PDA

View Full Version : Economics U.S. Deficit Shrinking At Fastest Pace Since WWII


BigRedChief
11-21-2012, 09:45 PM
http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm

http://www.investors.com/image/WEBcaphill01_1120_345.gif.cms

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Believe it or not, the federal deficit has fallen faster over the past three years than it has in any such stretch since demobilization from World War II.

In fact, outside of that post-WWII era, the only time the deficit has fallen faster was when the economy relapsed in 1937, turning the Great Depression into a decade-long affair.

If U.S. history offers any guide, we are already testing the speed limits of a fiscal consolidation that doesn't risk backfiring. That's why the best way to address the fiscal cliff likely is to postpone it.

While long-term deficit reduction is important and deficits remain very large by historical standards, the reality is that the government already has its foot on the brakes.

In this sense, the "fiscal cliff" metaphor is especially poor. The government doesn't need to apply the brakes with more force to avoid disaster. Rather the "cliff" is an artificial one that has sprung up because the two parties are able to agree on so little.

Hopefully, they will agree, as they did at the end of 2010, to embrace their disagreement for a bit longer. That seems a reasonably likely outcome of negotiations because the most likely alternative to a punt is a compromise (expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top and the payroll tax cut, along with modest spending cuts) that could still push the economy into recession.

Rather than applying additional fiscal restraint now, the government needs to make sure it sets the course for steady restraint once the economy emerges further from the deep employment hole that remains. In fact, a number of so-called deficit hawks are calling for short-term tax cuts to spur growth, rather than immediate austerity.

From fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012, the deficit shrank 3.1 percentage points, from 10.1% to 7.0% of GDP.

That's just a bit faster than the 3.0 percentage point deficit improvement from 1995 to '98, but at that point, the economy had everything going for it.

Other occasions when the federal deficit contracted by much more than 1 percentage point a year have coincided with recession. Some examples include 1937, 1960 and 1969.

President Obama hasn't gotten much credit for reining in the deficit, probably because a big part of the deficit progress has come from the unwinding of extraordinary government supports that he helped put in place. Stimulus programs have come and mostly gone; the end of stimulus to states led them to enact Medicaid curbs; jobless benefits in recent months have fallen by 50% since early 2010 (due to both job gains and extended benefits being exhausted).

TARP and the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also make the deficit improvement look better, boosting the fiscal '09 deficit by about $200 billion more than in fiscal '12 (though the initial cost of TARP was overstated).

Still, military spending is now on the decline due to fewer troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; Medicare costs rose 3% last year vs. the average 7% growth in recent years; and after the last year's Budget Control Act, excluding the automatic cuts set to take effect in January, nondefense discretionary spending is already on a path to shrink to 2.7% of GDP, well below the 3.9% average, notes the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]-->

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 09:51 PM
So you're saying a Republican congress and gridlock is a good thing, then?

go bowe
11-21-2012, 10:00 PM
:facepalm:

Brainiac
11-21-2012, 10:01 PM
This is a perfect example of how you can manipulate statistics to support whatever conclusion you wish. Every year of the Obama administration has resulted in deficits in excess of a TRILLION dollars, yet this article would have us believe that the Obama administration is the most fiscally responsible administration ever.

Trillion dollar deficits used to be an unthinkable nightmare scenario. Now when they happen every freaking year of the Obama administration, Obama is congratulated for his "fiscal restraint".

But hey, if it says it on the Internet, it must be true.

go bowe
11-21-2012, 10:05 PM
This is a perfect example of how you can manipulate statistics to support whatever conclusion you wish. Every year of the Obama administration has resulted in deficits in excess of a TRILLION dollars, yet this article would have us believe that the Obama administration is the most fiscally responsible administration ever.

Trillion dollar deficits used to be an unthinkable nightmare scenario. Now when they happen every freaking year of the Obama administration, Obama is congratulated for his "fiscal restraint".

But hey, if it says it on the Internet, it must be true.

yes, grasshopper, the internet is knowledge and the path to inner peace...

Bewbies
11-21-2012, 10:25 PM
This forum would not be nearly as fun if people even displayed the smallest amount of common sense to what they write/post/copy. LMAO

Brainiac
11-21-2012, 11:09 PM
This forum would not be nearly as fun if people even displayed the smallest amount of common sense to what they write/post/copy. LMAO

Next, some idiot will try to tell us that if we already have good health insurance, we'll be able to keep it when Obamacare is fully implemented. :spock:

BigRedChief
11-22-2012, 08:08 AM
This forum would not be nearly as fun if people even displayed the smallest amount of common sense to what they write/post/copy. LMAOSo now the criteria is that you have to believe as gospel everything from the media/blog/internet that you post or don't post it at all?

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 08:23 AM
This is a perfect example of how you can manipulate statistics to support whatever conclusion you wish. Every year of the Obama administration has resulted in deficits in excess of a TRILLION dollars, yet this article would have us believe that the Obama administration is the most fiscally responsible administration ever.

Did eternity begin after WWII?

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 08:27 AM
The truth is, austerity in a bad economy has been proven again, and again, and again, to be reckless.

Europe, four years ago, as in a similar situation to us. Europe embraced the conservative solution -- austerity.

The United States embraced the liberal solution -- deficit-fueled demand injected into the economy by the government.

Now, one entity is headed in the right direction. The other is at 12% unemployment and rising.

The fact that the Obama administration was able to do this while cutting the deficit he inherited by 300 billion dollars is unheardof.

But it's not terribly surprising. In modern American history, Democrats fix the deficit, Republicans explode it.

Otter
11-22-2012, 08:36 AM
I'm no economist but I just checked the numbers of the deficit and they are increasing at the same rate and the totals are higher now than when I began typing this post let alone a month ago

Have I been in the dark all these years concerning the word 'shrinking' or the correct function of a number line? And when did Direkshun and BRC activate wonder twin powers?

Dude, stop please.

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 08:40 AM
The truth is, austerity in a bad economy has been proven again, and again, and again, to be reckless.
History shows otherwise. Unless you rely on politically correct data we're spoon-fed by academia and media.

Europe, four years ago, as in a similar situation to us. Europe embraced the conservative solution -- austerity.
No Europe is being run by Euro-commies and technocrats. They've been sucked into social welfare state for so long, it's gonna be harder for them to get out of it. It's ruined the mentality of their people

But it's not terribly surprising. In modern American history, Democrats fix the deficit, Republicans explode it.
That's because Ds like taxes and Rs don't. R's simply do not reduce the welfare-state. Instead they circumvent by not having it paid for because doing so would hurt the economy and impoverish more people. They're damned if they do and damned that they don't.

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 08:42 AM
I'm no economist but I just checked the numbers of the deficit and they are increasing at the same rate and the totals are higher now than when I began typing this post let alone a month ago

Have I been in the dark all these years concerning the word 'shrinking' or the correct function of a number line? And when did Direkshun and BRC activate wonder twin powers?

Dude, stop please.

Link?

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 08:44 AM
Otter,

From fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012, the deficit shrank 3.1 percentage points, from 10.1% to 7.0% of GDP.

That's the math.

What "numbers" are you looking at? Because I'm calling bullshit.

Otter
11-22-2012, 08:46 AM
This is a perfect example of how you can manipulate statistics to support whatever conclusion you wish. Every year of the Obama administration has resulted in deficits in excess of a TRILLION dollars, yet this article would have us believe that the Obama administration is the most fiscally responsible administration ever.

Trillion dollar deficits used to be an unthinkable nightmare scenario. Now when they happen every freaking year of the Obama administration, Obama is congratulated for his "fiscal restraint".

But hey, if it says it on the Internet, it must be true.

My wife stopped putting $1000 of shoes on the $100,000 limit credit card we are only paying minimum payment on monthly and took it down to $950 of shoes a month. Victory! My wife is a genius! All hail my wife!

Fucking idiots

Otter
11-22-2012, 08:48 AM
Otter,

From fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012, the deficit shrank 3.1 percentage points, from 10.1% to 7.0% of GDP.

That's the math.

What "numbers" are you looking at? Because I'm calling bullshit.

This one: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Otter
11-22-2012, 08:52 AM
Otter,

From fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012, the deficit shrank 3.1 percentage points, from 10.1% to 7.0% of GDP.

That's the math.

What "numbers" are you looking at? Because I'm calling bullshit.

Dude, you guys wanna believe this shit, which I know you do because you're a blind whore to all things Obama, go right ahead. You look like a fool. This is like cheering for an alcoholic that cut down to 3 liters of vodka a day,

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 08:57 AM
The deficits for the last 6 years:

2007: $161 Billion
2008: $459 Billion
2009: $1.4 Trillion
2010: $1.3 Trillion
2011: $1.3 Trillion
2012: $1.1 Trillion (estimated)

I know it's fashionable for the Obots to call the 2009 deficit a "Bush deficit" so that they can argue that Obama is some kind of awesome deficit cutter.

But the fact is Obama was elected President in November of 2008. He was inaugurated as President on January 20th, 2009. To try to claim that the $1.4 Trillion deficit in 2009 is a "Bush deficit" is patently ridiculous, and it's typical of the spin that is being applied these days in an attempt to portray Obama as a fiscally responsible President. His first year in office he added a TRILLION dollars to the deficit, and now he's simply maintaining it.

You Obots can make these ridiculous claims all you want. Just don't be surprised that anyone with a lick of common sense doesn't buy it.

Otter
11-22-2012, 09:03 AM
And read the first sentence 'over the past three years'. Think about that for a second Einstein...

JASONSAUTO
11-22-2012, 09:08 AM
And read the first sentence 'over the past three years'. Think about that for a second Einstein...

Lol. It will be spun
Posted via Mobile Device

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 09:12 AM
There is one thing the BRC/Direckshun Obot twins get right: elections have consequences. About a trillion consequences every year.

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 09:34 AM
This one: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Debt is not the same thing as deficit, tard.

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 09:39 AM
The deficits for the last 6 years:

Obama's been in office four years.

2009: $1.4 Trillion
2010: $1.3 Trillion
2011: $1.3 Trillion
2012: $1.1 Trillion (estimated)

I know it's fashionable for the Obots to call the 2009 deficit a "Bush deficit" so that they can argue that Obama is some kind of awesome deficit cutter.

But the fact is Obama was elected President in November of 2008. He was inaugurated as President on January 20th, 2009. To try to claim that the $1.4 Trillion deficit in 2009 is a "Bush deficit" is patently ridiculous, and it's typical of the spin that is being applied these days in an attempt to portray Obama as a fiscally responsible President.

All due respect, but this is not a very well educated argument.

But regardless -- Obama and the government spent more at the outset due to the argument I made earlier in the thread:

The truth is, austerity in a bad economy has been proven again, and again, and again, to be reckless.

Europe, four years ago, as in a similar situation to us. Europe embraced the conservative solution -- austerity.

The United States embraced the liberal solution -- deficit-fueled demand injected into the economy by the government.

Now, one entity is headed in the right direction. The other is at 12% unemployment and rising.

His first year in office he added a TRILLION dollars to the deficit, and now he's simply maintaining it.

This is hilariously wrong.

The Great Recession occurred that walloped tax receipts. This isn't new news.

And the idea that Obama is "simply maintaining it" is undercut by the OP.

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 09:40 AM
There is one thing the BRC/Direckshun Obot twins get right: elections have consequences. About a trillion consequences every year.

Please share with me how we could have lowered the deficit more than $300 billion over the past four years while pulling the economy out of a recession.

My guess is that you, along with anybody else, is incapable of figuring that out.

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 09:52 AM
Obama's been in office four years.

JFC, are you really this stupid? I showed the last 6 years so that we could compare the deficits of Bush's last 2 years with the deficits of Obama's 4 years. If I had shown the deficits of the last 20 years, would you have said "But, but, Obama's only been in office four years! Why are you confusing me with this extra data?


All due respect, but this is not a very well educated argument.

Oh really? Are you aware of what an unsupported assertion is? Try supporting your assertion with something other than "this is not a very well educated argument" or your standard "Swing and a miss".


But regardless -- Obama and the government spent more at the outset due to the argument I made earlier in the thread:


This is hilariously wrong.

The Great Recession occurred that walloped tax receipts. This isn't new news.

And the idea that Obama is "simply maintaining it" is undercut by the OP.
OK, I see how this works. I say that the OP is wrong. I support it with facts and statistics, and I point out the dishonesty of trying to blame the 2009 deficits on Bush. You say the OP is right, and your evidence to support that is, well, the OP.

Add "circular argument" to your word list of the day, along with "unsupported assertion".

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 10:01 AM
JFC, are you really this stupid? I showed the last 6 years so that we could compare the deficits of Bush's last 2 years with the deficits of Obama's 4 years. If I had shown the deficits of the last 20 years, would you have said "But, but, Obama's only been in office four years! Why are you confusing me with this extra data?

The deficit was $1.3 trillion when Obama walked into the Oval Office on Day 1.

True or false.

OK, I see how this works. I say that the OP is wrong.

The deficit has fallen $300 billion since Obama first walked into the Oval Office on Day 1.

True or false.

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 10:01 AM
Please share with me how we could have lowered the deficit more than $300 billion over the past four years while pulling the economy out of a recession.

My guess is that you, along with anybody else, is incapable of figuring that out.
When you increase the deficit from $459 billion to $1.4 trillion in year 1, then "only" have a deficit $1.1 trillion in year 4, I suppose you can claim that you lowered the deficit by $300 billion. If you're an idiot.

And you can say all you want about "pulling the economy out of a recession", and you would be technically correct since we are no longer in a situation where GDP has declined for two consecutive quarters. However, the real unemployment rate tells the story of an economy that is in terrible shape.


The 'Real' Unemployment Rate Is Still Really Lousy

If you have doubts about the official jobless rate, there's another rate you can check out instead--the "real" unemployment rate, which measures everybody considered unemployed plus a lot of others who are falling through the cracks.

The government calls this the "U-6" rate, and it has become a source of considerable intrigue lately. Some critics of President Obama contend that the government keeps the "real" rate a secret, because it reveals an economy that's in far worse shape than the official unemployment rate suggests. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says frequently that while the official unemployment rate may be improving, the real rate is still terrible. "If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force," Romney said in a recent statement, "the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11 percent."

It may be even higher than that, depending on how you count. The official unemployment rate fell in September from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent, which is good news for Obama heading into the last few weeks before the November elections. The unemployment rate is now 2.1 percentage points below its 2009 peak, and at the same level as when Obama took office.

But Romney is correct to suggest that the official rate doesn't capture the depth of pain in the labor market. His rate, of nearly 11 percent, comes from an extrapolation involving the percentage of adults considered to be part of the labor force. But the government's own U-6 measure is even higher, at 14.7 percent. That's the percentage of adult Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, too discouraged to look for work or "marginally attached" to the labor force.

http://news.yahoo.com/real-unemployment-rate-still-really-lousy-211815397.html

Munson
11-22-2012, 10:02 AM
In the first month of fiscal year 2013, the deficit is already $120 billion. Obama is on pace for another trillion dollar deficit, for the 5th year in a row.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA2HA0B00

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 10:03 AM
The deficit was $1.3 trillion when Obama walked into the Oval Office on Day 1.

True or false.



The deficit has fallen $300 billion since Obama first walked into the Oval Office on Day 1.

True or false.
Completely false. The deficit was $459 billion the day Obama walked into office. Now it's $1.1 trillion.

I know you refuse to believe the evidence that's right in front of you, but that doesn't make the evidence go away.

Ebolapox
11-22-2012, 10:04 AM
like it or not, these things just don't matter to obama fans--he's just so dreamy!

go bowe
11-22-2012, 10:06 AM
dreamy?

gosh, i didn't think anybody'd notice... :p

BigMeatballDave
11-22-2012, 10:09 AM
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/4/1/1/0/4/7/ObamaSheep-41325934309.jpeg

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 10:39 AM
The deficit was $1.3 trillion when Obama walked into the Oval Office on Day 1.

True or false.



The deficit has fallen $300 billion since Obama first walked into the Oval Office on Day 1.

True or false.

This response is so stupid and so factually incorrect that I just can't resist replying to it again.

What day do you think Obama walked into the Oval Office? Was it 14 months after he was elected? Was it a year after he was inaugurated as President?

I know Obama is dreamy to you, but you are really embarrassing yourself here. You'd be a helluva lot better off if you'd just admit you got it wrong and move on.

KILLER_CLOWN
11-22-2012, 10:41 AM
Now that everything is fixed, we should move to get Hopebama a 3rd term.

Fat Elvis
11-22-2012, 11:02 AM
The truth is, austerity in a bad economy has been proven again, and again, and again, to be reckless.

Europe, four years ago, as in a similar situation to us. Europe embraced the conservative solution -- austerity.

The United States embraced the liberal solution -- deficit-fueled demand injected into the economy by the government.

Now, one entity is headed in the right direction. The other is at 12% unemployment and rising.

The fact that the Obama administration was able to do this while cutting the deficit he inherited by 300 billion dollars is unheardof.

But it's not terribly surprising. In modern American history, Democrats fix the deficit, Republicans explode it.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/154301_10151147051126275_1343125652_n.jpg

Liberals and their stupid facts....

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 11:25 AM
And you can say all you want about "pulling the economy out of a recession", and you would be technically correct since we are no longer in a situation where GDP has declined for two consecutive quarters. However, the real unemployment rate tells the story of an economy that is in terrible shape.

The "real" unemployment rate fluctuates just as the unemployment rate does.

Like the unemployment rate, it's been going in the right direction.

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 11:27 AM
Completely false. The deficit was $459 billion the day Obama walked into office.

I want a link to this. I want one remotely serious person who isn't on a rightwing organization's payroll to confirm this argument.

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 11:30 AM
Liberals and their stupid facts....

Not entirely sure what you're responding to?

CoMoChief
11-22-2012, 11:34 AM
Who in the hell actually believes this clown show?

The US deficit isn't shrinking folks.

We're spending more than we're taking in. It's really that simple.

mlyonsd
11-22-2012, 11:35 AM
I might have to rethink this crazy idea I have in my head that budgets matter.

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 11:35 AM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/154301_10151147051126275_1343125652_n.jpg

Liberals and their stupid facts....
The problem with the "facts" presented in this chart is the same problem I've already pointed out. It blames Bush for the $1.4 trillion that Obama spent in 2009.

This chart is both wrong and outdated. Obama has added over $5 trillion to the debt in 4 years. Bush added $4.7 trillion in 8 years. Bush's record was horrible. However, Obama is adding insane amounts to the deficit, and he's doing it at more than twice the rate of George W. Bush.

Ponder those FACTS.

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 11:38 AM
I want a link to this. I want one remotely serious person who isn't on a rightwing organization's payroll to confirm this argument.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Or is that too "right wing" for you?

stonedstooge
11-22-2012, 11:40 AM
The problem with the "facts" presented in this chart is the same problem I've already pointed out. It blames Bush for the $1.4 trillion that Obama spent in 2009.

This chart is both wrong and outdated. Obama has added over $5 trillion to the debt in 4 years. Bush added $4.7 trillion in 8 years. Bush's record was horrible. However, Obama is adding insane amounts to the deficit, and he's doing it at more than twice the rate of George W. Bush.

Ponder those FACTS.

RACIST!!!!!!!

DementedLogic
11-22-2012, 11:48 AM
The truth is, austerity in a bad economy has been proven again, and again, and again, to be reckless.

Europe, four years ago, as in a similar situation to us. Europe embraced the conservative solution -- austerity.

The United States embraced the liberal solution -- deficit-fueled demand injected into the economy by the government.

Now, one entity is headed in the right direction. The other is at 12% unemployment and rising.

The only country in Europe that really practicied Austerity, was Germany. Their recovery was much stronger than ours and their unemployment rate is down to less than 6%. Germany took Obama's advice and threw it out the window.

The only time the US really practiced Austerity in response to an economic recession was during the Depression of 1920-21, which resulted in one of the strongest economic recoveries this country has ever seen.

donkhater
11-22-2012, 12:01 PM
So Bush is to blame for the deficit in year one of Obama's presidency. Fine.

(Nevermind that Obama agreed with the policies that caused the explosion but I digress)

What the hell has the savior done since?

No budgets, no implementation of the recommendation of the bipartisan commission that HE asked for, and nothing but class warfare and blame?

Impressive budget hawk, that one.

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 12:07 PM
So Bush is to blame for the deficit in year one of Obama's presidency. Fine.

(Nevermind that Obama agreed with the policies that caused the explosion but I digress)



That's like saying Scott Pioli agreed with the decision to bring Matt Cassel to Kansas City. (But it was really Carl Peterson's fault).

aturnis
11-22-2012, 01:16 PM
This is a perfect example of how you can manipulate statistics to support whatever conclusion you wish. Every year of the Obama administration has resulted in deficits in excess of a TRILLION dollars, yet this article would have us believe that the Obama administration is the most fiscally responsible administration ever.

Trillion dollar deficits used to be an unthinkable nightmare scenario. Now when they happen every freaking year of the Obama administration, Obama is congratulated for his "fiscal restraint".

But hey, if it says it on the Internet, it must be true.

How much interest does the US pay every year on what Dubya added to the deficit?

BigRedChief
11-22-2012, 01:46 PM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/154301_10151147051126275_1343125652_n.jpg

Liberals and their stupid facts....Are these real numbers? Or partisan numbers?

donkhater
11-22-2012, 01:46 PM
That's like saying Scott Pioli agreed with the decision to bring Matt Cassel to Kansas City. (But it was really Carl Peterson's fault).

No. It's not. What an absurd analogy. Not even close, really.

Xanathol
11-22-2012, 01:48 PM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/154301_10151147051126275_1343125652_n.jpg

Liberals and their stupid facts....

The ability to use power point does not rely on facts. Try something that is sourced (http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-federal-debt-by-president-political-party/) instead...

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-federal-debt-percentage-gdp-by-president-political-party.jpg

Or maybe from a site you can better understand (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/unabridged-and-illustrated-federal-budget-dummies-part-3-debt-deficits)...

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/05/20120503_FedBudgDebt1_0.png
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/05/20120503_FedBudgDebt4_0.png
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/05/20120503_FedBudgDebt9_0.png

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 02:02 PM
Are these real numbers? Or partisan numbers?

The arrangement of the numbers to move the $1.4 trillion in 2009 spending from Obama's ledger to Bush's ledger is extremely partisan. It doesn't get much more partisan than that.

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 02:04 PM
How much interest does the US pay every year on what Dubya added to the deficit?
I haven't bothered to look it up.

Have you? Are you going to try to claim that the $5 Trillion Obama has added to the national debt consists of that?

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 02:07 PM
No. It's not. What an absurd analogy. Not even close, really.
The analogy is spot on.

How about if you explain how it's absurd instead of just asserting it without offering anything to back up your assertion?

By the way, the analogy supported the point you made earlier. Are you sure you understood the analogy?

BigRedChief
11-22-2012, 02:10 PM
The arrangement of the numbers to move the $1.4 trillion in 2009 spending from Obama's ledger to Bush's ledger is extremely partisan. It doesn't get much more partisan than that.maybe, but I could see an argument being made that the stimulus was done due to the Bush era policies and the housing/Wall street crash under Bush.

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 02:20 PM
maybe, but I could see an argument being made that the stimulus was done due to the Bush era policies and the housing/Wall street crash under Bush.
That's certainly an argument that someone could make, and then a debate could take place regarding whether or not it's valid. But to arbitrarily move that number from Obama to Bush is dishonest, misleading, and extremely partisan. Obama was the President. He spent the money.

donkhater
11-22-2012, 02:22 PM
The analogy is spot on.

How about if you explain how it's absurd instead of just asserting it without offering anything to back up your assertion?

By the way, the analogy supported the point you made earlier. Are you sure you understood the analogy?

I try to abstain from explaining common sense to people, because if it needs explaining then I'm clearly talking with someone who doesn't have a lick of it.

However,

The analogy that WOULD have made sense is that if Peterson traded for Cassel and Pioli got the blame, but claim it doesn't matter since Pioli would've traded for him as well. But that's not what you wrote.

The analogy you wrote is absurd. Brainiac, indeed.

dirk digler
11-22-2012, 02:38 PM
The arrangement of the numbers to move the $1.4 trillion in 2009 spending from Obama's ledger to Bush's ledger is extremely partisan. It doesn't get much more partisan than that.

Not really. The fact is the government's fiscal year starts in October every year. That is 5 months prior to Obama taking over. After Bush got his budget passed he passed several appropriation bills for the Iraq and Afghanistan War and then of course the $700 billion dollar TARP.

With projected receipts less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicted a net deficit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_deficit) of approximately $400 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt) of about $11.4 trillion. The actual spending signed into law in the final bill was increased by over $400 billion. And actual tax receipts totaled approximately $2.1 trillion, $600 billion less than the $2.7 trillion expected. The actual deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion.

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 02:42 PM
I try to abstain from explaining common sense to people, because if it needs explaining then I'm clearly talking with someone who doesn't have a lick of it.

However,

The analogy that WOULD have made sense is that if Peterson traded for Cassel and Pioli got the blame, but claim it doesn't matter since Pioli would've traded for him as well. But that's not what you wrote.

The analogy you wrote is absurd. Brainiac, indeed.
Um, no. The whole point of what I wrote is that the Obama supporters are trying to blame his predecessor for something Obama did. That would be like blaming Pioli's predecessor for something Pioli did.

I don't understand why that is so confusing for you. Perhaps your should spend more time working on reading comprehension and less time talking about how much common sense you have.

RNR
11-22-2012, 02:55 PM
The Ministry of Truth has announced all is well :clap: Gas was $1.80 per gallon when the economy was bad, now the economy is booming and that is why it is close to $4.00 per gallon. Be thankful to our precious leader :thumb: for the last time the attacks on 9-11 were not aimed at America, they were aimed at a YouTube video that came out months ago. All of our enemies have been defeated by our precious leader :thumb:

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 03:10 PM
Not really. The fact is the government's fiscal year starts in October every year. That is 5 months prior to Obama taking over. After Bush got his budget passed he passed several appropriation bills for the Iraq and Afghanistan War and then of course the $700 billion dollar TARP.
I'll concede the point that HALF of the $700 billion dollar TARP could legitimately be charged to Bush, because the TARP bill passed while he was President and he spent $350 billion of it. However, Obama was not only fully on board with the TARP program, he actually asked Bush to release the remaining $350 billion before Obama even took office.

I'll agree that it can be a little tricky figuring out exactly who is responsible for the respective portions of that $1.4 trillion deficit for 2009. But to just arbitrarily charge all of it to Bush is extremely misleading and inaccurate.

dirk digler
11-22-2012, 03:22 PM
I'll concede the point that HALF of the $700 billion dollar TARP could legitimately be charged to Bush, because the TARP bill passed while he was President and he spent $350 billion of it. However, Obama was not only fully on board with the TARP program, he actually asked Bush to release the remaining $350 billion before Obama even took office.

I'll agree that it can be a little tricky figuring out exactly who is responsible for the respective portions of that $1.4 trillion deficit for 2009. But to just arbitrarily charge all of it to Bush is extremely misleading and inaccurate.

Fair enough. Obama is certainly responsible for what he spent once he took office like his stimulus bill and defense appropriation bills.

I was just checking on the cost of the appropriations they passed in December and it was around $500 billion and they were requesting almost $200 billion more.

The Administration has requested a total of $196.5 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2008, of which $189.3 billion is for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, $6.9 billion is for international affairs, and $325 million is for other programs. To date, Congress has appropriated $16.8 billion requested for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, but much of the remainder has been caught up in debate over Iraq policy.

On December 17, the House approved an omnibus FY2008 appropriations bill, H.R. 2764, that provides $485 billion in regular and emergency appropriations for non-defense programs, including international affairs, plus $31 billion in emergency supplemental defense appropriations for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). On December 18, the Senate took up the bill and, by a vote of 70-25, adopted an amendment by Senator McConnell to provide $70 billion in emergency supplemental defense appropriations without limits on where the money can be used. The House is expected to consider to amended bill on December 19.

Of course Joe Biden relayed this story a couple of months ago that should shed light on what they were walking into.

Biden told the group of Floridians that he and President Obama had been on the job less than a week when a top economic adviser told them the country was facing a trillion-dollar budget deficit. Biden says that Obama replied, “But I haven’t done anything yet.”

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 04:35 PM
The only country in Europe that really practicied Austerity, was Germany. Their recovery was much stronger than ours and their unemployment rate is down to less than 6%. Germany took Obama's advice and threw it out the window.

Nope. Our recovery was actually stronger than Germany's. We're poised to grow at a much more productive rate than them over the next four years.

Virtually every country in Europe embraced austerity. You're blind, or you don't keep up with that kind of information. One of the two.

There were austerity riots all over Europe, for Christ's sakes.

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 04:38 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Or is that too "right wing" for you?

That doesn't confirm your argument. If it does, I need you to quote the part that does.

Is there a single serious author on the Internet that agrees with you that Obama had anything less than a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit the day he took office?

Because you're flat wrong.

The deficit was 1.3 trillion dollars the day Obama stepped into office.

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 04:39 PM
So Bush is to blame for the deficit in year one of Obama's presidency. Fine.

(Nevermind that Obama agreed with the policies that caused the explosion but I digress)

What the hell has the savior done since?

Check the OP.

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 04:42 PM
Not really. The fact is the government's fiscal year starts in October every year.

Which is why you will not find a single serious soul on the internet claim Obama inherited anything less than a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit.

Not a single one.

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 04:52 PM
FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-dodge/):

It’s true that Obama “inherited the biggest deficit in our history,” as he said on CBS. By the time Obama took office in January 2009, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had already estimated that increased spending and decreased revenues would result in a $1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009, which began Oct. 1, 2008. In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/barack-obama/obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/):

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

NYT's Economix (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/blaming-obama-for-george-w-bushs-policies/) blog...

Because of the large deficits Mr. Bush bequeathed Mr. Obama – on Jan. 8, 2009, the C.B.O. projected a deficit for the year of $1.3 trillion that didn’t include any Obama policies – Congress was deeply reluctant to enact a stimulus larger than $787 billion...

Direckshun
11-22-2012, 05:00 PM
Reuters (http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2010/02/01/obama-reminds-americans-he-inherited-the-high-deficit-from-republicans/):

The result: a $1.3 trillion deficit when he first took over the Oval Office.

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/politics/claims-likely-to-surface-in-debate-and-facts-behind-them.html):

Nonpartisan analysts agree that Mr. Obama inherited a bad hand: the 2009 deficit was a projected $1.2 trillion when he took office because of Bush-era policies and an economic crisis that slashed tax collections and increased spending for jobless aid and other safety-net programs. He has added $1.4 trillion in stimulus spending and tax cuts, and he has continued the Bush policies that Democrats blame for the swing from surpluses to deficits: income tax cuts, a Medicare drug benefit and war operations.

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/05/budget-office-tallies-2012-deficit-at-11t/):

Obama inherited an economy in recession and a deficit in excess of $1 trillion.

Associated Press (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/10/obama-and-romney-where-stand-on-issues/):

Obama: His pledge to cut the deficit "we inherited" in half by end of first term is a mark likely to be missed by a wide margin. The deficit when he took office was $1.2 trillion, and the $800 billion stimulus bill Obama signed soon afterward increased the shortfall to more than $1.4 trillion.

BigRedChief
11-22-2012, 05:10 PM
I'll agree that it can be a little tricky figuring out exactly who is responsible for the respective portions of that $1.4 trillion deficit for 2009. But to just arbitrarily charge all of it to Bush is extremely misleading and inaccurate.Your bias is showing. No one and I mean no one outside the bubble thinks Obama didn't inherit at least a $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush.

donkhater
11-22-2012, 05:10 PM
So you're saying Obama's as bad as Bush? I agree.

nstygma
11-22-2012, 05:22 PM
FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-dodge/):



PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/barack-obama/obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/):



NYT's Economix (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/blaming-obama-for-george-w-bushs-policies/) blog... estimated, projected. isn't there a resource that tracks the actual number on a monthly basis at least?

BigRedChief
11-22-2012, 05:33 PM
So you're saying Obama's as bad as Bush? I agree.Foreign policy, Debt, Deficit, budget.......... yeah they are eerily similar. Gives ammunition and evidence to those who say it doesn't matter who wins.

nstygma
11-22-2012, 09:00 PM
yep


http://i.imgur.com/WQTK6.jpg

DementedLogic
11-23-2012, 01:25 AM
Nope. Our recovery was actually stronger than Germany's. We're poised to grow at a much more productive rate than them over the next four years.

Virtually every country in Europe embraced austerity. You're blind, or you don't keep up with that kind of information. One of the two.

There were austerity riots all over Europe, for Christ's sakes.

Austerity is all in perspective. A socialist country practicing austerity is not the same as a capitalist country practicing Austerity.

Germany's unemployment rate is below 6% from above 9% while running a much lower deficit. I don't know how you can rationally defend that our recovery was stronger than Germany's.

BigMeatballDave
11-23-2012, 01:31 AM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/395041_442643779105788_922467303_n.jpg

Mr. Flopnuts
11-23-2012, 04:46 AM
Austerity is all in perspective. A socialist country practicing austerity is not the same as a capitalist country practicing Austerity.

Germany's unemployment rate is below 6% from above 9% while running a much lower deficit. I don't know how you can rationally defend that our recovery was stronger than Germany's.

I've been saying for a while now that Germany did a better job than we did initially, however you can't ignore the Greece, and Spain fiasco that drug them below us. And D is right, the ICF has already come out with a report showing we're going to surpass them over the next 4-5 years.

Direckshun
11-23-2012, 06:04 AM
IMF, but yeah.

Brainiac
11-23-2012, 10:15 AM
I hate it when people absolutely refuse to admit they are ever wrong about anything, no matter how much evidence is placed in front of them.

That's not the kind of person I want to be, so I am going to take my lumps and concede that the deficit inherited by Obama was a lot bigger than I said it was.

I began to doubt my position when Dirk Digler pointed out that the fiscal year runs from October 1st to September 30th. When Direckshun posted 7 different sources supporting his position, I was forced to question it even more.

Don't get me wrong: I still think Obama is doing a horrible job and insists upon focusing on the wrong things, I still believe Romney would have been a much better choice to be President, and I think we're all going to pay the price for Obama's anti-business policies.

But on the specific point regarding the size of the deficit Obama inherited from Bush, it appears that I was wrong mistaken not completely correct.

J Diddy
11-23-2012, 10:19 AM
I hate it when people absolutely refuse to admit they are ever wrong about anything, no matter how much evidence is placed in front of them.

That's not the kind of person I want to be, so I am going to take my lumps and concede that the deficit inherited by Obama was a lot bigger than I said it was.

I began to doubt my position when Dirk Digler pointed out that the fiscal year runs from October 1st to September 30th. When Direckshun posted 7 different sources supporting his position, I was forced to question it even more.

Don't get me wrong: I still think Obama is doing a horrible job and insists upon focusing on the wrong things, I still believe Romney would have been a much better choice to be President, and I think we're all going to pay the price for Obama's anti-business policies.

But on the specific point regarding the size of the deficit Obama inherited from Bush, it appears that I was wrong mistaken not completely correct.

What criteria would satisfy the conditions for Obama doing a good job in your eyes?

Brainiac
11-23-2012, 10:30 AM
What criteria would satisfy the conditions for Obama doing a good job in your eyes?
I hate the fact that he jammed Obamacare down our throats. I hate the fact that Obamacare contains so many hidden tax increases and fees, and that the only thing it really accomplishes is providing health insurance to a lot of people who other wouldn't have it, yet it completely ignores the things that have been driving up health care costs over the last several decades. I hate the fact that Obamacare is going to cost over a trillion dollars all by itself, and I hate the fact that he decided that delivering Obamacare was much more important than delivering jobs.

I hate the fact that Obama is hell-bent upon implementing Cap & Trade, and has promised to do it by executive order even though it was rejected by Congress. I hate the fact that Obama concedes that his energy policies will cause energy prices to skyrocket (that's a direct quote from him), but he is determined to implement those policies anyway, because he knows what is best.

He strikes me as an autocrat, not a collaborator. I fear that in his second term he will be much more of an autocrat. When he said "Elections have consequences", it struck me that he was saying "**** you, I'm President, and I'm going to do whatever the hell I want".

In order for him to be doing a good job in my eyes, he would have to reverse his positions on the things listed above. He would have to say "Maybe we rushed thing a little with Obamacare. Maybe we should take a look at it and see if we can make it a little less expensive. Maybe we shouldn't rush to implement Cap & Trade, and maybe I should try to reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans instead of vilifying them and blaming them for everything".

suzzer99
11-23-2012, 11:18 AM
Every other developed nation on earth has had universal healthcare since the early 90s - most of them since long before that. Many underdeveloped nations are starting to get it. How much longer is the US supposed to wait? 20 more years?

The republican plan on healthcare is to do nothing for as long as possible. Well to be fair they had a plan (mandates) that they were promoting right up until the moment Obama adopted it because he couldn't get the Blue Dog dems to go for single-payer or a public option. Republicans got everything they supposedly wanted, and have never stopped whining about it.

Maybe if Republicans had actually worked with Obama on UHC, instead of sitting in the corner throwing a temper tantrum, we could have that much better bill that you want. Tort reform was on the table if the republicans would have ever actually come to the table.

Also do you have a cite for Obama threatening to implement cap and trade by executive order? I could be wrong, but I put the odds of any kind of significant economy-damaging cap & trade policy being implemented at roughly 0%. It's just a political non-starter.

Ace Gunner
11-23-2012, 11:34 AM
this thread was lacking the one pic until now
http://www.rockyviewmassage.ca/rockyview_Massage/Meditation_files/woman_meditating400.jpg

J Diddy
11-23-2012, 11:52 AM
I hate the fact that he jammed Obamacare down our throats. I hate the fact that Obamacare contains so many hidden tax increases and fees, and that the only thing it really accomplishes is providing health insurance to a lot of people who other wouldn't have it, yet it completely ignores the things that have been driving up health care costs over the last several decades. I hate the fact that Obamacare is going to cost over a trillion dollars all by itself, and I hate the fact that he decided that delivering Obamacare was much more important than delivering jobs.

I hate the fact that Obama is hell-bent upon implementing Cap & Trade, and has promised to do it by executive order even though it was rejected by Congress. I hate the fact that Obama concedes that his energy policies will cause energy prices to skyrocket (that's a direct quote from him), but he is determined to implement those policies anyway, because he knows what is best.

He strikes me as an autocrat, not a collaborator. I fear that in his second term he will be much more of an autocrat. When he said "Elections have consequences", it struck me that he was saying "**** you, I'm President, and I'm going to do whatever the hell I want".

In order for him to be doing a good job in my eyes, he would have to reverse his positions on the things listed above. He would have to say "Maybe we rushed thing a little with Obamacare. Maybe we should take a look at it and see if we can make it a little less expensive. Maybe we shouldn't rush to implement Cap & Trade, and maybe I should try to reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans instead of vilifying them and blaming them for everything".
I would disagree that it doesn't lower health care costs, because the nature of it will lower costs by keeping people in better condition. It is a lot less expensive for prevention and maintenance then it is for a hospital stay. However, I would say that I wish that it did more in terms of costs of health care . I also think that it would have been better if both parties could have had some input on the bill, however, like anything it probably would have just been dealt with by party politics and nothing accomplished and used as campaign fodder in the next election. It isn't perfect and I expect to see changes to it after it is implemented, but I think it is necessary to do something and make changes rather than talk about it like we have for the last 20 years.

I, like you, would like to see more collaboration and both parties need to lose the my way or nothing at all approach.

Xanathol
11-23-2012, 11:54 AM
I hate it when people absolutely refuse to admit they are ever wrong about anything, no matter how much evidence is placed in front of them.

That's not the kind of person I want to be, so I am going to take my lumps and concede that the deficit inherited by Obama was a lot bigger than I said it was.

I began to doubt my position when Dirk Digler pointed out that the fiscal year runs from October 1st to September 30th. When Direckshun posted 7 different sources supporting his position, I was forced to question it even more.

Don't get me wrong: I still think Obama is doing a horrible job and insists upon focusing on the wrong things, I still believe Romney would have been a much better choice to be President, and I think we're all going to pay the price for Obama's anti-business policies.

But on the specific point regarding the size of the deficit Obama inherited from Bush, it appears that I was wrong mistaken not completely correct.Keep in mind that part of 'what Obama inherited' was from the bailout money, which was not part of Bush's budget, though the jackass did sign the first wave that the democratic house & senate had passed - ya know, the money for all the golden parachutes and such... and yet people still think the dems are for regular folk and not the rich...

But back on topic, Obama's budgets have increased our deficit by astronomically more; anyone even trying to to say he's improved it needs serious mental help. He's the worst POTUS in the history of the US, hands down, and its not even a debate. The fact he was re-elected is the most troubling sign of the state of the country as a whole.

J Diddy
11-23-2012, 11:57 AM
Keep in mind that part of 'what Obama inherited' was from the bailout money, which was not part of Bush's budget, though the jackass did sign the first wave that the democratic house & senate had passed - ya know, the money for all the golden parachutes and such... and yet people still think the dems are for regular folk and not the rich...

But back on topic, Obama's budgets have increased our deficit by astronomically more; anyone even trying to to say he's improved it needs serious mental help. He's the worst POTUS in the history of the US, hands down, and its not even a debate. The fact he was re-elected is the most troubling sign of the state of the country as a whole.

Apparently it is us up for debate as 53% of America just said otherwise.

patteeu
11-23-2012, 01:41 PM
Apparently it is us up for debate as 53% of America just said otherwise.

If you're impressed by that, you should see the winning majorities Saddam Hussein commanded.

ROYC75
11-24-2012, 01:17 PM
President Obama hasn't gotten much credit for reining in the deficit, probably because a big part of the deficit progress has come from the unwinding of extraordinary government supports that he helped put in place. Stimulus programs have come and mostly gone; the end of stimulus to states led them to enact Medicaid curbs; jobless benefits in recent months have fallen by 50% since early 2010 (due to both job gains and extended benefits being exhausted).

TARP and the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also make the deficit improvement look better, boosting the fiscal '09 deficit by about $200 billion more than in fiscal '12 (though the initial cost of TARP was overstated).

Still, military spending is now on the decline due to fewer troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; Medicare costs rose 3% last year vs. the average 7% growth in recent years; and after the last year's Budget Control Act, excluding the automatic cuts set to take effect in January, nondefense discretionary spending is already on a path to shrink to 2.7% of GDP, well below the 3.9% average, notes the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

This is the telling part of it.

RNR
11-24-2012, 01:45 PM
Every other developed nation on earth has had universal healthcare since the early 90s - most of them since long before that. Many underdeveloped nations are starting to get it. How much longer is the US supposed to wait? 20 more years?

The republican plan on healthcare is to do nothing for as long as possible. Well to be fair they had a plan (mandates) that they were promoting right up until the moment Obama adopted it because he couldn't get the Blue Dog dems to go for single-payer or a public option. Republicans got everything they supposedly wanted, and have never stopped whining about it.

Maybe if Republicans had actually worked with Obama on UHC, instead of sitting in the corner throwing a temper tantrum, we could have that much better bill that you want. Tort reform was on the table if the republicans would have ever actually come to the table.

Also do you have a cite for Obama threatening to implement cap and trade by executive order? I could be wrong, but I put the odds of any kind of significant economy-damaging cap & trade policy being implemented at roughly 0%. It's just a political non-starter.

Your precious leader doesn't have to be worried about being elected anymore. Cap and trade has been in the conversation of him and his party, so yeah some of us are nervous~

Direckshun
11-25-2012, 09:36 AM
But back on topic, Obama's budgets have increased our deficit by astronomically more.

Link?

That's fundamentally wrong.

Fundamentally wrong.

mlyonsd
11-25-2012, 09:41 AM
Link?

That's fundamentally wrong.

Fundamentally wrong.lol

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 10:06 AM
Otter,

From fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012, the deficit shrank 3.1 percentage points, from 10.1% to 7.0% of GDP.

That's the math.

What "numbers" are you looking at? Because I'm calling bullshit.

He probably doesn't understand the difference between the total deficit, and the deficit as a % of GDP.

It gets pretty hard to wade through the flock of total idiots in this place sometimes.

HonestChieffan
11-25-2012, 10:21 AM
He probably doesn't understand the difference between the total deficit, and the deficit as a % of GDP.

It gets pretty hard to wade through the flock of total idiots in this place sometimes.

It takes the focus off of the data

patteeu
11-25-2012, 10:35 AM
Link?

That's fundamentally wrong.

Fundamentally wrong.

You mean because Obama hasn't ever proposed a serious budget?

DementedLogic
11-25-2012, 12:34 PM
I've been saying for a while now that Germany did a better job than we did initially, however you can't ignore the Greece, and Spain fiasco that drug them below us. And D is right, the ICF has already come out with a report showing we're going to surpass them over the next 4-5 years.

There were reports that unemployment would not surpass 8% with the stimulus bill. Reports don't mean shit, results do. So far, Germany's results have been better than ours, which is a result of austerity.

BucEyedPea
11-25-2012, 12:36 PM
It takes the focus off of the data

Using % of GDP ( which includes govt spending) is trickery. It makes it look like less.
Very typical of govt numbers. Kinda like a "cut" meaning slows the growth of spending. Lol!

Direckshun
11-25-2012, 12:46 PM
There were reports that unemployment would not surpass 8% with the stimulus bill. Reports don't mean shit, results do. So far, Germany's results have been better than ours, which is a result of austerity.

Depends how you measure it. It really does.

We are positioned better for the next half-decade than all of our allies.

patteeu
11-25-2012, 12:59 PM
Depends how you measure it. It really does.

We are positioned better for the next half-decade than all of our allies.

In a world of hobbits, we tower above them as a petite dwarf.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 03:10 PM
Using % of GDP ( which includes govt spending) is trickery. It makes it look like less.
Very typical of govt numbers. Kinda like a "cut" meaning slows the growth of spending. Lol!

Yes that gosh darn math stuff is devil tricks....


You do realize that we HAVE to look at historical deficits with some sort of adjustment (% of GDP, adjusted for inflation etc...) and not just total dollars...right?

Otherwise it is meaningless...

My god...

Direckshun
11-25-2012, 03:32 PM
In a world of hobbits, we tower above them as a petite dwarf.

Not that bad of an analogy.

HonestChieffan
11-25-2012, 06:03 PM
Using % of GDP ( which includes govt spending) is trickery. It makes it look like less.
Very typical of govt numbers. Kinda like a "cut" meaning slows the growth of spending. Lol!

The devil is in the details

HonestChieffan
11-25-2012, 06:05 PM
In a world of hobbits, we tower above them as a petite dwarf.

Gotta love hobbits. Never trust someone not schooled in the world of hobbits, elves, dwarves, and ents.

mnchiefsguy
11-25-2012, 06:31 PM
Link?

That's fundamentally wrong.

Fundamentally wrong.

Fundamentally wrong only because Obama is incapable of actually submitting a budget to Congress.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 07:13 PM
Fundamentally wrong only because Obama is incapable of actually submitting a budget to Congress.

I'm not an Obama fan but a 30 second google shows that he has submitted budgets every year at least as far as I can tell:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET


Am I missing something?

Brainiac
11-25-2012, 07:22 PM
I'm not an Obama fan but a 30 second google shows that he has submitted budgets every year at least as far as I can tell:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET


Am I missing something?

The Senate, which is controlled by Obama's party, hasn't passed a budget since 2009. The budget that Obama submitted for 2012 was rejected 97-0 by the Senate. Obama's budget proposals aren't even supported by ANYONE in his own party.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 07:48 PM
The Senate, which is controlled by Obama's party, hasn't passed a budget since 2009. The budget that Obama submitted for 2012 was rejected 97-0 by the Senate. Obama's budget proposals aren't even supported by ANYONE in his own party.

It should be against the law to not have a budget, like the states.

If they refuse to pass a budget they should make changes and send it back....

FishingRod
11-26-2012, 11:25 AM
The Senate, which is controlled by Obama's party, hasn't passed a budget since 2009. The budget that Obama submitted for 2012 was rejected 97-0 by the Senate. Obama's budget proposals aren't even supported by ANYONE in his own party.

I assume you know that was Republican shenanigans but, by the standards set by both parties what you are saying is technically true.

Brainiac
11-26-2012, 12:35 PM
I assume you know that was Republican shenanigans but, by the standards set by both parties what you are saying is technically true.
It's more than technically true.

FishingRod
11-26-2012, 01:59 PM
It's more than technically true.

Yes true like “ I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman” True but not very honest either.

Brainiac
11-26-2012, 02:32 PM
The Senate, which is controlled by Obama's party, hasn't passed a budget since 2009. The budget that Obama submitted for 2012 was rejected 97-0 by the Senate. Obama's budget proposals aren't even supported by ANYONE in his own party.

I assume you know that was Republican shenanigans but, by the standards set by both parties what you are saying is technically true.

It's more than technically true.

Yes true like “ I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman” True but not very honest either.

According to Politifact, both parties have been at fault. An independent group stated that the Democrats were at fault in 2010. Harry Reid is the source that blamed this on the Republicans for 2011. However, even the most hard-core liberal would have a hard time making a case that Harry Reid is a reliable and impartial source. The fact is that the Democrats control the Senate, and they've refused to pass a budget for 3 years. They can blame the Republicans all they want, but they are the majority party, and blaming it on Republican "shenanigans" is extremely lame and self-serving.

Our PolitiFact colleagues in Wisconsin, Florida and at PolitiFact national had the same question, and concluded that neither party can claim superiority on budget resolutions.

In 2010, the then Democratic-controlled House and Senate did not adopt a budget resolution or adopt a single spending bill "because the Democrats were afraid of being labeled big spenders," said Steve Ellis, a budget expert with Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent group that analyzes federal spending.

Senate Democrats didn’t pass a fiscal 2011 budget because "Republicans were threatening to hijack the budget process and waste the American people’s time with pointless political votes," a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told PolitiFact Florida. "Faced with this obstruction, we decided it would be a more productive use of the American people’s time to move on and address other issues critical to middle-class families."


http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/26/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-senate-dems-havent-passed-budget/

Iowanian
11-26-2012, 02:47 PM
US Debt.

$16 Trillion and growing by the second.

FishingRod
11-26-2012, 03:43 PM
the Shenanigans I was referring to was this particular vote. You get no argument that the Dems have done a poor job.



US Debt.

$16 Trillion and growing by the second.

That is a huge issue. We simply can’t continue to spend trillions of dollars more than we take in. The Government and the people need to acknowledge we simply can’t afford to do everything.

Iowanian
11-26-2012, 05:59 PM
When the debt number is continuing to grow each and every second, I don't want to hear anything about defeating the deficit from the obama crows.

IF the deficit were truly for the good....well, the number referenced above, which to me is a bigger factor would be going in the opposite direction.