The Blue Board

Haha so the first term excuse for why the economy sucked under Obama was Bush

The second term excuse why the economy will continue to suck will be the sequester...

What will be Obama's legacy?? Keeping the seat warm for a real leader?

I think he has to be in it to keep it warm

Nah. He was just making sure people understood that he was given a shit show to run because most people who don't actually follow economic news (and even some economists at first who didn't get the big picture until more statistics rolled in) thought that it was going to be like the early 1980s or early 2000s and it would take a year to rebound, except it wasn't a little tech bubble or a fvckup at the Fed with interest rates. It was a 4% contraction and losing jobs at an average page of almost 500,000 for TWO straight quarters.

The only reason why it even seems as bad is because it's been a jobless recovery. Every economic indicator besides the unemployment rate has been up for awhile now. That's a failure I solely put on Obama and Congress. They've been terrible at producing legislation to aid employment. We got the stimulus (which in hindsight wasn't large enough) and then a small bill like every other year that just extended some small tax credits to businesses for hiring that saw mixed results because they were so targeted and pretty much moot since no one is going to hire when the marginal cost is greater than any marginal revenue not there because of lack of demand.

The second term economy isn't sucking or going to suck, but it will be dragged down by mindless, self-defeating and completely avoidable sequesters.

Your analogies are just awful.

True. It's much more likely that Obama shortened your table legs because someone else needed a taller table

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't entitlement spending a drop in the ocean compared to defense spending?

Also the combination of "welfare" programs if lumped together would be the largest expenditure of the federal government. Welfare isn't just one program it refers to a myriad of federal programs and programs run in conjunction with the states. Spending in this area is up 32% since '08. And if it were considered one budget item would be the only item that tops $1 trillion annually.

The over trillion number is in conjunction with state spending as well, but even just considering federal welfare spending it would be larger than Social Security, Health and Human Services, and the Defense department.

Here is the general breakdown of "welfare" spending.

Lol TT. Please stop.

Your response is bull****, I post numbers real numbers and you claim it's all a lie. After we spent three days of you coming on here with a load of crap about monetary policy with no source whatsoever meanwhile the whole time claiming it to be "commonly accepted theories". I provide evidence and you just post in refute simply because I am the one who posted it. lol. So either bring in better numbers or shut-up.

I could say the sky is blue and you would argue with me.

Someone is mad.

Dude it says its fixed in the notes. Read it.

It's the fucking Weekly Standard for god's sake.

It includes state spending in the welfare number which is irrespective of the deficit problem and is complete shit because some state's actually have active welfare programs to supplement federal programs like California,New York etc. That's going to add tens of billions to that number alone. Even more important to that number is Medicaid spending that is state-funded.

Secondly, it leaves out OCO for defense spending but won't take into account economic conditions for welfare spending which is equally analogous to OCO for defense.

So there's that.

Then there's the complete horseshit credibility issue of why the WS would even work it's fun magic.

A) it's readers eat it up

B) it frames the problem as solely being inherent, which is a great philosophical debate, but currently it's almost entirely the focused of economics condition witth eligibility expansion second (which should be roled back once certain economic indicators are met). It's arguing that look at these numbers, we should get rid of stuff. Lol. No.

I'm actually glad you posted it now. It frames a great debate about the direction of the country and the fiscal policy of the future. For twelve years now we've all been lied into thinking we could get all this government for less taxes (more debt). So it comes down to two decisions: less spending or more taxes. It's obvious which one you want, but that's irrelevant in the national scope of things.

Just some food for thought. Now please don't ever post shit like that again and not expect to get ripped a new one. Lulz.

The Weekly Standard only reported the numbers. The numbers are real.

Without state spending it still ends up being over $700 billion dollars in federal spending which is still more than SS and HHS.

They say in the footnotes that state spending is included.

Unless you can provide a source that refutes these claims we are done with this conversation.