2007 budget, 150 k from even. 2009 1.5 trillion, what happened liberals?

[8537]

I did not say they did

ORLY?



So when you claim that TARP and the Stimulus accounted for 1.35 of the 1.5T 2009 deficit, you're not claiming that TARP and the stimulus accounted for 1.35 of the 1.5T 2009 deficit?

You know your all about arguing and none about expressing your beliefs
why is that?

Because I let reality get in the way of my beliefs. You clearly do not.

No what you do is ignore the reality
Its that simple

Your "reality" is false claims about what caused the deficit - including absurd claims that TARP and stimulus created 1.35T worth of deficits in 2009.

Now, I give you the benefit of the doubt - it's quite possible you're just regurgitating talking points without understanding what you're sayin.

You compare numbers like it matters what year the failed stimulus goes against our debt, its your holy grail to call me a liar
Can you tell me what year it goes against the debt/
why does it matter if its 2009, or 2010?
2011?

Yes, I could tell you. No, I won't bother. You're immune to facts and only interested in ideology - and you certainly could never accept a dynamic assessment of those total expenses based on comparative baselines without those actions.

And that's because, whether you realize it or not, you are an ideologue who accepts only that information which supports your fundamental premise. Ayn Rand would be proud of you, JRK.

 

[JRK]

ORLY?



So when you claim that TARP and the Stimulus accounted for 1.35 of the 1.5T 2009 deficit, you're not claiming that TARP and the stimulus accounted for 1.35 of the 1.5T 2009 deficit?



Because I let reality get in the way of my beliefs. You clearly do not.

No what you do is ignore the reality
Its that simple

Your "reality" is false claims about what caused the deficit - including absurd claims that TARP and stimulus created 1.35T worth of deficits in 2009.

Now, I give you the benefit of the doubt - it's quite possible you're just regurgitating talking points without understanding what you're sayin.

You compare numbers like it matters what year the failed stimulus goes against our debt, its your holy grail to call me a liar
Can you tell me what year it goes against the debt/
why does it matter if its 2009, or 2010?
2011?

Yes, I could tell you. No, I won't bother. You're immune to facts and only interested in ideology - and you certainly could never accept a dynamic assessment of those total expenses based on comparative baselines without those actions.

And that's because, whether you realize it or not, you are an ideologue who accepts only that information which supports your fundamental premise. Ayn Rand would be proud of you, JRK.

It really matters that our president for reasons you cannot explain has put us so far in debt that our country will never be the same
Proud?
there is nothing to be proud of here
from me or you
My mission is to get you people who sit around and act as though you know it all to think
you cannot
Common sense tells me it does not matter when that debt hits the books. Cash flow, debt, interest
It was supposed to be a shovel ready stimulus
I just took the man at his word
The UAW got theres
Chrysler
GM
it makes perfect sense he lied about that also
its beyond what your capable of, and it is beyond what I can understand
And that is the truth

A simple fact that i can spend my wealth and create more jobs with that wealth than Obama can in 100 years is beyond debate
by the time my dollar gets to where its being re distributed by the left, there is so little left
and yet you want more
You tell people (and my god they believe you) that Bush gave money to the rich, and all he did was allow the "rich" to keep more
It is simple common sense

There is a difference in what we the country is suppose to be doing as a govt and this train wreck Obama has brought us
and you on the left just keep on laughing and riding this thing all the way to there is nothing left to ride and you cannot even explain to any of us why you even support it

Barrack Hussein Obama has told the United Sated that he is going to pay for Obama care by saving 500 billion dollars on Medicare
you have got to be kidding me
you believe him and try and convince people that this is a good thing
you talk deficits as thought this will never have an impact
hell man we have a medical plan for the poor and damn if he dint **** it up

 

[8537]

No what you do is ignore the reality
Its that simple

Your "reality" is false claims about what caused the deficit - including absurd claims that TARP and stimulus created 1.35T worth of deficits in 2009.

Now, I give you the benefit of the doubt - it's quite possible you're just regurgitating talking points without understanding what you're sayin.

You compare numbers like it matters what year the failed stimulus goes against our debt, its your holy grail to call me a liar
Can you tell me what year it goes against the debt/
why does it matter if its 2009, or 2010?
2011?

Yes, I could tell you. No, I won't bother. You're immune to facts and only interested in ideology - and you certainly could never accept a dynamic assessment of those total expenses based on comparative baselines without those actions.

And that's because, whether you realize it or not, you are an ideologue who accepts only that information which supports your fundamental premise. Ayn Rand would be proud of you, JRK.

It really matters that our president for reasons you cannot explain has put us so far in debt that our country will never be the same

Except, I've explained it to you in plain english several times. You just won't accept facts because they compete with your ideology.

And that makes you an ideologue. Don't worry, I'm used to it by now.

 

[JRK]

Your "reality" is false claims about what caused the deficit - including absurd claims that TARP and stimulus created 1.35T worth of deficits in 2009.

Now, I give you the benefit of the doubt - it's quite possible you're just regurgitating talking points without understanding what you're sayin.




Yes, I could tell you. No, I won't bother. You're immune to facts and only interested in ideology - and you certainly could never accept a dynamic assessment of those total expenses based on comparative baselines without those actions.

And that's because, whether you realize it or not, you are an ideologue who accepts only that information which supports your fundamental premise. Ayn Rand would be proud of you, JRK.

It really matters that our president for reasons you cannot explain has put us so far in debt that our country will never be the same

Except, I've explained it to you in plain english several times. You just won't accept facts because they compete with your ideology.

And that makes you an ideologue. Don't worry, I'm used to it by now.

You have never explained to me why you support the debt and higher taxes thats coming with it
4 ever
Its not rocket science
Bush had debt that had reason
Obama has debt that has no reason

A job stimulus that goes years before its fully in place?
A health-care bill that we pay for by destroying another one?
one that is working?
going broke, yes, but is working

and lets talk about that a minute
when is the last time there was a tax hike for just Medicare?
you think the American public is not open to a hike in that tax alone?
and for the ones who get it maybe start helping pay for it on a slide scale?

Obama is all about the cash, not fixing shit

 

[NYcarbineer]

TO START WITH WHERE DID THE 800 BILLION DOLLAR STIMULUS AND THE 350 BILLION DOLLAR TARP THAT OBAMA GOT IN 09 GO?
THATS 1.35 TRILLION DOLLARS IN A DEFICIT YEAR OF 1.5, 2009

First of all, 800 billion plus 350 billion is 1.15 trillion, not 1.35 trillion. But no one expects CON$ to be able to do simple arithmetic. And Bush signed the TARP bill so he owns that 350 billion.

But more importantly, I have pointed out that CON$ are always on both sides of any issue depending on what is convenient at the moment!!!

Back in 2009 the CON$ were bitching about how less than 10% of the stimulus was being spent in 2009. How many times did we here the CON$ say that the UNSPENT stimulus money should be used for something other than the stimulus. And now, to blame the Bush 2009 deficit spending on Obama, suddenly the entire stimulus was completely spent in 2009.

Actually, according to CBO only 29 billion was scheduled to be spent in 2009.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: CBO on Fiscal Policy Lags

From CBO, here is the time path of estimated outlays on government purchases under the proposed stimulus bill:

2009: 29.0
2010: 115.8
2011: 105.5
2012: 53.6
2013: 26.5
2014: 13.0
2015: 6.9
2016: 3.0
2017: 1.6
2018: 0.9
2019:0.4

Total: $356.0 billion

So only 8 percent of this spending occurs in budget year 2009, and only 41 percent occurs in first two years. Note that spending on transfer payments and tax relief occurs much faster than this: click through to the above link for details.

So I ask what the f--- did he do with the other 1 trillion he borrowed in 2009 then?
you liberals do not get it
and as far as the 350 billion in tarp
TARP Vote: Obama Wins, Senate Effectively Approves $350 Billion

You just do not get it
it a simple debate about policy
was I wrong
no
the failed stimulus cost us 800 billion
1/2 of tarp cost us 350 billion

does it matter what year?
My threads are an attempt to get the liberal min to think
you try and compare a man who had 2 wars
9-11
6 hurricanes
2 recessions
2 major stock market crashes

with Obamas massive job loss
thats it

And what did Obama do for this massive job loss?
I do not know, but he run up our debt, he took advantage of it
and yet you liberals act as though this is Bushes fault

The stimulus cost 800 billion?

300 billion of that stimulus was tax cuts/credits. Are you admitting that tax cuts add to the deficit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What happened? The recession, of course.

Why was no one asking where the surplus went during Bush's presidency? Because in 2002, deficits did not matter.

digger a deficit of 200 billion vs a deficit of 1.5 trillion is not the same
a deficit of 2 trillion in 7 years vs 2 trillion in 18 months is not the same

1. Bush left Obama with a deficit of 458 billion.
2. Tax revenues fell over 400 billion from 2008 to 2009

That's almost 900 billion onto Obama's deficit before he ever signs a bill.

 

[JRK]

What happened? The recession, of course.

Why was no one asking where the surplus went during Bush's presidency? Because in 2002, deficits did not matter.

digger a deficit of 200 billion vs a deficit of 1.5 trillion is not the same
a deficit of 2 trillion in 7 years vs 2 trillion in 18 months is not the same

1. Bush left Obama with a deficit of 458 billion.
2. Tax revenues fell over 400 billion from 2008 to 2009

That's almost 900 billion onto Obama's deficit before he ever signs a bill.

Tax revenues have yet to be verified, I will not argue that at this time
it matters little in the grand scheme of debt

I found this to chew on
remember
GWB never would sign this spending bill
no GOP voted for it
BEHIND OBAMA’S PHONY DEFICIT NUMBERS
By Dick Morris
02.1.2010

President Obama was disingenuous today when he said that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

As Joe Wilson said “you lie.”

Here are the facts:

In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was $600 billion. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then…he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. And falling revenues and other increased welfare spending pushed it up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

His program of fiscal austerity in this new budget is a joke. If he wanted to lower the deficit, here’s what he could do:

1. Cancel the remaining $500 billion of stimulus spending and

2. Cancel the $300 billion of spending in stimulus II.

Presto! The deficit is cut in half.

Those are the real numbers.

And for the record, it becomes impossible to blame Bush OR Republicans for the 2008 fiscal year spending that occurred in 2009 for the simple fact that Republicans OPPOSED that spending virtually unanimously.

This is part of the slimey lies that characterize Barry Hussein.

But there’s more. While blaming Bush for that $500 billion of TARP money that has been repaid, Obama wants to take it and use it for more of his own projects.

That money has been repaid. You can’t put it on Bush’s tab, demonize him for it, and then break the law by refusing to put it back into the Treasury and pay down the debt.

So Obama is – once again – a liar. He doesn’t WANT to return that TARP money which should legally be used to pay down the deficit because then he 1) couldn’t demonize Bush for the “$1.3 trillion dollar deficit” that he really didn’t inherit from Bush; and 2) couldn’t use that money – that BUSH money – for his own political ends. While continuing to blame Bush for it.

That’s just dishonest.

I might point out that Bush’s TARP bank bailout plan failed the first vote as REPUBLICANS voted against it.

But there’s more to it than that. A discussion on Sayanythingblog begins to reveal more than Obama wants you to know:

The last budget approved by a Republican Congress and a Republican President was the 2007 one. That turned in a deficit of about 160 Billion dollars.

The the Democrats took over Congress. Obama and his cohorts tripled the deficit.

Then they tripled the deficit again for the 2009 (current year budget.)

In no way did Obama oppose these higher budget deficits.

I’m not giving Bush a free pass, but these deficits are Obama’s fault as much as anyone.

Here’s a dirty secret: Bush didn’t increase the deficit – the Democrats running Congress did that. Under the separation of powers, Bush couldn’t spend a single dime unless Congress authorized him to spend it. (Hint: that also explains why Clinton was able to provide a surplus: Republicans were in charge of Congress and FORCED him to be spendthrifty).

And so we come to the words of Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee. He pointed out this little factoid that Democrats and their mainstream media allies don’t want you to know:

The old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats:

In the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, the average deficit was $104 billion (average of final deficit/surplus FY1996-FY2007 data taken from Table F-1 below). In just 3 years under Democrats, the average deficit is now almost $1.1 trillion (average of final deficit/surplus FY2008 and 2009 data taken from Table F-1; FY2010 data taken from Table 1-3). Source: CBO January 2010 Budget and Economic Outlook

In reality, Obama didn’t “inherit” anything: he personally voted for virtually all the spending under the Bush presidency that he is now whining about. While he may have “inherited” it as president, he voted for it as senator.

So Obama is literally saying, “All that stuff that I voted for was all Bush’s fault.”

Tags: $1.1 trillion, $1.3 trillion, $104 billion, $700 billion, budget, Bush, Bush deficit $485 billion, Congress, Democrats, Hensarling, inherited, loans, Obama, previous administration, repaid, TARP

Now explain to me what it is all of this spending is for

 

[NYcarbineer]

digger a deficit of 200 billion vs a deficit of 1.5 trillion is not the same
a deficit of 2 trillion in 7 years vs 2 trillion in 18 months is not the same

1. Bush left Obama with a deficit of 458 billion.
2. Tax revenues fell over 400 billion from 2008 to 2009

That's almost 900 billion onto Obama's deficit before he ever signs a bill.

Tax revenues have yet to be verified, I will not argue that at this time
it matters little in the grand scheme of debt

I found this to chew on
remember
GWB never would sign this spending bill
no GOP voted for it
BEHIND OBAMA’S PHONY DEFICIT NUMBERS
By Dick Morris
02.1.2010

President Obama was disingenuous today when he said that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

As Joe Wilson said “you lie.”

Here are the facts:

In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was $600 billion. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then…he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. And falling revenues and other increased welfare spending pushed it up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

His program of fiscal austerity in this new budget is a joke. If he wanted to lower the deficit, here’s what he could do:

1. Cancel the remaining $500 billion of stimulus spending and

2. Cancel the $300 billion of spending in stimulus II.

Presto! The deficit is cut in half.

Those are the real numbers.

And for the record, it becomes impossible to blame Bush OR Republicans for the 2008 fiscal year spending that occurred in 2009 for the simple fact that Republicans OPPOSED that spending virtually unanimously.

This is part of the slimey lies that characterize Barry Hussein.

But there’s more. While blaming Bush for that $500 billion of TARP money that has been repaid, Obama wants to take it and use it for more of his own projects.

That money has been repaid. You can’t put it on Bush’s tab, demonize him for it, and then break the law by refusing to put it back into the Treasury and pay down the debt.

So Obama is – once again – a liar. He doesn’t WANT to return that TARP money which should legally be used to pay down the deficit because then he 1) couldn’t demonize Bush for the “$1.3 trillion dollar deficit” that he really didn’t inherit from Bush; and 2) couldn’t use that money – that BUSH money – for his own political ends. While continuing to blame Bush for it.

That’s just dishonest.

I might point out that Bush’s TARP bank bailout plan failed the first vote as REPUBLICANS voted against it.

But there’s more to it than that. A discussion on Sayanythingblog begins to reveal more than Obama wants you to know:

The last budget approved by a Republican Congress and a Republican President was the 2007 one. That turned in a deficit of about 160 Billion dollars.

The the Democrats took over Congress. Obama and his cohorts tripled the deficit.

Then they tripled the deficit again for the 2009 (current year budget.)

In no way did Obama oppose these higher budget deficits.

I’m not giving Bush a free pass, but these deficits are Obama’s fault as much as anyone.

Here’s a dirty secret: Bush didn’t increase the deficit – the Democrats running Congress did that. Under the separation of powers, Bush couldn’t spend a single dime unless Congress authorized him to spend it. (Hint: that also explains why Clinton was able to provide a surplus: Republicans were in charge of Congress and FORCED him to be spendthrifty).

And so we come to the words of Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee. He pointed out this little factoid that Democrats and their mainstream media allies don’t want you to know:

The old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats:

In the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, the average deficit was $104 billion (average of final deficit/surplus FY1996-FY2007 data taken from Table F-1 below). In just 3 years under Democrats, the average deficit is now almost $1.1 trillion (average of final deficit/surplus FY2008 and 2009 data taken from Table F-1; FY2010 data taken from Table 1-3). Source: CBO January 2010 Budget and Economic Outlook

In reality, Obama didn’t “inherit” anything: he personally voted for virtually all the spending under the Bush presidency that he is now whining about. While he may have “inherited” it as president, he voted for it as senator.

So Obama is literally saying, “All that stuff that I voted for was all Bush’s fault.”

Tags: $1.1 trillion, $1.3 trillion, $104 billion, $700 billion, budget, Bush, Bush deficit $485 billion, Congress, Democrats, Hensarling, inherited, loans, Obama, previous administration, repaid, TARP

Now explain to me what it is all of this spending is for

Seriously? You won't accept any statistics from anywhere regarding tax revenue?

 

[JRK]

1. Bush left Obama with a deficit of 458 billion.
2. Tax revenues fell over 400 billion from 2008 to 2009

That's almost 900 billion onto Obama's deficit before he ever signs a bill.

Tax revenues have yet to be verified, I will not argue that at this time
it matters little in the grand scheme of debt

I found this to chew on
remember
GWB never would sign this spending bill
no GOP voted for it
BEHIND OBAMA’S PHONY DEFICIT NUMBERS
By Dick Morris
02.1.2010

President Obama was disingenuous today when he said that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

As Joe Wilson said “you lie.”

Here are the facts:

In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was $600 billion. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then…he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. And falling revenues and other increased welfare spending pushed it up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

His program of fiscal austerity in this new budget is a joke. If he wanted to lower the deficit, here’s what he could do:

1. Cancel the remaining $500 billion of stimulus spending and

2. Cancel the $300 billion of spending in stimulus II.

Presto! The deficit is cut in half.

Those are the real numbers.

And for the record, it becomes impossible to blame Bush OR Republicans for the 2008 fiscal year spending that occurred in 2009 for the simple fact that Republicans OPPOSED that spending virtually unanimously.

This is part of the slimey lies that characterize Barry Hussein.

But there’s more. While blaming Bush for that $500 billion of TARP money that has been repaid, Obama wants to take it and use it for more of his own projects.

That money has been repaid. You can’t put it on Bush’s tab, demonize him for it, and then break the law by refusing to put it back into the Treasury and pay down the debt.

So Obama is – once again – a liar. He doesn’t WANT to return that TARP money which should legally be used to pay down the deficit because then he 1) couldn’t demonize Bush for the “$1.3 trillion dollar deficit” that he really didn’t inherit from Bush; and 2) couldn’t use that money – that BUSH money – for his own political ends. While continuing to blame Bush for it.

That’s just dishonest.

I might point out that Bush’s TARP bank bailout plan failed the first vote as REPUBLICANS voted against it.

But there’s more to it than that. A discussion on Sayanythingblog begins to reveal more than Obama wants you to know:

The last budget approved by a Republican Congress and a Republican President was the 2007 one. That turned in a deficit of about 160 Billion dollars.

The the Democrats took over Congress. Obama and his cohorts tripled the deficit.

Then they tripled the deficit again for the 2009 (current year budget.)

In no way did Obama oppose these higher budget deficits.

I’m not giving Bush a free pass, but these deficits are Obama’s fault as much as anyone.

Here’s a dirty secret: Bush didn’t increase the deficit – the Democrats running Congress did that. Under the separation of powers, Bush couldn’t spend a single dime unless Congress authorized him to spend it. (Hint: that also explains why Clinton was able to provide a surplus: Republicans were in charge of Congress and FORCED him to be spendthrifty).

And so we come to the words of Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee. He pointed out this little factoid that Democrats and their mainstream media allies don’t want you to know:

The old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats:

In the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, the average deficit was $104 billion (average of final deficit/surplus FY1996-FY2007 data taken from Table F-1 below). In just 3 years under Democrats, the average deficit is now almost $1.1 trillion (average of final deficit/surplus FY2008 and 2009 data taken from Table F-1; FY2010 data taken from Table 1-3). Source: CBO January 2010 Budget and Economic Outlook

In reality, Obama didn’t “inherit” anything: he personally voted for virtually all the spending under the Bush presidency that he is now whining about. While he may have “inherited” it as president, he voted for it as senator.

So Obama is literally saying, “All that stuff that I voted for was all Bush’s fault.”

Tags: $1.1 trillion, $1.3 trillion, $104 billion, $700 billion, budget, Bush, Bush deficit $485 billion, Congress, Democrats, Hensarling, inherited, loans, Obama, previous administration, repaid, TARP

Now explain to me what it is all of this spending is for

Seriously? You won't accept any statistics from anywhere regarding tax revenue?

Is this all you do?
I stated It did not matter
Again
why is Obama doing this?
what is his purpose?

W had purpose
he had a plan
and in 2007 we where there
the housing bubble bursting had nothing to do with those policies

 

[edthecynic]

The last budget approved by a Republican Congress and a Republican President was the 2007 one. That turned in a deficit of about 160 Billion dollars.

No mater how many tines you mindlessly parrot that GOP scripted lie, it will NEVER be the truth.

You gotta give CON$ credit for the tenacity of their lying. No matter how many times you expose their lies, they just keep on repeating the same lies.

you've already been shown more than once in this thread alone, and multiple times in other threads, that Bush had a deficit of over $501 billion in 2007. You may think you are slick when you repeat your lies, but in reality you just discredit yourself.

 

[edthecynic]

W had purpose
he had a plan
and in 2007 we where there
the housing bubble bursting had nothing to do with those policies

Bush's purpose was to bankrupt the Us and his plan to do it was get us bogged down in an unnecessary war and destroy the housing market with his ADDI. Of course, he was merely following the CON$ervative plan started by Reagan.

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

 

[JRK]

W had purpose
he had a plan
and in 2007 we where there
the housing bubble bursting had nothing to do with those policies

Bush's purpose was to bankrupt the Us and his plan to do it was get us bogged down in an unnecessary war and destroy the housing market with his ADDI. Of course, he was merely following the CON$ervative plan started by Reagan.

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

You points are not valid and make 0 sense
I am being serious
Obama has an agenda. Its not to break anything, it is to grow the size of Govt and by doing that he then has put us in a place to where our personal taxes go up
GWB and Reagan tried to make the size of govt smaller, and if not for this Mess Obama has put us in it was working
The housing market?
The housing market?
What exactly did GWB do to cause a person to make a bad choice on a purchase along with a person making a bad choice on loaning that person the money to make that purchase?

 

[edthecynic]

W had purpose
he had a plan
and in 2007 we where there
the housing bubble bursting had nothing to do with those policies

Bush's purpose was to bankrupt the Us and his plan to do it was get us bogged down in an unnecessary war and destroy the housing market with his ADDI. Of course, he was merely following the CON$ervative plan started by Reagan.

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

You points are not valid and make 0 sense
I am being serious
Obama has an agenda. Its not to break anything, it is to grow the size of Govt and by doing that he then has put us in a place to where our personal taxes go up
GWB and Reagan tried to make the size of govt smaller, and if not for this Mess Obama has put us in it was working
The housing market?
The housing market?
What exactly did GWB do to cause a person to make a bad choice on a purchase along with a person making a bad choice on loaning that person the money to make that purchase?

Bush and St Ronnie BOTH grew the government. Can't you do anything else but lie????????

Oh that's Right, you can play dumb! Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) is what changed the rules to allow no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into. ADDI was signed into law Dec 19, 2003 and 2004 marked the beginning of the end of the housing market. Even your MessiahRushie admits that 2004 was the beginning of the end of the housing market.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

 

[JRK]

Bush's purpose was to bankrupt the Us and his plan to do it was get us bogged down in an unnecessary war and destroy the housing market with his ADDI. Of course, he was merely following the CON$ervative plan started by Reagan.

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

You points are not valid and make 0 sense
I am being serious
Obama has an agenda. Its not to break anything, it is to grow the size of Govt and by doing that he then has put us in a place to where our personal taxes go up
GWB and Reagan tried to make the size of govt smaller, and if not for this Mess Obama has put us in it was working
The housing market?
The housing market?
What exactly did GWB do to cause a person to make a bad choice on a purchase along with a person making a bad choice on loaning that person the money to make that purchase?

Bush and St Ronnie BOTH grew the government. Can't you do anything else but lie????????

Oh that's Right, you can play dumb! Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) is what changed the rules to allow no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into. ADDI was signed into law Dec 19, 2003 and 2004 marked the beginning of the end of the housing market. Even your MessiahRushie admits that 2004 was the beginning of the end of the housing market.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

Lie?
The american down payment act did what to make a bad loan, go bad?
Who made those choices to take a sub prime loan?
As a liberal you make the mistake that personal choice is forced upon you

As far as growing the govt
Its Like saying that Hurricane Katrina was a gentle breeze when you compare Obama to any-one
Its about money spent with a reward
There has been close to 40 million jobs created sense from Reagan with the same amount of debt (close) in those years that Obama has added in two (without interest) (including 2011)
(6 million under W)
Thats all of them combined
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524
Bush-1, Clinton, all of them

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax revenues have yet to be verified, I will not argue that at this time
it matters little in the grand scheme of debt

I found this to chew on
remember
GWB never would sign this spending bill
no GOP voted for it
BEHIND OBAMA’S PHONY DEFICIT NUMBERS
By Dick Morris
02.1.2010

President Obama was disingenuous today when he said that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

As Joe Wilson said “you lie.”

Here are the facts:

In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was $600 billion. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then…he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. And falling revenues and other increased welfare spending pushed it up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

His program of fiscal austerity in this new budget is a joke. If he wanted to lower the deficit, here’s what he could do:

1. Cancel the remaining $500 billion of stimulus spending and

2. Cancel the $300 billion of spending in stimulus II.

Presto! The deficit is cut in half.

Those are the real numbers.

And for the record, it becomes impossible to blame Bush OR Republicans for the 2008 fiscal year spending that occurred in 2009 for the simple fact that Republicans OPPOSED that spending virtually unanimously.

This is part of the slimey lies that characterize Barry Hussein.

But there’s more. While blaming Bush for that $500 billion of TARP money that has been repaid, Obama wants to take it and use it for more of his own projects.

That money has been repaid. You can’t put it on Bush’s tab, demonize him for it, and then break the law by refusing to put it back into the Treasury and pay down the debt.

So Obama is – once again – a liar. He doesn’t WANT to return that TARP money which should legally be used to pay down the deficit because then he 1) couldn’t demonize Bush for the “$1.3 trillion dollar deficit” that he really didn’t inherit from Bush; and 2) couldn’t use that money – that BUSH money – for his own political ends. While continuing to blame Bush for it.

That’s just dishonest.

I might point out that Bush’s TARP bank bailout plan failed the first vote as REPUBLICANS voted against it.

But there’s more to it than that. A discussion on Sayanythingblog begins to reveal more than Obama wants you to know:

The last budget approved by a Republican Congress and a Republican President was the 2007 one. That turned in a deficit of about 160 Billion dollars.

The the Democrats took over Congress. Obama and his cohorts tripled the deficit.

Then they tripled the deficit again for the 2009 (current year budget.)

In no way did Obama oppose these higher budget deficits.

I’m not giving Bush a free pass, but these deficits are Obama’s fault as much as anyone.

Here’s a dirty secret: Bush didn’t increase the deficit – the Democrats running Congress did that. Under the separation of powers, Bush couldn’t spend a single dime unless Congress authorized him to spend it. (Hint: that also explains why Clinton was able to provide a surplus: Republicans were in charge of Congress and FORCED him to be spendthrifty).

And so we come to the words of Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee. He pointed out this little factoid that Democrats and their mainstream media allies don’t want you to know:

The old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats:

In the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, the average deficit was $104 billion (average of final deficit/surplus FY1996-FY2007 data taken from Table F-1 below). In just 3 years under Democrats, the average deficit is now almost $1.1 trillion (average of final deficit/surplus FY2008 and 2009 data taken from Table F-1; FY2010 data taken from Table 1-3). Source: CBO January 2010 Budget and Economic Outlook

In reality, Obama didn’t “inherit” anything: he personally voted for virtually all the spending under the Bush presidency that he is now whining about. While he may have “inherited” it as president, he voted for it as senator.

So Obama is literally saying, “All that stuff that I voted for was all Bush’s fault.”

Tags: $1.1 trillion, $1.3 trillion, $104 billion, $700 billion, budget, Bush, Bush deficit $485 billion, Congress, Democrats, Hensarling, inherited, loans, Obama, previous administration, repaid, TARP

Now explain to me what it is all of this spending is for

Seriously? You won't accept any statistics from anywhere regarding tax revenue?

Is this all you do?
I stated It did not matter
Again
why is Obama doing this?
what is his purpose?

W had purpose
he had a plan
and in 2007 we where there
the housing bubble bursting had nothing to do with those policies

You keep making claims then you get refuted by the facts, then you claim the facts don't matter?

 

[8537]

It really matters that our president for reasons you cannot explain has put us so far in debt that our country will never be the same

Except, I've explained it to you in plain english several times. You just won't accept facts because they compete with your ideology.

And that makes you an ideologue. Don't worry, I'm used to it by now.

You have never explained to me why you support the debt and higher taxes thats coming with it
4 ever

Well, that would be hard to do when you make up "Facts" to explain that occurrence.

 

[JRK]

Seriously? You won't accept any statistics from anywhere regarding tax revenue?

Is this all you do?
I stated It did not matter
Again
why is Obama doing this?
what is his purpose?

W had purpose
he had a plan
and in 2007 we where there
the housing bubble bursting had nothing to do with those policies

You keep making claims then you get refuted by the facts, then you claim the facts don't matter?

GWB ad a purpose post 9-11
He had a purpose that never had a chance to be proved to be right or wrong with his tax cuts across the board

9-11 caused much of his deficits from the wars to the harm it did to the economy and the stock market
GWB also inherited a recession
there was a job loss of 1.8 million jobs from 01-03
The tax cuts where doing exactly what they where suppose to do until 2008

The housing crises had nothing to do with GWB policies
the debt was going away
from 03-07 there was 7,500,000 jobs created
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
If you wish to blame Bush for the housing market collapse then let me share with you none of this happened until the Dems took congress over

Now all Obama has done is spend more deficit in 2 years than Bush did in 8 (without intrest on debt inherited, strictly on policy)
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog

Why
what is his agenda?
To grow the size of govt?
to raise everyones taxes?
why?

 

[JRK]

Again the point has been correctly submitted as well as documented

Libs the issue the rest of us have with your brand of thought is you will not publicly support it. Obama run up this debt for no reason

But 1

Taking advantage of an event that money could only supply a band aid
Tarp worked, thank you GWB
that money we got back except AIG (we are getting that back)

Still waiting Liberals