Government ends TARP, makes $15.3 billion profit

[Deus Naturae]

He is the same guy after all who thinks that government grew under Obama.

Probably because it did? I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

[Deus Naturae]

He is the same guy after all who thinks that government grew under Obama.

Probably because it did? I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Because it didn't?

It's possible to expand the government while using fewer employees to run it:

[Deus Naturae]

You expect a libertarian to be fooled by things like facts and figures? Fool!

[Deus Naturae]

Oh noez, federal spending increased by $410 billion while GDP increased by $3.5 trillion!


(Nevermind as a percentage of GDP it fell from over 24% to 21% from 2009 to 2014 and despite the fact it has grown very slowly, but I guess only raw numbers matter)

The question wasn't how much it mattered, but simply whether or not the size of the government grew. Whether or not Federal spending is only relevant relative to GDP is another issue.

[Deus Naturae]

Alright, I get your point. But, it's debatable whether the decline in spending/GDP is a result of Obama's influence. By the same reasoning, you could claim that Obama "slashed Defense spending" because Defense spending/GDP has declined significantly. I remember AG doing exactly that a while ago, but he was rightfully called out on it because the decline is the result of GDP growth, not actual fiscal restraint on the part of Obama.

Plus, my point about regulatory growth still stands.

[Deus Naturae]

Obama didn't slash defense spending per say but effectively did so by restraining growth. With what McCain or Romney wanted, it would certainly not have declined as %GDP.

My point isn't really about the specifics of Defense spending. What I'm trying to say is that if you just look at spending/GDP to judge an executive's actions, it may look like that executive has cut/restrained spending more than they actually have because the decline/leveling out is caused by GDP growth. You're right that spending/GDP is more relevant to the economy, but it isn't the best measure of what the executive has actually done himself in regard to spending (and my disagreement  with Landslide Lyndon related to the actions of Obama specifically).

[Deus Naturae]

Measuring government spending in raw numbers makes absolutely no sense.

Are you actually going to respond to my argument or do you just think your declaration is self-evident? As I've already stated, it makes sense to look at spending/GDP if you're trying to consider its effect on the economy. But, if you're trying to look at the actions of the President specifically, spending/GDP can be misleading since the President only has control over the former (see the example of Defense spending I gave earlier).

[Deus Naturae]

Plus, my point about regulatory growth still stands.

No.  Also, a profoundly misleading statistic and it betrays a lack of understanding of what a regulation is.  There are regulations that impose a new significant burden on industry.  There are new regulations that basically just update old regulations.  And, there are regulations, most of them, that do things like set out a filing deadline or a list of definitions.  So, it's ridiculous to lump them all together or act like these are all laws that restrict freedom.  A regulation on point-source mercury emissions can be a matter of costing or saving billions of dollars and many people's health/lives.  A regulation about how to file something properly is something quite different.

Alright, I see what you're saying. Here's a chart for economically significant regulations: