Dow over 17,000. thank you again President Obama. [W:1017, 2344]

[Conservative]

I know, it is hard for St Raygun worshipers to imagine that the 81 cuts didn't cause revenue declines....and they instead point to total revenue....imagining that 81 cuts were the only policy in place, that they caused changes in income, that they shifted income to high quintile individuals...or other nonsense. It is so difficult to understand that the Treasury was NOT looking at TOTAL revenue, but the changes a SINGLE policy had on revenue. The whole apples/oranges problem raises its head again, and no amount of help....will help.

Tell us all again how horrible it is to adjust data with CPI. Poor thing.

Get some help from the elementary school and see if they will also teach you how to admit you are wrong, your CPI numbers have nothing to do with the conditions at the time nor the reality that Reagan cut FEDERAL INCOME TAXES three years in a row, grew FIT Revenue from 250 billion to 403 billion, doubled GDP. Ask the 4th graders if 250 is more or less than 403. Hope you get some help

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Get some help from the elementary school and see if they will also teach you how to admit you are wrong, your CPI numbers have nothing to do with the conditions at the time nor the reality that Reagan cut FEDERAL INCOME TAXES three years in a row, grew FIT Revenue from 250 billion to 403 billion, doubled GDP. Ask the 4th graders if 250 is more or less than 403. Hope you get some help

I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.

 

[Conservative]

I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.

Couldn't ask for a better example of liberalism, anti tax cuts and bogus claims that tax cuts reduced tax revenue.

WE were in a severe recession in 81 to 83. Reagan leadership brought us out of it.

Now we are over 30 years later and people who probably were very young are still demonizing Reagan and actual results. You simply aren't worth any more effort. Have a good day

1980 FIT 250
1988 FIT 403

To a li real that is a cut in revenue

 

[mmi]

This is how you use the quote function

No, that is a very seriously flawed use of the quote function, and I continue to be convinced that yer incorrect use of it is intentional. You have once again cut off part of the contents of the tag, the consequences of which are that readers cannot click on the View Post button to be taken back to my post, AND I am not notified that you've responded to me. You apparently hope that I won't return to the thread at a point that allows me to see that you've responded. I liken this to DA60's pathetic, losing, and I expect false claim that he Ignores me.

>>one more time, If you want me to respond to your posts then use the quote function.

One more time, when I respond to a post, I ALWAYS use the QUOTE function. You just can't get even the first thing right — you can't see what's directly in front of you and has been explained to you over and over and over. What is it about reactionariism that makes it so difficult for people to accomplish even the simplest task?

>>Only in the liberal world apparently is it the government's money first and people being allowed to keep more of what THEY earn is a problem for you.

Completely empty rhetoric, as one would expect. No one's saying whose money it is. If expenditures exceed revenues, there's a deficit. It's very simple. Please work harder to come to a basic understanding of the simple elements of budgeting.

>>large tax cuts to the people who pay most of the taxes has never been a problem for me, why is it such a problem for you?

I'd say it's not necessarily a problem considered in isolation. It becomes a problem when very large revenue losses are suffered as a result, shortfalls that lead to very large deficits.

>>People having more spendable income create more economic activity and that grows revenue.

Again, all things being equal, I'd say that makes sense. However, that increase in income is associated with very large revenue shortfalls. Yer the one complaining about big deficits, right? So why do you support tax policy that creates them? What is it about right-wing Neanderthal teabugger politics that makes people so ignorant and foolish?

>>Reagan created almost 17 million new taxpayers

16.5 million, not seventeen. Reagan had unemployment above seven percent until Oct 1986, seventy months into his presidency, and above eight percent from Nov 1981 until Jan 1984, more than half of his first term. It was never as low under his leadership as it is now, with the hapless, incompetent, lazy, good-fer-nuthin' Negro at the helm.

>>grew FEDERAL INCOME TAX revenue over 60%

Total revenues increased by 65%, from 599 to 991. But notice that outlays increased by 69%, from 678 to 1144. Saint Ronald was a deficit spender, with the debt expanding from 31% of GDP to 50%, and then 63% under his unfortunate successor, Bush 41, who recognized "voodoo economics" when he saw it.

>>They … were repaid. Where did that repayment go?

To the Treasury. Where do you think it went?

>>Cannot understand why someone as smart as you think you are doesn't understand that

I do understand. Yer in the dark as usual.

>>no, they don't reduce revenue

Of course I never suggested they do. They are revenue.

>>they are an expense and when that expense is repaid why didn't it reduce the deficit?

It did reduce the deficit. Try harder and you may be able to follow this simple arithmetic.

>>Right you don't know nor do you care because all you want to do is blame Bush

I do know and I do care. All you do is blame Obummer. Completely inaccurate, and after all this time very boring.

>>he didn't have anything dumped into his lap other than the opportunity to grow the economy and create jobs.

He had a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and a loss of more than eight million jobs dumped in his lap. I will agree that the situation did present an opportunity to make progress. When a patient suffering life-threatening injuries gets fixed up in the ER, that's what I'd call progress.

 

[Conservative]

No, that is a very seriously flawed use of the quote function, and I continue to be convinced that yer incorrect use of it is intentional. You have once again cut off part of the contents of the tag, the consequences of which are that readers cannot click on the View Post button to be taken back to my post, AND I am not notified that you've responded to me. You apparently hope that I won't return to the thread at a point that allows me to see that you've responded. I liken this to DA60's pathetic, losing, and I expect false claim that he Ignores me.

>>one more time, If you want me to respond to your posts then use the quote function.

One more time, when I respond to a post, I ALWAYS use the QUOTE function. You just can't get even the first thing right — you can't see what's directly in front of you and has been explained to you over and over and over. What is it about reactionariism that makes it so difficult for people to accomplish even the simplest task?

>>Only in the liberal world apparently is it the government's money first and people being allowed to keep more of what THEY earn is a problem for you.

Completely empty rhetoric, as one would expect. No one's saying whose money it is. If expenditures exceed revenues, there's a deficit. It's very simple. Please work harder to come to a basic understanding of the simple elements of budgeting.

>>large tax cuts to the people who pay most of the taxes has never been a problem for me, why is it such a problem for you?

I'd say it's not necessarily a problem considered in isolation. It becomes a problem when very large revenue losses are suffered as a result, shortfalls that lead to very large deficits.

>>People having more spendable income create more economic activity and that grows revenue.

Again, all things being equal, I'd say that makes sense. However, that increase in income is associated with very large revenue shortfalls. Yer the one complaining about big deficits, right? So why do you support tax policy that creates them? What is it about right-wing Neanderthal teabugger politics that makes people so ignorant and foolish?

>>Reagan created almost 17 million new taxpayers

16.5 million, not seventeen. Reagan had unemployment above seven percent until Oct 1986, seventy months into his presidency, and above eight percent from Nov 1981 until Jan 1984, more than half of his first term. It was never as low under his leadership as it is now, with the hapless, incompetent, lazy, good-fer-nuthin' Negro at the helm.

>>grew FEDERAL INCOME TAX revenue over 60%

Total revenues increased by 65%, from 599 to 991. But notice that outlays increased by 69%, from 678 to 1144. Saint Ronald was a deficit spender, with the debt expanding from 31% of GDP to 50%, and then 63% under his unfortunate successor, Bush 41, who recognized "voodoo economics" when he saw it.

>>They … were repaid. Where did that repayment go?

To the Treasury. Where do you think it went?

>>Cannot understand why someone as smart as you think you are doesn't understand that

I do understand. Yer in the dark as usual.

>>no, they don't reduce revenue

Of course I never suggested they do. They are revenue.

>>they are an expense and when that expense is repaid why didn't it reduce the deficit?

It did reduce the deficit. Try harder and you may be able to follow this simple arithmetic.

>>Right you don't know nor do you care because all you want to do is blame Bush

I do know and I do care. All you do is blame Obummer. Completely inaccurate, and after all this time very boring.

>>he didn't have anything dumped into his lap other than the opportunity to grow the economy and create jobs.

He had a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and a loss of more than eight million jobs dumped in his lap. I will agree that the situation did present an opportunity to make progress. When a patient suffering life-threatening injuries gets fixed up in the ER, that's what I'd call progress.

We're done here, bye

 

[mmi]

deficits … are calculated at the end of the year so when Bush paid out 400 billion in TARP expenditures that increased the deficit short term but when that 400 billion was repaid in the same fiscal year that should have reduced the deficit.

Treasury kept a full and accurate accounting. The record for FY2009 is what they say it is. Period.

>>It didn't and you blame Bush for Obama re-spending TARP

You have no idea what yer talking about.

>>Then why doesn't BLS show those jobs?

It does. Why can't you see the difference between 146 million (Jun 2008), 138 million (Dec 2009), and 150 million (Dec 2015)?

>>A stimulus us short term economic policy and short term doesn't mean 7 years

When Reagan took over, unemployment was 7.4%. Twenty-one months later, because of his failing GOP SSE policies, it was up to 10.8%, the highest it's been since before the Second World War. Seven years into his presidency, it was 6.6%.

Obummer came in with a rate of 8.3%, it climbed to 10% eight months in, and is now 5%.

>>Please post BLS and Treasury data that shows that?

Deficit in billions

FY2009 — 1413
FY2015 — 468, down 67%, and down as a percentage of GDP (the important stat) from 9.8% to 2.6%, a decline of 73%.

>>You want to give Obama stimulus for creating jobs that BLS doesn't show and then you want to give him credit for reducing the deficit 75% when he drove it up to over a trillion dollars a year for four years still adding over 8.2 trillion to the debt.

The jobs are there. You need to relocate yer head. Obummer didn't drive the deficit to $1.4 trillion, the GOP SSE policies you support did.

>>That is liberal logic

Those are the facts.

How can Bush be responsible for a budget that he didn't sign and wasn't approved by Congress?

Because he was POTUS in Jan 2009, four months into FY2009, at a time when the gubmint was operating under a budget that he had statutory responsibility for.

>>TARP was repaid but the money didn't reduce the deficit.

This idea exists only in yer imagination. It's complete nonsense.

>>According to you the stimulus for shovel ready jobs never occurred either.

I never even suggested that.

>>What is a shovel ready job in your world that doesn't create employment until 3 years later

The labor market began recovering in Jan 2009, eleven months into Obummer's first term. You continue to be unable to handle simple arithmetic. 1.3 million jobs were added in 2010, another 1.6 million in 2011, and 2.4 million 2012. That's 5.3 million in three years. I'd call that "creating employment." An additional 6.7 million have been added over the past four years. Simple math.

Reagan cut FIT three years in a row so how did FIT revenue grow with those tax cuts?

Federal income tax receipts

1981 — 347
1982 — 347, flat
1983 — 326, down 6%
1984 — 355, up 9%
1985 — 396, up 12%

FIT revenue 250 billion 1980
FIT revenue 403 billion 1988

This is individual FIT, excluding corporate. 1981 is the relevant starting point. Carter was POTUS in 1980. Revenues collected in FY1981 were the result of his policies. And of course yer figures are inaccurate. Individual FIT revenue in 1980 was 244 in 1980, it was 286 in 1981, and it was 401 in 1988. Using 80-88, those receipts were up 64%, while federal spending increased by 80%, from 591 to 1064.

What purpose does percentage of GDP serve?

The deficit in 1979 was $41 billion, 1.5% of GDP. In 2015, the deficit was $463 billion, more than ten times as much, but as a percentage of GDP, it was 2.5%, up by 67%, which I figure is a lot less than 1000%. Can you grasp this basic reality?

You people really have a serious problem that makes no sense to people capable of thinking and understanding the value of people keeping more of what they earn

You have a serious problem with basic arithmetic.

WE were in a severe recession in 81 to 83. Reagan leadership brought us out of it.

We were in a brief and mild recession during the first six months of 1980, when Carter was POTUS. The economy then expanded for the next twelve months. After GOP SSE policies were implemented, the economy entered a long and deep recession from Jul 1981 until Nov 1982.

We're done here, bye

You'd do the whole community a big favour if you learned how to discuss the federal budget without making so many large and absurd errors.

 

[Conservative]

Here is a post that I put in another forum which refutes the liberal rhetoric in this forum. It is a post that is being ignored by the left as they continue to post lies, distortions, and diversion from the actual results. Only in the liberal world does verifiable data get trumped by the left rhetoric and opinions.

Addressed to our resident partisan liberal, Vern

Vern, I gave you the link to the debt by day and obviously you have no idea how to access the site so let me help you. Fiscal year 2009 began in October 1, 2008 and ended on September 30, 2009. The debt on that day was 10.1 trillion dollars and there was no budget for fiscal year 2009 so Bush and Congress under Democrat control created continuing resolutions based upon 2008 funding. The fiscal year 2009 budget was signed by Obama in March 2009 and creates spending and revenue for the last half of fiscal year 2009

Now, Vern, not that you will understand it but what happened between October 1 and March 2009 that would have been part of the deficit but not part of the budget process? that's right Vern, TARP, the loan that Bush and Congress agreed upon. Any idea how much was spent between October and the time Bush left office? Want some help? $400 billion dollars. With me so far Vern? Then of course Obama signed the stimulus for shovel ready jobs the first week in February 2009 and obviously money was spent in February and March which wasn't part of the budget process. How much Vern?

Now let's take a look at the debt on October 1, 2008 which was 10.1 trillion dollars and the end of March 2009 the debt was 11.1 trillion dollars or a 1 trillion dollar deficit. With me so far, Vern? Now of that 1 trillion dollars 400 billion was TARP expenditures. Need some help on understanding that TARP was a loan to be repaid and was repaid late in fiscal year 2009. So if there was a deficit of 1 trillion dollars and 400 billion of it was spent on TARP the first 6 months of 2009 and was repaid the latter part of 2009 wouldn't that make Bush responsible for 600 billion dollars in deficits? Oh but there is more, Vern, how much of the stimulus was spent in February and March, Vern? How about maybe 100-200 billion of the 842 billion stimulus? wouldn't that reduce the Bush deficit to 400-500 billion dollars? Of course then Vern there is more, how about the GM/Chrysler takeover, the bailout of AIG, the Afghanistan supplemental expenditures.

So now, Vern, based upon the information above, please explain to us all how Bush is responsible for the 1.4 trillion you claim in deficits for 2009? Doubt you will respond or if you do it will be with some totally incoherent argument or personal attack. It is fun however making you look foolish.

 

[mmi]

what happened between October 1 and March 2009 that would have been part of the deficit but not part of the budget process?

Yer simply incorrect about this. You have no idea what yer talking about.

TARP was authorized by Congress through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), and is overseen by the Office of Financial Stability at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. — "The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Six Years Later,"Law Street Media, Aug 12, 2014​

>>that's right Vern, TARP, the loan that Bush and Congress agreed upon.

No, that's wrong. The funds were authorized by Congress. Ya think Bush had the power to write checks totalling $700 billion against the Treasury without congressional authority?

>>Any idea how much was spent between October and the time Bush left office? Want some help? $400 billion dollars.

So what? Yer the one drawing these lines in the fiscal year. No one else does. Well, no one with a clue at least.

>>Obama signed the stimulus for shovel ready jobs the first week in February 2009 and obviously money was spent in February and March which wasn't part of the budget process.

Wrong again. Where do you get this stuff? Of course that money was "part of the budget process." The whole thing is "the budget process."

>>So if there was a deficit of 1 trillion dollars and 400 billion of it was spent on TARP the first 6 months of 2009 and was repaid the latter part of 2009 wouldn't that make Bush responsible for 600 billion dollars in deficits?

Again, yer the idiot obsessed with this debt clock. The FY2009 deficit was $1.413 trillion. At the very most, you can attribute $450 billion to Obama's actions. A low estimate, offered by a GOP analyst, is around $150 billion. I go with the consensus figure of $250 billion.

And of course the thing to remember is that those additional expenditures weren't for some liiiiiibrul giveaway to porch monkeys and welfare queens, but rather funds used to avoid a worldwide depression, a position we were placed in by policies you support.

>>how much of the stimulus was spent in February and March, Vern?

No one cares. You don't understand how the federal budget operates.

>>there is more, how about the GM/Chrysler takeover, the bailout of AIG

For someone who arrogantly lectures others, yer ignorance is stunning. The auto and AIG bailouts were included in TARP.

>>the Afghanistan supplemental expenditures

That was signed in Dec 2009, seventy-five days after the end of FY2009.

I'll be generous and note that Obummer did sign a supplemental spending bill in Jun 2009 to fund military operations in the Middle East. But ask yerself why we had to cough up more money to conduct operations in that region nearly eight years after we engaged the Taliban in Afghanistan. Because Chaingang, Dumbsfeld, and Associates lied us into invading Iraq in 2003.

>>based upon the information above, please explain to us all how Bush is responsible for the 1.4 trillion you claim in deficits for 2009?

That's not "information," it's yer usual baseless garbage.

Bush is in fact responsible for at least a trillion, and realistically around $1.17 trillion. But that's narrowly defined. When Obummer was campaigning in the spring and summer of 2008, was he proposing a stimulus program to stop a collapse that hadn't yet occurred? The $250 billion that can be "blamed" on Obummer was what had to be done to stop the bleeding caused by GOP SSE policies.

>>you will respond … with some totally incoherent argument or personal attack.

You should be ashamed of yer behaviour in this forum.

>>It is fun however making you look foolish.

You may be having fun, but it's you who's the fool.

 

[DA60]

We're done here, bye

Now you are getting it.

He is a complete waste of time on these matters, IMO.

Good for a laugh, - when he is not using racial slurs - refusing to use quotes or post links all while posting obscure or tainted data that means little to anyone but Obamabots. All the while insulting anyone who dares to disagree with him.

 

[Conservative]

mmi;1065522564]Yer simply incorrect about this. You have no idea what yer talking about.



No, that's wrong. The funds were authorized by Congress. Ya think Bush had the power to write checks totalling $700 billion against the Treasury without congressional authority?

Wow, you are in dire need of a civics class almost as much as Vern. Whose signature is on TARP? Really is quite telling how little you know about the budget process but that doesn't stop you from blaming Bush for the deficit when obviously according to you the Democrat Congress spent the money. No, the budget did not include TARP, the budget was submitted to Congress long before TARP. You my friend are a liberal politicians dream supporter

So what? Yer the one drawing these lines in the fiscal year. No one else does. Well, no one with a clue at least.

Wow, fiscal year is what we pay debt service on,, another reason you need basic civics yet you continue to claim I don't have a clue? Please stop making a fool of yourself, TARP WAS NOT IN THE BUDGET AND BUSH SPENT 350 BILLION BY THE END OF THE YEAR. TARP was part of the deficit that the CBO Projected but as we know TARP was repaid something you don't seem to recognize

Again, yer the idiot obsessed with this debt clock. The FY2009 deficit was $1.413 trillion. At the very most, you can attribute $450 billion to Obama's actions. A low estimate, offered by a GOP analyst, is around $150 billion. I go with the consensus figure of $250 billion.

That is your opinion, I gave you the debt on October 1 and then March 31, 2009 and the deficit was 1.1 trillion dollars. This continues to be a waste of time

And of course the thing to remember is that those additional expenditures weren't for some liiiiiibrul giveaway to porch monkeys and welfare queens, but rather funds used to avoid a worldwide depression, a position we were placed in by policies you support.

TARP wasn't signed by Obama, but rather Bush something apparently you don't understand

No one cares. You don't understand how the federal budget operates.

Then you shouldn't have any problem showing us that TARP Was included in the budget Bush submitted for approval in February 2008 and since there was no budget approved for fiscal year 2009 until Obama signed it how was TARP included in the budget?

For someone who arrogantly lectures others, yer ignorance is stunning. The auto and AIG bailouts were included in TARP.

Keep calling me ignorant for that is all you are good at, name calling, civics, economics, and the budget process, not so much

That was signed in Dec 2009, seventy-five days after the end of FY2009.

This my friend is pure ignorance on your part. You don't even know when the Afghanistan surge occurred

Bush is in fact responsible for at least a trillion, and realistically around $1.17 trillion. But that's narrowly defined. When Obummer was campaigning in the spring and summer of 2008, was he proposing a stimulus program to stop a collapse that hadn't yet occurred? The $250 billion that can be "blamed" on Obummer was what had to be done to stop the bleeding caused by GOP SSE policies.

My patience has run out, you are a waste of time

 

[DA60]

The DOW was higher on Christmas Eve 2013.

The DOW is stuck - like the rest of the economy - in Stagnationville. The only realistic way it is moving forward is with more government/Fed stimulation.

Fundamentals are gone, stimulus is in...along with denial.

My only question is which comes first...more QE or negative interest rates? Both would be stupid...but economic stupidity is the new norm at the central banks of the world.


This will all end badly.

 

[mmi]

He is a complete waste of time on these matters, IMO.

And we all hang on yer opinion.

>>racial slurs

Did you remember to say hey to all yer Negro friends for me?

>>refusing to use quotes or post links

I always use the QUOTE tag when referencing a post by another member. I simply don't use it for further excerpts in that response. Only brainless reactionaries are troubled by my usage.

I often post links. And if you don't like my data, you can post yer sources. You just keep lying outrageously, falsely claiming that I don't source material.

The funny thing is that my references are MUCH easier to follow than yers or Conservative's. You guys post the front page of a site or perhaps the URL for a large document. I typically post graphs created on sites like BLS or the St. Louis Fed. You lose, over and over and over and …

>>all while posting obscure or tainted data that means little to anyone but Obamabots.

You also repeat that crap regularly. And yet not once have you identified ANYTHING I've posted as "obscure or tainted data." Another crushing defeat for you.

>>All the while insulting anyone who dares to disagree with him.

As I've said, I of course have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Arrogant, ignorant morons who are lucky to correctly spell BLS or CBO, and who post the same stupid lies over and over and over and over … yeah, they do get insulted, and deservedly so. ☺

This will all end badly.

We know that's yer fervent hope. I hear Precious may climb to 1200. Maybe you'll be able to cut down on yer Viagra for a while.

 

[mmi]

No, the budget did not include TARP, the budget was submitted to Congress long before TARP.

Still can't get the QUOTE tag right, can ya?

I now see where you've made yer error. Yer confusing the president's budget request with "the budget." The request is an early element in the budget process. But let me assure you, it's all part of "the budget."

They're all chickens. The rooster has sex with all of them.​

>>You my friend are a liberal politicians dream supporter

Thank you. I like to think I work productively to support policies that benefit humanity, and I appreciate yer acknowledging that.

>>fiscal year is what we pay debt service on

And?

>>TARP WAS NOT IN THE BUDGET

It was not in the president's budget request. ALL FUNDS EXPENDED GO THROUGH THE BUDGETING PROCESS.

>>TARP was part of the deficit that the CBO Projected

Hey, ya got one right!

>>TARP was repaid something you don't seem to recognize

Of course I never suggested it wasn't repaid. I suppose now that you got one thing correct, you'll go back to a very long string of getting things wrong.

>>I gave you the debt on October 1 and then March 31, 2009 and the deficit was 1.1 trillion dollars.

No one looks at deficits that way. Funds are expended and revenues are collected irregularly. You have no idea what yer talking about.

>>This continues to be a waste of time

Then stop posting lies and nonsense.

>>TARP wasn't signed by Obama, but rather Bush something apparently you don't understand

Again, yer just making things up. I never suggested that Obama signed TARP or that Bush didn't. Have you been drinking today?

>>you shouldn't have any problem showing us that TARP Was included in the budget Bush submitted for approval in February 2008

Ha! What a clown. Bush, represented by Treasury's Paulson, submitted the proposed legislation on Sept 20, 2008, as the NYT reported the next day. And what kind of request was it? An HTTP request? A FOIA request? Nope, it was … a budget request. The administration asks for money, the Congress then decides if it wants to appropriate funds. It's called "the budget process," and it doesn't end with the president's initial request. Is this sinking in?

>>since there was no budget approved for fiscal year 2009 until Obama signed it how was TARP included in the budget?

Yer confused. Shocking. The complete budget was not approved until after George and Laura had packed up and left town. But TARP was authorized (an important step in the budgetary process, are you following this?) on Oct 3, 2008.

>>Keep calling me ignorant for that is all you are good at

Stop repeating the same nonsense in yer obnoxious, condescending tone, and there'll be no reason to do so.

>>This my friend is pure ignorance on your part. You don't even know when the Afghanistan surge occurred

You mentioned "the Afghanistan supplemental expenditures." As I said, that legislation was signed in Dec 2009, several weeks after FY2009 had ended. That's when the plan known as "the Afghan surge" was announced by Obummer in a speech at West Point. Now Bush did deploy additional troops to the country in the early months of 2008, but there were no supplemental expenditures related to that.

>>My patience has run out, you are a waste of time

You just feel that way because I keep exposing yer nonsense for what it is.

 

[Fenton]

Are you are talking about the 2011 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report, of which Wallison was appointed as a member by Boehner, in which Wallison wrote a 92 page DISSENT, going against the majority view that included many GOP appointed members? Really, the report that Wallison disagreed with...."vindicated" his view?

Nooop....

I'm talking about THIS.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...1u-GscNIRSHzVDVww&sig2=ZsLalpwagmmtToJfeUH_4Q

 

[Conservative]

Still can't get the QUOTE tag right, can ya?

I now see where you've made yer error. Yer confusing the president's budget request with "the budget." The request is an early element in the budget process. But let me assure you, it's all part of "the budget."

They're all chickens. The rooster has sex with all of them.​

>>You my friend are a liberal politicians dream supporter

Thank you. I like to think I work productively to support policies that benefit humanity, and I appreciate yer acknowledging that.

>>fiscal year is what we pay debt service on

And?

>>TARP WAS NOT IN THE BUDGET

It was not in the president's budget request. ALL FUNDS EXPENDED GO THROUGH THE BUDGETING PROCESS.

>>TARP was part of the deficit that the CBO Projected

Hey, ya got one right!

>>TARP was repaid something you don't seem to recognize

Of course I never suggested it wasn't repaid. I suppose now that you got one thing correct, you'll go back to a very long string of getting things wrong.

>>I gave you the debt on October 1 and then March 31, 2009 and the deficit was 1.1 trillion dollars.

No one looks at deficits that way. Funds are expended and revenues are collected irregularly. You have no idea what yer talking about.

>>This continues to be a waste of time

Then stop posting lies and nonsense.

>>TARP wasn't signed by Obama, but rather Bush something apparently you don't understand

Again, yer just making things up. I never suggested that Obama signed TARP or that Bush didn't. Have you been drinking today?

>>you shouldn't have any problem showing us that TARP Was included in the budget Bush submitted for approval in February 2008

Ha! What a clown. Bush, represented by Treasury's Paulson, submitted the proposed legislation on Sept 20, 2008, as the NYT reported the next day. And what kind of request was it? An HTTP request? A FOIA request? Nope, it was … a budget request. The administration asks for money, the Congress then decides if it wants to appropriate funds. It's called "the budget process," and it doesn't end with the president's initial request. Is this sinking in?

>>since there was no budget approved for fiscal year 2009 until Obama signed it how was TARP included in the budget?

Yer confused. Shocking. The complete budget was not approved until after George and Laura had packed up and left town. But TARP was authorized (an important step in the budgetary process, are you following this?) on Oct 3, 2008.

>>Keep calling me ignorant for that is all you are good at

Stop repeating the same nonsense in yer obnoxious, condescending tone, and there'll be no reason to do so.

>>This my friend is pure ignorance on your part. You don't even know when the Afghanistan surge occurred

You mentioned "the Afghanistan supplemental expenditures." As I said, that legislation was signed in Dec 2009, several weeks after FY2009 had ended. That's when the plan known as "the Afghan surge" was announced by Obummer in a speech at West Point. Now Bush did deploy additional troops to the country in the early months of 2008, but there were no supplemental expenditures related to that.

>>My patience has run out, you are a waste of time

You just feel that way because I keep exposing yer nonsense for what it is.

Do you ever admit when you are wrong?

Obama wants another $83 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan - CNN.com

CBO report shows GOP put brakes on ?supplemental? spending bills | TheBlaze.com

During President Barack Obama’s first year in office, 2009, the Democratic-led Congress passed $191 billion worth of supplemental spending bills, a figure that does not count the giant economic stimulus bill that would spend roughly $800 billion over the next few years.

Regarding TARP-a special ‘Supplemental Spending Bill’ which is voted on separately, outside of the budget, each year.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50034

The budget and TARP were voted on separately making TARP not part of the budget process but rather meeting the requirements of a supplemental expense.

Regarding the fact that TARP did not reduce the deficit because it was recycled, you cannot find where TARP repayment and here is why

Geithner Plans To Give Recycled TARP Money To Small Banks

 

[mmi]

Do you ever admit when you are wrong?

I said the bill funding the Afghan surge "was signed in Dec 2009, seventy-five days after the end of FY2009." You claimed that I "don't even know when the Afghanistan surge occurred."

The operation known as "the Afghan surge" was proposed by the president in a speech at West Point on Dec 1, 2009. The supporting legislation was enacted on Dec 16. Therefore, I will point to you and say that you "don't even know when the Afghanistan surge occurred." Will you admit that you were wrong?

I am perfectly willing to "admit" that I was unaware of a supplemental spending bill that was passed in Jun 2009 to fund (among other things) ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The money involved was actually $106 billion, not the 83 Obummer asked for. You'll be happy to know that "Cash for Clunkers" was included.

Yer article from Gunk Blech's rag argues that supplemental spending requests were ended because of Republican opposition beginning in 2010. Another way to look at it is that the Democrats, as promised, ended 43's practice using a lot of supplementals, but couldn't do it in 2009 because, as with the military spending needed for the last half of FY2009, the money just wasn't there in the Bush budget. This short piece is informative: "End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war," PolitiFact, Sept 16, 2010

I would also point to this:

During the first half of this fiscal year, President Bush secured $66 billion in supplemental funding for the wars, fully aware that a second supplement would be needed from the new president. Obama has requested an additional $83 billion supplement (although $7 billion of that is for foreign aid). So $142 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009. Together with base defense spending of $513 billion, it comes to total 2009 military spending of $655 billion.— "Olbermann is right about base defense spending increase," PolitiFact, Apr 13, 2009​

>>TARP-a special ‘Supplemental Spending Bill’ which is voted on separately, outside of the budget, each year.

You didn't get that from CBO.

>>The budget and TARP were voted on separately making TARP not part of the budget process but rather meeting the requirements of a supplemental expense.

This is yer writing. Yer defining "the budget process" as nothing more than the president's budget request. Like others who have at least some clue, I define it as the process wherein public spending is not only requested but also appropriated and authorized.

>>TARP did not reduce the deficit

The outlays increased the deficit, while the receipts reduced it. How could things be otherwise?

>>it was recycled

Perhaps you could offer some detail on this. I can't find any.

>>you cannot find where TARP repayment and here is why

I had better luck with that one.

 

[Conservative]

I said the bill funding the Afghan surge "was signed in Dec 2009, seventy-five days after the end of FY2009." You claimed that I "don't even know when the Afghanistan surge occurred."

I would also point to this:

During the first half of this fiscal year, President Bush secured $66 billion in supplemental funding for the wars, fully aware that a second supplement would be needed from the new president. Obama has requested an additional $83 billion supplement (although $7 billion of that is for foreign aid). So $142 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009. Together with base defense spending of $513 billion, it comes to total 2009 military spending of $655 billion.— "Olbermann is right about base defense spending increase," PolitiFact, Apr 13, 2009​

>>TARP-a special ‘Supplemental Spending Bill’ which is voted on separately, outside of the budget, each year.

You didn't get that from CBO.

>>The budget and TARP were voted on separately making TARP not part of the budget process but rather meeting the requirements of a supplemental expense.

This is yer writing. Yer defining "the budget process" as nothing more than the president's budget request. Like others who have at least some clue, I define it as the process wherein public spending is not only requested but also appropriated and authorized.

>>TARP did not reduce the deficit

The outlays increased the deficit, while the receipts reduced it. How could things be otherwise?

>>it was recycled

Perhaps you could offer some detail on this. I can't find any.

>>you cannot find where TARP repayment and here is why

I had better luck with that one.

You continue to show you are a waste of time and although I reserve the right to respond to you I will limit those responses. You continue to prove that you are a leftwing ideologue incapable of admitting when wrong. Yes, I said Afghanistan surge which was wrong but you were wrong in saying that there were no supplemental requests from Obama and you ignore that supplemental expenses are in addition to the budget not part of the budget. they are included in the deficit thus become part of the debt. There are no line items in the budget for TARP or supplemental expenses like cash for clunkers or whatever you want nor does it matter, they are part of the deficit but NOT part of the budget.

You also ignore that Geithner recycled TARP repayments thus the expenditures which you blame on Bush never got credited to reducing the deficit which would have made the Bush deficit that you blame him for less. Reducing the 1.1 trillion dollar deficit when Bush left office by 400 billion makes it 700 billion, eliminating the Obama supplemental requests would have reduced it another 200 billion dollars which is now 500 billion, and then reducing it the amount of the Stimulus Obama spent between February and March would have reduced it another 100-200 billion dollar or now 300 billion.

You want to blame Bush for the spending for 2009 when his spending authority ran out on March 31 when the continuing resolutions ended. There was no way that the expense authorization bills signed by Bush would have created the deficit you blame him for as you ignore revenue coming in plus the fact that Obama could have reduced spending any time he wanted to the last half of 2009 but didn't and piled on in 2010 and 2011.

One of these days that light bulb is going ot go off in your head. Hope I am here when you finally admit you are wrong about liberalism. Still don't know how to use the quote function for when you do it doesn't repost what I provided you but rather only what you post. That prevents the error message that I have entered too many characters.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Nooop....

I'm talking about THIS.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...1u-GscNIRSHzVDVww&sig2=ZsLalpwagmmtToJfeUH_4Q

"As an aside, forget bipartisanship – the Wallison dissent didn’t even make partisanship status, as the other three Republicans on the FCIC walked away from it. Keith Hennessey, Bill Thomas and Douglas Holtz-Eakin all voted in favor of removing the phrases “Wall Street” and “shadow banking” and the words “interconnection” and “deregulation” from the final FCIC report. They don’t strike me as the types of people who are going to clutch their pearls and faint at the suggestion that if they fudge some numbers and make up some official sounding definitions ad hoc they can discredit regulation of the financial sector, liberal governance and try and steer some Wall Street friendliness to the GOP. And yet all three put maximum distance between themselves and Wallison’s dissent, writing another dissent separately. So this is hardly a problem of Democrats being mean.

But the actual bolded text above – “looked carefully at Pinto’s research, exposed it to the members of the Commission, taken Pinto’s testimony, and tested the accuracy of his research. But the Commission took none of these steps” – is factually incorrect. Wallison made a very similar argument in a Bloomberg editorial recently, which prompted Leonard Architect at DailyKos to take it apart in his post Why Isn’t FCIC Commissioner Peter Wallison Facing Criminal Prosecution After He Lied To Congress? In this great post, Architect links to the actual FCIC documents and reports, all online, where the FCIC listened to Pinto’s testimony, took his research, reviewed his findings, and addressed them directly in the final FCIC majority report. Architect:

Let’s count the lies:
1. The FCIC did look carefully at Pinto’s research;
2. The FCIC did question Pinto at length and accept all his submissions;
3. The FCIC did test the accuracy of Pinto’s research, and
4. Pinto’s research was made available to all members of the FCIC.
5. The FCIC considered and debunked Pinto’s claims, and detailed the process in its report, on page 219 and elsewhere.

In a nutshell, Pinto claimed that there were about 27 million subprime and Alt-A loans, something close to half the national total. he also claimed that about 12 million of those high risk loans were held by Fannie and Freddie. He came up with these numbers by using definitions of “subprime and “Alt-A” that were unique to Pinto alone. The FCIC uncovered a glaring disconnect between actual delinquency rates and Pinto’s categorizations. When it came to actual performance, there was almost no overlap. “High risk” loans held by the GSEs had serious delinquency rates that had only 1/4 the delinquency rates of subprime loans (using everyone else’s definition) and 1/3 the delinquency rate of traditionally defined Alt-A loans. For context, the GSEs’ “high risk” loans had a serious delinquency rate that was below the 6.3% national average at the time."

https://rortybomb.wordpress.com/201...can-spectator-or-where-are-the-fact-checkers/

 

[Conservative]

"As an aside, forget bipartisanship – the Wallison dissent didn’t even make partisanship status, as the other three Republicans on the FCIC walked away from it. Keith Hennessey, Bill Thomas and Douglas Holtz-Eakin all voted in favor of removing the phrases “Wall Street” and “shadow banking” and the words “interconnection” and “deregulation” from the final FCIC report. They don’t strike me as the types of people who are going to clutch their pearls and faint at the suggestion that if they fudge some numbers and make up some official sounding definitions ad hoc they can discredit regulation of the financial sector, liberal governance and try and steer some Wall Street friendliness to the GOP. And yet all three put maximum distance between themselves and Wallison’s dissent, writing another dissent separately. So this is hardly a problem of Democrats being mean.

But the actual bolded text above – “looked carefully at Pinto’s research, exposed it to the members of the Commission, taken Pinto’s testimony, and tested the accuracy of his research. But the Commission took none of these steps” – is factually incorrect. Wallison made a very similar argument in a Bloomberg editorial recently, which prompted Leonard Architect at DailyKos to take it apart in his post Why Isn’t FCIC Commissioner Peter Wallison Facing Criminal Prosecution After He Lied To Congress? In this great post, Architect links to the actual FCIC documents and reports, all online, where the FCIC listened to Pinto’s testimony, took his research, reviewed his findings, and addressed them directly in the final FCIC majority report. Architect:

Let’s count the lies:
1. The FCIC did look carefully at Pinto’s research;
2. The FCIC did question Pinto at length and accept all his submissions;
3. The FCIC did test the accuracy of Pinto’s research, and
4. Pinto’s research was made available to all members of the FCIC.
5. The FCIC considered and debunked Pinto’s claims, and detailed the process in its report, on page 219 and elsewhere.

In a nutshell, Pinto claimed that there were about 27 million subprime and Alt-A loans, something close to half the national total. he also claimed that about 12 million of those high risk loans were held by Fannie and Freddie. He came up with these numbers by using definitions of “subprime and “Alt-A” that were unique to Pinto alone. The FCIC uncovered a glaring disconnect between actual delinquency rates and Pinto’s categorizations. When it came to actual performance, there was almost no overlap. “High risk” loans held by the GSEs had serious delinquency rates that had only 1/4 the delinquency rates of subprime loans (using everyone else’s definition) and 1/3 the delinquency rate of traditionally defined Alt-A loans. For context, the GSEs’ “high risk” loans had a serious delinquency rate that was below the 6.3% national average at the time."

https://rortybomb.wordpress.com/201...can-spectator-or-where-are-the-fact-checkers/

So then what you are saying contradicts the claim here that Bush relaxing lending requirements wasn't a major factor in the financial crisis which has been my contention all along. Thanks so much for agreeing with me. My point was that the housing bubble was created long before Bush took office and continued to build during his term in office putting him in great company with others who are responsible for the housing bubble bursting and it wasn't Bush alone. Finally some truth from a liberal.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So then what you are saying

You have no idea what I posted means, you don't understand that it is not me saying it. I have no interest in debating much of anything with you since your argument has never been able to remain on topic, able to understand what is posted in response to you. Again, you really shouldn't be online all day long posting embarrassing garbage.

 

[iguanaman]

So then what you are saying contradicts the claim here that Bush relaxing lending requirements wasn't a major factor in the financial crisis which has been my contention all along. Thanks so much for agreeing with me. My point was that the housing bubble was created long before Bush took office and continued to build during his term in office putting him in great company with others who are responsible for the housing bubble bursting and it wasn't Bush alone. Finally some truth from a liberal.

I am always amazed at how a conservatives brain works. Please explain to me how the sudden availability of no money down/no income documentation mortgages would not create a surge in bad loans? Since when does "free money" not create demand...and abuse?

 

[Conservative]

You have no idea what I posted means, you don't understand that it is not me saying it. I have no interest in debating much of anything with you since your argument has never been able to remain on topic, able to understand what is posted in response to you. Again, you really shouldn't be online all day long posting embarrassing garbage.

I understand your position perfectly, you have been indoctrinated into the liberal ideology and actual results don't matter because it is all about feelings. What has been posted here is that Bush's relaxed regulations on mortgages led to the housing bubble and the financial crisis. What you posted shows that the relaxed regulations which obviously would have led to major sub prime loan failures didn't happen thus Bush played a minor role in creating the problem. That is what you said, sorry you don't understand it.

 

[Conservative]

I am always amazed at how a conservatives brain works. Please explain to me how the sudden availability of no money down/no income documentation mortgages would not create a surge in bad loans? Since when does "free money" not create demand...and abuse?

The number of bad loans that defaulted is your answer, it wasn't that big of a problem which you want to ignore. I gave you links to the reasons for the financial crisis which confirms that the number of sub prime loans defaulting wasn't the problem which means the relaxing of regulations that allowed for those loans wasn't what you want to believe. That has to make your head explode with all that mis information you have been fed.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

What you posted shows that the relaxed regulations which obviously would have led to major sub prime loan failures didn't happen

On the same page I linked to:

Seriously, your posts are so embarrassing.

 

[Conservative]

On the same page I linked to:

Seriously, your posts are so embarrassing.

Seriously? Are you kidding me. You believe that 28% of 12 million loans brought down the financial industry? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty??