A graph really says it - 2009 - 2019 deficit projections

[trenchfoot]

Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

But oh no, no no...Now that Pres. Obama has to run the deficit up some more to fix the freak'in holy mess that Bush and Cheney created it's all of a sudden NOT OK?

Seems to me the all-important difference between Bush's deficit spending and Obama's is that all the deficit dollars Bush was emptying out of the treasury was going to his rich buddies at the top of the economic heap, while Obama's spending is going where it desperately needs go to --> back into rebuilding the backbone and foundation of our Nation of which Bush and Cheney was directly responsible for ruining.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

But oh no, no no...Now that Pres. Obama has to run the deficit up some more to fix the freak'in holy mess that Bush and Cheney created it's all of a sudden NOT OK?

Seems to me the all-important difference between Bush's deficit spending and Obama's is that all the deficit dollars Bush was emptying out of the treasury was going to his rich buddies at the top of the economic heap, while Obama's spending is going where it desperately needs go to --> back into rebuilding the backbone and foundation of our Nation of which Bush and Cheney was directly responsible for ruining.

Yup, we should do nothing and wallow in the hole left by Bush.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

Oh yeah man, the '00-08 deficits were awesome! We all agreed on that!

:roll:

Some people just love strawmen.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: alchemize
2009-2019 CBO projected deficits

Of course they are much higher than the white house says. So much for Obama's transparency.

I believe Obama is a Democrat, and their entire party platform is spending money. You REALLY didn't expect this? It is only the beginning of our government expansion. They still need entitlement spending.

It's boggling that there are people defending this

It's a party platform. Last I checked, people did not JUST defend it, they voted for it overwhelming.

- and even saying not enough is being spent. I think as a country we'll never learn until the bubbles get so big that we truly go through a true collapse.

If their current actions at taking control of the financial sector actually work, it will result in a government sized bubble. Should that bubble burst, who is going to bail out a bankrupt government? No one, so you're absolutely correct when you say it'd be a true collapse.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

Oh yeah man, the '00-08 deficits were awesome! We all agreed on that!

:roll:

Some people just love strawmen.

It is a Strawman for some(those who condemned Bush's Deficits), but not for others(those who Defended Bush's Deficits..aka, Deficits don't matter crowd).

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

But oh no, no no...Now that Pres. Obama has to run the deficit up some more to fix the freak'in holy mess that Bush and Cheney created it's all of a sudden NOT OK?

Seems to me the all-important difference between Bush's deficit spending and Obama's is that all the deficit dollars Bush was emptying out of the treasury was going to his rich buddies at the top of the economic heap, while Obama's spending is going where it desperately needs go to --> back into rebuilding the backbone and foundation of our Nation of which Bush and Cheney was directly responsible for ruining.

So, how much personal debt are you racking up? By your argument, it makes perfect sense to do so. Surely you don't think it makes sense to run your household on a balanced budget? I'd say you should be spending, say, 1000 times your anticipated earnings for the next 4 years.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

But oh no, no no...Now that Pres. Obama has to run the deficit up some more to fix the freak'in holy mess that Bush and Cheney created it's all of a sudden NOT OK?

Seems to me the all-important difference between Bush's deficit spending and Obama's is that all the deficit dollars Bush was emptying out of the treasury was going to his rich buddies at the top of the economic heap, while Obama's spending is going where it desperately needs go to --> back into rebuilding the backbone and foundation of our Nation of which Bush and Cheney was directly responsible for ruining.

So, how much personal debt are you racking up? By your argument, it makes perfect sense to do so. Surely you don't think it makes sense to run your household on a balanced budget? I'd say you should be spending, say, 1000 times your anticipated earnings for the next 4 years.

Ok, ya got me. I'm not skilled at arguing about your apples while trying to defend my oranges.

I give up. You win.

 

[AndrewR]

Holy crap! :Q

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

But oh no, no no...Now that Pres. Obama has to run the deficit up some more to fix the freak'in holy mess that Bush and Cheney created it's all of a sudden NOT OK?

Seems to me the all-important difference between Bush's deficit spending and Obama's is that all the deficit dollars Bush was emptying out of the treasury was going to his rich buddies at the top of the economic heap, while Obama's spending is going where it desperately needs go to --> back into rebuilding the backbone and foundation of our Nation of which Bush and Cheney was directly responsible for ruining.

Actually he's really giving quite a bit away to wall street. Bush and Cheney would be proud. Oh, and he's giving away money that doesn't exist.

If you'd like I can reference NUMEROUS instances in this forum where many, many conservatives complained about his spending.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

But oh no, no no...Now that Pres. Obama has to run the deficit up some more to fix the freak'in holy mess that Bush and Cheney created it's all of a sudden NOT OK?

Seems to me the all-important difference between Bush's deficit spending and Obama's is that all the deficit dollars Bush was emptying out of the treasury was going to his rich buddies at the top of the economic heap, while Obama's spending is going where it desperately needs go to --> back into rebuilding the backbone and foundation of our Nation of which Bush and Cheney was directly responsible for ruining.

Yawn.

What holy mess? Our nation has functioned perfectly fine for 200 years without 10% annual increases in non-defense spending, massive government healthcare, and 'green jobs'.

 

[nCred]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

It's not the 100B difference that's the problem. It's the 9.83 trillion additional over 10 years!

That number again:
$9,830,000,000,000

Today's debt:
$11,054,000,000,000

So we'll be at roughly 20 trillion, or doubling the debt in 10 years.

Well, Bush increased the debt with about 85 % in 8 years.

 

[Craig234]

Some far right leaders had this as a goal, to create so much debt that there was no money left for any public-directed social spending - just to fit their anti-government ideology.

They decided since you can't get the public to stop supporting spending for its own benefit, you can get around that with too much spending - they can't vote what they don't have.

So, they can be drinking champagne at their success now, while the US falters.

Anyone here care to defend the Grover Norquist 'starve the beast' policy?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: nCred

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

It's not the 100B difference that's the problem. It's the 9.83 trillion additional over 10 years!

That number again:
$9,830,000,000,000

Today's debt:
$11,054,000,000,000

So we'll be at roughly 20 trillion, or doubling the debt in 10 years.

Well, Bush increased the debt with about 85 % in 8 years.

LOL wow this gets better.

2x2 = 4
4x4 = 16

4 is just as much as 16!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

Oh yeah man, the '00-08 deficits were awesome! We all agreed on that!

:roll:

Some people just love strawmen.

It is a Strawman for some(those who condemned Bush's Deficits), but not for others(those who Defended Bush's Deficits..aka, Deficits don't matter crowd).

I'm not getting in the middle of all this but ...

The White House budget summary includes the honest costs of War, $1.4 trillion financial stabilization, $250 billion TARP, the 'Bush' Tax Cuts', settlement of AMT, costs of SS & medicare, 'Big Pharma Part D', sky-rocketing interest of the debt, etc.

It also includes the 'carbon' and 'heath' initiatives he promoted.

Finally. An honest budget (for the most part). They actually included the CBO numbers (and that of the 'Blue Ribbon' committee). Good for them.

A honest document that lays it all out.

I imagine they could care less about the acrimonious fodder. They have done their job.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Oh, OK, I get it.

It was just absolutely fine for Bush and Cheney to run up a horrific deficit, because I never heard a word of protest from his supporters for all the years these two crooks were at it.

Oh yeah man, the '00-08 deficits were awesome! We all agreed on that!

:roll:

Some people just love strawmen.

It is a Strawman for some(those who condemned Bush's Deficits), but not for others(those who Defended Bush's Deficits..aka, Deficits don't matter crowd).

I'm not getting in the middle of all this but ...

The White House budget summary includes the honest costs of War, $1.4 trillion financial stabilization, $250 billion TARP, the 'Bush' Tax Cuts', settlement of AMT, costs of SS & medicare, 'Big Pharma Part D', sky-rocketing interest of the debt, etc.

It also includes the 'carbon' and 'heath' initiatives he promoted.

Finally. An honest budget (for the most part). They actually included the CBO numbers (and that of the 'Blue Ribbon' committee). Good for them.

A honest document that lays it all out.

I imagine they could care less about the acrimonious fodder

I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Acrimonious. Check.

Eliminate Medicare Advantage and slash Big Pharma Part D and you cut $1 trillion.

What's your contribution other than your colorectal view?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Acrimonious. Check.

Eliminate Medicare Advantage and slash Big Pharma Part D and you cut $1 trillion.

What's your contribution other than your colorectal view?

Those are on the table to be removed by obama? I'd support that.

Speaking of having a head up an ass, you're in no position to be speaking about that. F'in dipshit, if you haven't noticed, Bush isn't president anymore.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

And you completely miss the point about the attack on Obama for not doing anything to meet his stated goal of increasing transparency, by trying to change the subject.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

And you completely miss the point about the attack on Obama for not doing anything to meet his stated goal of increasing transparency, by trying to change the subject.

He's more transparent, good for him. I applaud that. Now tell me what transparency does for our deficit?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

And you completely miss the point about the attack on Obama for not doing anything to meet his stated goal of increasing transparency, by trying to change the subject.

He's more transparent, good for him. I applaud that. Now tell me what transparency does for our deficit?

Make us wish for Bush's deficits? *snicker*

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Acrimonious. Check.

Eliminate Medicare Advantage and slash Big Pharma Part D and you cut $1 trillion.

What's your contribution other than your colorectal view?

Those are on the table to be removed by obama? I'd support that.

Speaking of having a head up an ass, you're in no position to be speaking about that. F'in dipshit, if you haven't noticed, Bush isn't president anymore.

More acrimony with personal attack, fallacy and name-calling. Care to go for the trifecta?

There is $580 billion in the budget for 'Overseas Contingency Operations' - I'll slash $400 billion there.

My cuts are up to $1.4 trillion ...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

And you completely miss the point about the attack on Obama for not doing anything to meet his stated goal of increasing transparency, by trying to change the subject.

He's more transparent, good for him. I applaud that. Now tell me what transparency does for our deficit?

Well, first, let's recognize that the topic was whether he increased transparency - which the poster accused him of not doing, and you agree the attack was wrong.

It's a new topic to talk about the effects of increasing transparency. To answer your question, it's pretty simple - hiding the costs makes it easier to spend more badly.

Increased transparency has the effect of allowing the political system to better resists bad spending - the battle has to be won, rather than avoiding it by hiding the spending.

It doesn't mean you will always agree with the decision, but it does increase the chances of bad spending getting blocked when the spending is more honestly laid out.

Remember how the Bush administratin got the Medicare drug bill passed? Many rank and file Republicans said there were limits to their willingness to throw taxpayer dollars to their #1 donor industry - and the leadership hid the real costs of the program, threatening the bureacrat in charge to prevent him from revealing the real numbers. More transparency would have informed Congreess and the bill likely would not have passed (it was an extremely close vote).

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So there's a $100 B difference for this year? Eh... And as for future years, let me just remind you that economic forecasts are like assholes; everyone's got one.

And when they come from the government, they always undershoot.

edit: I see you proved my point, they will probably be much larger than either projection

It depends. CBO projections do not account for policy changes. Obama could, for instance, cut something and easily make up that $100B difference. It's one thing to project out a year, and quite another to project out 10 years.

It's not the 100B difference that's the problem. It's the 9.83 trillion additional over 10 years!

That number again:
$9,830,000,000,000

Today's debt:
$11,054,000,000,000

So we'll be at roughly 20 trillion, or doubling the debt in 10 years.

No big deal... we just get a new flag thats all.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Acrimonious. Check.

Eliminate Medicare Advantage and slash Big Pharma Part D and you cut $1 trillion.

What's your contribution other than your colorectal view?

Those are on the table to be removed by obama? I'd support that.

Speaking of having a head up an ass, you're in no position to be speaking about that. F'in dipshit, if you haven't noticed, Bush isn't president anymore.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/127796.php

Medicare prescription drug benefit spending in fiscal year 2008 totaled $44 billion -- $6 billion lower than estimated.



Good luck getting $1 trillion out of it, even if you eliminate the program entirely. :laugh:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'll take a dishonest budget over a 400% larger honest deficit any day.

Acrimonious. Check.

Eliminate Medicare Advantage and slash Big Pharma Part D and you cut $1 trillion.

What's your contribution other than your colorectal view?

Those are on the table to be removed by obama? I'd support that.

Speaking of having a head up an ass, you're in no position to be speaking about that. F'in dipshit, if you haven't noticed, Bush isn't president anymore.

More acrimony with personal attack, fallacy and name-calling. Care to go for the trifecta?

There is $580 billion in the budget for 'Overseas Contingency Operations' - I'll slash $400 billion there.

My cuts are up to $1.4 trillion ...

Your argument might have merit, if Obama had any intent of making those cuts. But it's just your dumb ass, so the point is moot.