When caught making an intentionally-false presentation people tend to do one of two things.
They either fold their hand or they double down.
Inviticus did the second, apparently hoping that if he screamed loudly enough it would simply drive anyone with a brain from the room.
There's a problem with this strategy -- you're only entitled to your own opinions -- not your own facts.
The problem with "rebasing" things to produce this sort of "quarter by inauguration" figure is that it's not accurate in the perception it leaves. Further the FRED series he used again misstates the facts and includes intentionally-undertaken distortions in the "pull forward" from last year's debt ceiling debacle. (You do all remember that and that federal agencies spent forward in 2Q 2011, right?)
This is one of the problems with using Fed data without looking at what it is. For example, Federal Government Debt in the Z1 excludes Social Security and Medicare. But that's only "not debt" if you accept the premise that the Federal Government can "walk away" on either or both, and the left does not. Therefore to use the Fed's data on this series is intentionally dishonest as it comes with a predicate they reject out of hand.
I therefore take the OMB's figures. And they show that -- surprise, surprise, Federal outlays in FY 2009-2011 were up materially. Yes, there was a small dip in FY2010, but what's important here is the trend and change in percentage terms, since there were budget dislocations in all of Obama's years that happened to cross FY boundaries. This is conveniently forgotten by the apologists. What's worse is that in 2011, if you remember, we had a massive budget dislocation with the debt ceiling and thus spending was brought forward by all agencies into the second quarter. This produced a nice little anomaly in the data that becomes a "convenient" talking point.
What's also conveniently forgotten is the size of the deficits. FY2009 is mostly Obama's as 8/12ths of the fiscal is his. The problem with fiscal years and such is that once again government agencies all play games around the fiscal boundary, just as we did with the debt ceiling. To align there, especially in times of fiscal turmoil where we don't have a passed budget for over 1,000 days, is asking for your data to be severely damaged, and then to present that is to knowingly put forward data that there's no reason to have confidence in.
More importantly though we can look at data that has much higher granularity and which is fact-checked daily by the market -- Treasury's "Debt To the Penny" series. It is also mercifully free of game-playing, since the transfer games from Social Security and Medicare are shown and the total reflects them.
And here's where the real "Christ, you must be kidding" facts come into play. President Obama was inaugurated on January 20th, 2009. On that day the total federal debt stood as:
|Date||Debt Held by the Public||Intragovernmental Holdings||Total Public Debt Outstanding|
And that's a fact.
What's also a fact is that today that debt is:
|Current||Debt Held by the Public||Intragovernmental Holdings||Total Public Debt Outstanding|
Or 47.5% higher.
To put this in perspective President Bush ran the debt up 39.6% in his entire second term; Obama has nine months left out of 48. At this run rate Obama should touch 60% in increased debt during his term or some 50% more in additional debt, as a percentage, than Bush in his second term -- his worst showing.
Incidentally, Bush's first term increased federal debt by 33%. Clinton's second term was good for a mere 7.9% increase; his first, 27% (fairly close to Bush's first.) Remember that Bush had a nasty recession during his first term to deal with, including 9/11.
But this isn't a complete accounting of the facts either when it comes to debt and the economic impact. As I have repeatedly pointed out it is expansion of the monetary supply through unbacked credit emission that leads to the problems we now face; government simply took on the role that which private industry would not or could not post-2008.
And do we have a "good" party here in terms of history and therefore one we should back and prefer?
Oh hell no.
But it gets better. The OMB Data shows that Federal Outlays as a percentage of GDP is the highest it's been since 1946, the year following WWII!
That's right -- Inviticus would have you believe that Obama's government spending is somehow "austere" due to his "growth rate" chart. What he's intentionally omitting is the fact that Obama's spending started at an outrageous level and then got worse, and in fact FY2009, 2010 and 2011 are all the highest in outlays as a percentage of GDP -- all that matters in real terms -- since 1946.
No modern President has exceeded 24% of GDP in Federal outlays but Obama has done it three years running.
The utter dishonesty present in the sort of diatribe that Inviticus displayed is laid bare by these facts. Neither major party is better than the other; both have serially and intentionally blown bubbles since 1981, when Reagan was elected. Both have pursued the exact same course of economic action, which is to continually expand credit at ridiculous rates somewhere in the economy as an active act of fraud upon the public.
Those who wish to play partisan politics against this fact are liars.
Clinton's favored place was fraudulent Internet companies. How do I know he was aware of it? Because I was intimately involved in the "domain wars" of the time and as such had multiple conversations with people in and around his administration. They knew, because we knew, and we were yelling about it. A lot.
They didn't care about the fraud, any more than George Bush did when he sued states that tried to cut off fraudulent subprime lending! Both Presidents in fact used "bubble economics" to cover up massive credit inflation, and Obama has tried to do the same thing.
The problem is that Obama can't, as there's no more private capacity for credit except in student loans (which he's pandering to like a madman) so instead he's done this:
Federal Government credit is all he has left, and that's where he's expanding it.
The impact on you? It's right here:
That's monetary inflation and real income growth overlaid. Notice that during the entire period from 1980 on you've been losing. It looks like the last couple of years haven't been so bad, but that's only because you're looking at it with all the financial shenanigan games in there -- take that out (which doesn't go into the real economy) and you have this:
There's been no real progress since 2000 and damned little since 1980.
There has also been none during Obama's time in office thus far. All Obama has done is borrow more money on the Federal Government's credit card and fan it off to people in an infantile and self-defeating attempt to prevent having to face and resolve the credit bubbles blown over the last 30 years.
The early 1980s recession was real. The mid 1980s one in terms of real income was horrible. If you're old enough (many aren't) you remember it. The last time our nation had stable economic progress on balance for the people ended in 1979 -- under Jimmy Carter, believe it or not.
The entire 2000's decade was one gigantic scam. Your real earnings power was decimated with the housing bubble; serial refinancing and equity extraction was the tool offered to keep your head above water. This was doomed to fail and when it did instead of dealing with the frauds that were perpetrated upon the public Obama ratified them and supported those institutions and industries with public money. As a consequence you, the common man and woman on the street, remain screwed and now the clock has run on the statute of limitations for many of these frauds -- that is, Obama literally gave the people responsible an effective Presidential pardon!
If you cheer this you're an abject idiot, and if you cheer the Republicans you're equally stupid. Both parties intentionally caused this mess and have refused to hold to account the people responsible.
The so-called charge of "partisan" bias is utter and complete bull****. Inviticus hasn't bothered reading anything published here, it seems, as I've been equally savage on Obama's economic idiocy and Mittens ideas, along with Ryan's bogus proposals. All are public frauds through and through as they refuse to recognize the fiscal reality of what was done and the adjustment that must come to redress that imbalance.
Fiscal balance cannot come from increased taxation because the labor participation rate is in the toilet and last Friday's number did nothing to correct that:
Employment has not recovered because government is repressing employment by running monstrous fiscal deficits that must eventually be funded. That funding must eventually come from people and business owners know this. That means their sales and thus profits must eventually contract and until the boundary conditions on that adjustment are known they'd be fools to hire yet more millstones around their necks.
When you use data that intentionally omits part of the picture you get an image that is incomplete and distorted. When you use data poisoned by debt debate dislocations and intentional spending shifts that were taken in anticipation of that known risk you are simply compounding error on error. And when you ignore what was done, and by whom, along with someone else's record on calling all of the BS out as what it both was and is you level charges of partisan bias that have no basis in fact.
If that's an accident, it's something that ought to be followed by a correction.
It appears it was not an accident.
Where We Are, Where We're Heading (2013) - The annual 2013 Ticker
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out Ticker Classics.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.