Perchoutofwater Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Well it's good to know you wouldn't dishonestly insinuate that deficit spending in 07-08 was solely or primarily due to Congress; except that's precisely what you did. Well in fairness, he just signed what they passed, and would have risked a government shutdown in 2007 had he not. ETA it was the 2008 budget, voted on in 2007 Edited April 17, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) You may want to see this article where on January 7, 2009, the CBO already projected a budget deficit of $1.2 Trillion prior to Obama even taking the white house. Takes a little luster off that gilded lily you are presenting as Bush's deficit. And, just in case you are curious: So it looks a great deal like the chart you are referrring to is not necessarily Bush v. Obama, but rather 2008 accounting hitting in 2009. Though anyone here who is a corporate accountant may have more insight. Are you going to contribute 2010 to Bush as well? 2010 is scheduled to be 3 times larger than 2008. And when is the left going to start acknowledging congresses part in all of this, both in writing the budget legislation as well as their failures in oversight, and their parts in the failure of Freddie and Fannie? Edited April 17, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Well it's good to know you wouldn't dishonestly insinuate that deficit spending in 07-08 was solely or primarily due to Congress; except that's precisely what you did. he is simply pointing out that there was a big jump in spending and the deficit from the FY2007 budget to the 2008 budget. in fact, the deficit more than doubled in that 1 year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) he is simply pointing out You're so cute when you suckle. Edited April 17, 2009 by bushwacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Are you going to contribute 2010 to Bush as well? 2010 is scheduled to be 3 times larger than 2008. And when is the left going to start acknowledging congresses part in all of this, both in writing the budget legislation as well as their failures in oversight, and their parts in the failure of Freddie and Fannie? Well, yes, yes I am. He owns at least part of it due to the fact he wiped out the surplus and added to the national debt from nearly the moment he took office. I would expect interest on all that is still a major component of the amount owed. If there had not been a surplus, but rather a deficit from Clinton, one could say he still owned part of it (perhaps, unless the interest had all been paid in 8 years). But since Regan and Bush Sr.'s debt had been erased before Chimpy took office, what is there prior to Obama taking office is his to own, until the note is paid off. The congressional component is definately a factor, but since the budget is set by the President, I would assume it's debt is the Executive Branch's to own. Edited April 17, 2009 by cre8tiff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You may want to see this article where on January 7, 2009, the CBO already projected a budget deficit of $1.2 Trillion prior to Obama even taking the white house. and a couple months later, they are projecting $1.85 trillion. so already obama has added more to the deficit ($650 billion) than any single actual full-year deficit under bush. but it's not what happens this year and next year in obama's budgets that concern me the most. we, along with the rest of the world, are in a serious economic jam, and everyone seems to think massive short-term government stimulus is necessary to turn it around. I'm not totally sure I buy that, but I am willing to accept the premise for the purpose of this argument. so I can at least try to sorta look the other way when it comes to the $3 trillion in debt being piled on in FY2009 and 2010. but the REAL problem with obama's proposed budget is all the PERMANENT spending he is heaping on, that has nothing whatsoever to do with short term stimulus. the fact that BOTH the CBO's projections and the administration's own projections forecast deficits well over $500 billion out into perpetuity, long AFTER an assumed economic recovery. and look, they just grow...and grow....and grow over the next decade. the deficits grow even when the forecasters assume the economy will be growing at a healthy pace. playing stop playing partisan ping pong for a second and look at that graph of the CBO projections and ask yourself if you really think that's a great idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 The congressional component is definately a factor, but since the budget is set by the President, I would assume it's debt is the Executive Branch's to own. civics fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 civics fail. <--- That usually means you aren't sure of something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I know many of you are probably looking at these numbers and thinking to yourself...."I just don't believe it. the messiah wouldn't do this to us. he wouldn't advocate something so recklessly irresponsible. surely the wingnut CBO must be lying to us." well here's the deal. obama is making the exact same mistake the last president did. see, both parties convince themselves that they WANT to be fiscally responsible. but they also really want to push through their own very partisan agenda. and, fiscally speaking, their agenda consists of two parts -- one part that makes the voters happy that is fiscally irresponsible, and one part that makes the voters sad but is fiscally responsible. for bush, the part that made people happy was tax cuts, and the part that makes people sad was spending cuts. so bush decided, "I've got to keep people happy for a while, so I'll do the fiscally irresponsible part first. I have to strike while the iron is hot ad push my party's agenda. but I'll get to the fiscally responsible part later on. promise." he was probably somewhat sincere in that, and you do see the deficits coming down early in his second term. but the best laid plans of mice and men....next thing you know he loses congress, and then economic crisis comes along, so the fiscally responsible part never really happens. and that is exactly what obama is doing. he "doesn't want to waste a good crisis", so he is trying to jam as much of his party's irresponsible spending agenda through as early as possible. he knows full well this means BIG tax increases down the road (a lot more than just the returning of the top two tax brackets to clinton levels he is proposing now) if he wants to follow through with the responsible part. but will that ever happen? do we want it to happen? I know some of you do, but I sure don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I know many of you are probably looking at these numbers and thinking to yourself...."I just don't believe it. the messiah wouldn't do this to us. he wouldn't advocate something so recklessly irresponsible. surely the wingnut CBO must be lying to us." well here's the deal. obama is making the exact same mistake the last president did. see, both parties convince themselves that they WANT to be fiscally responsible. but they also really want to push through their own very partisan agenda. and, fiscally speaking, their agenda consists of two parts -- one part that makes the voters happy that is fiscally irresponsible, and one part that makes the voters sad but is fiscally responsible. for bush, the part that made people happy was tax cuts, and the part that makes people sad was spending cuts. so bush decided, "I've got to keep people happy for a while, so I'll do the fiscally irresponsible part first. I have to strike while the iron is hot ad push my party's agenda. but I'll get to the fiscally responsible part later on. promise." he was probably somewhat sincere in that, and you do see the deficits coming down early in his second term. but the best laid plans of mice and men....next thing you know he loses congress, and then economic crisis comes along, so the fiscally responsible part never really happens. and that is exactly what obama is doing. he "doesn't want to waste a good crisis", so he is trying to jam as much of his party's irresponsible spending agenda through as early as possible. he knows full well this means BIG tax increases down the road (a lot more than just the returning of the top two tax brackets to clinton levels he is proposing now) if he wants to follow through with the responsible part. but will that ever happen? do we want it to happen? I know some of you do, but I sure don't. Slight difference Az... You don't lower taxes in a time of war. You do deficit spend in a recession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Slight difference Az... You don't lower taxes in a time of war. You do deficit spend in a recession. somewhat true, but bush's first round of tax cuts was before 9/11. and as I already stated, the problem with obama's budget isn't necessarily the short-term anti-recession spending, it is the permanent, long-term spending. and...another slight difference. $2 trillion (the total debt accumulated in fiscal years 2002 through 2008) versus $6 trillion (the amount projected to be added from 2010 to 2016). the scope of what we're preparing to do is basically unprecedented. the stakes are much higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) somewhat true, but bush's first round of tax cuts was before 9/11. and as I already stated, the problem with obama's budget isn't necessarily the short-term anti-recession spending, it is the permanent, long-term spending. and...another slight difference. $2 trillion (the total debt accumulated in fiscal years 2002 through 2008) versus $6 trillion (the amount projected to be added from 2010 to 2016). the scope of what we're preparing to do is basically unprecedented. the stakes are much higher. And the good news is that after 9/11, terrorism justified tax cuts for the rich. Then the Iraq war... well, we're gonna need some tax cuts for the rich. Holy crap! The economy is starting to go in the crapper... I wonder what will fix it. Hey! I know! Tax cuts for the rich! Hmm... the economy seems to be getting worse and we're starting to go into a recession. Better give some more tax cuts to the rich. The stakes are definitely much higher. This is the cleanup that happens after you let a moron justify the unjustifiable for 8 years. Nah, you and Bush don't own any of this problem. Edited April 17, 2009 by AtomicCEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I don't care about military service by my president. you sure as hell coulda fooled me the last 8 years. The only reason I brought it up was the AWOL coward comment he made. You really don't see a difference between: "I was never drafted and never served" and "My dad got me into the National Guard to avoid the draft, and I got drunk and skipped it"? I think someone who did serve is probably going to harbor a little more resentment toward the AWOL Coward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 And the good news is that after 9/11, terrorism justified tax cuts for the rich. Then the Iraq war... well, we're gonna need some tax cuts for the rich. Holy crap! The economy is starting to go in the crapper... I wonder what will fix it. Hey! I know! Tax cuts for the rich! Hmm... the economy seems to be getting worse and we're starting to go into a recession. Better give some more tax cuts to the rich. The stakes are definitely much higher. This is the cleanup that happens after you let a moron justify the unjustifiable for 8 years. Nah, you and Bush don't own any of this problem. But here's the thing. I might have missed it, but I really don't see much evidence that tax cuts caused the problem we're having now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You really don't see a difference between:"I was never drafted and never served" and "My dad got me into the National Guard to avoid the draft, and I got drunk and skipped it"? that would seem to qualify as "caring about the military service of my president". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 But here's the thing. I might have missed it, but I really don't see much evidence that tax cuts caused the problem we're having now. I'm guessing that the people who can't afford these mortgages might been able to keep those payments flowing if the rich(even Congress) weren't getting pampered by the IRS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 The stakes are definitely much higher. This is the cleanup that happens after you let a moron justify the unjustifiable for 8 years. right, right right. and of course, the "cleanup" consists of the exact same thing, only 3 times as much. gotcha. ok, I'm sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 And the good news is that after 9/11, terrorism justified tax cuts for the rich. Then the Iraq war... well, we're gonna need some tax cuts for the rich. Holy crap! The economy is starting to go in the crapper... I wonder what will fix it. Hey! I know! Tax cuts for the rich! Hmm... the economy seems to be getting worse and we're starting to go into a recession. Better give some more tax cuts to the rich. The stakes are definitely much higher. This is the cleanup that happens after you let a moron justify the unjustifiable for 8 years. Nah, you and Bush don't own any of this problem. I think one side is now feeling the same dread getting up every morning that the anti Bush people felt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) I think one side is now feeling the same dread getting up every morning that the anti Bush people felt. On a side note, I didn't know you lived on the Chesapeake Bay: Waterman finds Chesapeake Bay "dying daily". Edited April 17, 2009 by cre8tiff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 right, right right. and of course, the "cleanup" consists of the exact same thing, only 3 times as much. gotcha. ok, I'm sold. Exact same thing? If it was the exact same thing, you and perch wouldn't be posting 10 threads an hour about it. You seem to have forgotten that instead of truly useful Iraq war spending and pointed purposeful tax cuts for the rich... Obama is interfering with awesome corporate capitalism by giving benefits to everyone and trying to create jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 On a side note, I didn't know you lived on the Chesapeake Bay: Waterman finds Chesapeake Bay "dying daily". South Carolina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 10 states that get the most back from taxes paid(not in any order) Alaska N Dakota S Dakota WV Kentucky New Mexico VA LA Mississippi Alabama Are these all red states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 10 states that get the most back from taxes paid(not in any order) Alaska N Dakota S Dakota WV Kentucky New Mexico VA LA Mississippi Alabama Are these all red states? New Mexico and Virginia went for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Tell the Gov to take the Cowboys with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 What about Bush Sr? Ack, I meant Bush Sr when I typed "four years of W". My bad; George H Bush served admirably in WW II. All the more remarkable since Grandpa Prescott wanted to take over the gov't and install a fascist regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts