Poll: Obama and the deficit

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Obama's first year Deficit will be less than Half Bush's last year Deficit.

Mark my words.

There are too many wars and corporate entitlement programs the Bushies have already started that make this impossible, along with way too big a cleanup needed. It took some time for the debt accrual engine to get fully underway, I mean Chimpy DID spend more than half of his first year in office on vacation, rather than exploding the debt.

But I will say that Obama's first TERM will have less deficit than Bush's last year.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ElFenix
depends on how the economy does. even dub's spending was on track for balancing ~may of next year when the economy was going ok last year.

Originally posted by: sandorski

...Nevermind that Republicans conceived then passed a Veto-Proof Bill to get them.

i wasn't aware the republicans had veto proof majorities in either house back in the 90s. less than 10 senators voted against the bill you're referring to.

hey, robert rubin liked that bill too!

hmmm... the admin wanted it and the vast majority of members of the house and senate wanted it. but somehow it's a republican bill. gotcha.

They didn't, but they concieved and got the Ideas Passed.

They weren't in the White House at the time....typical double standard from lefties.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ElFenix
depends on how the economy does. even dub's spending was on track for balancing ~may of next year when the economy was going ok last year.

Originally posted by: sandorski

...Nevermind that Republicans conceived then passed a Veto-Proof Bill to get them.

i wasn't aware the republicans had veto proof majorities in either house back in the 90s. less than 10 senators voted against the bill you're referring to.

hey, robert rubin liked that bill too!

hmmm... the admin wanted it and the vast majority of members of the house and senate wanted it. but somehow it's a republican bill. gotcha.

They didn't, but they concieved and got the Ideas Passed.

They weren't in the White House at the time....typical double standard from lefties.

Didn't say they were....typical non-thinking righties.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sigh. The bursting of speculative bubbles occurs because the bubble was allowed to develop in the first place, which is precisely what the bush admin and greenspan's FRB allowed to develop in housing and the derivatives market. A huge bubble, so big that the collapse threatened the whole economy.

You're right, Genx87, that the timing of the collapse isn't the important issue, yet still seem to want to overlook the reasons it was inevitable. Those reasons are inherent in the policy of the last 8 years, like it or not... Had policy been sound in the first place, we wouldn't have been faced with the alternatives of bailout or extreme contraction in the economy.

It really is fitting that the collapse occur under the old regime, the regime that set things in motion making it inevitable. Like it or not, the cause and effect relationship is clearer to most of us than it would be otherwise. It really is the result of misplaced ideological faith in the ability of markets to regulate themselves over time, the same sort of illusion that led to the collapse of 1929. Yeh, sure, the markets will do that, but the results aren't always what's good for the general population. That was true in 1873, 1907, 1929, 1987, and it remains true today. Failure to instill discipline on the upside dictates overextension at the peak, followed by sharp and damaging declines on the downside...

Never mind that Bush wasn't President when derivatives were deregulated or anything....

derivatives where never 'deregulated' iirc, they were never allowed to be regulated on advisement of various republican leaning groups and Greenspan, and its not like bush didn't have 3+ years to regulate them before either bubble got out of control.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sigh. The bursting of speculative bubbles occurs because the bubble was allowed to develop in the first place, which is precisely what the bush admin and greenspan's FRB allowed to develop in housing and the derivatives market. A huge bubble, so big that the collapse threatened the whole economy.

You're right, Genx87, that the timing of the collapse isn't the important issue, yet still seem to want to overlook the reasons it was inevitable. Those reasons are inherent in the policy of the last 8 years, like it or not... Had policy been sound in the first place, we wouldn't have been faced with the alternatives of bailout or extreme contraction in the economy.

It really is fitting that the collapse occur under the old regime, the regime that set things in motion making it inevitable. Like it or not, the cause and effect relationship is clearer to most of us than it would be otherwise. It really is the result of misplaced ideological faith in the ability of markets to regulate themselves over time, the same sort of illusion that led to the collapse of 1929. Yeh, sure, the markets will do that, but the results aren't always what's good for the general population. That was true in 1873, 1907, 1929, 1987, and it remains true today. Failure to instill discipline on the upside dictates overextension at the peak, followed by sharp and damaging declines on the downside...

Never mind that Bush wasn't President when derivatives were deregulated or anything....

derivatives where never 'deregulated' iirc, they were never allowed to be regulated on advisement of various republican leaning groups and Greenspan, and its not like bush didn't have 3+ years to regulate them before either bubble got out of control.

You mean on the advisement of Robert Rubin and the rest of Clinton's economic team? Don't lefties always say the buck stops here?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sigh. The bursting of speculative bubbles occurs because the bubble was allowed to develop in the first place, which is precisely what the bush admin and greenspan's FRB allowed to develop in housing and the derivatives market. A huge bubble, so big that the collapse threatened the whole economy.

You're right, Genx87, that the timing of the collapse isn't the important issue, yet still seem to want to overlook the reasons it was inevitable. Those reasons are inherent in the policy of the last 8 years, like it or not... Had policy been sound in the first place, we wouldn't have been faced with the alternatives of bailout or extreme contraction in the economy.

It really is fitting that the collapse occur under the old regime, the regime that set things in motion making it inevitable. Like it or not, the cause and effect relationship is clearer to most of us than it would be otherwise. It really is the result of misplaced ideological faith in the ability of markets to regulate themselves over time, the same sort of illusion that led to the collapse of 1929. Yeh, sure, the markets will do that, but the results aren't always what's good for the general population. That was true in 1873, 1907, 1929, 1987, and it remains true today. Failure to instill discipline on the upside dictates overextension at the peak, followed by sharp and damaging declines on the downside...

Never mind that Bush wasn't President when derivatives were deregulated or anything....

derivatives where never 'deregulated' iirc, they were never allowed to be regulated on advisement of various republican leaning groups and Greenspan, and its not like bush didn't have 3+ years to regulate them before either bubble got out of control.

You mean on the advisement of Robert Rubin and the rest of Clinton's economic team? Don't lefties always say the buck stops here?

Don't the righties know what "Veto-Proof" means?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ElFenix
depends on how the economy does. even dub's spending was on track for balancing ~may of next year when the economy was going ok last year.

Originally posted by: sandorski

...Nevermind that Republicans conceived then passed a Veto-Proof Bill to get them.

i wasn't aware the republicans had veto proof majorities in either house back in the 90s. less than 10 senators voted against the bill you're referring to.

hey, robert rubin liked that bill too!

hmmm... the admin wanted it and the vast majority of members of the house and senate wanted it. but somehow it's a republican bill. gotcha.

They didn't, but they concieved and got the Ideas Passed.

They weren't in the White House at the time....typical double standard from lefties.

Didn't say they were....typical non-thinking righties.

The previous poster certainly did. Besides, if Congress could conceive and get ideas passed by itself, the Democrats might have done some of that over the past 2 years.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sigh. The bursting of speculative bubbles occurs because the bubble was allowed to develop in the first place, which is precisely what the bush admin and greenspan's FRB allowed to develop in housing and the derivatives market. A huge bubble, so big that the collapse threatened the whole economy.

You're right, Genx87, that the timing of the collapse isn't the important issue, yet still seem to want to overlook the reasons it was inevitable. Those reasons are inherent in the policy of the last 8 years, like it or not... Had policy been sound in the first place, we wouldn't have been faced with the alternatives of bailout or extreme contraction in the economy.

It really is fitting that the collapse occur under the old regime, the regime that set things in motion making it inevitable. Like it or not, the cause and effect relationship is clearer to most of us than it would be otherwise. It really is the result of misplaced ideological faith in the ability of markets to regulate themselves over time, the same sort of illusion that led to the collapse of 1929. Yeh, sure, the markets will do that, but the results aren't always what's good for the general population. That was true in 1873, 1907, 1929, 1987, and it remains true today. Failure to instill discipline on the upside dictates overextension at the peak, followed by sharp and damaging declines on the downside...

Never mind that Bush wasn't President when derivatives were deregulated or anything....

derivatives where never 'deregulated' iirc, they were never allowed to be regulated on advisement of various republican leaning groups and Greenspan, and its not like bush didn't have 3+ years to regulate them before either bubble got out of control.

You mean on the advisement of Robert Rubin and the rest of Clinton's economic team? Don't lefties always say the buck stops here?

Don't the righties know what "Veto-Proof" means?

How many Democrats were in Congress to form that Veto-Proof vote? 200 or so? Of course, you'd rather whine about the tiny Republican majority.

How many bills passed with a Veto-Proof majority during the Bush Presidency?