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.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. What the hell is there to be happy about? Do the math Einstein, you are overjoyed that the percentage of the deficit is declining but you fail to realize that that number is based on a much higher base number to begin with. The debt is 5 trillion dollars more than it was 5 years ago.
In real dollars the debt is still growing out of control. The situation is not getting better, it is still getting worse. But do not let the facts interfere with your liberal propaganda campaign.
So you'll rely on your bias-afflicted gut feel instead of relying on actual numbers. Thanks for making the ridiculous nature of the foundation of your comment clear.
Well, I think most people recognize that the deficit is significantly lower than it was in 2009. But 2009 wasn't a normal year by any stretch. The last year of the Bush presidency and the first few years of the Obama presidency not only saw huge reductions in economic activity, but they also saw nearly two trillion in stimulus and bailouts. The deficit skyrocketed, but it wasn't going to stay that way regardless of who was in charge.
The problem with the article and the topic, is that it doesn't really put the situation in context.
For instance, in 2007, the fiscal year before the recession started, the federal deficit was $161 billion(around 1% of GDP). In 2013, the federal deficit was $680 billion(about 4.3% of GDP).
In 2007 the total federal spending was $2.728 trillion. In 2013 it was $3.454 trillion.
The point is, the deficit reduction was caused by taxes collected from private-sector economic growth. Which Obama did absolutely nothing to encourage. If you don't believe me, then what did he do? Bailout corporations and cut taxes for a couple years? One of the major causes for economic growth right now, is the oil and gas boom. A monkey could have been president and nothing much would have changed.
Further, it is unlikely that the deficit even as a percentage of GDP will ever return to non-recession Bush levels(even the high years of the Iraq war). Which should make neither Republicans happy(who are worried about Obama spending sprees), nor liberals happy(who complained constantly of Bush's seemingly high deficits compared to the Clinton surpluses).
Thus, I don't even see the point in the article. It doesn't prove Republicans are crazies, and it doesn't prove that Obama is either anti-business or pro-business. It proves absolutely nothing. I assume it only exists either to massage the liberal ego, or to paint an improper picture for people who don't know anything about economics.
Wrong on all counts. There IS no expansion of the money supply. The supply of money is LOWER now than it was in 2008:
Really Ken? And just how can 80 Billion per month be funneled to the banker gangsters without expanding the money supply? The only way that could be possible is if the 80 Billion was extracted from circulation, which would definitely cause chaos.
Frankly ... you sound like those guys that walk around town claiming to be George Washington, or Jesus. You know ... those crazy homeless types that have all their worldly possessions in a shopping cart.
Try making some sense here.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 05-01-2014 at 10:41 AM..
Actually the nations' crime rate is wayyyyyy better than a "D-". Crime is actually very low in the US at the money, wayyyyyy lower than it's been in a long, long time.
Public perception of the crime rate however is pretty horrid - all of which goes to show that even WITH the wealth of information available to people today, we are apparently LESS informed than ever (at least in regards to the nation's crime rate) - mainly because of the sensationalization of news and and the death of actual journalism.
It WAS unpatriotic and irresponsible. There is NO excuse for driving up the debt that way when the economy was fairly strong. That is EXACTLY the time the debt should be being pared back (the way Clinton did).
You are so full of it, making up fake definitions that twist reality. Anything for your master.
You claim that thinking QE is Trickle Down is for "Limbaugh" fools. When I show you that people across the entire spectrum understand that QE is in fact Trickle Down you simply move the goal posts. Do you ever look in the mirror and wonder why you have to distort and lie so much to defend Obama?
Trickle Down, Supply Side Economics focuses on benefits to producers or businesses. And that these benefits will trickle down to everyone as the economy improves.
That is what QE does. Give the benefits of money creation directly to the banks and then see the benefits trickle down through lower interest rates to the rest of the economy. Bernanke on the subject: http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediac...nf20120913.pdf
Trickle Down (aka Reaganomics, aka Supply-Side Economics, aka Obamanomics) is owned by Obama.
Bernanke did not enact QE until after having met Obama after Obama won in 2008. Obama then reupped Bernanke who pledged to do a bigger round of QE, because he APPROVED of QE and wanted to see more rounds of it. Obama than picked Yellen who was pledged to do more rounds if the stock market needed it.
Obama is not a total invalid, that can't understand simple logic.
LOL
Still clinging to the silly trickle-down theory I see.
Too bad your federal reserve comments don't back you up. Look at the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 OF YOUR LINK where Bernanke says outright: "The program of MBS purchases should increase the downward pressure on long-term interest rates more generally, but also on mortgage rates, specifically, which should provide further support for the housing sector by encouraging home purchases and refinancing." That is HARDLY "trickle down" (no matter WHO thinks so). Trickle down affects the TOP and it "trickles down" to the BOTTOM. Mortgage rates affect CONSUMERS DIRECTLY - not through giving money or tax breaks to the rich the way REAL "trickle down" works, but giving lower rates directly to CONSUMERS. That's NOT "trickle down", that DIRECT AFFECT.
I don't care WHO calls it "trickle down", it's NOT "trickle down" if it affects the consumer directly. And QE's main purpose - as said OUTRIGHT BY BERNANKE - is to drive interest rates down - and interest rates affect YOU and ME DIRECTLY. It affects us EVERY TIME we make ANY major purchase but ESPECIALLY if we BUY or REFINANCE A HOUSE.
And as I said, go ahead and credit Obama if you want to - you're wrong (the credit goes to Bernanke because the President has no power or control over the Fed Chief), but that's cool if you want to credit Obama. The fact is, QE has done good.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 05-01-2014 at 05:29 PM..
What was the deficit and fiscal operating debt in 2002, and what was it under Obama with the dems in control, and then tell me if there was any significant difference? I'll wait.
The deficit went up because the country went into RECESSION in 2007. Who was President when that happened?
It WAS unpatriotic and irresponsible. There is NO excuse for driving up the debt that way when the economy was fairly strong. That is EXACTLY the time the debt should be being pared back (the way Clinton did).
Ken
Haha, so its no longer unpatriotic and irresponsible cause a D is in the White House..
btw, the way Clinton did it, was the same way its happening now. A Republican Congress cutting the growth of government, leaving more money into the economy so jobs can be created and cutting back spending.
But it wasnt at all tha long ago that people like you were proclaiming that if we cut spending, the economy would crash, and if we didnt increase food stamps, we wouldnt stimulate etc..
You guys dont ever stop flip flopping on your positions, and its beyond embarassing...
The deficit went up because the country went into RECESSION in 2007. Who was President when that happened?
Ken
Hahaha.. you non stop whine constantly because Republicans wont give Obama his way, but want to then blame Bush..
Why dont you cite for me some Democratic bills passed onto Bush that he didnt sign, which would have minimized the recession, just so I stop laughiing at you non stop...
Really Ken? And just how can 80 Billion per month be funneled to the banker gangsters without expanding the money supply? The only way that could be possible is if the 80 Billion was extracted from circulation, which would definitely cause chaos.
Frankly ... you sound like those guys that walk around town claiming to be George Washington, or Jesus. You know ... those crazy homeless types that have all their worldly possessions in a shopping cart.
Try making some sense here.
Because it DOESN'T GO INTO CIRCULATION. How many times that that have to be explained? It's simply an ASSET SWAP.
That is a FACT.
That's WHY it hasn't led to any significant inflation. That $80 billion/month (now already down to roughly half that) never gets into circulation (EVER) - it simply goes into vaults having no major affect except to drive interest rates down - THAT'S IT. This is where all those wingnuts thinking it will lead to inflation go wrong - and why there has been no major inflation as a result. The money NEVER goes into circulation. Simply "printing" money doesn't in any way shape of form cause inflation. Having that money go INTO CIRCULATION can do so (though even that is not an automatic thing) but simply "creating" it does no such thing. One populular definition of inflation is "too many dollars chasing too few goods" - but when the dollars don't get into circulation, they NEVER "chase" ANYTHING. That's the case with QE. The dollars are "printed" but never get circulated. They just SIT THERE.
Ken
PS: in all fairness, you are hardly alone in not understanding how QE works. It's a very tricky concept that has rarely been used, and many many people - even folks in the financial business - fail to understand the fact that QE dollars don't EVER make it into circulation. That's why so many so-called "experts" out there expected it to create inflation (which never materialized). They just couldn't seem to grasp the fact that the money simply needs to sit there. It doesn't NEED to get into circulation to help drive interest rates down - and so it's never put into circulation - EVER.
Last edited by LordBalfor; 05-01-2014 at 05:55 PM..
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.
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.
