Simple questions - never answered.

[sangha]

It's so hard to discuss economics with someone who learned about the private sector from reading "Das Kaiital" or Paul Krugman.

I think it's pretty clear which of us has a grasp on the private sector and who has only lyrical knowledge about it.

Thanks for pointing out that I read, and have read articles by Krugman as well as excerpts from Dos Kapital (though I must have missed Das Kaital) as an undergrad, and most of the works of the 18th and 19th Century political theorists who influenced our founding fathers.
You, Frank, seem to post contemporary new right bull shit, which suggests your 'learning' has been from secondary sources, most or all of which might be classified as propagandists and members of the Ministry of Truth (those RW authors who choose to re-write history).

so when the tax cuts and regulatory loosening that will sooner or later occur as even the dumbest well, maybe, see them as the last resort and the economy takes off as a result of such, as it has in the past, what will be your excuse this time?

If tax cuts and deregulation make the economy take off, then why did the economy take a dive after 8 years of tax cuts and deregulation?

 

[The Rabbi]

You have as little knowledge as anyone, Rabbi. Why not look at the graphs and comment.

And much more than you.

The numbers are clear. Obama and the Democratic COngress has radically increased spending in a recession, causing the deficit, and therefore the national debt, to skyrocket. Even if it doesn't show up entirely this year, the government's own projections for years out show massive, unsustainable, increases.

This is just fact. It is obvious to anyone not blinded by partisanship. It is a chief reason the Dems lost so badly yesterday.
My question is, what are Democrats going to do about it?

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

Obama's budget cuts the deficit in half over 5 years

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PROPOSED BUDGET SLASHES DEFICIT IN HALF IN JUST FIVE YEARS | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

If you didn't make shit up you might be worth pissing on.
Here's the WHite House's own projections:
White House Long-Term Budget Projections, August 2009
Note the increasing deficits every year. And this is the White House's own projection.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks for pointing out that I read, and have read articles by Krugman as well as excerpts from Dos Kapital (though I must have missed Das Kaital) as an undergrad, and most of the works of the 18th and 19th Century political theorists who influenced our founding fathers.
You, Frank, seem to post contemporary new right bull shit, which suggests your 'learning' has been from secondary sources, most or all of which might be classified as propagandists and members of the Ministry of Truth (those RW authors who choose to re-write history).

so when the tax cuts and regulatory loosening that will sooner or later occur as even the dumbest well, maybe, see them as the last resort and the economy takes off as a result of such, as it has in the past, what will be your excuse this time?

If tax cuts and deregulation make the economy take off, then why did the economy take a dive after 8 years of tax cuts and deregulation?

Um, they didnt?
The economy took off from 2001 to 2007.

 

[sangha]

And much more than you.

The numbers are clear. Obama and the Democratic COngress has radically increased spending in a recession, causing the deficit, and therefore the national debt, to skyrocket. Even if it doesn't show up entirely this year, the government's own projections for years out show massive, unsustainable, increases.

This is just fact. It is obvious to anyone not blinded by partisanship. It is a chief reason the Dems lost so badly yesterday.
My question is, what are Democrats going to do about it?

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

Obama's budget cuts the deficit in half over 5 years

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PROPOSED BUDGET SLASHES DEFICIT IN HALF IN JUST FIVE YEARS | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

If you didn't make shit up you might be worth pissing on.
Here's the WHite House's own projections:
White House Long-Term Budget Projections, August 2009
Note the increasing deficits every year. And this is the White House's own projection.

Wingnut moron doesn't realize the chart he linked to doesn't even have a projection for 2015.

Here's the right chart, from the same website, which shows the deficit going from $1556B (2010) to $752B (in 2015)

http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-10-year-budget-projections-august-2009-2010-6

 

[Foxfyre]

so when the tax cuts and regulatory loosening that will sooner or later occur as even the dumbest well, maybe, see them as the last resort and the economy takes off as a result of such, as it has in the past, what will be your excuse this time?

If tax cuts and deregulation make the economy take off, then why did the economy take a dive after 8 years of tax cuts and deregulation?

Um, they didnt?
The economy took off from 2001 to 2007.

Obama is not to blame, except for his votes as Senator, for the economy he inherited as President. He is 100% to blame for any spending or policy he pushed or agreed to after he became President.

The fact is that George W. Bush inherited an economy that was sliding into a normal mild recession in 2001 and that was severely deepened in the wake of 9/11. The Bush tax cuts pulled us out of that severe recession in record time and we enjoyed years of declining deficts, near full employment, and manageable inflation for the following years until the housing bubble burst in mid 2008. Even in 2008, however, the deficit would have been modest if Congress and Bush had not passed TARP which made up most of the deficit in 2008.

The indefensible spending policies of the Obama administration are bankrupting us and we must turn that around now. Hopefully the new Congress will be able to derail this runaway train and restore some sanity to the process.

 

[sangha]

so when the tax cuts and regulatory loosening that will sooner or later occur as even the dumbest well, maybe, see them as the last resort and the economy takes off as a result of such, as it has in the past, what will be your excuse this time?

If tax cuts and deregulation make the economy take off, then why did the economy take a dive after 8 years of tax cuts and deregulation?

Um, they didnt?
The economy took off from 2001 to 2007.

No, the economy spent itself into bankruptcy. There was no net job creation. The budget deficit, the national debt, and credit exploded

 

[sangha]

If tax cuts and deregulation make the economy take off, then why did the economy take a dive after 8 years of tax cuts and deregulation?

Um, they didnt?
The economy took off from 2001 to 2007.

Obama is not to blame, except for his votes as Senator, for the economy he inherited as President. He is 100% to blame for any spending or policy he pushed or agreed to after he became President.

The fact is that George W. Bush inherited an economy that was sliding into a normal mild recession in 2001 and that was severely deepened in the wake of 9/11. The Bush tax cuts pulled us out of that severe recession in record time and we enjoyed years of declining deficts, near full employment, and manageable inflation for the following years until the housing bubble burst in mid 2008. Even in 2008, however, the deficit would have been modest if Congress and Bush had not passed TARP which made up most of the deficit in 2008.

The indefensible spending policies of the Obama administration are bankrupting us and we must turn that around now. Hopefully the new Congress will be able to derail this runaway train and restore some sanity to the process.

The #'s for the 2009 budget belong to bush* and the republicans. The budget for 2009 was passed by bush* and the republicans in congress.

As soon as Obama's budget kicks in, the chart shows the deficit headed down

 

[Foxfyre]

Um, they didnt?
The economy took off from 2001 to 2007.

Obama is not to blame, except for his votes as Senator, for the economy he inherited as President. He is 100% to blame for any spending or policy he pushed or agreed to after he became President.

The fact is that George W. Bush inherited an economy that was sliding into a normal mild recession in 2001 and that was severely deepened in the wake of 9/11. The Bush tax cuts pulled us out of that severe recession in record time and we enjoyed years of declining deficts, near full employment, and manageable inflation for the following years until the housing bubble burst in mid 2008. Even in 2008, however, the deficit would have been modest if Congress and Bush had not passed TARP which made up most of the deficit in 2008.

The indefensible spending policies of the Obama administration are bankrupting us and we must turn that around now. Hopefully the new Congress will be able to derail this runaway train and restore some sanity to the process.

The #'s for the 2009 budget belong to bush* and the republicans. The budget for 2009 was passed by bush* and the republicans in congress.

As soon as Obama's budget kicks in, the chart shows the deficit headed down

No, the 2009 budget was passed by a Democratically controlled Congress controlled by Pelosi and Reid who didn't complete the final appropriations bill until after Obama took office and would sign the pork laden excessive bills they put out there even in a financial crisis. Bush had NOTHING to do with the stimulus package or how the last half of the TARP funds were distributed after January 2009.

 

[Trajan]

Um, they didnt?
The economy took off from 2001 to 2007.

Obama is not to blame, except for his votes as Senator, for the economy he inherited as President. He is 100% to blame for any spending or policy he pushed or agreed to after he became President.

The fact is that George W. Bush inherited an economy that was sliding into a normal mild recession in 2001 and that was severely deepened in the wake of 9/11. The Bush tax cuts pulled us out of that severe recession in record time and we enjoyed years of declining deficts, near full employment, and manageable inflation for the following years until the housing bubble burst in mid 2008. Even in 2008, however, the deficit would have been modest if Congress and Bush had not passed TARP which made up most of the deficit in 2008.

The indefensible spending policies of the Obama administration are bankrupting us and we must turn that around now. Hopefully the new Congress will be able to derail this runaway train and restore some sanity to the process.

The #'s for the 2009 budget belong to bush* and the republicans. The budget for 2009 was passed by bush* and the republicans in congress.

As soon as Obama's budget kicks in, the chart shows the deficit headed down

uhm what? hello? Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 1105) March 2009..? and that was only a 6 month budget, why? because the dems would not approve a whole budget in bushs last year.....then they punted entirely for the 11 budget....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wry,

The roof has a leak because Progressives built a bonfire on it, the only solution is to build another bonfire on the roof!

Focus, Wry, focus.

Stop taking roofies

 

[sangha]

Obama is not to blame, except for his votes as Senator, for the economy he inherited as President. He is 100% to blame for any spending or policy he pushed or agreed to after he became President.

The fact is that George W. Bush inherited an economy that was sliding into a normal mild recession in 2001 and that was severely deepened in the wake of 9/11. The Bush tax cuts pulled us out of that severe recession in record time and we enjoyed years of declining deficts, near full employment, and manageable inflation for the following years until the housing bubble burst in mid 2008. Even in 2008, however, the deficit would have been modest if Congress and Bush had not passed TARP which made up most of the deficit in 2008.

The indefensible spending policies of the Obama administration are bankrupting us and we must turn that around now. Hopefully the new Congress will be able to derail this runaway train and restore some sanity to the process.

The #'s for the 2009 budget belong to bush* and the republicans. The budget for 2009 was passed by bush* and the republicans in congress.

As soon as Obama's budget kicks in, the chart shows the deficit headed down

No, the 2009 budget was passed by a Democratically controlled Congress controlled by Pelosi and Reid who didn't complete the final appropriations bill until after Obama took office and would sign the pork laden excessive bills they put out there even in a financial crisis. Bush had NOTHING to do with the stimulus package or how the last half of the TARP funds were distributed after January 2009.

bush*'s 2009 budget broke records. The facts are clear.

And bush*'s numbers didn't include the costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, so in fact, his deficits are even larger. That's why bush* and the republicans almost DOUBLED the national debt

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 was a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008-September 2009. Figures shown in this article do not reflect the actual appropriations by Congress for Fiscal Year 2009.

With projected receipts less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicts a net deficit of approximately $400 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $11.4 trillion. Actual tax receipts totaled approximately $2.1 trillion - significantly less than the $2.7 trillion expected. The actual deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion.

Thank god we have a president now who knows how to reduce the deficit, unlike the republicans who made the deficit explode up to record setting highs

 

[Foxfyre]

The #'s for the 2009 budget belong to bush* and the republicans. The budget for 2009 was passed by bush* and the republicans in congress.

As soon as Obama's budget kicks in, the chart shows the deficit headed down

No, the 2009 budget was passed by a Democratically controlled Congress controlled by Pelosi and Reid who didn't complete the final appropriations bill until after Obama took office and would sign the pork laden excessive bills they put out there even in a financial crisis. Bush had NOTHING to do with the stimulus package or how the last half of the TARP funds were distributed after January 2009.

bush*'s 2009 budget broke records. The facts are clear.

And bush*'s numbers didn't include the costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, so in fact, his deficits are even larger. That's why bush* and the republicans almost DOUBLED the national debt

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 was a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008-September 2009. Figures shown in this article do not reflect the actual appropriations by Congress for Fiscal Year 2009.

With projected receipts less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicts a net deficit of approximately $400 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $11.4 trillion. Actual tax receipts totaled approximately $2.1 trillion - significantly less than the $2.7 trillion expected. The actual deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion.

The first quote is correct despite whatever site you plucked it from. And it confirms what I said. The budget Bush signed bore no resemblance to the irresponsible and unconscionable spending initated by Obama and his filibuster proof Democratically controlled Congress in 2009. Which is why you see that horrific deficit there. The actual deficit wasn't that bad but it was well over a trillion dollars in 2009 and that was not Bush's fault.

The second quote is blatantly dishonest since Pelosi declared President Bush's proposed 2009 budget dead on arrival and the Democratically controlled House completely rewrote it. Then, as Trajan reported, they delayed completing the most expensive appropriations until Bush was out of office and they could load down the bills with pork knowing Obama would sign it.

Face it. The Democrats who have dominated the Congress for the last two years have not been fiscally responsible or intelligent.

We can hope the new Republican controlled House and the Democrats left in Congress will wake up, smell the coffee, and stop digging the bankruptcy hole deeper and deeper.

 

[Bern80]

Does this chart not indicate that even though the rich are getting richer, so are the poor just by as much?

No. It does not

Sorry meant by not as much. I don't see any negative percentages of income change in any of those columns.

 

[sangha]

No, the 2009 budget was passed by a Democratically controlled Congress controlled by Pelosi and Reid who didn't complete the final appropriations bill until after Obama took office and would sign the pork laden excessive bills they put out there even in a financial crisis. Bush had NOTHING to do with the stimulus package or how the last half of the TARP funds were distributed after January 2009.

bush*'s 2009 budget broke records. The facts are clear.

And bush*'s numbers didn't include the costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, so in fact, his deficits are even larger. That's why bush* and the republicans almost DOUBLED the national debt

With projected receipts less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicts a net deficit of approximately $400 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $11.4 trillion. Actual tax receipts totaled approximately $2.1 trillion - significantly less than the $2.7 trillion expected. The actual deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion.

The first quote is correct despite whatever site you plucked it from. And it confirms what I said. The budget Bush signed bore no resemblance to the irresponsible and unconscionable spending initated by Obama and his filibuster proof Democratically controlled Congress in 2009. Which is why you see that horrific deficit there. The actual deficit wasn't that bad but it was well over a trillion dollars in 2009 and that was not Bush's fault.

The second quote is blatantly dishonest since Pelosi declared President Bush's proposed 2009 budget dead on arrival and the Democratically controlled House completely rewrote it. Then, as Trajan reported, they delayed completing the most expensive appropriations until Bush was out of office and they could load down the bills with pork knowing Obama would sign it.

Face it. The Democrats who have dominated the Congress for the last two years have not been fiscally responsible or intelligent.

We can hope the new Republican controlled House and the Democrats left in Congress will wake up, smell the coffee, and stop digging the bankruptcy hole deeper and deeper.

Wrong. bush* submitted a budget for 2009 that had a projected deficit of $400B not including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan. Revenue ended up $600B less than bush* predicted, leaving the deficit at $1trillion, a record high. Then, add in the cost of the TARP and the wars, and you have the >$1.5trillion bush* deficit.

And spending increased at a historically high rate when bush and the republicans were in charge. bush* and the republicans increased the national debt by over $5trillion.

 

[Bern80]

If tax cuts and deregulation make the economy take off, then why did the economy take a dive after 8 years of tax cuts and deregulation?

Um, they didnt?
The economy took off from 2001 to 2007.

No, the economy spent itself into bankruptcy. There was no net job creation. The budget deficit, the national debt, and credit exploded

Are you aware that 5% unemployment, which is pretty close to what we had during that time, within a percentage point or so anyway, is basically full employment. It isn't possible, the way unemployment figures are calculated to actually reach 0 you know.

 

[sangha]

Does this chart not indicate that even though the rich are getting richer, so are the poor just by as much?

No. It does not

Sorry meant by not as much. I don't see any negative percentages of income change in any of those columns.

Did you take inflation into acct?

 

[sangha]

Um, they didnt?
The economy took off from 2001 to 2007.

No, the economy spent itself into bankruptcy. There was no net job creation. The budget deficit, the national debt, and credit exploded

Are you aware that 5% unemployment, which is pretty close to what we had during that time, within a percentage point or so anyway, is basically full employment. It isn't possible, the way unemployment figures are calculated to actually reach 0 you know.

Did you know that the way unemployment is calculated was changed to make the #'s seem lower?

Here's a chart on job creation that compares bush*'s lost decade to other decades.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. It does not

Sorry meant by not as much. I don't see any negative percentages of income change in any of those columns.

Did you take inflation into acct?

I would be more interested in knowing what the rich were doing with their money rather than buying into the class envy strategy that you simply cannot defend in real life. Did they become richer by saving their money and thereby making more cash available for others to borrow? Did they invest it and thereby increase the fortunes of others? Did they expand their businesses and product lines so that they hired more people, provided more in raises and benefits, and consumed more which also increased prosperity for others? Did they invest in capital improvements which opened up employment opportunities for hundreds more.

If you confiscated all the wealth of the richest Americans, it would run the Federal government for a week or two, and then we would be bankrupt since those folks are the ones who are paying most of the taxes.

Don't worry about how much the other guy has so much. Be glad you live in a country where you can educate yourself, learn a trade of your choice, earn unlimited income and move up the ladder of success according to your ability, inspiration, dedication, and ambitions, and aspire to become one of the rich.

It is that fact that has made our nation the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

 

[sangha]

Sorry meant by not as much. I don't see any negative percentages of income change in any of those columns.

Did you take inflation into acct?

I would be more interested in knowing what the rich were doing with their money rather than buying into the class envy strategy that you simply cannot defend in real life. Did they become richer by saving their money and thereby making more cash available for others to borrow? Did they invest it and thereby increase the fortunes of others? Did they expand their businesses and product lines so that they hired more people, provided more in raises and benefits, and consumed more which also increased prosperity for others? Did they invest in capital improvements which opened up employment opportunities for hundreds more.

If you confiscated all the wealth of the richest Americans, it would run the Federal government for a week or two, and then we would be bankrupt since those folks are the ones who are paying most of the taxes.

Don't worry about how much the other guy has so much. Be glad you live in a country where you can educate yourself, learn a trade of your choice, earn unlimited income and move up the ladder of success according to your ability, inspiration, dedication, and ambitions, and aspire to become one of the rich.

It is that fact that has made our nation the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

I have no idea what you're talking about with your reference to a "class envy strategy", but it sure is making you sound like a Marxist.

And all of your talk about confiscating private wealth only reinforces the idea that your post is nothing more than marxist blather.

Since your skewed wingnut mind cannot seem to understand why those graphs were posted, I'll spell it out for you and I'll use small words:

A poster claimed that tax cuts for the wealthy created jobs and wealth for all americans. The charts prove that is not true.

 

[The Rabbi]

If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say

Obama's budget cuts the deficit in half over 5 years

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PROPOSED BUDGET SLASHES DEFICIT IN HALF IN JUST FIVE YEARS | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

If you didn't make shit up you might be worth pissing on.
Here's the WHite House's own projections:
White House Long-Term Budget Projections, August 2009
Note the increasing deficits every year. And this is the White House's own projection.

Wingnut moron doesn't realize the chart he linked to doesn't even have a projection for 2015.

Here's the right chart, from the same website, which shows the deficit going from $1556B (2010) to $752B (in 2015)

White House 10-Year Budget Projections, August 2009

Ugh, no. The link shows the deficit declining and then rising again.
Whatever it is, the White House's own projections, based on rosy scenarios at best, show massively increasing deficits.