U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-09-2012, 11:47 AM
 
51,670 posts, read 41,621,215 times
Reputation: 32271

Advertisements

You are to economic analysis what this guy is to music....
William Hung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,172 posts, read 7,019,756 times
Reputation: 4174
The liberal God "FactCheck" has already disputed the "wars were kept off the budget" meme.

Here's a little math for you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesgla...ts-truly-rank/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 21,004,271 times
Reputation: 8620
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
The liberal God "FactCheck" has already disputed the "wars were kept off the budget" meme.

Here's a little math for you.

The Facts About Budget Deficits: How The Presidents Truly Rank - Forbes
I agree with you on the wars kept off the budget thing. But Factcheck isn't liberal. In fact, it was founded by one of Regans best friends and biggest supporters, and plays it right down the middle. The fact that the conservative right has been lying through its teeth so much, and that conservatives bash anyone who disagrees with them not based on facts, but just that they disagree, is what gives it a "liberal" label.

Plenty to attack the left on, just like you did above, with fact, then to make **** up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,695 posts, read 14,151,738 times
Reputation: 15872
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
The 2009 budget was created during the Bush years. The US budget runs from Sept to Sept so the 2009 budget went into effect in Sept 2008 and ran until Sept 2009 when the first "Obama" budget started (the 2010 budget - which ran from Sept 2009 to Sept 2010).

THAT'S why the article starts with the 2010 budget. The 2009 budget was leftover from the Bush years.

Got it?

Ken
If we go here...

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0909.pdf

...we can see a month-by-month accounting.

From October 2008 through January 2009....

Bush was responsible for $395 Billion in debt
Obama was responsible for $1.021 TRILLION in debt.

When the budget deficit exceeded the projected deficit, Obama should have ordered a spending freeze --- he didn't -- so he voluntary spent $1.021 TRILLION and you cannot blame that on Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
I was explaining WHY the article started with the 2010 budget rather than the 2009 budget.
Do you have reading comprehension problems?


Ken
If we go here...

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0909.pdf

...we can see a month-by-month accounting.

From October 2008 through January 2009....

Bush was responsible for $395 Billion in debt
Obama was responsible for $1.021 TRILLION in debt.

When the budget deficit exceeded the projected deficit, Obama should have ordered a spending freeze --- he didn't -- so he voluntary spent $1.021 TRILLION and you cannot blame that on Bush.

I read fine...


Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 03:10 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,868 posts, read 22,731,855 times
Reputation: 7167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
If we go here...

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0909.pdf

...we can see a month-by-month accounting.

From October 2008 through January 2009....

Bush was responsible for $395 Billion in debt
Obama was responsible for $1.021 TRILLION in debt.

When the budget deficit exceeded the projected deficit, Obama should have ordered a spending freeze --- he didn't -- so he voluntary spent $1.021 TRILLION and you cannot blame that on Bush.


If we go here...

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0909.pdf

...we can see a month-by-month accounting.

From October 2008 through January 2009....

Bush was responsible for $395 Billion in debt
Obama was responsible for $1.021 TRILLION in debt.

When the budget deficit exceeded the projected deficit, Obama should have ordered a spending freeze --- he didn't -- so he voluntary spent $1.021 TRILLION and you cannot blame that on Bush.

I read fine...


Mircea
Like BUSH ordered a spending freeze during his Administration?
Oh wait he didn't.

A spending freeze - especially at that stage of a recession - was not realistic.
What would you propose?
That anyone laid off after that date wouldn't get Unemployment?
That SS recipients checks stop?
That we stop paying the people in the military?

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Texas
26,608 posts, read 11,147,070 times
Reputation: 6103
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Like BUSH ordered a spending freeze during his Administration?
Oh wait he didn't.

A spending freeze - especially at that stage of a recession - was not realistic.
What would you propose?
That anyone laid off after that date wouldn't get Unemployment?
That SS recipients checks stop?
That we stop paying the people in the military?

Ken
Bring the troops home. But I guess we needed those troops overseas in order to stick with Bushes plan. which sounds strange considering he ran on a platform of no nation building.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Texas
26,608 posts, read 11,147,070 times
Reputation: 6103
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Taking out defense and bailouts seems reasonable to me Defense is a basic function of government and bailouts are generally the result of prior catastrophic decisions.

But if you don't like it, look at the WAPO link. He doesn't take out defense or bailouts. He just debunks the numbers that Rex Nutting produced.
Bombing other countries that didn't attack us is defense?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
20,339 posts, read 13,833,043 times
Reputation: 5220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
If we go here...

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0909.pdf

...we can see a month-by-month accounting.

From October 2008 through January 2009....

Bush was responsible for $395 Billion in debt
Obama was responsible for $1.021 TRILLION in debt.

When the budget deficit exceeded the projected deficit, Obama should have ordered a spending freeze --- he didn't -- so he voluntary spent $1.021 TRILLION and you cannot blame that on Bush.


If we go here...

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0909.pdf

...we can see a month-by-month accounting.

From October 2008 through January 2009....

Bush was responsible for $395 Billion in debt
Obama was responsible for $1.021 TRILLION in debt.

When the budget deficit exceeded the projected deficit, Obama should have ordered a spending freeze --- he didn't -- so he voluntary spent $1.021 TRILLION and you cannot blame that on Bush.

I read fine...


Mircea
Bush also reserved $350 billion in TARP for 0bama, at the request of president-elect 0bama. so add $350 billion more to 0bama's tally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 05:00 PM
 
39,203 posts, read 40,587,898 times
Reputation: 16081
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Need I remind you that Bush BEGAN his Presidency with a SURPLUS.
Even WITHOUT the 2008 collapse, that was longggggg gone by the end of the Bush era - and that wasn't even counting the cost of the 2 wars that were LEFT OFF THE BOOKS (ie out of the Bush budgets).


Ken
Why are you trying to deflect the topic to Bush, Bush was president 4 years ago. He's ancient history, this topic is about Obama and the extraordinary increases in spending under his administration.

Having said that if you're going to fault Bush for increasing spending $3,788 billion over 2001 levels then certainly you should have greater concerns about Obama increasing the spending over 2001 levels too $9,280 billion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 07:08 PM
 
670 posts, read 904,842 times
Reputation: 891
The whole "Clinton Surplus" myth is such a shameless example of smoke and mirrors it's ridiculous. A quick look at the US Treasury website clearly proves this.

People have fallen so in love with the idea of obama and have accepted and embraced him so wholeheartedly in their eyes he can do no wrong. What happens when spending, under his administration, rises to staggering levels clearly indicating a lack of fiscal responsibility? That's easy - make excuses why it's not his fault by pushing the blame back to the last administration. They'll be blaming BUSH right up to the point where Obama drives this country right over the fiscal cliff. They they'll be hollering his name all the way down.

Obama ran his campaign for his first term on the fact that he could turn everything around with "change". By promising everything to everyone and stating he could turn this country around he clearly indicates that he knows and understands what those problems and issues are. To get into office and cry "I can't fix this - Bush messed it all up" is childish and immature. The fact is his policies are failing because he got in way over his head. He lacks the political and fiscal experience to right the ship. Knowing and understanding this and to AGAIN run for the same office four years later unbelievable. But, again, they'll be blaming BUSH while they f**k things up even more as the cliff that is a full scale depression looms nearer and nearer....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:32 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top