Author is a former Bush appointee and conveniently omits the fact that Obama's %deficit is made up from a shrunken GDP due to Bush II policies. Besides which, it's a very subjective way to look at this. For example, Bush II clearly gains an advantage from the Clinton surplus, for his opening figures, and the knock on of Clinton policy, which drops his average sharply. Add this to the fact that the recession started toward Bush's end of 2nd term and he sees practically no fault equated with Bush. Is this fair? In the same way, Obama came straight into the recession, so what he's effectively done is neatly piled all of Bush's failure onto Obama. But if he really wants to look use those figures, one thing you can see immediately, even with this biased scale, is the 2nd set of figures, ie when the said president has started to implement fiscal policies. Bush II immediately sees a rise in the deficit. Obama immediately sees a dip.
1. I mentioned the equation as a % of GDP is a factor of shrinking economy and tax revenues. No need to repeat it.
2. Don't attack the author for being pro-anyone - it is a fallacy by arguing guilt by association. Something I pointed out in my other post here. Point is, the same publication, with presumably the same quality control standards for both articles has published both artices, thus I think we can eliminate bias on behalf of the publication. I can agree that if you google there are many different sources with different results and interpretations of them, but then argue against the results and interpretations. In this case the data presented comes from the
OFFICIAL Economic Report of the President transmitted to Congress. I can also agree that that the official numbers transmitted to congress may themselves contain bias and should be checked against other sources, but I'm not going to independently perform due diligence myself on everything. I don't have the time and simply use my own brain and judgement try not to simply accept things - I think we can both agree the offical report data, the source of the information, should not be terribly biased- or at least hope not.
3.. [Part of your quote Highlighted in bold portion] - In normal everyday english, a dip in the deficit equates to the
deficit, that being the difference between total historic inflows vs outflows,
has decreased, which means that Obama had a
SURPLUS. WHICH IS COMPLETELY, BLATANTLY WRONG. Sorry for the caps but I cannot highlight that fact enough.
Obama,
FACT, has spent more money than tax revenues taken in, thus, the overall deficit HAS INCREASED in nominal terms. The rate of increase in comparison to others might have declined, but it has still, overall increased.
FACT - Both Obama and Bush have responded to the financial woes with Keynesian-inspired responses to recessions, which is to increase spending (Essentially inflate a new bubble to end the recession). There are many ways both parties did this, thus Obama is the SAME as Bush when it comes to his and his advisers economic policies.
I cannot comment on your deduction that Obama wants more people to live on credit as I cannot see where you've got this from (in the above).
It is quite simple. I used an analogy to explain financially what the economic policy of the US under both Bush and Obama is, which is, in response to a recession, borrow more money (Credit) and spend more money!
If a household does this, it would equate to people getting into financial difficulty and deciding to get out of it by spending more money and taking on more credit.
It was an analogy, not something Obama literally said.
Apologies, I don't know a lot about Johnson, but he seems personable.
Regarding the marijuana issue, it's a problem I agree with. Obama has enforced more raids on medical manufacturers for weed than Bush I think, and this contradicts earlier statements.
Agreed. But this is politics so almost normal.
That kind of hit and run reporting can be used to make any set of people look like crazies. Look for Nancy Pelosi's mini-documentaries on the racists Republicans in the bible belt.
Agreed, however I already mentioned this and specifically stated this as such in my post to avoid being accused of promoting generalisations and a single video as factually representative of the Democratic Party. So no need to chastise my for it.
Oh and regarding not looking to liberals for economic policies, I believe Clinton did quite well.
I think it more depends on your own personal economic understanding. I've also seen other surveys (Like any survey, flawed and not necessarily representative of the population) which also seem to point to liberals being economically ignorant, but my own personal opinion on this issue comes from my personal experience of debating many liberals on this forum - one in particular who knows who he is comes to mind, but no need to drag him in to this debate as we never get anywhere and I think he is as tired as me at this point of arguing.
I'm not arguing anything of the kind, on both counts. However, on the second count, of Obama spending less, there are the bailouts to take into consideration. That being said, I'm not absolving Obama of everything. This is his presidency, after all.
I didn't see in your post you clarifying this fact, thus you presented a picture which reports to show that Obama is the "smallest spender", presumably to argue/demonstrate/show that under Obama's leadership, the country has spent less.
In THAT case, you MUST point out that Obama is not wholly responsible for the spending, as that would be omitting facts that dispute the argument that Obama has spent less.
Since you did not disclose this, why the omission? If it's an oversight, simply agree with me and say you forgot about it, no worries. Don't defend the omission.
True. But at least the Democrats are honest about it.
Point taken. But in the words of C.S Lewis
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
I don't know you but I'm assuming you understand Mr Lewis' meaning. For those who don't, his point is that those who believe it is their ethical and moral duty to do an action or do something WILL NEVER stop, where as a robber baron, who simply does it to take advantage of you will not be as passionate about the idea as a moral do-gooder would be.
Example: A politican who sees promoting religion as a political advantage (Get lots of votes) will not be as passionate and as forceful in promoting religion, compared to someone who sees it as their moral and ethical duty to promote religion.
Point is, being wrong or ignorant is not a virtue. Lying is most certainly wrong (And overall the Republican platform is full of lies - on this I agree)
Also, don't confuse Romney the Governor, with Romney the toady to the far right. Very different people.
Sure, another good point. I agree that Romney is a flip-flopping snake. I'm just arguing they we can't ignore his past performances and votes on issues either. Currently I have even less of an idea on Romney's stance as I do on Obama, mainly because he is the ultimate flip-flopper imho.
