Democrats confront Republicans over changing House rules to keep gov't shut down.

[Matt1970]

The numerical value of a deficit isn't what matters. Its the size compared to gdp and our ability to carry the debt
.

Right. The interest on our debt is now 10% of our total tax revenue.

The problem with Bush's policies was first of all an unnecessary tax cut. Which btw, affected Obama's deficits for years too because its almost impossible politically to undo tax cuts. Its not fair to blame Obama for the portion of his deficits which were caused by a policy he was trying to fix.

Which why Obama and company made them permanent?

Secondly, Bush got us into two wars and made no effort to fund them.

True, but since when has our government worried out funding stuff they want?

Thirdly, Bush's philosophy of letting banks and private enterprise go largely unregulated contributed to a huge financial disaster.

I am sure it contributed to it but the what is largely agreed on as the biggest contributing factor was the bi-partisian bill that repealed Glass-Steagall.

Its all worked more or less according to plan, although its taken longer than was originally forecast. Given the complexity I don't think that's surprising.

According to plan the Stimulus was not supposed to let us go over 8% Unemployment. We hit 10.2% which means they were clueless about it's effects and what was needed.

If the House wasn'r so obsessed with Obamacare, for political gain as far as I'm concerned, I think we could have had some tax reform by now.

You mean like when Unemplyment was 10.2% Obama's biggest concern was Obamacare?

 

[thraashman]

"Obama is the smallest government spender since forever"

Camparing Obama deficits to the one time emergency Bush spending of his last year in office is partisian hackery and you know it. Bush had a $170 Billion deficit for 2007. Reductions in future spending desires is not cutting spending. If I spend $100 this month, and wish to spend $120 next month but only spend $110, I did not cut spending. Inflation you say? $3.31 Trillion budget in in 2009 would be $3.31 Trillion for 2012, not $3.795 trillion that our budget was. Your insults might have a little merit if you got your facts straight.

Was it you or someone else who I proved that the $170 billion deficit number is a lie? The number listed as deficit and what the deficit actually was under Bush were quite different. Remember, a lot of spending, especially that of the two wars, was kept off record as deficit even though it very much counts as deficit.

Ah, found it, it was indeed you.
Your post.
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2006: $248 billion
FY 2005: $318 billion

Jhhnn posted.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

Link posted by Jhhnn shows that actual deficit for FY 2007 was....
$1,017,071,524,650

This was proven to you in that other thread which shows:
Survey says.... Matt1970 is lying and he knows it!!!!
Congrats Matt, you've surpassed all other P&N posters for the month of October in being shown as both wrong and knowingly lying. How does that make you feel?

 

[Phokus]

Was it you or someone else who I proved that the $170 billion deficit number is a lie? The number listed as deficit and what the deficit actually was under Bush were quite different. Remember, a lot of spending, especially that of the two wars, was kept off record as deficit even though it very much counts as deficit.

Ah, found it, it was indeed you.
Your post.
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2006: $248 billion
FY 2005: $318 billion

Jhhnn posted.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

Link posted by Jhhnn shows that actual deficit for FY 2007 was....
$1,017,071,524,650

This was proven to you in that other thread which shows:
Survey says.... Matt1970 is lying and he knows it!!!!
Congrats Matt, you've surpassed all other P&N posters for the month of October in being shown as both wrong and knowingly lying. How does that make you feel?

Shit, we should nominate Matt for leader of the Tea Party movement, or Fox News Anchor, or maybe rightwing talk radio host, for all the lying he does.

 

[Matt1970]

The only one who doesn't have his facts straight is you, you misread the NYT article because, well, you're you.

As for the bolded point, you're so stupid, now you're making shit up because you're embarrassed yet again. Again, the Washington Times article, hardly the liberal bastion of journalism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obama-wins-more-cuts-in-spending-than-bush/?page=all



You're so embarrassing, now you're resorting to blatant lies.

Read the bolded part again. Let me know when you figure it out. Still don't get it?

2009 Budget $3.1 trillion
2010 Budget $3.55 trillion
2011 Budget $3.818 trillion
2012 Budget $3.795 trillion
2013 Budget $3.808 trillion

That article was from 2010 so the 2011 budget went down, oh wait, it went up almost $300 Billion. See how they are not actual cuts in spending?

 

[Phokus]

Was it you or someone else who I proved that the $170 billion deficit number is a lie? The number listed as deficit and what the deficit actually was under Bush were quite different. Remember, a lot of spending, especially that of the two wars, was kept off record as deficit even though it very much counts as deficit.

Ah, found it, it was indeed you.
Your post.
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2006: $248 billion
FY 2005: $318 billion

Jhhnn posted.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

Link posted by Jhhnn shows that actual deficit for FY 2007 was....
$1,017,071,524,650

This was proven to you in that other thread which shows:
Survey says.... Matt1970 is lying and he knows it!!!!
Congrats Matt, you've surpassed all other P&N posters for the month of October in being shown as both wrong and knowingly lying. How does that make you feel?

Also, lol, trust me, it's not only the month of October. Matt is the worst. He's Incorruptible bad.

 

[Tom]

Here is an inflation calculator. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

$3.31 Trillion budget in in 2009 would be $3.31 Trillion for 2012 adjusted for inflation, not $3.795 trillion which the 2012 budget was. Like I said, your insults insults might have a little merit if you got your facts straight. And you are right, it didn't say that it shrink the entire government because that is what an actual spending cut would do. Instead it decided to call reductions in future increases "spending cuts" and you gobbled it up as gospel.

There's more to it than inflation. There are more people. As time goes by people age and use more, or less, government services. Soldiers come home from war. People lose their jobs and get unemployment or training for new jobs.

If you want to take a look at social spending you need to consider cost per capita.

At least call it like it is, its not some liberal agenda bias if more people qualify for food stamps, its a reflection of changing conditions for our people.

 

[Matt1970]

Was it you or someone else who I proved that the $170 billion deficit number is a lie? The number listed as deficit and what the deficit actually was under Bush were quite different. Remember, a lot of spending, especially that of the two wars, was kept off record as deficit even though it very much counts as deficit.

Ah, found it, it was indeed you.
Your post.
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2006: $248 billion
FY 2005: $318 billion

Jhhnn posted.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

Link posted by Jhhnn shows that actual deficit for FY 2007 was....
$1,017,071,524,650

This was proven to you in that other thread which shows:
Survey says.... Matt1970 is lying and he knows it!!!!
Congrats Matt, you've surpassed all other P&N posters for the month of October in being shown as both wrong and knowingly lying. How does that make you feel?

I was around in 2007 and I don't remember a $1 Trillion deficit. Neither does the White House.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

Nor does the CBO

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44197

 

[Phokus]

Read the bolded part again. Let me know when you figure it out. Still don't get it?

2009 Budget $3.1 trillion
2010 Budget $3.55 trillion
2011 Budget $3.818 trillion
2012 Budget $3.795 trillion
2013 Budget $3.808 trillion

That article was from 2010 so the 2011 budget went down, oh wait, it went up almost $300 Billion. See how they are not actual cuts in spending?

DEAR GOD, how stupid are you? I was right to wonder if your tiny pea brain would understand:

Also, you're so god damned stupid that you don't realize the NYT's article is still right, it never said Obama accepted spending cuts that would shrink the entire government (although the net result was that it DID shrink, accounting for inflation, you moron), it said he accepted more spending cuts (even if, for example, the government expanded by 20% the next year, the statement would still be true). Lets see if you can figure out why that's still true or if your pea brain can't process this.

You quoted the NYT over something that they weren't arguing and now you're still trying. You are an embarrassment.

 

[thraashman]

I was around in 2007 and I don't remember a $1 Trillion deficit. Neither does the White House.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

I, because I'm neither blind nor stupid, actually DO remember the deficit. Because as a person who actually pays attention to what's going on in this country, I noticed like many that a lot of spending by the Bush admin was "off book". It still adds to the debt and is still deficit, but the Bush admin kept it off book to make his admin look better. Hence why the debt went up by over a trillion despite the "deficit" being shown as under $200 billion (this was actually explained to you in my previous post, but you appear to need to be spoon fed things). Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I don't remember the Carter administration (I was too young), but I'm aware it occurred.

 

[Tom]

Right. The interest on our debt is now 10% of our total tax revenue.

Which why Obama and company made them permanent?

True, but since when has our government worried out funding stuff they want?

I am sure it contributed to it but the what is largely agreed on as the biggest contributing factor was the bi-partisian bill that repealed Glass-Steagall.


According to plan the Stimulus was not supposed to let us go over 8% Unemployment. We hit 10.2% which means they were clueless about it's effects and what was needed.


You mean like when Unemplyment was 10.2% Obama's biggest concern was Obamacare?

No it doesn't mean they were clueless. What is relevant isn't an arbitrary number but direction and approximate scope. Unemployment didn't go to 25%, the direction over time approximated the forecast.

Compare that to what was predicted for the deficit with the Bush tax cuts.

As far as Glass-Steigal et al, everyone's entitled to their opinion but there's no actual basis for saying it was that more than a lack of supervision. Both happened.

As far as the deficit being 10%..maybe if Ryan and the House would do something more productive than voting 40 times to repeal Obamacare the deficit could be improved.

You know the real reason they don't ? They don't care about the deficit, they care about politcal power. Endlessly attacking their opponent has been the Republican strategy when they're out of power since Newt Gingrich became a leader in the Republican party.

I'm old enough to remember that is not the way the Republicans have always been, and their great hero, Reagan, was not at all that kind of leader.

 

[First]

Oh poor Matt. Quit while you're behind.

 

[Moonbeam]

Was it you or someone else who I proved that the $170 billion deficit number is a lie? The number listed as deficit and what the deficit actually was under Bush were quite different. Remember, a lot of spending, especially that of the two wars, was kept off record as deficit even though it very much counts as deficit.

Ah, found it, it was indeed you.
Your post.
FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2006: $248 billion
FY 2005: $318 billion

Jhhnn posted.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

Link posted by Jhhnn shows that actual deficit for FY 2007 was....
$1,017,071,524,650

This was proven to you in that other thread which shows:
Survey says.... Matt1970 is lying and he knows it!!!!
Congrats Matt, you've surpassed all other P&N posters for the month of October in being shown as both wrong and knowingly lying. How does that make you feel?

Why would you call Matt a liar? He might be but it is far more likely, in my opinion, that he can't see that he lies not to you but to himself and believes those lies to be true. Matt believes that what he believes is the good, that there is a good. What he can't see is that every time he believes anything at all that it is that good he believes in and does exist. He simply defaults right back to that same position every time you show him that what he believes is good isn't good at all because he knows without having to reason for a second, and properly so, that the good does exist. It is an instinctive feeling and it's natural for human beings to feel it.

So every time he takes some hair brained position, owing to his incapacity to reason rationally, he hits a wall. He has to rationalize justifications for why he is right in specifics to keep from feeling his one true big generalization is wrong. He will simply reject any small truth that he is wrong in particulars because he knows without reason that he is right on the one big truth that matters, that there is something we call the good. He can't separate in his mind the possibility that there is a good but he might not know what it is because the conservative mind is defective in situations like this owing to its inability to handle uncertainty. Uncertainty gives conservatives the willies.

Matt is like the inflatable clown toy of old that you could punch and punch and it would always pop back up because it had a curved bottom filled with sand for feet. I heard it being called a schmoo or something like that. Even a punching bag will return to it's original position when you stop beating on it.

So, while you may feel you get an excellent work out talking to Matt, he will always arrive back unchanged where you started debate.

Change brings pain to the conservative brain. If you want to readjust, what you believe today must turn to dust. The truth that is eternal has been hidden behind the infernal, the place we fear to tread.

Adam ate the Fruit of the Tree on Knowledge just because he was a liberal. He opened Pandora's box and let the Genie out of the Bottle. Forever since, conservatives have been trying to put everything back. But it's Wagons Ho, my friends.

 

[Matt1970]

Oh poor Matt. Quit while you're behind.

How am I behind? Spending hasn't been cut, infact it's gone up. The White House and CBO confirm my numbers. By insult count I am way behind but that's because I am not a childish brat.

 

[Juddog]

How am I behind? Spending hasn't been cut, infact it's gone up. The White House and CBO confirm my numbers. By insult count I am way behind but that's because I am not a childish brat.

You're behind because you keep regurgitating talking points without any thought behind them, even after you repeatedly proven to be wrong, then went so far as to say that you're always correct, literally right after you were proven to be spouting lies.

Just give up and troll the next thread, or is the Heritage Foundation paying you too much to shill it up on a per-post basis?

 

[First]

You're behind because you keep regurgitating talking points without any thought behind them, even after you repeatedly proven to be wrong, then went so far as to say that you're always correct, literally right after you were proven to be spouting lies.

Just give up and troll the next thread, or is the Heritage Foundation paying you too much to shill it up on a per-post basis?

Dude wimps out a lot. He can't figure out why he's constantly insulted and nobody comes to his defense over shit like "Repubs r comprAmizing!".

Matt, your arguments suck, kid. Nobody takes your out-of-context numbers you didn't even read seriously, cause you can't even be bothered to point out an actual cut 2011->12 and the reality spending will (should) always nominally increase as population increases. You're intellectually bankrupt if you can't even acknowledge this basic reality of arithmetic.

 

[Matt1970]

Dude wimps out a lot. He can't figure out why he's constantly insulted and nobody comes to his defense over shit like "Repubs r comprAmizing!".

Matt, your arguments suck, kid. Nobody takes your out-of-context numbers you didn't even read seriously, cause you can't even be bothered to point out an actual cut 2011->12. You're intellectually bankrupt.

LOLOL, I like that. I am going to use that. And KID, I probably have T-shirts older than you. *Hint* the 1970 in my username.

 

[First]

LOLOL, I like that. I am going to use that. And KID, I probably have T-shirts older than you. *Hint* the 1970 in my username.

I'm sure you're old as dirt, and just as poorly educated.

 

[Matt1970]

You're behind because you keep regurgitating talking points without any thought behind them, even after you repeatedly proven to be wrong, then went so far as to say that you're always correct, literally right after you were proven to be spouting lies.

Just give up and troll the next thread, or is the Heritage Foundation paying you too much to shill it up on a per-post basis?

I am not wrong, my numbers are "out-of-context"

 

[Agent11]

There being two sides to a hostage situation does not make the two sides morally equal. The terrorists having leverage does not grant legitimacy to their demands. You do not say, "Oh, the terrorists want $10 million and the victim's family would rather this situation go away (zero), I guess that means that both should compromise at $5 million to the terrorists."

That you are on the side of the terrorists and your desire to see them win has you rooting for $10 million, $5 million, or anything but zero, does not make them not terrorists. The blindness resulting from your bias does not change the truth.

I only want the Executive, Senate and House to accept responsibility and accept that they need to work together.

The President and Harry Reid can demand a clean bill all they want, that is not productive. I would rather they negotiate.

I am not the one blinded by party affiliation. You are the one using colorful metaphors to demonize those you disagree with, and refusing to accept that the House has a legitimate complaint.

 

[ivwshane]

Just stop. You aren't even half as clever as you think you are.

No? I got you to take the exact position the dems have taken. Even your dumbass sidekick, boomerang, chimed in and unwittingly played the role of calling my (the republican position) whinnying that of a kid.

No hard feelings though, I just wanted to show how your partisan mind causes your thinking to be defective.

I don't want you to stop posting, I enjoy seeing other posters school you as well on a daily basis😉

 

[itsmydamnation]

Remember that Obama's reputation will be the one that takes the hit as the US president that was in charge when the US defaulted on it's obligations.

Sound bites are what gets taught and spouted; not details.
You can see it happening here

If you look at the Australian example that isn't the case. You will always have hardliners ultimately what matters is the middle. The middle doesn't tend to buy rhetoric.

Also victors write history, if the republicans get smashed in a backlash its going to be hard to paint Obama as the failure.

 

[Agent11]

There will be no default.

 

[First]

Pathetic. Newly leaked video from rules change 2 weeks ago show Repubs claiming, with a straight face, that the rules change was to force a conference with the Senate, not to block the clean CR Senate bill in the House to end the shutdown. Which as everyone knows, had and continues to have the votes to pass the House.

These tea partiers have zero idea how to govern. Zero. Bring back sane, moderate Republicans.

 

[Moonbeam]

There will be no default.

I bet you didn't included the momentum of lemmings in your equation, did you?

 

[boomerang]

T minus two days until Armageddon.