The first two charts didn't come through on my dialup and the third one shows private sector jobs only. It was my impression that the stimulus' major impact (at least on the first round) was government jobs, especially state jobs saved with federal money to the states. State employment is falling now even though states are bringing in more taxes and it's likely that it is related to the stimulus having run out. When state employment levels out we could get a maximum estimate of the impact of the stimulus on the public sector. Then use our best estimates of the multipliers to figure out the impact on the private sector.

The first two charts show all the good results in the last 3 tick marks; all listed below as "estimated".

Beyond the fact that this is hilarious to show Obama's success based on estimates and not real result. Beyond that; how do you estimate anything at all; when the Dems haven't proposed a budget in years.

the dems proposed everything and put everything on the table. to say they didn't try negotiating with the republics is to be woefully ignorant. or maybe just an adamant viewer/listener of right wing propaganda.

that decrease in spending from 2009-2010 is very real though and documented. he spent less in his first year than bush did in his last two (note, 2009 is bush's budget so obama only presided over/was accountable for the budgets of 2010 and 2011 so far. Total he increased spending by 7.2% but only to dig out way out of the mess that the last guy put us in (most of that has to do with the stimulus).


again, in the second chart (the deficit chart) obama reduced the deficit in his first year and then increase it to get us out of the mess we're in. it's my understanding once we're doing better economically this sort of thing would be addressed as well (y'know like how it is under all the other modern democrat presidents) as opposed to reagan, bush 41, bush 43 who spend like crazy and drive up the deficit whenever the economy is doing well.

finally in the third chart you don't have to wait to do any analysis of the stimulus package to judge its effects. there is a direct correlation between the stimulus' implementation and the rise in employment. as many economists have said though it was too little too late unfortunately.

But yes I'd cede the last 3 projected ticks aren't fair. the first 2 however are fair game and give you an accurate assessment of the current administrations ACTUAL spending, budget deficit, and work on jobs.

there's a lot of misinformation out there dead, it would be privy to not believe everything you're told by the right-wing propaganda machine.

that decrease in spending from 2009-2010 is very real though and documented. he spent less in his first year than bush did in his last two (note, 2009 is bush's budget so obama only presided over/was accountable for the budgets of 2010 and 2011 so far. Total he increased spending by 7.2% but only to dig out way out of the mess that the last guy put us in (most of that has to do with the stimulus).


again, in the second chart (the deficit chart) obama reduced the deficit in his first year and then increase it to get us out of the mess we're in. it's my understanding once we're doing better economically this sort of thing would be addressed as well (y'know like how it is under all the other modern democrat presidents) as opposed to reagan, bush 41, bush 43 who spend like crazy and drive up the deficit whenever the economy is doing well.

finally in the third chart you don't have to wait to do any analysis of the stimulus package to judge its effects. there is a direct correlation between the stimulus' implementation and the rise in employment. as many economists have said though it was too little too late unfortunately.

But yes I'd cede the last 3 projected ticks aren't fair. the first 2 however are fair game and give you an accurate assessment of the current administrations ACTUAL spending, budget deficit, and work on jobs.

there's a lot of misinformation out there dead, it would be privy to not believe everything you're told by the right-wing propaganda machine.

The 7.2% number is just factually incorrect and their is an entire thread by Veta devoted to it already. Within that thread the state is shot to pieces because it assumes that obamacare is cost neutral and that all the stimulus / bailouts are excluded.

Stat* there*

well my good sir, enlighten me. what is the actual figure? or do you not know, is it unknowable? is 7.2% the best estimate?

Also I'd love to see the veta thread in question.

Here are some figured I dug up that include the most recent budget (that is to say it includes the real figure for 2012 as opposed to the project)

(Numbers in billions)

Reagan Spending
Start: $551
Finish: $1,122
Increase: 103%

Bush Spending
Start: $1,827
Finish: $3,119
Increase: 71%

Obama Spending
Start: $3,119
Current: $3,826
Increase: 22%

The Republican's are literally holding the economy hostage with their anti-spending attitudes. Yet the Republican's had free reign to spend as much as they want in the past... and Reagan the biggest spender of all is wildly promoted as a fiscally conservative economic wizard. It is mind boggling how a country that is suffering from people not spending money wants to cut spending even more. Makes absolutely ZERO logical sense.

(Note this is 2 years and 8 months into Obama's Presidency)

Reagan 2 years and 8 months into his presidency:

Reagan Spending
Start: $551
Finish: $797
Increase: 44%

So you can see Reagan had increased spending 2 fold the amount Obama has by this point in time of his presidency.

If we adjust this all for inflation I'm sure we can get some more accurate pictures of how much Obama is really spending. But my understanding is that it's nowhere near what we spent in the 40s (during the war and after it when we enacted the marshall plan).

If you didn't fall asleep in history I'm sure you remember what the marshall plan was and how we staved off communism in turkey and greece by sending them millions of dollars. The idea was that we would flood their economy with money and then distribute it among the denizens -- after which we would let the free market takeover. Had it not been for the marshall plan communism probably would've taken root in a lot more of Europe.

Anyhow, do you disagree with the thinking behind the Marshall Plan, by principle? Or are you inconsistent in how you assess stimulative government spending? After the Marshall Plan Turkey underwent a period of boom and growth that has continued to this day. Greece eventually descended into civil war but then recovered and boomed until it joined the Eurozone (not unlike Portugal and Spain).

and really the points about spending are moot since it all has to do with what our spending is in relationship to GDP. Compared to some other countries we're not in terrible shape we just need austerity taxes, more progressive taxes and less excise taxes (e.g. tolls and liquor taxes). That basically means we need to tax the rich way the fuck more and end the military industrial complex's wild spending (to borrow the words from your hero ron paul).