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)
 
Old 06-06-2009, 11:17 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,346,365 times
Reputation: 9358

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm View Post
uh huh...You've quoted verbatim at times
When?
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm View Post
the sentiments of your party. I understand your allegiance to party and all; however, I prefer to keep you and your party in context, particularly when it comes to discussion regarding historical context
Actually I lean libertarian, but continue to lie and pretend you know wtf your talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm View Post
(since you appear to lend more weight to these types of reference) of the economy and the multitude of factors concerning it's governance and workings.

i.e. uh oh...

Source
So you get your news from youtube and blogs? That might explain why your wrong about everything..

The links were supposed to prove what? That we're in a recession?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-06-2009, 11:30 AM
LML
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,109 posts, read 8,099,343 times
Reputation: 5160
I can't really blame Obama for this because the problem of the economic crash started in the days of Bush. I think there have been underlying problems for some time but I believe they all came to a head when gas prices went over $4 a gallon. That is when the cracks that were already there began to widen. I was against the bailouts because I did not think it would really do any good and would saddle our grandchildren with debt for their lifetime. But we need to remember that those bailouts began under Bush and it was his bunch that came up with the ridiculous idea to give wall street billions of dollars without a single string attached. But then Obama continued the mess and the added stimulus package that was suppose to provide so many jobs and save so many jobs hasn't done a darn thing to help that I can see. I think both the Bush and the Obama administrations have been way, way too free with our money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2009, 11:39 AM
 
1,368 posts, read 1,674,630 times
Reputation: 1111
Can we blame Obama for not fixing it and actually making it 4 times worse?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2009, 11:59 AM
 
2,659 posts, read 2,569,074 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by amerifree View Post
Can we blame Obama for not fixing it and actually making it 4 times worse?
If that happens sure, but lets not dive into fiction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2009, 01:08 PM
 
5,165 posts, read 5,308,734 times
Reputation: 1067
Quote:
Originally Posted by compJockey View Post
If that happens sure, but lets not dive into fiction.
Well he already made the deficit 4 times worse. that is not fiction
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2009, 01:09 PM
 
2,659 posts, read 2,569,074 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanhouse View Post
Well he already made the deficit 4 times worse. that is not fiction
Yes, that is fiction.

Here, I'll explain to you what the commentators are doing, that claim the deficit has tripled or quadrupled.

Last Bush Budget:
$450 billion deficit.
- no wars included
- budget tricks (I'll happily provide links to details again, if needed)

Add those things to what was reported and you have Bush's actual deficit.
$1.3 trillion

From the actual last deficit, add the cost of this year's stimulus (180-200 billion), TARP, and less tax receipts (economy shrinking) and you have the new deficit.
$1.7 - $1.8 trillion

I'm sure we can agree that:
1.3 x 4 != 1.8

Or, if you like we can downwardly adjust Obama's deficit to subtract the cost of wars and transparency.
Because I'm sure you realize, these are not new costs, despite appearing on the budget for the first time.

Using the previous administration's tactics, the deficit would be much smaller.
Closer to 1 trillion (stimulus, TARP, and less tax receipts would still factor in).

And I'm sure we can agree:
450 x 4 != 1000 (1 trillion)

Last edited by compJockey; 06-06-2009 at 01:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2009, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,496,708 times
Reputation: 7107
You're living in a fantasy world. Wake up.

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg (broken link)


Quote:
The new projected deficit is four times the 2008 deficit, which was a record high for its time.
Keep in mind - obama's deficit projections are based on his unrealistic "rosy scenario" numbers. You know what that means, don't you? Higher deficits - much higher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2009, 01:23 PM
 
2,659 posts, read 2,569,074 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
You're living in a fantasy world. Wake up.






Keep in mind - obama's deficit projections are based on his unrealistic "rosy scenario" numbers. You know what that means, don't you? Higher deficits - much higher.
Your graphic, again - is bunk.

It gobbles up Bush's budget tricks as reality.

It ignores the wars costs on the Bush side, and makes no mention that it is included on Obama's side.

Do you really love being lied to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2009, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,496,708 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
Your graphic, again - is bunk.
Well, you just best send an email to the CBO and obama economic team - the numbers come directly from their projections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2009, 01:30 PM
 
2,659 posts, read 2,569,074 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Well, you just best send an email to the CBO and obama economic team - the numbers come directly from their projections.
Their projections I don't need to dispute.

If you've read much of what I wrote, I'm disputing the Bush deficit numbers you and others keep trotting out.

See your graphic?
Last year it claimed a roughly $450 billion deficit.

The cost of the wars was not included in that.
And several accounting tricks were used to make that total seem much smaller than it was in reality.

On the other side, Obama banned these tricks, TARP was added and the cost of the wars were added.

The comparison is incredibly faulty.

In reality, (when you add the war, and remove the budget tricks) the deficit was 1.3 trillion, not $450 billion.

That is how you can compare the deficits.

1.3 trillion for Bush
1.8 trillion for Obama (includes TARP, stimulus, less tax revenue)

In other words, the hilarious cries about spending are really very little about spending.
Its more about transparency that it is about spending.
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 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