Fast Gunn,
When considering what you referred to as the "nature of reality", you must separate items that are
opinions from those that are
facts.
You used a hypothetical example of whether or not a woman is attractive. I might pick out a famous actress and opine that she is extremely sexy. You may agree. 90% of our friends may agree, but that obviously does not make our mutually-held opinion a fact. But if you said that she is a 30-year-old female (assuming that that's true), then obviously that's a fact.
You said that Obama "guided the nation away from the certain abyss that lay before us." Apparently you think that absent actions he took, we would have gone into a redux of the Great Depression. I would challenge you to point out any actions he undertook that in any way improved our economy or saved it from any sort of calamity or depression. You will recall that TARP was put into place prior to Obama's inauguration. It was poorly implemented (the methods by which liquidity was pumped into the banking system were changed in midstream), but nevertheless it was present by the end of 2008.
We've already discussed the ineffectiveness and wastefulness of the $800 billion stimulus package passed in February 2009.
The health care reform act was botched and imposes costs, mandates, and uncertainty on those making hiring decisions. Even staunch Obama supporter Warren Buffett says it was all about coverage expansion, when any remotely reasonable "reform" plan should have addressed cost containment. Enron-style accounting practices were necessary to keep the CBO's 10-year cost projections under about $2 trillion.
You said he made "tough decisions" with far-reaching consequences. I might only add that there are far-reaching consequences, for sure, and that they're very bad.
The previous statement is
my opinion. An opinion with which a very large percentage of Americans would agree, I think, but nevertheless an opinion.
But the following statements are
not opinions:
Over the last four years, we have increased the annual rate of spending at the federal level from about $2.7 trillion to about $3.6 trillion. Some of that increase occurred during the last year of Bush's presidency and resulted from efforts to stave off recession such as that useless stimulus package of early 2008, but Obama has overseen a spending increase of almost 25% in just three years -- and that has been stacked on top of the virtually unprecedented spending increases under George W. Bush, during whose terms spending increased by about 60%. (Can't somebody stand up and say, "Enough, already!")
The NBER called midyear 2009 as the "end" of the recession (late 2007 was the beginning), and since then we have seen by far the weakest economic recovery in modern U.S. history. Jobs growth has also been spotty and weak throughout the whole period. We've had a few prints in the 250K range (last month and Feb.-Apr. 2011) but the rest of the entire period contained disappointment after disappointment. Year-over-year GDP growth has also been much weaker than in every other period following recessions.
The current tax structure is only collecting about 60% of federal spending, since the economy is not healthy and spending has exploded so badly out of control.
The above statements are not my opinions; they are simply facts. You can't spin them away with any "alternate definition" of reality.
I asked you a couple of simple questions earlier, Fast Gunn, but you ignored them and blithely moved on. So I'm going to press you to answer them. Here they are again:
How do you think we should pay for all this spending? What sorts of taxes should be raised, when, and on whom? Do you support a VAT? Or do you think we should simply try to pay for all this largesse with borrowed and printed money forever, and simply hope against hope that nothing goes terribly wrong?
Do you think Obama was correct in completely ignoring the findings of the Simpson-Bowles commission? Don't you think he should have at least used it as a starting point to begin discussions of how we might be able to establish a glidepath to fiscal sanity?
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
If you are going to try to make the case that Obama is doing a reasonably responsible job as president, let alone a good job, then you are going to have to answer those questions -- particulary the one about taxation. On whom to you believe we should raise taxes, and when?
No adherents of
any school of economic thought -- classical, Keynesian, monetarist, Austrian, or anything else -- hold the view that it's possible to run deficits anywhere near the level of ours year after year after year without taking extreme risks of completely destroying the economy.
So how about it, Fast Gunn? Are you up to the challenge? Please tell us what you think should be done to wind down from an obviously unsustainable course, and how you would propose escaping from the deep fiscal hole we've been digging for years. And while you're at it, please tell us what effect you think tax increases substantial enough to meaningfully reduce the deficit would have on the economy.
If you are going to try to make the case that Obama is even a remotely acceptable president, let alone a good one, you need to answer those questions. Your failure to do so should be considered tantamount to a tacit admission that he is simply an abject failure.
