6 Trillion in 8 years BAD, 6 trillion in 4 GOOD.

[starcraftzzz]

Does that include the wars bush started and didn't put on the books?
Somehow I doubt it, but then again this is a partisan op.

All of the spending of the Bush years were on the books. The fact that the costs of the two wars were not included in the budget, (a planning document), does not mean they were not on the books.

In keeping with your thought processes, the fact that the Democrats have refused to produce a budget for the last three years, means all that deficit spending was off the books. It just means that the Democrats in congress are incompetent, and in violation of their oath of office.

In order to have a budget defict you need to pass a budget. In order to spend money you have to pass a budget. It is amazing how right wingers are so stupid that they complane about Democrat budget deficits and they say that democrats haven't passed any budgets. your stupididy is beyond belief

 

[Erand7899]

Bushes spending was during a time when the economy was not depressed and resulted in higher inflation; Obamas spending is during a period of economic depression of which results in higher employment/economic activity

So Obama triples down on it. Brilliant...NOT...Good try though...

See this is the problem right-wingers are to stupid to comprehend that different economic circumstances calls for different economic policies; other then that right-wingers are to stupid to notice that austerity has failed every time it is tried

Dieting, taken to extremes, is deadly. Austerity is a broad term, and often misused in an attempt to mislead, especially those that do not know much about what they are talking about. Proper austerity, like proper dieting, can produce the desired result. Excessive spending, like excessive eating, does not produce a good result.

The idea that all one has to do to produce a good economy is ensure that everyone has money to spend is so stupid as to be moronic. It didn't work for FDR, and it is not working for Obama. An economy grows by leveraging the dollars spent, and if the leveraging is not working, then all is happening is that money is being passed back and forth.

In addition, we do not have a closed economy, we have a worldwide economy, and money spent is rapidly dispersed around the globe. No government has enough money to ever hope to stimulate the entire world economy, even if the concept did work.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We need to spend more now!

Statists belive throwing money at a problem makes it go away...especially when it isn't thier money.

Nevermind the 'unintended consequences' of selling future generations yet to be born into servitude to pay it off. (Nice ain't it/ the unborns' taxes are spent by Government before they're born).

We're told NOT to look at the result be be glad of thier compassion and INTENT... for thier folly.

See this is why you are a retard. You think future generations will be better off if we have double digit unemployment for a decade and another great depression

Dumb ASS, Obama has had double digit unemployment since 2009 and it hasn't gone down. It is simply moving those receiving unemployment to the line where they get none and of seeing MILLIONS so dissatisfied and unable to find jobs they quit looking. Or millions more working in part time Jobs.

Remind us again how if we just spent a trillion dollars without reading the bill it would ensure we did not go over 8 percent.

 

[starcraftzzz]

So Obama triples down on it. Brilliant...NOT...Good try though...

See this is the problem right-wingers are to stupid to comprehend that different economic circumstances calls for different economic policies; other then that right-wingers are to stupid to notice that austerity has failed every time it is tried

Dieting, taken to extremes, is deadly. Austerity is a broad term, and often misused in an attempt to mislead, especially those that do not know much about what they are talking about. Proper austerity, like proper dieting, can produce the desired result. Excessive spending, like excessive eating, does not produce a good result.

The idea that all one has to do to produce a good economy is ensure that everyone has money to spend is so stupid as to be moronic. It didn't work for FDR, and it is not working for Obama. An economy grows by leveraging the dollars spent, and if the leveraging is not working, then all is happening is that money is being passed back and forth.

In addition, we do not have a closed economy, we have a worldwide economy, and money spent is rapidly dispersed around the globe. No government has enough money to ever hope to stimulate the entire world economy, even if the concept did work.

Every single time austerity was implemented it has resulted in lower GDP growth, and less employment. A year after FDR GDP growth was 10%, he then implemented asutierty in 37 which resulted in another recession occurring.
Obamas stimulus created 4million jobs furthermore under Obama the US has implemented asutierty compared to Regan and Bush and that is the reason the economy is so crappy.

 

[Cowman]

Nobody is claiming that national debt is good.

People here are willfully ignorant however, believing that debt momentum immediately resets to zero upon election of a new president.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does that include the wars bush started and didn't put on the books?
Somehow I doubt it, but then again this is a partisan op.

Yes, I wondered that myself.

So let me get this right, you retards think that the money spent on the wars under Bush somehow did not factor into the deficit? REALLY?

 

[The T]

Statists belive throwing money at a problem makes it go away...especially when it isn't thier money.

Nevermind the 'unintended consequences' of selling future generations yet to be born into servitude to pay it off. (Nice ain't it/ the unborns' taxes are spent by Government before they're born).

We're told NOT to look at the result be be glad of thier compassion and INTENT... for thier folly.

See this is why you are a retard. You think future generations will be better off if we have double digit unemployment for a decade and another great depression

Dumb ASS, Obama has had double digit unemployment since 2009 and it hasn't gone down. It is simply moving those receiving unemployment to the line where they get none and of seeing MILLIONS so dissatisfied and unable to find jobs they quit looking. Or millions more working in part time Jobs.

Remind us again how if we just spent a trillion dollars without reading the bill it would ensure we did not go over 8 percent.

He can't...and doesn't understand...YOU (and I) are attacking the policies of his failed "Shit-disturbing LEADER"...HE will have none of that.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Statists belive throwing money at a problem makes it go away...especially when it isn't thier money.

Nevermind the 'unintended consequences' of selling future generations yet to be born into servitude to pay it off. (Nice ain't it/ the unborns' taxes are spent by Government before they're born).

We're told NOT to look at the result be be glad of thier compassion and INTENT... for thier folly.

See this is why you are a retard. You think future generations will be better off if we have double digit unemployment for a decade and another great depression

Dumb ASS, Obama has had double digit unemployment since 2009 and it hasn't gone down.

So you are so stupid that you think 1 year equals 10 years and 8% equals double digits
You can't even do basic math how sad.

[
Remind us again how if we just spent a trillion dollars without reading the bill it would ensure we did not go over 8 percent.

The stimulus created 4 million jobs without it unemployment would be that much larger. So basically your poliiy preference is to make it so we have an unemployment rate of 18%
. Making you a dumbass

 

[Erand7899]

Does that include the wars bush started and didn't put on the books?
Somehow I doubt it, but then again this is a partisan op.

All of the spending of the Bush years were on the books. The fact that the costs of the two wars were not included in the budget, (a planning document), does not mean they were not on the books.

In keeping with your thought processes, the fact that the Democrats have refused to produce a budget for the last three years, means all that deficit spending was off the books. It just means that the Democrats in congress are incompetent, and in violation of their oath of office.

In order to have a budget defict you need to pass a budget. In order to spend money you have to pass a budget. It is amazing how right wingers are so stupid that they complane about Democrat budget deficits and they say that democrats haven't passed any budgets. your stupididy is beyond belief

My mistake, I thought I was responding to someone who was reasonably intelligent and somewhat knowledgable about government finances.

No, you do not need to pass a budget to spend money. You can do so with a continuing resolution, and that is what they have been doing for the past three years.

A budget is a planning document, used to write the appropriations bills that actually fund the government. A budget deficit, or surplus, is no more a real figure than any other wild assed guess. The real deficit, the excess of actual spending over actual revenues are what matters in this world.

Hopefully, that helps fill in some of the gaps in your education.

 

[francoHFW]

Pub economy corrupt and BAD, Pub Depression, WORSE. DUH!

 

[The T]

Pub economy corrupt and BAD, Pub Depression, WORSE. DUH!

Obama triples DOWN onit...good?

*IDIOT*

 

[Erand7899]

See this is the problem right-wingers are to stupid to comprehend that different economic circumstances calls for different economic policies; other then that right-wingers are to stupid to notice that austerity has failed every time it is tried

Dieting, taken to extremes, is deadly. Austerity is a broad term, and often misused in an attempt to mislead, especially those that do not know much about what they are talking about. Proper austerity, like proper dieting, can produce the desired result. Excessive spending, like excessive eating, does not produce a good result.

The idea that all one has to do to produce a good economy is ensure that everyone has money to spend is so stupid as to be moronic. It didn't work for FDR, and it is not working for Obama. An economy grows by leveraging the dollars spent, and if the leveraging is not working, then all is happening is that money is being passed back and forth.

In addition, we do not have a closed economy, we have a worldwide economy, and money spent is rapidly dispersed around the globe. No government has enough money to ever hope to stimulate the entire world economy, even if the concept did work.

Every single time austerity was implemented it has resulted in lower GDP growth, and less employment. A year after FDR GDP growth was 10%, he then implemented asutierty in 37 which resulted in another recession occurring.
Obamas stimulus created 4million jobs furthermore under Obama the US has implemented asutierty compared to Regan and Bush and that is the reason the economy is so crappy.

A year after FDR, there was no such thing as GDP or GNP. That economic measurement tool was created by the FDR administration, and was based on very few facts taken from very few areas of the country. Consequently, it was a very inaccurate tool. Over the years, GDP and GNP have been improved by measuring more data from many more places, and that makes it a reasonable tool today. However, to be useful, the data must be interpreted by informed people who understand the limitations and possible distortions in the final figures.

That is your second, and possibly final lesson in economics.

 

[starcraftzzz]

All of the spending of the Bush years were on the books. The fact that the costs of the two wars were not included in the budget, (a planning document), does not mean they were not on the books.

In keeping with your thought processes, the fact that the Democrats have refused to produce a budget for the last three years, means all that deficit spending was off the books. It just means that the Democrats in congress are incompetent, and in violation of their oath of office.

In order to have a budget defict you need to pass a budget. In order to spend money you have to pass a budget. It is amazing how right wingers are so stupid that they complane about Democrat budget deficits and they say that democrats haven't passed any budgets. your stupididy is beyond belief

My mistake, I thought I was responding to someone who was reasonably intelligent and somewhat knowledgable about government finances.

You are the one claiming that democrat spent a lot of money and that they didnt spend anything in the same sentence

No, you do not need to pass a budget to spend money. You can do so with a continuing resolution, and that is what they have been doing for the past three years.

"A continuing resolution is a type of appropriations legislation used by the United States Congress to fund government agencies if a formal appropriations bill"
That is a budget dumbass

Hopefully, that helps fill in some of the gaps in your education.

Can you go back to 5th grade English class and the come back and respond? I hate talking with people like you who do not understand basic English

 

[starcraftzzz]

Dieting, taken to extremes, is deadly. Austerity is a broad term, and often misused in an attempt to mislead, especially those that do not know much about what they are talking about. Proper austerity, like proper dieting, can produce the desired result. Excessive spending, like excessive eating, does not produce a good result.

The idea that all one has to do to produce a good economy is ensure that everyone has money to spend is so stupid as to be moronic. It didn't work for FDR, and it is not working for Obama. An economy grows by leveraging the dollars spent, and if the leveraging is not working, then all is happening is that money is being passed back and forth.

In addition, we do not have a closed economy, we have a worldwide economy, and money spent is rapidly dispersed around the globe. No government has enough money to ever hope to stimulate the entire world economy, even if the concept did work.

Every single time austerity was implemented it has resulted in lower GDP growth, and less employment. A year after FDR GDP growth was 10%, he then implemented asutierty in 37 which resulted in another recession occurring.
Obamas stimulus created 4million jobs furthermore under Obama the US has implemented asutierty compared to Regan and Bush and that is the reason the economy is so crappy.

A year after FDR, there was no such thing as GDP or GNP. That economic measurement tool was created by the FDR administration, and was based on very few facts taken from very few areas of the country. Consequently, it was a very inaccurate tool. Over the years, GDP and GNP have been improved by measuring more data from many more places, and that makes it a reasonable tool today. However, to be useful, the data must be interpreted by informed people who understand the limitations and possible distortions in the final figures.

That is your second, and possibly final lesson in economics.

So your response is "ill ignore reality" awesome.

Hey heres a group whose job is to find out GDP growth. According to them economic growth under FDR was around 10% a year. How long will ignore reality?
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

 

[Neotrotsky]

Every single time austerity was implemented it has resulted in lower GDP growth, and less employment. A year after FDR GDP growth was 10%, he then implemented asutierty in 37 which resulted in another recession occurring.
Obamas stimulus created 4million jobs furthermore under Obama the US has implemented asutierty compared to Regan and Bush and that is the reason the economy is so crappy.

A year after FDR, there was no such thing as GDP or GNP. That economic measurement tool was created by the FDR administration, and was based on very few facts taken from very few areas of the country. Consequently, it was a very inaccurate tool. Over the years, GDP and GNP have been improved by measuring more data from many more places, and that makes it a reasonable tool today. However, to be useful, the data must be interpreted by informed people who understand the limitations and possible distortions in the final figures.

That is your second, and possibly final lesson in economics.

So your response is "ill ignore reality" awesome.

Hey heres a group whose job is to find out GDP growth. According to them economic growth under FDR was around 10% a year. How long will ignore reality?
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Your link goes to the main page

FDR began his 1932 campaign for the presidency by promising to balance the federal budget because Hoover was deficit spending.

There's no doubt that Roosevelt changed the character of the American government
Indeed, one of bloated gov't that promotes crony capitalism
hey- kudos to him


The first stupid thing he did was take us off the gold standard
they thought the low prices were "keeping" the depression in place
So by raises prices- factories and such would increase demand for labour

It provoked retaliation by other countries,killing international trade and made the depression worse

Then they tried a bunch of programs that the SCOTUS threw out
Then the war came - which is what saved their ass

 

[The T]

A year after FDR, there was no such thing as GDP or GNP. That economic measurement tool was created by the FDR administration, and was based on very few facts taken from very few areas of the country. Consequently, it was a very inaccurate tool. Over the years, GDP and GNP have been improved by measuring more data from many more places, and that makes it a reasonable tool today. However, to be useful, the data must be interpreted by informed people who understand the limitations and possible distortions in the final figures.

That is your second, and possibly final lesson in economics.

So your response is "ill ignore reality" awesome.

Hey heres a group whose job is to find out GDP growth. According to them economic growth under FDR was around 10% a year. How long will ignore reality?
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Your link goes to the main page

FDR began his 1932 campaign for the presidency by promising to balance the federal budget because Hoover was deficit spending.

There's no doubt that Roosevelt changed the character of the American government
Indeed, one of bloated gov't that promotes crony capitalism
hey- kudos to him


The first stupid thing he did was take us off the gold standard
they thought the low prices were "keeping" the depression in place
So by raises prices- factories and such would increase demand for labour

It provoked retaliation by other countries,killing international trade and made the depression worse

Then they tried a bunch of programs that the SCOTUS threw out
Then the war came - which is what saved their ass

Roosevelt continued what WILSON started.

THEY were kindred spirits.

FDR and Wilson both, were criminals.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Wilson was a tool

 

[starcraftzzz]

The first stupid thing he did was take us off the gold standard
they thought the low prices were "keeping" the depression in place
So by raises prices- factories and such would increase demand for labour

The sooner a country went off the Gold Standard the sooner the country began growing again. Furthermore a Gold standard prevents the govt from stimulating the economy and responding to recession, The Eurzones shared currency is similar to a Gold standard and the effects have been disastrous

It provoked retaliation by other countries,killing international trade and made the depression worse

World trade really had nothing to do with the depression.

Then the war came - which is what saved their ass

The economy w2as already growing by around 10% a year before ww2.

 

[Neotrotsky]

World trade had nothing to do with the depression

 

[starcraftzzz]

World trade had nothing to do with the depression

Odd how reaity is always so surprisiing to you