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 07:56:54 PM

Doc Lee: Penman: iaazathot: cabbyman: The Bush tax cuts expired.

They're the Obama tax cuts now.

No, the Republicans would not extend unemployment benefits unless he agreed to extend them. Nice try at rewriting history though, moron.

Why do we need to extend unemployment benefits?

Ask Moody's.

[www.epi.org image 600x625]


And the whackadoodle cowards jump ship when facts come into play.
 
2011-08-08 07:59:16 PM
Man, trying to watch the GOP spin this as Obama's fault is just comical. It's like we are just suppose to ignore what really happened the last few years, and instead believe their story instead.
 
2011-08-08 08:03:36 PM

Antimatter: Man, trying to watch the GOP spin this as Obama's fault is just comical. It's like we are just suppose to ignore what really happened the last few years, and instead believe their story instead.


That is all they eve do. They don't have any ideas, and their sole purpose is power and money. They are willing ot completely destory this country in order to pass more wealth onto their masters. I believe their goal is to dismatle the middle calss culture in the US and move it to China and India, where it is a little bit cheaper to maintain. They are going for it right now.

Their base is too stupid to know that they are being sold to new owners.
 
2011-08-08 08:10:02 PM
this says it all
i820.photobucket.com
 
2011-08-08 08:12:48 PM

Antimatter: Man, trying to watch the GOP spin this as Obama's fault is just comical. It's like we are just suppose to ignore what really happened the last few years, and instead believe their story instead.


Watching the DNC spin this like they were never in office the last 12 years and just woke up yesterday is just as sad.
 
2011-08-08 08:14:10 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Antimatter: Man, trying to watch the GOP spin this as Obama's fault is just comical. It's like we are just suppose to ignore what really happened the last few years, and instead believe their story instead.

Watching the DNC spin this like they were never in office the last 12 years and just woke up yesterday is just as sad.


The DNC didn't force a default or walk away from $4 trillion when it was on the table.
 
MFL
2011-08-08 08:15:03 PM
Antimatter: Man, trying to watch the GOP spin this as Obama's fault is just comical. It's like we are just suppose to ignore what really happened the last few years, and instead believe their story instead.
iaazathot That is all they eve do. They don't have any ideas, and their sole purpose is power and money. They are willing ot completely destory this country in order to pass more wealth onto their masters. I believe their goal is to dismatle the middle calss culture in the US and move it to China and India, where it is a little bit cheaper to maintain. They are going for it right now.

Their base is too stupid to know that they are being sold to new owners.


t1.gstatic.com
 
2011-08-08 08:18:21 PM
Realpolitik420:
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.

Or just run with it... Neither Bush nor Obama have anything from Social Security on their "tabs," as that was FDR's program. Medicare? LBJ. And the military was around since Washington was President. Ta-Da! The budget is balanced!

/ Politics is ALWAYS more fun for the delusional.
 
2011-08-08 08:31:29 PM

LegacyDL: RainDawg: That says a whole lot more about you than about Obama.

My comment wasn't simply targeted toward Obama, but more towards the current political climate. What I'm saying is we can't change past events, but we sure as hell can move on.

When FDR rolled in as President, I don't think his constituents were going "but..but..Hoover!". No, shiat got done. We built roads and buildings, amassed a crazy war machine, and made it home in time to listen to Abbott and Costello.

My question is what happened to that "American spirit" and can-do attitude?


You know what happened?

record filibusters

crying cheetos

turtles bad at math

cosplayers becoming a political wedge

To boil it down, the minority figured out how to use the system and abuse the system to wield more power than those elected by the majority of the people.

I would think in his day had any of those things happened the media would ridicule and mock those types, that people would pelt them with tomatoes and cabbage in the street for holding the nation hostage for an ideology...
 
2011-08-08 08:37:41 PM

LegacyDL: RainDawg: That says a whole lot more about you than about Obama.

My comment wasn't simply targeted toward Obama, but more towards the current political climate. What I'm saying is we can't change past events, but we sure as hell can move on.

When FDR rolled in as President, I don't think his constituents were going "but..but..Hoover!". No, shiat got done. We built roads and buildings, amassed a crazy war machine, and made it home in time to listen to Abbott and Costello.

My question is what happened to that "American spirit" and can-do attitude?


The 1970's happened.
 
2011-08-08 08:49:47 PM
FlashHarry:
debt ceiling raised seven times during bush. boehner et al. all vote for it. tons of debt, but no matter. THEN the black guy gets in the WH and the tea baggers bring the US to the edge of default. the stock market crashes... and it's obama's fault? jesus farking christ.

i24.photobucket.com
Note: the projections for 2009 on are WAY over-optimistic.

Yeah, because it's clearly Bush's fault... Starting in 2009, when Obama took office, and Democrats held the House, and had a super-majority in the Senate. If they had slashed spending when nobody could stop them, they would have a claim to call it "Bush's problem." But, as wildly as money was spent under Bush, with full Democratic control, they managed to QUADRUPLE down on the defecit. Nice work.

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.

They certainly wouldn't need to develop any new strategies -- just get copies of Obama's speeches, and change "Bush" to "Obama," and the job is done: ready to weasel at full speed.
 
2011-08-08 08:50:09 PM
I don't think you can put this on President Obama.

Bonds were downgraded... but get this, they rallied! They didn't take losses.

The stocks got hit:

I suspect it's more a problem of the get-rich quick investment mentality that has come to dominate these institutions.

Think of it like this... you had a trinket that you and most people know is worth $100.00.

However, it's progressively been re-selling for higher and higher amounts... to the point that it's now on the market for $1,000.00

It's never been allowed to completely reset to its true valuation because anytime it drops to $800.00, people swoop it up thinking they'll be able to re-sell it in a few days for $850.00. This repeats and it gets back up to its $1000.00 point.

Meanwhile, its never actually been worth more than $100.00 - most people knew this but held on to the illusion in order to make a quick buck off each other. When the market drops, people panic and think the gig is up -- and one of these days it will be. There needs to be a reset in the manner investments have come to function in the modern markets.

Feel free to correct me if I'm off.
 
2011-08-08 08:55:11 PM

GeneralJim: Note: the projections for 2009 on are WAY over-optimistic.


The 2009 projections are also Bush's budget.

Wrong:

www.cato.org

Right:

www.cato.org

The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

Link (new window)

I'm sure you won't be posting that image anymore.
 
2011-08-08 08:56:56 PM

GeneralJim: FlashHarry: debt ceiling raised seven times during bush. boehner et al. all vote for it. tons of debt, but no matter. THEN the black guy gets in the WH and the tea baggers bring the US to the edge of default. the stock market crashes... and it's obama's fault? jesus farking christ.

[i24.photobucket.com image 400x347]
Note: the projections for 2009 on are WAY over-optimistic.
Yeah, because it's clearly Bush's fault... Starting in 2009, when Obama took office, and Democrats held the House, and had a super-majority in the Senate. If they had slashed spending when nobody could stop them, they would have a claim to call it "Bush's problem." But, as wildly as money was spent under Bush, with full Democratic control, they managed to QUADRUPLE down on the defecit. Nice work.

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.
They certainly wouldn't need to develop any new strategies -- just get copies of Obama's speeches, and change "Bush" to "Obama," and the job is done: ready to weasel at full speed.


Psst...the 2009 budget was Bush's.

/just to let you know
 
2011-08-08 09:04:26 PM
Because it should be mentioned in every NRO thread, this used to be a respectable conservative publication.
 
2011-08-08 09:09:14 PM
saintstryfe:
A country that is not borrowing money is not using itself correctly.


i275.photobucket.com
What a country "using itself correctly" might look like...
 
2011-08-08 09:09:23 PM

iaazathot: That is all they eve do. They don't have any ideas, and their sole purpose is power and money. They are willing ot completely destory this country in order to pass more wealth onto their masters. I believe their goal is to dismatle the middle calss culture in the US and move it to China and India, where it is a little bit cheaper to maintain. They are going for it right now.

Their base is too stupid to know that they are being sold to new owners.


This is what Farklibs actually believe.
 
2011-08-08 09:18:54 PM

LegacyDL: My question is what happened to that "American spirit" and can-do attitude?


www.salon.com
I made you a Democracy, but I eated it.
 
2011-08-08 09:28:27 PM

Penman: iaazathot: cabbyman: The Bush tax cuts expired.

They're the Obama tax cuts now.

No, the Republicans would not extend unemployment benefits unless he agreed to extend them. Nice try at rewriting history though, moron.

Why do we need to extend unemployment benefits?


As someone who is conservative with regards to economics, I can tell you that unemployment benefits (different from welfare, mind you) should be extended in down markets. If this were the '90s, having unemployment go this long would be bad. But during economic downturns, it's a good thing (to a limited degree - and so far we're ok).

Welfare and minimum wage, otoh, only make things worse. (Well, SOME welfare is ok - but very limited.)
 
2011-08-08 09:29:44 PM
Drew: your sponsored link provider sucks.
 
2011-08-08 09:38:51 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Antimatter: Man, trying to watch the GOP spin this as Obama's fault is just comical. It's like we are just suppose to ignore what really happened the last few years, and instead believe their story instead.

Watching the DNC spin this like they were never in office the last 12 years and just woke up yesterday is just as sad.


Sorry, but still trying to deflect and project? How very sad.

Ever since Obama took office, the GOP has been willing to do anything and everything to harm to country in order to make him look bad. Once they started their AstroTurf tea party, things got even worse.

They own the double dip and the downgrade. No amount of GOP spin will change that. They fought for it, and they got it.
 
2011-08-08 09:42:28 PM
Mrtraveler01:
Psst...the 2009 budget was Bush's

The way the country is set up, it's actually CONGRESS' budget. I'll grant you that GWB should have vetoed a good bit of it; he has that much blame.

It is, however, quite disingenuous to be going on about it. With Obama in the WH, and a Democratic House and Senate, with a super-majority in the Senate for two years, the Democrats could have changed ANYTHING they wanted. And they did: MUCH more spending, more regulations, more attempts to punish success. If only Democrats had put the brakes on, they would have the moral high ground, from which to preach fiscal restraint to the Republicans -- and I'd cheer them on.

But they have tried, and succeeded in making GWB and his Congress look like pikers when it comes to spending. Now they only look up from the trough long enough to blame Bush, and incite class warfare. There IS a reason the Democratic mascot is a jackass.
 
2011-08-08 09:45:03 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.


Hate to rain on your parade, however, the tax cuts were extended by a majority in the house, senate and white house. In fact at the time they were extended, the dems were saying that raising taxes during this recession would be wrong. Man, you dem farkers have short memories as well.
 
2011-08-08 09:46:05 PM

GeneralJim: And they did: MUCH more spending, more regulations, more attempts to punish success.


Are you a bot because you recite the same talking points constantly?
 
2011-08-08 09:46:32 PM
There's a lot that needs changing to fix this.

We need to raise the retirement age to 68. We need to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Once we do that, the vast majority of our problems are taken care of. Only Medicare will remain as the elephant in the room.
 
2011-08-08 09:50:10 PM

GeneralJim: The way the country is set up, it's actually CONGRESS' budget. I'll grant you that GWB should have vetoed a good bit of it; he has that much blame.


You were wrong man. Don't try and weasel out of it. Stop posting incorrect graphs and you won't look stupid. It's pretty simple.
 
2011-08-08 09:51:33 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: Psst...the 2009 budget was Bush's
The way the country is set up, it's actually CONGRESS' budget. I'll grant you that GWB should have vetoed a good bit of it; he has that much blame.

It is, however, quite disingenuous to be going on about it. With Obama in the WH, and a Democratic House and Senate, with a super-majority in the Senate for two years, the Democrats could have changed ANYTHING they wanted. And they did: MUCH more spending, more regulations, more attempts to punish success. If only Democrats had put the brakes on, they would have the moral high ground, from which to preach fiscal restraint to the Republicans -- and I'd cheer them on.

But they have tried, and succeeded in making GWB and his Congress look like pikers when it comes to spending. Now they only look up from the trough long enough to blame Bush, and incite class warfare. There IS a reason the Democratic mascot is a jackass.


At no point did they have a super majority.
 
2011-08-08 09:54:07 PM

Penman:
Why do we need to extend unemployment benefits?


Can you explain why the tax cuts needed to be extended? It's not like they created any jobs....

God, why do we keep trying to explain this simple shiat to such retards?
 
2011-08-08 10:00:03 PM

GeneralJim: Now they only look up from the trough long enough to blame Bush, and incite class warfare.


I forgot about the Class Wars of 2010. Those were dark times.

Any other imaginary history you want to teach us about?
 
2011-08-08 10:02:08 PM

papabusche: 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.


I'm sorry such a d-bag, as you put it, is so insecure about yourself and your fellow libs that you can't have a comfortable life without govmt'. I prefer to keep my earned money to spend for my me and my family to spend as I see fit. I also want that opportunity for you and everybody else who want to work for it.
 
2011-08-08 10:05:53 PM

Lookr: papabusche: 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.

I'm sorry such a d-bag, as you put it, is so insecure about yourself and your fellow libs that you can't have a comfortable life without govmt'. I prefer to keep my earned money to spend for my me and my family to spend as I see fit. I also want that opportunity for you and everybody else who want to work for it.


You built all the infrastructure you and your family use? That's awesome!
 
2011-08-08 10:12:29 PM

Lookr: I prefer to keep my earned money to spend for my me and my family to spend as I see fit. I also want that opportunity for you and everybody else who want to work for it.


Fine. Take your you, your family, your money, and the syphilitic goat you blow for entertainment, and move to Somalia. No more taxes, you're free!

No, don't thank me. Just go. Hurry.
 
2011-08-08 10:37:13 PM

Lookr: papabusche: 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.

I'm sorry such a d-bag, as you put it, is so insecure about yourself and your fellow libs that you can't have a comfortable life without govmt'. I prefer to keep my earned money to spend for my me and my family to spend as I see fit. I also want that opportunity for you and everybody else who want to work for it.


This is what tea baggers actually believe, and you and the tea baggers are why are country is fuct right now. You should pray for the sake of the middle class and the good of this country we don't elect another republican for 20 years.
I am so sorry you hate logic and reasoning.
I feel sorry for your mother.
 
2011-08-08 10:39:57 PM

Lookr: papabusche: 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.

I'm sorry such a d-bag, as you put it, is so insecure about yourself and your fellow libs that you can't have a comfortable life without govmt'. I prefer to keep my earned money to spend for my me and my family to spend as I see fit. I also want that opportunity for you and everybody else who want to work for it.


In what era in US history or what nation in the world has a fair/appropriate tax scheme as you see it?
 
2011-08-08 10:55:49 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?


Holy farking shiat you are stupid. The fact that you are allowed to vote is the fundamental error in our political system.
 
2011-08-08 11:20:34 PM
Antimatter:
GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: Psst...the 2009 budget was Bush's

The way the country is set up, it's actually CONGRESS' budget. I'll grant you that GWB should have vetoed a good bit of it; he has that much blame.

It is, however, quite disingenuous to be going on about it. With Obama in the WH, and a Democratic House and Senate, with a super-majority in the Senate for two years, the Democrats could have changed ANYTHING they wanted. And they did: MUCH more spending, more regulations, more attempts to punish success. If only Democrats had put the brakes on, they would have the moral high ground, from which to preach fiscal restraint to the Republicans -- and I'd cheer them on.

But they have tried, and succeeded in making GWB and his Congress look like pikers when it comes to spending. Now they only look up from the trough long enough to blame Bush, and incite class warfare. There IS a reason the Democratic mascot is a jackass.


At no point did they have a super majority.

From January of 2008 until January of 1010. Where the fark were you?
 
2011-08-08 11:22:23 PM
GeneralJim:
From January of 2008 until January of 1010. Where the fark were you?

Yeah, right. Make that "2010" instead of "1010." Too short to need proofreading, indeed.
 
2011-08-08 11:24:37 PM
joethebastard:
Any other imaginary history you want to teach us about?

Sure, the time the Democrats bravely put the country ahead of partisan advantage.
 
2011-08-08 11:26:07 PM

GeneralJim: Antimatter: GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: Psst...the 2009 budget was Bush's

The way the country is set up, it's actually CONGRESS' budget. I'll grant you that GWB should have vetoed a good bit of it; he has that much blame.

It is, however, quite disingenuous to be going on about it. With Obama in the WH, and a Democratic House and Senate, with a super-majority in the Senate for two years, the Democrats could have changed ANYTHING they wanted. And they did: MUCH more spending, more regulations, more attempts to punish success. If only Democrats had put the brakes on, they would have the moral high ground, from which to preach fiscal restraint to the Republicans -- and I'd cheer them on.

But they have tried, and succeeded in making GWB and his Congress look like pikers when it comes to spending. Now they only look up from the trough long enough to blame Bush, and incite class warfare. There IS a reason the Democratic mascot is a jackass.

At no point did they have a super majority.
From January of 2008 until January of 1010. Where the fark were you?


Democrats had only 58 Senate seats and depended on Sanders and Lieberman for 60 votes needed for a supermajority.

The thing to point out is that Lieberman is more conservative compared to the rest of the Democratic Senators and not always a reliable vote for Democrat causes.
 
2011-08-08 11:27:47 PM

GeneralJim: joethebastard: Any other imaginary history you want to teach us about?
Sure, the time the Democrats bravely put the country ahead of partisan advantage.


Sounds just as imaginary as the time the Republicans put this country ahead of partisan advantage.

/so vote Republican?
 
2011-08-08 11:27:51 PM

GeneralJim: Antimatter: GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: Psst...the 2009 budget was Bush's

The way the country is set up, it's actually CONGRESS' budget. I'll grant you that GWB should have vetoed a good bit of it; he has that much blame.

It is, however, quite disingenuous to be going on about it. With Obama in the WH, and a Democratic House and Senate, with a super-majority in the Senate for two years, the Democrats could have changed ANYTHING they wanted. And they did: MUCH more spending, more regulations, more attempts to punish success. If only Democrats had put the brakes on, they would have the moral high ground, from which to preach fiscal restraint to the Republicans -- and I'd cheer them on.

But they have tried, and succeeded in making GWB and his Congress look like pikers when it comes to spending. Now they only look up from the trough long enough to blame Bush, and incite class warfare. There IS a reason the Democratic mascot is a jackass.

At no point did they have a super majority.
From January of 2008 until January of 1010. Where the fark were you?


Are you counting the two Independent Senators, one of whom spoke at the Republican Nation Convention? Or the five-term Republican Senator who switched parties because he feared a primary challenge?
 
2011-08-08 11:35:48 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: 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.



Actually, Obama decided to ramp up the war in Afghanistan instead of ending it, so that's now Obama's war as well as Bush's.
Oh, and Obama extended the Bush tax cuts when they otherwise would have expired. So they're Obama's cuts now.
And while Bush was the one who signed TARP into law, the bill was written by a Democratic Congress and many of the funds were actually spent under Obama.
And of course, you don't get to assume that Obama's not going to oversee any real spending increases for the next six years, as you conveniently do in your chart. Realistically you're comparing eight years to two-and-half.
 
2011-08-08 11:43:29 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: The 2009 projections are also Bush's budget.


That argument might hold water if Congress had been Republican at the time. Then you could legitimately argue that it was a Republican deficit that Obama had no part of. As it is, Congress was Democratic at the time. Obama, in case you've forgotten, was a U.S. Senator back then. So, the budget was written and passed by a Democratic Congress at a time when Obama was himself a Democratic Congressman. That makes it Obama's deficit. Sure, Bush signed off on it too, but that doesn't absolve Obama of blame.
 
2011-08-08 11:52:03 PM

Xivero: That argument might hold water if Congress had been Republican at the time. Then you could legitimately argue that it was a Republican deficit that Obama had no part of. As it is, Congress was Democratic at the time. Obama, in case you've forgotten, was a U.S. Senator back then. So, the budget was written and passed by a Democratic Congress at a time when Obama was himself a Democratic Congressman. That makes it Obama's deficit. Sure, Bush signed off on it too, but that doesn't absolve Obama of blame.


Take it up with those commie pinko liberals at Cato.
 
2011-08-08 11:52:07 PM

Mrtraveler01: Democrats had only 58 Senate seats and depended on Sanders and Lieberman for 60 votes needed for a supermajority.

The thing to point out is that Lieberman is more conservative compared to the rest of the Democratic Senators and not always a reliable vote for Democrat causes.


IIRC, the "supermajority" (with independents) began with Franken in July of '09 and ended with Brown in Feb 2010. Plus there was recess, Ted Kennedy's death, etc. It was pretty short-lived.
 
2011-08-09 12:01:04 AM

MFL: ....[drivel snipped]....


Oh, how novel! We've never encountered that flawed analogy before! No, it's not cropped up like a bad case of herpes ever month for the past however many years. It's not like it's been addressed eight ways to sunday so many times that there's no way in hell you could ever have missed it, and that posting it yet again despite it being debunked so thoroughly not even a grassy-knoll-second-gunman conspiracist would take it seriously casts you as an idiot of such magnitude that your density surpasses that of the black hole in the enter of our galaxy.

Let me take a moment to bask in the brilliance of your originality, understanding of reality, and obvious wit as embodied by this wholly new and unique analogy that so aptly sums up the situation.
 
2011-08-09 01:42:11 AM
apparently the NRO is now paying fark for the 7 or 8 links a day....meh/
 
2011-08-09 05:00:04 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: GeneralJim: Note: the projections for 2009 on are WAY over-optimistic.

The 2009 projections are also Bush's budget.

Wrong:

[www.cato.org image 547x393]

Right:

[www.cato.org image 551x396]

The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

Link (new window)

I'm sure you won't be posting that image anymore.


Oh, man, it was TOTES Fartbongo's fault though! It was so obviously fartbongo's fault that GeneralJim already gave you a reasonable explanation for why it's fartbongo's fault and not Bush's, complete with nonpartisan citations, in stunning GREEN font!

No? He hasn't? Well, I'm sure he's already responded to it in some way, just without citations...

Still no? Shiat, well then he must have gone to take a shower or get some pizza or something...

He responded to two other posts with indefensible bullshiat since your post?

Fark, well... I guess that means he's just a troll.
 
2011-08-09 05:35:47 AM
Mrtraveler01:
The thing to point out is that Lieberman is more conservative compared to the rest of the Democratic Senators and not always a reliable vote for Democrat causes.

So, HIS meds are working. Good to know.
 
2011-08-09 05:43:46 AM
Mrtraveler01:
GeneralJim: joethebastard: Any other imaginary history you want to teach us about?

Sure, the time the Democrats bravely put the country ahead of partisan advantage.

Sounds just as imaginary as the time the Republicans put this country ahead of partisan advantage.

/so vote Republican?

Nah, screw 'em both. Here's my solution: For every choice you have on a ballot, you can vote FOR or AGAINST any candidate. I voted for McCain, but not because I wanted him to be President, but because I was terrified that if Obama got elected, what HAS happened WOULD happen; so far, my terror was justified. But, my vote leaves the IMPRESSION that I supported McCain.

If my system were in place, I would NOT have voted FOR McCain, I would have voted AGAINST Obama. That would take one vote away from Obama.

The difference is, if Obama had still won, but with, say, twenty thousand votes, it would be hard to claim a "mandate from the people". Also, if nobody gets a positive number, all candidates are rejected, and the process starts over, with none of the "negs" able to run in the second pass.
 
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