Obama spending binge never happened (MARKET WATCH)

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Governments NEVER create jobs. The best they can do is hope to stay out of the way of job creation. Obama has not created a single job. Maybe he has allowed the market to create jobs by getting the government out of its way in certain areas, but the government does not create jobs...... ever.

ETA:

And, I work for the government!!! But, you know who creates my job? Taxpayers, and lawbreakers. If people would act right, there would be no need for my job.

So I guess that means that the government didn't create any jobs when FDR instituted the "New Deal" and built the Hoover Dam or his creation of the "Works Progress Administration?"

en.wikipedia.org...

At its peak in 1938 it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men (and some women), as well as youth in a separate division, the National Youth Administration. Headed by Harry Hopkins, the WPA provided jobs and income to the unemployed during the Great Depression in the United States. Between 1935 and 1943, the WPA provided almost eight million jobs.[3]

Or what about when our government, led by DDE, decided to build the 46,000 mile long interstate highway system? I guess that our government didn't create those jobs either. Please!

reply to post by Flatfish


There was a need for a highway system. The market created the need, the people financed it. Sure, the government was the project manager, but it would probably have been a much better project if it was privately funded. What part of transportation has the government ever managed effectively? Amtrak? Airlines? TSA?

As for the Hoover Dam, Las Vegas created the need. People did that, not the government.

Sure, an efficient and proactive government has some good attributes. Public works have occasionally been useful, but the needs already existed, the labor force already existed, the government just redistributed money from tax payers to corporations. Why not let the free market do exactly the same thing, voluntarily, and without the middle man?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Flatfish

 

There was a need for a highway system. The market created the need, the people financed it. Sure, the government was the project manager, but it would probably have been a much better project if it was privately funded. What part of transportation has the government ever managed effectively? Amtrak? Airlines? TSA?

As for the Hoover Dam, Las Vegas created the need. People did that, not the government.

Sure, an efficient and proactive government has some good attributes. Public works have occasionally been useful, but the needs already existed, the labor force already existed, the government just redistributed money from tax payers to corporations. Why not let the free market do exactly the same thing, voluntarily, and without the middle man?

The government was not the "project manager," they were the funders of the project. Without that funding, the Interstate highway system would never have been built. If it were privately funded, what we would have would be an extensive network of individually owned toll roads with varying costs. Nothing like what we have today.

Furthermore, for you to state that the Hoover Dam was built for Las Vegas is a joke! At least I hope your were joking because nothing could be further from the truth. Even today, most of the energy and water produced by the dam goes to the state of California and it's been that way since it's inception. Seems kinda odd seeing how it was built for Vegas, wouldn't you say? In reality, the Las Vegas we know today wouldn't exist if it were not for the Hoover Dam.

The "free market" is not some super human force that is capable of funding projects on such a grand scale as these and if left up to it, they wouldn't get done.

reply to post by Flatfish

The government was not the "project manager," they were the funders of the project.

The government cannot "fund" anything. The government does not generate any money. It only takes money from people and redistributes it. The citizens funded those projects, and if the citizens had any choice in the matter, they probably could have gotten the projects done faster, better, and cheaper!

Originally posted by neo96
Obama is currently spending 5 billion a day the national deficit has increased to 16 trillion when he took over it was 10 more than any president in Us History.

Obama is doing that? All by himself? Not the military? Congress? Us?

I really do love it when people try to play percentages as if it means anything fuzzy math is fuzzy.

LOL. Yes, 'playing percentages'. How DARE people look at numbers in proper context.

Your partisanship oozes forth from you.

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by therealdemoboy
reply to post by BlueStatePatriot

 

FACT TO THE CONTRARY: Well, sort of. While the Democrats have "created more jobs" You never broke down how many of those millions of jobs were created as government jobs, which we, the taxpayer are funding.

Maybe this little graph that was derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be of assistance to you. As you can clearly see, President Obama's job creation has primarily been within the private sector and not the government funded jobs which you are suggesting.

Just a caution when looking at graphs of this type.

I will use an example to illustrate my point.

You have 1000 people employed to write out parking tickets. 1000 Govt. jobs.

You privatize the function giving company x the job of issuing parking tickets! You have just done what the public want. You have cut 1000 govt. jobs and hey man!!! You just created 1000 jobs in the private sector!!!

MAN are you good or what!?

You can do the same sort of things by switching a Govt. Department to a Govt. Instrumentality and cook the books that way.

Oh, and the friends of yours that run company x make lots of money and owe you big time. It is good politics!

P

reply to post by TheOneElectric


This whole 2 party system that America has become is destroying what should be a great country.
Nothing ever gets done. Every single election the candidates promise the same things and yet nothing changes. They constrained by the 2 major party's that they had to sell out to to even get heard by anyone. But because most people seem to have this need to win and have "their side" win, nothing will ever truly change. The status quo will stay with the ruling class staying the ruling class

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Flatfish

 

The government was not the "project manager," they were the funders of the project.

The government cannot "fund" anything. The government does not generate any money. It only takes money from people and redistributes it. The citizens funded those projects, and if the citizens had any choice in the matter, they probably could have gotten the projects done faster, better, and cheaper!

And what's stoping these "people" from getting it done? Where are all the dams and highways constructed "faster, better & cheaper" by these "people?" You really over-estimate the ability of the free market to plan, fund & build large infrastructure projects on their own.

Some public projects are just too large for any private entity to accomplish on their own and that's when the "government," or the collective of citizens must step in too help fund the project. Isn't this why we collectively fund our dept. of defense? The mentality of "every man for himself" just leaves every man standing alone.

reply to post by Flatfish


I'm not totally against government participation. I'm probably one of the only people on ATS that thinks the FDA is actually necessary and that some regulations are important. When you pump a gallon of gas, you want to know it really is a gallon. When you buy a 500 mg Tylenol, you want to know it really is 500 mg.

I agree with you that some works (like the Interstate System) make more sense with Federal Government participation. I went hard at the notion at first, but really it is just semantics. I don't believe they "create" any jobs, and I don't believe the government ever does anything as efficiently as it could be done, but I do think they government has some very important participation on a limited level.

At this point, the government is so bloated and overbearing there is nothing they can do right. Until we slash it 30-50%, and make some hard sacrifices, and regain some liberties and state's rights, we are doomed. So, in the immediate future, the Federal Government can't do anything correctly except shrink.

No way I'm giving them any credit for job creation while they are bigger and bolder than ever before, and giving so much preferential treatment to corporations, and destroying so much of the innovation, risk-taking, and entreprenurial spirit of the little man.

reply to post by getreadyalready


While I agree with most of your sentiments expressed in this post, I have to say that; As the population of any nation grows and expands, so do the needs of those people and one could only expect that the government tasked with meeting those needs would also grow accordingly.

That being said, I agree that there are plenty of places to cut federal spending it's just that the difference in ideologies across America won't allow us to come to a consensus as to where. On the other hand, it's not all about spending either. There are two sides to any deficit, income vs. spending. On the "income" side of that coin, our tax code has been corrupted to the point that so many loopholes exist for those most able to pay that the real burden is now being shouldered by those least able to pay. It's completely upside down.

I am for fair taxation and efficient government, neither of which seem to be present in America today but I do believe that it can be achieved if we exercise the political will to get it done.

reply to post by Flatfish


The idealogies, as represented by the politicians and MSM are seemingly miles apart, but in reality the ultimate end is really pretty close.

For the record, both parties are equally to blame. I am a registered Republican, but that is just so I can vote in the primaries. My political leanings are about 51% Republican. Just like I think Obama and Romney are cut from the same cloth, I also think the Republican and Democrat parties are both representative of big government. I find myself agreeing with both the Extreme Right, and the Extreme Left.

The "Fair Tax" is a wonderful plan, with a lot of support. A flat tax could be implemented with ease. There are corporate CEO's that support a flat tax. I don't like the Herman Cain 9-9-9 plan, because it adds a new tax without removing any old ones.

We need a simplified tax code, perhaps 12 to 15% income tax for every dollar "earned" above some arbitrary line. No inheritance tax, no gift tax, no deductions, etc. OR, we need the National Sales Tax, and no income tax whatsoever. Either way would work wonderfully.

We need a balanced budget amendment, and we need a soft and a hard debt ceiling as a percentage of GDP. I'd propose a 30% of GDP soft debt ceiling, when the debt exceeds that amount certain emergency protocols are enacted and spending is limited and a special session of Congress is called. The 50% of GDP hard ceiling could never be exceeded under any circumstance without a popular vote!

If we did those simple things, and the government learned to live within its means, the country would change for the better over night.

And the spin stops here:


www.politicalmathblog.com...

Yes We Can!

I think this is an important thread to remember because it is so true. If you also compare Romney's deficit plan to Obama's Romney's would balloon the deficit by a huge margin.

If you look at the chart Obama has spent 1.3% annually while Bush spend over 8% annually.

I am suprised people still think Obama is a big spender.

Oh good grief. How stupid do you have to be to believe this? I'm not aiming that at anyone here, but at the author of this article. This is called 'lying with numbers'. It reminds me of the Dems 'tax burden' bull**** a few years ago.

The actual data:

2000-09-30 1788950
2001-09-30 1862846
2002-09-30 2010894
2003-09-30 2159899
2004-09-30 2292841
2005-09-30 2471957
2006-09-30 2655050
2007-09-30 2728686
2008-09-30 2982544
2009-09-30 3517677
2010-09-30 3456213
2011-09-30 3603061

Those numbers are in millions of dollars, and the date represents the end of a fiscal year. Reality tells another story, doesn't it? I can't say that Obama deserves all the blame for this, but the fact is, spending is much, much higher now than it was even five years ago. The only reason 'spending growth' is flat is because they've run out of other people's money to spend!

Source, for those who care.