Growth: Economy v debt

Obama's performance here can be easily quantified:

Total Public Debt:
$10,626T [Jan 20, 2009]
$15,856T [Jun 30, 2012]
GDP
$13,923T [Q1 2009]
$15,606T [Q2 2012]

Thus:
For every $1 added to the economy, we’ve added more than $3 in debt
OR
50% increase in debt vs. 12% increase in economic output

And yet, there are people that think he needs a second term.

Taken from:
For Every $1 Added to the Economy, Obama Added More Than $3 in Debt - Government Spending - Fox Nation

On the other hand, inflation seems to have dropped after reaching about 4% in August last year... to about less than 1.7% this august. This means that 1 $ today is worth more than 1$ in august last year... which means that when you pay off the debt, you will pay more than what you borrowed in august last year. And since the US burrows 40cents out of every 1$... well... it is just a mess. There is no telling if the inflation will rise again or not. I guess there are positives and negatives.

This is just a random fact to add to the dimension.

H. Lee White said:

Obama's performance here can be easily quantified:

Total Public Debt:
$10,626T [Jan 20, 2009]
$15,856T [Jun 30, 2012]
GDP
$13,923T [Q1 2009]
$15,606T [Q2 2012]

Thus:
For every $1 added to the economy, we’ve added more than $3 in debt
OR
50% increase in debt vs. 12% increase in economic output

And yet, there are people that think he needs a second term.

Taken from:
For Every $1 Added to the Economy, Obama Added More Than $3 in Debt - Government Spending - Fox Nation

Click to expand...

Had the GOP offered up a better candidate and not attacked womend reproductive rights, your argument would have nore validity. My dog shows more leadership ability than Romney. My cats show more foreign affair abilities than Romney. The GOP have let the right wing nuts rule their GOP agenda. The GOP has also not shown a real interest in fixing the economy. They set the main priority to make Obama a 1 term president. They have proposed more abortion ban legislation than they have economic legislation to restrict the financial sector from causing more harm to the economy. Those who crashed our economy are putting money into the Romney campaign.
Frankly speaking, I don't trust the GOP and I think if we elect more Democrats, Obama will be able to get his economic proposals through congress and our economy will imrpove dramatically.
That is why, for the first time in my voting history, I will be voting along party lines this year. I will be voting Democrats across the board.

Hairytic said:

Had the GOP offered up a better candidate...

Click to expand...

Wait...
The fact that Obama ran the numbers noted above is the GOP's fault, because they ran John McCain in 2008?

I guess this tells you just how low people will sink in order to defend their Secular Messiah.

It is funny how these Obama critics leave out the first 10 trillion in debt and who caused that for the most part... and of course forget why the deficit is so high.

First of all, one man is not able to do everything. Second of all, the public debt correlates to money being pumped into the economy. Therefore, if there wasn't any debt, there would be no money in the economy.

These large sums of cash that is issued to the government is spent. This means the money transfers through the American economy. In a macro sense, there is really a balance so to speak when it comes to public debt. Pay too much of the debt off, then there will be people all over the country begging for cash. On the other extreme, we would be going into hyperinflation.

The bailouts were done in order to save what we have. There was just too much systemic risk. Country institutions as well as world organizations were bailed out either by the government or by The Fed. (An audit was recently performed on The Fed)

No matter what figure is put into place, people will criticize Obama for not doing enough. Even though he saved an economy, we should be thankful we have an economy, even though it is performing not to our liking. He has after all put into place about 4.5 million jobs.

He has to raise taxes to take all that money that he spend out of the economy, because hyper inflation is a huge fear. This is why he is raising taxes, to constrict the overall money supply.

This is my problem with the overall American people. First, they expect The President to do everything even if it is outside his control. Also, he is human. There will be mistakes, and he does have to sleep some. And I know for a fact, that no matter what, no matter the amount of American jobs he created after one of the worst economic downfalls since The Great Depression, people would not be satisfied. It would not matter on the percentages or the amount he created, politics would be made for self-interests, to create a conservative in power, so that the corpocracy and upper echelon of American society, would get the regulations they want in order to make even more money. No matter what numbers would of been created, this would of happened.

The only reason why we do not fight back, is our standard of living, combined with the fact that the working class work at least 40 hours a week (overtime, and I know I didn't include part time work). Who wants to initiate a revolution when we have LED TV's calling my name when I get off of work?

We are being controlled more than we think.

Hairytic said:

if we elect more Democrats, Obama will be able to get his economic proposals through congress and our economy will imrpove dramatically.

Click to expand...

He HAD his Congress, and he GOT his economic proposals through. They failed.

H. Lee White said:

Wait...
The fact that Obama ran the numbers noted above is the GOP's fault, because they ran John McCain in 2008?

I guess this tells you just how low people will sink in order to defend their Secular Messiah.

Click to expand...

I said nothing about McCain. I was talking about ROmney. The GOP isn't offering up a candidate that is better than the current president.

H. Lee White said:

Obama's performance here can be easily quantified:

Total Public Debt:
$10,626T [Jan 20, 2009]
$15,856T [Jun 30, 2012]
GDP
$13,923T [Q1 2009]
$15,606T [Q2 2012]

Thus:
For every $1 added to the economy, we’ve added more than $3 in debt
OR
50% increase in debt vs. 12% increase in economic output

And yet, there are people that think he needs a second term.

Taken from:
For Every $1 Added to the Economy, Obama Added More Than $3 in Debt - Government Spending - Fox Nation

Click to expand...

what makes that argument more complex, though, is this :



the economy was tanking at pre-depression levels when he took office. put simply, waiting for businesses to start hiring again on their own was not an option, and if he hadn't spent the money, that would be the main criticism in this election cycle. add in two wars that we didn't increase taxes to pay for, an absolute refusal by the opposition to even consider raising taxes, and a preexisting debt and deficit, and you basically have a situation that's almost untenable. the fact that we're not in a depression right now is somewhat astounding.

my main criticism of Obama is that he couldn't get enough stimulus passed, and he didn't make a good enough case for it.

Hairytic said:

Had the GOP offered up a better candidate and not attacked womend reproductive rights, your argument would have nore validity. My dog shows more leadership ability than Romney. My cats show more foreign affair abilities than Romney. The GOP have let the right wing nuts rule their GOP agenda. The GOP has also not shown a real interest in fixing the economy. They set the main priority to make Obama a 1 term president. They have proposed more abortion ban legislation than they have economic legislation to restrict the financial sector from causing more harm to the economy. Those who crashed our economy are putting money into the Romney campaign.
Frankly speaking, I don't trust the GOP and I think if we elect more Democrats, Obama will be able to get his economic proposals through congress and our economy will imrpove dramatically.
That is why, for the first time in my voting history, I will be voting along party lines this year. I will be voting Democrats across the board.

Click to expand...

I know this may seem harsh... but since you have been discussing social programs over economic ones... I will present you with an economic dimension to the problem.

First off, Obama added over 5 tril $ in debt since he was in office. I calculated with this exact number: 5,094,341,558,534.01

The total population of US taxpayers is, according to debtclock (U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time) , 114.355.457. So 114.5mil. I simply divided the first number to the second number I posted and I came up with this: 44.548$

So on purely economic lines... if you were to get an abortion in Europe, lets say the UK it can cost you between 500pounds to 3k pounds. Which is 810 $ to ~4900$. + air line and some expenses there... the most you could come out with is 7k dollars to get an abortion in a state of the art UK hospital. And the practice of going out of state to get an abortion for US citizens isn't something uncommon. Nor is the practice for people to have operations in other countries. If a woman were to have an abortion in the UK once every year for 4 years... it would still mean that she would be less in debt by about 20k at the end of the year... then to have Obama in office.

I know it sounds cruel... but you can't compare apples and oranges. Social issues are social issues. Economic issues are economic issues.

sookster said:

First of all, one man is not able to do everything.

Click to expand...

You're right -- for 2 years, He had a Dem-controlled Congress and was able to do what he wanted.. Imagine how much worse it would be if he had that congress for 4.

Second of all, the public debt correlates to money being pumped into the economy.

Click to expand...

If so, why did the economy not grow with some simlar proportiom? Spending (and then paying interest on) $1 for a $0.33 return makes no sense whatsoever.

Therefore, if there wasn't any debt, there would be no money in the economy.

Click to expand...

False. There would be all kinds of money in the economy, even if the governmment didn't spend a single dime.

No matter what figure is put into place, people will criticize Obama for not doing enough.

Click to expand...

On the contrary - The Obama had done far too much... spending.
For virtually zero results.

He has to raise taxes to take all that money that he spend out of the economy...

Click to expand...

You mean that he WANTS to raise taxes so he can keep spending w/o having to answer for more debt.

This is why he is raising taxes, to constrict the overall money supply.

Click to expand...

Yes... take money from the people to make up for the President's lack of spending restraint.

First, they expect The President to do everything even if it is outside his control.

Click to expand...

Ah yes...
When a Democrat is President, bad news is outside his control.
When a Republican is President, bad new is his fault.

And I know for a fact, that no matter what, no matter the amount of American jobs he created after one of the worst economic downfalls since The Great Depression, people would not be satisfied.

Click to expand...

Democrats are satisfied, as evidenced by their haste to have him re-elected and the arguments they come up with to justify same - but, that's because The Obama is a Democrat. If he were a Republican, do you think they'd feel the same way?

PeteEU said:

It is funny how these Obama critics leave out the first 10 trillion in debt...

Click to expand...

... because the issue is how much debt Obama has added, compared to how much he has added to the economy.
Duh.

and of course forget why the deficit is so high.

Click to expand...

The deficit is so high because Obama choses to spend more revenue than what the government brings in.

Rainman05 said:

I know this may seem harsh... but since you have been discussing social programs over economic ones... I will present you with an economic dimension to the problem.

First off, Obama added over 5 tril $ in debt since he was in office. I calculated with this exact number: 5,094,341,558,534.01

The total population of US taxpayers is, according to debtclock (U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time) , 114.355.457. So 114.5mil. I simply divided the first number to the second number I posted and I came up with this: 44.548$

So on purely economic lines... if you were to get an abortion in Europe, lets say the UK it can cost you between 500pounds to 3k pounds. Which is 810 $ to ~4900$. + air line and some expenses there... the most you could come out with is 7k dollars to get an abortion in a state of the art UK hospital. And the practice of going out of state to get an abortion for US citizens isn't something uncommon. Nor is the practice for people to have operations in other countries. If a woman were to have an abortion in the UK once every year for 4 years... it would still mean that she would be less in debt by about 20k at the end of the year... then to have Obama in office.

I know it sounds cruel... but you can't compare apples and oranges. Social issues are social issues. Economic issues are economic issues.

Click to expand...

You calculation includes Bush's 2009 budget with it's 2 trillion deficit. Even the Cato Institute disagrees.

Hairytic said:

I said nothing about McCain. I was talking about ROmney. The GOP isn't offering up a candidate that is better than the current president.

Click to expand...

Then your statement mases no sense, in that Romney is not in any way responsible for the numbers noted above.

iguanaman said:

You calculation includes Bush's 2009 budget with it's 2 trillion deficit. Even the Cato Institute disagrees.

Click to expand...

Obama signed FY2009 in March 2009.
Thus, FY2009 deficit belongs to him... and the congress that passed it.

iguanaman said:

You calculation includes Bush's 2009 budget with it's 2 trillion deficit. Even the Cato Institute disagrees.

Click to expand...

Tell you what. We can play this 2 ways.

US Federal Deficit by Year 2007_2017 - Charts Analysis

I can cut down the 1.4 tril $ from FY 2009 and say that was Bush's... and add the 900 bil $ from FY 2013, thus, removing 500bil $ from the calculation. But then because the data I worked with is from June this year, I also have to add 200 more bil $ for these past months. So in fact, I would be removing 300bil$ from the calculation. That means that 300bil/ 114.5 mil =~ 2600$. Substract that amount from the 44.5k and you still get 41.9k$. You will still be over 15k$ less in debt if you were to have an abortion in the UK each year Obama is in office (calculated at 7k$, and that's being generous since an abortion is only 5k$). If we aren't to be absurd and not have an abortion in each and every year Obama is in office... the debt would decrease consistently. Either way, it doesn't pan our right.

Rainman05 said:

I know this may seem harsh... but since you have been discussing social programs over economic ones... I will present you with an economic dimension to the problem.

First off, Obama added over 5 tril $ in debt since he was in office. I calculated with this exact number: 5,094,341,558,534.01

The total population of US taxpayers is, according to debtclock (U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time) , 114.355.457. So 114.5mil. I simply divided the first number to the second number I posted and I came up with this: 44.548$

So on purely economic lines... if you were to get an abortion in Europe, lets say the UK it can cost you between 500pounds to 3k pounds. Which is 810 $ to ~4900$. + air line and some expenses there... the most you could come out with is 7k dollars to get an abortion in a state of the art UK hospital. And the practice of going out of state to get an abortion for US citizens isn't something uncommon. Nor is the practice for people to have operations in other countries. If a woman were to have an abortion in the UK once every year for 4 years... it would still mean that she would be less in debt by about 20k at the end of the year... then to have Obama in office.

I know it sounds cruel... but you can't compare apples and oranges. Social issues are social issues. Economic issues are economic issues.

Click to expand...

You presented economic facts and then said, "Yet some people thinks he needs a second term." I simply explained why I am voting for Obama and with the Democratic party. You want to oust Obama based only on the econimic issues. Why should we vote Obama out of office when Romney is clearly NOT a better alternative? Why should we vote GOP when GOP is clearly obsessed with controling personal issues and has shown no interest in improving the economy?

H. Lee White said:

Then your statement mases no sense, in that Romney is not in any way responsible for the numbers noted above.

Click to expand...

I never said Romney was responsible for the numbers above. I said Romney is a sorry choice for president.

H. Lee White said:

Obama signed FY2009 in March 2009.
Thus, FY2009 deficit belongs to him... and the congress that passed it.

Click to expand...

No, those policies/programs were leftovers from the Bush admin, the policies introduced by the Obama admin added up to @ $203B in additional spending.

Hairytic said:

You presented economic facts and then said, "Yet some people thinks he needs a second term." I simply explained why I am voting for Obama and with the Democratic party. You want to oust Obama based only on the econimic issues. Why should we vote Obama out of office when Romney is clearly NOT a better alternative? Why should we vote GOP when GOP is clearly obsessed with controling personal issues and has shown no interest in improving the economy?

Click to expand...

I'm only saying that economic-wise, its cheaper to have abortions in Europe than it is to have Obama in office another 4 years. As a taxpaying woman that is.
Social issues are not an issue in this thread. I will just end it by saying that I am for women to be allowed to have abortions for any reasons they want to have them, unless the baby is more than 4 months in ( I think that's the limit in most European countries too... if you are past 4 months, you can only have an abortion if the mother is in danger. If it is not 4 months, I stick to whatever the time limit is in general...). I think the whole abortion discussioe an is rather silly and this is why most European nations dealt with this problem 20+ years ago (eastern european countries being the least ones to join the normal club).

Now, this being said, I do not think that Romney and Ryan will be better than Obama at fixing the economy. I am however pretty convinced that if they win the elections, the deficit will not be as high as it is now... ~1.5 tril $/year for the past 3 years and counting.

And what wages does GDP pay? None.

debt is from Bush wars........Finally done.....

Now to tax the rich for THEIR wars....80%....... brings in $2.5T per year.......

274ina said:

And what wages does GDP pay? None.

debt is from Bush wars........Finally done.....

Now to tax the rich for THEIR wars....80%....... brings in $2.5T per year.......

Click to expand...

You must be trolling right?

If you take all the profits, all the profits, of the fortune 500 companies, you get around 600 bil $. If you take all the income of all the people in the USA who make over 250k $, including the super rich, you only get 1.3 tril $. So you can only get 1.9tril$ if you get all the profits from all the top 500 corporations and companies and all the income of all the US citizens who make over 250k $/year including the worlds richest US citizens like Bill Gates, the Koch brothers and such.

Gimmesometruth said:

No, those policies/programs were leftovers from the Bush admin, the policies introduced by the Obama admin added up to @ $203B in additional spending.

Click to expand...

Bush's name is not on the FY2009 budget, as it was signed almost 2 months after Bush was out of office.
Impossible to blame FY 2009 on anyone but Obama.

Rainman05 said:

I'm only saying that economic-wise, its cheaper to have abortions in Europe than it is to have Obama in office another 4 years. As a taxpaying woman that is.
Social issues are not an issue in this thread. I will just end it by saying that I am for women to be allowed to have abortions for any reasons they want to have them, unless the baby is more than 4 months in ( I think that's the limit in most European countries too... if you are past 4 months, you can only have an abortion if the mother is in danger. If it is not 4 months, I stick to whatever the time limit is in general...). I think the whole abortion discussioe an is rather silly and this is why most European nations dealt with this problem 20+ years ago (eastern european countries being the least ones to join the normal club).

Now, this being said, I do not think that Romney and Ryan will be better than Obama at fixing the economy. I am however pretty convinced that if they win the elections, the deficit will not be as high as it is now... ~1.5 tril $/year for the past 3 years and counting.

Click to expand...

Well, IF Romney wins and IF Romney goes with the Ryan Budget, we will probably see much worse than we have over the last 3 1/2 years.

H. Lee White said:

Bush's name is not on the FY2009 budget, as it was signed almost 2 months after Bush was out of office.
Impossible to blame FY 2009 on anyone but Obama.

Click to expand...

Obviously, you don't understand the budget process, when the budget was worked out, who was involved, what programs/policies were funded. The original TARP funding was Bush's, the original auto bailouts were Bush, the funding of AFPAK (which was FINALLY included in the budget) was on Bush.

This shows what Obama was responsible for in the 2009 fy budget.

PS......

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 1, 2008

President Bush's $3 trillion budget for fiscal 2009, scheduled for release Monday, will seek a virtual freeze on domestic spending programs while cutting billions of dollars from federal health programs to reach his goal of balancing the budget by 2012, White House and congressional officials said yesterday.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013103235.html