PDA

View Full Version : What DID Obama inherit?



LWW
02-03-2010, 09:46 AM
He loves to blame anyone, other than himself, but let's review some actual facts.

According to the US Treasury, the last quarter of FY 2007 ... the last year of a republichicken led budget ... the US federal deficit ran at -1.1% of US GDP.

During the first year of a demokook budget the deficit was, by quarter, -1.3% ... -1.5% ... -2.3% ... and -3.1% .

The next year was worst at -4.7% ... -6.5% ... -8.9% ... and -9.9%.

So, to a rational observer, dearest leader clearly has lied when he says he inherited a mess. The truth is that he conspired to create a mess as a senator and then led the troops to an even worse disaster afterwards.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-Government-Budget-Chart-000002.png

>>>CLICK HERE<<< (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Government-Budget.aspx?Symbol=USD)

LWW

LWW
02-03-2010, 09:54 AM
As to Obama's "RECOVERY" and the much ballyhooed 5.7% growth ... a complete illusion.

It was "GROWTH" of 5.7% only because it succeeded a route of the US economy during 2009.

For a more sober view ...

>>>CLICK HERE<<< (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD)

Bottom line, companies have allowed inventory to deplete during the recession. Once this restocking is taken into account the economy is still in recession in year over year figures.

Furthermore, it has the wind at it's back in that businesses across the land are already working to cram as much business into 2010 as possible because of the massive tax increases that will hit them in 2011.

LWW

eg8r
02-03-2010, 01:01 PM
Let's be honest, when W left, things were not all peaches and roses as you are trying to portray. Had W stayed in office, and continued on exactly the same path he was headed, the numbers would likely be very similar to what we are seeing now. Maybe or maybe not as drastic but we will never know.

Fiscally W was terrible for this country and we have said it time and time again. Everyone on this board has for the most part agreed about this even though some of the lefties just cannot stand it when we agree and choose to ignore those instances.

Basically what I am saying is that considering the direction the US was headed with respect to gross negligent spending, it was only a matter of time before we saw these types of numbers. Obama has picked up the spending right where W left off which is why the downward spiral has not slowed down.

I was listening to one of the reporters for the Wall Street Journal this morning and he was saying the two biggest priorities for Obama right now is halt the job losses and reduce the budget. Well, that is a two edged sword because it is next to impossible to make any real dent in the job losses without spending a considerable amount of money (paraphrased from Wall Street Journal).

While I am in no way letting Obama off the hook for where we are at, as I do believe he should begin accepting some responsiblity for his policies that continue to drive us further down, W started this mess and Obama is gearing up for even higher deficits.

eg8r

LWW
02-03-2010, 02:29 PM
I have never said that Bush was blameless.

The point is that claiming that Obama and a dem led congress are/were blameless is hyperpartisan moonbat crazy illogical.

Yes, the reps should have been tighter with the pursestrings than they were.

Yes, Bush should have vetoed far more than he did.

Yes, the budget process went nuts after the dems took over ... and yes, Bush signed off on it to keep the war funding going. BTW ... I predicted that when they took congress in 2006.

Yes, Obama supported every spending program Bush signed off on from 01/06 on ... and yes he said it wasn't enough.

Please, don't fall into the left's thinking that holding Obama and the dems accountable means giving Bush and the reps a pass.

LWW

pooltchr
02-03-2010, 03:57 PM
I guess the big difference is many of us can regongize problems in Washington, regardless of which team is causing them...I think that particular gene is missing in some of our liberal friends. They just can't see (or admit to seeing) problems when they are caused by their side.

Steve

wolfdancer
02-03-2010, 04:23 PM
for somebody with a room temp IQ, you make a lot of assumptions about other people's intellect. But I understand...the anonymity of
the internet allows you to pretend to be smart. It's just that your posts give you away...the more you post, and claim to have all the answers, the more we realize...you don't even understand the questions.
If you were really as super intelligent as you claim to be....you wouldn't have to continuously claim that others are dumb...intelligent people don't ever do that....because they don't have to promote themselves....
Sonoma was a great example, Dee is another....neither has ever tried to claim that others aren't as aware as they are.

LWW
02-03-2010, 05:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">for somebody with a room temp IQ, you make a lot of assumptions about other people's intellect. But I understand...the anonymity of
the internet allows you to pretend to be smart. It's just that your posts give you away...the more you post, and claim to have all the answers, the more we realize...you don't even understand the questions.
If you were really as super intelligent as you claim to be....you wouldn't have to continuously claim that others are dumb...intelligent people don't ever do that....because they don't have to promote themselves....
Sonoma was a great example, Dee is another....neither has ever tried to claim that others aren't as aware as they are. </div></div>

I've made no assumptions about your intellect. My beliefs on that subject are based on solid testimony which you provided.

LWW

LWW
02-03-2010, 05:07 PM
The amazing thing is that I'm also on Obama and Plouffe's e-mail list.

I drink my AM coffee and read what some members here are going to post that day ... if they haven't already.

LWW

wolfdancer
02-03-2010, 05:22 PM
who gives a rat's behind what you think, or believe? You are so screwed up emotionally, with your many fantasies about yourself, that one of these days you will be institutionalized.
By the way....who am i talking to with this post? In the past you have claimed to be Patton, a freedom fighter, Rambo, Mr. I.Q., Ohio's leading tea bagger,
and a member of the "Band of Brothers" (Dayton division)...not quite the war zone, but close enough for you to believe you are a hero.

pooltchr
02-03-2010, 05:44 PM
Wolfie, I usually don't bother reading your posts any more, but since I saw you were stalking me on this one, I thought I would check it out to see if you had developed any sense of decency.

Let me try to spell this out for you.

The post was discussing Bush's wild spending, of which many of us conservatives spoke out against repeatedly.
Someone decided to challenge that, for what reason I have no idea, but it is in the archives for anyone who wants to check it out.
Then the point was made that while many of us on the right seem to be quite capable of denouncing outrageous government spending, regardless of who is doing it, there are others who seem to only see a problem when it happens with a Republican president. I have yet to see any post by anyone from the left decrying the spending spree the Dems have been on for the last 3 years. (Atmittedly, since I have you on ignore, I wouldn't know if you have done so recently, but history would suggest that you continue to follow the party line and would never admit that your side is capable of running up the defecit.)
Nowhere was anyone's intelligence questioned, but you seemed to think yours was being questioned. That would lead me to believe that you have some self doubts in that area. Me thinks he doth protest a bit too strongly.

Be that as it may, I see you have not changed your posting style in the least, and continue to be another blind partisan who would rather make personal attacks than actually discuss current events in anything resembling an adult fashion.

Back on ignore. Play your games with someone else.

Steve

wolfdancer
02-03-2010, 05:52 PM
don't bother trying to spell anything out....I don't bother reading when you try to come across as any kind of expert, on anything. I don't believe you are very smart....but who knows, I could be wrong?
It's just that your posts are a ******* waste of my time to read.
I don't believe that you are well read, doubt you watch anything but Fox...and you would be the last person on this site, that I would ask for an opinion.
Now you can bs the rest of the troops...I ain't buying

eg8r
02-03-2010, 09:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have never said that Bush was blameless.</div></div>LOL, I never said you did.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, the reps should have been tighter with the pursestrings than they were.</div></div>Quite a severe understatement don't you think?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please, don't fall into the left's thinking that holding Obama and the dems accountable means giving Bush and the reps a pass.</div></div>It is hard to read your intial post and not think that way. Showing the numbers for the first year the Dems held control as evidence of the "beginning" of the downfall is hardly being honest. In one year you are saying the budget deficit increased 2% of GDP? Can you identify the bills that were directly responsible for this increase? It would be interesting to see when those bills were approved and when they started impacting the deficit.

Also, did you do any analysis on the data had W been in as deep a recession as we have gone through with his out of control spending? How much has our GDP dropped each year since 2007? Any? A lot? Steady decline?

eg8r

LWW
02-04-2010, 01:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have never said that Bush was blameless.</div></div>LOL, I never said you did.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, the reps should have been tighter with the pursestrings than they were.</div></div>Quite a severe understatement don't you think?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please, don't fall into the left's thinking that holding Obama and the dems accountable means giving Bush and the reps a pass.</div></div>It is hard to read your intial post and not think that way. Showing the numbers for the first year the Dems held control as evidence of the "beginning" of the downfall is hardly being honest. In one year you are saying the budget deficit increased 2% of GDP? Can you identify the bills that were directly responsible for this increase? It would be interesting to see when those bills were approved and when they started impacting the deficit.

Also, did you do any analysis on the data had W been in as deep a recession as we have gone through with his out of control spending? How much has our GDP dropped each year since 2007? Any? A lot? Steady decline?

eg8r </div></div>

OK ... the bill would have been the budget for FY 2008.

As to GDP growth, let's review: using year on year comparisons:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-GDP-Growth-Rate-Chart-000001.png

The republichicken congress handed over an economy that grew at a 2.5% rate in Q4 of FY 2007. The demokooks took that to +2.0% ... +1.6% ... 0.0% ... -1.9% ... -3.3% ... -2.6% ... +0.1%.

Again, this is not exonerating the R's and Bush. I have often said Bush is a closet leftist and that had he ran as a (D) he would be on Mt Rushmore by now.

The economic conditions prior to the D congress were steady but not exemplary. Since they have taken over the wheels have fallen off.

The figures do not lie ... and the epicenter of the collapse coincides with that event in each case.

&gt;&gt;&gt;CLICK HERE&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD)

LWW

LWW
02-04-2010, 01:57 AM
Let's look at industrial growth.

At R congress's end it was +1.8%.

Following that, for the next 27 months it has averaged -5.03% ... dropping as low as -13.2% ... and has been negative for 20 months in a row.

&gt;&gt;&gt;CLICK HERE&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Industrial-Production.aspx?Symbol=USD)

LWW

LWW
02-04-2010, 02:07 AM
How about unemployment?

During the 21 months preceding the demokook budgetary debacle UE averaged 4.68%.

Then what happened?

For the next 12 months it averaged 5.28%, rising as high as 6.2% ... the main cause of this was the passage of a new minimum wage increase.

Maybe the next year would be better though? Nope ... it averaged 8.51%, rising as high as 9.8%.

Maybe it's better after that? Nope ... for the next quarter it averaged 10.03% ... and now we here that the admin has overstated employment by nearly 1,000,000 jobs so the real number will be more like 11% than 10%.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-Unemployment-Rate-Chart-000005.png

&gt;&gt;&gt;CLICK HERE&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-rate.aspx?Symbol=USD)

LWW
02-04-2010, 02:09 AM
And, FWIW, look at the graphs ... this isn't LWW claiming this. This is from the US government.

The truth is out there for anyone willing to dig beneath the daily bovine scatology posted on the news.

The American people are awakening to what this congress has wrought, and it won't be pretty come November.

I really thought you were smart enough to see through the O-cult's smoke and mirrors.

LWW

eg8r
02-04-2010, 10:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I really thought you were smart enough to see through the O-cult's smoke and mirrors.</div></div>Just asking you to throw out real numbers instead of making blanket claims. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif What I am not completely sold on is if anything would be much different had McCain won. I don't think so.

eg8r

LWW
02-04-2010, 11:03 AM
Are you saying the numbers aren't accurate?

I think they speak for themselves.

As to things being different under McCain ... that's a big wild card.

I think he would have pursued an economic agenda very similar to Obama's. Would the dems have gotten behind it? I don't know.

I do agree that in 2008 we were given a choice between a socialist war hero and a Marxist America hater.

LWW

eg8r
02-04-2010, 11:11 AM
Oh no, I am not saying they are inaccurate. By real numbers I meant examples of what you posted. Even though the numbers agree with what you are saying, I am just not sold on the fact that it would be any different with our other choice on the ballot.

eg8r

LWW
02-04-2010, 11:13 AM
I think it would have been lessened only because a D congress would be far less likely to work to give an R president their agenda.

The only thing we can be sure of is that McCain opposed some of the lunacy this congress has brought out ... Obama has pushed for all of it and cheered for even more.

LWW

pooltchr
02-04-2010, 11:16 AM
As far as the economy goes, I tend to agree that neither candidate struck me as being particularly fiscally conservative. I think the real difference would have been whether or not we are going to move toward socialism or not. We definitely know what we are doing under this administration...but many of us knew what to expect before it happened.

Steve

eg8r
02-04-2010, 11:16 AM
You are right, but that definitely does not say anything positive of the tone in DC. Both sides are responsible.

eg8r

LWW
02-04-2010, 11:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">who gives a rat's behind what you think, or believe? </div></div>

Obviously you do trollster.

LWW

LWW
02-04-2010, 11:19 AM
I don't disagree there.

I have said many times that Bush had us on the slow scenic route to uberstatism ... Obama has us in the down hill express route with the pedal to the floor and the brake lines cut.

Were both bad? Yes. Were both equally bad? No.

The Bush agenda left hope that we would get the system back on track before we hit the wall in 20 years. The Obama agenda has shortened that pre wall window to maybe 5 years.

LWW

Qtec
02-04-2010, 11:26 AM
What Socialism? Be specific. Give one example and we can debate it.

Q

LWW
02-04-2010, 11:29 AM
The bank takeover is one ... but we can't "debate" it because I don't believe that you really have a grasp of what the terms mean.

LWW

Qtec
02-04-2010, 11:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have said many times that Bush had us on the slow scenic route to uberstatism </div></div>

So you said it, what did you do about it? ..............

Now that a Dem POTUS says the same thing its like its the end of the world.

eg, "OMG! Obama is just like Hitler, he wants to indoctrinate America's youth into his Hitler/ Obama youth ORG by telling them to stay ibn school." Shock Horror!!!!!!???

You are the classic loony hypocrite.

Q

eg8r
02-04-2010, 11:30 AM
I sort of believed McCain would not have made much different of an impact as far as socialism compared to Obama. He may not have been as extreme but we would still have been better off had neither of them been elected.

eg8r

Qtec
02-04-2010, 11:33 AM
What Socialism? Be specific. Give one example and we can debate it.

Q\

link (http://mediamatters.org/research/201001300005)

<u>Reality V GOP talking points.
</u>
Urging that "we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality," President Obama stated during his January 29 question and answer session with House Republicans that "if you were to listen to the debate" over health care reform "you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot." Throughout Obama's administration thus far, conservative media have embraced such rhetoric, routinely attacking Obama's agenda as socialist, communist or fascist and telling audiences that Obama and health care reform are a threat to America itself

eg8r
02-04-2010, 11:44 AM
LWW gave you an exmaple. Are you just going to keep asking the question or are you going to make good on your promise and debate the exmaples given?

eg8r

Qtec
02-04-2010, 11:52 AM
So you are saying that 3 years before Wall St brought the USA to the brink of financial ruin Obama was already planning a takeover of the banks?

You guys are so demented.

Q

eg8r
02-04-2010, 12:59 PM
LOL, you have poor debating skills.

eg8r

pooltchr
02-04-2010, 12:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Socialism? Be specific. Give one example and we can debate it.

Q\

link (http://mediamatters.org/research/201001300005)

<u>Reality V GOP talking points.
</u>
Urging that "we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality," President Obama stated during his January 29 question and answer session with House Republicans that "if you were to listen to the debate" over health care reform "you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot." Throughout Obama's administration thus far, conservative media have embraced such rhetoric, routinely attacking Obama's agenda as socialist, communist or fascist and telling audiences that Obama and health care reform are a threat to America itself </div></div>

If you can't recognize it, how would you propose we discuss it????????

As for your point "reality vs GOP talking points", just because it's Obama's reality doesn't mean it is reality. The Dem talking points hardly quality as reality, but you have no problem accepting them as the gospel.

Steve

LWW
02-05-2010, 08:18 AM
Sadly, not a single O-cultist wishes to actually discuss the topic now that the actual data has been presented.

LWW

Qtec
02-05-2010, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, you have poor debating skills.

eg8r </div></div>

You don't have any.

Q

Qtec
02-05-2010, 09:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>What Socialism? Be specific. Give one example</span> and we can debate it.

Q\</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you can't recognize it, how would you propose we discuss it????????</div></div>

Wow, really beat me down with that little gem..................LOL

If you can't name <span style='font-size: 20pt'>ONE THING</span> then maybe these 'things' are a figment of your own imagination brought on by too much Glenn Beck, ie RW media hysteria.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Urging that "we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality," President Obama stated during his January 29 question and answer session with House Republicans that "if you were to listen to the debate" over health care reform "you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot." </div></div> LOL

Q

pooltchr
02-05-2010, 09:41 AM
Q. I'm not trying to beat you down. I'm trying to help you up.

Steve

LWW
02-05-2010, 10:06 AM
You are assuming he wants to get up.

Sadly, brother Q seems to prefer rolling in the mud as the other neolibs do ... they recoil in horror when the discussion turns from emotion to facts.

Brother Q is desperately trying to spin the discussion into the gutter as it is revealed that the moment we turned to jump off the cliff was the moment his beloved party took the reigns of power.

This disables his incessant B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!! hatred.

LWW

eg8r
02-06-2010, 12:02 AM
LOL, qtip there is no doubt your are the village idiot. You sit here and beg three times for someone to give you an example so that you can debate it. Then you get the first one and your pathetic response was zero debate whatsoever. You were dumb enough to think my response to you was some type of recognition of "skill" you thought you might possess. Hilarious.

eg8r

Qtec
02-06-2010, 01:28 AM
What it shows is that GW inherited a SURPLUS in 2000.

Q

Qtec
02-06-2010, 01:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW gave you an exmaple. Are you just going to keep asking the question or are you going to make good on your promise and debate the exmaples given?

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bailout Timeline: Another Day, Another Bailout

In September 2008, the mounting subprime crisis finally burst into a full-blown financial crisis, leading to the collapse of a number of major financial institutions. In response, the Treasury Department has deployed hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars.

To shore up the collapsing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Treasury placed them under conservatorship. Soon after, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 provided the Treasury Department with $700 billion to shore up the broader financial system.

Below is a chronology of major events in the bailouts' lives. It will grow longer as major events continue to occur.

Jul 30, 2008 – Treasury Gets Authority to Rescue Fannie and Freddie


Sep 16, 2008 – First AIG Bailout

With AIG collapsing, the Fed bails it out with access to an $85 billion credit line.
More info from online.wsj.com

Sep 20, 2008 – Paulson Pitches TARP

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson releases a three-page, $700 billion proposal to purchase troubled mortgage-related assets, called the Troubled Asset Relief Program.


Oct 8, 2008 – Second AIG Bailout

The government restructures its bailout of AIG. The insurer gets access to $37.8 billion more in loans.
More info from http://www.nytimes.com

Oct 14, 2008 – Paulson Rolls Out Bank Investments</div></div>


The 'takeover' of the Banks occurred before Obama had even won the election. If McCain had won, would it now be McCain's takeover?

Q

Q

Qtec
02-06-2010, 02:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Throughout Obama's administration thus far, conservative media have embraced such rhetoric, routinely attacking Obama's agenda as <u>socialist, communist or fascist and telling audiences that Obama and health care reform are a threat to America itself</u> </div></div>

Is this fantasy or reality?

Q

LWW
02-06-2010, 03:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What it shows is that GW inherited a SURPLUS in 2000.

Q </div></div>

Here's my question I've been asking you for years brother Q.

If Clinton ran a surplus, why did the national debt rise every year of his administration?

Bless you brother Q.

LWW

LWW
02-06-2010, 03:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW gave you an exmaple. Are you just going to keep asking the question or are you going to make good on your promise and debate the exmaples given?

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bailout Timeline: Another Day, Another Bailout

In September 2008, the mounting subprime crisis finally burst into a full-blown financial crisis, leading to the collapse of a number of major financial institutions. In response, the Treasury Department has deployed hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars.

To shore up the collapsing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Treasury placed them under conservatorship. Soon after, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 provided the Treasury Department with $700 billion to shore up the broader financial system.

Below is a chronology of major events in the bailouts' lives. It will grow longer as major events continue to occur.

Jul 30, 2008 – Treasury Gets Authority to Rescue Fannie and Freddie


Sep 16, 2008 – First AIG Bailout

With AIG collapsing, the Fed bails it out with access to an $85 billion credit line.
More info from online.wsj.com

Sep 20, 2008 – Paulson Pitches TARP

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson releases a three-page, $700 billion proposal to purchase troubled mortgage-related assets, called the Troubled Asset Relief Program.


Oct 8, 2008 – Second AIG Bailout

The government restructures its bailout of AIG. The insurer gets access to $37.8 billion more in loans.
More info from http://www.nytimes.com

Oct 14, 2008 – Paulson Rolls Out Bank Investments</div></div>


The 'takeover' of the Banks occurred before Obama had even won the election. If McCain had won, would it now be McCain's takeover?

Q

Q </div></div>

Had he continued this course, of course it would have been.

Obama voted for TARP.

Obama took credit at the time for fathering TARP.

It is exceedingly dishonest to now disown it.

McCain also voted for TARP. IMHO it was that vote which cost him the election.

LWW

pooltchr
02-06-2010, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Throughout Obama's administration thus far, conservative media have embraced such rhetoric, routinely attacking Obama's agenda as <u>socialist, communist or fascist and telling audiences that Obama and health care reform are a threat to America itself</u> </div></div>

Is this fantasy or reality?

Q </div></div>

Here is where you miss the point. Healthcare reform is not bad for the country. It is something that is needed. The Dem healthcare reform plan is bad for America. There is a difference that you seem to fail to recognize. And because of that failure, you have posted an either/or question that isn't relevent.
The fantasy is that you think you understand the issue.
The reality is you don't seem to have a clue.

Steve

LWW
02-06-2010, 08:06 AM
He believes whatever pontifications come from the party, especially when it comes from dearest leader himself.

This administration would make Stalin blanche as far as telling tall tales goes.

The traditional measurement of GDP growth is to compare quarters by a year over year basis. If you do that the dems +3.5% and +5.7% quarters evaporate entirely to the point of going further negative ... and the collectivist eyes of the O-cult never blink.

It was just discovered that 862,000 more jobs had been lost in 2009 that the stats had accounted for, and we lost another 20,000 in January ... so the politburo announces that the unemployment rate dropped from 10.0% to 9.7%. And the Obamatrons cheered and declared it a recovery.

It is quite Orwellian. There is a section in "1984" ... get out your Cliffs Notes hondo ... where chocolate rations were to be decreased (I believe the figure was from 30 grams per week to 20 grams per week.), yet the Ministry of Plenty issued a proclamation that rations were being increased from 15 grams per week to 20 grams per week ... and the party members cheered the progress.

LWW

LWW

Qtec
02-06-2010, 08:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What it shows is that GW inherited a SURPLUS in 2000.

Q </div></div>

Here's my question I've been asking you for years brother Q.

If Clinton ran a surplus, why did the national debt rise every year of his administration?

Bless you brother Q.

LWW </div></div>

It did but at a low rate because,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He [ Bush Sn] left the 1992 national debt at 4 trillion dollars or $4,064,620,655,521.66. This is now $15,711.11 for every man, woman and child in the country.

One might be tempted to consider the cost of the Persian Gulf War as part of the $1.5 trillion to the debt, but of the $60 billion spent, around $40 billion were repaid by Saudi Arabia. The costs of fighting the oil well fires set by the retreating Iraqi troops has apparently never been tabulate.

Bill Clinton took the oval office in 1993, and immediately returned to a balanced budget policy eschewing the theories of his two predecessors and set about reducing the annual deficit with hopes of reducing this debt. He increased taxes and reduced government spending, and by 1998, tax revenues exceeded expenditures. For three consecutive years, President Clinton was able to pay down the principle of the national debt. However, interest accrued faster than the nation can pay, and when he left office in 2000 the national debt sat at 5.7 trillion dollars, or $5,674,209,886,86 or $19,470.00 per capita.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'> “It took the national debt two hundred years to reach $1 trillion. Supply Side Economics quadrupled the national debt to over $4 trillion in twelve years (1980-1992)under the Republicans. </span> Bill Clinton actually paid down the national debt. How did he do it? He raised taxes. It produced the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. History” -- ED SCHULTZ, Straight Talk from the Heartland </div></div>

Here is my Q, did Clinton hand over a surplus? Yes or No?

You posted a graph that shows what you have been claiming for years is wrong. LOL

Q.....Ha

LWW
02-06-2010, 08:52 AM
No, it didn't ... but I understand why and why it conflicts with the posted graph.

The "DEFICIT" that the state reports is a fraud. It takes the social security system's surplus and tosses the funds into the general fund so that there was a positive balance of payments.

The moey to reach that positive balance of payments however was "BORROWED" from the social security trust fund.

Most people believe the trust fund actually has money in it. It doesn't, what it has a pile of IOU's from a bankrupt state.

The US debt rose by in excess of $100B each and every year of the Clinton administration. I'm sorry to pop your bubble, but facts really don't care whether others like them or not.

Here are the actual US debt figures at the end of each fiscal year.

Date---------Dollar Amount
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
&gt;&gt;&gt;CLICK HERE&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm)
&gt;&gt;&gt;CLICK HERE&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

Facts, they are such stubborn things.

LWW

eg8r
02-06-2010, 02:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It did but at a low rate because,</div></div> Impossible. You cannot have a surplus just because your debt is rising slower. If it is rising then by definition you are short. Maybe not as short as you were before but definitely short. On top of that, pillaging from social security to pay debt does not count since that social security is actually debt also because it is money owed to citizens.

eg8r

pooltchr
02-06-2010, 04:35 PM
I don't believe some of them even know what the word "surplus" means. The last time I looked, a surplus was having more of something than is needed or can be used.

Steve

Qtec
02-06-2010, 08:01 PM
It clearly shows a surplus.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-Government-Budget-Chart-000002.png


Why stop in 2000?

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

ie, GW increased the Nat Debt by more than 500B each year.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The US debt rose by in excess of $100B each and every year of the Clinton administration. I'm sorry to pop your bubble, but facts really don't care whether others like them or not. </div></div>

Check out 2007/2008, the ND increased by 1 Trillion!

Fact is, you posted a graph and now you claim it is wrong. LOL

Q

Qtec
02-06-2010, 08:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't believe some of them even know what the word "surplus" means. The last time I looked, a surplus was having more of something than is <span style='font-size: 17pt'>needed or can be used.</span>

Steve </div></div>

No. Totally wrong. If a Govt spends more money than it has, that's called a defecit. If it spends less and has money left over, that's a surplus. Nothing to do with 'need' or 'can be used'. Of course this means that if a Govt spends more money than it has, it has to borrow the money [ just like GW did for his tax cuts and wars ] and this adds to the Nat Debt.
Q

Qtec
02-06-2010, 08:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It did but at a low rate because,</div></div> Impossible. You cannot have a surplus just because your debt is rising slower. If it is rising then by definition you are short. Maybe not as short as you were before but definitely short. On top of that, pillaging from social security to pay debt does not count since that social security is actually debt also because it is money owed to citizens.

eg8r </div></div>

See my other post.

Should Obama be held responsible for the accumulated debt accrued by the last 10 Presidents? It took more than 60 years for the Nat Debt to reach 5 Trillion. Fact check.....GW MORE than DOUBLED that debt in 8 years.
Obama took over a sinking ship with an 11 Trillion debt...............what's the interest payment on that do you think?

Q

LWW
02-06-2010, 08:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It clearly shows a surplus.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Temp/United-States-Government-Budget-Chart-000002.png


Why stop in 2000?

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

ie, GW increased the Nat Debt by more than 500B each year.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The US debt rose by in excess of $100B each and every year of the Clinton administration. I'm sorry to pop your bubble, but facts really don't care whether others like them or not. </div></div>

Check out 2007/2008, the ND increased by 1 Trillion!

Fact is, you posted a graph and now you claim it is wrong. LOL

Q </div></div>

You are so close to an epiphany.

I posted a graph which shows a government accounting scam.

There was no actual surplus. The actual deficit in each of the years on the graph is worse when you consider that to make it look that good required borrowing money to sell folks like you a lie.

Yes, under Bush the debt rose dramatically. It is rising even higher and even faster under the current administration.

I condemn both for dishonest and irresponsible activity. OTOH, you can't get past <span style='font-size: 14pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> ... while peeing yourself in anticipation of making yet another excuse for dearest leader.

I honestly don't know how you rationalize all this in your head, but to be blunt ... you are a willing tool of the O-cult.

LWW

pooltchr
02-06-2010, 09:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=pooltchr]
No. Totally wrong. If a Govt spends more money than it has, that's called a defecit. If it spends less and has money left over, that's a surplus.

Q </div></div>

And just when did the government actually spend less money than it had? Now, before you answer, remember that borrowed money can't count, since that isn't really money the government had.

Steve

LWW
02-07-2010, 04:49 AM
He loves the lie.

Politicians ... including Bush ... were confusing people that a positive balance of payments was the same thing a surplus.

To help Q out ... if your take home pay is $2,000.00 a month and your bills are $2,400.00 a moth, but you have a $10,000.00 credit limit at the bank so you borrow $500.00. Of that $500.00 you cover the $400.00 you didn't have, and this leaves you with $100.00 in your pocket.

Now, would you call that a budget surplus?

In government accounting a debt isn't a debt until it is due ... which is extremely dishonest.

LWW

Qtec
02-07-2010, 06:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Should Obama be held responsible for the accumulated debt accrued by the last 10 Presidents? It took more than 60 years for the Nat Debt to reach 5 Trillion. Fact check.....<span style='font-size: 20pt'>GW MORE than DOUBLED that debt in 8 years. </span> </div></div>

Q

pooltchr
02-07-2010, 08:08 AM
do you want to talk percentage of growth, or do you want to talk actual dollar amounts? Either way, in his first year, Obama spent more that any other president ever spent in the same period of time. Are you going to contend that the percent of growth is lower now than in the past? That dog won't hunt either.

Is Obama responsible for money spent before he got in office? Of course not. Is he responsible for what happens on his watch? Absolutely! You can't blame Bush for what has been done since he left office, and the spending since the election has INCREASED. It's also important to note that presidents don't spend money, they just approve or veto spending authorised by congress. And congress has been under the control of the Dimocrats for the last 3 years.

Steve

LWW
02-07-2010, 09:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Should Obama be held responsible for the accumulated debt accrued by the last 10 Presidents? It took more than 60 years for the Nat Debt to reach 5 Trillion. Fact check.....<span style='font-size: 20pt'>GW MORE than DOUBLED that debt in 8 years. </span> </div></div>

Q </div></div>

You really are clueless aren't you.

First off, pay close attention, no POTUS sets the budget. Ever. Not Bush. Not Obama. Nobody.

Now, let's review on the basis of sanity:

End of the last demokook budget on 09/29/1995:
$4,973,982,900,709.39.

End of the last republichicken budget on 09/30/2007:
$9,007,653,372,262.48

Increase:
$4,033,670,471,553.09

Average over 12 years:
$336,139,205,962.76

End of the last demokook budget on 09/30/2009:
$11,909,829,003,511.75.

Increase:
$2,902,175,631,249.22

Average over 12 years:
$1,451,087,815,624.61

Average increase under demokooks:
332%

FY 2009 debt projection:
$1,800,000,000,000.00

Net result ... the republichicken congress was spending money like drunken sailors. The demokooks are spending it like drunken admirals. In 3 short years they will exceed the debt incurred during the prior 12. Q will give them a pass.

LWW