Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Investors Business Daily)   Memo to Obama: Actually, it's government that's doing fine   (news.investors.com) divider line 166
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Bureau of Economic Analysis, austerities, state governments, local governments  
•       •       •

2498 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2012 at 12:36 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-12 01:52:01 PM  

Garet Garrett: Mentat: [img855.imageshack.us image 555x394]

I'll see you your x-axis-definition-less graph and raise you one with actual, you know, data points:

[www.nationalreview.com image 630x378]


I don't know what your point is. According to your graph, private industry is hiring more since 2010, and since 2010, government employment is trending downwards.

Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 all raised government employment numbers during their recessions.

But that was back when we didn't have a black President, so it was okay at the time.
 
2012-06-12 01:52:06 PM  

Crude: k1j2b3: Please explain to me why profits are a bad thing? Profits are what companies use to hire more workers, expand their business, purchase more equipment...all of which is good for the economy. You WANT businesses to make profits. Oh, yeah, and the more profits a company makes, the higher the tax base!

I am not quite sure why the left thinks it is a good idea to demonize companies that actually do good things for the average American worker. They provide jobs, products and services people want. Why is government employment put up on a pedestal and praised by the left exactly?



I'll sum it up for you. The Government will fight for the Almighty FAIRNESS in all aspects of life. FAIRNESS = JUSTICE to Leftists. It would be even BETTER to a Leftist if only the Government could hold and use weapons to enforce their ideals of FAIRNESS and JUSTICE.


Government is the religion that Leftists worship. If Government is good, then more Government is better.

That's how the mental disease that is Leftism operates.

You should read The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture by David Mamet. He was a leftist for all of his life until 2008.


I wonder what happened in 2008?

Oh yeah, a lot of people realized you could make a shiat load of money off of rubes terrified of a Democrat with a funny sounding name in office.
 
2012-06-12 01:53:06 PM  

sabreWulf07: How exactly can pundits rail against the assertion "private industry is doing fine" as a gaffe when private industry is making record profits? Shouldn't the entire conversation come to a screeching halt with that fact alone? Sure, unemployment is a problem for the economy, but it's not a problem for private industry. Because again, and I cannot stress this enough: they are making record profits.


THIS. The private sector is doing fine, the economy as a whole isn't.
 
2012-06-12 01:57:57 PM  

mycatisposter: I'm not hiring, simply out of spite. Too many applicant think that I owe them a job.
My profit margins have increased in addition to my profits, too.
I'll stop there, because your comments indicate that you nothing about profit margins.



No you aren't, since literally nothing works that way.
 
2012-06-12 01:58:13 PM  

dlp211: sabreWulf07: How exactly can pundits rail against the assertion "private industry is doing fine" as a gaffe when private industry is making record profits? Shouldn't the entire conversation come to a screeching halt with that fact alone? Sure, unemployment is a problem for the economy, but it's not a problem for private industry. Because again, and I cannot stress this enough: they are making record profits.

THIS. The private sector is doing fine, the economy as a whole isn't.


"The economy" is the wrong metric. "The economy" is doing fine; people aren't. The rightists scored a big victory when they got people to start talking about the economy instead of talking about their paycheque.
 
2012-06-12 01:59:32 PM  
Some hard data on Federal, State, and Local spending, courtesy of the US Treasury and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. You can access the compiled data here.

Federal spending over the last decade:

www.usgovernmentspending.com

State spending over the last decade:

www.usgovernmentspending.com

Local spending over the last decade:

www.usgovernmentspending.com

For those that would prefer to see these combined, here are is the total of Federal, State, and Local spending:

www.usgovernmentspending.com

So yeah, we can't say that low government spending is responsible for the weak economy. Although State and local spending is down, Federal is up, and the combined picture shows that outside of a stimulus spike in 2009 spending has been smoothly trending up. This is clearly not "austerity", it is spending as usual.

What we could argue is that government spending should still be spiking in order to stimulate the weak economy. But essentially the government is doing that, but via a different path. Instead of spiking spending they've slashed tax revenue, which put a lot of additional money in individual's pockets. They did this by extending the Bush tax cuts and adding additional tax cuts on top of that in the stimulus bill (like Obama's "95% of all Americans" tax cut). This translates to roughly $5 trillion in additional cash over the last four years, actually. Given that our GDP is $14.6 trillion, that's staggeringly massive.

So you can't really say we aren't spending massive quantities of cash to stimulate the economy either. Granted, we might not be EFFECTIVELY spending that money, but that's another discussion.

So what's left... Federal, State, and local government spending steady, massive Federal stimulus going on, but private sector jobs haven't recovered yet. So yeah, its weakness in the private sector that's still holding us down.
 
2012-06-12 02:00:02 PM  

BSABSVR: mycatisposter: I'm not hiring, simply out of spite. Too many applicant think that I owe them a job.
My profit margins have increased in addition to my profits, too.
I'll stop there, because your comments indicate that you nothing about profit margins.


No you aren't, since literally nothing works that way.


He's not hiring, because he doesn't actually have a business. His job is trolling Fark.
 
2012-06-12 02:00:28 PM  
You mean the government that's riddled with trillions of dollars worth of debt and cutting jobs/wages across the board?
 
2012-06-12 02:03:21 PM  
The private sector is doing just fine. 2 trillion in cash reserves and not spending it is doing just dandy.
 
2012-06-12 02:03:43 PM  

CorporatePerson: You mean the government that's riddled with trillions of dollars worth of debt and cutting jobs/wages across the board?


They don't mean to be making factual statements. They exist to be contrary because black guy president and socialisms.

If there was a republican president the message would be "Private Sector Continues Record Profit Run" or "Inspired by Leadership: What the Private Sector Learned from (republicanpresident)"
 
2012-06-12 02:04:05 PM  

SomeAmerican: Some hard data on Federal, State, and Local spending, courtesy of the US Treasury and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. You can access the compiled data here.

Federal spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

State spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

Local spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

For those that would prefer to see these combined, here are is the total of Federal, State, and Local spending:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

So yeah, we can't say that low government spending is responsible for the weak economy. Although State and local spending is down, Federal is up, and the combined picture shows that outside of a stimulus spike in 2009 spending has been smoothly trending up. This is clearly not "austerity", it is spending as usual.

What we could argue is that government spending should still be spiking in order to stimulate the weak economy. But essentially the government is doing that, but via a different path. Instead of spiking spending they've slashed tax revenue, which put a lot of additional money in individual's pockets. They did this by extending the Bush tax cuts and adding additional tax cuts on top of that in the stimulus bill (like Obama's "95% of all Americans" tax cut). This translates to roughly $5 trillion in additional cash over the last four years, actually. Given that our GDP is $14.6 trillion, that's staggeringly massive.

So you can't really say we aren't spending massive quantities of cash to stimulate the economy either. Granted, we might not be EFFECTIVELY spending that money, but that's another discussion.

So what's left... Federal, State, and local government spending steady, massive Federal stimulus going on, but private sector jobs haven't recovered yet. So yeah, its weakness in the private sector that's still holding us down.


Do you have any idea what "over the last decade" means?

It means you use data from 2003-2012, NOT PROJECTED FUTURE DATA.

You have to go by what Obama has actually done if you want to make a point about his record. This is called basic honesty.

And the data shows that growth in government spending has slowed under Obama to levels not seen since Eisenhower.

Good God, when did the right wing lose any ability to present a coherent argument?
 
2012-06-12 02:06:25 PM  

SomeAmerican: So yeah, its weakness in the private sector that's still holding us down.


Your charts only go back seven years, not a decade, and most are absurdly out of date, showing actual amounts not estimated amounts to 2009, three years ago. And that blog sucks.

Anyway, there can be little to no weakness in the private sector when they are making record profits.
 
2012-06-12 02:07:19 PM  

Riothamus: SomeAmerican: Some hard data on Federal, State, and Local spending, courtesy of the US Treasury and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. You can access the compiled data here.

Federal spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

State spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

Local spending over the last decade:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

For those that would prefer to see these combined, here are is the total of Federal, State, and Local spending:

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

So yeah, we can't say that low government spending is responsible for the weak economy. Although State and local spending is down, Federal is up, and the combined picture shows that outside of a stimulus spike in 2009 spending has been smoothly trending up. This is clearly not "austerity", it is spending as usual.

What we could argue is that government spending should still be spiking in order to stimulate the weak economy. But essentially the government is doing that, but via a different path. Instead of spiking spending they've slashed tax revenue, which put a lot of additional money in individual's pockets. They did this by extending the Bush tax cuts and adding additional tax cuts on top of that in the stimulus bill (like Obama's "95% of all Americans" tax cut). This translates to roughly $5 trillion in additional cash over the last four years, actually. Given that our GDP is $14.6 trillion, that's staggeringly massive.

So you can't really say we aren't spending massive quantities of cash to stimulate the economy either. Granted, we might not be EFFECTIVELY spending that money, but that's another discussion.

So what's left... Federal, State, and local government spending steady, massive Federal stimulus going on, but private sector jobs haven't recovered yet. So yeah, its weakness in the private sector that's still holding us down.

Do you have any idea what "over the last d ...


My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?
 
2012-06-12 02:15:00 PM  
Riothamus:Do you have any idea what "over the last d ...

To make you happy though, here's combined state, local, and federal spending from the 1970's through 2012, projected to 2015, in 2005 dollars.

www.usgovernmentspending.com

Outside of a spike in 2009, there is no giant slowdown. Feel free to post numbers of your own.
 
2012-06-12 02:15:57 PM  

SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?


My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.
 
2012-06-12 02:20:44 PM  

SomeAmerican: Riothamus:Do you have any idea what "over the last d ...

To make you happy though, here's combined state, local, and federal spending from the 1970's through 2012, projected to 2015, in 2005 dollars.

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

Outside of a spike in 2009, there is no giant slowdown. Feel free to post numbers of your own.


Do you not have eyes? Notice how everything slows down for Obama's entire term in office?

And here's a chart. It's from a greenlight from several days ago.

Link

blogs-images.forbes.com


Face it, the facts simply do not support your contentions. You are just wrong.

Is someone paying you to post this drivel or do you honestly believe this? I'm serious.
 
2012-06-12 02:22:11 PM  

RyogaM: SomeAmerican: So yeah, its weakness in the private sector that's still holding us down.

Your charts only go back seven years, not a decade, and most are absurdly out of date, showing actual amounts not estimated amounts to 2009, three years ago. And that blog sucks.


It's not a blog, its just a place to easily access government numbers. The data is all valid, and comes from government sources. This is what the government publishes; it is what it is.

Anyway, there can be little to no weakness in the private sector when they are making record profits.

The private sector could be wealthy but not growing, which would make the source of our economic weakness the private sector, not the public one.
 
2012-06-12 02:22:29 PM  

SomeAmerican: Riothamus:Do you have any idea what "over the last d ...

To make you happy though, here's combined state, local, and federal spending from the 1970's through 2012, projected to 2015, in 2005 dollars.

[www.usgovernmentspending.com image 575x400]

Outside of a spike in 2009, there is no giant slowdown. Feel free to post numbers of your own.


So it's basically a steady, un-alarming rise which makes total sense since population keeps increasing?
 
MFL
2012-06-12 02:26:28 PM  
Sabyen91
Profits are pretty high right now. Where are those jobs?

1. Corporate profits hit new highs all the time in an expanding economy.

2. Nominal profits at a record high doesn't amount to a hill of beans when real profits are still below-peak levels.

.
 
2012-06-12 02:30:15 PM  

Riothamus: SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?

My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.


Oh I see the problem. You are thinking in terms of Obama or not Obama, not in terms of public sector and private sector. I'm in the wrong conversation then, as honestly I'm not interested in politics much. Have fun with scoring points, or whatever it is that you politics people do.
 
2012-06-12 02:31:17 PM  

MFL: Sabyen91
Profits are pretty high right now. Where are those jobs?

1. Corporate profits hit new highs all the time in an expanding economy.

2. Nominal profits at a record high doesn't amount to a hill of beans when real profits are still below-peak levels.

.


Let's say we take your below-peak contention at face value.

Those profits are still pretty damn high, especially when you consider our low inflation over the past decade. They amount to a hell of a lot more than a hill of beans. In fact, if those profits were equitably shared out to the same level as they were in the 1950s, our economy would be kicking ass.

So where are the farking jobs, bootlicker?
 
2012-06-12 02:35:29 PM  
FTFA: Despite the deep recession and the slow recovery, annual state spending overall hasn't dropped once. In fact, by fiscal 2011, total outlays at the state level were 14% higher than they were in 2008, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers.

National Association of State Budget Officers:Total enacted general fund speding in fiscal 2012 is still $20 billion, or 3.1 percent, less than the pre-recession high of $687 billion in fiscal 2008.

Usually its more of a twisted fact, but this seems to be an outright lie. And they linked to the source they were lying about. Am I missing something?
 
2012-06-12 02:35:45 PM  

PonceAlyosha: Excuse me if I don't believe Investors.com.


Which is a lazy way of saying "LALALALAL I can't hear contradictory information." Dispute their numbers?

I'm looking for informed Farkers to dissect the claims made, rather than a stream of "Nu-uhs" and "This is poopy head talk."

Also, many Farkers seem to confuse corporate profits with national economic health. Which is like using dental health as a measure of overall fitness.
 
2012-06-12 02:36:21 PM  

SomeAmerican: Riothamus: SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?

My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.

Oh I see the problem. You are thinking in terms of Obama or not Obama, not in terms of public sector and private sector. I'm in the wrong conversation then, as honestly I'm not interested in politics much. Have fun with scoring points, or whatever it is that you politics people do.


Oh no, I was thinking along the same terms as you were. Except you tried to wedge all this "private vs. public" crap to show that our President was wrong on this issue when he was actually 100% correct. The private sector is doing very well, but their reluctance to hire due to depressed demand due to overly concentrated wealth is what is really holding us back.

And since just about everybody who white-knights the private sector wants to get rid of Obama and install Romneybot, it's only fair to point out that Bush II (whose advisors have all been hired by Romney) drastically increased government spending on a level not seen since the Great Welfare Queen, Saint Reagan.

Please exit gracefully.
 
2012-06-12 02:37:53 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I'm looking for informed Farkers to dissect the claims made, rather than a stream of "Nu-uhs" and "This is poopy head talk."


Look right above your post. Tell me what I'm missing.
 
2012-06-12 02:39:50 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: PonceAlyosha: Excuse me if I don't believe Investors.com.

Which is a lazy way of saying "LALALALAL I can't hear contradictory information." Dispute their numbers?

I'm looking for informed Farkers to dissect the claims made, rather than a stream of "Nu-uhs" and "This is poopy head talk."

Also, many Farkers seem to confuse corporate profits with national economic health. Which is like using dental health as a measure of overall fitness.


I agree with your first contention to a point. It's good to be open to new ideas. But the post just after yours kinda shows why people won't trust Investors.com. I won't be clicking on any Breitbart links, no matter how many the modmins slap together and greenlight.

And the focus on corporate profits shows that our economy really isn't as structurally weak as it feels. Wages as a % of GDP are just at an all-time low, so that money must be spread around better.
 
2012-06-12 02:39:50 PM  

SomeAmerican: Riothamus: SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?

My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.

Oh I see the problem. You are thinking in terms of Obama or not Obama, not in terms of public sector and private sector. I'm in the wrong conversation then, as honestly I'm not interested in politics much. Have fun with scoring points, or whatever it is that you politics people do.


*Checks the name of the tab he is on*

Wha?....

*Checks again*
 
2012-06-12 02:40:55 PM  

Riothamus: And since just about everybody who white-knights the private sector wants to get rid of Obama and install Romneybot


You are projecting an awful lot of assumptions about what YOU think he means, and rather than addressing his facts, you are spewing some nonsense about assumed party allegiences where non have been presented.

Pro-tip: when discussing fiscal budget and private-public sector spending in a historical perspective, "republicans are poopyheads" is not a meaningful rebuttal.
 
2012-06-12 02:43:43 PM  

itsallgeek2me: SomeAmerican: Riothamus: SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?

My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.

Oh I see the problem. You are thinking in terms of Obama or not Obama, not in terms of public sector and private sector. I'm in the wrong conversation then, as honestly I'm not interested in politics much. Have fun with scoring points, or whatever it is that you politics people do.

*Checks the name of the tab he is on*

Wha?....

*Checks again*


It's a common tactic of the ignorant.

Lose an argument badly, claim you were never interested in winning anyway, and imply that anyone who actually cares enough about the subject matter to win said argument must be a loser.

It's not terribly effective, but it succeeds in making an ass of the user.
 
2012-06-12 02:47:23 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: You are projecting an awful lot of assumptions about what YOU think he means, and rather than addressing his facts, you are spewing some nonsense about assumed party allegiences where non have been presented.


Oh, are you one of those liberals who just happens to hate Obama on the internet?
 
2012-06-12 02:47:25 PM  

Riothamus: And the focus on corporate profits shows that our economy really isn't as structurally weak as it feels


The economy can be terribly weak and there can still be corporations with high profits. The two may often be conjoined, but are not dependant. An increase in average corporate profits is not a refutation of the private sector being in trouble.

Further, even if the figure was directly relevant, the majority of the private sector is made up of small bussinesses. Any idea what percentage of those are corporations? Are LLCs, LLP, Sub-S, etc. counted in the "corporate average profits"?

My point is that the private secotr is *NOT* doing fine, the economy is *NOT* OK, and it is not at all clear to me that the fix for this can be found in continuing to spend money in the public sector. (though I am interested in any compelling arguments to that effect).
 
2012-06-12 02:47:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Riothamus: And since just about everybody who white-knights the private sector wants to get rid of Obama and install Romneybot

You are projecting an awful lot of assumptions about what YOU think he means, and rather than addressing his facts, you are spewing some nonsense about assumed party allegiences where non have been presented.

Pro-tip: when discussing fiscal budget and private-public sector spending in a historical perspective, "republicans are poopyheads" is not a meaningful rebuttal.


I posted facts showing him how wrong he was. When he backpedaled, I assumed motive, because there's usually some sort of animus involved. And I'm willing to bet that I'm right.

And my argument was never "Republicans are poopyheads", it was pointing out that the current administration has slowed governmental spending to the lowest growth in decades, which makes any sort of attack on Obama for a mythical spending spree outright laughable.

Especially when you compare him to his predecessor, He-Who-Will-Not-Be-Named
 
MFL
2012-06-12 02:49:19 PM  
Riothamus And the data shows that growth in government spending has slowed under Obama to levels not seen since Eisenhower.

huh?

The only government spending that has slowed is at the state level because they were forced to because of the shiatty economy. Federal spending has exploded over the last 4 years.

si.wsj.net

The numbers are mind boggling. From the second quarter of 2007, i.e., the first full quarter of a Pelosi-Reid dominated Congress and a politically weakened President Bush, to the second quarter of 2009 when President Obama assumed office, government spending skyrocketed to 27.3% of GDP from 21.4%. It was the largest expansion of government spending since WWII.....and that is the baseline Obama has been using as a baseline his entire first term.

This talking point that is going around that "federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years." is misleading at best and a flat out lie at worst.

Either the president doesn't understand how this works or he's banking that you don't.
 
2012-06-12 02:50:13 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Oh, are you one of those liberals who just happens to hate Obama on the internet?


We weren't talking about me. And I am not talking about Obama at all. The point is that projecting YOUR political assumptions into an economic discusion is... missing the point. (Thanks for providing an unsolicited example though). Go play binary partisan slap fight with someone else.
 
2012-06-12 02:51:40 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: We weren't talking about me.


I'm talking about you. Who you voting for, Mr. Thoughtful Objective Nonpartisan Voter?
 
2012-06-12 02:56:50 PM  
Hey, has any one else noticed that BojanglesPoopyhead said I'm looking for informed Farkers to dissect the claims and then figured out he isn't?
 
2012-06-12 02:57:06 PM  

Riothamus: I posted facts showing him how wrong he was


I'm not sure you did, but that's what the discussion is for. And how do you respond to MFL's post?

si.wsj.net

It seems almost impossible to argue that Federal spending has not increased significantly in the period since the economic crisis began. I don't even think the current Administration is arguing that the federal budget has gone DOWN compared to where it was before the crisis.

But more to the point, how do you argue that increasing federal spending will produce an economic recovery? Haven;t the last few years demonstrated that it hasn't worked?
 
2012-06-12 02:59:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Riothamus: And the focus on corporate profits shows that our economy really isn't as structurally weak as it feels

The economy can be terribly weak and there can still be corporations with high profits. The two may often be conjoined, but are not dependant. An increase in average corporate profits is not a refutation of the private sector being in trouble.

Further, even if the figure was directly relevant, the majority of the private sector is made up of small bussinesses. Any idea what percentage of those are corporations? Are LLCs, LLP, Sub-S, etc. counted in the "corporate average profits"?

My point is that the private secotr is *NOT* doing fine, the economy is *NOT* OK, and it is not at all clear to me that the fix for this can be found in continuing to spend money in the public sector. (though I am interested in any compelling arguments to that effect).


Are you talking majority in terms of businesses, total profits, total revenues, or number of employees? Your "small business" response is actually textbook, here. Koch Industries, for instance, is frequently classified as a "small business" because it's an S corp. Lots of laws written to benefit S corps use that same "small business" justification. I'm not gonna look up stats for you when you can't even tell me how you're measuring what a small business is, nor how they make up a majority of anything. Sure, they make up a majority of total businesses, but that's blatantly farking obvious.

And as a general rule, rising aggregate corporate profits do show that the private sector is doing fine. Arguing otherwise is just conterfactual.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-07-29/commentary/30699039_1_prof i ts-gdp-wages-and-salaries

And I just posted all sorts of data detailing how Obama has seriously curtailed public spending yet you say we're "continuing to spend money" on it. Really? Can you name any great infrastructure or public works projects we've put up? Any CCC type programs?


I think someone else nailed you on this. You're one of those "liberals" who just hates Obama on the internet.
 
2012-06-12 03:00:06 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: I'm talking about you. Who you voting for, Mr. Thoughtful Objective Nonpartisan Voter?


That has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion here, but since you asked - Haven't decided yet. Obama's plans aren't working, and I can't figure out what Romney's plan even is.

Also, I am far more concerned about the congress than the President.
 
2012-06-12 03:05:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: That has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion here, but since you asked - Haven't decided yet. Obama's plans aren't working, and I can't figure out what Romney's plan even is.


You haven't decided? Are you one of those wishy washy can't figure out what the hell you want independent voters?
 
2012-06-12 03:07:32 PM  

MFL: Riothamus And the data shows that growth in government spending has slowed under Obama to levels not seen since Eisenhower.

huh?

The only government spending that has slowed is at the state level because they were forced to because of the shiatty economy. Federal spending has exploded over the last 4 years.

[si.wsj.net image 262x165]

The numbers are mind boggling. From the second quarter of 2007, i.e., the first full quarter of a Pelosi-Reid dominated Congress and a politically weakened President Bush, to the second quarter of 2009 when President Obama assumed office, government spending skyrocketed to 27.3% of GDP from 21.4%. It was the largest expansion of government spending since WWII.....and that is the baseline Obama has been using as a baseline his entire first term.

This talking point that is going around that "federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years." is misleading at best and a flat out lie at worst.

Either the president doesn't understand how this works or he's banking that you don't.


Couple things here.

First, Bush set the 2009 FY budget.

Second, Obama took office after a significant economic downturn. Hence, maintaining then-current spending levels (you know, to support a growing population) would therefore, by necessity, use an increased portion of the GDP. This is basic math, so I understand you might not grasp it at first.

Third, Obama also put the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures on the books as opposed to "emergency spending"

Fourth, Medicare Part D didn't take effect until 2008, with most of its spending kicking in after Bush left office. Nice of him to leave that mess for Obama.

And one other thing. Is this one of those graphs that counts the stimulus tax cuts as spending, but doesn't do the same for the Bush tax cuts? Because that's pretty farking relevant.


And I get the feeling I'm being alted.
 
2012-06-12 03:08:40 PM  
The stupid is strong with this crew.

All those charts you're posting makes the case that the public sector is doing better than private industry, but you morons seem to think it shows something different.

The first chart shown shows that in previous recessions the public sector actually *grew* while the private sector sank, and in this recession employment has fallen in the public sector by just over 1%...So if government doesn't continue it's bloated growth and instead experiences a *MUCH* shallower decline than the rest of the economy, that is the death of the public sector? Really?

1% losses...WHOA IS ME!

How will the world survive if the bloated public sector filled with patronage jobs and make-work bureaucracies survive if 1% lose their jobs?

That *HAS* to be the end of the world as we know it.

Meanwhile, the next employment chart posted shows that the private sector lost 8%, and still hasn't even climbed back up to level of slight decline experienced in the public sector.

So, no the private sector *ISN'T* doing fine. The public sector *IS* doing better than the private sector.

And your own charts show it.

Learn to read a graph next time before you post one making the exact opposite point you're trying to argue.
 
2012-06-12 03:10:30 PM  

Riothamus: MFL: Riothamus And the data shows that growth in government spending has slowed under Obama to levels not seen since Eisenhower.

huh?

The only government spending that has slowed is at the state level because they were forced to because of the shiatty economy. Federal spending has exploded over the last 4 years.

[si.wsj.net image 262x165]

The numbers are mind boggling. From the second quarter of 2007, i.e., the first full quarter of a Pelosi-Reid dominated Congress and a politically weakened President Bush, to the second quarter of 2009 when President Obama assumed office, government spending skyrocketed to 27.3% of GDP from 21.4%. It was the largest expansion of government spending since WWII.....and that is the baseline Obama has been using as a baseline his entire first term.

This talking point that is going around that "federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years." is misleading at best and a flat out lie at worst.

Either the president doesn't understand how this works or he's banking that you don't.

Couple things here.

First, Bush set the 2009 FY budget.

Second, Obama took office after a significant economic downturn. Hence, maintaining then-current spending levels (you know, to support a growing population) would therefore, by necessity, use an increased portion of the GDP. This is basic math, so I understand you might not grasp it at first.

Third, Obama also put the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures on the books as opposed to "emergency spending"

Fourth, Medicare Part D didn't take effect until 2008, with most of its spending kicking in after Bush left office. Nice of him to leave that mess for Obama.

And one other thing. Is this one of those graphs that counts the stimulus tax cuts as spending, but doesn't do the same for the Bush tax cuts? Because that's pretty farking relevant.


And I get the feeling I'm being alted.


Oh, and if I addressed BP's post instead of yours directly, I half-ass apologize.

You're the Fark Independent and he's the "ooh, I don't know who I'm voting for, but that Obama certainly upsets me with his spending spree that I'm sure actually happened!" guy. Easy to get the two of you confused.
 
2012-06-12 03:12:05 PM  

Riothamus: Are you talking majority in terms of businesses, total profits, total revenues, or number of employees?


How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?
Small firms:
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

Small firms accounted for 65 percent (or 9.8 million) of the 15 million net new jobs created between 1993 and 2009.
Much of the job growth is from fast-growing high-impact firms, which represents about 5-6 percent of all firms and are on average 25 years old.

Riothamus: ur "small business" response is actually textbook, here


I generally ascribe to the Federal Small Business Administration's definition which can be found HERE..

I don't know that Koch (did you select that one specifically for partisan reasons?) is considered by te SBA as a "small business".

Riothamus: And as a general rule, rising aggregate corporate profits do show that the private sector is doing fine. Arguing otherwise is just conterfactual.


Counterfactual in your mind or not, that is precisely what is happening today. Average corporate profits (again, no details on what excatly that includes or how it is calculated) may be high, but the private sector and the economy are not doing well. And this is factual based on pretty much every other metric used to determine national economic health.

Are you arguing that since a measure of a sector of the private sector is higher than usual, everything is OK? Surely you aren;t arguing that?
 
2012-06-12 03:12:49 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: You haven't decided? Are you one of those wishy washy can't figure out what the hell you want independent voters?


No response is warranted here.
 
2012-06-12 03:16:41 PM  

Riothamus: that Obama certainly upsets me with his spending spree that I'm sure actually happened!"


Heads up. I have not said that or anything like it. I don't know that I even mentioned Obama, much less a supposed "spending spree". That's actually something YOU made up, and has nothing to do with my posts.

Going back to my original point, you might want to turn the knob down a notch on binary partisan assumption here.
 
2012-06-12 03:18:01 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: pile of 100% irrelevant stats

You haven't shown any indication that small firms are doing worse than big firms. None.

And job creation isn't the only measure of the economy. Firms aren't hiring because there isn't any demand. Why is there no demand? Because wages and salaries are at their lowest points in 50 years. Too much wealth is concentrated at the top. Private industry just needs to go Ford and fix itself. Pay workers enough to buy their products. This isn't rocket science.

And I chose Koch Industries because A. I live in Kansas, where they're physically headquartered, and they're behind a lot of the "small business" legislation and B. they're the largest goddamned S corporation
 
2012-06-12 03:18:59 PM  
Anyway, I'm out. Eye appointment.

And I just noticed that half of the dudes I replied to are on my ignore list. Whack-a-mole.
 
2012-06-12 03:23:54 PM  

Riothamus: You haven't shown any indication that small firms are doing worse than big firms


Probably becasue that's not at all a point I was making.

I also noticed that you haven't illustrated how increased government spending is going to bolster the economy when the last 4-6 years of increased government spending has failed to do so. Which WAS a point being made.

Good luck at thegym eye doctor :)
/I keed
 
2012-06-12 03:26:21 PM  

itsallgeek2me: SomeAmerican: Riothamus: SomeAmerican: My intent was to include the full period of the recession with some additional history. That's what I did, and the data shows what I said it shows. What's your point?

My point?

Your obsolete data sucks, you don't know what a decade is, you incorrectly label top 1% tax giveaways as "stimulus", and the private sector keeps posting record profits quarter after quarter.

So the private sector is doing pretty all right. Maybe we should increase taxes on corporations to encourage them to reinvest and expand their companies? I mean, that was one of the original purposes of the corporate income tax. Encourage them to hire and pay more. Funny how that works.

Oh I see the problem. You are thinking in terms of Obama or not Obama, not in terms of public sector and private sector. I'm in the wrong conversation then, as honestly I'm not interested in politics much. Have fun with scoring points, or whatever it is that you politics people do.

*Checks the name of the tab he is on*

Wha?....

*Checks again*




Another brave independent spreading lies.
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report