Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

Comments
1 - 20 of 27 Comments Last updated Feb 4, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Consistent

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 4, 2013
 
Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That’s in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it’s also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.

That made me curious: How does government spending and investment during Obama’s first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush’s first terms?... Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama’s first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan’s first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush’s first 16 quarters.


Or, to put it differently, over Obama’s first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average,.11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan’s first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush’s first term, it added .52 percentage points.


...these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama’s term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama’s GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan’s first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...

None of which will stop republicans from constantly referring to 'big-spending Democrats'.

It is interesting to see how much better off the economy would be under a 'big-spending republican' like the much revered (in republican circles anyway) Reagan. GDP growth now would be about 3% rather than the most recent -0.1%.
Consistent

Grantsburg, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Consistent wrote:
Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?
In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That’s in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it’s also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.
That made me curious: How does government spending and investment during Obama’s first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush’s first terms?... Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama’s first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan’s first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush’s first 16 quarters.
Or, to put it differently, over Obama’s first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average,.11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan’s first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush’s first term, it added .52 percentage points.
...these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama’s term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama’s GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan’s first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...
None of which will stop republicans from constantly referring to 'big-spending Democrats'.
It is interesting to see how much better off the economy would be under a 'big-spending republican' like the much revered (in republican circles anyway) Reagan. GDP growth now would be about 3% rather than the most recent -0.1%.
Napoleonic Short Dyck Poster,

Feel free to work out you small dyck issues by using my name all day.

I just wish that Sociopaths like you were not objectifying me all day as you masturbate to the fantasy you have created about me in your Diseased Mind.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Consistent wrote:
Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?
In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That’s in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it’s also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.
That made me curious: How does government spending and investment during Obama’s first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush’s first terms?... Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama’s first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan’s first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush’s first 16 quarters.
Or, to put it differently, over Obama’s first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average,.11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan’s first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush’s first term, it added .52 percentage points.
...these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama’s term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama’s GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan’s first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...
None of which will stop republicans from constantly referring to 'big-spending Democrats'.
It is interesting to see how much better off the economy would be under a 'big-spending republican' like the much revered (in republican circles anyway) Reagan. GDP growth now would be about 3% rather than the most recent -0.1%.
The bills for the bulk of Obama's spending haven't come due yet, Obamacare really starts to hit this year and next. Why don't we re-visit Obama's spending a couple of years down the road for a second look at his magical 1st term.

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If the national debt went up the same percentage under Obama as it did under Reagan, it would be over 30 trillion when Obama leaves office.
Reagan and Bush43 make Obama look like a fiscal conservative.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WDRussell wrote:
If the national debt went up the same percentage under Obama as it did under Reagan, it would be over 30 trillion when Obama leaves office.
Reagan and Bush43 make Obama look like a fiscal conservative.
The debt under Reagan approximately doubled. Obama is on track to do that as well, from $10 trillion to $20 trillion.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Is on track, before the numbers are known ?? Man, keep posting, but you're a moron.....
Consistent

Grantsburg, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Amused Slew wrote:
Is on track, before the numbers are known ?? Man, keep posting, but you're a moron.....
You get um Slewsie....Nobdy has any context for this little attack you use, and they do not know what the fauch you are talking abou. But, Hey YOU know what it is you are saying, and it is all about YOU.

So Babbl'ese away!
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Amused Slew wrote:
Is on track, before the numbers are known ?? Man, keep posting, but you're a moron.....
Current debt from the US Debt clock:

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 04 Feb 2013 at 04:38:17 PM GMT is:

$16,448,159,395,374.62

The estimated population of the United States is 314,362,740
so each citizen's share of this debt is $52,322.23.

Four more years of trillion dollar deficits puts the debt over $20 trillion easily. This years deficit is projected to be over a trillion dollars, puts us pretty close to $17.5 trillion. All it takes is averaging $800 billion deficits the next three years for Obama to double the national debt during his terms.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pretending MOST of the debt isn't bushwhacker's ...precious, putz.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Amused Slew wrote:
Pretending MOST of the debt isn't bushwhacker's ...precious, putz.
blah, blah, blah. The debt has accrued under Obama. That is how it is measured. I see you get to use your own delusional measurements in your postings, but you don't get to change the facts.
Bridgework

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The nation's spending was greatly increased during Obama's first year in office (due to onetime spending packages). After those one time packages our spending should have greatly decreased, but instead it has maintained at those levels. Factcheck.org , Associated Press fact check, Politico, and the Washington Post fact check all pointed that out when the leftists brought this up.
Bridgework

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Amused Slew wrote:
Pretending MOST of the debt isn't bushwhacker's ...precious, putz.
Pretend Democrats haven't controlled the majority of Washington for the last 6+ years. Maybe after 10 years you will stop blaming Bush.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 4, 2013
 
Will it be after we find weapons of mass destruction ?
Bridgework

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The Democrats really control the House - don't be fooled by that propaganda from mass media!
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 4, 2013
 
Bridgework wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretend Democrats haven't controlled the majority of Washington for the last 6+ years. Maybe after 10 years you will stop blaming Bush.
Then the chair at the convention, will be under an ass/bush ???...
Full Truth

Grantsburg, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 4, 2013
 
I know of Ronald Reagan, Barry Soetoro is no Reagan.

I know of Hugo Chavez, Idi Amin, and Fidel Castro, the Son of Communists is in Fidel.
Consistent

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 4, 2013
 
Somebody is awfully drunk already.
Full Truth

Grantsburg, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Every Business uses debt to create growth which makes jobs.

Collectivists that have never run anything close to a business use debt to purchase the votes others like themselves who have never produced anything, but have been sustained by the Hard Work of their neighbors.

Community Activists are enriched by "Shaking Down" (It used be a crime to "Strong Arm"....the Chicago Mob way).

Ronald Reagan's use of Debt destroyed America's Number one Enemy, and created MILLIONS of job creating one the best periods of wealth creation in the history of the world.

Barry Soetoro is running out of people to "Shake Down"

Gawd Facts just suck!
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Feb 4, 2013
 
Consistent wrote:
Somebody is awfully drunk already.
I know, appalling right? And its only 9:30 in Seattle.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Feb 4, 2013
 
"It's" what time in Seattle ??????

Guess, dummy needs a tutorial...

It's is a contraction for it is or it has.

Its is a possessive pronoun meaning, more or less, of it or belonging to it.

And there is absolutely, positively, no such word as its'.
A simple test

If you can replace it[']s in your sentence with it is or it has, then your word is it's; otherwise, your word is its.
Another test

Its is the neuter version of his and her. Try plugging her into your sentence where you think its belongs. If the sentence still works grammatically (if not logically) then your word is indeed its.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Minneapolis Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Minneapolis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••