[Genghis Khan]

True, but Obama's spending has made it worse.

I don't think Obama really had the option of not spending, and I believe that because even the "fiscally conservative" Presidents have spent a lot of money after vowing not to. It sounds great in theory, but in practice, spending is something you're pretty much forced into in that office.

Plus austerity-style cuts will not generate growth anyway.

[Joe Liberty]

I don't think Obama really had the option of not spending, and I believe that because even the "fiscally conservative" Presidents have spent a lot of money after vowing not to. It sounds great in theory, but in practice, spending is something you're pretty much forced into in that office.

Forced to? If you mean that politicians bow to political expediency, I agree with you. If you're saying Obama really didn't want to spend all of that, I see no evidence to support that claim.

Plus austerity-style cuts will not generate growth anyway.

Sure they do, by siphoning less money from the economy. By correcting the over-spending and market-skewing that is the source of the problem. Any alleged growth generated by government "stimulus" is short-term and illusory.

[Soixante-Retard]

There are two totally different but also totally true facts at play here.
First, under the Obama administration the US has spent more money and raised the debt by the largest amount in history ... in terms of actually dollar amounts.
Second, under the Obama administration increases in government spending and the national debt are below that of each Republican administration of the past 35 years ... in terms of percentage of growth.

Precisely. In nominal dollars (not sure about real) Obama is presiding over the largest government outlays than any other President. But compared to Bush II, the acceleration (or growth) is the smallest.

It's like saying, Clinton "spent" $10, Bush II "spent" $11.6 (+16% from Clinton) and Obama "spent" $11.76 (+1.4% from Bush II). Yes, Obama has the lowest growth, but he's "spending" more than Bush ever did!

But J Oswald is correct, the President doesn't deserve any credit for any budget, since the responsibility for the budget is with Congress.

[Genghis Khan]

If you're saying Obama really didn't want to spend all of that, I see no evidence to support that claim.

When a recession hits, automatic stabilizers kick in and the President doesn't do much about that. Add that to the wars, medicare and Bush tax cuts, and that explains the vast majority of the debt. Obama himself, in a matter of spending he thought of and initiated, added little to the mess.

If you measure spending increases, adjusted for inflation, Obama had the second-lowest increase - in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Sure they do, by siphoning less money from the economy.

Cutting government spending means cutting government jobs -> people are fired -> they reduce spending habits -> businesses they visit see less revenue -> said businesses require less personnel to deal with demand -> said businesses fire employees -> those fired employees also reduce spending -> unemployment goes up and GDP slumps.

[baltwade]

True, but Obama's spending has made it worse.

Every administration since Calvin Coolidge's has made it worse. I don't think either party has a right to claim they're the fiscally responsible ones, or that under their leadership the trend of spending more than they take in will stop.

[Joe Liberty]

Cutting government spending means cutting government jobs

Good. Government jobs are part of the problem. The rest of the cascade that you describe seems overblown. Government jobs produce nothing. Further, government wages aren't paid from profits, they're paid by first removing money from the economy, away from productive pursuits. That means the subsequent steps down the slope that you described are artificial to begin with.

To illustrate: starting a company that earns a profit through voluntary exchange, and paying employees from that profit, is quite different than confiscating money and then paying people to help me with further confiscation.

Yes, there will be a temporary adjustment period for those specific people who lose their government jobs. Short-term pain for long-term gain.

[Joe Liberty]

Every administration since Calvin Coolidge's has made it worse. I don't think either party has a right to claim they're the fiscally responsible ones, or that under their leadership the trend of spending more than they take in will stop.

Please don't misunderstand my post, it's not at all a defense of Republicans. I totally agree with your assessment.

[Genghis Khan]

Government jobs produce nothing.

Ludicrously false, knee jerk libertarian assertion.

When a cop (i.e government worker) protects civilians, he maintains their ability to continue their lives and be helpful and productive members of society.

When a fireman (i.e government worker) stops a fire from spreading to a residential neighborhood, he keeps the people in that neighborhood in their home, which sustains their ability to continue producing for society.

When a city maintenance engineer (i.e government worker) fixes an electricity grid, he keeps electricity running in people's homes and businesses, which maintains their ability to continue producing for society.

Government jobs are the reason you are able to continue producing for society in the first place.

they're paid by first removing money from the economy, away from productive pursuits.

The fact that they're paid "by first removing money from the economy, away from productive pursuits", is the reason you get to keep these productive pursuits going.

[baltwade]

Further, government wages aren't paid from profits

It's been a while since I've studied economics, but I'm pretty sure no company pays their employees with out of profits. Profit is the money you have in surplus of your operating capital and wages are part of your operating capital.

they're paid by first removing money from the economy, away from productive pursuits.

Please explain this is more detail, because I just don't see what you're trying to say. I have worked both in the private sector and for the federal government, and in both jobs by salary was covered by customers which paid for my work. Also in both, my office was contracted for services with federal and state governments and private companies. The only difference I see from my point of view is that my boss in the federal jobs makes just about 25% more than I do and he drives a Ford Focus and my boss in the private sector made well over twice as much as I did and drove a Porsche ... and we had free coffee and breakfast pastries every morning. It's illegal to use federal money for things like office coffee and snacks.

[Joe Liberty]

Ludicrously false, knee jerk libertarian assertion.

The fact that they're paid "by first removing money from the economy, away from productive pursuits", is the reason you get to keep these productive pursuits going.

So which is it, "ludicrously false" or the very reason for existence?

You talk of cops and firefighters. While those jobs are necessary, they still produce no wealth. They also aren't federal jobs, so cuts to the federal budget don't affect them at all. This is perilously close to a strawman.

The money for their salaries is still taken out of the economy, precisely because they aren't producing anything, and if you don't produce anything, there is no profit. Somebody who is actually producing something has to earn that money first, government isn't earning it. So saying that to stimulate the economy we have to first suck money out of it, shave some off the top for the trouble, and redistribute the rest to pay for jobs that produce no wealth is counter-intuitive and absurd on its face. That kind of "stimulus" stimulates government, and that's it. You might see a brief and temporary spike in consumer spending, but it's completely artificial: to maintain that you have to keep taking more out of the economy, it's a self-perpetuating downward spiral. If that made any economic sense at all then government should be the only employer, and all our problems would be solved! Whoops, except then there aren't any real jobs to siphon real wealth from...

But really, the focus should be at the federal level, not so much the local level, anyway. Let's talk about federal bureaucrats. Let's talk about IRS employees. Let's talk about TSA employees. The list is virtually endless (which, again, is part of the problem).

Government jobs are the reason you are able to continue producing for society in the first place.

Poppycock. Police don't protect you from anything, they mop up after the fact. The same with firefighters. No home I've ever lived in has ever burned down (and even if it had); no firefighter is responsible for anything that I've produced.

And again, I was referring to the federal government, which is where the real cuts need to happen.

[Nattering Nabob]

Precisely. In nominal dollars (not sure about real) Obama is presiding over the largest government outlays than any other President. But compared to Bush II, the acceleration (or growth) is the smallest.

Not simply compared to Bush II...compared to any president in the last 60 years this is still true...

[Soixante-Retard]

That doesn't negate the fact that Obama is "spending" the most... compared to any president in the last 60 years.

[Nattering Nabob]

Your chart shows federal spending as a percentage of GDP and this was addressed by PolitiFact...

Secondly, federal spending under Obama is higher as a share of gross domestic product than it has been in most of the previous 60 years. That, too is because of the economy, which has simultaneously slowed the growth of GDP and boosted government spending for programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.

This discrepancy will go away when revenues increase and outlays on food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc decrease after the economny improves...govt spending as a pct of GDP always increases in a recession even if the govt takes no action at all...remember that this recession is the largest one since the great depression...

Add this to the fact that federal spending has always increased with each president and you see why federal as a percentage of GDP has increased so much despite the fact that federal spending under Obama is the lowest under any president in 60 years...

[Soixante-Retard]

It looks to me that you're so blinded by loyalty that you'll exonerate Obama for any "discrepancy".

federal spending under Obama is the lowest under any president in 60 years

It's not, as I've previously shown. Increases in spending have been the lowest.

[Genghis Khan]

So which is it, "ludicrously false" or the very reason for existence?

Keeping others in a situation where they can produce is also a form of production in itself.

The money for their salaries is still taken out of the economy

There wouldn't be an economy without them, so it's good that they're taken out of the economy. That's where they should be taken out of.

and if you don't produce anything, there is no profit.

I measure benefit for society in more ways than mere monetary profit.

government isn't earning it.

Government isn't a business, so whether or not they produce wealth is not a relevant question.

and redistribute the rest to pay for jobs that produce no wealth

Government, at all levels, provides services to those who produce wealth, and in many ways enables them to do so.

That kind of "stimulus" stimulates government, and that's it.

Tell that to the auto workers in Michigan. The auto bailouts were so successful that Romney is now pitifully trying to take credit for them.

IRS employees

Why do you want to talk about them? You'll just tell me that they're basically criminals for stealing money from productive people, I'll tell you that's bullshit because taxation is necessary for a functioning economy, and we'll be in an impasse.

Let's talk about TSA employees.

Without which blowing up a plane would become far less of a challenge.

Police don't protect you from anything, they mop up after the fact.

Tell that to Newark police. Their presence on the street since Mayor Booker took over has made crime decline very sharply, to the point where Newark had a murder-free month. In Newark!!

So again - You have no idea what you're talking about.

The same with firefighters. No home I've ever lived in has ever burned down (and even if it had); no firefighter is responsible for anything that I've produced.

So because it hasn't happened to you it hasn't happened to anyone? What is that? Libertarian logic?

[Nattering Nabob]

It looks to me that you're so blinded by loyalty that you'll exonerate Obama for any "discrepancy".

"federal spending under Obama is the lowest under any president in 60 years"

It's not, as I've previously shown. Increases in spending have been the lowest.

What you've shown has been proven by PolitiFact to be one of those "damnable lies" you claimed people used to hoodwink the unintelligent...

But do go on some more about "blind loyalty"...

It's entertaining if nothing else...

[Soixante-Retard]

Is my assertion that "Obama has spent more than any other president in the last 60 years, in nominal amounts and as a percentage of GDP" false? No.
Is your assertion that "Obama has presided over the least growth in government spending" false? No.

Nattering Nabob, you ought to actually read what I post because I'm actually agreeing with your first post, viz. Obama has presided over the lowest growth in government spending. But I am simply pointing the fact out that Rex Nutting's post is misleading - Obama is still spending more than any other president in the last 60 years. On top of that, Obama is presiding over the biggest deficits since 1945 and bigger still than the Great-Depression era of the 1930s!

Nothing that I have said thus far is false. Obama is the biggest peace time deficit spender. Hey big spender!

[Nattering Nabob]

Your assertion is that Obams is less fiscally reponsible than any president in 60 years when the facts state he is the MOST fiscally responsible president in 60 years...

[Soixante-Retard]

Your assertion is that Obams is less fiscally reponsible than any president in 60 years when the facts state he is the MOST fiscally responsible president in 60 years...

I haven't mentioned anything about "fiscally responsible", those are your terms not mine. Please define "fiscally responsible". But it is indicative of you that you have not addressed my last post. What's the matter? Is it too accurate for your tastes?

[Nattering Nabob]

Your claim that federal spending under Obama increased has not been disputed...and has indeed been addressed...

What has been disputed, and verified by PolitiFact, is that the increase in spending as shown by the graph you linked is overwhelmingly due, not to spending initiated under Obama, but by
laws already in effect and this same spending would have occurred under any president in office given the economic crisis which began under Bush...