PDA

View Full Version : The Republican Economy



Buzz
06-07-2012, 01:04 PM
This most recent article from Krugman says it all. Looking at the curves I attached at the bottom showing current trends in government spending and tax receipts as a percent of GDP SHOULD drive his point home.

BUT, I'm sure that I'm about to hear that I'm FOS. Have at it...






OP-ED COLUMNIST

This Republican Economy

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 3, 2012


What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams.


So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.For some reason, however, neither the press nor Mr. Obama’s political team has done a very good job of exposing the con.

What do I mean by saying that this is already a Republican economy? Look first at total government spending — federal, state and local. Adjusted for population growth and inflation, such spending has recently been falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War.
How is that possible? Isn’t Mr. Obama a big spender (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/1937-2/)? Actually, no; there was a brief burst of spending in late 2009 and early 2010 as the stimulus kicked in, but that boost is long behind us. Since then it has been all downhill. Cash-strapped state and local governments have laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers; meanwhile, unemployment benefits have been trailing off even though unemployment remains extremely high.
Over all, the picture for America in 2012 bears a stunning resemblance to the great mistake of 1937, when F.D.R. prematurely slashed spending, sending the U.S. economy — which had actually been recovering fairly fast until that point — into the second leg of the Great Depression. In F.D.R.’s case, however, this was an unforced error, since he had a solidly Democratic Congress. In President Obama’s case, much though not all of the responsibility for the policy wrong turn lies with a completely obstructionist Republican majority in the House.

That same obstructionist House majority effectively blackmailed the president into continuing all the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so that federal taxes as a share of G.D.P. are near historic lows — much lower, in particular, than at any point during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

As I said, for all practical purposes this is already a Republican economy.

As an aside, I think it’s worth pointing out that although the economy’s performance has been disappointing, to say the least, none of the disasters Republicans predicted have come to pass. Remember all those assertions that budget deficits would lead to soaring interest rates? Well, U.S. borrowing costs have just hit a record low. And remember those dire warnings about inflation and the “debasement” of the dollar? Well, inflation remains low, and the dollar has been stronger than it was in the Bush years.

Put it this way: Republicans have been warning that we were about to turn into Greece because President Obama was doing too much to boost the economy; Keynesian economists like myself warned that we were, on the contrary, at risk of turning into Japan because he was doing too little. And Japanification it is, except with a level of misery the Japanese never had to endure.
So why don’t voters know any of this?

Part of the answer is that far too much economic reporting is still of the he-said, she-said variety, with dueling quotes from hired guns on either side. But it’s also true that the Obama team has consistently failed to highlight Republican obstruction, perhaps out of a fear of seeming weak. Instead, the president’s advisers keep turning to happy talk, seizing on a few months’ good economic news as proof that their policies are working — and then ending up looking foolish when the numbers turn down again. Remarkably, they’ve made this mistake three times in a row: in 2010, 2011 and now once again.

At this point, however, Mr. Obama and his political team don’t seem to have much choice. They can point with pride to some big economic achievements, above all the successful rescue of the auto industry, which is responsible for a large part of whatever job growth we are managing to get. But they’re not going to be able to sell a narrative of overall economic success. Their best bet, surely, is to do a Harry Truman, to run against the “do-nothing” Republican Congress that has, in reality, blocked proposals — for tax cuts as well as more spending — that would have made 2012 a much better year than it’s turning out to be.
For that, in the end, is the best argument against Republicans’ claims that they can fix the economy. The fact is that we have already seen the Republican economic future — and it doesn’t work.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/06/03/opinion/060312krugman1/060312krugman1-blog480.jpg


Total US Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/total-tax-revenue.png

US Tax Revenue as a Fraction of GDP by Component

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/component-tax-revenue.png



This one is perty, so I threw it in...

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2010/12/US_TAXGDP1210.gif

road kill
06-07-2012, 01:13 PM
Buzz,
As usual you are just plain "cutting edge."
Anything deviant from your ideas of course are (and I quote) "horse crap."

I am wondering, since you are so good at graphs and all.........could you show us a graph showing we unwashed what the Obama economy looks like???


Just askin'...........

sandyg
06-07-2012, 01:24 PM
Anyone can spin statistics anyway they want. But when I read this, "And remember those dire warnings about inflation and the “debasement” of the dollar? Well, inflation remains low, and the dollar has been stronger than it was in the Bush years.", yet when I KNOW my grocery bills, utility bills, and fuel prices have all increased significantly, and the dollar is stronger only because the EU is falling apart, I KNOW the author, in this case a bitter liberal, is being disingenuous and I take what he writes with a grain of salt.

ARay11
06-07-2012, 02:19 PM
why are the revenue charts only up until 2005?

huntinman
06-07-2012, 02:19 PM
Buzz, you're not FOS... Krugman is though... You are just regurgitating the crap.

Buzz
06-07-2012, 02:29 PM
why are the revenue charts only up until 2005?


They are not. The last axis label is 2005, but the axis extends to 2009 or 2010. I don't have 2012 numbers, but it shows revenue dropping further...

The real government spending per capita extends to 2012...

paul young
06-07-2012, 02:31 PM
why are the revenue charts only up until 2005?

looks like all 3 charts run thru 2010.-Paul

Buzz
06-07-2012, 02:35 PM
Buzz,
As usual you are just plain "cutting edge."
Anything deviant from your ideas of course are (and I quote) "horse crap."

I am wondering, since you are so good at graphs and all.........could you show us a graph showing we unwashed what the Obama economy looks like???


Just askin'...........


You mean this one?


http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bikini-graph-January-2012.jpg

ARay11
06-07-2012, 02:59 PM
IMPRESSIVE. (and now I do see the charts, LOL)
very interesting stats.

Sean H
06-07-2012, 03:01 PM
You mean this one?



But I thought Obama couldn't do anything because the Republicans won't let him? Your article says so.

Buzz
06-07-2012, 03:05 PM
But I thought Obama couldn't do anything because the Republicans won't let him? Your article says so.


How many Republicans voted for the stimulus when Obama had both houses?

And that was totally watered down to try and get Snow and some "democrats in name only." It was nearly half tax cuts to try and appease the R's.

Look at the big increase in spending in the very top graph, then look down at the graph I posted for RK.

I guess the stimulus didn't do a thing... Funny that's when jobs turned positive for the first time in awhile.

paul young
06-07-2012, 03:06 PM
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

inflation rates have been pretty flat for some time now. i remember the seventies- now there was some inflation!-Paul

Buzz
06-07-2012, 03:09 PM
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

inflation rates have been pretty flat for some time now. i remember the seventies- now there was some inflation!-Paul


I hate hearing folks compare the current economy to that of the 70's and 80's. They simply are not comparable are they?

I can hear the retort coming, bu bu but, gas prices... What are gas prices doing right now? They are volatile as he double L...

huntinman
06-07-2012, 03:42 PM
You mean this one?


http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bikini-graph-January-2012.jpg

If you wanted to be fair... Come up with a graph that shows thes same amount of time for Bush vs Obama. Show Bush's last 4 years vs Obamas only 4. I think your graph would look a little different.

ARay11
06-07-2012, 03:54 PM
http://sagamorejournal.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/job-creation-graph1.jpg?w=632 (http://sagamorejournal.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/job-creation-graph1.jpg)



I am only posting this to show that no matter which side you are on, you can find economic data and graphs to support your position. We can all drive ourselves silly with pie charts, either for or against.

sandyg
06-07-2012, 03:55 PM
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

inflation rates have been pretty flat for some time now. i remember the seventies- now there was some inflation!-Paul

The Consumer Price Index does NOT include food and energy. These items were removed in 1997. A better measure of inflation for the individual is the everyday price index. The EPI inflation rate was 8% in 2011.

http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/03/01/real-u-s-inflation-rate8-obama-says-%E2%80%9Conly%E2%80%9D-3/
http://www.aier.org/article/7545-everyday-price-index

sandyg
06-07-2012, 04:00 PM
I just can't get used to Republicans being "red states" or anything Republican being represented by the color red. The Democrats should be represented by the color red. After all, they're closer to being card-carrying communists (reds) and economically they prefer being in the red than being in the black.

Buzz
06-07-2012, 04:04 PM
http://sagamorejournal.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/job-creation-graph1.jpg?w=632 (http://sagamorejournal.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/job-creation-graph1.jpg)



I am only posting this to show that no matter which side you are on, you can find economic data and graphs to support your position. We can all drive ourselves silly with pie charts, either for or against.


So, what does this prove except that we were adding some jobs until the crap hit the fan in 2008?

sandyg
06-07-2012, 04:08 PM
So, what does this prove except that we were adding some jobs until the crap hit the fan in 2008?

It proves the same thing your graphs prove... NOTHING!

road kill
06-07-2012, 04:12 PM
So, what does this prove except that we were adding some jobs until the crap hit the fan in 2008?
Looks to me like the Republicans repaired a problem and the Democrats recreated it!

See, the pattern in red is upward and the pattern in blue is downward.

Maybe you can't (won't) see that.

BTW--I am still waiting for some clever graph that shows what the economy "looks like" under Obama's direction.........:D

menmon
06-07-2012, 04:28 PM
Says a bunch...you just don't want to read it.

Franco
06-07-2012, 04:46 PM
The problem with spending per capita is that immigration is at record numbers so, I like to see real spending numbers and not per capita. No doubt that Repubs are just as big at spending as the Dems, they just spend it on different things. And, what spending have the Repubs gone after since the mid-term elections other than Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood? Two areas that are hardly the problem of our deficit woes!


P S

I reserve the right to be critical of both bumbling political parties! http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/06/03/opinion/060312krugman1/060312krugman1-blog480.jpg

Buzz
06-07-2012, 04:57 PM
The problem with spending per capita is that immigration is at record numbers so, I like to see real spending numbers and not per capita. No doubt that Repubs are just as big at spending as the Dems, they just spend it on different things. And, what spending have the Repubs gone after since the mid-term elections other than Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood? Two areas that are hardly the problem of our deficit woes! http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/06/03/opinion/060312krugman1/060312krugman1-blog480.jpg

So, if we look at raw numbers, and assume spending was constant, the population would have had to increase by over 9%. But ya'll keep trying to say that spending has exploded. So how much do you believe that population has grown since that spike around 2010?

Try again...

Buzz
06-07-2012, 04:58 PM
Says a bunch...you just don't want to read it.


I realize that I'm wasting my time, but I'm getting burned out with work. Needed to clear my mind with some mindless debate.

Franco
06-07-2012, 05:16 PM
So, if we look at raw numbers, and assume spending was constant, the population would have had to increase by over 9%. But ya'll keep trying to say that spending has exploded. So how much do you believe that population has grown since that spike around 2010?

Try again...

With legal immigration over 1.2 million a year, 3,000,000 would have an impact on the per capita. And, an estimated illegal population estimated between 15mil and 25mil.

In fact, I was just looking at the trends in USA population growth and my gut tells me that this is a huge part of our problems. At the end of WW2, the population in the USA was only 130,000,000.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FS16_USImmigration_051807.pdf
Looks like I under-estimated! Immigration is averaging 1.8 million a year since 2005!!! So, we can added another 5,000,000. That is why the per capita numbers are not worth looking at.;)

ARay11
06-07-2012, 05:33 PM
I realize that I'm wasting my time, but I'm getting burned out with work. Needed to clear my mind with some mindless debate.

roflmao...something we completely agree on!! this is way better than actually working!! :)

Buzz
06-07-2012, 06:05 PM
With legal immigration over 1.2 million a year, 3,000,000 would have an impact on the per capita. And, an estimated illegal population estimated between 15mil and 25mil.

In fact, I was just looking at the trends in USA population growth and my gut tells me that this is a huge part of our problems. At the end of WW2, the population in the USA was only 130,000,000.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FS16_USImmigration_051807.pdf
Looks like I under-estimated! Immigration is averaging 1.8 million a year since 2005!!! So, we can added another 5,000,000. That is why the per capita numbers are not worth looking at.;)

The government figures I could find for the first of each year:

2009 - 305 million
2010 - 308 million
2011 - 310 million
2012 - 312 million

So, since 2009, the percent increase in population is:

100 x [(312/305) - 1] = 2.3 %

Do you think that this accounts for the drop in growth of per capita spending?

menmon
06-08-2012, 10:18 AM
The math works.

Gerry Clinchy
06-08-2012, 10:55 AM
Try telling someone with a family of 4 earning $50,000/year that inflation is low.

There are a bazillion different ways to interpret some of the graphs ... what causes corporate taxes to go down? I might suspect that less corporate revenue to tax has an impact.

Why does personal income tax stay pretty level? If 50% of the taxes are paid by the top 1% (more for the top 10%), we could imagine that those taxpayers did not have as great a dip in income as the portion who pay little or no taxes. I can't help thinking about people like those in Congress who have never really felt any of the pinch; and the sleezy execs who created the financial mess & walked off with buckets of money as a result. Maybe the latter actually paid some taxes on that money?

menmon
06-08-2012, 03:57 PM
You have a right to be angry...it is not fair. They screw up and we pay the price. You just made Buzz's point!

See the republicans want you to think that Obama is why people are in a pinch, when the last administration stood on the sideline and let them have their way, and the end result was they made money and left the common man with the mess.

Stop and listen to what he is trying to do, and that is give a common man some leaway and make a rich man pay for it. Like his mortgage refinancing initiative, lower student loan rates, etc. He is not offering handouts...he is offering air...something many need right now.

People are too busy listening to the right that blame him for the debt and high unemployment that he had nothing to do with to hear that he is trying to help good people.

Romney's plan is the same old plan...make it easier for the rich and the common man benefits from it.

ARay11
06-08-2012, 04:47 PM
[QUOTE=sambo;976063]You have a right to be angry...it is not fair. They screw up and we pay the price. You just made Buzz's point!

See the republicans want you to think that Obama is why people are in a pinch, when the last administration stood on the sideline and let them have their way, and the end result was they made money and left the common man with the mess. them who?

Stop and listen to what he is trying to do, and that is give a common man some leaway and make a rich man pay for it. Like his mortgage refinancing initiative, lower student loan rates, etc. He is not offering handouts...he is offering air...something many need right now. Air for people who got put in over their heads by unscrupulous banks.... PUNISH THE BANKS NOT ME!

People are too busy listening to the right that blame him for the debt and high unemployment that he had nothing to do with to hear that he is trying to help good people. Ok, I agree here... No one single President is responsible for debt and unemployment just as not one single Pres can fix it with the waft of a magic wand. WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT THE GOVERNMENT TO FIX OUR PROBLEMS.

Romney's plan is the same old plan...make it easier for the rich and the common man benefits from it.