Obama v Bush effect on the deficit in one graph

[Luddly Neddite]

Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph - The Washington Post

Okay, rw's, close your eyes, stamp your little feet and put your fingers in your ears.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph - The Washington Post

Okay, rw's, close your eyes, stamp your little feet and put your fingers in your ears.

your only purpose on this board is to stir up shit, isn't it?
everything with you is rw's this wr's that..
you are the one who stamps your little feet and puts your fingers in your ears..and bore most on this board with it.

 

[imbalance]

It estimates Obama's total spending from fiscal year 2009-17 including projections to be $1.44T. On the Binet scale of human intelligence, that estimation is profound.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Gosh, Steph, I didn't mean to hit a nerve.

Well, okay, I did but hon, that's what this board is all about and you're one of the worst.

What is it you would like to be called? That's a serious query. I don't blame you for not wanting to be lumped in with some of the most ignorant people in our society but you're sure as hell not an intelligent, educated (read, "elite) lib/Dem, now are you?

Nope, you're a right winger. If you were not a right winger, you wouldn't get your little tighty whities all in a twist because I use the letters "r" and "w" as shorthand for right winger. And, I really can't blame you a bit.

Nonetheless, if there is some other terminology that right wingers, Republicans, teapartiers, etc would prefer to be known by, why of course, nothing would make me happier than to make your wish come true. Just say the word ...

Now, why don't you read the link and comment on that? Its quite educational.

Oh darn, theres that nasty word again.

Never mind. Don't read the link. Education does seem to upset you rw's.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It estimates Obama's total spending from fiscal year 2002-17 including projections to be $1.44T. On the Binet scale of human intelligence, that estimation is profound.

Never mind Miss Stephanies whining, I really am interested in knowing the facts of this. Since you seem to have a different set of numbers at your fingertips, I wonder if you would mind posting them.

Thanks ever so much.

(jk cuz i know you don't.)

 

[skookerasbil]

fAiL..............

This is a POLITICS forum. Posting up bogus graphs doesnt change the political reality that this president is seen as THE definitive drunken sailor of spenders. Only k00ks in the nether-regions of the internet think they can change the perception!!!


Anyway..........nobody cares about George Bush.

 

[Stephanie]

Gosh, Steph, I didn't mean to hit a nerve.

Well, okay, I did but hon, that's what this board is all about and you're one of the worst.

What is it you would like to be called? That's a serious query. I don't blame you for not wanting to be lumped in with some of the most ignorant people in our society but you're sure as hell not an intelligent, educated (read, "elite) lib/Dem, now are you?

Nope, you're a right winger. If you were not a right winger, you wouldn't get your little tighty whities all in a twist because I use the letters "r" and "w" as shorthand for right winger. And, I really can't blame you a bit.

Nonetheless, if there is some other terminology that right wingers, Republicans, teapartiers, etc would prefer to be known by, why of course, nothing would make me happier than to make your wish come true. Just say the word ...

Now, why don't you read the link and comment on that? Its quite educational.

Oh darn, theres that nasty word again.

Never mind. Don't read the link. Education does seem to upset you rw's.

oooooooooo, so many words all to insult someone, it really doesn't make you look any more intelligent...
shit stirring troll is all you are..but most people here already know that.

 

[skookerasbil]

Gosh, Steph, I didn't mean to hit a nerve.

Well, okay, I did but hon, that's what this board is all about and you're one of the worst.

What is it you would like to be called? That's a serious query. I don't blame you for not wanting to be lumped in with some of the most ignorant people in our society but you're sure as hell not an intelligent, educated (read, "elite) lib/Dem, now are you?

Nope, you're a right winger. If you were not a right winger, you wouldn't get your little tighty whities all in a twist because I use the letters "r" and "w" as shorthand for right winger. And, I really can't blame you a bit.

Nonetheless, if there is some other terminology that right wingers, Republicans, teapartiers, etc would prefer to be known by, why of course, nothing would make me happier than to make your wish come true. Just say the word ...

Now, why don't you read the link and comment on that? Its quite educational.

Oh darn, theres that nasty word again.

Never mind. Don't read the link. Education does seem to upset you rw's.

oooooooooo, so many words all to insult someone, it really doesn't make you look any more intelligent...
shit stirring troll is all you are..but most people here already know that.

Hey Stephanie.............make sure to swing through here on election night. I'm going to have you and the rest of the conservatives laughing their ass off, such will be the volumes of gay MSPaint PhotoBucket classics IM going to be rolling out to rub salt into the wound. Its gonna be a fucking hoot............


Like this................

 

[Stephanie]

from Ezra Kline on the WashingtonCompPost, wonkblog

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Okay rw's, where's your proof that this is wrong and you are right?

Oh, don't have any?

As usual, you're all show and no go.

 

[Stephanie]

Gosh, Steph, I didn't mean to hit a nerve.

Well, okay, I did but hon, that's what this board is all about and you're one of the worst.

What is it you would like to be called? That's a serious query. I don't blame you for not wanting to be lumped in with some of the most ignorant people in our society but you're sure as hell not an intelligent, educated (read, "elite) lib/Dem, now are you?

Nope, you're a right winger. If you were not a right winger, you wouldn't get your little tighty whities all in a twist because I use the letters "r" and "w" as shorthand for right winger. And, I really can't blame you a bit.

Nonetheless, if there is some other terminology that right wingers, Republicans, teapartiers, etc would prefer to be known by, why of course, nothing would make me happier than to make your wish come true. Just say the word ...

Now, why don't you read the link and comment on that? Its quite educational.

Oh darn, theres that nasty word again.

Never mind. Don't read the link. Education does seem to upset you rw's.

oooooooooo, so many words all to insult someone, it really doesn't make you look any more intelligent...
shit stirring troll is all you are..but most people here already know that.

Hey Stephanie.............make sure to swing through here on election night. I'm going to have you and the rest of the conservatives laughing their ass off, such will be the volumes of gay MSPaint PhotoBucket classics IM going to be rolling out to rub salt into the wound. Its gonna be a fucking hoot............


Like this................

I'll be here dear..

 

[skookerasbil]

And Stephanie............its the feminist bulldogs that are going to be the most miserable.............

fuggers are going to be beside themselves................

 

[imbalance]

It estimates Obama's total spending from fiscal year 2002-17 including projections to be $1.44T. On the Binet scale of human intelligence, that estimation is profound.

Never mind Miss Stephanies whining, I really am interested in knowing the facts of this. Since you seem to have a different set of numbers at your fingertips, I wonder if you would mind posting them.

Thanks ever so much.

(jk cuz i know you don't.)

I don't blame you for not wanting to post this hilarious graph. So don't blame me for wanting to post it.

Without getting into too much detail (because I don't need to nor does your linked article deserve it) I'll point out a couple blatantly obvious problems with this graph:

There's no accounting for defense spending under Obama while there is for Bush. Continuing Bush's foreign wars and even adding another conflict IS NOT mandatory spending so the fact that it isn't included for Obama tells you all you need to know about your source. Here is what the NY Times didn't want its readers to see:

Expenditures in the United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then there's the fact that the $1.76T price tag of Obamacare alone exceeds the TOTAL COST of $1.44T calculated for Obama.

If you want to argue about the deficit, I'd advise you to consult actual verifiable data:

Historical Tables | The White House
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/historicaltables[1].pdf

 

[daveman]

Okay rw's, where's your proof that this is wrong and you are right?

Oh, don't have any?

As usual, you're all show and no go.

The premise of the graph is:

GOP debt = bad.

Democrat debt = good.

Dismissed.

 

[Seawytch]

This graph shows the difference between budget projections and budget reality. In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies. But every year starting in 2002, the budget fell into deficit. In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush’s policies and the effects of recession. Mr. Obama’s policies in 2009 and 2010, including the stimulus package, added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary.

Th graph Luddly posted showed that "under Mr. Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009. Budget estimates that didn’t foresee the recessions in 2001 and in 2008 and 2009 also contributed to deficits. Mr. Obama’s policies, taken out to 2017, add to deficits, but not by nearly as much."

How the Deficit Got This Big

 

[Sallow]

It estimates Obama's total spending from fiscal year 2002-17 including projections to be $1.44T. On the Binet scale of human intelligence, that estimation is profound.

Never mind Miss Stephanies whining, I really am interested in knowing the facts of this. Since you seem to have a different set of numbers at your fingertips, I wonder if you would mind posting them.

Thanks ever so much.

(jk cuz i know you don't.)

I don't blame you for not wanting to post this hilarious graph. So don't blame me for wanting to post it.

Without getting into too much detail (because I don't need to nor does your linked article deserve it) I'll point out a couple blatantly obvious problems with this graph:

There's no accounting for defense spending under Obama while there is for Bush. Continuing Bush's foreign wars and even adding another conflict IS NOT mandatory spending so the fact that it isn't included for Obama tells you all you need to know about your source. Here is what the NY Times didn't want its readers to see:

Expenditures in the United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then there's the fact that the $1.76T price tag of Obamacare alone exceeds the TOTAL COST of $1.44T calculated for Obama.

If you want to argue about the deficit, I'd advise you to consult actual verifiable data:

Historical Tables | The White House
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/historicaltables[1].pdf

Spending for the wars still falls under Bush. He failed to wrap them up before leaving office.

Being that they were "Wars of Choice" that was pretty fucked up of him.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How is that promise that Iraqi oil would pay for our invasion and occupation going?

 

[Seawytch]

Dick Cheney: Deficits don't matter

New GOP: Deficits matter if a Democrat is in office.

 

[Decepticon]

Facts don't matter to CONZ. They don't live in a world of facts. Oh, they take advantage of those who DO, but they themselves see no reason to believe in them.

Just ask some asshat who's dying of cancer if he wants to be treated with only medicine that doesn't support evolutionary biology or medicine developed WITH it.

Ask some righty how old the earth is, then when he answers 6000 years, tell him that petroleum can't form in that short a time and perhaps it's the DEVILS work and he shouldn't use anything derived from Petroleum.