Obama's Spending

[ABOMB_56]

With elections coming up in about 2 months, I'm trying to educate myself as much as possible, so with that said...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

Can someone explain to me two things:

1. How accurate is the reporting of this article? And by that I mean, it says that the writer is "writing from the left" so can I get some neutral and some right-wing analysis of these numbers

2. If this is true, why isn't the Democratic camp hammering this home?

[asandhu23]

LIES! DAT EES LEEEBRUL MEEDEEAAA. Obama is the worst!

[whitesoxfan83]

With elections coming up in about 2 months, I'm trying to educate myself as much as possible, so with that said...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

Can someone explain to me two things:

1. How accurate is the reporting of this article? And by that I mean, it says that the writer is "writing from the left" so can I get some neutral and some right-wing analysis of these numbers

2. If this is true, why isn't the Democratic camp hammering this home?

People like you really get me... you pay attention for 2 months, base your opinions on some stuff you read from now until then, vote, and then do nothing and pay no attention for another 3years and 10months.

You do realize people have been running for President for a year now and Obama's been President for 4 years? You didn't think to pay any attention at any point for any of that? What's the point of just paying attention for 2months and then doing nothing again?

[Buckwheat]

He never said he didn't pay any attention. He just said he's trying to educate himself more.

I pay attention to politics 365 days a year, but I get more into it and research stuff on the candidates and the crunched numbers starting around.... now.

[natepro]

Three posts (well, now four), and not one even attempts to help the guy out. Though to be fair to Modwheat, he was pointing out the ridiculously judgmental attitude of someone else's post.

But still.

Maybe attacking someone that actually wants to be educated isn't exactly the best idea? Just a suggestion.

[Buckwheat]

I didn't answer his question because I don't know the answer.

There. I said it!

[natepro]

I didn't answer his question because I don't know the answer.

There. I said it!

It's okay. It's not a mod-related question, so I wouldn't expect you to.

[fingerbang]

wrong thread.

[Patsfan56]

Thanks ABOMB for the article. I found it very interesting. As for the criticism of not weighing in until now to get informed, I call absolute BS. You are taking the time to get to understand the final two candidates once they are identified with plenty of time to read and understand for yourself what each candidate has or has not done to earn your vote. I give you props for putting in the effort!

As for the article, one thing that stood out to me was that it was growth in spending, not actual spending amounts, nor does it break it down by each year in office, so one tremers and two termers are not differentiated. So, if I nderstand this correctly, even though Obama's spending levels went up by over 17% in his first year, they decreased in the second, and third, which may contriibute to the low figure on the graph.

Its interesting that this appears, at least from a spending standpoint, to be the inverse of Reagan. Where Reagan cut taxes and spending off the bat, he increased spending over time. Its funny how history changes things around on us. In my mind he was not the complete conservative hero when you look at all eight years, nor was he evil as others depict him.

So ABOMB, I guess the issue here is that we need to better understand each candidates position on a myriad of issues. If its alright with Dbronc, I may start posting some threads where we take an issue and I cut and paste language from each candidates website on their respective positions on that issue. I'll try to get one or two up today after I pm Dbronc to see if he has a preference on how to do it.

Lastly, if you want help breaking down an infographic, Dbronc is a good source to go to.

[flips333]

Like this and the Heritage foundation article he links to there are elements of truth in both. Obama is not a light spender by any means. But there was such a huge increase in spending for the two wars and TARP the year before he came into office that it's a little misleading. Also I think not including the amount of the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) that was spent in 2009 in Obama's spending increases is a little disingenuous.

Meanwhile, the 290 billion in tax relief in the ARRA is counted as spending by the GOP. Which is also misleading as they do not want to claim lower taxes is a spending increase when they do it.

I think one of the reasons why the democrats wouldn't hammer this is the fact that Obama wants to take credit for the ARRA, if he doesn't then he would be passing off a successful program to Bush.. when Bush had little to do with it. And they think of tax cuts as a form of spending.

So the answer is simply this underplays his spending record, while the general perception overplays it. Neither is accurate. Even the Heritage foundation is talking about obama's spending as being 22% of GDP over the average of 20.2% since WWII. When was it also this high... Reagan. The problem with that way of accounting is that GDP is a measure of how good the economy is doing. So presidents who are dealing with bad economic issues, Reagan/Obama look like they are spending more because the denominator is smaller, while a guy like Clinton looks great because the denominator is so Large. You might make a case that their policies led to that denominator (both argued it was the guy before them), but really IMO the president has little control over the short term macroeconomics.

[IndyFan]

. . . 2. If this is true, why isn't the Democratic camp hammering this home?

probably because it is a lawyer's argument. Lot's of explanation, qualifiers and details needed. Politics is better with simple clear points.

an example. Romney charges that Obama took $700 billion from Medicare. That is a clear easily understood charge. Obama's explanation of that is longer and more complex because some of the money went here. some there. not taken from medicare recipients, but from doctors and insurance companies. Ryan's budget does the same thing. Romney's budget lets medicare run out of money earlier. lots of details, the message gets lost in the middle. It is much clearer, easier to understand to say Obama cut medicare $700 million.

If your new at this, look for the side that is making a clear short easily understood argument vs the side that's making a lawyer's explanation. The side that makes their message clear and easy is winning.

[flips333]

probably because it is a lawyer's argument. Lot's of explanation, qualifiers and details needed. Politics is better with simple clear points.

an example. Romney charges that Obama took $700 billion from Medicare. That is a clear easily understood charge. Obama's explanation of that is longer and more complex because some of the money went here. some there. not taken from medicare recipients, but from doctors and insurance companies. Ryan's budget does the same thing. Romney's budget lets medicare run out of money earlier. lots of details, the message gets lost in the middle. It is much clearer, easier to understand to say Obama cut medicare $700 million.

If your new at this, look for the side that is making a clear short easily understood argument vs the side that's making a lawyer's explanation. The side that makes their message clear and easy is winning.

So a simple argument is better than a more complex one? By simple fact of it's brevity? If you want to argue Occam's razor then you are missing an important aspect of the equation. So context does not mater and whomever explains you something in the simplest manner just go with that. If you are required to have a brain in your head to think about things, then that is probably just a waste of your time.

In short, ABOMB just rememberthis. The world... not complex. Society... not complex. Economics... not complex. Your brain... not necessary.

[gcoll]

With elections coming up in about 2 months, I'm trying to educate myself as much as possible, so with that said...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

Can someone explain to me two things:

1. How accurate is the reporting of this article? And by that I mean, it says that the writer is "writing from the left" so can I get some neutral and some right-wing analysis of these numbers

2. If this is true, why isn't the Democratic camp hammering this home?

That graph is about growth in government spending over the previous year. And it credits 2009 to Bush.

So, the use of the stat is odd to me. Why not just use actual spending? And the article makes no attempt to explain why this measure is more important/accurate/better than measuring actual spending.

So I really think it's a meaningless point. As to why Democrats aren't running with it? They probably just think other lines of attack are more effective.

[Patsfan56]

So a simple argument is better than a more complex one? By simple fact of it's brevity? If you want to argue Occam's razor then you are missing an important aspect of the equation. So context does not mater and whomever explains you something in the simplest manner just go with that. If you are required to have a brain in your head to think about things, then that is probably just a waste of your time.

In short, ABOMB just rememberthis. The world... not complex. Society... not complex. Economics... not complex. Your brain... not necessary.

I don't mean to speak for Indy, but I read his post to mean that the message that is clear and concise is more effective with the voting public, not necessarily that it is the right or better answeer.

[flips333]

I don't mean to speak for Indy, but I read his post to mean that the message that is clear and concise is more effective with the voting public, not necessarily that it is the right or better answeer.

Ok then My tone is way over the top sarcastic and I'm wrong... Sorry indy.