PDA

View Full Version : Ho Hum...what's a few more billion....?


revefsreleets
11-13-2009, 12:51 PM
http://images8.cafepress.com/product/381372098v5_480x480_Front.jpg

Just read that the deficit is up to 1.7 trillion....higher than Obama's guess of 1.5 trillion. Oh well...probably all Bush's fault anyway....

Let's go watch "American Idol"!

Steelboy84
11-13-2009, 01:16 PM
Nah. Its not all Bush's fault. Only $482 billion of it was his. Taking it from a $128 billion surplus left to him in 2001. Very fiscally responsible of him. :thumbsup:

But as Brian Reidl said "you elect a Democrat President, the government grows. You elect a Republican President, the government grows."

fansince'76
11-13-2009, 01:21 PM
Ah yes, the magical mythical "Clinton Surplus."

revefsreleets
11-13-2009, 01:25 PM
Even if that were true, and supposing that the outgoing administration and Congress had NOTHING to do with the $125 PROJECTED surplus (as it was never actually realized), let's do some math.

125+482 = $607 billion

Now, again, since we're being asked to hold Presidents accountable for ONLY what occurs during their watch, we have a $553 billion dollar deficit created over more than 8 years (because the surplus was projected prior to Bush taking office).

Now the deficit is 1.72 trillion. Only 10 months later.

1.72 tril minus 553 bil = 1.13 trillion dollars.

1.13 TRILLION DOLLARS. In just 10 months. And growing.

AND Obama was elected on the campaign promise to SHRINK the deficit. Shrink it.

And now, just ten months later, it's 1.13 trillion dollars bigger.

revefsreleets
11-13-2009, 01:32 PM
Also, notice on the chart here (if the thing comes out), that the biggest chunk of the surplus disappearing was due to the ALREADY SLOWING ECONOMY. Then there was an income tax shift...and of course tax cuts.

Table 1
Changes in the 2001 Surplus Since April 2001
(Estimates in billions. On-budget amounts only, which exclude Social Security) 2001 surplus predicted by the Administration on April 9, 2001, based on enactment of its proposed budget policies 125
Enacted tax rebates and immediate rate cuts (beyond those proposed by the Administration) -41
Enacted shift of two weeks of corporate income tax receipts from 2001 to 2002 (included in the tax cut bill) -33
Enacted new spending vs. proposed new spending, since April -4
Economic and technical reestimates since April (largely caused by the economic slowdown) -50
Changes in accounting procedures +4
Current OMB estimate of the 2001 surplus 1


So the estimate was hugely flawed from the start.

OK, since THAT argument is dismissed, why is this deficit so high after we were promised the opposite?

Hammer Of The GODS
11-13-2009, 02:12 PM
This is the Democrats response to Odumbass ruining this country...


http://z.hubpages.com/u/861337_f520.jpg


.

theplatypus
11-14-2009, 08:01 AM
I find it truly fascinating that people think things would be different now with any other POTUS. Our entire financial institution is basically on a ventilator. No matter who was President right now there would be bailouts and stimulus packages. The myopic views held by some on this board(actually everywhere) amaze me.

revefsreleets
11-14-2009, 08:40 AM
I find it truly fascinating that people think things would be different now with any other POTUS. Our entire financial institution is basically on a ventilator. No matter who was President right now there would be bailouts and stimulus packages. The myopic views held by some on this board(actually everywhere) amaze me.

A) The spendulus bill (A bill which Obama signed off on while stating "This is a deeply flawed bill") was NOT imminent or inevitable. $787 billion
B) Cash for Clunkers: 3 billion
C) Some of the bank bailouts were not inevitable
D) Basically BUYING GM and Chrysler not inevitable
E) Obama budget had massive spending increases that were NOT inevitable, like $630 Billion more for healthcare (It's right there in the budget)


Blaming the previous administration is a diversion. Saying "this was inevitable" is lazy.

Worst of all, we were PROMISED that the deficit would be reduced, and now it's ballooned almost out of control.

Calling me myopic is simply deflection.

HometownGal
11-14-2009, 08:42 AM
I find it truly fascinating that people think things would be different now with any other POTUS. Our entire financial institution is basically on a ventilator. No matter who was President right now there would be bailouts and stimulus packages. The myopic views held by some on this board(actually everywhere) amaze me.

One of the many issues I have with Obaaaaaaaaama is that he ran his campaign on a PROMISE that this country would see a "change" in the deficit and the economy shortly after he was elected. Whelp - I guess he wasn't too far off. We've seen a "change" alright, but it hasn't been for the better unfortunately.

theplatypus
11-14-2009, 08:49 AM
A) The spendulus bill (A bill which Obama signed off on while stating "This is a deeply flawed bill") was NOT imminent or inevitable. 787 billion
B) Cash for Clunkers: 3 billion
C) Some of the bank bailouts were not inevitable
D) Basically BUYING GM and Chrysler not inevitable
E) Obama budget had massive spending increases that were NOT inevitable


Blaming the previous administration is a diversion. Saying "this was inevitable" is lazy.

Worst of all, we were PROMISED that the deficit would be reduced, and now it's ballooned almost out of control.

And calling me myopic is simply deflection.

I placed no blame on anyone, nor did I take sides. There is nothing to deflect, my post was simply an observation. If you feel that my post was directed at you, that's your issue not mine. However, you helped prove my point by completely ignoring the TARP program in your little list.

theplatypus
11-14-2009, 09:04 AM
One of the many issues I have with Obaaaaaaaaama is that he ran his campaign on a PROMISE that this country would see a "change" in the deficit and the economy shortly after he was elected. Whelp - I guess he wasn't too far off. We've seen a "change" alright, but it hasn't been for the better unfortunately.


Yet once again. I haven't taken sides with anyone. You're making the assumption that my statement is supporting BO. It isn't by any means. This is a huge financial mess that's been a long time coming. No matter who was POTUS they would be facing the same crap. The odds are very good that they would be handling the situation in the same manner.

This mess we're in now really started 30-40 years ago(probably longer than that). It's just a bunch of little mistakes over the years by Reagan, Bush,Clinton,Bush, and Obama that have snowballed into this giant potentially catastrophic event. As a culture we seem to have the attention span and memory of fleas and that might be generous.

GBMelBlount
11-14-2009, 09:42 AM
This is huge financial mess that's been a long time coming.....

This mess we're in now really started 30-40 years ago(probably longer than that).....

As a culture we seem to have the attention span and memory of fleas and that might be generous.

All good points Platypus.

This slide started over 50 years ago imo as the education and mindset of our general population has shifted from embracing the same principles of our founding fathers....freedom, liberty, free markets and self determination......

to government solutions and a socially engineered utopia (in theory at least).

I liken our country to the titanic.....and have not yet decided if that last critical chamber necessary to float this country is still intact....or if it has been breached and is filling with water as this country..... lists dangerously....whether it will ever right itself is becoming less and less likely imo.

If only we could all have government jobs and free healthcare....Now there's a solution! :chuckle:

Steelboy84
11-14-2009, 11:38 AM
Yet once again. I haven't taken sides with anyone. You're making the assumption that my statement is supporting BO. It isn't by any means. This is a huge financial mess that's been a long time coming. No matter who was POTUS they would be facing the same crap. The odds are very good that they would be handling the situation in the same manner.

This mess we're in now really started 30-40 years ago(probably longer than that). It's just a bunch of little mistakes over the years by Reagan, Bush,Clinton,Bush, and Obama that have snowballed into this giant potentially catastrophic event. As a culture we seem to have the attention span and memory of fleas and that might be generous.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

When a Democrat spends like a Democrat, the complaining is there.

When a Republican spends like a Democrat, its "all good".

X-Terminator
11-14-2009, 02:29 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

When a Democrat spends like a Democrat, the complaining is there.

When a Republican spends like a Democrat, its "all good".

Wrong.

I don't know of a single Republican who thinks it's OK whenever a Republican spends money like Democrats do. I know none of the Republicans here do - in fact, all of them were against the original TARP program and didn't believe the taxpayers should be bailing out failed banks. They also agree, for the most part, that Bush was not a fiscal conservative at all.

Steelboy84
11-14-2009, 11:58 PM
Wrong.

I don't know of a single Republican who thinks it's OK whenever a Republican spends money like Democrats do. I know none of the Republicans here do - in fact, all of them were against the original TARP program and didn't believe the taxpayers should be bailing out failed banks. They also agree, for the most part, that Bush was not a fiscal conservative at all.

Yea, YOU don't know of any. Doesn't mean there weren't those who supported his spending to the very end. You keep saying YOU don't know any. Perhaps you don't.

But anyone who supported John McCain was in fact supporting "Bush III." Anyone who supported his spending bills like John McCain did supported "Democrat like" Republican spending.

If McCain was such a "fiscal conservative", he wouldn't have ran away from a debate with Obama to go support that bill. He would have said no. But he didn't. You didn't see Ron Paul support it.

What's interesting is that the same people who dissed Obama for supporting the Bush/Paulson bill praised John McCain for it. Some did, not all, but some conservatives did. Because some said that cost McCain their vote, so they voted third party or not at all.

A lady last night on FOX said that's one reason she didn't support McCain was because he was too much like Bush in her eyes. And she's a conservative.

I may not agree with Ron Paul, but I do respect the man. He didn't wait until the Dems took over in 2006 of Congress or when Obama won the election last November to start protesting.. He protested government spending and the war in Iraq from the get-go. You didn't see him on the Bush "neocon" bandwagon. He didn't support the war. He didn't support the heavy Republican spending. But he wasn't even given a chance in 2008. There are some that say his ideas are too "radical", so they would rather support McCain. Maybe so, but he IS a true conservative.

That's one reason TRUE conservatives turned their backs on the 2001-2006 Republican Party because they were simply "Democrats in GOP clothing".

X-Terminator
11-15-2009, 12:18 AM
Yea, YOU don't know of any. Doesn't mean there weren't those who supported his spending to the very end. You keep saying YOU don't know any. Perhaps you don't.

But anyone who supported John McCain was in fact supporting "Bush III." Anyone who supported his spending bills like John McCain did supported "Democrat like" Republican spending.

If McCain was such a "fiscal conservative", he wouldn't have ran away from a debate with Obama to go support that bill. He would have said no. But he didn't. You didn't see Ron Paul support it.

What's interesting is that the same people who dissed Obama for supporting the Bush/Paulson bill praised John McCain for it. Some did, not all, but some conservatives did. Because some said that cost McCain their vote, so they voted third party or not at all.

A lady last night on FOX said that's one reason she didn't support McCain was because he was too much like Bush in her eyes. And she's a conservative.

I may not agree with Ron Paul, but I do respect the man. He didn't wait until the Dems took over in 2006 of Congress or when Obama won the election last November to start protesting.. He protested government spending and the war in Iraq from the get-go. You didn't see him on the Bush "neocon" bandwagon. He didn't support the war. He didn't support the heavy Republican spending. But he wasn't even given a chance in 2008. There are some that say his ideas are too "radical", so they would rather support McCain. Maybe so, but he IS a true conservative.

That's one reason TRUE conservatives turned their backs on the 2001-2006 Republican Party because they were simply "Democrats in GOP clothing".

Yeah, and what did that get them? A guy in the White House who not only is in over his head, but is doing a great job of expanding existing spending so much that it will take generations (not to mention confiscatory tax rates) to get a handle on it. So in the end, turning their backs on the GOP did more harm than good.

If the Republicans had any guts, they'd have propped up and gotten behind Ron Paul. But he would not have had a chance in hell of winning because the leftists in Washington and in the media would have bludgeoned him daily, calling him a radical, right-wing nutjob and a racist. Yes, many of his ideas are too radical. Some of Obama's ideas are radical too (in fact, I'd say most of them are)...but he ended up getting elected. Go figure.

What this country needs is a center-right President, which would be more representative of the people and the way they live their lives. But I don't see one out there on either side, so instead we're probably going to end up getting Obama vs. Palin in 2012. Ugh. No thanks.

Steelboy84
11-15-2009, 12:41 AM
Yeah, and what did that get them? A guy in the White House who not only is in over his head, but is doing a great job of expanding existing spending so much that it will take generations (not to mention confiscatory tax rates) to get a handle on it. So in the end, turning their backs on the GOP did more harm than good.

If the Republicans had any guts, they'd have propped up and gotten behind Ron Paul. But he would not have had a chance in hell of winning because the leftists in Washington and in the media would have bludgeoned him daily, calling him a radical, right-wing nutjob and a racist. Yes, many of his ideas are too radical. Some of Obama's ideas are radical too (in fact, I'd say most of them are)...but he ended up getting elected. Go figure.

What this country needs is a center-right President, which would be more representative of the people and the way they live their lives. But I don't see one out there on either side, so instead we're probably going to end up getting Obama vs. Palin in 2012. Ugh. No thanks.

Perhaps, but Paul is far from a racist. I doubt anyone on the GOP ticket could have won this time around. Too much bad sentiment held against the Bush clan.

I think a true moderate would serve better than someone who is strictly on the left or right.

Probably Obama vs. Romney or Obama vs. Huckabee in 2012

revefsreleets
11-16-2009, 12:26 PM
I am most certainly taking sides. ONLY a fiscal conservative could have avoided this most recent rash of irresponsible spending, and how many of those have come from the left side of the aisle over the years?

The current administrations second-in-command recently (seriously and sincerely) suggested that "In order to avoid bankruptcy, we need to spend more money" [Money we we don't even have].

And my "little list" left TARP off because A) It was enacted under Bush and B) And will actually probably be paid back. It was necessary, responsible, prudent and is loaded with back-stops to protect the taxpayers. So, yeah, I'm purposely leaving it off my list of POS spending legislation that pumps money into a bottomless black hole of waste.

Bng_Hevn
11-18-2009, 12:26 PM
Yet once again. I haven't taken sides with anyone. You're making the assumption that my statement is supporting BO. It isn't by any means. This is a huge financial mess that's been a long time coming. No matter who was POTUS they would be facing the same crap. The odds are very good that they would be handling the situation in the same manner.

This mess we're in now really started 30-40 years ago(probably longer than that). It's just a bunch of little mistakes over the years by Reagan, Bush,Clinton,Bush, and Obama that have snowballed into this giant potentially catastrophic event. As a culture we seem to have the attention span and memory of fleas and that might be generous.

Actually, it started under Clinton.

I read an article written in '99 that basically predicted the mortgage crisis which is at the center of the economy issues.

Google "Community Reinvestment Act" and you will see how it all began. It started when banks started giving loans to people who couldn't afford them. Granted, the people "should" have been smarter, but they weren't and now the whole country is paying the price.

Godfather
11-18-2009, 01:13 PM
Actually, it started under Clinton.

I read an article written in '99 that basically predicted the mortgage crisis which is at the center of the economy issues.

Google "Community Reinvestment Act" and you will see how it all began. It started when banks started giving loans to people who couldn't afford them. Granted, the people "should" have been smarter, but they weren't and now the whole country is paying the price.

The CRA was passed in the 1970s.

It didn't blow up in our faces until banks were allowed to take on ridiculously high leverage ratios. That was the change that allowed the mortgage crisis to spill over into the rest of the economy. We had all the same problems in the late 1980s--stock market crash, real estate crash, high deficits--but it didn't create the catastrophe that it did in 2008 because the banking industry was more segmented.

revefsreleets
11-18-2009, 03:16 PM
In 1993 Clinton eased up the standards for borrowing...housing numbers figure HUGELY in a Presidents legacy, and he wanted to make it as easy as possible for people to get a mortgage under his watch...

In fact, if you search for sites touting Clinton's accomplishments, one of the first to always pop up is how the home ownership rate was 67.7% by the end of his second term, the highest on record. That was achieved by easing up lending standards which played a huge role in the eventual melt-down.

theplatypus
11-18-2009, 04:20 PM
Actually, it started under Clinton.

I read an article written in '99 that basically predicted the mortgage crisis which is at the center of the economy issues.

Google "Community Reinvestment Act" and you will see how it all began. It started when banks started giving loans to people who couldn't afford them. Granted, the people "should" have been smarter, but they weren't and now the whole country is paying the price.


If you go back even further you'll see the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which led directly to the Savings and Loan scandal of the 80's -90's, all of these things are interconnected. As I said before it's a bunch of small mistakes over the last 30 years or so that have snowballed into what we have today.