Obama by the Numbers - Debt and Deficit

[Locutus]

Continuing on with our empirical series of measuring the performance of the presidents' economic performances, we look today at debt and deficit.

And this is such a slam dunk I don't really think we need to delve too much into the details.

Without a doubt, Obama is the biggest spend-a-holic making Reagan's deficit spending in the 80's (which the left at the time screamed bloody murder) look like austerity v. 2.0.

The natural economic criticism would be that with the world's largest Keynesian stimulus, why the poor economic performance that is on par with GW's? It's like taking five Viagra pills and only lasting 3 minutes. Of course, cynical economists such as myself know when you piss away the stimulus on the dregs of society for Obama Phones, make-work government social programs, unneeded community centers, global warming research, and single-mom mania, it shouldn't be a surprise the money wasn't invested in capital goods, manufacturing, or any real investment, resulting in zero future economic growth.

Naturally, when you piss away deficit money, you do two things. One, increase the amount of debt, and two, you do NOT grow GDP. This then results in an increasing amount of debt relative to the actual economic production being produced:

Of all the statistics we could look at the presidents, it is this one, debt and deficit, that not only defines the Obama presidency, but one of the few ones I would claim is completely owned and the fault of the president. Conservatives at least berated Bush for his (then) egregious spending, but the left is completely silent at the crippling deficit spending of Obama, because like him, they are ideologues and in general hate this country. Any spending that goes to them and their causes AND harms the country's finances at the same time is a two-fer in his and their eyes. Call me cynical, but I'd glad change my tune if I saw proof of the left actually loving this country, rather than hating it and trying to destroy its culture and traditions.

Captain Capitalism: Obama by the Numbers - Debt and Deficit

 

[Colpy]

Continuing on with our empirical series of measuring the performance of the presidents' economic performances, we look today at debt and deficit.

And this is such a slam dunk I don't really think we need to delve too much into the details.

Without a doubt, Obama is the biggest spend-a-holic making Reagan's deficit spending in the 80's (which the left at the time screamed bloody murder) look like austerity v. 2.0.

The natural economic criticism would be that with the world's largest Keynesian stimulus, why the poor economic performance that is on par with GW's? It's like taking five Viagra pills and only lasting 3 minutes. Of course, cynical economists such as myself know when you piss away the stimulus on the dregs of society for Obama Phones, make-work government social programs, unneeded community centers, global warming research, and single-mom mania, it shouldn't be a surprise the money wasn't invested in capital goods, manufacturing, or any real investment, resulting in zero future economic growth.

Naturally, when you piss away deficit money, you do two things. One, increase the amount of debt, and two, you do NOT grow GDP. This then results in an increasing amount of debt relative to the actual economic production being produced:

Of all the statistics we could look at the presidents, it is this one, debt and deficit, that not only defines the Obama presidency, but one of the few ones I would claim is completely owned and the fault of the president. Conservatives at least berated Bush for his (then) egregious spending, but the left is completely silent at the crippling deficit spending of Obama, because like him, they are ideologues and in general hate this country. Any spending that goes to them and their causes AND harms the country's finances at the same time is a two-fer in his and their eyes. Call me cynical, but I'd glad change my tune if I saw proof of the left actually loving this country, rather than hating it and trying to destroy its culture and traditions.

Captain Capitalism: Obama by the Numbers - Debt and Deficit

Begging the question once again:

If Obama really was trying to absolutely destroy the USA, what would he do differently??

Not much.

 

[Colpy]

bump

You really need to see how incompetent this guy really is........

 

[gopher]

As d1ck cheney said, Reagan proved deficits don't matter -

When considering inflation $1000 back in 1980 could buy what $2877.09 pays for today:

U.S. Inflation Rate Calculator- plus Several Other Inflation Calculators


Reagan spending of $41+ roughly amounts to the $94+ spent by Obama when adjusted for inflation. Nobody pi.ssed their pants over what Reagan spent and, in fact, he is still considered the known universe's Grand Savior by many on the far right. Therefore, don't fret too much about the left's "silence" about Obama's spending though you need to remember that Occupy Wall Street was quite vociferous in condemning his bailout of Wall Street rather than its indebted costumers.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yup... keep telling yourself that.

 

[captain morgan]

Therefore, don't fret too much about the left's "silence" about Obama's spending though you need to remember that Occupy Wall Street was quite vociferous in condemning his bailout of Wall Street rather than its indebted costumers.

Ever wonder who Wall Street will foreclose on if they weren't bailed-out?

Maybe the business, individuals and all the homes with mortgages?

Any thoughts on that?... Any?

 

[gopher]

I watched a CNN report where a 31 year old nurse was indebted because of a job loss (this under the Bush years). The bank got subsidized under the Bush stimulus program and got its money. But the young lady was still in debt. What Bush & Obama should do if they are so interesting in bailing out anyone is to subsidize someone like her - this way she is no longer in debt and the bank gets its money.

 

[Kreskin]

Certainly not good but who has the money? Not the lower and middle class.

 

[captain morgan]

I watched a CNN report where a 31 year old nurse was indebted because of a job loss (this under the Bush years). The bank got subsidized under the Bush stimulus program and got its money. But the young lady was still in debt. What Bush & Obama should do if they are so interesting in bailing out anyone is to subsidize someone like her - this way she is no longer in debt and the bank gets its money.

I totally agree with your thoughts on the above circumstance.

I can only guess that because of the scope and speed in which the real estate/mortgage industry collapsed, that it was basically impossible to deal with things on an individual basis like the 31 y/o nurse. While the nurse would get a second life, she still would have an outstanding debt, just not to the bank.. The banks (at this point) are essentially an existing distribution system and administration body that would act on behalf of the gvt (no doubt for a generous fee)

The biggest problem here (the various unethical behaviors and out right frauds by some of the lenders notwithstanding) is that the lack of cashflow and liquidity would have resulted in all lines of credit being cancelled and demand loans called in.

From you days at the IRS, you can easily see how the entire system would grind to a halt if not collapse outright

 

[gopher]

Banks, credit card companies, and other lenders need to stop charging usurous rates - this will enable people to pay their dues and not default. This way those institutions can make a decent profit while no one gets overcharged.

 

[captain morgan]

Banks, credit card companies, and other lenders need to stop charging usurous rates - this will enable people to pay their dues and not default. This way those institutions can make a decent profit while no one gets overcharged.

High rates on credit cards, lines of credit, etc are well known in advance and should NEVER be used for any kind of medium and long term financing. If you make the effort to pay the balance every month (credit cards for example), you get to use the banks money for free, at their expense. It's when you carry a balance and make only min payments that you get killed.

The root of the above circumstances really does stem from a consumer wanting to acquire something when they really can't afford it... Besides, for those that are in dire straits, an easy option is to communicate directly with the lender and renegotiate... Happens every day