Federal Reserve: Americans $9 Trillion Richer...

[editec]

You partisans idiots are still trying to pin this economic mess on one POTUS or the other?



G-zeus you guys are dumb.

 

[Chris]

The 09 fiscal year started in Sept. 08, and the budget was made by Bush, not Obama.

So, yes, Bush created a $1 trillion+ federal deficit.

Bush did pass that budget, and that was the last time one was ever passed by the way. However I don't remember Bush passing the 800 billion dollar stimulus package, that's a huge chunk of the deficit right there. Stop lying.

You are right.

Bush spent $2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of America.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Unemployment drops to 8.6%

Auto sales up 13.9%,

Pending home sales up 10%,

Retail sales up 16%,

The stock market up 500 points...

It looks like the train is leaving the station.

Housing market still dropping. UE rate goes down because fewer people are looking for work. Europe a shambles. China slowing down. Stock market poised to drop.
Looks like the second shoe is fixing to drop.
Obama is the worst president since Haffez Assad.

Want to bet?

Still drinking the Kool Aid, believing the economy has improved since Obama took office? Since you love to reply with graphs, Chris, I have included some of my own.

A useful but frequently overlooked unemployment metric is the exhaustion rate: the proportion of claimants who collect all of their unemployment insurance entitlements. A high exhaustion rate indicates that many of the unemployed run out of benefits before finding work; exhaustion rates for regular state benefits average about 50%. Regular benefits last for 26 weeks.
statistics | IncomeAssure

Long-term unemployment is at historic levels for women and men.
• When the recession officially ended in June 2009, the percentage of jobless workers out of work and seeking employment for 27 weeks or more was at 30.1 percent,7 a record high in the postwar period.8 Since then, the percentage has climbed to an astounding 46.5 percent in October 2011. Long-term unemployment among women has risen from 29.3 percent in June 2009 to 46.4 percent in October 2011 – more than a 17 percentage point increase.9 Men’s long-term unemployment has shown a similar increase over this period.
http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/federal_ui_extension_fact_sheet_-_november2011.pdf

The U.S. jobless rate dropped substantially to 9.4% in December, but the government’s broader measure of unemployment dropped at a more modest pace to 16.7%, highlighting the problem of the long-term unemployed.

The comprehensive gauge of labor underutilization, known as the “U-6″ for its data classification by the Labor Department, accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs.
Why Did the Unemployment Rate Drop? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[likeabird03]

The 09 fiscal year started in Sept. 08, and the budget was made by Bush, not Obama.

So, yes, Bush created a $1 trillion+ federal deficit.

Bush did pass that budget, and that was the last time one was ever passed by the way. However I don't remember Bush passing the 800 billion dollar stimulus package, that's a huge chunk of the deficit right there. Stop lying.

You are right.

Bush spent $2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of America.

Obama spent 800 billion in one blow. And that was completely borrowed.

 

[8537]

Bush did pass that budget, and that was the last time one was ever passed by the way. However I don't remember Bush passing the 800 billion dollar stimulus package, that's a huge chunk of the deficit right there. Stop lying.

You are right.

Bush spent $2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of America.

Obama spent 800 billion in one blow. And that was completely borrowed.

No, that's not right. The stimulus bill was about 500B in spending and 300B in tax cuts. Surely you don't consider tax cuts spending?

And on top of that, the spending in the stimulus was spread over three years. IIRC, the impact on year one budget was about 175B.

And on top of that, Bush handed out 350B to banks. Remember?

 

[likeabird03]

You are right.

Bush spent $2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of America.

Obama spent 800 billion in one blow. And that was completely borrowed.

No, that's not right. The stimulus bill was about 500B in spending and 300B in tax cuts. Surely you don't consider tax cuts spending?

And on top of that, the spending in the stimulus was spread over three years. IIRC, the impact on year one budget was about 175B.

And on top of that, Bush handed out 350B to banks. Remember?

I understand it wasn't spent over one year, but it was all included in a single package - including the taxcuts. But I guess taxcuts are only responsible for our deficit when republicans pass them? Oh the hypocrisy of liberals.

Yes, the TARP money was a big chunk, but it was a loan that was for the most part paid back. I've made this point numerous times and you don't read.

 

[8537]

Obama spent 800 billion in one blow. And that was completely borrowed.

No, that's not right. The stimulus bill was about 500B in spending and 300B in tax cuts. Surely you don't consider tax cuts spending?

And on top of that, the spending in the stimulus was spread over three years. IIRC, the impact on year one budget was about 175B.

And on top of that, Bush handed out 350B to banks. Remember?

I understand it wasn't spent over one year, but it was all included in a single package - including the taxcuts.

But it wasn't included in a single budget.

So I guess it's not just the Bush taxcuts responsible for the deficit like most of the left says? Oh the hypocrisy of liberals.

I have no earthly idea how you can read my comment and reach that assumption.

 

[likeabird03]

No, that's not right. The stimulus bill was about 500B in spending and 300B in tax cuts. Surely you don't consider tax cuts spending?

And on top of that, the spending in the stimulus was spread over three years. IIRC, the impact on year one budget was about 175B.

And on top of that, Bush handed out 350B to banks. Remember?

I understand it wasn't spent over one year, but it was all included in a single package - including the taxcuts.

But it wasn't included in a single budget.

So I guess it's not just the Bush taxcuts responsible for the deficit like most of the left says? Oh the hypocrisy of liberals.

I have no earthly idea how you can read my comment and reach that assumption.

You're very selective in what you read, and reply to aren't you? Because if you weren't you would see I was responding to Chris' remark about the 2 trillion dollar war, which wasn't in one budget or appropriation either.

I came to that assumption because you're implying that because a large portion of the stimulus package was taxcuts it somehow doesn't count. Yet liberals will be the first to point out that when Bush cut taxes it was somehow responsible for the deficit we're in. You can't have it both ways.

 

[8537]

I understand it wasn't spent over one year, but it was all included in a single package - including the taxcuts.

But it wasn't included in a single budget.

So I guess it's not just the Bush taxcuts responsible for the deficit like most of the left says? Oh the hypocrisy of liberals.

I have no earthly idea how you can read my comment and reach that assumption.

You're very selective in what you read, and reply to aren't you? Because if you weren't you would see I was responding to Chris' remark about the 2 trillion dollar war, which wasn't in one budget or appropriation either.

The wars under Bush weren't in budgets, period. They were always funded with supplemental appropriations.

I came to that assumption because you're implying that because a large portion of the stimulus package was taxcuts it somehow doesn't count.

No, I'm not implying it "doesn't count". It doesn't count as spending. it counts as lost revenue.

liberals will be the first to point out that when Bush cut taxes it was somehow responsible for the deficit we're in. You can't have it both ways.

They are partly responsible because they are revenue we would otherwise have. The deficit has two factors: revenues and expenses.

 

[likeabird03]

The wars under Bush weren't in budgets, period. They were always funded with supplemental appropriations.

Just like the stimulus right? Democrats have not passed any sort of budget since Obama took power. And I never said they were spread over many budgets, I simply stated that they were never baked into a single budget. They we're included into the overall federal spending figures however, when our deficit was far smaller.

No, I'm not implying it "doesn't count". It doesn't count as spending. it counts as lost revenue.

Then you're point was somewhat irrelevant because it was still part of the bill and figured into the overall package. Also, by liberals rule book should't it be still considered detrimental to the deficit considering all the rhetoric about how detrimental bush tax cuts were on the budge? Why does Obama get a pass?

They are partly responsible because they are revenue we would otherwise have. The deficit has two factors: revenues and expenses.

How do you determine what revenue would have been if it weren't for taxcuts years earlier? You're excluding the positive effects they have on revenue from a growing economy.

 

[Sundial]

You partisans idiots are still trying to pin this economic mess on one POTUS or the other?



G-zeus you guys are dumb.

The financial panic caused the recession. The panic itself was caused by financial assets getting bid up to unsustainable levels. It was the financial markets themselves that caused that. It's a pattern that's been repeated a dozen times over the last couple of centuries.

Whether you want to blame Bush personally I guess is a matter of opinion. It's fair, however, to blame the ideology of "markets are always right," and Bush was - I believe - part of that camp - at least until the shit hit the fan.

The truth is that financial markets are inherently unstable, prone to booms and busts, and that left to their own devices they're perfectly capable of dragging the real economy - the economy of people who work for a living - into the gutter. And then leaving it there - unless or until somebody - specifically, the government - does something about it.

I give Bush credit for rejecting the "markets are always right" approach when he advocating Federal intervention to prevent a collapse of the banking system. Had that intervention not happened, the recession we actually did have would've looked pretty by comparison.

There was $15 trillion of damage done to private sector wealth by the financial panic and the recession. The Federal government - including both Bush (while he was still in office) and Obama have spent a few trillion trying to stop the bleeding. So far, it seems to be working.

More would have been better, though, and the things that Obama is advocating -the Jobs Bill, and the payroll tax cut - are things that will help us get back to full employment faster. That's what ultimately matters.

 

[Sundial]

Democrats have not passed any sort of budget since Obama took power.

I don't understand why you guys keep saying that.

* APRIL 3, 2009

Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget

WASHINGTON -- The House and Senate Thursday approved their versions of a fiscal 2010 budget that included President Barack Obama's biggest priorities, giving the president a significant victory as he works to shift the government's direction from the Bush era.

Democrats made some changes in Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget, but kept intact the core of Mr. Obama's plans for increased spending on health care, energy and education, setting up fierce fights on those issues later this year.

The House vote was 233-196, with 20 Democrats dissenting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) made a point of announcing the results herself. As with the economic stimulus package, no House Republican voted for the Democratic plan.

Thursday's vote marked the first time since 1997 the House passed a budget with more than 230 votes. Democratic leaders had notable success keeping the support of their members, including fiscally conservative ones, in the face of scorching Republican criticism.

Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget - WSJ.com

 

[Chris]

Democrats have not passed any sort of budget since Obama took power.

I don't understand why you guys keep saying that.

* APRIL 3, 2009

Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget

WASHINGTON -- The House and Senate Thursday approved their versions of a fiscal 2010 budget that included President Barack Obama's biggest priorities, giving the president a significant victory as he works to shift the government's direction from the Bush era.

Democrats made some changes in Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget, but kept intact the core of Mr. Obama's plans for increased spending on health care, energy and education, setting up fierce fights on those issues later this year.

The House vote was 233-196, with 20 Democrats dissenting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) made a point of announcing the results herself. As with the economic stimulus package, no House Republican voted for the Democratic plan.

Thursday's vote marked the first time since 1997 the House passed a budget with more than 230 votes. Democratic leaders had notable success keeping the support of their members, including fiscally conservative ones, in the face of scorching Republican criticism.

Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget - WSJ.com

likeabird caught in a lie.

 

[likeabird03]

Democrats have not passed any sort of budget since Obama took power.

I don't understand why you guys keep saying that.

* APRIL 3, 2009

Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget

WASHINGTON -- The House and Senate Thursday approved their versions of a fiscal 2010 budget that included President Barack Obama's biggest priorities, giving the president a significant victory as he works to shift the government's direction from the Bush era.

Democrats made some changes in Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget, but kept intact the core of Mr. Obama's plans for increased spending on health care, energy and education, setting up fierce fights on those issues later this year.

The House vote was 233-196, with 20 Democrats dissenting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) made a point of announcing the results herself. As with the economic stimulus package, no House Republican voted for the Democratic plan.

Thursday's vote marked the first time since 1997 the House passed a budget with more than 230 votes. Democratic leaders had notable success keeping the support of their members, including fiscally conservative ones, in the face of scorching Republican criticism.

Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget - WSJ.com

My mistake, since 2 months after Obama was elected. We haven't had one since then, does this meaning nothing to you? Or are you too busy selectively picking parts of my posts to address the other 80% of what i say or ask you?

 

[likeabird03]

Thanks for highlighting the one bloated budget passed under Obama.

The fact remains.

 

[likeabird03]

Oh and here's one for your Chris -
Americans 2.5 trillion dollars poorer in just the last quarter. This comes after another decline in Q2.
Household Wealth in U.S. Falls for Second Straight Quarter - Businessweek

 

[Oldstyle]

Democrats have not passed any sort of budget since Obama took power.

I don't understand why you guys keep saying that.

* APRIL 3, 2009

Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget

WASHINGTON -- The House and Senate Thursday approved their versions of a fiscal 2010 budget that included President Barack Obama's biggest priorities, giving the president a significant victory as he works to shift the government's direction from the Bush era.

Democrats made some changes in Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget, but kept intact the core of Mr. Obama's plans for increased spending on health care, energy and education, setting up fierce fights on those issues later this year.

The House vote was 233-196, with 20 Democrats dissenting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) made a point of announcing the results herself. As with the economic stimulus package, no House Republican voted for the Democratic plan.

Thursday's vote marked the first time since 1997 the House passed a budget with more than 230 votes. Democratic leaders had notable success keeping the support of their members, including fiscally conservative ones, in the face of scorching Republican criticism.

Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget - WSJ.com

Wow, can't believe you're proud of Obama's one budget passed two and a half years ago. You do realize that every other President managed to submit a budget every year? It's only President Underwhelming that can't seem to do even the most basic duties of the presidency.

 

[JDzBrain]

There has not been a budget passed by this president...EVER! The one that you CLAIM was Obama's was actually the last budget submitted by Bush as a 1.2 trillion dollar budget and BLOATED to 3.6 by the democrats to include giveaways, bailouts and paybacks to Obama's supporters.

And it's been over 900 days since our government has operated on anything but a continuing resolution. So that is TOTAL BULL SHIT!

Obama has only submitted ONE budget proposal since he took office and it was so insane that NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTED FOR IT...NONE!!!

As to the asinine claim that the crash was caused by greedy wall street markets. Have you lost your freakin' mind? The crash was a DIRECT RESULT of government interference in the free market. Does Freddy and Fanny ring a bell? How about the Community Reinvestment Act?

How about the name Dodd? Ever see the footage of him SWEARING they were sound and there was NO NEED for further regulation or auditing?

Dumb asses!

When the government gets in the business of business and picking winners and losers...TAX PAYERS LOOSE!

 

[The Rabbi]

You are right.

Bush spent $2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of America.

Obama spent 800 billion in one blow. And that was completely borrowed.

No, that's not right. The stimulus bill was about 500B in spending and 300B in tax cuts. Surely you don't consider tax cuts spending?

And on top of that, the spending in the stimulus was spread over three years. IIRC, the impact on year one budget was about 175B.

And on top of that, Bush handed out 350B to banks. Remember?

Wow, what a moron.
Do you think tax cuts are free?
Bush did not hand out 350b to banks. That is simply false. Another lie by the most ill-informed poster on this site.

 

[8537]

Then you're point was somewhat irrelevant because it was still part of the bill and figured into the overall package. Also, by liberals rule book should't it be still considered detrimental to the deficit considering all the rhetoric about how detrimental bush tax cuts were on the budge? Why does Obama get a pass?

It WAS detrimental the nations' fiscal position. No one denies that but the loony-tunes. Just like extending the payroll tax cut will be detrimental to our fiscal position - which is why both sides are working to find a way to make up for the lost revenue, either through cuts in spending or increases in revenues.

How do you determine what revenue would have been if it weren't for taxcuts years earlier? You're excluding the positive effects they have on revenue from a growing economy.

No, I'm not excluding anything. There is certainly not a one-for-one tradeoff. Actual research (not bloated talking heads) shows that some tax cuts can see a return of up to 30 or 40 cents increased revenues for each dollar cut, so the cut actually 'costs" the government 60 or 70 cents. Each tax is different, obviously, but it's not a static calculation.