If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   Dear President Obama: How come "collossal" miscalculations in budget forecasting only reflect a "stunning lack of knowledge about basic U.S. fiscal budget math" when somebody else does it?   (nationalreview.com) divider line 320
    More: Followup, President Obama, U.S., Gene Sperling, Leviathan, NRO, NBC News, Zero Hedge, U.S. fiscal  
•       •       •

2116 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2011 at 4:16 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



320 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-08-08 05:24:46 PM  

Splinshints: Fact: the debt ceiling debacle is the result of 60 republicans who took intractable positions against allowing tax cuts to expire or loopholes to be closed.

Fact: the downgrade was prefaced by a warning that any plan without revenue increases would likely be insufficient to stave off the aforementioned downgrade.

Fact: the downgrade and resulting fallout is the republican party's fault.

Fact: much of the debt being argued about is the direct result of the policies of one republican president and a rubber stamp republican Congress between 2000 and 2006. Much of the remaining debt being argued about is a direct result of his democratic successor not undoing those republican policies, both as a result of his unwillingness and as a result of constant stonewalling by another republican congress.

Fact: none of this will matter in another week because nobody votes republican based on facts.


Fact: Obama is a miserable failure

Fact: Obama fanboys will still defend him and blame everything on Republicans

Fact: We're farked no matter who is in power.
 
2011-08-08 05:26:10 PM  

sammyk: AdolfOliverPanties: It couldn't possibly be President Obama's outer-worldly spending spree, right? It couldn't possibly be that we are at the point of borrowing because we can't otherwise make the interest payments on our prior borrowing.

Again:

[ezkool.com image 640x710]

The Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with Defense - $1.5 Trillion added to the deficit.
The Bush Tax Cuts - $1.8 Trillion added to the deficit.
Non-Defense Discretionary spending under George Bush - $608 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush Tarp and other Bailouts - $224 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Medicare Drug Policies - $180 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Stimulus and other spending - #773 Billion added to the deficit.

If you want to focus your rage in the direction it most deserves to go, focus it the puffer fish.

[madmikesamerica.com image 140x140]

It doesn't change the point your graph is making but TARP has largely been paid back. So thanks a lot for making me defend GWB. Yuck.


so take that away and you're left with... $4.8T vs. $1.44T? That doesn't really negate the point of the graph.
 
2011-08-08 05:26:14 PM  

Penman: Obama drove America into the ditch, the Tea Party will pull us out.


Actually, he didnt drive us there, he and Pelosi just tried to dig their way out with a shovel.
 
2011-08-08 05:26:34 PM  

Animatronik: Debeo Summa Credo: ddam: LegacyDL: AdolfOliverPanties: It couldn't possibly be President Obama's outer-worldly spending spree, right? It couldn't possibly be that we are at the point of borrowing because we can't otherwise make the interest payments on our prior borrowing.

Again:

[ezkool.com image 640x710]

The Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with Defense - $1.5 Trillion added to the deficit.
The Bush Tax Cuts - $1.8 Trillion added to the deficit.
Non-Defense Discretionary spending under George Bush - $608 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush Tarp and other Bailouts - $224 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Medicare Drug Policies - $180 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Stimulus and other spending - #773 Billion added to the deficit.

If you want to focus your rage in the direction it most deserves to go, focus it the puffer fish.

[madmikesamerica.com image 140x140]

There's a statute of limitations for "...but..but..Bush". I'm sorry but there is.

Blaming Bush for our current predicament will not fix the problem. If someone were to take a massive shiat on your chest and walk out, are you going to lie there for 4 years with shiat on your chest, or are you going to clean your chest up and move on with your life?

Blaming Bush is not going to fix the problem. But accepting that Bush got us into this will also cause us to accept that his policies were wrong and we have to get away from that. Stop the wars, stop the tax cuts, stop the drug on drugs, stop no child left behind, etc.

But every time people point out that Bush's policies got us in this problem we hear people like you "stop blaming Bush and fix this already" while at the same time fighting any legistlation that would repeal the laws established by Bush. I, as a liberal, do not blame Bush because I want him punished. I blame his policies (and rightly so) and want the country to turn away from them. So far we have even conservatives accept that Bush's policies were wrong but unwilling to get away from said policies.

Exactly. To continue Legacy DLs somewhat humorous analogy, the GOP, who took the dump on our chest under Bush, keep coming back in the room and criticizing us for the mess.

GOP: "look at this mess, there's shiat all over the place in this room"

Dems: "yeah, it's your shiat! You crapped all over the place and filibuster any attempts to get some paper towels and bleach"

GOP: 'enough with the past, its your responsibility now. And we don't want any paper towels or bleach... that'll just make the mess worse!

Dems: Oops I have diarrhea every 30 minutes now. The liquid will help to dissolve the dried poop stains you repubs left behind. Besides, the public knew our sphincter was broken when they voted for us...


trollcats.com

/as someone with IBS, I'm getting a kick ou....hold on, gotta go to the bathroom...
 
2011-08-08 05:26:37 PM  

ddam: LegacyDL: AdolfOliverPanties: It couldn't possibly be President Obama's outer-worldly spending spree, right? It couldn't possibly be that we are at the point of borrowing because we can't otherwise make the interest payments on our prior borrowing.

Again:

[ezkool.com image 640x710]

The Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with Defense - $1.5 Trillion added to the deficit.
The Bush Tax Cuts - $1.8 Trillion added to the deficit.
Non-Defense Discretionary spending under George Bush - $608 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush Tarp and other Bailouts - $224 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Medicare Drug Policies - $180 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Stimulus and other spending - #773 Billion added to the deficit.

If you want to focus your rage in the direction it most deserves to go, focus it the puffer fish.

[madmikesamerica.com image 140x140]

There's a statute of limitations for "...but..but..Bush". I'm sorry but there is.

Blaming Bush for our current predicament will not fix the problem. If someone were to take a massive shiat on your chest and walk out, are you going to lie there for 4 years with shiat on your chest, or are you going to clean your chest up and move on with your life?

Blaming Bush is not going to fix the problem. But accepting that Bush got us into this will also cause us to accept that his policies were wrong and we have to get away from that. Stop the wars, stop the tax cuts, stop the drug on drugs, stop no child left behind, etc.

But every time people point out that Bush's policies got us in this problem we hear people like you "stop blaming Bush and fix this already" while at the same time fighting any legistlation that would repeal the laws established by Bush. I, as a liberal, do not blame Bush because I want him punished. I blame his policies (and rightly so) and want the country to turn away from them. So far we have even conservatives accept that Bush's policies were wrong but unwilling to get away from said policies.


Mmmmm, hot drug on drug action.
 
2011-08-08 05:27:09 PM  

Animatronik: All the Farklibs


Look at how stupid you are.
 
2011-08-08 05:27:27 PM  

Penman: Obama drove America into the ditch, the Tea Party will pull us out.


Incorrect.

Next.
 
2011-08-08 05:28:24 PM  

captain_heroic44: skylabdown: You do realize that it's possible to write language in that accounts for such events. For crying out loud, the health care bill was over 2000 pages. I think we can deal with things like that.

Would you be willing to consider a compromise BBA that guarantees Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and TANF as constitutional rights, and mandates that members of Congress who fail to vote for tax rates sufficient to finance them at a certain floor level are automatically ejected from Congress?


I wouldn't call them constitutional rights, but I would agree that they would be the first funded. However, they also need to be reformed to match reality. IE: People under 40 aren't getting SS payments at age 65 unless we reform the program. If you eject people for not voting for something, that's not democracy is it?

Look, I don't mind higher taxes if the money is being spent wisely. However, it's hard to convince people to pay more when they see waste all around them. Do you understand that dynamic? By waste I mean garrisoning troops in 130+ countries for no good reason. I mean funding a housing bubble to buy votes... I mean OVER-regulating many small businesses that snuff out creativity and risk.

We're on the same track. Unfortunately, we've made more progress on a Fark politics tab than our congress critters have on Capitol Hill today. They are on vacation... I haven't had a vacation in years.
 
2011-08-08 05:28:27 PM  

LegacyDL: When FDR rolled in as President,


I piddled in my pants a little.
 
2011-08-08 05:30:25 PM  

skylabdown: I wouldn't call them constitutional rights, but I would agree that they would be the first funded


That's not what I asked. I'm opposed to a BBA. But I would consider a BBA that:

1) Gives the government real flexibility to respond to economic, military, and other crises, and

2) Properly protects the social safety net with real teeth to punish representatives who refused to fund it.
 
2011-08-08 05:31:21 PM  
Is NRO paying Fark for links?

I'm not going to give my clicks to this site until NRO links stop appearing every 6 hours.

Fark has really gone overboard with the derp and racism lately. I'm not going to encourage it.
 
2011-08-08 05:31:49 PM  

FlashHarry: i almost hope that obama loses and that the GOP increases its house seats and gets a 60-vote majority in the senate - just to see how they'd blame the dems when the country's prospects turn from bad to worse. believe me; they'd still do it.

You mean like how things have gone from bad to worse since Obama was elected and the Dems still blame the Repubs? Yeah, they'd do the same thing. That's how it's always done. Get over it.
 
2011-08-08 05:32:55 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Again:

[ezkool.com image 640x710]

The Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with Defense - $1.5 Trillion added to the deficit.
The Bush Tax Cuts - $1.8 Trillion added to the deficit.
Non-Defense Discretionary spending under George Bush - $608 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush Tarp and other Bailouts - $224 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Medicare Drug Policies - $180 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Stimulus and other spending - #773 Billion added to the deficit.

If you want to focus your rage in the direction it most deserves to go, focus it the puffer fish.

[madmikesamerica.com image 140x140]




Wow, what a horribly slanted graphic.

1. I guess Obama has no responsibility at all for the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? I mean it's not like he's the Commander in Chief and could stop the wars if he wanted to... oh wait, that's exactly the case.

2. The Bush tax cuts are only a "cost" if you presuppose that every dollar owned by an individual belongs to the state apparatus first, and any money they let you keep is just lucky you. Only under that twisted, warped mindset does allowing people to keep more of their money a "cost" to government.

3. Wipe out the Bush tax cuts as a "cost" (because that's bullshiat) and split the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in half, and instead you now have:

Bush: 2.5 trillion
Obama: 2.18 trillion

Slightly different picture in that case, isn't it?
 
2011-08-08 05:33:38 PM  

skylabdown: We're on the same track. Unfortunately, we've made more progress on a Fark politics tab than our congress critters have on Capitol Hill today.


Heh. Isn't that the way it is?
 
2011-08-08 05:35:44 PM  

Realpolitik420: Slightly different stupid picture in that case, isn't it?


Let me know when the wars drag on under Obama for as long as they did under Bush. At that point a 50/50 cost split might be reasonable.
 
2011-08-08 05:36:33 PM  

papabusche: Animatronik: Dems: Oops I have diarrhea every 30 minutes now. The liquid will help to dissolve the dried poop stains you repubs left behind. Besides, the public knew our sphincter was broken when they voted for us...

which part is the diarrhea? Spell it out so we all know you're 100% right.


After TARP, Pelosi shat a Stimulus. Thanks to the TP, Obama had been restrained from producing more of the same. although he may still be shiatting things like bullet trains and other dumb expenditures in future budget proposal. His original budget proposal from early this year was a joke.

Obama's only chance at making history in the white house was to downsize and cut, and he's been resisting it the whole time because it goes against everything he was taught to believe about the govt.
 
2011-08-08 05:36:36 PM  

Realpolitik420: AdolfOliverPanties: Again:

[ezkool.com image 640x710]

The Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with Defense - $1.5 Trillion added to the deficit.
The Bush Tax Cuts - $1.8 Trillion added to the deficit.
Non-Defense Discretionary spending under George Bush - $608 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush Tarp and other Bailouts - $224 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Medicare Drug Policies - $180 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Stimulus and other spending - #773 Billion added to the deficit.

If you want to focus your rage in the direction it most deserves to go, focus it the puffer fish.

[madmikesamerica.com image 140x140]



Wow, what a horribly slanted graphic.

1. I guess Obama has no responsibility at all for the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? I mean it's not like he's the Commander in Chief and could stop the wars if he wanted to... oh wait, that's exactly the case.

2. The Bush tax cuts are only a "cost" if you presuppose that every dollar owned by an individual belongs to the state apparatus first, and any money they let you keep is just lucky you. Only under that twisted, warped mindset does allowing people to keep more of their money a "cost" to government.

3. Wipe out the Bush tax cuts as a "cost" (because that's bullshiat) and split the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in half, and instead you now have:

Bush: 2.5 trillion
Obama: 2.18 trillion

Slightly different picture in that case, isn't it?


i1228.photobucket.com

Other than being the largest contributor to public debt - Nah, they're not a cost.
 
2011-08-08 05:36:51 PM  

Penman: Obama drove America into the ditch, the Tea Party will pull us out.


Oh I hope they can return us to the halcyon days of the fall of '08! Oh, to relive those days of unmitigated prosperity and optimism prior to Obama intentionally causing the recession with his Islamosocialist policies!
 
2011-08-08 05:36:59 PM  

Realpolitik420: Slightly different picture in that case, isn't it?


Yes, your completely fabricated picture is quite different. I'll alert the media.
 
2011-08-08 05:37:30 PM  

Animatronik: Bob_Laublaw: Because he's a politician trying to protect his party at the expense of his rivals?

Just kidding! That never happens in contemporary politics; modern leaders have risen above such pandering.

This really is a mess created by both parties, if you voted R or D in the last 3 election cycles, give yourself an IFIA.


Animatronik: LegacyDL: AdolfOliverPanties: It couldn't possibly be President Obama's outer-worldly spending spree, right? It couldn't possibly be that we are at the point of borrowing because we can't otherwise make the interest payments on our prior borrowing.

Again:

[ezkool.com image 640x710]

The Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with Defense - $1.5 Trillion added to the deficit.
The Bush Tax Cuts - $1.8 Trillion added to the deficit.
Non-Defense Discretionary spending under George Bush - $608 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush Tarp and other Bailouts - $224 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Medicare Drug Policies - $180 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Stimulus and other spending - #773 Billion added to the deficit.

If you want to focus your rage in the direction it most deserves to go, focus it the puffer fish.

[madmikesamerica.com image 140x140]

There's a statute of limitations for "...but..but..Bush". I'm sorry but there is.

Blaming Bush for our current predicament will not fix the problem. If someone were to take a massive shiat on your chest and walk out, are you going to lie there for 4 years with shiat on your chest, or are you going to clean your chest up and move on with your life?

Voting for a Democrat at this point is like going to a drug dealer for help with beating your drug addiction.


All the Farklibs keep crowing about deficit reduction from Reids plan or Obamas plan, none of which was even proposed until they realized that if they didnt cut something theyd be forced to by the Repubs. Compare Obamas proposal in February to Reids in July.


Taken in combination, these two posts amount to this thread's obligatory "hurp durp both sides r bad so vote republican" quota. Thank you for your contribution. Now go fall into a chipper-shredder and die.
 
2011-08-08 05:37:34 PM  

captain_heroic44: Let me know when the wars drag on under Obama for as long as they did under Bush. At that point a 50/50 cost split might be reasonable.


Oh, OK, so you're just saying "but... but... he hasn't been as bad for as long as Bush has!"

I like how you completely ignore the point about how there was ZERO COST associated with the wars attributed to Obama in that graphic. If nothing else, that should tell honest people that this graph is completely horseshiat.
 
MFL
2011-08-08 05:38:16 PM  
The downgrading of our credit rating isn't an isolated event. Most people see it for what it is. An inevitable outcome of an extraordinarily reckless set of policies, implemented by a man of unusual incompetence. Progressives that are still invested in this president are quickly becoming irrelevant....and they are kicking and screaming because they see it slipping away. And they deserve it.
 
2011-08-08 05:39:29 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Penman: Obama drove America into the ditch, the Tea Party will pull us out.

Oh I hope they can return us to the halcyon days of the fall of '08! Oh, to relive those days of unmitigated prosperity and optimism prior to Obama intentionally causing the recession with his Islamosocialist policies!


Don't forget - he did that retroactively.

He sent negative money back in time.
 
2011-08-08 05:40:22 PM  

Realpolitik420: 3. Wipe out the Bush tax cuts as a "cost" (because that's bullshiat)


It's bullshiat you say?
So the costs of government aren't costs? They are gifts to be bestowed upon the people, and our money leaves our pockets to pay for them in the form of gifts?

Nay. Living in such a great society has a cost. Any amount we are taxed under that cost is a gift that the government has bestowed upon us. Therefore anything under that amount is a cost. If you want nice things you have to pay for them.
I'm so sorry a d-bag like me on a website like this had to teach you that.
I blame your parents.
 
2011-08-08 05:41:18 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Other than being the largest contributor to public debt - Nah, they're not a cost.


Tax cuts are not part of the debt. They are not spending. They are only "spending" if you take the warped view that you have no right to your money and that it all belongs to the government. They contribute to the debt only in the sense that the government takes in less money: not SPENDS more money, but takes in LESS money. A huge, crucial distinction that is purposefully ignored by many.

Let me repeat that: Tax cuts are not spending.
 
2011-08-08 05:41:35 PM  

MFL: The downgrading of our credit rating isn't an isolated event. Most people see it for what it is. An inevitable outcome of an extraordinarily reckless set of policies, implemented by a man of unusual incompetence. Progressives that are still invested in this president are quickly becoming irrelevant....and they are kicking and screaming because they see it slipping away. And they deserve it.


This is what republicans actually believe.
 
2011-08-08 05:42:16 PM  

MFL: The downgrading of our credit rating isn't an isolated event. Most people see it for what it is. An inevitable outcome of an extraordinarily reckless set of policies, implemented by a man of unusual incompetence.


Agreed 100%

Progressives that are still invested in this president are quickly becoming irrelevant....and they are kicking and screaming because they see it slipping away. And they deserve it.

WTF does this have to do with what you just said about Boehner?
 
2011-08-08 05:42:37 PM  
Did anyone point out that the CBO report that said we would be sitting pretty was written before massive tax cuts, two wars and everything else bad that's happened in the last decade?
 
2011-08-08 05:44:42 PM  

Realpolitik420: Epoch_Zero: Other than being the largest contributor to public debt - Nah, they're not a cost.

Tax cuts are not part of the debt. They are not spending. They are only "spending" if you take the warped view that you have no right to your money and that it all belongs to the government. They contribute to the debt only in the sense that the government takes in less money: not SPENDS more money, but takes in LESS money. A huge, crucial distinction that is purposefully ignored by many.

Let me repeat that: Tax cuts are not spending.


Incorrect.

By cutting taxes, you have removed that amount from incoming revenue. It is the same as spending that money on something, except you don't get anything for the money you just spend.

It's giving money away. Should we call it charity instead? Will that help you?
 
2011-08-08 05:45:09 PM  

papabusche: It's bullshiat you say?
So the costs of government aren't costs? They are gifts to be bestowed upon the people, and our money leaves our pockets to pay for them in the form of gifts?

Nay. Living in such a great society has a cost. Any amount we are taxed under that cost is a gift that the government has bestowed upon us. Therefore anything under that amount is a cost. If you want nice things you have to pay for them.
I'm so sorry a d-bag like me on a website like this had to teach you that.
I blame your parents.



Yes.... defining "allowing people to keep more of their money" as a COST to government is completely bullshiat. The costs are the costs. Tax cuts are not costs.

Living in society does have a cost, no doubt. Apparently you think that the government is currently taxing people for LESS than the actual cost.... that's hilarious. If you want nice things, you have to pay for them. I agree. But if you have less money, you should probably stop buying nice things rather than continuing to do so and then complaining that your lack of money is somehow instead a cost that you have to expend.

Keep trying to "school" guys on websites. I blame your parents for not teaching you logic.
 
2011-08-08 05:46:16 PM  

Realpolitik420: Yes.... defining "allowing people to keep more of their money" as a COST to government is completely bullshiat. The costs are the costs. Tax cuts are not costs.

Living in society does have a cost, no doubt. Apparently you think that the government is currently taxing people for LESS than the actual cost.... that's hilarious. If you want nice things, you have to pay for them. I agree. But if you have less money, you should probably stop buying nice things rather than continuing to do so and then complaining that your lack of money is somehow instead a cost that you have to expend.



Remember - taxes are always at the exact perfect levels they need to be. Unless they can go lower.
 
2011-08-08 05:46:34 PM  

Realpolitik420: AdolfOliverPanties: Again:

[ezkool.com image 640x710]

The Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with Defense - $1.5 Trillion added to the deficit.
The Bush Tax Cuts - $1.8 Trillion added to the deficit.
Non-Defense Discretionary spending under George Bush - $608 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush Tarp and other Bailouts - $224 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Medicare Drug Policies - $180 Billion added to the deficit.
Bush's Stimulus and other spending - #773 Billion added to the deficit.

If you want to focus your rage in the direction it most deserves to go, focus it the puffer fish.

[madmikesamerica.com image 140x140]



Wow, what a horribly slanted graphic.

1. I guess Obama has no responsibility at all for the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? I mean it's not like he's the Commander in Chief and could stop the wars if he wanted to... oh wait, that's exactly the case.


So Obama was supposed to just wind up the ongoing operations on Jan 20, 2009? I'd agree that he could be bringing them home faster, but to argue that it he shares equal responsibility with Bush is very generous to Bush. We had a commitment that carries over from administration to administration.

2. The Bush tax cuts are only a "cost" if you presuppose that every dollar owned by an individual belongs to the state apparatus first, and any money they let you keep is just lucky you. Only under that twisted, warped mindset does allowing people to keep more of their money a "cost" to government.

Of course that's how you think of it. If we had a balanced budget and Obama gave $500b in tax cuts, resulting in a $500b deficit, with everything else equal, then the cause of the deficit is the tax cuts. Call it a 'cost' or an 'cause' or an 'increase to the deficit', but that's what it is.

3. Wipe out the Bush tax cuts as a "cost" (because that's bullshiat) and split the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in half, and instead you now have:

Well, the Bush tax cuts are a "cost", when you consider whether it contibuted to the deficit. So you need to keep that in, obviously. And the portion of the Iraq and Afghanistan costs to attribute to Obama are subjective, but it's certainly not 50%, nor is it 0%.

/not arguing that the original graphic is accurate, just that your modifications aren't
 
2011-08-08 05:46:39 PM  

Realpolitik420: captain_heroic44: Let me know when the wars drag on under Obama for as long as they did under Bush. At that point a 50/50 cost split might be reasonable.

Oh, OK, so you're just saying "but... but... he hasn't been as bad for as long as Bush has!"


I'm saying it's unreasonable to attribute responsibility for Bush's war expenditures to Obama, which is the result if you divide them 50/50. If anything, Obama should receive a discount for expenditures during his administration to compensate for the fact that he started neither war, and cannot responsibly withdraw them overnight. In all fairness, much or most of war costs accrued under Obama should be attributed to Bush.


I like how you completely ignore the point about how there was ZERO COST associated with the wars attributed to Obama in that graphic. If nothing else, that should tell honest people that this graph is completely horseshiat.


Now that you call it to my attention, my response is that there's at least a reasonable argument for not assigning any costs of the wars to Obama for the reasons stated above. Specifically,

1) He did not start them, and

2) He cannot responsibly end them rapidly.

I'd also add,

3) He is withdrawing troops at a reasonable rate.

The graph is honest. It just doesn't blame Obama for Bush's mistakes, like you're trying to do by assigning the costs of war accrued under Bush to Obama.
 
2011-08-08 05:47:18 PM  
Because this really needs to be seen. By everyone. Everywhere.

i52.tinypic.com
 
2011-08-08 05:48:41 PM  

Epoch_Zero: By cutting taxes, you have removed that amount from incoming revenue. It is the same as spending that money on something, except you don't get anything for the money you just spend.

It's giving money away. Should we call it charity instead? Will that help you?


It's not even remotely the same as spending money on something. This is like Accounting 101. On one side of the balance sheet is "expenses", on the other is "income". Which side is more accurately reflective of a situation where the government receives less money than before: is that on the "income" side, or the "expenditure" side?

It's only giving money away if you believe the government owns every dollar that someone earns, and any amount they let you keep is somehow a cost to the government. That's ridiculous and, more importantly, patently incorrect.
 
2011-08-08 05:48:51 PM  
Dear NRO:

Jonah Goldberg is still writing for you. Which means that your online journal is worth less than a pile of shiat. Fark off.
 
2011-08-08 05:49:11 PM  

cmunic8r99: Did anyone point out that the CBO report that said we would be sitting pretty was written before massive tax cuts, two wars and everything else bad that's happened in the last decade?


I wish I could go back and find my post on here from 2004 where I was saying that cutting taxes and fighting 2 wars was a bad idea.
 
2011-08-08 05:49:17 PM  

captain_heroic44: Realpolitik420: captain_heroic44: Let me know when the wars drag on under Obama for as long as they did under Bush. At that point a 50/50 cost split might be reasonable.

Oh, OK, so you're just saying "but... but... he hasn't been as bad for as long as Bush has!"

I'm saying it's unreasonable to attribute responsibility for Bush's war expenditures to Obama, which is the result if you divide them 50/50. If anything, Obama should receive a discount for expenditures during his administration to compensate for the fact that he started neither war, and cannot responsibly withdraw them overnight. In all fairness, much or most of war costs accrued under Obama should be attributed to Bush.


I like how you completely ignore the point about how there was ZERO COST associated with the wars attributed to Obama in that graphic. If nothing else, that should tell honest people that this graph is completely horseshiat.

Now that you call it to my attention, my response is that there's at least a reasonable argument for not assigning any costs of the wars to Obama for the reasons stated above. Specifically,

1) He did not start them, and

2) He cannot responsibly end them rapidly.

I'd also add,

3) He is withdrawing troops at a reasonable rate.

The graph is honest. It just doesn't blame Obama for Bush's mistakes, like you're trying to do by assigning the costs of war accrued under Bush to Obama.


You should also include that Bush never included his wars on the books - Obama has since he took office.
 
2011-08-08 05:50:12 PM  
if only he would just resign

but then again, Biden would tank the economy even worse
 
2011-08-08 05:50:33 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties:
If you want to focus your rage in the direction it most deserves to go, focus it the puffer fish.


So your argument is essentially that it's totally OK for me to stab my neighbor in the face if the last person in charge of the neighborhood watch stabbed his neighbor in the face five times?

It's entirely possible for two people to both be doing it wrong, you know. Though the entire argument is somewhat specious since in neither of these cases were the officials in question acting alone. Wars, tax cuts, and stimulus all went through congress.

Epoch_Zero: By cutting taxes, you have removed that amount from incoming revenue. It is the same as spending that money on something, except you don't get anything for the money you just spend.


Spending requires having money and giving it to someone, usually in exchange for something. It is not the same thing as a reduction in revenue.

Words. They have meanings 'n shiat.
 
2011-08-08 05:50:36 PM  

Realpolitik420: Epoch_Zero: Other than being the largest contributor to public debt - Nah, they're not a cost.

Tax cuts are not part of the debt. They are not spending. They are only "spending" if you take the warped view that you have no right to your money and that it all belongs to the government. They contribute to the debt only in the sense that the government takes in less money: not SPENDS more money, but takes in LESS money. A huge, crucial distinction that is purposefully ignored by many.

Let me repeat that: Tax cuts are not spending.


But tax cuts do change the way future deficit projections look. GOP hates to admit that, because it shows the long term costs of a revenue reduction.

there was no reason for the bush tax cuts, epically if he was planning on launching two wars.
 
2011-08-08 05:50:49 PM  
Dodd-Frank ensured no more bailout right?
 
2011-08-08 05:51:13 PM  

Fart_Machine: cabbyman: The Bush tax cuts expired.

They're the Obama tax cuts now.

But I thought tax cuts were going to create jobs?


They do. Haven't you figured it out. Republicans can answer Yes and No to the same question and be right on both accounts.

They are Obama tax cuts so "BAD"
Tax cuts of any kind are "GOOD"

It is sad that we now have a faction in this country where the only qualifier is you hate black people and are borderline retarded.
 
2011-08-08 05:51:25 PM  

Realpolitik420: Epoch_Zero: By cutting taxes, you have removed that amount from incoming revenue. It is the same as spending that money on something, except you don't get anything for the money you just spend.

It's giving money away. Should we call it charity instead? Will that help you?

It's not even remotely the same as spending money on something. This is like Accounting 101. On one side of the balance sheet is "expenses", on the other is "income". Which side is more accurately reflective of a situation where the government receives less money than before: is that on the "income" side, or the "expenditure" side?

It's only giving money away if you believe the government owns every dollar that someone earns, and any amount they let you keep is somehow a cost to the government. That's ridiculous and, more importantly, patently incorrect.


Hey now... I took Accounting 101. Which part of it covers "when in debt, lower your income even more"? I must have missed that session.
 
2011-08-08 05:51:28 PM  

Realpolitik420: It's only giving money away if you believe the government owns every dollar that someone earns, and any amount they let you keep is somehow a cost to the government.


Or you could view it as a discount from money owed morally as the price of government services, in which case it is properly viewed as "giving money away." No less than if your landlord doesn't charge you rent, the discount you receive is properly reported as "income" for tax purposes.
 
MFL
2011-08-08 05:52:11 PM  
MFL: The downgrading of our credit rating isn't an isolated event. Most people see it for what it is. An inevitable outcome of an extraordinarily reckless set of policies, implemented by a man of unusual incompetence. Progressives that are still invested in this president are quickly becoming irrelevant....and they are kicking and screaming because they see it slipping away. And they deserve it.

Epoch_Zero This is what republicans actually believe.

It seems the S&P does as well
 
2011-08-08 05:52:54 PM  

Realpolitik420: Epoch_Zero: By cutting taxes, you have removed that amount from incoming revenue. It is the same as spending that money on something, except you don't get anything for the money you just spend.

It's giving money away. Should we call it charity instead? Will that help you?

It's not even remotely the same as spending money on something. This is like Accounting 101. On one side of the balance sheet is "expenses", on the other is "income". Which side is more accurately reflective of a situation where the government receives less money than before: is that on the "income" side, or the "expenditure" side?

It's only giving money away if you believe the government owns every dollar that someone earns, and any amount they let you keep is somehow a cost to the government. That's ridiculous and, more importantly, patently incorrect.


It's called a Tax "Cut" because they are allowing you to keep a percentage of what would normally be due. In that way, yes there is in fact a level that they are set to take in - a level that they "own". And therefore becomes lost revenue - a cost to them.
 
2011-08-08 05:53:56 PM  

MFL: MFL: The downgrading of our credit rating isn't an isolated event. Most people see it for what it is. An inevitable outcome of an extraordinarily reckless set of policies, implemented by a man of unusual incompetence. Progressives that are still invested in this president are quickly becoming irrelevant....and they are kicking and screaming because they see it slipping away. And they deserve it.

Epoch_Zero This is what republicans actually believe.

It seems the S&P does as well


S&P mainly blamed the downgrade on the inability of US politicians to raise revenue as well as cut spending. Cutting spending was on the table by both parties. Raising revenue wasn't. Why do you ignore part of S&Ps reason for downgrade?
 
2011-08-08 05:54:04 PM  

eraser8: I'm not going to give my clicks to this site until NRO links stop appearing every 6 hours.


i277.photobucket.com

Seriously tho, you don't have to click on the links...
 
2011-08-08 05:55:20 PM  

clambam: Please make changes to how we govern within the context of existing law. If your proposal requires a constitutional amendment, it is ipso facto a bad idea.


Yep. We don't need a balanced budget amendment to pass a balanced budget. There's no legal requirement for spending money we don't have, just political requirements.
 
Displayed 50 of 320 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report