The Fat Lady is Singing - Obama's Real Legacy is Debt

[metis]

Which party bailed out is irrelevant to me, we should never do that.

When it comes to what is called "depression economics", whereas Bernanke, a Republican, is considered the world's foremost expert, we had no choice but to run a sharp deficit to stop the bleeding. Had we not, we stood the good chance of being in worse shape than we were during the Great depression. If the major banks, including the shadow-banking system, were allowed to collapse (the latter already had), we probably still would be in deep doo-doo.

In the end, Obama cannot blame others for his failings. He had the helm, he could have made changes, and he didn't.

He did, and the deficit rate has been dropping over his last term.

BTW, when one compares apples to apples, the deficit has gone up less under Democratic leadership than Republican leadership since 1980.

 

[Mindmaster]

BTW, when one compares apples to apples, the deficit has gone up less under Democratic leadership than Republican leadership since 1980.

All deficits are not the same, but if someone doubles it like Obama did we have every right to hold him accountable. Most of the Republican deficit has been in job creation, so while they show "debt" they are also investments in increasing the tax base. It's not apples to apples, but apples to oranges in this case. Obama's job creation is nearly flat, so it's just stinky, nasty, burdensome, etc... debt...

 

[metis]

All deficits are not the same, but if someone doubles it like Obama did we have every right to hold him accountable. Most of the Republican deficit has been in job creation, so while they show "debt" they are also investments in increasing the tax base. It's not apples to apples, but apples to oranges in this case. Obama's job creation is nearly flat, so it's just stinky, nasty, burdensome, etc... debt...

Let me recommend that you actually do the homework before posting things like the above. I have six or seven books written by economists, including two Nobel Prize winners, that deal with the Great Recession and somewhat beyond, and they would solidly disagree with you. If you want my list, just ask.

May I ask, what have you read on this? Did you watch the many C-Span carried Congressional hearings on this? Are you aware of what both Bernanke and Paulson told Congressional hearings on this? Other than this, I'm not going to waste my time.

BTW, I won't be back on-line until Monday or later, so please be patient.

 

[tytlyf]

All deficits are not the same, but if someone doubles it like Obama did we have every right to hold him accountable. Most of the Republican deficit has been in job creation, so while they show "debt" they are also investments in increasing the tax base. It's not apples to apples, but apples to oranges in this case. Obama's job creation is nearly flat, so it's just stinky, nasty, burdensome, etc... debt...

Do you remember what happened the last time a republican was in office?
Good, do you think spending would be higher or lower than normal when trying to recover from a depression?
Republicans are angry that Troops were taken out of Iraq, do you think it would cost more if they stayed?
Obama has created 10+ million jobs. What does 'flat' even mean? We need specifics, not RW talking points.

 

[Mindmaster]

Do you remember what happened the last time a republican was in office?
Good, do you think spending would be higher or lower than normal when trying to recover from a depression?
Republicans are angry that Troops were taken out of Iraq, do you think it would cost more if they stayed?
Obama has created 10+ million jobs. What does 'flat' even mean? We need specifics, not RW talking points.

If we must play word chop-chop, flat means essentially zero. That's to say, not keeping pace with the new workers entering the workforce. For him to do that he has to create about 2 million/year and 10 million means he's 6 million short over his two terms. I have no doubt that in the short run spending will have to go up to pay for the screw ups of the previous administration. Immigration will have to get sorted out, that's going to cost, nothing is free. Fixing the educational system, removing the red tape from the EPA, and several other things will cost. It'll take money to "rebuild America" as far as roads, and other resources as well. I expect that things are going to cost a bit for the short while, and that's PERFECTLY FINE as long as those decisions are made in a way that we can determine the profit later. I think Trump would be perfect at this, as it would be his primary concern. I don't necessarily agree with him for everything else, but on money matters I'm sure we're in good hands.

As far as Iraq, it's irrelevant the situation has changed drastically and so will the possible solutions. I think Trump's military advisor picks are simply the best he could find, and it'd be hard to do better. I expect us to not be spending so much time playing around in the Middle East during Trump's term, I'm sure he wants to focus on home as much as possible.

 

[tytlyf]

I have no doubt that in the short run spending will have to go up to pay for the screw ups of the previous administration. Immigration will have to get sorted out, that's going to cost, nothing is free. Fixing the educational system, removing the red tape from the EPA, and several other things will cost. It'll take money to "rebuild America" as far as roads, and other resources as well.

I'm sure spending would be much higher if Trump was given the 2nd worst economic collapse in American history.
I'm sorry that Obama was able to bring back 11 million jobs, not 16 million. That's Obama's fault
What part of immigration needs to be sorted out?
What do you think is wrong with the education system? You think a for-profit system is better?
What 'red tape' of the EPA is hurting you? Why do you think it would help removing it?
It will take money to rebuild roads and other resources. You will typically need to raise taxes to pay for it. Don't expect Trump (republicans in congress) to do 1 thing about it.

 

[suncowiam]

Most people saw Sanders as the responsible choice, but Clinton and the DNC didn't want to be responsible and instead of going with a sure thing they went with one of the most marginalized and controversial candidates they could have possibly chosen. She was very high risk, the DNC knew it, but ran her through anyways. They listened to the whispers from the core of the party rather than roars of the nation, and now we have Trump. Combined, I think Clinton and Trump just barely maybe had 10% of the total population supporting them. The DNC just needs to admit they ****ed up big time by running Hillary.

I would not have voted for Sanders. I don't think I would have voted at all.

Here's the thing though. Some are assuming that Russia influenced the elections. I don't know. But if they did, who's to say they couldn't have done the same thing if Sanders ran?

It's all hindsight.

 

[esmith]

Let's take a factual look at your opinions.
Overall Economy
Facts

I'm sure spending would be much higher if Trump was given the 2nd worst economic collapse in American history.

Supposition only.

I'm sorry that Obama was able to bring back 11 million jobs, not 16 million. That's Obama's fault

Debatable
Facts

What part of immigration needs to be sorted out?

Visa system, green card system, look at who we need not just who wants in, illegal immigrants, just to start with
Suggestions

What do you think is wrong with the education system? You think a for-profit system is better?

Just about everything. We spend more money per student than any other developed nation and still can't get the job done
Facts

What 'red tape' of the EPA is hurting you? Why do you think it would help removing it?

EPA Hurting The Economy

It will take money to rebuild roads and other resources. You will typically need to raise taxes to pay for it. Don't expect Trump (republicans in congress) to do 1 thing about it.

Supposition only. When you make a comment you need facts. You are always admonishing others to do so, but somehow you do not apply that to yourself. Either that or you just don't have the Facts to back it up.

 

[tytlyf]

Let's take a factual look at your opinions.
Overall Economy
Facts

Supposition only.

Debatable
Facts

Visa system, green card system, look at who we need not just who wants in, illegal immigrants, just to start with
Suggestions

Just about everything. We spend more money per student than any other developed nation and still can't get the job done
Facts

EPA Hurting The Economy

Supposition only. When you make a comment you need facts. You are always admonishing others to do so, but somehow you do not apply that to yourself. Either that or you just don't have the Facts to back it up.

Your sources are ZeroHedge, USnews, and some ranking website that has nothing to do with what I said? Have any credible links?

 

[esmith]

Your sources are ZeroHedge, USnews, and some ranking website that has nothing to do with what I said? Have any credible links?

If you have a problem with the facts presented how about refuting what they say, got to use facts Sonny.

 

[tytlyf]

If you have a problem with the facts presented how about refuting what they say, got to use facts Sonny.

Sure, the ZH number is referencing a 10 year period between 2005 and 2015. Still doesn't change the fact that 11 million + jobs were created. Want to go over the Bush #?s

The public education system is hurt by republican cutting spending. There's no more too it.

You think a wall will fix the immigration system? Trump isn't going to do anything about immigration reform.

The EPA protects you. You don't have a business affected by the EPA. Republicans don't like regulations because they hurt profits.

 

[Curious George]

Just about everything. We spend more money per student than any other developed nation and still can't get the job done
Facts

This is not true. The sentiment is true, that we spend more on education than some countries who produce better test results. But we do not spend more per student than any other developed country.

When you embellish the truth, or lie, to try to prove a point it makes it hard to trust what your saying has any validity.

 

[esmith]

Sure, the ZH number is referencing a 10 year period between 2005 and 2015. Still doesn't change the fact that 11 million + jobs were created. Want to go over the Bush #?s

The public education system is hurt by republican cutting spending. There's no more too it.

You think a wall will fix the immigration system? Trump isn't going to do anything about immigration reform.

The EPA protects you. You don't have a business affected by the EPA. Republicans don't like regulations because they hurt profits.

Remind you again you have to present facts, not your liberal/progressive opinions.

 

[esmith]

This is not true. The sentiment is true, that we spend more on education than some countries who produce better test results. But we do not spend more per student than any other developed country.

When you embellish the truth, or lie, to try to prove a point it makes it hard to trust what your saying has any validity.

Yeah, I admit I was wrong.
These are the Facts
The U.S. ranks fifth in spending per student. Only Austria, Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland spend more per student. To put this in context: the Slovak Republic, which scores similarly to the U.S., spends $53,000 per student. The U.S. spends $115,000. The PISA report notes that, among OECD countries, “higher expenditure on education is not highly predictive of better mathematics scores in PISA.”

 

[tytlyf]

Yeah, I admit I was wrong.
These are the Facts
The U.S. ranks fifth in spending per student. Only Austria, Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland spend more per student. To put this in context: the Slovak Republic, which scores similarly to the U.S., spends $53,000 per student. The U.S. spends $115,000. The PISA report notes that, among OECD countries, “higher expenditure on education is not highly predictive of better mathematics scores in PISA.”

Yes, America has been on a downtrend for decades. Since you're concerned about the 'cost per student' statistic, does anyone have a breakdown of what spending $100k per student even involves? What's the breakdown in that 100k figure?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The debt has been building for a very long time.

 

[esmith]

Yes, America has been on a downtrend for decades. Since you're concerned about the 'cost per student' statistic, does anyone have a breakdown of what spending $100k per student even involves? What's the breakdown in that 100k figure?

Does it really matter where or how the money is spent? All I hear from the liberal/progressive side of the political spectrum is along the lines of: Country "X" has a better health system and it is less expensive. Do you not want to apply that to the educations system? Or is it that you/they don't have an answer so you attempt to redirect the problem elsewhere? I bet your answer is the education system in the US is broken because Republican will not fund it.

 

[metis]

Yes, America has been on a downtrend for decades. Since you're concerned about the 'cost per student' statistic, does anyone have a breakdown of what spending $100k per student even involves? What's the breakdown in that 100k figure?

As you well know, we have to be careful with the stats. First of all, the fact that the U.S. has a very high wage scale across the board should be taken into consideration. Does anyone expect us to just pay out $10 per day to teachers as they do in some countries?

Also, one tragic stat, imo, is that we are the only industrialized country that pays out less for the education of children in lower-income families that middle or upper-income families. If we eliminate the standardized-test scores of the children in schools dominated by lower-income students, the U.S. actually does quite well internationally.

And then there's the matter as to exactly what do these test scores reflect? Typically, they tend to more reflect rote learning versus creative learning, and the U.S. still does a good job with the latter. Fareed Zakaria's recent book on education does a good job of covering this.

 

[Underhill]

Basically, this chart shows the national debt as a percentage of the GDP. At this point, it is so high that the debt is worth more than the entirety all of the incomes in the USA combined thanks to Obama. Sure, you could go, "ohh that's because Obama bailed out X", well yea, but he could have also decided not to do it at all and let the failed businesses fail as punishment for their misdeeds. Instead, we have to pay for other peoples mistakes in perpetuity.

Sadly, I feel that Trump will actually increase this number because he will have to in order to increase the taxable base. The only way out of massive debt like this is massive prosperity, and such things are investments that cost money. Thoughts?

I'm a bit confused why this falls on Obama's feet? He didn't write the budgets. He doesn't bloat the spending bills with pork. He doesn't control tax policy. Sure he pushed for the bailout. But as a percentage of that debt, it's a drop in a 50 gallon drum.

I've got news for you. This won't change any time soon. Because the president alone can't do anything (as the last 6 years proves). The debt will continue to climb, especially now that interest rates are going up.

Also if you look at the chart closely, you'll notice something interesting. That dip you see around 2000... that happened under Clinton. Look at the Bush years and you see spending go through the roof. Now you could argue that the republican congress had a hand in that dip. But then it's hard to deny that the two wars Bush started (and foreign policy is definitely in the presidents wheel house) largely caused the spike we are still seeing today.

 

[Augustus]

Basically, this chart shows the national debt as a percentage of the GDP. At this point, it is so high that the debt is worth more than the entirety all of the incomes in the USA combined thanks to Obama. Sure, you could go, "ohh that's because Obama bailed out X", well yea, but he could have also decided not to do it at all and let the failed businesses fail as punishment for their misdeeds. Instead, we have to pay for other peoples mistakes in perpetuity.

Sadly, I feel that Trump will actually increase this number because he will have to in order to increase the taxable base. The only way out of massive debt like this is massive prosperity, and such things are investments that cost money. Thoughts?

A fair chunk of the Obama increase (maybe 1/3 or so) was quantitative easing, which is effectively debt the government owes to itself and so doesn't have to be repaid (interest in the debt returns to the treasury also). As such the debt levels are perhaps overstated by 15-20% or so.

This wasn't 'free money' though as it basically diluted the value of the rest of the money in circulation (but therefore also diluted the amount of existing debt).

It was a BS policy though as it basically rewarded Wall Street for destroying the economy by giving them access to boundless low interest credit which had the result of distorting other areas of the economy (such as stocks or housing). This is why there were records in the Dow Jones when the fundamental economy was still weak.

Obama's legacy in this regard (and Trump's too unless he does something very bold and unexpected) will be most noticeable when the next financial crash happens for the same reasons the last one did because he left a broken system in place, and actually exacerbated the problems while rewarding bankers for their incompetence and corruption.