Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Dish)   The deficit is melting away. Thanks Obama   (dish.andrewsullivan.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, obama, deficits  
•       •       •

5117 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Apr 2013 at 11:55 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-12 10:06:42 AM  
History's greatest monster.
 
2013-04-12 10:15:57 AM  
The Obama tax cuts worked!
 
2013-04-12 10:16:43 AM  
Must be the antichrist
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-12 10:17:04 AM  
So, Obama is out to destroy the Gippers legacy.  I knew he was plotting something.
 
2013-04-12 10:17:33 AM  
Its kinda hard to have a huge deficit when the government cant really spend money due to political gridlock
 
2013-04-12 10:18:45 AM  

unlikely: History's greatest monster.


came to say this
 
2013-04-12 10:21:27 AM  
Imagine how much lower it would be if he was a white Christian
 
2013-04-12 10:23:03 AM  

Ghastly: Imagine how much lower it would be if he was a white Christian


Then deficits wouldn't have mattered
 
2013-04-12 10:24:16 AM  
No wonder Republicans are so pissed.
 
2013-04-12 10:31:56 AM  

cman: Its kinda hard to have a huge deficit when the government cant really spend money due to political gridlock


sssssssshia

this is a good thing, there for Obama is the only person in Washington DC. He alone takes full and complete credit for this!

We are not to mention that there is a completely different and separate political party that is at least giving lip service to cuts.
 
2013-04-12 10:34:36 AM  
Have these numbers been unskewed yet?
 
2013-04-12 10:38:13 AM  

cman: Its kinda hard to have a huge deficit when the government cant really spend money due to political gridlock


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-12 10:40:01 AM  
The Stealth Hippopotamus: cman: Its kinda hard to have a huge deficit when the government cant really spend money due to political gridlock

sssssssshia

this is a good thing, there for Obama is the only person in Washington DC. He alone takes full and complete credit for this!

We are not to mention that there is a completely different and separate political party that is at least giving lip service to cuts.

I have never understood the insanity of people looking at a non-functioning government and declaring that good.  There is nothing else where you would look at a complete failure to function as a positive thing, but for some reason, it's good for government.
 
2013-04-12 10:43:20 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Have these numbers been unskewed yet?


Well he is using the President's budget so I guarantee you they ain't right. They are the same people that the Affordabel Care Act was going to be revenue neutral so we know their calculators are busted

But anytime someone says that declining the defect is a good thing I have to praise them for at least getting that part right. There are still people who think the defect and debt dont matter!
 
2013-04-12 10:46:58 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: this is a good thing, there for Obama is the only person in Washington DC. He alone takes full and complete credit for this!

We are not to mention that there is a completely different and separate political party that is at least giving lip service to cuts.


Did you see that giant leap from 2008 to 2009?  That was the combination of George Bush's budget (including two wars that had been kept off the books to that point) and the massive loss of revenue that resulted from the Great Recession which happened on Bush's watch.  Fark the GOP.
 
2013-04-12 10:46:59 AM  

GAT_00: I have never understood the insanity of people looking at a non-functioning government and declaring that good. There is nothing else where you would look at a complete failure to function as a positive thing, but for some reason, it's good for government.


Well if NK decides to fire off that missile I hope it has "a complete failure to function".

I'd see that as a good thing, wouldn't you?
 
2013-04-12 10:50:30 AM  

Mentat: Did you see that giant leap from 2008 to 2009? That was the combination of George Bush's budget (including two wars that had been kept off the books to that point) and the massive loss of revenue that resulted from the Great Recession which happened on Bush's watch. Fark the GOP.


I forgot. Who had a hold of the purse stings during the 111th Congress?
 
2013-04-12 10:55:14 AM  
The deficit and debt is the last thing we should be concerned about right now buuuuut if we're going to let the Very Serious People drive the conversation then let's hope this shuts them up about government spending.
 
2013-04-12 10:56:05 AM  
The Stealth Hippopotamus: GAT_00: I have never understood the insanity of people looking at a non-functioning government and declaring that good. There is nothing else where you would look at a complete failure to function as a positive thing, but for some reason, it's good for government.

Well if NK decides to fire off that missile I hope it has "a complete failure to function".

I'd see that as a good thing, wouldn't you?

Oh come on, that's a completely different thing.  That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to horses.
 
2013-04-12 10:56:30 AM  
*fingers in ears* la la la la la - I can't hear you. TaxNspendOngo's new budget want to grow gubment spending at a rate of 11enty brazillian percent. And kill babies.

-what Fox News viewers are hearing
 
2013-04-12 10:57:20 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mentat: Did you see that giant leap from 2008 to 2009? That was the combination of George Bush's budget (including two wars that had been kept off the books to that point) and the massive loss of revenue that resulted from the Great Recession which happened on Bush's watch. Fark the GOP.

I forgot. Who had a hold of the purse stings during the 111th Congress?


Who's had them since 2010?
 
2013-04-12 11:02:50 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Have these numbers been unskewed yet?


in that case, the deficit has quadrupled every month Obama has been in office.  and our national debt has risen to 1 quadrillion dollars.
 
2013-04-12 11:04:31 AM  
i159.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-12 11:05:37 AM  

GAT_00: Oh come on, that's a completely different thing. That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to horses.


Actually I see some similarities between a nuke and the federal government:
1) used mostly as a threat
2) some people think it's a good thing, while others see it as the definition of evil
3) if someone is actually dumb enough to try to use it, it only brings pain and suffering
4) we keep talking about limiting the threat but for some reason it just keeps growing.


The really fun part it thinking about our justification for using them to end WWII. "Well if we hadn't have used it than things would have been worse". Sound familiar? Isn't that what people in the federal government always say when one of their policies end up being worse than the problem they tried to fix?
 
2013-04-12 11:10:03 AM  

Aarontology: Who's had them since 2010?


Who had them in 1995? And what does that matter we are talking about the 111th Congress? That was the topic Mentat wanted to talk about.

I'm liking the idea of a Republican controlled Congress and a Democrat in the White House. It worked out ok last time we tried it.
 
2013-04-12 11:16:56 AM  

GAT_00: No wonder Republicans are so pissed.


Yeah, they wanted their name on it.

Although I'd rather get the economy more fired up than worry about deficit crap, with a booming economy the deficit sort of takes care of itself. Austerity is not the best solution here.
 
2013-04-12 11:26:38 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: GAT_00: Oh come on, that's a completely different thing. That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to horses.

Actually I see some similarities between a nuke and the federal government:
1) used mostly as a threat
2) some people think it's a good thing, while others see it as the definition of evil
3) if someone is actually dumb enough to try to use it, it only brings pain and suffering
4) we keep talking about limiting the threat but for some reason it just keeps growing.


The really fun part it thinking about our justification for using them to end WWII. "Well if we hadn't have used it than things would have been worse". Sound familiar? Isn't that what people in the federal government always say when one of their policies end up being worse than the problem they tried to fix?


I can't even put into words how little sense this makes.

But if you actually think something like that, might I kindly suggest you up and revolt so the rest of us with a somewhat sane grasp of politics and the scope of actual power can go about making real and meaningful changes. Or go hide under the bed since you are apparently bloody terrified of any kind of structure and control above anarchy.
 
2013-04-12 11:26:49 AM  
But we need to cut social security. Because centrism.
 
2013-04-12 11:27:16 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Who had them in 1995? And what does that matter we are talking about the 111th Congress? That was the topic Mentat wanted to talk about.

I'm liking the idea of a Republican controlled Congress and a Democrat in the White House. It worked out ok last time we tried it.


Well, let's see.  The GOP held the pursestrings from 2000-2006 when they started two unfunded wars which they kept off the books to mask the cost, instituted massive tax cuts that starved the country of revenue, passed a trillion dollar unfunded Medicare bill which they then hand-waved away by saying "it was a different time", all of which collectively obliterated the budget surplus and doubled the national debt.  But yeah, I guess I see your point.
 
2013-04-12 11:44:33 AM  

GAT_00: But if you actually think something like that, might I kindly suggest you up and revolt so the rest of us with a somewhat sane grasp of politics and the scope of actual power can go about making real and meaningful changes. Or go hide under the bed since you are apparently bloody terrified of any kind of structure and control above anarchy.


Seeing the Federal Government as a problem is equal to being terrified of any kind of structure and control above anarchy?!

Wow. Ok.

Mentat: Well, let's see. The GOP held the pursestrings from 2000-2006 when they started two unfunded wars which they kept off the books to mask the cost, instituted massive tax cuts that starved the country of revenue, passed a trillion dollar unfunded Medicare bill which they then hand-waved away by saying "it was a different time", all of which collectively obliterated the budget surplus and doubled the national debt. But yeah, I guess I see your point.


Yes and the GOP did that all by themselves. Not one vote or recommendation came from the other side. Yes sir, there was only one party in town on those days. And the tech bubble had nothing to do with any revenue drying up. Nice revisionist history right there.

FYI Medicare Part D is the only government program to come in under budget. One number has it as 40% under but I've seen numbers as low as 28%. Still an expansion of government still a bad idea but if you have to it's nice to see them over estimate for once.
 
2013-04-12 11:55:05 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mentat: Well, let's see. The GOP held the pursestrings from 2000-2006 when they started two unfunded wars which they kept off the books to mask the cost, instituted massive tax cuts that starved the country of revenue, passed a trillion dollar unfunded Medicare bill which they then hand-waved away by saying "it was a different time", all of which collectively obliterated the budget surplus and doubled the national debt. But yeah, I guess I see your point.

Yes and the GOP did that all by themselves. Not one vote or recommendation came from the other side. Yes sir, there was only one party in town on those days. And the tech bubble had nothing to do with any revenue drying up. Nice revisionist history right there.

FYI Medicare Part D is the only government program to come in under budget. One number has it as 40% under but I've seen numbers as low as 28%. Still an expansion of government still a bad idea but if you have to it's nice to see them over estimate for once.


Ok, since you're stupid, let me see if we can clear this up:

George Bush inherited a budget surplus and a mild recession.  He responded to that by slashing taxes even though experts warned that it would cause revenue to drop resulting in deficits.  He then leveraged a justified war in Afghanistan into a preemptive war of conquest against Iraq and then justified it by saying that the wars would pay for themselves.  When they didn't, the costs were taken off the books so that the people wouldn't see that we were running huge deficits.  On top of this, he pushed a Medicare drug bill that had no mechanism installed to pay for the costs.  Finally, the 2008 collapse caused a massive drop in revenue resulting in huge deficits which were only made worse when Obama put the costs of the wars back on the books.

You don't get to lay all of the blame for the 2009 deficits on the Democratic Congress while simultaneously trying to shift blame for the Republican Congress' boondoggles on the few unnecessary Democrats that sided with them out of fear.
 
2013-04-12 11:58:30 AM  

Ghastly: Imagine how much lower it would be if he was a white Christian


But he is a white Christian.  He's as much white as he is black.

/casts line.
 
2013-04-12 11:59:04 AM  
So the sequester worked.
 
2013-04-12 12:00:20 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mentat: Did you see that giant leap from 2008 to 2009? That was the combination of George Bush's budget (including two wars that had been kept off the books to that point) and the massive loss of revenue that resulted from the Great Recession which happened on Bush's watch. Fark the GOP.

I forgot. Who had a hold of the purse stings during the 111th Congress?


Care to point out which budget items passed between 2006 and 2008 led to the deficit increase?
 
2013-04-12 12:01:25 PM  
Quick! Privatize Social Security before people stop thinking there's a crisis!
 
2013-04-12 12:01:36 PM  

DamnYankees: But we need to cut social security. Because centrism.


we're not cutting SS. obama proposed it because he knows republicans will oppose anything he proposes.
 
2013-04-12 12:06:08 PM  

cman: Its kinda hard to have a huge deficit when the government cant really spend money due to political gridlock


Be honest here. No matter what happens you'll never give Obama or the Democrats any credit no matter what evidence is placed in front of you. Will you? The only thing people like you want is the country to slide further into debt and destruction so YOUR team wins the next election. It's actually pretty sick, if you ask me.
 
2013-04-12 12:06:22 PM  
I thought Obamacare was going to destroy us
 
MFK
2013-04-12 12:06:25 PM  

FlashHarry: DamnYankees: But we need to cut social security. Because centrism.

we're not cutting SS. obama proposed it because he knows republicans will oppose anything he proposes.


This was a wonderful example of chess vs checkers.
 
2013-04-12 12:09:08 PM  

FlashHarry: DamnYankees: But we need to cut social security. Because centrism.

we're not cutting SS. obama proposed it because he knows republicans will oppose anything he proposes.


Honestly it's the only thing that makes sense.
 
2013-04-12 12:09:36 PM  

FlashHarry: DamnYankees: But we need to cut social security. Because centrism.

we're not cutting SS. obama proposed it because he knows republicans will oppose anything he proposes.


Well I agree cuts aren't happening, but that second bit is a lie.
 
2013-04-12 12:10:26 PM  

bulldg4life: I thought Obamacare was going to destroy us


Just wait. I am told it does not kick in until 2014.
 
2013-04-12 12:11:56 PM  

DirkValentine: FlashHarry: DamnYankees: But we need to cut social security. Because centrism.

we're not cutting SS. obama proposed it because he knows republicans will oppose anything he proposes.

Honestly it's the only thing that makes sense.


No, what makes the most sense is that Obama wants to cut social security in exchange for revenue. It's not that hard,
 
2013-04-12 12:12:01 PM  
Weird the numbers started to drop in 2011.. I have no idea what happened near the end of 2010 that would have caused this.
 
182
2013-04-12 12:12:34 PM  

pdee: So the sequester worked.


obama plays chess, not checkers.
 
2013-04-12 12:13:21 PM  
He's the worst crazy spending socialist ever.
 
2013-04-12 12:13:26 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mentat: Did you see that giant leap from 2008 to 2009? That was the combination of George Bush's budget (including two wars that had been kept off the books to that point) and the massive loss of revenue that resulted from the Great Recession which happened on Bush's watch. Fark the GOP.

I forgot. Who had a hold of the purse stings during the 111th Congress?


I forgot, who was President at that time? Because remember, back in 2009 it was all Obama's fault.
 
2013-04-12 12:13:55 PM  
FTA: "If the GOP responds to his new budget by taking yes for an answer, he could do better. "
(which is why they never will.  Party before country.)
 
2013-04-12 12:14:10 PM  

DamnYankees: DirkValentine: FlashHarry: DamnYankees: But we need to cut social security. Because centrism.

we're not cutting SS. obama proposed it because he knows republicans will oppose anything he proposes.

Honestly it's the only thing that makes sense.

No, what makes the most sense is that Obama wants to cut social security in exchange for revenue. It's not that hard,


Yes, that would make sense IF there was a chance of getting that revenue.  I don't see it happening until after (if) the house changes hands in 2014.
 
2013-04-12 12:15:43 PM  

bulldg4life: I thought Obamacare was going to destroy us


That's next year.
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report