IronsightSniper
Junior Member
I agree with you in that both candidates, like usual, suck, and that Ron Paul would have been the best candidate had he been nominated (also, I'm angry that Rand Paul is not following in his father's footsteps, who will I wish the Republicans will nominate next ;_
. On economics though, I do realize that you are fiscally conservative, but spending was the right way to go in the midst of the recession (yes, Keynesians strike again), and so, balancing the budget was not Obama's top priority. The problem, however, is that Obama inadvertently managed to decrease spending after Bush junior's bail out and other factors increased the federal deficit by $1 trillion USD (of course, he didn't do it himself, but I'm using the old political metric of attributing statistics to the President of the time). In fact, the federal deficit has shrunk by $113 billion USD since Obama took the reigns. I should also point out that debt wise, though this amount of debt accumulating in this short of time is a record, Obama hasn't actually contributed as much to the debt as Bush junior has (Obama has increased the debt by $4.4 trillion USD, Bush junior had increased the debt by $6.1 trillion USD).
I know what some may be thinking, why am I comparing Obama to Bush when the topic at hand is Obama and Romney? The answer is the generic fiscal conservative cry for tax cuts. Bush had enacted tax cuts from 2001 to 2003. The tax revenue from individual income taxes fell by $200 billion USD in that time frame, which sounds neat, until you take account the wars we ended up participating in and other spending increases. The federal deficit went from a $128 billion USD surplus that Bush had inherited to a $377 billion USD deficit between 2001 and 2003. The national debt in that time frame went from $5.7 trillion USD to $6.7 trillion USD, a full $1 trillion USD increase.
Obviously, fighting a war has to account for a couple of those $ bills, but so does Obama's facts and figures during his presidency, the only difference is, they are much more moderate than Bush's. Obama's spending from the 2012 estimate to 2009 had only increased by $277 billion USD, that's actually a smaller increase in spending then when Ronald Reagan was in office. In comparison, Bush's 2009 budget increased by $1.65 trillion USD since his first budget in 2001. Jobs wise, between July 2012 and July 2009, 2.3 million additional people had become employed, that's compared to a growth of the work force by a mere 475,000 people in that time frame. Simply said, the ARRA worked.
In fact, an economist for Moody, Mark Zandi, talked about the economic benefits of various economic policies. The numbers are notably:
A $1.29 stimulus per $1 cut via a payroll tax holiday
A $1.26 stimulus per $1 cut via a refundable lump-sum tax rebate
A $0.29 'stimulus' per $1 cut via making the bush income tax cuts permanent
A $1.36 stimulus per $1 spent sending general aid to state governments
A $1.59 stimulus per $1 spent on infrastructure projects
A $1.73 stimulus per $1 spent on temporarily increasing food stamps
The ARRA was essentially the latter 3, and taking into account the growth of the number of employed, we can deduce that, at the very least, the ARRA had a positive impact on the American economy. Of course, the unemployment rate only fell by about 1% in comparison to the peak of the recession, and the unemployment rate is still about 3% higher than the sub 5% unemployment rates we had in 2005, but after Bush and his tax cuts and warmongering, I can't assume that Romney will be any different. Paul Ryan had the 'brilliant' idea of raising the taxes on, I think it was the corporations, but he might have said the top earners in the U.S., but I don't remember. Either one I can get behind, a Buffet law would have been great if it had been passed when the Democrats held the entire federal government save the judicial branch.
But yes, to sum this post up, Obama's economic policies are a change of pace from Bush's, and the numbers show that. After the shenanigans that Bush junior had paced our country through, I can't trust a Republican that spouts the same crap he did. At the end of the day, it's still two pretty bad candidates, and I'm relying on to give me the policies of both candidates, so that at the least, I'd be voting for the guy that's gonna do the least harm.
---
I presented several 'facts' that I ought to cite so here's my sources:
(expenditures, debts, and income tax receipts by year)
(check the first four boxes and click Retrieve Data at the bottom)
(the economic benefits of various economic policies)
. On economics though, I do realize that you are fiscally conservative, but spending was the right way to go in the midst of the recession (yes, Keynesians strike again), and so, balancing the budget was not Obama's top priority. The problem, however, is that Obama inadvertently managed to decrease spending after Bush junior's bail out and other factors increased the federal deficit by $1 trillion USD (of course, he didn't do it himself, but I'm using the old political metric of attributing statistics to the President of the time). In fact, the federal deficit has shrunk by $113 billion USD since Obama took the reigns. I should also point out that debt wise, though this amount of debt accumulating in this short of time is a record, Obama hasn't actually contributed as much to the debt as Bush junior has (Obama has increased the debt by $4.4 trillion USD, Bush junior had increased the debt by $6.1 trillion USD). I know what some may be thinking, why am I comparing Obama to Bush when the topic at hand is Obama and Romney? The answer is the generic fiscal conservative cry for tax cuts. Bush had enacted tax cuts from 2001 to 2003. The tax revenue from individual income taxes fell by $200 billion USD in that time frame, which sounds neat, until you take account the wars we ended up participating in and other spending increases. The federal deficit went from a $128 billion USD surplus that Bush had inherited to a $377 billion USD deficit between 2001 and 2003. The national debt in that time frame went from $5.7 trillion USD to $6.7 trillion USD, a full $1 trillion USD increase.
Obviously, fighting a war has to account for a couple of those $ bills, but so does Obama's facts and figures during his presidency, the only difference is, they are much more moderate than Bush's. Obama's spending from the 2012 estimate to 2009 had only increased by $277 billion USD, that's actually a smaller increase in spending then when Ronald Reagan was in office. In comparison, Bush's 2009 budget increased by $1.65 trillion USD since his first budget in 2001. Jobs wise, between July 2012 and July 2009, 2.3 million additional people had become employed, that's compared to a growth of the work force by a mere 475,000 people in that time frame. Simply said, the ARRA worked.
In fact, an economist for Moody, Mark Zandi, talked about the economic benefits of various economic policies. The numbers are notably:
A $1.29 stimulus per $1 cut via a payroll tax holiday
A $1.26 stimulus per $1 cut via a refundable lump-sum tax rebate
A $0.29 'stimulus' per $1 cut via making the bush income tax cuts permanent
A $1.36 stimulus per $1 spent sending general aid to state governments
A $1.59 stimulus per $1 spent on infrastructure projects
A $1.73 stimulus per $1 spent on temporarily increasing food stamps
The ARRA was essentially the latter 3, and taking into account the growth of the number of employed, we can deduce that, at the very least, the ARRA had a positive impact on the American economy. Of course, the unemployment rate only fell by about 1% in comparison to the peak of the recession, and the unemployment rate is still about 3% higher than the sub 5% unemployment rates we had in 2005, but after Bush and his tax cuts and warmongering, I can't assume that Romney will be any different. Paul Ryan had the 'brilliant' idea of raising the taxes on, I think it was the corporations, but he might have said the top earners in the U.S., but I don't remember. Either one I can get behind, a Buffet law would have been great if it had been passed when the Democrats held the entire federal government save the judicial branch.
But yes, to sum this post up, Obama's economic policies are a change of pace from Bush's, and the numbers show that. After the shenanigans that Bush junior had paced our country through, I can't trust a Republican that spouts the same crap he did. At the end of the day, it's still two pretty bad candidates, and I'm relying on to give me the policies of both candidates, so that at the least, I'd be voting for the guy that's gonna do the least harm.
---
I presented several 'facts' that I ought to cite so here's my sources:
(expenditures, debts, and income tax receipts by year)
(check the first four boxes and click Retrieve Data at the bottom)
(the economic benefits of various economic policies)
Last edited:
