• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CBS news article reports Obama now has topped Bush with pushing our debt.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
PokerGuy said:
Wrong, war spending is included in the deficit calculations.
Click to expand...

Not by Bush's accounting team. 😉

Finally, because we’re also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget. That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...k-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/
 
homercles337 said:
Yeah, its tough given their propensity for reinventing history. Its sad really...just look at "werepossum." He did not even want to read it.
Click to expand...
I read it, took about a minute. (I'm working with some really big drawings and I have a LOT of time between edits right now.) It's typical leftist bullshit, Democrats are great and Republicans learned to used lies to sell a horribly flawed ideology that's responsible for every ill known to mankind.

Anyone who believes there is one party that's always right and one party that's always wrong is an idiot; the only difference is to which side that idiot is useful.
 
homercles337 said:
All the conservatives here need to learn some history:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0
Click to expand...

After reading this, it seems if he is finding excuses for the pickle that we are in.

And he wants to place the blame on the Republicans vs the government itself for continuing to spend beyond its means.

Dems have yet to show that increasing taxes fixes things - if the money was used properly, then possibly.

The problem is that the funds from increased taxes are wasted in ares that do not help the economy but are used to allow self servicing politicians to waste.

So until the fact that raising taxes is actually shown to help the economy, people are going to push back.

The run from 1980 to 2000 generated wealth/growth/prosperity for all until the bubble popped at the end of Clinton's term. What people did with the opportunity was up to them. Those that did not utilize it, slipped backward.

Would the bubble had popped under Clinton if he had not raised taxes, who knows? Actions can not have a road not traveled in the past be re-traveled.

Bush inherited a mess of the economy and then 9/11 compounded the issue. Yet his policies were in place as the economy recovered for 4 years. Again, has he raised taxes would the TARP crash happened; most likely - this was neglect built up over the years?
 
Last edited:
EagleKeeper said:
After reading this, it seems if he is finding excuses for the pickle that we are in.

And he wants to place the blame on the Republicans vs the government itself for continuing to spend beyond its means.

Dems have yet to show that increasing taxes fixes things - if the money was used properly, then possibly.

The problem is that the funds from increased taxes are wasted in ares that do not help the economy but are used to allow self servicing politicians to waste.

So until the fact that raising taxes is actually shown to help the economy, people are going to push back.

The run from 1980 to 2000 generated wealth/growth/prosperity for all until the bubble popped at the end of Clinton's term. What people did with the opportunity was up to them. Those that did not utilize it, slipped backward.

Would the bubble had popped under Clinton if he had not raised taxes, who knows? Actions can not have a road not traveled in the past be re-traveled.

Bush inherited a mess of the economy and then 9/11 compounded the issue. Yet his policies were in place as the economy recovered for 4 years. Again, has he raised taxes would the TARP crash happened; most likely - this was neglect built up over the years?
Click to expand...
Bush not only raised taxes, he raised regulations. I had thought you didn't support Dr. Paul and that you did support more war which begs the question... why are you worried about the national debt?
 
Anarchist420 said:
Bush not only raised taxes, he raised regulations. I had thought you didn't support Dr. Paul and that you did support more war which begs the question... why are you worried about the national debt?
Click to expand...

Bush Sr raised taxes - he called it accurately and did it against his parties philosophy - do not spend what you do not have.
And it was used against him by Dems "Read My Lips"

If Bush Jr raised taxes, then why all the bitching by the liberals on how the Bush tax cuts are killing us.

I do not support Paul; his theories are to isolationist and not effective within a global system.

Debt takes money from the government to use. Government money to use comes from my pocket.

I want my pocket to stay as full as possible for my use.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Bush inherited a mess of the economy and then 9/11 compounded the issue. Yet his policies were in place as the economy recovered for 4 years. Again, has he raised taxes would the TARP crash happened; most likely - this was neglect built up over the years?
Click to expand...

I don't place the responsibility for the events that led up to the TARP being implemented at Bush at all.

Senators Graham, Leach & Bliley are the main Lawmakers are largely responsible for it. As is President Clinton for signing it.

As for whether or not taxes matter. One thing is certain no sitting President in the past 100 years at least has ever lowered taxes during a war and kept them lowered.

Another thing to bring up is that in the years when the top marginal tax rates were very high, recessions while they still happened tended to be shorter than a year and didn't go as low as either the Great Depression or the so called Great Recession. There also weren't any banking panics of note.

Even though correlation =/= causation admittedly; It's something to explore to actually see if there is a causal relationship. It could also have been just the Glass-Steagall act by itself or that in combination with higher taxes.

The effect of higher taxes tends to reduce the amount of money people have burning in their pockets to speculate with rather than making more conservative investments.

In times of war it can help reduce the increasing of the debt as the U.S. spends large sums of money to deploy the military.

As for taxes being used properly, unfortunately I'll have to agree with you there when it comes to recent history.

It wasn't used properly.

The last times it was that come to mind are the building of the Interstate Highway system. Now in some areas presently in need of maintenance and repair.

The building of Dams and making electricity available to rural areas.

The spending that was focused on making Colleges very affordable even to people who were working part-time to pay for their education. Something practically impossible today without loans and grants.
 
Ausm said:
Not by Bush's accounting team. 😉

Finally, because we’re also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget. That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...k-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/
Click to expand...

great, it was still in the debt the whole time. which is what the guy clearly meant. a lot of people don't understand that debt and deficit aren't the same thing.



DominionSeraph said:
Obama came in and decided to take the turn out of the equation
Click to expand...
i would disagree with that. obama hasn't done much different than bush had already proposed. other than his big healthcare push, 98% of which hasn't taken effect.
 
Last edited:
homercles337 said:
All the conservatives here need to learn some history:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0
Click to expand...

And the author of that article needs a little educating too. The 80's were the greatest time of economic growth in our history. 1980-88 the GDP alost doubled without double digit inflation.

GDP
1980 2.788 Trillion
1988 5.100 Trillion

The only other time that happened during any 8 year period was during the 70's thanks to double digit inflation.
Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...011lcn__US_Gross_Domestic_Product_GDP_History
 
tweaker2 said:
Bush pushed the debt levels to make the rich richer. Obama pushed the debt levels to undo the damage that Bush caused in the name of making the rich richer.

Comparing the two is false equivalency at its apex.
Click to expand...

umm dude, there are more billionares now than when bush was in office. so your argument is???
 
blankslate said:
I don't place the responsibility for the events that led up to the TARP being implemented at Bush at all.

Senators Graham, Leach & Bliley are the main Lawmakers are largely responsible for it. As is President Clinton for signing it.

As for whether or not taxes matter. One thing is certain no sitting President in the past 100 years at least has ever lowered taxes during a war and kept them lowered.

Another thing to bring up is that in the years when the top marginal tax rates were very high, recessions while they still happened tended to be shorter than a year and didn't go as low as either the Great Depression or the so called Great Recession. There also weren't any banking panics of note.

Even though correlation =/= causation admittedly; It's something to explore to actually see if there is a causal relationship. It could also have been just the Glass-Steagall act by itself or that in combination with higher taxes.

The effect of higher taxes tends to reduce the amount of money people have burning in their pockets to speculate with rather than making more conservative investments.

In times of war it can help reduce the increasing of the debt as the U.S. spends large sums of money to deploy the military.

As for taxes being used properly, unfortunately I'll have to agree with you there when it comes to recent history.

It wasn't used properly.

The last times it was that come to mind are the building of the Interstate Highway system. Now in some areas presently in need of maintenance and repair.

The building of Dams and making electricity available to rural areas.

The spending that was focused on making Colleges very affordable even to people who were working part-time to pay for their education. Something practically impossible today without loans and grants.
Click to expand...
Good, thoughtful post.
 
OutHouse said:
if the price of gas keeps shooting through the roof any recovery will be gone. higher prices for food, more money spent at the pump = less disposable cash to circulate in the economy.
Click to expand...

And that gas price is 99% speculation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't gas at about $4/gal, regular, nationwide average when oil was up and over $140 a barrel?

Why is it at $3.75 with oil just over $100 a barrel, no shortages present and no solid confirmable threat to the production centers?

Speculation. Stock jockies whipping the bull and riding it to the next bear.

And as soon as the prices rise, politicians from both sides use it as a reason to push cars that run off of human waste or getting oil from orphaned babies.

And we, the Sheeple, believe every word that 50% of our "leaders" say.

Phegh.
 
Ninjahedge said:
And that gas price is 99% speculation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't gas at about $4/gal, regular, nationwide average when oil was up and over $140 a barrel?

Why is it at $3.75 with oil just over $100 a barrel, no shortages present and no solid confirmable threat to the production centers?

Speculation. Stock jockies whipping the bull and riding it to the next bear.

And as soon as the prices rise, politicians from both sides use it as a reason to push cars that run off of human waste or getting oil from orphaned babies.

And we, the Sheeple, believe every word that 50% of our "leaders" say.

Phegh.
Click to expand...


100% agree with everything you said.
 
senseamp said:
Bush tax cuts are still in effect contributing to the deficits.
Click to expand...

Yup. The Bush tax cuts will be the largest contributor to our debt:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/bush-tax-cuts-debt_n_864812.html

However, conservatives seem to be unable to understand simple concepts such as this. Nor do they seem to understand that austerity in times of economic troubles only make things worse. That's right, the government will need to spend money to help things (which it already has done, and the results look quite promising) before we focus too much on cuts (though we do need to focus on that at the same time). I'd pull up the link to the study if my class wasn't literally getting out right now, and I have no desire to come back to this thread later.
 
Ninjahedge said:
And that gas price is 99% speculation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't gas at about $4/gal, regular, nationwide average when oil was up and over $140 a barrel?

Why is it at $3.75 with oil just over $100 a barrel, no shortages present and no solid confirmable threat to the production centers?

Speculation. Stock jockies whipping the bull and riding it to the next bear.

And as soon as the prices rise, politicians from both sides use it as a reason to push cars that run off of human waste or getting oil from orphaned babies.

And we, the Sheeple, believe every word that 50% of our "leaders" say.

Phegh.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

Yes, oil price & gasoline are somewhat correlated, and the cost of oil is an input into gasoline, but ultimately, the cost of gas is more determined by worldwide demand for gasoline & production capacity. For example, if you look at when Katrina hit, gas prices shot up through the roof b/c alot of refineries went offline, but oil was still priced really low.

The issue w/ gas now is that the entire world needs more gas and the U.S. is exporting more gas than ever. A number of refineries in the NE are also shutting which reduces supply. Combine the two and you have higher gas prices.
 
OutHouse said:
if the price of gas keeps shooting through the roof any recovery will be gone. higher prices for food, more money spent at the pump = less disposable cash to circulate in the economy.
Click to expand...

Americans don't want oil independence, so they get what they deserve. Stop buying gas guzzlers, push for higher mpg standards, and put serious money into alternative energy. Otherwise, don't complain.
 
shadow9d9 said:
Americans don't want oil independence, so they get what they deserve. Stop buying gas guzzlers, push for higher mpg standards, and put serious money into alternative energy. Otherwise, don't complain.
Click to expand...

Too logical... you must be a hippie/facist/socialist/teerrrist.
 
This will just get worse and worse as wealth coalesces to a few. For two reasons.

1. Rich don't pay the same taxes as working class. They pay from 0-15%. You pay from 15-50%. so Less money for Govt.

2. Those on the margins need more assistance from .gov instead of .job.

Less inflow more outflow.
 
senseamp said:
Bush tax cuts are still in effect contributing to the deficits.
Click to expand...

And Bush had higher tax revenues because he was leaving office just when the bubble burst. A bubble he did nothing to contain or prevent. Anyone with an ounce of honesty will admit that when Bush left office this country was in 'sinking ship' status.

I'm not a huge fan of either party, since both refuse to make any hard decisions that might affect their chances of getting elected. Trying to make the comparisons like the one in the OP are ridiculous, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top