Obama calls Romney a bullshitter, throws away the election

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Wow it took off in 2008 how is that possible. I thought Obama fixed everything

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Wow it took off in 2008 how is that possible. I thought Obama fixed everything

There are two components here. Spending and GDP. One could reduce spending and still have an increase in spending as a percent of GDP. It is, in fact, a statistic that says what Republicans want to say (right now)and nothing else. We had more spending under Reagan but less as a percentage of GDP because the robust economy absorbed it. If that is the guage you use, and if you are a Republican it is the one you WILL use. Fact is, neither party does anything to reduce spending and government size. They do funnel funds into different favorite programs. This is basically comparing your credit card charges to your income. You could pay off all but a few debts but if you get laid off your debt to income ratio goes WAY up. The chart itself is pretty meaningless, but this IS politics and most of what we are told by either party is meaningless.

As long as we maintain the purposely convoluted tax system that allows politicians to play games, this will continue. This chart is neither reason to vote for or against Obama, however if anyone chooses to vote for Romney because of misleading information like this...that's OK too. I really do not care WHY you don't vote for Obama. If it is for the legitimate reasons not to, that is fine. If it is because you are stupid and tricked by nonsense such as this...that is fine also.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There are two components here. Spending and GDP. One could reduce spending and still have an increase in spending as a percent of GDP. It is, in fact, a statistic that says what Republicans want to say (right now)and nothing else. We had more spending under Reagan but less as a percentage of GDP because the robust economy absorbed it. If that is the guage you use, and if you are a Republican it is the one you WILL use. Fact is, neither party does anything to reduce spending and government size. They do funnel funds into different favorite programs. This is basically comparing your credit card charges to your income. You could pay off all but a few debts but if you get laid off your debt to income ratio goes WAY up. The chart itself is pretty meaningless, but this IS politics and most of what we are told by either party is meaningless.

As long as we maintain the purposely convoluted tax system that allows politicians to play games, this will continue. This chart is neither reason to vote for or against Obama, however if anyone chooses to vote for Romney because of misleading information like this...that's OK too. I really do not care WHY you don't vote for Obama. If it is for the legitimate reasons not to, that is fine. If it is because you are stupid and tricked by nonsense such as this...that is fine also.

Krugman loves this chart, for what reason, I don't know, as he is not a Republican.

This is a graph of U.S. gross federal government debt from 1981 to 2012 (est), as a percentage of GDP, color coded by congressional control and highlighting presidential terms. The data is from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Congress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png

[bsd058 296]

There are two components here. Spending and GDP. One could reduce spending and still have an increase in spending as a percent of GDP. It is, in fact, a statistic that says what Republicans want to say (right now)and nothing else. We had more spending under Reagan but less as a percentage of GDP because the robust economy absorbed it. If that is the guage you use, and if you are a Republican it is the one you WILL use. Fact is, neither party does anything to reduce spending and government size. They do funnel funds into different favorite programs. This is basically comparing your credit card charges to your income. You could pay off all but a few debts but if you get laid off your debt to income ratio goes WAY up. The chart itself is pretty meaningless, but this IS politics and most of what we are told by either party is meaningless.

As long as we maintain the purposely convoluted tax system that allows politicians to play games, this will continue. This chart is neither reason to vote for or against Obama, however if anyone chooses to vote for Romney because of misleading information like this...that's OK too. I really do not care WHY you don't vote for Obama. If it is for the legitimate reasons not to, that is fine. If it is because you are stupid and tricked by nonsense such as this...that is fine also.

I hate to say it, but I agree. But we need Government spending. It's a fact. Government spending helps GDP. As a rule, after you've reached bottom in an economy (which we have), there is a recession gap between actual GDP and desired GDP. A simple way to close that gap is to lower taxes or increase Government spending. You either increase propensity to spend, or you increase Government expenditure. We're in debt, fine. When the GDP increases the revenue which results from higher production will help us pay the debt off, and hopefully the inflation factor will work to our advantage this time around.

Edited October 26, 2012 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I hate to say it, but I agree. But we need Government spending. It's a fact. Government spending helps GDP. As a rule, after you've reached bottom in an economy (which we have), there is a recession gap between actual GDP and desired GDP. A simple way to close that gap is to lower taxes or increase Government spending. You either increase propensity to spend, or you increase Government expenditure. We're in debt, fine. When the GDP increases the revenue which results from higher production will, we can start paying that debt off, and hopefully the inflation factor will work to our advantage this time around.

Government spending has soared under President Obama, yet GDP has not. Keynesian economics died with Keynes, but the leftist economists such as Krugman like resurrecting the dead to give credence to their failed tax and spend theories. What is it with liberals that they can't leave the dead buried?

Edited October 26, 2012 by The Patriot

[bsd058 296]

Government spending has soared under President Obama, yet GDP has not. Keynesian economics died with Keynes, but the leftist economists such as Krugman like resurrecting the dead to give credence to their failed tax and spend theories. What is it with liberals that they can't let the dead buried?

Government spending has soared. Just at the wrong time. Now is the time to spend.

[bsd058 296]

Ok, all this talk about money makes me want to go out and make some. lol. ttyl. Everyone have a great weekend!!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I hate to say it, but I agree. But we need Government spending. It's a fact. Government spending helps GDP. As a rule, after you've reached bottom in an economy (which we have), there is a recession gap between actual GDP and desired GDP. A simple way to close that gap is to lower taxes or increase Government spending. You either increase propensity to spend, or you increase Government expenditure. We're in debt, fine. When the GDP increases the revenue which results from higher production will help us pay the debt off, and hopefully the inflation factor will work to our advantage this time around.

Why do you hate to say it? That tells me a lot.

Of course we need government spending, not because it helps GDP which should be ancilliary if anything. It is like saying medical bills help the economy. True. But who wants them? Don't we try to keep them to a minimum? I do. Not because I want doctors and nurses to be laid off either. House fires and hurricanes contribute to the economy also. Who wants 'em? We need government and government costs money, just as home maintenance does, insurance and medical expenses. Government should protect our rights and defend our country and do other things that benefit US, you and me, from the economies of scale that we choose to have them do for us. That needs to be funded. The funding should not be subject to political games. Politicians need to be TOLD what they have to do what WE need them to do and otherwise STFU! Would you accept a job to fund your household if you were told the amount you were paid would be changed based on the political needs of competeing members of upper management? Why do you accept a revenue system for YOUR/OUR country that can be manipulated to benefit Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? And then argue over WHICH of those politicians you want to benefit. You realize that IS what you are doing, right?

We don't need "gay rights" if no one tries to take away their rights to begin with, for example, and politicians should not be trying to take away our rights. Refer to "STFU!"

The best way to do this is a tax system not subject to manipulation. FAIR TAX or a TRUE flat tax. TRUE flat tax means XX% on ALL income from ALL sources. No exemptions, credits, deductions, etc. FAIR TAX is a sales tax all ALL spending and nothing on income. Neither of the two major candidates want that. Gary Johnson does. I will vote for him.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Government spending has soared under President Obama, yet GDP has not. Keynesian economics died with Keynes, but the leftist economists such as Krugman like resurrecting the dead to give credence to their failed tax and spend theories. What is it with liberals that they can't leave the dead buried?

This is true. Spending has gone up and GDP has gone down. But it is not necessary for this to happen to move this chart, and that is the point. This is a chart, one of many. Some people will favor it because it says what they want, others will favor it because in their opinion it is the best comparison. This is flawed though. It may work for a household..ie. your income increases so your spending increases and your spending remains stable (or goes down) as a percent of income. Great! YOU get the benefit of the spending and the income. It is still YOUR money. You bought a new sofa with some of your increased income. GREAT! YOU get to keep and use the sofa.

With government it is not the same. Revenue (income) should not be increased if it is not needed. The goal of government should be to CUT spending ALWAYS and ALWAYS fund what is needed and nothing more. That is their duty since it is NOT their money, it is yours.

If we try to benefit the economy by government spending, we must first TAKE the money OUT of the economy to spend it. When the government says "we are going to invest $1 trillion..." it REALLY means "we are going to take a bucket of water out of the deep end of the pool, carry it to the shallow end, spill half of it on the concrete along the way, and dump it in the shallow end of the pool." Then it becomes a matter of who YOU think is better at spending money. That's a no brainer.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Government spending has soared under President Obama, yet GDP has not. Keynesian economics died with Keynes, but the leftist economists such as Krugman like resurrecting the dead to give credence to their failed tax and spend theories. What is it with liberals that they can't leave the dead buried?

Compare the recovery and GDP growth here with the same in other industrialized countries and you will find that we fared and continue to fare better than those that left Keynes buried. All of our peers that pursued austerity are in a recession once again and their deficit and debt levels are rising despite of - or rather because of - the austerity measures. The myth of the Obama spending spree is just that - a myth. Spending under this administration has grown at a rate of about 1.5% annually vs. 7% annually under the previous administration.

[bsd058 296]

Why do you hate to say it? That tells me a lot.

What does it tell you? I was just joking.

Of course we need government spending, not because it helps GDP which should be ancilliary if anything. It is like saying medical bills help the economy. True. But who wants them? Don't we try to keep them to a minimum? I do. Not because I want doctors and nurses to be laid off either. House fires and hurricanes contribute to the economy also. Who wants 'em? We need government and government costs money, just as home maintenance does, insurance and medical expenses. Government should protect our rights and defend our country and do other things that benefit US, you and me, from the economies of scale that we choose to have them do for us. That needs to be funded. The funding should not be subject to political games. Politicians need to be TOLD what they have to do what WE need them to do and otherwise STFU! Would you accept a job to fund your household if you were told the amount you were paid would be changed based on the political needs of competeing members of upper management? Why do you accept a revenue system for YOUR/OUR country that can be manipulated to benefit Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? And then argue over WHICH of those politicians you want to benefit. You realize that IS what you are doing, right?

When did this become personal? lol. I was agreeing with you about spending. We need spending now because we've reached bottom and have started to increase GDp which proves the recessionary gap exists.

It seems like you're shouting at me. I don't know why.

We don't need "gay rights" if no one tries to take away their rights to begin with, for example, and politicians should not be trying to take away our rights. Refer to "STFU!"

?? What are you on?

It seems like you're going in all directions at once.

The best way to do this is a tax system not subject to manipulation. FAIR TAX or a TRUE flat tax. TRUE flat tax means XX% on ALL income from ALL sources. No exemptions, credits, deductions, etc. FAIR TAX is a sales tax all ALL spending and nothing on income. Neither of the two major candidates want that. Gary Johnson does. I will vote for him.

Chill out, man.

I think you need to take some lithium to settle down. It'll be okay, though. We'll all get through this.

PS - your vote will then be wasted.

Edited October 26, 2012 by bsd058

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What does it tell you? I was just joking.

When did this become personal? lol. I was agreeing with you about spending. We need spending now because we've reached bottom and have started to increase GDp which proves the recessionary gap exists.

It seems like you're shouting at me. I don't know why.

?? What are you on?

It seems like you're going in all directions at once.

Chill out, man.

I think you need to take some lithium to settle down. It'll be okay, though. We'll all get through this.

This tells me even more.

[bsd058 296]

This tells me even more.

ok. At least you've settled down.

Glad I could help you out with that.

Wow! I thought you were going to kill me through the monitor!!

Edited October 26, 2012 by bsd058

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

ok. At least you've settled down.

Glad I could help you out with that.

Wow! I thought you were going to kill me through the monitor!!

I would have to think you were relevent or meaningful rather than just misinformed.