It's the DEFICIT STUPID!

[The Rabbi]

It is truely amazing how many neotards have no clue what a deficit is.. There is no deficit in Obama's budget so any talking point that says otherwise is a moron..

The deficit is the amount we export minus the amount we import. That is it.. Under Bush our biggest manufacturers and exporters cut millions of jobs..

Now if you want to make yourself look like a complete idiot, out of touch with reality, and an uneducated fool, then go ahead and blame Obama..

11 trillion of our national debt belongs to Bush.. Obama has increased it only 1 trillion.. That is it.. Why aren't you neotards concerned about the 11 trillion that was given to Obama.. Along with 2 wars that Bush never considered paying for.. For 4 of those years, Bush didn't bother putting Iraq on the budget..

Under Bush, the deficit was 1.4 trillion.. Now it is 1.7 trillion.. An increase of 300 billion.. Chump change compared to the damage Left by Bush.. Not to mention a failing economy and people losing their jobs and houses...

THIS IS ALL BUSH'S FAULT! THERE IS NO ARGUEMENT TO SAY OTHERWISE.. THE NUMBERS ARE THERE.. THE EVIDENCE IS THERE..

Now why can't all you patheticly stupid neotards come to reality for a change and be an american.. Be a part of the solution and not the problemm.. Right now, like Bush, you are the problem..

The only ignorant moron here is you. You have no clue as to what "deficit" means. You don't even know what Obama says about it.
Go crawl under a rock or something.

The Obama administration predicted a dire future today for the 10-year federal budget deficit, but the White House projection came in about $2 trillion higher than a separate prediction released today by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

White House Announces Higher Deficit Projections; CBO More Optimistic - ABC News

Aren't you the same moron who claimed that health insurers had higher margins than Microsoft??

 

[PatekPhilippe]

It is truely amazing how many neotards have no clue what a deficit is.. There is no deficit in Obama's budget so any talking point that says otherwise is a moron..

The deficit is the amount we export minus the amount we import. That is it.. Under Bush our biggest manufacturers and exporters cut millions of jobs..

Now if you want to make yourself look like a complete idiot, out of touch with reality, and an uneducated fool, then go ahead and blame Obama..

11 trillion of our national debt belongs to Bush.. Obama has increased it only 1 trillion.. That is it.. Why aren't you neotards concerned about the 11 trillion that was given to Obama.. Along with 2 wars that Bush never considered paying for.. For 4 of those years, Bush didn't bother putting Iraq on the budget..

Under Bush, the deficit was 1.4 trillion.. Now it is 1.7 trillion.. An increase of 300 billion.. Chump change compared to the damage Left by Bush.. Not to mention a failing economy and people losing their jobs and houses...

THIS IS ALL BUSH'S FAULT! THERE IS NO ARGUEMENT TO SAY OTHERWISE.. THE NUMBERS ARE THERE.. THE EVIDENCE IS THERE..

Now why can't all you patheticly stupid neotards come to reality for a change and be an american.. Be a part of the solution and not the problemm.. Right now, like Bush, you are the problem..

You fricken dumb ass!!!!!!!
THAT'S A TRADE DEFICIT.

WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Boooooooooooooosh
WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheeeeeeeeeney

In the immortal words of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman "How tall are you? 5' 9" ? I didn't know they stacked shit that high!!!!"

 

[jreeves]

are you serious??

View attachment 8512

2002-2009 are budgets attributed to president bush's administration, looks like obama administration cuts the deficit spending in half by 2012 on the cbo chart, isn't that what the obama administration promised?

Actually the 2009 budget is a shared budget between the two administrations. Also, if you look at the chart at no time, does Obama shrink his deficits below Bush deficits.

 

[jreeves]

It is truely amazing how many neotards have no clue what a deficit is.. There is no deficit in Obama's budget so any talking point that says otherwise is a moron..

The deficit is the amount we export minus the amount we import. That is it.. Under Bush our biggest manufacturers and exporters cut millions of jobs..

Now if you want to make yourself look like a complete idiot, out of touch with reality, and an uneducated fool, then go ahead and blame Obama..

11 trillion of our national debt belongs to Bush.. Obama has increased it only 1 trillion.. That is it.. Why aren't you neotards concerned about the 11 trillion that was given to Obama.. Along with 2 wars that Bush never considered paying for.. For 4 of those years, Bush didn't bother putting Iraq on the budget..

Under Bush, the deficit was 1.4 trillion.. Now it is 1.7 trillion.. An increase of 300 billion.. Chump change compared to the damage Left by Bush.. Not to mention a failing economy and people losing their jobs and houses...

THIS IS ALL BUSH'S FAULT! THERE IS NO ARGUEMENT TO SAY OTHERWISE.. THE NUMBERS ARE THERE.. THE EVIDENCE IS THERE..

Now why can't all you patheticly stupid neotards come to reality for a change and be an american.. Be a part of the solution and not the problemm.. Right now, like Bush, you are the problem..

 

[jreeves]

U.S. may lose AAA-rating, Moody's warns_English_Xinhua
NEW YORK, Oct. 22 (Xinhua) -- The United States my lose its AAA-rating if it can not control its deficit hike, rating agency Moody's Investors Service warned on Thursday.

Steven Hess, Moody's lead analyst for the United States, said in a TV interview that the AAA rating of the United States is "not guaranteed." He said if the U.S. deficit does not drop to a sustainable level in the next three to four years, the U.S. rating will be "in jeopardy."

The U.S. government posted a record deficit of 1.417 trillion U.S. dollars in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30. Stimulus package to combat the severe recession and a series of bailout rescues to banks and automakers have put a heavy burden on government spending.

The Obama administration has predicted that deficits would top 1 trillion dollars through fiscal year 2011.

Does anyone realize what the implications of what a less than an AAA rating would do to lending and interest rates in this country? Thanks Obama and Congress for leading us down the path of economic destruction!

Take Obama out of the picture and you still have trillion dollar deficits and it should also be noted that if Obama were to balance the budget today by budget cuts you would see a 10% reduction to the economy. No president would do that or are you honestly going to say that McCain would have the balls to throw the country into the deepest recession ever.

No one is proposing massive cuts in spending during a recession. How about freezing the greatest expansion of government spending since World War II?
Washington Times - Big government gets bigger
George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.

Not since World War II, when the nation mobilized to fight a global war against fascism and recover from the Great Depression, has government spending played as large a role in the economy as it does today.

This time, it is a rapid mobilization against another global enemy — Islamist terrorism — that lies behind much of the growth. But rising spending on discretionary domestic programs has also played its part.

"We have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society," said Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate vying to replace Mr. Bush in the White House, during the first presidential debate.

That, in fact, was an understatement. No president since FDR — who offered a New Deal to pull the nation out of the Great Depression and then fought World War II — has presided over as rapid a growth in government when measured as a percentage of the total economy.

And now comes the Next Deal — the rapid-fire series of programs announced in recent weeks to deal with a global financial crisis that few Americans even understand. It has begun with a decision to use $700 billion in taxpayer money to buy up financial assets and take an ownership stake in the nation's largest banks and could be followed by a stimulus program of up to $300 billion driven by congressional Democrats.

As a result, Mr. Bush already is the first president in history to implement budgets that crossed the $2 trillion a year and $3 trillion a year marks. His final budget, which comes to an end Sept. 30, conceivably could near $4 trillion, depending on the final tab for the financial rescue.


Then Obama pay as you go comes along....what kind of deficits does he run?
Is It President Obama's Deficit Yet?
Since August 2007 official estimates of current federal budget deficits have soared from about $100 billion to well over $1 trillion. By one reckoning, about 46 cents of every dollar of federal spending this year will be financed by borrowed money—not tax revenue.

Among the reasons for the growing gap between federal tax revenue and spending are the subprime financial crisis and its attendant bailouts, the recession, Detroit, and the initiatives taken by the Obama administration.

As the federal budget deficit has widened, the national debt has soared. The Treasury finances the deficit by offering new securities, driving up the national debt, dollar for dollar with each annual deficit. By the end of calendar 2008, the total national debt had risen to $10.7 trillion, about twice the level eight years earlier.

Is this debt surge just a temporary response in an emergency, one that can be ignored? Probably not.

So about 20 percent of the annual deficit is due to new Obama programs......what happened to pay as you go?

 

[Charles Stucker]

It would help if you people lived in the real world. For starters, Obama didn't run on reducing spending. Beyond that, debt/the deficit is a significant long-run problem. That being said, the idea that you should massive slash government spending in the middle of an economic downturn is juvenile. All historic examples show us that policy is the recipe for extending the downturn

Because FRD managed to spend us out of the great depression.
No wait - he spent and spent and the US only got out of the depression, the Longest in US history, by ramping up in WWII.
Sorry, but your argument does not have a good history to back it.

 

[Polk]

View attachment 8512

Why not compare the actual numbers? The portion of the chart for the Bush years is based on the Bush administration's cooked books. Cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Not counted in those numbers. Ditto the annual Medicare "doctor fix" and spending that comes up every year for natural disaster recovery (all of which, by the way, are accounted for in Obama's budget projections).

Excuse me I was using CBO numbers silly me....

Comparing the Bush numbers to the numbers today is like saying you didn't count a daily slice of chocolate cake and an order of fries when you measured your progress on your diet, but you'll measure them when you consume them in the future and that therefore means you're eating more in the future.

 

[Polk]

Where's Paygo Polk? It was long one of your gripes that Booooosh "let it die." Why haven't the Dems, with complete control over Congress since Jan. 2007 and now with the WH as well, brought back a version of Paygo with some teeth?

Did you just sort of forget about it?

With the exception of ARRA (which, admittedly, is a huge exception), PAYGO is currently in force.

 

[Polk]

Who did? Certianly not Obama. You might remember, when McCain said he would balance the budget by the middle of a second term, Obama laughed that off and said it was "impractical."

So let's be fair, Obama didn't promise fiscal responsibility. He DID say he would go through spending bills "line by line" and remove any waste, and cut or end programs that "weren't working" but that's far from running on a platform of reducing the deficit and balancing the budget. He never made any such promise that I ever saw.

I think the youtube spot previously showed that Obama said he would balance the budget and cut wasteful spending.

Again, my assertion was I never SAW or HEARD him say anything like that, not that he DID not.

I didn't watch the vid, as you can now clearly see.

The video in question is in line with what you said previously.

 

[Polk]

It would help if you people lived in the real world. For starters, Obama didn't run on reducing spending. Beyond that, debt/the deficit is a significant long-run problem. That being said, the idea that you should massive slash government spending in the middle of an economic downturn is juvenile. All historic examples show us that policy is the recipe for extending the downturn. The idea that deficits will be trimmed in the long term by spending cuts is pretty juvenile in general. 75 percent of budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending. Does anyone seriously think the budget is going to be balanced by enacting cuts in those three programs? If you do, they've got this place with white coats that may be of some assistance.

Well most people would take a good strong look at ALL parts of their budget in a crisis. Most will start with the frills, but if that isn't enough, they so things like down size the car or house. If 75% of your budget is going to just three areas, only a fool would ignore them. Actually, the ONLY hope of balancing the budget has to include some cuts in these areas.

P.S. Obama is planning on cuts in Medicare isn't he? Got a rubber room for him?

I'm not saying you're wrong on the merits, only that it's not politically feasible. And no, Obama isn't planning Medicare cuts. All of the supposed "cuts" in the health care bill represent cost savings, but they don't represent any real cuts in service.

 

[Polk]

It would help if you people lived in the real world. For starters, Obama didn't run on reducing spending. Beyond that, debt/the deficit is a significant long-run problem. That being said, the idea that you should massive slash government spending in the middle of an economic downturn is juvenile. All historic examples show us that policy is the recipe for extending the downturn

Because FRD managed to spend us out of the great depression.
No wait - he spent and spent and the US only got out of the depression, the Longest in US history, by ramping up in WWII.
Sorry, but your argument does not have a good history to back it.

History supports my argument. It's your lack of knowledge about the Depression that's showing here. The Great Depression is made up of two smaller recessions. The first went from August 1929 to March 1933. Increases in government spending boosted production in both the industrial and agricultural sectors. By the start of 1937, output, corporate profits, and wages were all back to 1929's levels. The economy falls into a second recession in 1937 (lasting from May 1937 to June 1938). The recession was brought about by massive cuts in government spending and the Federal Reserve tightening monetary policy in an attempt to prevent creation of an inflationary bubble.

 

[Charles Stucker]

It would help if you people lived in the real world. For starters, Obama didn't run on reducing spending. Beyond that, debt/the deficit is a significant long-run problem. That being said, the idea that you should massive slash government spending in the middle of an economic downturn is juvenile. All historic examples show us that policy is the recipe for extending the downturn

Because FRD managed to spend us out of the great depression.
No wait - he spent and spent and the US only got out of the depression, the Longest in US history, by ramping up in WWII.
Sorry, but your argument does not have a good history to back it.

History supports my argument. It's your lack of knowledge about the Depression that's showing here. The Great Depression is made up of two smaller recessions. The first went from August 1929 to March 1933. Increases in government spending boosted production in both the industrial and agricultural sectors. By the start of 1937, output, corporate profits, and wages were all back to 1929's levels. The economy falls into a second recession in 1937 (lasting from May 1937 to June 1938). The recession was brought about by massive cuts in government spending and the Federal Reserve tightening monetary policy in an attempt to prevent creation of an inflationary bubble.

Maybe you should have read a little further in your Wiki article
"By 1936, all the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high."
Which is a pretty good indication that times were actually not better, it was just government hype to promote FDR, the great Socialist.
You know him, the man with the greatest Ponzi scam in history.

 

[jreeves]

Why not compare the actual numbers? The portion of the chart for the Bush years is based on the Bush administration's cooked books. Cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Not counted in those numbers. Ditto the annual Medicare "doctor fix" and spending that comes up every year for natural disaster recovery (all of which, by the way, are accounted for in Obama's budget projections).

Excuse me I was using CBO numbers silly me....

Comparing the Bush numbers to the numbers today is like saying you didn't count a daily slice of chocolate cake and an order of fries when you measured your progress on your diet, but you'll measure them when you consume them in the future and that therefore means you're eating more in the future.

You trying to discredit CBO numbers is like you being a partisan

A twenty percent increase in the deficit is completely unacceptable coming from a President that campaigned to "pay as you go"...

 

[Xenophon]

A twenty percent increase in the deficit is completely unacceptable coming from a President that campaigned to "pay as you go"...

And pay, and pay, and pay, and pay, and pay, and pay...

 

[saveliberty]

It would help if you people lived in the real world. For starters, Obama didn't run on reducing spending. Beyond that, debt/the deficit is a significant long-run problem. That being said, the idea that you should massive slash government spending in the middle of an economic downturn is juvenile. All historic examples show us that policy is the recipe for extending the downturn. The idea that deficits will be trimmed in the long term by spending cuts is pretty juvenile in general. 75 percent of budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending. Does anyone seriously think the budget is going to be balanced by enacting cuts in those three programs? If you do, they've got this place with white coats that may be of some assistance.

Well most people would take a good strong look at ALL parts of their budget in a crisis. Most will start with the frills, but if that isn't enough, they so things like down size the car or house. If 75% of your budget is going to just three areas, only a fool would ignore them. Actually, the ONLY hope of balancing the budget has to include some cuts in these areas.

P.S. Obama is planning on cuts in Medicare isn't he? Got a rubber room for him?

I'm not saying you're wrong on the merits, only that it's not politically feasible. And no, Obama isn't planning Medicare cuts. All of the supposed "cuts" in the health care bill represent cost savings, but they don't represent any real cuts in service.

Thank you for the clarification. Although there are cuts in service for those with Medicare supplement policies. They will pay more for the same services. Perhaps it could be termed a cost shift? Shaft, if your paying.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

We really aren't all that far away from becoming a Third World Banana Republic. Our Dollar won't be worth a whole lot in the future. It really is incredibly shocking watching our Socialists here in this country making all the same disastrous mistakes as all other Third World Banana Republics have made. Pretty depressing.

 

[Care4all]

yes, our history national debt was more than doubled under the Bush administration 8 years.

and it looks like it will almost double again in the next 8 years....

it will take cutting their spending and higher taxes on everyone to show responsibility on our part, to pay down OUR debt....so that we do not lose the AAA rating.... if we lose this rating then we go belly up....we won't be able to pay the merely higher interest payment due on our national debt, let alone the military, and congress and everyone else....
edit!
oh, and we need a stellar economy too, to help get us out of the mega mess...

 

[saveliberty]

Moody's is already considering a reduction in rating for the US government. Correctly so.

 

[Polk]

Because FRD managed to spend us out of the great depression.
No wait - he spent and spent and the US only got out of the depression, the Longest in US history, by ramping up in WWII.
Sorry, but your argument does not have a good history to back it.

History supports my argument. It's your lack of knowledge about the Depression that's showing here. The Great Depression is made up of two smaller recessions. The first went from August 1929 to March 1933. Increases in government spending boosted production in both the industrial and agricultural sectors. By the start of 1937, output, corporate profits, and wages were all back to 1929's levels. The economy falls into a second recession in 1937 (lasting from May 1937 to June 1938). The recession was brought about by massive cuts in government spending and the Federal Reserve tightening monetary policy in an attempt to prevent creation of an inflationary bubble.

Maybe you should have read a little further in your Wiki article
"By 1936, all the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high."
Which is a pretty good indication that times were actually not better, it was just government hype to promote FDR, the great Socialist.
You know him, the man with the greatest Ponzi scam in history.

Didn't come from Wikipedia. Unemployment remained high even after jobs started coming back because it takes job growth just to keep unemployment level. To decrease unemployment, it takes very rapid job growth. That being said the employment situation, while still weak, was significantly better in 1936 than it had been in 1932.

 

[Polk]

Well most people would take a good strong look at ALL parts of their budget in a crisis. Most will start with the frills, but if that isn't enough, they so things like down size the car or house. If 75% of your budget is going to just three areas, only a fool would ignore them. Actually, the ONLY hope of balancing the budget has to include some cuts in these areas.

P.S. Obama is planning on cuts in Medicare isn't he? Got a rubber room for him?

I'm not saying you're wrong on the merits, only that it's not politically feasible. And no, Obama isn't planning Medicare cuts. All of the supposed "cuts" in the health care bill represent cost savings, but they don't represent any real cuts in service.

Thank you for the clarification. Although there are cuts in service for those with Medicare supplement policies. They will pay more for the same services. Perhaps it could be termed a cost shift? Shaft, if your paying.

It's not a cut in service for those people. They won't be paying more for the same services. They'll be paying the same price, but it will cost the government less because they won't be bundling a handout to insurance companies with their payments. It's sorta like the student loan market. Student loans cost taxpayers a lot less money when they were issued directly by the government. Today, they're more expensive because the government pays banks to issue the loans, but banks don't assume any of the risk. The result is the bank makes money if the loan is repaid, which the taxpayers are left holding the bag if it's not.