Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

  1. #11
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Last Seen
    09-10-09 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    166

    Re: Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post

    Time for a little deficit math.

    On the day President Bush took office, total public debt for the US was $5,727,776,738,304.64, and the US was headed into recession.
    Another republican talking point, regardless how many times you say it, it will not come true.

    RNC Chairman Michael Steele on ABC's "This Week" rejected the notion that Republicans are solely responsible for the current economic mess -- by placing part of the blame on William Jefferson Clinton. (Yep, the same guy who left the country with huge surplus.)

    "Bush inherited a recession," Steele said when Stephanopoulos pressed him on Bush-era economic failures.

    Turns out this has been a Republican argument for years -- although it was used primarily to explain away the relatively mild 2001-02 recession to help out Congressional candidates -- not to deflect responsibility for the greatest downturn for the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, eight years ex post facto.

    "When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession," Bush said in a speech at a Mississippi high school in 2002.

    Bush's claim was rebuffed, if mildly, by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research which determined:

    The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology.

    In any event, the economy was back expanding, albeit meekly, by mid-2002.

    Glenn Thrush's Blog: Blame Clinton - Politico.com
    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    On the day Dear Leader took office, total public debt for the US was $10,625,053,544,309.79, and the US had already entered a recession.

    The increase in total public debt during the Bush Administration was $4,897,276,806,005.15
    Yes, more than any other sitting President in the history of the nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    In between, there were 2,922 days. On average, President Bush spent $1,676,001,644.77 per day the government did not have.
    Thats debatable at best. Bush never included neither the Iraq war or Afghanistan wars in his budgets. His instead constantly requested "emergency" spending. So the cost of the Iraq war is still debatable.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    As of May 8, 2009, 107 days after Dear Leader took office, total public debt for the US is $11,258,693,795,457.10

    The increase in total public debt during the first 107 days of Dear Leader's administration is $633,640,251,147.31

    On average, Dear Leader spent $5,921,871,506.05 per day the government did not have.
    Domestic spending on programs and infrastructure that were well overdue and highly underfunder for well over a decade.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    If the average holds, and Dear Leader serves a single term (1461 days), his contribution to the total public debt will be $8,651,854,270,338.51.
    This is also debatable, no doubt Obama has contributed to the public debt. However one would also have to remember that we are currently operating under the fiscal budget set forth by the Bush Administration.


    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    However, the average already is not holding. As the article referenced above shows, the deficit is growing, not shrinking, both in this current year and in next year, by $89 billion and $87 billion respectively. The $8.6 trillion Dear Leader will add to the total public debt in his term of office is, by all accounts, the best case scenario. Dear Leader's deficit spending for four years will be, by the most optimistic calculation, 177% of the of deficit spending for all eight years of the Bush Administration.
    Its a bit early to average what he will or will not spend, this is a bit dishonest to be blunt about it. How about we wait and see what happens and were cuts are made etc before we jump to conclusions shall we?

    Some other fun facts about the total public debt:


    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    • After the first 107 days of the Bush Administration, on May 8, 2001, total public debt had decreased by $79,895,704,884.55.
    • The $633,640,251,147.31 of public debt added by Dear Leader's administration in 107 days took President Bush's administration 709 days to surpass, when the total public debt reached $6,405,707,456,847.53 on December 31, 2002.
    • On January 21, 2005, after 1461 days of the Bush Administration, total public debt had increased by $1,886,691,622,346.66

    Against all this debt, Dear Leader and his "experts" have combed the federal budget and discovered a whopping $17 billion in "savings" to carve out of the federal budget. That is roughly 3% of the increase in total public debt over his first 107 days in office.

    Dear Leader has a strange idea of what constitutes making "hard choices".
    17 billion dollars across 10 years is how much again? 170 billion dollars. The small cuts add up over time of course. Maybe we should just wait and see what's going to be cut i expect numerous cuts to follow but then again i am patient.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Another republican talking point, regardless how many times you say it, it will not come true.
    These are the historical numbers per the US Treasury. Every figure cited is from a primary source. They are already true.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Thats debatable at best. Bush never included neither the Iraq war or Afghanistan wars in his budgets. His instead constantly requested "emergency" spending. So the cost of the Iraq war is still debatable.
    Again, these figures are not debatable at all. They are the historical record. These figures are the total public debt at various intervals. No matter whether the spending was on budget or off budget, the increase in public debt is an inescapable measure of real spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    This is also debatable, no doubt Obama has contributed to the public debt. However one would also have to remember that we are currently operating under the fiscal budget set forth by the Bush Administration.
    The "stimulus" package is nowhere to be found in President Bush's budget. Of that there can be no debate. The emergency spending requested by Dear Leader for Iraq and Afghanistan is nowhere to be found in President Bush's budget. Of that there can be no debate. The Omnibus spending bill infamous for its 9,000+ pieces of pork was passed on Dear Leader's watch, and he did nothing at all to bring the spending to heel. Of that there can be no debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Its a bit early to average what he will or will not spend, this is a bit dishonest to be blunt about it. How about we wait and see what happens and were cuts are made etc before we jump to conclusions shall we?
    If my words are dishonest then you can explain what figures I posted that were factually inaccurate, and where my math is flawed.

    If you cannot do that, then your charge of dishonesty fails for lack of evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    17 billion dollars across 10 years is how much again? 170 billion dollars. The small cuts add up over time of course. Maybe we should just wait and see what's going to be cut i expect numerous cuts to follow but then again i am patient.
    So the savings of 10 years is 30% of the spending for 107 days of Dear Leader. A most curious ROI model you have.

    Or perhaps you are privy to what other microscopic cuts in spending Dear Leader has planned that will add up to enormous savings ten years hence?

    Show me $170 billion in "savings" THIS YEAR and you have the beginnings of a point. $17 billion in a $3.4 trillion budget is an economic death of ten thousand "cuts".

  3. #13
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Last Seen
    09-10-09 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    166

    Re: Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    These are the historical numbers per the US Treasury. Every figure cited is from a primary source. They are already true.
    No it is not, I provide information that puts this to rest. Bush didnt inherit a recession. In fact the economy stopped expanding after he was sworn in.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Again, these figures are not debatable at all. They are the historical record. These figures are the total public debt at various intervals. No matter whether the spending was on budget or off budget, the increase in public debt is an inescapable measure of real spending.
    Please, define what "real spending" is for us all? To be quite frank about the situation the US is virtually running on deficit spending only and has been doing so for quite some time now. The cost of the Iraq war is still unknown. And we honestly wont know for quite some time down the road after healthcare for vets have been figured in as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    The "stimulus" package is nowhere to be found in President Bush's budget. Of that there can be no debate. The emergency spending requested by Dear Leader for Iraq and Afghanistan is nowhere to be found in President Bush's budget. Of that there can be no debate. The Omnibus spending bill infamous for its 9,000+ pieces of pork was passed on Dear Leader's watch, and he did nothing at all to bring the spending to heel. Of that there can be no debate.
    I'm speaking about Omnibus, not the Stimulus package. 9,000 pieces of pork that was negotiated under Bush's watch and agreed to and politicized by republicans to attempt to gain the upper hand right?

    Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) opposed yesterday's $410 billion omnibus spending bill because it was "bloated" and included $7.7 billion in earmarks. ďAt a time when so many American families are tightening their belts to make ends meet, Congress should be as equally committed to living within its means," he said in a statement.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called the spending bill a "missed opportunity" and urged President Obama to veto it. "The bill costs far too much for a government that should be watching every dime," he said.

    And Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R) said in opposition to the legislation: "Each and every time, whether a Republican or Democratic initiative, I have refused to go along with big government spending or big government solutions."

    But as it turns out, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Bayh had four solo earmarks attached to his name in the legislation, worth $2.7 million; McConnell had 36 totaling $51 million; and Inhofe had 34 earmarks worth $53 million.

    Indeed, of the 35 U.S. senators who opposed the omnibus spending bill last night -- in the form of a "no" on the cloture vote -- 28 of them had solo earmarks in the legislation.

    In total, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, these 28 senators had a combined 307 solo earmarks totaling nearly $240 million. The breakdown is below.

    When First Read asked Bayh's office why he opposed the legislation yet had earmarks in it, spokesman Eric Kleiman replied, "Bayh ranks 78th in total earmarks in the omnibus bill. He was also one of only two Dem senators to vote for the McCain amendment last week to strip all earmarks from the bill, even his own."

    Earmark hypocrisy? - First Read - msnbc.com
    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    If my words are dishonest then you can explain what figures I posted that were factually inaccurate, and where my math is flawed.

    If you cannot do that, then your charge of dishonesty fails for lack of evidence.
    You are dishonest for attempting to compare and entire 8 year administration to that of one that isn't even 6 months old. For a true overview weather increased or decreased don't you think it would be best to wait until you have full number to review?



    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    So the savings of 10 years is 30% of the spending for 107 days of Dear Leader. A most curious ROI model you have.
    Or perhaps you are privy to what other microscopic cuts in spending Dear Leader has planned that will add up to enormous savings ten years hence?[/quote]

    Nope, no one does. But i am willing to remain patient to actually see what he does during his Administration before i scream bloody murder or pretend the sky is falling.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Show me $170 billion in "savings" THIS YEAR and you have the beginnings of a point. $17 billion in a $3.4 trillion budget is an economic death of ten thousand "cuts".
    You do realize the spending is panned out in some cases across 5, 10 years correct? You do understand that the mojority of the funds that have been approved in fact have not been spent yet. So yes we can do simple math and see what the impact is across time.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    No it is not, I provide information that puts this to rest. Bush didnt inherit a recession. In fact the economy stopped expanding after he was sworn in.
    By the same logic you apply to fiscal 2009 being a "Bush budget", a recession beginning in March 2001 is properly attributable to Clinton. If the 2001 recession belongs to Bush, the 2009 spending belongs to Dear Leader. Anything less is a double standard and a failed argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Please, define what "real spending" is for us all? To be quite frank about the situation the US is virtually running on deficit spending only and has been doing so for quite some time now. The cost of the Iraq war is still unknown. And we honestly wont know for quite some time down the road after healthcare for vets have been figured in as well.
    Following on your own statement that the US runs on deficit spending, a fairly accessible definition of "real spending" would be the increase in total public debt between any two reference dates. To reiterate what you refuse to recognize, the figures I cite are the total public debt--every thing the US government owes to somebody--and are provided courtesy of the US Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt. They are a primary source, and, unless you have some interesting dish about the Treasury that has yet to be reported, they are authoritative and beyond contestation.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    I'm speaking about Omnibus, not the Stimulus package. 9,000 pieces of pork that was negotiated under Bush's watch and agreed to and politicized by republicans to attempt to gain the upper hand right?
    The bill was signed by Dear Leader, not by Bush. As he had the option--as does every President--to veto the measure, with his signature he attaches a measure of responsibility for the spending therein to himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    You are dishonest for attempting to compare and entire 8 year administration to that of one that isn't even 6 months old. For a true overview weather increased or decreased don't you think it would be best to wait until you have full number to review?
    Correction: The dishonesty is yours for making false statements about my comparisons. I derived the daily spending average for Bush over 2922 days and Dear Leader over 107 days. I then amplified the comparison by illustrating the total spending by Bush through his first 107 days in office (which, remember, was not spending but savings, as total public debt decreased during the first 107 days of the Bush Administration), as well as by extrapolating Dear Leader's spending rate through an entire term of office (1461 days), and included the caveat that the extrapolation was predicated on the presumption of the average holding (this is a generous presumption in light of the reported fact that the deficits are widening, and thus the real spending is increasing, not decreasing).

    Averages are an accepted way of comparing disparate scales.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    You do realize the spending is panned out in some cases across 5, 10 years correct? You do understand that the mojority of the funds that have been approved in fact have not been spent yet. So yes we can do simple math and see what the impact is across time.
    You do realize that, regardless of whether funds are disbursed or not, the total public debt is an incurred obligation.

    You do understand the numbers I cite are daily measures of debt actually incurred, for which the US is actually obligated, as of that date.

    You do realize these obligations stand regardless of future events. Whether the funds are or are not disbursed does not alter the present reality of the present total public debt.

    You do understand this is the spending that has happened. The spending that will/may happen by definition does not yet appear in the current total public debt.

    This is not "projected spending", but real spending, day by day, as measured by the increase in total public debt. It is current, it is real, and it is growing faster than during the Bush Administration.
    Last edited by celticlord; 05-13-09 at 01:56 AM.

  5. #15
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Last Seen
    09-10-09 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    166

    Re: Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    By the same logic you apply to fiscal 2009 being a "Bush budget", a recession beginning in March 2001 is properly attributable to Clinton. If the 2001 recession belongs to Bush, the 2009 spending belongs to Dear Leader. Anything less is a double standard and a failed argument.
    That is the largest pile of bull**** i have every heard. How is the recession "properly attributable to Clinton". I'm debunking your non sense that Bush inherited a recession. Which of course was not the case as i have laid out.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Following on your own statement that the US runs on deficit spending, a fairly accessible definition of "real spending" would be the increase in total public debt between any two reference dates.
    Come on you dont expect me to by that bull**** do you? LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    To reiterate what you refuse to recognize, the figures I cite are the total public debt--every thing the US government owes to somebody--and are provided courtesy of the US Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt. They are a primary source, and, unless you have some interesting dish about the Treasury that has yet to be reported, they are authoritative and beyond contestation.
    Ok, so what I said was in fact true. The US Government has been running on deficit spending for quite some time now. I believe it goes all the way back to Reagan era if not longer.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    The bill was signed by Dear Leader, not by Bush. As he had the option--as does every President--to veto the measure, with his signature he attaches a measure of responsibility for the spending therein to himself.
    It seems like you are just one person with knee jerk reactions without even reading the bill or its contents. The bill was negotiated under Bushes watch. Republicans agree. They come back in January and the whole game has changed and now they suddenly just cant handle the spending right?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Correction: The dishonesty is yours for making false statements about my comparisons. I derived the daily spending average for Bush over 2922 days and Dear Leader over 107 days.
    Im dishonest for wanting a fair comparison of the prior administration and the current? Yes color me dishonest then lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    I then amplified the comparison by illustrating the total spending by Bush through his first 107 days in office (which, remember, was not spending but savings, as total public debt decreased during the first 107 days of the Bush Administration),
    This is also dishonest, what was the end result again? I dont understand you. On one end you want to praise Bush as some steward of our great failed economy for his savings in 3 months, and completely ignore the ailments his administration left on not only our deficit but also our economy. So while Bush continues to be praised for single handly destroying our economy its all praise due because he made cuts in his first 100 days?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    as well as by extrapolating Dear Leader's spending rate through an entire term of office (1461 days), and included the caveat that the extrapolation was predicated on the presumption of the average holding (this is a generous presumption in light of the reported fact that the deficits are widening, and thus the real spending is increasing, not decreasing).
    SO in other words you have no ****ing idea whats going to happen rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Averages are an accepted way of comparing disparate scales.
    Only when doing so with proper data.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    You do realize that, regardless of whether funds are disbursed or not, the total public debt is an incurred obligation.
    So would it not make sense to make cuts to offset that "incurred obligation"?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    You do understand the numbers I cite are daily measures of debt actually incurred, for which the US is actually obligated, as of that date.
    Yep, sure is. However if funds are not disbursed then guess what happens with those funds?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    You do realize these obligations stand regardless of future events. Whether the funds are or are not disbursed does not alter the present reality of the present total public debt.
    If the monies are not spent and have rightly so attributed to public debt what then happens? IS the money going to be used to pay down the debt?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    This is not "projected spending", but real spending, day by day, as measured by the increase in total public debt. It is current, it is real, and it is growing faster than during the Bush Administration.
    There is a stark difference between the two. Investing in America seems to be a priority of this Administration the same cant be said about George. He spent more money rebuilding ANOTHER country than he did right here in his own back yard. I will support any president that takes care of the American people. For christ sakes the basic needs of the nation were ignored as George spent away in Iraq.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    That is the largest pile of bull**** i have every heard. How is the recession "properly attributable to Clinton". I'm debunking your non sense that Bush inherited a recession. Which of course was not the case as i have laid out.
    I did not say Bush "inherited a recession." I said the country was headed in that direction--and it was. Bush did not cause the recession, nor have you supplied anything other than calendar dates to suggest that he did. If you have information to make that argument, please do so. Otherwise, your words lack substance.


    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Come on you dont expect me to by that bull**** do you? LOL
    Have you an alternative to proffer? Otherwise, your words lack substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Ok, so what I said was in fact true. The US Government has been running on deficit spending for quite some time now. I believe it goes all the way back to Reagan era if not longer.
    This is a straw man. That deficits predate Dear Leader is a given, and is not debated. What is at issue is that Dear Leader is spending at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than the presumably spendthrift Bush. The logical fallacy leaves your words without substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    It seems like you are just one person with knee jerk reactions without even reading the bill or its contents. The bill was negotiated under Bushes watch. Republicans agree. They come back in January and the whole game has changed and now they suddenly just cant handle the spending right?
    Dear Leader campaigned on a platform of returning to PAYGO, of stripping out earmarks, and of fiscal responsibility. He then signed a bill that violated each of those promises (an impressive trifecta even for an Anti-Republican). The bill was a monstrosity under Bush, it remained a monstrosity when it was passed, and, despite his campaign commitments to the contrary, Dear Leader refused to take a stand on it other than poo-pooing it as "last year's business." Unless you are prepared to argue the bill was a good bill and not a porkfest, your words are without substance.


    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    This is also dishonest, what was the end result again? I dont understand you. On one end you want to praise Bush as some steward of our great failed economy for his savings in 3 months, and completely ignore the ailments his administration left on not only our deficit but also our economy. So while Bush continues to be praised for single handly destroying our economy its all praise due because he made cuts in his first 100 days?
    Again, you are dishonest. The only "praise" I accorded Bush was that in his first 107 days total public debt declined. Everything else was recitation of fact--a point you steadfastly manage to avoid acknowledging, thus leaving your words without substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    SO in other words you have no ****ing idea whats going to happen rights?
    Wrong. An extrapolation is a projection based on existing trends. We know what will happen broadly speaking--Dear Leader and the Anti-Republicans will add trillions to the public debt, far more than the spendthrift Bush. Again, your words are without substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Only when doing so with proper data.
    You have yet to demonstrate how the data cited is false. Again, your words are without substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    So would it not make sense to make cuts to offset that "incurred obligation"?
    It would make greater sense to make cuts of a proportion to the runaway spending Dear Leader and the Anti-Republicans are foisting on the taxpayers. The cuts made are the equivalent of cutting one pack of chewing gum out of weekly grocery budget of $100. Trumpeting such cuts as evidence of spending restraint leaves your words without substance.


    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Yep, sure is. However if funds are not disbursed then guess what happens with those funds?
    This question makes sense only if you are arguing that the government is stockpiling cash. There is no evidence to support this, and considerable evidence already in the media to the contrary. That lack of evidence leaves your words without substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    If the monies are not spent and have rightly so attributed to public debt what then happens? IS the money going to be used to pay down the debt?
    Paying down debt is not in Dear Leader's budget or the spending priorities of the Anti-Republicans. The unwillingness of the Anti-Republicans to pay down debt leaves your words without substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    There is a stark difference between the two. Investing in America seems to be a priority of this Administration the same cant be said about George. He spent more money rebuilding ANOTHER country than he did right here in his own back yard. I will support any president that takes care of the American people. For christ sakes the basic needs of the nation were ignored as George spent away in Iraq.
    If Dear Leader were investing, my assessment of his dissolute spending habits would be different. Neither Dear Leader nor the Anti-Republicans are investing in America. There are at least $1.6 Trillion of needed highway, railroad, and bridge repairs needed in this nation--more than double the size of Dear Leader's "stimulus" bill. The amount directed to that need within the "stimulus" bill is barely more than an annual maintenance budget, and even that is going where it is mostly not needed.

    The basic needs of the country are being ignored under Dear Leader at four times the rate they were presumably being ignored under President Bush.

    Your insistence on ignoring that reality leaves your words without substance.

  7. #17
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Last Seen
    09-10-09 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    166

    Re: Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    I did not say Bush "inherited a recession." I said the country was headed in that direction--and it was. Bush did not cause the recession, nor have you supplied anything other than calendar dates to suggest that he did. If you have information to make that argument, please do so. Otherwise, your words lack substance.
    There was not a huge recession when Bush took office nor his first year in office that is a complete myth. If you can please provide any data that would back your assertion?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Have you an alternative to proffer? Otherwise, your words lack substance.
    I did not make that assertion that would be you, so that burden would fall in your lap not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    This is a straw man. That deficits predate Dear Leader is a given, and is not debated. What is at issue is that Dear Leader is spending at a rate several orders of magnitude faster than the presumably spendthrift Bush. The logical fallacy leaves your words without substance.
    Spending on what? I have absolutely no problem with spending on domestic programs, increasing education funding, ensuring relief during economic times. That i have no problem with. For your argument to become true, Obama would need to continue to spend throughout his entire tenure as President. You nor I know the future so as i said before we just might want to wait and see what the end result is right?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Dear Leader campaigned on a platform of returning to PAYGO, of stripping out earmarks, and of fiscal responsibility.
    Obama said that we need earmark reform. He also said he would go line by line in the budget and cut out what was no longer needed (which we have seen fruit of)

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    He then signed a bill that violated each of those promises (an impressive trifecta even for an Anti-Republican). The bill was a monstrosity under Bush, it remained a monstrosity when it was passed, and, despite his campaign commitments to the contrary,
    He never said that he would not pass large legislation. He never said that he would veto any bill with earmarks in it. He said we need earmark reform which we do. However, not all earmarks are actually bad. As seen in the Omnibus bill, the majority of the projects that were listed were actually great investments. Parks, schools, memorials to 9/11 victims etc are not exactly bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Dear Leader refused to take a stand on it other than poo-pooing it as "last year's business." Unless you are prepared to argue the bill was a good bill and not a porkfest, your words are without substance.
    That is because it was last years business that was not concluded before the break. But yes we can argue the good and bad points of omnibus, because it was not all bad.


    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Again, you are dishonest. The only "praise" I accorded Bush was that in his first 107 days total public debt declined. Everything else was recitation of fact--a point you steadfastly manage to avoid acknowledging, thus leaving your words without substance.
    You simply cannot attribute spending to the end all of public debt there are simply to many factors at play. Inflation, Interest etc have unknown impact on the public debt. The decline that was seen under the Bush Administrations infancy were not directly impacted by any decisions that Bush made directly, it was in fact a carryover from the Clinton Administration, you do remember we would be almost debt free if we had adhered to the plan laid out by him.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Wrong. An extrapolation is a projection based on existing trends. We know what will happen broadly speaking--Dear Leader and the Anti-Republicans will add trillions to the public debt, far more than the spendthrift Bush. Again, your words are without substance.
    So you are basing your trends on incomplete data then right?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    You have yet to demonstrate how the data cited is false. Again, your words are without substance.
    Incomplete, not false.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    It would make greater sense to make cuts of a proportion to the runaway spending Dear Leader and the Anti-Republicans are foisting on the taxpayers.
    Gross generalizations be specific. What should be cut?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    The cuts made are the equivalent of cutting one pack of chewing gum out of weekly grocery budget of $100. Trumpeting such cuts as evidence of spending restraint leaves your words without substance.
    I dont know what world you live in but 17 billion is alot of freaking money. Any savings that can be accrued is a good thing regardless to the amount. This goes back to what Obama said on the trail line by line remember.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    This question makes sense only if you are arguing that the government is stockpiling cash. There is no evidence to support this, and considerable evidence already in the media to the contrary. That lack of evidence leaves your words without substance.
    This is quite simple actually, if the money that was budget for spending isnt spent and comes in under budget that ends up saving yes saving us money as it is money that is not spent.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Paying down debt is not in Dear Leader's budget or the spending priorities of the Anti-Republicans. The unwillingness of the Anti-Republicans to pay down debt leaves your words without substance.
    Interesting, historically speaking the country has always performed well under Democratic leadership. And largest declined of debt was seen under democratic president history tells us to the contrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    If Dear Leader were investing, my assessment of his dissolute spending habits would be different. Neither Dear Leader nor the Anti-Republicans are investing in America. There are at least $1.6 Trillion of needed highway, railroad, and bridge repairs needed in this nation--more than double the size of Dear Leader's "stimulus" bill.
    Yes, investing. Infrastructure, Health Care, Education, Suring up entitlement programs you know the things that will actually invest in Americans as they have invested in government. Kinda the same thing he promised folks he would do right?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    The amount directed to that need within the "stimulus" bill is barely more than an annual maintenance budget, and even that is going where it is mostly not needed.
    So where is the funding needed? The majority of the programs affected by the Stimulus funding are getting the relief they need. Education being on that was badly suffering from NCLB among other programs that were underfunded and under performing.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    The basic needs of the country are being ignored under Dear Leader at four times the rate they were presumably being ignored under President Bush.

    Your insistence on ignoring that reality leaves your words without substance.
    The basic needs of the country are being attended to. Healthcare, education, infrastructure, alternative energy etc are the basic needs of our nation.

  8. #18
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    There was not a huge recession when Bush took office nor his first year in office that is a complete myth. If you can please provide any data that would back your assertion?
    Your post #11 in this thread explicitly claims a recession in March of 2001. You contradict yourself here.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    I did not make that assertion that would be you, so that burden would fall in your lap not mine.
    You reject my definition. And you have no alternative to offer. Your argument dies on the spot.


    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Spending on what? I have absolutely no problem with spending on domestic programs, increasing education funding, ensuring relief during economic times. That i have no problem with. For your argument to become true, Obama would need to continue to spend throughout his entire tenure as President. You nor I know the future so as i said before we just might want to wait and see what the end result is right?
    If the spending did the things you suggest, you might have a point. Pork spending does none of these things, so again your argument dies on the spot.

    As for waiting....the time to curtail spending is before the money leaves the wallet, not after. After is too late.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Obama said that we need earmark reform. He also said he would go line by line in the budget and cut out what was no longer needed (which we have seen fruit of)
    And he failed to reform an earmark laden bill presented for his signature. As for the fruit he has provided--one grape from the entire vineyard; a most impressive yield.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    He never said that he would not pass large legislation. He never said that he would veto any bill with earmarks in it. He said we need earmark reform which we do. However, not all earmarks are actually bad. As seen in the Omnibus bill, the majority of the projects that were listed were actually great investments. Parks, schools, memorials to 9/11 victims etc are not exactly bad.
    Rank hypocrisy. Anti-Republican pork is good, Republican pork is bad. Hypocrisy causes your argument to die on the spot.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    That is because it was last years business that was not concluded before the break. But yes we can argue the good and bad points of omnibus, because it was not all bad.
    Agreed. Only the 9,000 pieces of pork were bad, and constituted 9,000 reasons for Dear Leader to veto the bill and tell congress "no more pork."

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    You simply cannot attribute spending to the end all of public debt there are simply to many factors at play. Inflation, Interest etc have unknown impact on the public debt. The decline that was seen under the Bush Administrations infancy were not directly impacted by any decisions that Bush made directly, it was in fact a carryover from the Clinton Administration, you do remember we would be almost debt free if we had adhered to the plan laid out by him.
    What do you think deficit spending is if not additions to the public debt? An increase in public debt captures all spending from all sources, bar none. Moreover, inflation, as well as interest, have a known impact on debt: inflation monetizes outstanding debt and makes new debt more expensive, and interest adds to the total debt directly.



    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    So you are basing your trends on incomplete data then right?
    Wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Incomplete, not false.
    You have not shown either.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Gross generalizations be specific. What should be cut?
    About $1.8 trillion. TARP would be a good start. Not bailing out the parasitical UAW would make a great encore.


    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    I dont know what world you live in but 17 billion is alot of freaking money. Any savings that can be accrued is a good thing regardless to the amount. This goes back to what Obama said on the trail line by line remember.
    Outside the Beltway, $17 billion is a lot. Inside the Beltway, it's chump change.

    As for Dear Leader's "line by line", going on proportions, he's made it maybe halfway through the preamble. He needs to read faster.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    This is quite simple actually, if the money that was budget for spending isnt spent and comes in under budget that ends up saving yes saving us money as it is money that is not spent.
    Well, the government is having to borrow more and more, so there's no savings yet. When there are some, then you can crow about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Interesting, historically speaking the country has always performed well under Democratic leadership. And largest declined of debt was seen under democratic president history tells us to the contrary.
    FDR, LBJ, Carter. Economic disasters each and every one. Enough said.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Yes, investing. Infrastructure, Health Care, Education, Suring up entitlement programs you know the things that will actually invest in Americans as they have invested in government. Kinda the same thing he promised folks he would do right?
    Welfare is not investment. Take infrastructure out, as he's not spending on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    So where is the funding needed? The majority of the programs affected by the Stimulus funding are getting the relief they need. Education being on that was badly suffering from NCLB among other programs that were underfunded and under performing.
    If it's stimulus, it's not relief. If it's relief, it's not stimulus. Make up your mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    The basic needs of the country are being attended to. Healthcare, education, infrastructure, alternative energy etc are the basic needs of our nation.
    What a damn shame for you that these are the things not being addressed by Dear Leader's spending.
    Last edited by celticlord; 05-13-09 at 01:21 PM.

  9. #19
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!

    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,787
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTh!nk3r View Post
    Domestic spending on programs and infrastructure that were well overdue and highly underfunder for well over a decade.
    This is the one that stood out for me in all your emotional ranting. Pork spending and money for corrupt groups like ACORN were overdue and underfunded? Really? Bailing out the auto industry was overdue? Guaranteeing repairs from the government (my tax dollars, and yours) was overdue? Are you serious here or have you just not taken off the rose colored shades yet?
    Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

  10. #20
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Last Seen
    09-10-09 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    166

    Re: Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Your post #11 in this thread explicitly claims a recession in March of 2001. You contradict yourself here.
    Did you even bother to read the information i provided? Expansion stopped in March which ended the growth the economy remained stagnant and then growth spurred again.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    You reject my definition. And you have no alternative to offer. Your argument dies on the spot.
    In other words you can back up your assertions right?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    If the spending did the things you suggest, you might have a point. Pork spending does none of these things, so again your argument dies on the spot.

    As for waiting....the time to curtail spending is before the money leaves the wallet, not after. After is too late.
    Pork spending? You have yet to outline what is considered pork spending. Seriously. You have yet to detail anything that is pork. Seriously lets see who has actually read the legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    And he failed to reform an earmark laden bill presented for his signature. As for the fruit he has provided--one grape from the entire vineyard; a most impressive yield.
    What? So reform should go through congress. You know going the legal route and doing things they way our laws outline.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Rank hypocrisy. Anti-Republican pork is good, Republican pork is bad. Hypocrisy causes your argument to die on the spot.
    Seriously what is the pork you keep talking about can you be specific? This tit for tat is getting kinda boring.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Agreed. Only the 9,000 pieces of pork were bad, and constituted 9,000 reasons for Dear Leader to veto the bill and tell congress "no more pork."
    This right here shows me that you have not read the legislation that was put forth. As i said all earmarks are not bad. Period there is no arguing that point at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    What do you think deficit spending is if not additions to the public debt? An increase in public debt captures all spending from all sources, bar none. Moreover, inflation, as well as interest, have a known impact on debt: inflation monetizes outstanding debt and makes new debt more expensive, and interest adds to the total debt directly.
    So please due tell, what amount of the public debt is adjusted for inflation and interest? Ill wait.



    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Wrong.


    You have not shown either.


    About $1.8 trillion. TARP would be a good start. Not bailing out the parasitical UAW would make a great encore.
    Ahh yes good thing it wasn't the Obama Administration that pushed TARP now was it? I see you bought into more talking points about the UAW. Please, become informed before more rhetoric flies.


    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Outside the Beltway, $17 billion is a lot. Inside the Beltway, it's chump change.

    As for Dear Leader's "line by line", going on proportions, he's made it maybe halfway through the preamble. He needs to read faster.
    17 billion is alot of money period. In the beltway out the beltway its still the same amount. Line by line he's doing fairly well considering he hasnt been in office all that long.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Well, the government is having to borrow more and more, so there's no savings yet. When there are some, then you can crow about them.
    Thats nothing new. Now could you answer the question please?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    FDR, LBJ, Carter. Economic disasters each and every one. Enough said.
    Would it be to much to ask for economical data? Facts would be nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Welfare is not investment. Take infrastructure out, as he's not spending on that.
    Are you sure he isn't spending on infrastructure. Reports in the media say otherwise, so whos lying here?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    If it's stimulus, it's not relief. If it's relief, it's not stimulus. Make up your mind.
    Arguing technicalities i see. Its actually both 2 fold to be honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    What a damn shame for you that these are the things not being addressed by Dear Leader's spending.
    Actually it is. Unless you have blinders on and or suffer from reading comprehension.

    Quote Originally Posted by P/N View Post
    This is the one that stood out for me in all your emotional ranting. Pork spending and money for corrupt groups like ACORN were overdue and underfunded? Really? Bailing out the auto industry was overdue? Guaranteeing repairs from the government (my tax dollars, and yours) was overdue? Are you serious here or have you just not taken off the rose colored shades yet?
    ACORN is corrupt? Oh dear god not another talking point. Now what makes ACORN corrupt? I'm sure you have tons of evidence right? ACORN has not be charged with anything, employees have. That's what happens when people choose to cheat instead of earning their money honest.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •