fiscal conservatives love obama?

[gwb72tii]

Yes, they did. You know what else went up? DEFICIT SPENDING.

I like to call it a "slight of hand trick". Bush Sr. referred to it as voodoo economics. You see this pattern emerge every time tax rates are slashed and revenue goes up. While you're busy admiring that gleaming object, you fail to notice the deficits going up. It's a parlor trick essentially.

And it's pretty easy to explain why it works too. Tax revenue since WWII has correlated pretty freakin well with regard to GDP. It's correlation to tax rates is non-existent. Remember, we've seen rates as high as what, 91%, then 70%, now 35% for the top. Yet receipts have only varied a few percent one way or the other from the average 18.1% of GDP. Government spending of course is one of the components of GDP so boosting that will in turn boost GDP. It then follows that boosting GDP will boost receipts.

A much better example would be to look at the period from 1993 to 2000 which saw receipts climb from 1.15 trillion to 2.02 trillion, an increase of 75.4% Tax rates went up and deficits went down - much more preferable scenario.

hey i'm glad we have agreement that the new tax rates didn't "cost" anything

it was the spending, OMG

and if you want to correlate clinton tax rates and the economy, you need to dig a little deeper. the economy was in the tank until clinton and congress agreed to limit spending and LOWER tax rates, which resulted in a budget surplus. who knew??

[Morrison]

Spending didn't decline during the Clinton years. It started at 1.4 trillion in 1993 and ending at 1.8 trillion in 2000, increasing each year. Nice try though.

Also, you're misunderstanding me if you think my information supports your bogus theory that tax cuts cost us nothing.

[gwb72tii]

re-read what i said. congress limited spending, which would also work today.

[HarryPotter]

errrr....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...world-history/

WAIT, forbes isn't credible. AMIRGHT?

[VinniE30]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

errrr....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...world-history/

WAIT, forbes isn't credible. AMIRGHT?

Hmmm, first one is dated 5/24/2012
and written by "Rick Ungar, Contributor Writing from the left on politics and policy."
Second one is dated 6/14/2012
and written by "Peter Ferrara, Contributor I cover public policy, particularly concerning economics."

Just making an observation there.

I think the OP's article carefully picked data to make it seem like obama is a fiscal conservative but it's really the opposite. Just look at the chart on the first page. It's showing growth of federal spending, not the numbers actually spent. And keep in mind what was going on during the terms shown with 9/11 and following war, it's not hard to decrease spending when the term before had a war going on.

[CorvallisBMW]

All those "categories" and statistics that you speak of are bullshit. They are all biased and skewed and inaccurate. It's impossible to say either way whether America is the best or not the best, it's entirely subjective and can't be quantified.

Sorry, but this statement is beyond ridiculous. ALL studies and facts are skewed, biased and inaccurate?? All of them, every single one?

It is in no way subjective and it absolutely can be quantified. Our violent crime rates are through the roof. Murders are 10x that of most industrialized nations. Medical outcomes are shameful. Obesity is epidemic... Please, explain to me how any of the facts and numbers are "subjective" and open to interpretation.

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they're inaccurate. Grow up.

[LBJefferies]

Sorry, but this statement is beyond ridiculous. ALL studies and facts are skewed, biased and inaccurate?? All of them, every single one?

It is in no way subjective and it absolutely can be quantified. Our violent crime rates are through the roof. Murders are 10x that of most industrialized nations. Medical outcomes are shameful. Obesity is epidemic... Please, explain to me how any of the facts and numbers are "subjective" and open to interpretation.

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they're inaccurate. Grow up.

I said that the "greatness" of America can't be quantified. Which is true, it is entirely subjective.

As for your statistics, they are flawed. The murder rates and obesity statistics are perfect examples. While America has higher rates for these things than many other industrialized countries, they are only slightly higher. So when you say that America is the most dangerous or fattest industrialized country, you are ignoring and marginalizing the countries that are closely behind, and often within the margin of error, just because you're trying to make the point that America is the worst at something. And why is "industrialization" used to differentiate violent crime rates and obesity between countries? That seems pretty arbitrary to me. When you remove the term "industrialized" from the equation, all of a sudden America starts to look really good. America may have 10x the murders of Japan, but Japan has such a low murder rate, that even 10x that rate is still low, especially when compared to Venezuela or Honduras which have hundreds of times as many murders. You are ignoring these things just to make a point about how "America is such a terrible place dude".

And the same types of things can be said of obesity. Yes it is true that America has the highest obesity rate among industrialized nations but this statistic is also highly flawed. Body Mass Index is the number that is used when compiling these statistics but no average CNN viewer thinks to question BMI which is widely believed to be a highly unreliable way to determine obesity. 2 years ago I was 220 pounds, and mildly overweight at worst, but according to my BMI, I was obese. BMI is unreliable and needs to be replaced with a more reliable way of determining obesity, such as Body Fat percentage. Also, obesity is correlated with food availability and is a consequence of living in a place with an abundance of cheap food. So are you telling me that America would be a better place if our food was more scarce and more expensive? I would rather live in a country of fat people than one with a scarcity of food. The statistic also ignores the fact that states in the deep south are the ones with abnormally high obesity rates which skew the statistics for states like Washington and Colorado which are relatively healthy places. So saying that "America is the fattest country in the world" is not entirely true, and is only true for a small portion of America.

As for the medical statistics, what exactly do you mean by medical outcomes? Because the United States has perfectly fine outcomes, when people get the care they need. The issue with the medical system in the US is not quality of care, which is likely 1st or 2nd best in the entire world. The issue with the medical system in the US is how it is paid for. There are many reasons which make medical care very expensive here such as high amounts of litigation, administrative costs, health of the population, quality and R&D, etc. In many ways, the high costs speak to the high quality of the care that patients receive. But yes, this also has the downside of making it hard to obtain care for people who cannot pay for it. But when you say that America has bad medical outcomes, what you are saying is wrong. We have incredible doctors, and hospitals, and universities and corporations which all work to provide some of the highest quality of care in the world. People come here from all over the world to use these high quality hospitals and research universities for expensive and experimental procedures that aren't even offered in other countries because their supposedly better socialized systems won't pay for them, or their economic system has removed all incentive for technological advancement. These things are completely ignored when the WHO releases it's statistics about infant mortality and life expectancy and when CNN and the BBC plaster these numbers all over their politically motivated broadcasts for their sheepish viewers to lap up. We have the media to thank for the entire world believing our medical care is comparable to sub-saharan Africa. Thanks CNN.

The point I am trying to make is that statistics are mildly useful predictors at best, and should never be taken for granted. Obesity, violent crime, medical care, etc. are all highly complex issues. There are simply too many variables which make it nearly impossible to compile accurate statistics. You can't just represent each of these issues with 2 digit numbers and bar graphs. There is so much more going on. And you can't trust the media to present these statistics with accurate context and without bias. Statistics will always be skewed and biased and unreliable. If you haven't seen the movie "Moneyball" I suggest you check it out. It is a true story and it illustrates my point perfectly.

[gwb72tii]

infant mortality rates is a perfect example, as nations have different definitions as to what constitutes "infant mortality", making comparisons meaningless

h0lmes, you're ok

[Charlie]

infant mortality rates is a perfect example, as nations have different definitions as to what constitutes "infant mortality", making comparisons meaningless

Really, you wanna toss a link or so out there? Are they only "mostly dead"?

-Charlie

[gwb72tii]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/infant_mortality_figures_for_us_are_misleading.html

[CorvallisBMW]

America's low ranking among modern nations may come as surprise to many who regard the U.S. health care system as the best in the world.

[LBJefferies]

Are you going to respond to my post?

You can't really classify America's health care system as bad or good. In some ways, it is the best in the world, in other ways it is far from the best. Quality of care? Probably 2nd best in the world, behind only Japan. Cost and accessibility? Far, far worse.

[CorvallisBMW]

Are you going to respond to my post?

You can't really classify America's health care system as bad or good. In some ways, it is the best in the world, in other ways it is far from the best. Quality of care? Probably 2nd best in the world, behind only Japan. Cost and accessibility? Far, far worse.

The time it would take me to respond to your post isn't worth it. I don't need to get in any e-fights over shit like this.

All I'll say is this: Simply because you don't like the results of a study does not mean that it is flawed or inaccurate. Had any of these studies showed that America was #1 at something, you and mrsleeve and joshh and vedubin would be screaming "AMERICA FUCK YA" to no end. But since they don't say that, you decide to bash a study you know absolutely zero about. You know nothing about how the data was collected, or how it was analyzed or quantified or compiled.

I find it hard to believe that the hundreds of studies, created by tens of thousands of people, at hundreds of universities from dozens of countries all over the world, are all out to screw the US and make us look bad. Hubris does not take precedence over facts.

[joshh]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...isleading.html

A+

Oh yeah, you're still adding those who use the ER as their HC provider and those who have no insurance at all. Gotcha...