PDA

View Full Version : What Caused This Year’s Deficit?



Qtec
02-03-2012, 06:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Hint: It Wasn’t an Obama 'Spending Binge'</span>

The federal budget deficit will again exceed $1 trillion this fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office reported today. That news is sure to trigger another round of condemnations from politicians and pundits who have a political or ideological interest in pinning these deficits on the domestic spending policies of President Barack Obama.

Unfortunately for them, today’s report—along with dozens of other similar CBO reports in recent years—actually proves the opposite—that the current deficit is overwhelmingly the result of two factors: events that occurred before President Obama took office and tax cuts.

In fact, higher spending under Obama accounts for less than 20 percent of this year’s deficit, and nearly half of that was additional defense spending—not domestic spending. Bottom line: <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The narrative that an “Obama spending spree” caused our deficit problem is<u> utterly false. </u></span></div></div>

oh boy....heads will explode (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/deficit_blame.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From surplus to deficit

In January 2007, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal government this year would be running a surplus of $170 billion, or about 1 percent of gross domestic product. We know now that this year’s budget will actually be in the red by a little over $1 trillion, or 7 percent of GDP.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>So what went wrong?</span> <span style="color: #000099">A close look at how the CBO’s estimate of the 2012 budget changed over the past five years <u>reveals precisely how it came to be that we went from a projected surplus to a massive deficit.</u></span>

where did the 2012 deficit come from?

By the time Obama took office in January 2009, the budget projection for 2012 had already deteriorated dramatically. By inauguration, the CBO was projecting a 2012 deficit of $264 billion. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>In other words, the projected surplus was already gone by the time Obama set foot in the Oval Office. </span></div></div>

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/img/federal_deficits_2012.jpg


Q.. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
02-03-2012, 06:47 AM
Then why didn't we have years of $1,000,000,000,000.00+ deficits under Bush?

LWW
02-03-2012, 06:54 AM
Back to reality ... since the demokrooks took congress, revenue has fell by $512,100,000,000.00 per year in inflation adjusted money, while spending has increased by $769,200,000,000.00 over the same time.

Add $769.2B and $512.1B and what do you get?

$1,283.1B ... or, IOW, if the demokrooks had merely tread water whil in power we would be in surplus right now.

My source?

THE OBAMA REGIME (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/)

That's check and mate.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u>NEXT?</u></span></span>

Qtec
02-03-2012, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back to reality ... since the demokrooks took congress, </div></div>

So why do you blame Obama all the time when the GOP have had control since Nov 2010?

Q

eg8r
02-03-2012, 09:46 AM
The GOP has not had control of Congress since 2010.

eg8r

LWW
02-03-2012, 03:10 PM
<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">Back to reality ... since the demokrooks took congress, </div></div>

So why do you blame Obama all the time when the GOP have had control since Nov 2010?

Q </div></div>

The GOP took over in January of 2011.

Their budget didn't take affect until later.

You bemoaned how they were the party of no for blocking the regime's agenda.

Now ... we see the deficit falling with the demokrooks out of control of the house and the economy showing a weak heartbeat as business sees the advance of the fascist economy at least slowed down.

Now, what will an Obamatron such as yourself do?

Blame the demokrooks for the failure of Obamunism from 2007.5 through 2010.5 ... oh, and praise dear leader for the effects of his agenda being halted.

This is shaping up to potentially be 1996 all over. The difference is that Clinton was a politician ... Obama is a true believer and will fight what might save him with all his might.

Anything else I can help you with?

Soflasnapper
02-03-2012, 06:43 PM
revenue has fell [sic] by $512,100,000,000.00 per year in inflation adjusted money, while spending has increased by $769,200,000,000.00 over the same time.

???

Proving that receipts are lower when a lot of people have lost jobs, and also tax cuts have proliferated to try to boost that jobs market and the econonmy? And that transfer and safety net payments increase in bad economic times?

Quite a proof there!

It's true, I suppose, that if you can blame the Democrats for the recession itself, then you'd have the causation your argument requires.

But few other than yourself dare make such a claim, even among the GOP candidates. And the recession and its aftermath are still (rightly, in my view) blamed by the majority of people on the past presidency.

LWW
02-04-2012, 03:42 AM
The epicenter of every measurement in question ... rise in UE, rise in spending, decrease in revenue, rise in anti business climate ... is the demokrooks taking control of congress in the 06 election cycle.

Qtec
02-04-2012, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The epicenter of every measurement in question ... rise in UE, rise in spending, decrease in revenue, rise in anti business climate ... <u>is the demokrooks taking control of congress in the 06 election cycle.</u> </div></div>

Reality check for you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>The do-nothing Congress
But whose fault is that?</span>

Dec 13th 2007 | washington, dc | from the print edition

THE Democrats took control of Congress nearly a year ago with schemes to pump cash into domestic programmes, from low-income housing to cancer research. <u>It hasn't quite gone according to plan.</u> George Bush has waved his veto pen at the Democrats' recent budget proposals, accepting only a fat defence-spending bill. The result has been a stalemate, with the Democrats struggling to come up with a budget that will get past the president's desk, with only a week left before the Christmas recess in which to finish the job.

Indeed, frustrated ambition has marked the Democrats' majority reign so far. In the summer they failed to make Mr Bush accept a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq. In October the president stopped them expanding a popular children's health-care programme. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>The Senate has just voted to waive its “pay-as-you-go” rule, which requires tax cuts to be offset by other revenue, thanks to filibustering by the Republican contingent.</span> The federal budget is months overdue, and it appears that the Democrats will have to give in to many of Mr Bush's spending demands, even at the expense of the domestic programmes they wanted to augment. Will voters punish the Democrats at the 2008 election for Congress's disappointing year, or will they whack the Republicans for their obstructionism?

As far as the budget goes, the Republican minority clearly hopes the blame will rebound on the Democrats. Mr Bush has suddenly and conveniently adopted the language of fiscal restraint. He has argued that the Democrats' budget plan, which called for a small increase in domestic spending, was excessive and wasteful. He has doggedly stuck to his own budget outline, which calls for $23 billion less domestic expenditure than Congress's first plan, even as the Democrats have offered to meet him somewhere in between. (The Democrats' first proposed discretionary budget came to $956 billion, next to which the $23 billion that is causing the problem looks pretty small.) Meanwhile, the president's defence request is a 10% increase on last year's at $481 billion—and that excludes $196 billion for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan

Now that Mr Bush has discovered the power of the veto pen, he sees little incentive to keep it in the inkwell. <span style='font-size: 23pt'>Those who still support him will only be heartened by his defiance, and legislative gridlock makes the Democrats seem incompetent. </span>The Democrats have not helped themselves with their time-wasting on Iraq. But Mr Bush's tactics may hurt Republicans in tight races, particularly if the cuts to social services he envisions hit Americans as hard as some predict.

The Democrats, meanwhile, complain that their slim majority (51-49) in the Senate has prevented them from passing ambitious legislation. Senate procedures, with all their talk of cloture and filibusters, are arcane; but if the Democrats can claim that the Republicans pressed for cuts to health care for children or winter heating assistance for the elderly, the message might resonate. <u>Americans still tend to trust Democrats more than Republicans on domestic policy;</u> with elections coming, now may not be the time for Republicans to rediscover their hard edges. </div></div>

Ha. They did 'nothing' and now you blame them for everything.

Q

LWW
02-04-2012, 10:41 AM
Are you aware what year it is?

Soflasnapper
02-04-2012, 01:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The epicenter of every measurement in question ... rise in UE, rise in spending, decrease in revenue, rise in anti business climate ... is the demokrooks taking control of congress in the 06 election cycle. </div></div>

Well then you have a timing problem for your theory.

Because gaining a majority in the early Nov. '06 voting didn't get them seated until mid-January of '07, with a budget already written into law from the prior Congress in effect until Sept. 30 2007.

So the deflection point(s) you see in '06 AND '07 had nothing to do with their taking control of the Congress, because it COULD NOT have had anything to do with taxes or spending through to the end of 9 full months of '07.

Not that the theory makes much sense anyway. It's always said that the Federal Reserve policy creates recessions, and I cannot think of a single Congress one can point at for even one counterexample to this well-known general rule. And that includes Congresses under full Democratic control with a Democratic Party president, let alone with a Republican president.

You've once again asserted causation in a case of coincidence, more or less out of superstition and lack of knowledge of how (and when) Congress does the budget.

LWW
02-04-2012, 05:53 PM
Then you have no clue about human/business psychology.

That being said ... let's review:

- During the first year, 2001, of the Bush regime, UE averaged 4.625% ... and we were told the Bush presidency was already a failure.

- During 2002, and the aftermath of 9/11, UE averaged 5.783% and we were told by the moonbat crazy left that we were in the worst economy since the great depression.

- In 2003 and 2004 UE averaged ... while fighting 2 wars ... 5.992% and 5.542%, and the moonbat crazy left told us we had a jobless recovery.

- Through 2005 and 2006 UE averaged 5.083% and 4.683% ... and the moonbat crazy left convinced people to elect a leftist congress to avoid further carnage. This new congress pledged to "FIX" The jobs problem.

- During 2007, the rate held fairly steady, averaging 4.617% but running up to 5% as the demokrooks new budget and legislation took hold.

- By election day the business community saw the Obama regime combined with a demokrook congress as the death of the economy and UE was up 7.3% by year end.

- During the early days of the regime we were told the UE rate could go as high as 9% if we didn't invest $1,000,000,000,000.00 in repaying public unions for backing the regime, and that it would never go above 8% if we did.

- It hit 8.2% in February ... then 9.4% in May, exceeding the worst case scenario if we had done nothing. For the year UE averaged 9.275%.

- 2010 made 2009 look good as UE averaged 9.633%.

- In 2011, after cooking the books, the average was brought down to 8.95%.

- Six years of Bush plus an R house averaged 5.272% UE.

- One year of Bush and a D house averaged 5.8% UE.

- Three years of Obama and a D house averaged 9.286% UE.

Any questions?

TRUTH to an Obamatrom is like a silver bullet to a werewolf. (http://www.miseryindex.us/URbymonth.asp)

LWW
02-04-2012, 05:57 PM
How about federal debt?

- Between 2001 and 2008 debt to GDP rose from 57.3% of GDP to 64.4% of GDP.

- From then until now it has risen to 93.2% of GDP.

TRUTH to an O-cultist is like Kryptonite to Superman. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp)

Anything else I can help you with?

LWW
02-04-2012, 06:01 PM
What about the annual deficit you say?

Under an R house it 2.1% of GDP when the demokrooks inherited this horrible mess.

They ran it up to 11.5% of GDP in 2 short year.

TRUTH to a leftist is like a cross to Dracula. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-budget)

Class dismissed.

Qtec
02-06-2012, 08:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then you have no clue about human/business psychology.
...blah...blah....strawman...strawman...blah...... .PUKE! </div></div>

Q

Qtec
02-06-2012, 08:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you aware what year it is? </div></div>

Yes.

YOU brought up the 2006 Dem majority. <u>YOU </u>said THEY are somehow responsible for the mess BUSH left to Obama.

When I PROVE this is not so, don't get sore. The GOP have consistantly decried the LACK of legislation when the Dem gained in 2006. They can't now turn around, AS YOU DO, and blame this 'DO NOTHING'congress for the incompetence of the Republican Party and their hero - never to be mentioned - 'mission accomplished, I'm the Decider, there are WMDs in Iraq,' the illustrious, George. W. Bush.

I and others have challenged you many times to produce your evidence that the Dem majority caused the crash. To date, you have failed miserably.

Q.....the GOP owns Bush, and his legacy. Now their solution is more of the same.

Qtec
02-08-2012, 02:35 AM
Bump for Dorothy.

Q

LWW
02-08-2012, 04:16 AM
Your comprehension shortcomings are not my problem.

Qtec
02-08-2012, 05:37 AM
Are you still claiming that the 'Do Nothing' Dem majority are responsible for the disastrous G W Bush administration and the worst recession since the Great Depression?

If so, say why and please prove links.


LOL

We all know you have nothing. You have been challenged on this a 100 times and every time you have zilch.

Q

LWW
02-08-2012, 05:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you still claiming that the 'Do Nothing' Dem majority are responsible for the disastrous G W Bush administration and the worst recession since the Great Depression?

If so, say why and please prove links.


LOL

We all know you have nothing. You have been challenged on this a 100 times and every time you have zilch.

Q


</div></div>

How about HERE (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=377058#Post377058) ... HERE (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=377059#Post377059) ... and HERE (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=377060#Post377060)?

What's that?

That data hasn't been spoon fed to you by the regime so you refuse to view it?

But ... we all already knew that.

Next personal embarrassment you would like to self inflict?

Qtec
02-08-2012, 06:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> By election day the business community saw the Obama regime combined with a demokrook congress as the death of the economy and UE was up 7.3% by year end.</div></div>

Are you now saying that Obama being elected drove up the UE rate?


LOL........nutjob.

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2011/08/liberal-total-private-jobs-worldview-july-data.jpg

Can you see here that UE is going through the roof? Long before Obama won the election?

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.files.wordpress.c om/2011/07/bush-vs-obama-unemployment-june-data.jpg

What happened is the 99% got robbed and now they have to work harder to cover the losses, while the 1% who have never had it better are complaining.

Q

LWW
02-08-2012, 06:46 PM
Thanks for the chart showing that UE took off right after the demokrook congress's agenda took effect.

Can you find a literate person to explain what it is you are looking at?

Try as I might to do that ... I can't get through your hyperpartisanship.