• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's Approval Rating Drops to Lowest Ever, According to Gallup

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL, nice distortion, Most of TARP was in fiscal year 2009. FACT, Obama Budget in 2010-2011 was 3.7 trillion. Last Bush budget without TARP was 3.0 trillion
You are so full of ****, your eyes are brown.

First of all, I've shown you were only $200B of TARP was applied to the FY2009 budget. (which, by the way, would indicate the TARP funds paid back were applied to the FY2009 budget).

Secondly, Obama's 2011 budget bombed miserably in Congress and never passed his 3.7 trillion dollar budget.

Lastly, actual spending, which you falsely described as "Bush spending on steroids," dropped in 2010, Obama's first budget.



Spending drops ... rightwing ideologues call that "Bush spending on steroids." :roll:
 
Are you saying Obama should have ignored the legislation? You would be right in there bashing him for not doing so. You know you would.

Where did I say that? Obama was left 350 billion dollars, did he spend it? What did he do with the repayment since it was repaid after Bush left office? Do some research, you are going to be surprised.
 
You are so full of ****, your eyes are brown.

First of all, I've shown you were only $200B of TARP was applied to the FY2009 budget. (which, by the way, would indicate the TARP funds paid back were applied to the FY2009 budget).

Secondly, Obama's 2011 budget bombed miserably in Congress and never passed his 3.7 trillion dollar budget.

Lastly, actual spending, which you falsely described as "Bush spending on steroids," dropped in 2010, Obama's first budget.



Spending drops ... rightwing ideologues call that "Bush spending on steroids." :roll:

You are delusional as you have never shown that 200 billion was applied to the FY 2009 nor have you shown that anything was applied to the 2009 budget. Obama's 2011 budget was never passed but that didn't stop continuing resolutions which you will see totalled 3.7 trillion dollars. I did post what Tim Geithner said about the TARP repayment but again you ignored it.

You just don't have a clue but apparently nothing changes the mind of an Obama supporter.
 
My numbers come straight from bls.gov, the same place you always cite. Note: I made no attempt to come up with a percentage because that's another ball of wax.

Didn't say they weren't BLS numbers, just not the total picture which you have a tendency to do. Your numbers are too low and if accurate would have created a 14% unemployment number which creates another problem for Obama and his supporters like you. Too bad U-6 is being ignored by Obama supporters.
 
Prove it already, Conservative.

Show how much of TARP was spent in FY2009, show how much of TARP was paid back in FY2009, show how much of TARP was applied to the FY2009 budget.

You haven't shown any of that. You're just spouting off more rigwing zombie talking points.


Go to TARP website and see how much was distributed and to whom. You will find that Bush spent 350 billion dollars from October to December and left 350 billion for Obama. The repayment of TARP began in 2009 and continued into 2010. Shouldn't that be credited to Bush? How much of TARP has been repaid and how much did TARP add to the 2009 deficit?
Wrong answer, Conservative. It's not my job to go hunting for the numbers you are claiming.

You post the numbers.

You post the links to those numbers.

You don't because either you can't or because even you know your numbers are BS.

This is your homework assignment, not mine...

Show how much of TARP was spent in FY2009, show how much of TARP was paid back in FY2009, show how much of TARP was applied to the FY2009 budget.
 
Wrong answer, Conservative. It's not my job to go hunting for the numbers you are claiming.

You post the numbers.

You post the links to those numbers.

You don't because either you can't or because even you know your numbers are BS.

This is your homework assignment, not mine...

Show how much of TARP was spent in FY2009, show how much of TARP was paid back in FY2009, show how much of TARP was applied to the FY2009 budget.

You claimed that 200 billion of repayment was applied to the 2009 budget so prove it.
 
You are delusional as you have never shown that 200 billion was applied to the FY 2009 nor have you shown that anything was applied to the 2009 budget.

Mandatory Outlays. Much of the rise in outlays in 2009 came from mandatory programs. After growing by an average of about 6 percent a year from 1999 to 2008, mandatory spending (excluding net interest) soared by 31 percent ($499 billion) last year, to $2.1 trillion. Three initiatives accounted for nearly two-thirds of that increase. Outlays recorded for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) totaled $152 billion in 2009; net payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounted for another $91 billion; and fiscal stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), increased mandatory outlays by $80 billion (largely for Medicaid, unemployment benefits, payments to Social Security beneficiaries, and supplemental nutrition assistance).

The Budget Outlook


Now that you see what an actual number accompanied with a link looks like, hopefully it will inspire you to do likewise.

I did post what Tim Geithner said about the TARP repayment but again you ignored it.
What you posted was Geithner saying he believed he could respend repaid TARP funds.

What you didn't post was evidence that he did.

Also among your missing posts were the actual numbers of how much was spent in FY2009 with how much was repaid in FY2009 with how much was applied to FY2009.

You're posting bull**** and the reason it's beyond obvious that it's bull**** lies is your reluctance (or inaility) to post the actual numbers.
 
Wrong answer, Conservative. It's not my job to go hunting for the numbers you are claiming.

You post the numbers.

You post the links to those numbers.

You don't because either you can't or because even you know your numbers are BS.

This is your homework assignment, not mine...

Show how much of TARP was spent in FY2009, show how much of TARP was paid back in FY2009, show how much of TARP was applied to the FY2009 budget.

Maybe this will educate you but I doubt it

These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T - TheHill.com
 
Mandatory Outlays. Much of the rise in outlays in 2009 came from mandatory programs. After growing by an average of about 6 percent a year from 1999 to 2008, mandatory spending (excluding net interest) soared by 31 percent ($499 billion) last year, to $2.1 trillion. Three initiatives accounted for nearly two-thirds of that increase. Outlays recorded for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) totaled $152 billion in 2009; net payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounted for another $91 billion; and fiscal stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), increased mandatory outlays by $80 billion (largely for Medicaid, unemployment benefits, payments to Social Security beneficiaries, and supplemental nutrition assistance).

The Budget Outlook


Now that you see what an actual number accompanied with a link looks like, hopefully it will inspire you to do likewise.


What you posted was Geithner saying he believed he could respend repaid TARP funds.

What you didn't post was evidence that he did.

Also among your missing posts were the actual numbers of how much was spent in FY2009 with how much was repaid in FY2009 with how much was applied to FY2009.

You're posting bull**** and the reason it's beyond obvious that it's bull**** lies is your reluctance (or inaility) to post the actual numbers.

These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T - TheHill.com

Apparently you don'tknoow the difference between spending an a loan.
 
You claimed that 200 billion of repayment was applied to the 2009 budget so prove it.
That's not what I said.

What I said was $200B of TARP was applied to the FY2009 budget. Turned out that was based on the projection made in January, 2009. The actual number turns out to be $152B.

I recall you claiming some $500B was spent in FY2009, is that right? Wouldn't that mean that about $350B was paid back to reduce the defict since the totaloutlay for FY2009 was $152B?
 
And apparently you don't know the difference between Dick Morris and the CBO.

You're quoting Disk Morris ...

I'm showing you where the CBO shows only $152B in outlays for fiscal year 2009 were for TARP.

You're like a flailing fish gasping for air on the deck of my boat with that Dick Morris nonsense. :lol:



So what happens with TARP repayments?

December 20, 2009|By Kathleen Pender

"I am reading lately about billions of bailout dollars being repaid to the U.S. Treasury, but I do not recall hearing or reading about how these funds are used after being returned. Are they simply unaccounted for in the big scheme of things? Used to reduce the debt? Or put into a new congressional slush fund? Have you written on this issue? If not, can you point me to a site that tells me, the answer, if there is one?"

Unfortunately there is no simple answer. Some Republicans say that any money returned to the Troubled Assets Relief Program or TARP, must go toward deficit reduction. President Obama and some Democrats say unused TARP money can be used for all sorts of things.
 
So what happens with TARP repayments?

December 20, 2009|By Kathleen Pender

"I am reading lately about billions of bailout dollars being repaid to the U.S. Treasury, but I do not recall hearing or reading about how these funds are used after being returned. Are they simply unaccounted for in the big scheme of things? Used to reduce the debt? Or put into a new congressional slush fund? Have you written on this issue? If not, can you point me to a site that tells me, the answer, if there is one?"

Unfortunately there is no simple answer. Some Republicans say that any money returned to the Troubled Assets Relief Program or TARP, must go toward deficit reduction. President Obama and some Democrats say unused TARP money can be used for all sorts of things.
Stop quoting liars and post the numbers.

I've already given how much was applied aginst the FY2009 budget: $152B

Now you post how much was given out in FY2009.

You post how much was repain during FY2009.

If the difference is greater than $152B, then you have an argument to make. But quoting liars like Dick Morris is not making your case.

Do your homework and post the numbers.
 
I haven't quoted you once yet and if you don't stop calling me a liar and others liars because they disagree with you then I have no further use for you.
I just showed you where Dick Morris lied. I just showed you where he claimed a $1 trillion deficit was only a $485B deficit.

You defend his lie even after it's shoved in your face??

Figures.
 
I haven't quoted you once yet and if you don't stop calling me a liar and others liars because they disagree with you then I have no further use for you.

You mean the treasury department is not good enough for you yet dick morris is?
 
Here's an obvious lie Dick Morris is telling in the article ...


"In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion." ~ Dick Morris.


Actual deficit for FY2008: 1,017,071,524,650

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Why are you quoting liars, Conservative?

Calling someone a "liar" rather than 'incorrect' has become far too commonplace.

Dick Morris explains where the President is getting his numbers from:

In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

One important note that both writers mentioned: the important thing being missed is JOBS. Job creation will create income earners, which will boost the economy and help revenues. This is what the debate in Washington should be all about.
 
Dick Morris is a partisan hack. It would be like quoting Rosie O'Donnell to support Obama. :lol:
 
Calling someone a "liar" rather than 'incorrect' has become far too commonplace.

Dick Morris explains where the President is getting his numbers from:
Please, Dick Morris is smarter than you give him credit for. He knows what he's saying.

I don't care what he says since the treasury says the actual deficit for FY2008 was really $1 trillion, not $485B as Morris falsely claims; and the CBO says TARP outlays for FY2009 were $152B, not $700B as Morris falsely claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom