exacting the revenge against the wealthy that you desired?

Does "Hope & Change" and "Yes We Can" still give you the same thrill (up your leg)?

Are you willing to bet everything on four more years of this?

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQh-bgRZBOMum-BamhByrBYsq0zxhPdwgHN2U_3nTdRbuW1XBtwAw)(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRy5Hk8vqdrdKKxQeCZV3BbHbt9ru2jEefV0Llxq6ETMK4K4kk-30EKm5XC)(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQL5Rvrg099mB6wiDUOZ1Nt_rWmjCaMSSJxqq9VaW31-zCEI_9-), etc...

3 of a kind is a strong hand against a 2-7 offsuit. . .or stuffed suit for that matter.

You can load your hand with any number of these folks and still lose the pot.

Did you say "pot"?
(http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2010/02/obama_smoking_joint.jpg)

So, genuinely curious:  do you -- Conan, Gaspar -- think that a Perry presidency is more desirable than another 4 years of Obama?

I think any true card carrying conservative in todays political climate would prefer anybody over Obama.   Therein lies the bulk of the problem. The 'win at all cost' mentality the DC righties currently espouse could wind up driving this national into the abyss.

Sent from my AT&T Atrix4G with Tapatalk

Yes, I'm seeing a pattern of typical Conan partisan hackery.... Reagan and Republicans BLAMED four years of Jimmy Carter for everything bad about the country and the world... yet when Barack Obama has to clean up after 8 years of Bush which ended in economic catastrophe, it's an Obama M.O.?  Really?

It's remarkable, because I'd assumed we're close to the same age... but the idea of Reagan NOT blaming Carter?!?   Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah.... really?  really?... and you're talking about the same president who vowed "never to speak ill of a fellow Republican"..... including Richard Nixon, but interestingly enough, NOT Gerald Ford....

Your M.O. from day one has been that Obama is "an empty suit."

Yeah, ask Osama bin Laden who he thinks is "an empty suit."   ::)

BTW, 1987 was about the time I got to work graveyard shifts at Village Inn after the draconian Gramm-Rudman budget cuts eliminated my National Direct Student Loan... so yeah, I think I did my fair share to reduce the federal deficit, thank you very much.... from 1984-1987, the number of homeless doubled--- Reagan quipped that "people who are sleeping on the grates... the homeless... are homeless, you might say... by choice"... while taxes were dropped to 28% for the wealthy... minimum wage was stuck at $3.35... I was willing to vote for Reagan in 1984 because I felt all of us could sacrifice to reduce the federal deficit... but it was those four years of Reagan's second term when I belatedly recognized that it was the supply-side tax cuts of REAGANOMICS, and not social security, that was (and still is) an unsustainable ponzi scheme... go figure.

If we don't re-elect Obama it's obvious now -- especially after the debt ceiling craziness -- that we elect the Tea Party.  It doesn't matter who's actually in the White House from the GOP.  Romney is obviously a weak leader, and all the others are courting the TPers openly.  So no matter what happens in a GOP WH win, we get the Tea Party.  And if the Tea Party gets control of the Executive, we're toast.  It's not hard to see that.  And there have to be plenty of card carrying American conservatives out there who see that as well. 

I'm not arguing for Obama here, just for not the Tea Party.  In a different environment and a different dynamic, I'd be cool with Obama being primaried, devil take the general election.  But not now.  Because we're really to the point that if this bunch of Republicans take over the WH, we might as lock the door and turn out the lights.  It'll be all over.

Peacetime? Odd that the military budget increased to wartime levels under Reagan. Military spending increased between 10 and 15 percent each year in Reagan's first term and around 5% each year in his second. Sounds positively Keynesian, actually. It wasn't until the first Bush and Clinton arrived that we stopped beating that dead horse.

By the way, Obama didn't double the deficit, he presided over the doubling of the deficit. The policies and inactions of the Bush Administration led directly to the economic downturn and thus the decreased tax collections that are responsible for the vast majority of the deficit. You could say that Obama's policies are the cause of some of that increase (a third or so, ballpark), yes, but by no means all of it.

You disappoint me.  You left out "chattering class".

It's no secret I'm a fan of a more moderate approach and to that end, I think Romney could be a good choice.  Problem seems to be the Tea Party is getting most of the media attention and the GOP house organs like Limbaugh and Hannity are all about the Tea Party.  There are some common sense items in the TP approach, particularly spending cuts and better government management, but the tax cuts at all costs mantra is old and tired, IMO.

Not often I disagree this much with you, nathan, but this cannot stand.  Obama did not preside over the doubling of the deficit.  It was already much more than doubled by Bush's last two years in office and his last two budgets.

EVERY one of Obama's deficits has been smaller than the previous and ALL of them have been smaller than Bush's last.

The increases in debt have been going DOWN every year since Obama took office - including projections for 2012 that I have seen.

I'm guessing many people claiming they're of the Tea Party are an excellent audience for all sorts of advertisers.  (QVC, Ronco, pharmaceuticals, etc.)

You missed the obvious, "extenze".

All encompassing "pharma".  Winky smiley face

To add to your "reverse class warfare" file folder:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/08/31/dodgy-tax-policies-and-ceo-pay.aspx


It's a quick article, but worth it.

Companies are reducing their taxes by paying CEOs big bucks.  When taxes are considered, is it less expensive than paying the tax when they get to the bottom dollar? 

That is exactly the class warfare that is so heinous in this tax structure.  As I have ranted about before, it is you and me that are subsidizing the CEO pay.  For every free dollar they get on their tax-free tens of millions, we have to make up the difference!

Which leads again to the question I have also asked before; how do supposedly rational middle class income people keep on voting for policies that are so horrendously biased and against their best financial interests - i.e. more of the same old tired "Bush tax cuts" approach to government.  It IS class warfare being waged on the bottom 98% of income earners by the top 2%.

We need to make it less expensive to pay the tax than to avoid paying the tax.