Why would you trust someone who never ran a business to help economy?

Not even thorough enough to realize he just insulted himself…

 

Say, now that I have your attention and I'm under your skin...I'd like your advice...
Te other night I talked to a friend of my girlfriend's. She is not one of my favorite people by any means. One of these Daddy's little girl entitled princesses...need I say more? Told her father she wanted nothing to do with the family business, had everything handed to her, got out in the real world and realized she actually had to take responsibility for her actions, ran back to daddy and had inherited the business within six months. Now her favorite way to start any sentence is,"As a business owner..." You could say, "What's the weather supposed to do today." Her response: "Well, as a business owner..." So, why did I talk to her? Because my girlfriend wasn't there and she was in tears and I am an old softie.

Apparently, she had gone to a chamber of commerce meeting and, "they wouldn't even listen to me. They ignored me and wouldn't let me say anything and when I did they just talked right over me. It's like they didn't respect me as a business owner." And, very gently, (I am actually pretty proud of myself for this) I said, "Well, I am sure they don't respect you as a business owner. What you have to remember is that a lot of these people you're going to be dealing with actually had to build their business. They started with nothing, and I mean literally nothing - no savings,no help from mom and dad...nothing.And over the course of 20, 30, 40 and even 50 years they slowly built something. Then you walk in and for no other reason than but by the grace of fluke luck, who your parents are, you now have what they've had to dedicate a significant portion of their lives to attain. You haven't taken the risk they have, you haven't put in the work they have, you haven't put in the time they have so no, you're not going to have their respect because quite frankly you don't deserve it."

Her only response was to wail, "What do you mean? I'm a business owner tooo!" I said, "Well, Kermit the Frog has a Ph.D from the University of Maryland...it doesn't I'd trust him to help me do my thesis." I tried to explain it in a variety of ways. The best way I could come up with was, "Well, you know how there are transgender people? You know, they might be born a man but self-identify as a woman? Ok...yeah, you self-identify as a business owner...but when it comes right down to it...you're not. There's a lot of things daddy can buy you but respect isn't one. You're just going to have to work hard to earn it."

Any advice you can give to me on how I can explain to this little girl (and I don't care how old she is, she is a little girl) that she is not, in reality, a business owner?

 

Actually we don't even know that any of his businesses are sucessful.

 

A non-profit is a charity, dependent on donations rather than performance. It's more like raising money as politicians do to get elected, than making money as a business must do to survive. Very different entities. The non-profit does not depend on productivity at all, but business is totally dependent on it. That's why many charities spend 90% of the money they raise on promotions to raise more money, while delivering nothing of consequence to their supposed purpose.

You think that business writes most of the regulations? If that were true, they would all have to be suicidal; bent on self-destruction. The regulations imposed on business are more like the proverbial albatross around the neck, constant impediments to performance and survival. I started my first business in 1968, and do business world-wide, so this is first-hand experience talking. Regulations serve to give government power, to raise money, to appease whining social special interests. Yes, business works hard to influence regulation, and they do often gain some help from that- but mostly it's like a battle with the devil; billions spent trying to minimize the damage of new regulations. We will never get rid of the politicians seeking to gain more control to get more money and consolidate more power. A quote attributed to one senator goes "But If we don't regulate them, how will we get their money?" Believe me, those regulations cost business dearly- which means they cost the consumers dearly, because all the costs wind up being built into prices. They also make us less competitive in the world market, because they don't apply to our international competitors; they are American handicaps. Politicians know nothing about business, and the last thing they want is to be held to the same requirements for success and survival that business lives with everyday.

 

Yeah, I've seen this crypto Marxist (you didn't build that, labor uber alles did) fabricated resentment narrative elsewhere, several places in several variations where such tends to turn up, over the years. Trying to pass it off as a personal anecdote just draws your credibility further into question. The only "advice" I have to give you with respect to it is "don't insult my intelligence."

 

People tend to have a very unsophisticated view of government economics
Thinking that you run an economy on the same principles as running a household budget
If your household income falls, you gotta cut expenses.
But when the government cuts its budget... It is basically cutting jobs
And if the government does that in a recession, it just amplifies and prolongs the recession
So comes the idea of the government providing a countercyclical impact
Ie running deficits during recessions

Ideally that money should be recovered from taxes and surpluses after the recession
So actually we should increase taxes now

But of course politically it is difficult to increase taxes or run a surplus in any circumstance

 

Pretty much everything in bold is demonstrably wrong. That's probably a very kind way of putting it.

 

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2

Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit


Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

That's a kind way of putting it.

 

That's a very poor understanding of government economics (not that I've ever heard someone refer to it as "Government economics"). Government purchases are what counts in GDP, not the simply the federal budget itself. Government purchases include goods and services used to generally operate the government as well as public goods, such as national defence. Majority of the federal budget consist of transfer payments, which does not contribute to GDP.

Government expenditures and purchases are the driver of cyclical growth; not the mere existence of a budget. When it's all said and down, majority of expenditures in the budget is wasted on programs that contributes nothing to GDP.

You should also know that the Federal Government isn't the only contributor to economic growth in the public sector.

 

Majority of the spending Bush authorized was spent during his administration. Any spillover was also spent during the Obama administration; however we're talking within over the course of years.

Whatever spending you think contributed to any of the deficits during the Obama administration was contributed in a rather small and significant way. Daily and Monthy Treasury statemetns confirms this.

There are better ways of doing research, you know. That's putting it nicely.

 

According to the same Treasury Financial Statements; TARP only contributed $153 Billion to the annual deficit for FY 2009; $9 Billion to the annual deficit in FY 2010, $30 Billion to the annual deficit in FY 2011; and so on and so forth.

So yeah, as the only intelligent thinking people in the room have already stated: the majority of the outlays for TARP were already spent in the few couple of months when it was authorized, in order to deal with the major solvency concerns of financial institutions. And there is obviously a reason why institutions like the Treasury releases statements like this: to indulge the people who are capable of doing real research.

The most research you'll get out of this place are the people who believe Google is a textbook.

 

No, transfer payments do not directly increase gdp
But a transfer payment, like unemployment, can ease the temporary worst effects of a recession

Also, those transfer payments are spent by the recipient... Which acts to increase demand, profits, employment, and gdp

Of course not
However in a cyclic recession, when all the other drivers of growth are in a negative feedback contractive loop... In that circumstance government fiscal and monetary policies ARE the primary drivers of growth and recovery

 

Folks who run businesses run businesses, not economies.

The Bush was a "businessman" who got to run the nation's economy for eight years, and we can well remember what he had achieved when he absconded.

​

If you crave someone who mistakes government for his business, pitches goods and services for profit, and creates more government jobs by doing so or, if you envision the future of the nation as one of casinos and golf courses, have I got a small-handed businessman for you!

​

Many can distinguish democratic governance from private, profit-seeking ventures.

 

As posted prior, crooked Arkansas lawyers and affirmative action case community organizers don't possess some mystical monopoly on running governments capably compared to anyone else. Hell, the manager of my local Piggly Wiggly could do a better job.

I do not know how competently Trump would serve the government. I do know how incompetently Hillary Clinton served it though.

 

I can understand your being in the dark regarding the level of competence of a show business performer with no government experience.

Yes, Clinton's record attests to her being more hawkish that the President, but I expect that she'll largely perpetuate the policies that have led to his decent assessment by Americans. More approve than disapprove.

There are no FDRs in the offing.

 

You claimed that the Budget deficit for 2009 was 400 Billion and then you adjusted your claim to 567 Billion. This is false .. as you now admit, the total Budget deficit was 1.4 Trillion as I stated.

Then you call me not very bright in the same post. Seriously lame.

This is the deficit handed to Obama (other than the 150-200 Billion mentioned in my previous post which was bipartisan stimulus spending so this is not really Obama's fault)

What part of 3.1 Trillion was already cooked into the books (400 Billion dollar deficit) do you not understand ? Just because the Bush Budget was not signed does not mean all that money was not allocated - some of which already spent through continuing resolutions.

You seem not to understand how the Budget process works.

From the CATO Institute. A "Libertarian Think Tank" founded by Charles G Koch and funded by the Koch Brothers who hate Obama and would love nothing better than to Trash him (As I often do as well)

http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

The Omnibus and Stimulus package accounts for roughly 200 Billion - as I stated previously. This is all you can pin on Obama.

The rest is Bush:

1) 400 Billion already cooked into the books/Allocated in Bush's 2009 Budget. "The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House"

2) 200 Billion for TARP

That is 600 Billion of the Deficit attributable to Bush.

3) Income dropped from 2.7 Trillion down to 2.1 Trillion 600 Billion

How the heck is Obama to blame for the decrease in income due to the Bush crash ? This is mindlessly absurd. Stuff only Wacko Birds of the most ignorant sort are capable of.

If you want to nit pick ... Fine, I will adjust the statement to "Obama was handed a 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit"

Keep in mind that while "technically" the other 200 Billion can be attributed to Obama, it is highly debatable whether we can legitimately claim that this was not handed to Obama given the circumstances. Its like saying "the water to put out the burning building - allocated by the guy before you - has been used up but it is your fault you need more".

 

Once money is being spent it is hard to claw it back. Where do you make the cuts ?

A good measure of fiscal responsibility, or lack thereof, is increase/decrease of the deficit.

Bush started near zero and left it at 1.4 Trillion. Obama started at 1.4 Trillion and it is now roughly 500 Billion.

This analysis alone though is somewhat misleading. One has to consider external factors. When Obama took over income had dropped to 2.1 Trillion. 2015 Revenue was 3.3 Trillion so part of the cut was due to increasing revenue (Keep in mind that when the deficit was high- and most of the debt was created- revenues were lower).

Expenditures in 2009 period were 3.5 Trillion. Expenditures for 2015 period were 3.7 Trillion. Increasing spending only 5.7% over 7 years is impressive.

Obama has run a relatively fiscally responsible show.

Now Bush ran the deficit up to and expected 400 Billion by design and then got hammered by the crash ballooning it up to 1.4 Trillion.
Going from near zero to 400 Billion deficit is not exactly the pillar of fiscal responsibility. The situation is worse when you consider that the some of the increase in income for Bush was due to the housing bubble (not exactly a fiscally responsible way to generate income).

Spending in fiscal 2001 (Clinton's last Budget) was roughly 1.9 Trillion. Bush's last budget -2009 was 3.1 Trillion, an increase in spending of 1.2 Trillion in 8 years.

This is a 63% increase in spending compared to Obama's 6% increase.

Bush was spending like a princess with a credit card compared to Obama.

When you look at where the money was spent things get quite interesting.

 

Right .. standing on a soap box and crying "wrong wrong wrong" is not proof of much.

I gave a source (Cato Institute - Koch Brothers) that hates Obama and actual numbers to back up my claim.

You have given zero in terms of support for your claim nor refuted any of my numbers or my source.

 

You're not very good at comprehension, either.

Nowhere did I mention that the 2009 deficit was $567 Billion. I did, on the other hand, say that the deficit the moment Obama took office was $567 Billion. What you don't seem to understand is that deficits are accumulated monthly. The annual deficit the total of all monthly deficits. This is how the annual deficit has been calculated since inception.

Nothing is "cooked into the books." There is a proposed budget and a requested spending amount. The government either spends that amount or it doesn't. The government doesn't "cook" anything, we can clearly see what they are spending money on, and you are confused they'll gladly help you sort our your many misunderstandings.

And this is supposed to mean something?

The only thing your source says is that Obama came into office four months after the Budget was passed; which everyone already knows. This doesn't mean that the largest contributions to the deficit weren't made until after he took office, which we know they were. We know they were because we have the Treasury Statements to back them up.

We also know this is false because there because according to the same statements I keep citing, several governmental departments accumulated outlays greater than their original budgets: The Social Security Administration, Department of Agriculture, Labor, and Health and Human Services.

All of which accumulated outlays greater than $500 billion. So the claim that Obama only contributed 200 Billion is beyond inaccurate.

More like $153 Billion for TARP. As I have already explained, that was the total amount of outlays created for the program in 2007. Again, most of the deficit is Obama's deficit.

There is no technically. According to the data, he attributed to most of it.

 

Initially you said it was 400 Billion .. Mr. Backtracker.

Don't cry at me for your ignorance. Go complain to the CATO institute. You of course have provided nothing to back up your nonsense claim.

The 3.1 Billion dollars in the Bush budget was already mostly allocated prior to Obama stepping into office.

What part of "The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office.The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House." ... is so difficult for you to comprehend ? http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

Clearly you have reading comprehension issues - see above.

Allocated and spent are two different things. When the defense department gets its Budget for 2009 it gets its "Annual" budget .. not some monthly budged done up every month.

You really have no clue how things work and you can not seem to understand basic sentences such as:

"The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House"

 

But...in this case...she didn't build it...at all. Never worked for the company, never did anything.She was conceived in the right uterus and for that reason alone she is where she is in life.

I could NEVER do that.

 

That is a baseless statement and not necessarily true at all.

We're not talking about a particular variable of limited resource.

Not at all. I compared growth rates from equivalent periods of economic recovery. Consumption spending has grown much slower. Which is why GDP growth has been slower, since, as you admitted, consumption spending is about 70% of GDP.

Your data and research sounds dubious. It's isn't that tough to to see how consumption spending growth is lagging from other recoveries.

Year - % chng real personal expenditures
1982 1.4
1983 5.7
1984 5.3
1985 5.3
Average: 4.4

1992 3.7
1993 3.5
1994 3.9
1995 3.0
Average 3.5

2002 2.5
2003 3.1
2004 3.8
2005 3.5
Average 3.2

2010 2.0
2011 2.5
2012 2.2
2013 2.0
Average 2.2

Source data: http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1
Table 2.3.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Personal Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product

LOL, now you're complaining about comparing past data and say its "nonsense"? And you claim your an economicst?

What? When the economy grows, gutting the middle class is the result?

I've seen the 1% apologists make some lame arguments, but that is just bizarre.

Now you're claiming that policy changes are "unlikely to have a significant effect" on the economic and income distribution?

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

Whatever, you've failed to support it.

Depends on how you define rich. But that is irrelevant to the fact that the bottom 90% are not getting less than 50% of the nation's gross income compared to about 65% pre-1981, and that comparative decline represents a massive decline in middle class purchasing power, about $2.2 trillion a year.

You're graph proves my point is very correct. Median income was 49k in 1984 and about 54k in 2014. That is a total increase of just 12% in 30 years. Real GDP grew 120% in that same time.



Your graph perfectly proves my point, and the data I've posted.

The middle classes have not shared in the growth and prosperity over the past 30 years, which has virtually all gone to the wealthy. Thus, the middle classes do not have the proportional purchasing power they had to drive a robust economy.

Why is it "statistically invalid" to compare one group with the same group? Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

LOL, you're actually trying to argue that economists don't compare data over periods of time?

And you claim your an economist!?

It's not incorrect or invalid at all. If gross incomes rise and everyone got the same increase, the median would increase the same proportion.

But when you have a 100%+ growth in gross incomes and the median does not change, that tells you that the increase is not being distributed equally.

If you were an economist or statistician you would know that.

Anyone can claim anything on the internet.

Based on your posts and lack of understanding I seriously doubt you are either a economist or statistician.

You're statement right here shows a fundamental lack of understanding what GDP, which is a measure of gross national income. Gross personal income is typically about 85% of GDP and thus GDP is a perfectly sound proxy to use. We can look up gross personal expenditures and see the same results.

You are one lame economist/statistician based on the fundamental lack of data and understanding you exhibit.

 

Seems like the only things that the Democrat party is good at anymore is buying votes and salvation with other Americans money.

 

why would you trust someone that never ran the government to run the government

why would you trust someone that BK'd multiple businesses to run the country

why would you trust someone that created a scam like Trump University

the real issue today is foreign outsourcing and foreign imports.... something Trump Business do even to this day

lets bring the jobs home.....


.