• 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 announces his Candidacy for 2012.

And again, I have to point out that the CBO article you linked said nothing whatsoever about each job coasting us $228,000. That's the number you bought -- which comes along with 3.5 million jobs.

And as I pointed out why is the 228,000 number so important to you that you would ignore the total cost of the stimulus and the fact that it didn't make enough difference to create enough employment to get Obama back to the level it was when he took office.
 
Yes, I did post it. Would you like to make that wager I offered once before if I find the post for you?

You are blaming Bush for the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit that you claim Obama inherited when the reality is it was a projected deficit that included TARP of which Obama spent 350 billion. That is typical liberal spin and placing blame instead of accepting responsibility.
 
I posted real figures from actual data, bea.gov. Take your problem up with them, Keep diverting from the lies Obama tells you that you believe.
Holy ****!! You really have no clue what the difference is between nominal figures and real figures, do you?

Here's the link you got those numbers from ...


Current-dollar and "real" GDP

Now look at the figures you posted and tell me which column you posted from ... the "current-dollar" column or the "real" column.

After you're done slapping yourself in the forehead like you could've had a V-8, :doh re-read the definition of "nominal" you gave and see if you can understand why everyone reading this thread is laughing their asses off.


"Nominal numbers (sometimes called categorical numbers) are numerals used for identification only. The numerical value is irrelevant, and they do not indicate quantity, rank, or any other measurement." ~ Conservative
 
Right, when you cannot refute the data resort to spell check and wordsmithing. Delusional

sorry, i just couldn't resist. as for addressing your points, why would i? beating my head against a wall isn't appealing to me.
 
Holy ****!! You really have no clue what the difference is between nominal figures and real figures, do you?

Here's the link you got those numbers from ...


Current-dollar and "real" GDP

Now look at the figures you posted and tell me which column you posted from ... the "current-dollar" column or the "real" column.

After you're done slapping yourself in the forehead like you could've had a V-8, :doh re-read the definition of "nominal" you gave and see if you can understand why everyone reading this thread is laughing their asses off.


"Nominal numbers (sometimes called categorical numbers) are numerals used for identification only. The numerical value is irrelevant, and they do not indicate quantity, rank, or any other measurement." ~ Conservative

Holy crap, Batman, what does real or nominal dollars have to do with the Obama record? Want to apply nominal dollars to Reagan and Bush but ignore the current numbers being generated by Obama. Nice diversion and distortion of reality. Holy crap, Batman, liberals are desparate!
 
sorry, i just couldn't resist. as for addressing your points, why would i? beating my head against a wall isn't appealing to me.

Keep buying the liberal rhetoric and ignoring the liberal results. I always wondered why liberals are so easily brainwashed by rhetoric. How about explaining it to me? This thread is about the Obama candidacy and my question is what economic results has Obama generated that warrant re-election. Supposedly he stopped the loss of jobs, really? then why did it take so much money to generate numbers worse than when he took office? When will you judge his performance the same way you judged Bush's?
 
So then the Obama spending of TARP funds, STimulus and war supplementals had no impact on the deficit? Interesting. What world do you live in?
I'll translate you trying to put words in my mouth as you're own way of surrendering the debate. Suffice it to say, I never said what you just ascribed to me.
 
I'll translate you trying to put words in my mouth as you're own way of surrendering the debate. Suffice it to say, I never said what you just ascribed to me.

Good, glad to hear then that you are rejecting the statement of Obama that he inherited a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit. We are making progress.
 
Holy crap, Batman, what does real or nominal dollars have to do with the Obama record? Want to apply nominal dollars to Reagan and Bush but ignore the current numbers being generated by Obama. Nice diversion and distortion of reality. Holy crap, Batman, liberals are desparate!
Fascinating. You post meaningless numbers and when called on it, resort to your whine about me posting off-topic.

How come you think it's ok for you to post off-topic but not me?

You posted the meaningless nominal GDP figures during Bush's terms, not me. Instead of crying that I'm off-topic for responding to your off-topic post, why don't you at least thank me for teaching you the differecnce between nominal figures and real figures?
 
Good, glad to hear then that you are rejecting the statement of Obama that he inherited a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit. We are making progress.
I didn't reject that. I rejected the position you ascribed to me that I did not take. Before Obama spent a dime, the deficit was already projected to be $1.2 trillion. That's what Bush left for Obama.
 
Fascinating. You post meaningless numbers and when called on it, resort to your whine about me posting off-topic.

How come you think it's ok for you to post off-topic but not me?

You posted the meaningless nominal GDP figures during Bush's terms, not me. Instead of crying that I'm off-topic for responding to your off-topic post, why don't you at least thank me for teaching you the differecnce between nominal figures and real figures?

You are absolutely right when asked why I voted for Bush and Reagan I shouldn't have answered since it was off topic. If I didn't respond to off topic questions then you wouldn't be getting any response at all and thus the attention you require.
 
I didn't reject that. I rejected the position you ascribed to me that I did not take. Before Obama spent a dime, the deficit was already projected to be $1.2 trillion. That's what Bush left for Obama.

That isn't what Obama stated but that is ok, he is given a pass and his supporters will buy it. Projected deficits are one thing, actual are another and Obama contributed significantly to that actual deficit which was different than the projected deficit which obviously didn't include the Stimulus plan which was passed well after the prediction.
 
That isn't what Obama stated but that is ok, he is given a pass and his supporters will buy it. Projected deficits are one thing, actual are another and Obama contributed significantly to that actual deficit which was different than the projected deficit which obviously didn't include the Stimulus plan which was passed well after the prediction.
I would assume the projection was based upon lost revenue from income taxes from lost jobs.
 
I would assume the projection was based upon lost revenue from income taxes from lost jobs.

How do you explain a projection of 1.2 trillion dollars not taking in the 800 billion dollar stimulus plan and war supplemental being accurate even though the end result was pretty close?
 
How do you explain a projection of 1.2 trillion dollars not taking in the 800 billion dollar stimulus plan and war supplemental being accurate even though the end result was pretty close?
The $800 billion dollar stimulus is a bogus figure as not all the money was spent immediately. About 1/3 of the money was tax breaks that resulted in less withholding on paychecks. Some of the money was given to the states to keep teacher and police on payrolls. Other money was for infrastructure projects and doled out over time.

The supplemental was needed because Bush didn't put the money in the budget.
 
The $800 billion dollar stimulus is a bogus figure as not all the money was spent immediately. About 1/3 of the money was tax breaks that resulted in less withholding on paychecks. Some of the money was given to the states to keep teacher and police on payrolls. Other money was for infrastructure projects and doled out over time.

The supplemental was needed because Bush didn't put the money in the budget.

I agree but some of it was, how much? If it was a third in tax cuts then that wasn't in the projections since the stimulus wasn't even created yet. Money spent was added to the deficit as it wasn't in the projections either. You keep making my point. The 1.2 trillion dollar PROJECTION was before the stimulus and thus anything out of that stimulus was Obama's. What was the 2009 deficit and how much do you assign to Obama?
 
How do you explain a projection of 1.2 trillion dollars not taking in the 800 billion dollar stimulus plan and war supplemental being accurate even though the end result was pretty close?
That's easy to explain ... the $1.2 trillion deficit projected on January 7th, 2009, did not include the $787 billion dollar stimulus as that wasn't even passed until February 17th, 2009; signed by the man who didn't even become president until January 20th, 2009.

Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit before he ever spent a dime as president.
 
That's easy to explain ... the $1.2 trillion deficit projected on January 7th, 2009, did not include the $787 billion dollar stimulus as that wasn't even passed until February 17th, 2009; signed by the man who didn't even become president until January 20th, 2009.

Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit before he ever spent a dime as president.

So show me how GW Bush created a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit from October 1, 2008 to January 20, 2009? There was no inherited deficit but instead a projected deficit which of course doesn't include the Obama spending which obviously magically didn't really happen.

I am sure you will find the 1.2 trillion deficit at the same place you find all those saved jobs Obama claims he saved.
 
We're not voting here, we're discussing if Obama deserves 4 more years. And for the sake of discussion, it's fair to assess the job he's doing just as it's fair to compare him against prior administrations.

For example, if Republicans don't think he deserves another 4 years because they feel he's failed with employment, you don't think it's reasonable to show that despite unemployment increasing 13% on his watch at this point, that's still better than every single Republican president, dating back to Herbert Hoover? I view that as a completely appropriate response.

OK fair points. However I feel that the high unemployment rates should not be a reason to not vote for Obama. We are coming out of a financial recession. One where we had overbuilt hosing for many years. It will take a long time to work out of that mess. I blame both republicans and democrats along with their economic advisors for not being hinest about this with the American people.

I do think that the greatest threat to our standard of living is the increasing debt. Just think about the HC bill. People were talking about what we can or cant afford. Then think about the long term interest costs of the debt we are creating just this year. 1.5 trillion of additional debt @ a 5% interest rate ( long term average) means we will pay 75 billion a year forever. This about equates to the cost of insuring the 30 million uninsured. The country already has to make choices of what to cut as the cost of interest on our debt grows. I feel this is the greatest failure of this president ( as well as predecessors, with the exception of Clinton).

The choices of this President will have long term impacts on the standards of living for all Americans. Inflation will impact the poorest of us. This is because as food and oil prices rise, the wages paid to those people will continue to stagnate.

True liberals who understand economics should be outraged at the way Obama has been AWOL when it comes to fixing our structural debt problems.
 
So show me how GW Bush created a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit from October 1, 2008 to January 20, 2009? There was no inherited deficit but instead a projected deficit which of course doesn't include the Obama spending which obviously magically didn't really happen.

I am sure you will find the 1.2 trillion deficit at the same place you find all those saved jobs Obama claims he saved.
Oops, looks like you're about to be proven wrong yet again.

Why you couldn't find this without my help is beyond me, but here it is anyway, even though I fully expect you again won't thank me for schooling you ...


he Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019

January 2009

  • A marked contraction in the U.S. economy in calendar year 2009, with real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) falling by 2.2 percent.

  • A slow recovery in 2010, with real GDP growing by only 1.5 percent.

  • An unemployment rate that will exceed 9 percent early in 2010.

  • A continued decline in inflation, both because energy prices have been falling and because inflation excluding energy and food prices—the core rate—tends to ease during and immediately after a recession; for 2009, CBO anticipates that inflation, as measured by the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), will be only 0.1 percent.

  • A drop in the national average price of a home, as measured by the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s purchase-only index, of an additional 14 percent between the third quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2010; the imbalance between the supply of and demand for housing persists, as reflected inunusually high vacancy rates and a low volume of housing starts.

  • A decrease of more than 1 percent in real consumption in 2009, followed by moderate growth in 2010; the rise in unemployment, the loss of wealth, and tight consumer credit will continue to restrain consumption—although lower commodity prices will ease those effects somewhat.

  • A financial system that remains strained, although some credit markets have started to improve; it is too early to determine whether the government’s actions to date have been sufficient to put the system on a path to recovery.
The major slowdown in economic activity and the policy responses to the turmoil in the housing and financial markets have significantly affected the federal budget. As a share of the economy, the deficit for this year is anticipated to be the largest recorded since World War II. Under the rules governing CBO’s budget projections—that is, an assumption that federal laws and policies regarding spending and taxation remain unchanged—the agency’s baseline reflects these key points:

  • CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. In CBO’s baseline, the deficit for 2010 falls to 4.9 percent of GDP, still high by historical standards.

  • CBO expects federal revenues to decline by $166 billion, or 6.6 percent, from the amount in 2008. The combination of the recession and sharp drops in the value of assets—most significantly in publicly traded stock—is expected to lead to sizable declines in receipts, especially from individual and corporate income taxes.

  • According to CBO’s estimates, outlays this year will include more than $180 billion to reflect the present-value of the net cost of transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was created in the fall of 2008. (Broadly speaking, that cost is the purchase price minus the present value, adjusted for market risk, of any estimated future earnings from holding purchased assets and the proceeds from the eventual sale of them.) The TARP has the authority to enter into agreements to purchase assets totaling up to $700 billion outstanding at any one time, but the net cost over time will be much less than that amount.

  • The deficit for 2009 also incorporates CBO’s estimate of the cost to the federal government of the recent takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because those entities were created and chartered by the government, are responsible for implementing certain government policies, and are currently under the direct control of the federal government, CBO has concluded that their operations should be reflected in the federal budget. Recognizing that cost in 2009 adds about $240 billion (in discounted present-value terms) to the deficit this year.

  • Economic factors have also boosted spending on programs such as those providing unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance as well as those with cost-of-living adjustments. (Such adjustments for 2009 are large because most of them are based on the growth in the consumer price index over the four quarters ending in the third quarter of 2008.)

Savvy?
 
Oops, looks like you're about to be proven wrong yet again.

Why you couldn't find this without my help is beyond me, but here it is anyway, even though I fully expect you again won't thank me for schooling you ...


he Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019

January 2009

  • A marked contraction in the U.S. economy in calendar year 2009, with real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) falling by 2.2 percent.

  • A slow recovery in 2010, with real GDP growing by only 1.5 percent.

  • An unemployment rate that will exceed 9 percent early in 2010.

  • A continued decline in inflation, both because energy prices have been falling and because inflation excluding energy and food prices—the core rate—tends to ease during and immediately after a recession; for 2009, CBO anticipates that inflation, as measured by the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), will be only 0.1 percent.

  • A drop in the national average price of a home, as measured by the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s purchase-only index, of an additional 14 percent between the third quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2010; the imbalance between the supply of and demand for housing persists, as reflected inunusually high vacancy rates and a low volume of housing starts.

  • A decrease of more than 1 percent in real consumption in 2009, followed by moderate growth in 2010; the rise in unemployment, the loss of wealth, and tight consumer credit will continue to restrain consumption—although lower commodity prices will ease those effects somewhat.

  • A financial system that remains strained, although some credit markets have started to improve; it is too early to determine whether the government’s actions to date have been sufficient to put the system on a path to recovery.
The major slowdown in economic activity and the policy responses to the turmoil in the housing and financial markets have significantly affected the federal budget. As a share of the economy, the deficit for this year is anticipated to be the largest recorded since World War II. Under the rules governing CBO’s budget projections—that is, an assumption that federal laws and policies regarding spending and taxation remain unchanged—the agency’s baseline reflects these key points:

  • CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. In CBO’s baseline, the deficit for 2010 falls to 4.9 percent of GDP, still high by historical standards.

  • CBO expects federal revenues to decline by $166 billion, or 6.6 percent, from the amount in 2008. The combination of the recession and sharp drops in the value of assets—most significantly in publicly traded stock—is expected to lead to sizable declines in receipts, especially from individual and corporate income taxes.

  • According to CBO’s estimates, outlays this year will include more than $180 billion to reflect the present-value of the net cost of transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was created in the fall of 2008. (Broadly speaking, that cost is the purchase price minus the present value, adjusted for market risk, of any estimated future earnings from holding purchased assets and the proceeds from the eventual sale of them.) The TARP has the authority to enter into agreements to purchase assets totaling up to $700 billion outstanding at any one time, but the net cost over time will be much less than that amount.

  • The deficit for 2009 also incorporates CBO’s estimate of the cost to the federal government of the recent takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because those entities were created and chartered by the government, are responsible for implementing certain government policies, and are currently under the direct control of the federal government, CBO has concluded that their operations should be reflected in the federal budget. Recognizing that cost in 2009 adds about $240 billion (in discounted present-value terms) to the deficit this year.

  • Economic factors have also boosted spending on programs such as those providing unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance as well as those with cost-of-living adjustments. (Such adjustments for 2009 are large because most of them are based on the growth in the consumer price index over the four quarters ending in the third quarter of 2008.)

Savvy?

Good Lord, man, are you really this dense, do you know what a PROJECTION is? Do you know the difference between TARP and Stimulus? Your comments certainly indicate you are truly and Obama supporter. There is quite a difference between PROJECTIONS and REALITY.

•CBO projects
 
Good Lord, man, are you really this dense, do you know what a PROJECTION is? Do you know the difference between TARP and Stimulus? Your comments certainly indicate you are truly and Obama supporter. There is quite a difference between PROJECTIONS and REALITY.

•CBO projects
That's funny, I would have sworn you relied on projects to make the claim that Obama will add more to the debt in 3+ years than Bush did in 8 ...

... yeppers ... ya sure did ...

Conservative: "...and more debt added in three years than in Bush's 8."

Sheik Yerbuti: "Hmmmm ... how do you figure that? He's only been president for two years."

Conservative: "2011 projected deficit is 1.7 trillion dollars."

Sheik Yerbuti: "Seems you didn't believe in projected deficits before you did."
I like how you pick and choose when projections can be applied and when they can't. Seems your methodology is if the projections make Bush look bad, projections are worthless; but if projections make Obama look bad, they're worth more than gold.
 
Last edited:
That's funny, I would have sworn you relied on projects to make the claim that Obama will add more to the debt in 3+ years than Bush did in 8 ...

... yeppers ... ya sure did ...


Conservative: "...and more debt added in three years than in Bush's 8."

Sheik Yerbuti: "Hmmmm ... how do you figure that? He's only been president for two years."

Conservative: "2011 projected deficit is 1.7 trillion dollars."

Sheik Yerbuti: "Seems you didn't believe in projected deficits before you did."
I like you you pick and choose when projections can be applied and when they can't. Seems your methodology is if the projections make Bush look bad, projections are worthless; but if projections make Obama look bad, they're worth more than gold.

Are you ever going to respond to the actual post? How did President Bush create a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit from October 1, 2008 to January 20, 2009? Seems that all I get are intellectually dishonest statements from liberals.
 
Back
Top Bottom