QuakerOats;1072325 wrote:Bigdog -- let's assume that Bush's deficits were as bad as you portray them; how then do you explain/rationalize/justify/defend obama's deficit spending rate, which is more than twice that of Bush? And if you run the numbers for another obama term it is even more disastrous. Please enlighten us.

When bush took office, he inherited a surplus from Clinton. He was president for 8 years, he had control of the House for 6 years and 4 years from the Senate.
When he left office we had a massive fiscal deficit as a result of his policies that is going to take decades to fix. We had a shortage of revenue as a result of the Bush tax cut and the 2 unfunded and very expensive wars, and the Great Recession, of which Obama inherited.

The graph shows 8 years of real data with Bush policies and only two years of real data with Obama so he did include a lot of speculation at this point. Let's face it, a tax increase will have to pass, you can't cut or grow our way out of this mess.

fish82;1072343 wrote:Guys...It's Ezra Klein. It's not even worth the effort to discuss it...He's that much of a 'tard.

Is it just me, or isn't he missing like $6T in deficit Bush/Obama combined to ring-up? He's only got about $4T between the two...

Bigdogg;1072602 wrote:When bush took office, he inherited a surplus from Clinton. He was president for 8 years, he had control of the House for 6 years and 4 years from the Senate.
When he left office we had a massive fiscal deficit as a result of his policies that is going to take decades to fix. We had a shortage of revenue as a result of the Bush tax cut and the 2 unfunded and very expensive wars, and the Great Recession, of which Obama inherited.

The graph shows 8 years of real data with Bush policies and only two years of real data with Obama so he did include a lot of speculation at this point. Let's face it, a tax increase will have to pass, you can't cut or grow our way out of this mess.

You need to listen to your own advice, if Obama didn't like what he "inherited" he can quit, the country will be better off. I'm sick of the excuses.

Manhattan Buckeye;1073016 wrote:You need to listen to your own advice, if Obama didn't like what he "inherited" he can quit, the country will be better off. I'm sick of the excuses.

You can bet the ranch that the Obama re-election campaign will go into full "Blame Bush Again" mode once the Repub candidate is finaly determined.

The MSM will go into overdrive mode to prove to the American sheeple that Obama needs 4 more years to allow his astute policies to take place because he's spent the last 4 years saving our country from the ravages of Bush era policies.

Drugs are too expensives states the UK's NHS, even though they help patients live longer and in some cases, significantly longer - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2095087/Prostate-cancer-patients-denied-expensive-drug.html

Hhmmmm...."Health watchdogs". Interesting term. A/K/A government bureaucrats. Maybe they should be re-named "Death Panels". That sounds much more appropriate since they get to decide who lives and who dies.

This is a real-life example of how government intervention into health care will "save money". Ameritopia awaits us all.

Bigdogg;1072599 wrote:Bush added 5 trillion, Obama 1 billion. Seems the box size is right for the argument.

Not even close to accurate.

Under Bush, from '01 thru '08, net deficits = $2.005 trillion.

Under obama, from '09 thru '12, net deficits = $5.452 trillion, that is more than double Bush's total, in just half the time.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls
(I'm sure you can add the numbers in column D).

Please stick to the facts; especially the major one: obama is the worst fiscal president in the history of the nation, and the greatest debt creator in all of world history.

QuakerOats;1073176 wrote:Not even close to accurate.

Under Bush, from '01 thru '08, net deficits = $2.005 trillion.

Under obama, from '09 thru '12, net deficits = $5.452 trillion, that is more than double Bush's total, in just half the time.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls
(I'm sure you can add the numbers in column D).

Please stick to the facts; especially the major one: obama is the worst fiscal president in the history of the nation, and the greatest debt creator in all of world history.

That chart is worthless. Do you have any clue how past fiscal policies impact the future? At least pretend to go back and tie in specific legislation and you will see your numbers are misleading. The chart I showed showed fiscal impact of policies that Obama signed. Your chart ties everything for the last 200 years on Obama.

The numbers don't lie; sorry.

There are fleeting moments when one could possibly feel sorry for obama and his ineptness at matters fiscal and managerial. But then you look at his inherit radicalism, anti-capitalism, anti-private enterprise, anti-economic freedom policy agenda, and those momentary lapses pass quickly.

QuakerOats;1073287 wrote:The numbers don't lie; sorry.

There are fleeting moments when one could possibly feel sorry for obama and his ineptness at matters fiscal and managerial. But then you look at his inherit radicalism, anti-capitalism, anti-private enterprise, anti-economic freedom policy agenda, and those momentary lapses pass quickly.

[FONT=&quot]Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure. You have managed to be doing both.[/FONT]

Bigdogg;1072599 wrote:Bush added 5 trillion, Obama 1 billion. Seems the box size is right for the argument.

If a hundred billion dollars is represented by a box of a certain size on one side, it should be the exact same size on the other.

Unless the point isn't to make an accurate comparison.

Bigdogg;1073405 wrote:Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure. You have managed to be doing both.

I posted the link --- direct from whitehouse.gov .... it is a rather simple exercise to add the numbers together from column D for the years in question. Good luck.

QuakerOats;1073287 wrote:The numbers don't lie; sorry.

There are fleeting moments when one could possibly feel sorry for obama and his ineptness at matters fiscal and managerial. But then you look at his inherit radicalism, anti-capitalism, anti-private enterprise, anti-economic freedom policy agenda, and those momentary lapses pass quickly.

Gee, I guess the Republican House gets no blame?
I think they, you know, pass the budget?
The President only suggests a budget, Congress then shapes it.
I'd blame Congress more than the President.

And please, spare us with the right wing rhetoric. You are not helping or adding anything to the debate.
SMH.....

ptown_trojans_1;1073754 wrote:Gee, I guess the Republican House gets no blame?
I think they, you know, pass the budget?
The President only suggests a budget, Congress then shapes it.
I'd blame Congress more than the President.

And please, spare us with the right wing rhetoric. You are not helping or adding anything to the debate.
SMH.....

Which is why my head spins when the leftists claim Clinton created a budget surplus.

By the way, I'd say Biggdog should also spare us the left wing rhetoric. Fair and balanced, right?

QuakerOats;1073176 wrote:Not even close to accurate.

Under Bush, from '01 thru '08, net deficits = $2.005 trillion.

Under obama, from '09 thru '12, net deficits = $5.452 trillion, that is more than double Bush's total, in just half the time.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls
(I'm sure you can add the numbers in column D).

Please stick to the facts; especially the major one: obama is the worst fiscal president in the history of the nation, and the greatest debt creator in all of world history.

You are using the wrong years and numbers.

2009 was Bush's budget, signed into law in 2008.

The other thing is that you need to look at the set of numbers in the middle which excluded the social security surplus and add in the war spending for the accurate picture of the yearly deficit.

I am not a BHO defender, just an advocate of intellectual honesty.

Bush added far more than 2 trillion to the deficit when not including accounting gimmicks to make it look smaller.

The recovery and deficit are unmitigated disasters. I struggle to see how anyone could rationally vote for 4 more years of this crap. Many of his strongest supporters are or will be people who have been hit the hardest....Why? Well, because they are hoping for handouts. And there's something very, very wrong with that. They want a handout, they want to be subsidized by the rich instead of voting for someone who might be able to facilitate a path for them to better prosperity. And I don't know if Romney or any of the others will be better, but how in the world can you give an abject failure 4 more years?

A $1.4T deficit is $4500 for every man, woman and child in this country. If instead that went to HALF (obviously it's much less than that) of the population, then that's $27k for a family of 3. WHERE THE HELL IS ALL THE MONEY GOING!?! This is why socialism fails, because the government is amazingly inefficient and ineffective at redistributing wealth. What's the real ROI on those tax dollars? Do we get even 50 cents on the dollar for every dollar of tax collected for social welfare? I have a BIG problem with that, and so should you.

Heck, for that matter how many people do we employ in this monstrosity of a social experiment? Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions (including states) of people who add ZERO economic value other than to take money from Peter and give it to Paul.

gut;1073821 wrote:The recovery and deficit are unmitigated disasters. I struggle to see how anyone could rationally vote for 4 more years of this crap. Many of his strongest supporters are or will be people who have been hit the hardest....Why? Well, because they are hoping for handouts. And there's something very, very wrong with that. They want a handout, they want to be subsidized by the rich instead of voting for someone who might be able to facilitate a path for them to better prosperity. And I don't know if Romney or any of the others will be better, but how in the world can you give an abject failure 4 more years?

A $1.4T deficit is $4500 for every man, woman and child in this country. If instead that went to HALF (obviously it's much less than that) of the population, then that's $27k for a family of 3. WHERE THE HELL IS ALL THE MONEY GOING!?! This is why socialism fails, because the government is amazingly inefficient and ineffective at redistributing wealth. What's the real ROI on those tax dollars? Do we get even 50 cents on the dollar for every dollar of tax collected for social welfare? I have a BIG problem with that, and so should you.

Heck, for that matter how many people do we employ in this monstrosity of a social experiment? Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions (including states) of people who add ZERO economic value other than to take money from Peter and give it to Paul.

And yet you, as a self proclaimed economics guru, never comment on a jobs creating plan. Why? Obama's speech had a clear plan...one that I endorsed over a year ago here....but nary one poster acknowledged it's brilliance. So again..I ask why?

IggyPride00;1073815 wrote:You are using the wrong years and numbers.

2009 was Bush's budget, signed into law in 2008.

The other thing is that you need to look at the set of numbers in the middle which excluded the social security surplus and add in the war spending for the accurate picture of the yearly deficit.

I am not a BHO defender, just an advocate of intellectual honesty.

Bush added far more than 2 trillion to the deficit when not including accounting gimmicks to make it look smaller.

I have stated as much over and over again on this site. It matters not...fruitless effort..trust me. Actually people like Oats and Jmog will never admit the truth regarding this subject. People on the right claim to be righteous anti Keynsians, but have stuffed the ballot boxes with votes for the likes of Reagan and the Bushes, who shoved the national debt 4-5 times higher percentage wise than Obama has done.

Fiscal hawks are just pissing in the wind...unless they vote for Paul....the only guy that would stifle debt growth.

"but have stuffed the ballot boxes with votes for the likes of Reagan and the Bushes, who shoved the national debt 4-5 times higher percentage wise than Obama has done."

A little dishonest don't you think. If I raise a debt from $5,000 to $100,000 that is a 20X percentage, but no one cares because it is only $95,000.

Obama's administration has had trillion dollar deficits from day 1 and will likely give us a US$20T debt total if he's elected this year.

This administration's fiscal policies have been an absolute disaster with little return.

Footwedge;1073999 wrote:And yet you, as a self proclaimed economics guru, never comment on a jobs creating plan. Why? Obama's speech had a clear plan...one that I endorsed over a year ago here....but nary one poster acknowledged it's brilliance. So again..I ask why?

I've forgotten...what were the details of this masterful jobs creation program you speak of? Where are the jobs? I see them flushing billions down the toilet in poor ROI projects destined to fail, you know, the infamous "shovel ready" crap. I actually remember I thought he had some good points (in fact, I mentioned that somewhere, believe it was after his SOTU last year), but that's all this guy does is talk and campaign.

Anyone can get up there and talk a good game, tossing out plenty of loose generalities and giving the impression the clueless have an actual actionable plan. One need only look at the endless list of new czars and regulations, or the attacks on wealth and corporations, to see Obama doesn't get it. The only jobs Obama has created are govt positions to administer his expansion of the welfare state.

Manhattan Buckeye;1074017 wrote:"but have stuffed the ballot boxes with votes for the likes of Reagan and the Bushes, who shoved the national debt 4-5 times higher percentage wise than Obama has done."

A little dishonest don't you think. If I raise a debt from $5,000 to $100,000 that is a 20X percentage, but no one cares because it is only $95,000.

Obama's administration has had trillion dollar deficits from day 1 and will likely give us a US$20T debt total if he's elected this year.

This administration's fiscal policies have been an absolute disaster with little return.

I noticed you didn't bother to say "intellectually dishonest" :laugh:

And you are 100% correct. The proper context/comparison would be % of GDP.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2012/02/02/5-trillion-and-change-obamas-four-years-have-seen-the-four-highest-deficits-since-1946/
CBO reports that annual spending over the Obama era has climbed to a projected $3.6 trillion this fiscal year from $2.98 trillion in fiscal 2008, or more than 20%. The government spending burden has averaged 24% of GDP, up from an average of about 20%. This doesn't include the $2 trillion tab for ObamaCare.

All of this has increased the federal debt by about $5 trillion in a mere four years. Thanks to higher revenues, the federal deficit will decline to $1.08 trillion in 2012, or 7% of GDP. But that is still the highest deficit since 1946—except for the previous three years. In other words, the four years of the Obama's Presidency will mark the four highest years in spending and deficits as a share of the economy since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office."

IggyPride00;1073815 wrote:You are using the wrong years and numbers.

2009 was Bush's budget, signed into law in 2008.

The other thing is that you need to look at the set of numbers in the middle which excluded the social security surplus and add in the war spending for the accurate picture of the yearly deficit.

I am not a BHO defender, just an advocate of intellectual honesty.

Bush added far more than 2 trillion to the deficit when not including accounting gimmicks to make it look smaller.

I used the years based on when the men were sworn in to office. I used the same column - D - for both men, in order to have an apples to apples comparison.

obama has added more debt in 4 years, than Bush did in 8 years. And obama's nexts four years will, incredibly, likely be worse than his first 4 years.

Those are facts, not opinions, not statistical wrangling, not spin.

If we cannot even agree on the facts and the real numbers, then we may as well end the discussion.

QuakerOats;1074229 wrote:I used the years based on when the men were sworn in to office. I used the same column - D - for both men, in order to have an apples to apples comparison.

obama has added more debt in 4 years, than Bush did in 8 years. And obama's nexts four years will, incredibly, likely be worse than his first 4 years.

Those are facts, not opinions, not statistical wrangling, not spin.

If we cannot even agree on the facts and the real numbers, then we may as well end the discussion.

I was just point out that you should have used column G, because it is the accurate debt picture as the social security surplus was an accounting gimmick used by Presidents to make the debt look smaller.

Also, the swear in date does not produce an apples to apples comparison because another President signed that deficit into law.

Your columns were correct, I just wanted to point out in case you either didn't know or didn't realize that column G was the one that shows the true accrued debt of the U.S government as most people don't understand the Social Security trust fund and its effect on the stated debt numbers.

We never really balanced the budget under Clinton, as we were still adding a few hundred billion a year to the debt when the S.S trust fund was excluded (as it should be since the money is technically spent on future benefits).

Going forward all Presidents will have a harder time making the deficit number look better because the Boomers are starting to retire, and there is no more surplus in S.S to make the debt look better. In fact, those IOU's will be cashed in, which will make the debt even worse.

That is why I pointed out it was intellectually dishonest to consider them in the debt picture, because it was technically spent money, but as an accounting gimmick made the debt at the time look smaller.

ptown_trojans_1;1073754 wrote:Gee, I guess the Republican House gets no blame?
I think they, you know, pass the budget?
The President only suggests a budget, Congress then shapes it.
I'd blame Congress more than the President.

And please, spare us with the right wing rhetoric. You are not helping or adding anything to the debate.
SMH.....

Come on PTown, you can do better than that.

The republican lead House most certainly DID pass a budget. The democratic lead Senate hasn't passed a budget in almost 3 years (April of 2009 was the last one).

The House passed a budget that then the democratic Senate refused to even vote on calling it "dead on arrival" and the President said he would veto.

So get the facts correct, the dems haven't passed a budget in about 900 days, the republican controlled House passed one last year.

jmog;1074258 wrote:Come on PTown, you can do better than that.

The republican lead House most certainly DID pass a budget. The democratic lead Senate hasn't passed a budget in almost 3 years (April of 2009 was the last one).

The House passed a budget that then the democratic Senate refused to even vote on calling it "dead on arrival" and the President said he would veto.

So get the facts correct, the dems haven't passed a budget in about 900 days, the republican controlled House passed one last year.

Naw....You're just spouting right wing rhetoric....even if it's the truth.

gut;1074038 wrote:I've forgotten...what were the details of this masterful jobs creation program you speak of? Where are the jobs? I see them flushing billions down the toilet in poor ROI projects destined to fail, you know, the infamous "shovel ready" crap. I actually remember I thought he had some good points (in fact, I mentioned that somewhere, believe it was after his SOTU last year), but that's all this guy does is talk and campaign.

Anyone can get up there and talk a good game, tossing out plenty of loose generalities and giving the impression the clueless have an actual actionable plan. One need only look at the endless list of new czars and regulations, or the attacks on wealth and corporations, to see Obama doesn't get it. The only jobs Obama has created are govt positions to administer his expansion of the welfare state.

From his speech...ideas propogated by me...for a long time here. But again....no one from the mythical "right" will acknowledge the idea of bringing back manufacturing...and reducing unemployment by over 5 million jobs.

Crickets from you and all the Bam bashers who....who can't bring themselves to praise a mutually positive non partisan solution....to the real problem regarding unemployment in our country.

Obama:

"So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed. (Applause.)
Corporate Tax Reform


We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. So let’s change it.
First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. tHey should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home. Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. (Applause.)
From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here in America.
Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers. (Applause.)


For the "outsourcing is great crowd"...I say to you all a huge "Fug You"...for your allegiance is not in the best interests of our 100 percenters.

Typical of Gut and his ilk. Calling Bam a government expansionist...which he has been...but not as much as a peep when he presents true economic reform, which would put an end to our unemployment problem....without running federal reserve printing presses.