Hey Big Spender! (psst, that's you, Mr. Bush)

This chart, from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com,  shows very clearly that President Bush was responsible for the huge rise in spending and subsequent deficits. Following the Clinton surplus years Mr. Bush raised spending by around 400 billion (at the same time lowering taxes!), and again in 2009 under Bush spending jumped from 500 billion to almost 1500! (Yes, the 2009 budget belongs to Mr.Bush, it was put into place four months before Obama took office).

These are facts. They clearly show who was responsible for the huge rise in spending, and totally eliminates the 'big spender' argument against Obama.





Considering these facts, will any of you who might have supported Romney because you thought Obama was the big spender now change your position? 

Spending claims aren't the only phony charges the GOP has invented to attack Obama with. They also add job losses from January 2009 into Obama's jobs record, even though he wasn't sworn in until January 20th. That's over 800,000 jobs lost, in one month!

Here are a few other facts as collected by factcheckorg, along with a chart that mkaes it esy to see what the spending facts really look like.

• Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
• President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008.

• On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”

• CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac –  plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
• 
  
• Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

see how spending went up every year under Bush? See how it went down in 2010, Obama's first budget?



Is it too much to ask that rational people who might otherwise have blamed Obama for outrageous spending will now revise their position to include the facts, rather than the 'spin' by the GOP? 

Sadly, they probably won't. When people say they hate politics, this is why.

When you judge the 'Fake Obama' that the GOP made up, he does look bad.

But that isn't a real person.

The real President Obama has done a reasonably good job in trying to repair the damage caused by the previous administration. The country would be in a lot better shape if the GOP in the Senate hadn't filibustered everything Obama tried to do, such as the 2009 jobs bill, which passed the House and had 55 votes lined up in the Senate. The GOP prevented it from even getting a vote, putting partisan politics ahead of the welfare of the nation.

I venture to say none of you would like to be judged by a pack of lies, nor would you stand for your children or your employees lying about everything as Mitt Romney does.

Why do you put up with it?

STIMULATE ME!

Analyzing the results of the 2009 stimulus.

Mr. Romney continues to call this "the failed stimulus".

Is he correct?  Let's check the evidence...



Here is a list of top-rated studies (including which method was used and a quote from each summary)

As you will see, 6 of the 9 said it worked, 

one said it worked but was too small, 

and two said it didn't work.
(one of the 'failed' had results that showed it was due to it's being too small).
 

Also notable, the CBO, which is the "official"result, says it worked.

So the claim that the stimulus "failed" in contradicted by the facts, as 7 of 9 top studies say otherwise.




worked (econometric): 
 Feyrer and Sacerdote.
" The stimulus had a positive, statistically significant effect on employment. "

Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow,  and Woolston.
"The state fiscal aid portion of the stimulus, which specifically increased federal Medicaid matching funds, had significant positive effects on employment. The additional matching funds increased employment by 3.5 job-years per $100,000 spent, and the multiplier for the funds is around 2."

Wilson
"The stimulus created 2 million jobs in its first year, and 3.2 million by March 2011."
 
It worked (modeling):
Congressional Budget Office.
"Through the first quarter of 2011, the stimulus created between 1.6 million and 4.6 million jobs, increased real GDP by between 1.1 and 3.1 percent, and reduced unemployment by between 0.6 and 1.8 percentage points."

Council of Economic Advisors.
"The stimulus created or saved 2.7 million to 3.7 million jobs by the third quarter of 2010."

Zandi and Blinder.
"The stimulus raised real GDP in 2010 by 3.4 percent, reduced unemployment by 1.5 percentage points, and created almost 2.7 million jobs." It worked a little bit (modeling):

Oh and Reis.
"Both tax transfers and government purchases have very mild positive effects on growth."

It didn’t work (econometric):
Conley and Dupor.       
"The stimulus did not have a statistically significant effect on employment."
                   
Taylor. 
"The tax transfer provisions of the stimulus package, and previous stimulus packages in the 2000s, did not lead to a significant increase in consumption, and the spending provisions, notably including aid to state and local governments, did not lead to a noticeable increase in government purchases."                                          

Now here's a chart of three companies that also agree that the stimulus worked to stave off a deeper recession.


--


All of these indicate, once again, that the claim that the stimulus "failed" is just plain wrong.  Not mentioned in any of this is the reason the stimulus was needed, which was the bad economy handed over to Obama. 

Doe Mr. Romney know about these studies? He ought to, he's running for President! 

Why then does he choose to lie about them? You can argue several things from these results, but "failed" is not one of them.

To be kind to Mr. Romney, we can assume that he simply chooses to  ignore evidence that doesn't support his pre-conceived opinion.

To be blunt, however, we would have to say he "lied".

Romney's attempt to blame President Obama for the spending in the stimulus package is disingenuous at best. 

In English, Please

 

Yes, you read it right. 

Or maybe you didn't, I don't really care.  But for those of you who think you're clever enough to understand what it means, well, you're clearly too smart to read this blog. But just in case some idiot tries to understand what it means and will go crazy and come beat me up if they can't figure it out, here's what it means. I think.

The Introduction to  A Hole In My Head:

"Factual Evidence and Accurate Analysis Presented with Mind-Boggling Lucidity from Pinpoint Perspectives Fully-Focused Amongst Fecund Absolutions Delivered With Intellectual Panache and Irreverent Felicity Well-Bolstered by Fortuitous Certitude and Imaginative Introspections Detailing the Desultry Vagaries of Desperately Delusional Yet Delighfuly Partisan Political Platitudes . And some jokes."

Here it is using normal words:

 

"True facts and correct interpretations communicated with unbelievable clear thinking from specific points of view, completely concentrated in and around fertile or intellectually productive formal forgiveness of wrongdoings, delivered with brainy boldness and disrespectful humor, supported by timely confidence and creative insight pointing out the unplanned unfocused unpredictability of hopelessly crazy yet funny one-sided trite remarks about governing."

Broken Down Word by Word

For You Cunning Linguists:

Factual Evidence and                True facts and

 Accurate Analysis                      correct interpretations

 Presented with                           communicated with

Mind-Boggling                             unbelievable

Lucidity and                                 clear-thinking

Pinpoint Perspectives               specific points of view

Fully-Focused                             completely concentrated

Amongst                                       in and around

Fecund                                          fertile or intellectually productive

Absolutions                                 formal forgiveness of wrongdoings

Delivered With                           communicated with

Intellectual                                  brainy

Panache and                               boldness and

Irreverent                                    disrespectful

Felicity                                          humor

Well- Bolstered by                     supported by

Fortuitous                                    timely

Certitude and                               confidence and

Imaginative                                  creative

Introspections                             insight

Detailing the                                pointing out the

Desultry                                        unplanned

Vagaries of                                   unfocused unpredictability of

Desperately                                 hopelessly

Delusional Yet                            crazy yet

Delighfuly                                    funny

Partisan                                        one-sided

Political Platitudes .                  trite remarks about governing.

And some jokes.                         There are no jokes, I was kidding.

Hey Big Spender! (Oh, not you, Barack)

 


 Well well well, aren't those some surprising facts?!  Not to those of us who seek out evidence, but for those of you reading tea leaves instead.

Despite the fantasy that the GOP/Tea Partisans like to imagine, it turns out President Obama isn't the Big spender they wish he were. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush the smaller are battling for that honor.

One can only hope that now Republicans will drop that accusation, and come up with something, well, a little more true?

This from Forbes @

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




Here's a bit of the article. For his trouble, the writer of this fine bit of research Rick Unger was attacked in the comment section by Republican Tea Partisans who, as usual, go into denial when presented with evidence that proves their oft-repeated yet wholly unjustified narrative to be wrong.


"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. 

For those of you keeping score, we have proven that Obama's record on jobs is positive and far better than when he took office, his record on GDP again far better than when he took over, and now once more we find his record on spending in actually pretty good. His record is better than Mr. Bush's first three years, in fact.

All of these factors would most likely be much better if it weren't for the obstructionists in Congress and the U.S. Senate, where the minority party has decided that the will of the voters doesn't matter, and have prevented the majority from doing anything to help the country.

You know, the majority party? Those legislators the citizens of our great country chose to make the decisions this time around? The GOP minority feels that we can't be trusted to decide for ourselves, so they have taken it upon themselves to prevent anything from happening in case, horrors! Obama did well and earned a second term.

Yes, they did, but then, he has, and of course, he does. Deserve a second term, that is...for doing a good job...despite their obstruction, I mean.

Oh, How We Owe!

Conventional wisdom these days says that our debt is too large. 

And indeed it is. But the real question is, "compared to what?"

The following chart shows that as a portion of GDP, our debt is actually lower than it was after World War II.

Note that in the above chart, the drop that comes after WWII was due to a giant government spending program called the "New Deal".

Yes, we actually spent public sector funds in the face of a huge Debt-to-GDP ratio, and the result was to spur such economic growth that we grew a strong middle class, and our economy grew at such a rate that we lowered our Debt-to-GDP ratio and became the world's strongest economy.


In order to lower the deficit, we can either choose to cut spending or increase revenues.  Only one of these will work, however, because we are in a depression. Cutting spending will give the middle class and poorer people even less money to spend, further reducing Demand's ability to keep up with Supply.

So, we need to invest public funds to spur economic growth, so that the majority of people in the USA will have enough money to buy things, which in turn will be an incentive for investment on the supply side.

Our debt ratio is far less than many other countries, and less than the hole we dug in WWII. We have seen what happens when countries cut spending too rapidly, the austerity programs in Italy, Greece and Ireland have drastically hurt those countries, while our government spending programs pulled us out of the debt following WWII so that we grew a strong middle class and became the strongest economy in the world.

We should learn a lesson from history and invest public sector money in order to spur demand.

Economic growth and controlled spending will lower our debt.

Obama Cares! Tax Cut 4 MIddle Class!

This infographic from Talking Points Memo gives important information about the Affordable Care Act.

Get the facts, here...

Tax, or Penalty? Doesn't Much Matter

IN an ongoing effort to inject some rational, evidence-based thinking into the Healthcare debate, here are a couple of facts about how the tax/penalty could affect you

First, it must be mentioned that the penalty only applies to people who can afford to have insurance, but choose not to, so they can continue to 'free-ride' on the backs of American taxpayers.


Taxpayers who are required to purchase health insurance and do not will receive a notice from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the amount of the penalty they owe. Individuals who fail to pay the penalty are not subject to criminal prosecutions and the government cannot file notice of lein or levy any property for a taxpayer who doesn’t pay the penalty. 

The obligation for individuals to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 was included as part of the Affordable Care Act.  The provision requires individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage for themselves and their dependents or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014. ($95!) Families would pay half the amount for children, and the requirement includes a cap on the total allowable fine per family. If affordable health insurance coverage is not available to an individual, then the penalty would be waived.  Along with the individual responsibility requirement, the Affordable Care Act also provides subsidies to some individuals beginning in 2014 to help pay for their health insurance premiums and other costs associated with their health insurance.

Taxpayers who are required to pay a fine but fail to do so will receive a notice from Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If an individual still neglects to pay the fine, the IRS can attempt to collect the funds by reducing the amount of their tax refund in the future.  Individuals who fail to pay the penalty, however, will not be subject to criminal prosecution. The government cannot file notice of lien or levy on any property for a taxpayer who does not pay the penalty.

I urge everyone to learn the facts before they adopt a position on the ACA. It is already working in massachusetts, and people ther are overwhelmingly in favor of it.

Don't believe the malarkey of the Tea Partisan Obama-haters.