State of the Union address set for Jan 28th, 2014

[unokitty]

Jimmy Kimmel sent his roving correspondent out onto Hollywood Boulevard in the days before last night’s State of the Union to get pedestrians’ reactions to the speech that hadn’t happened yet.

Jimmy Kimmel Live Gets Pedestrian Reactions to SOTU… Before It Happened (Youtube)

Seems relevant.

Uno

 

[Matt1970]

I don't get this. Why shouldn't it be counted towards the 2013 deficit? Although the liability occurred in 2009, the repayment money was actually received in 2013. Ah...I see what you're saying now....the 2013 deficit was effectively under reported.

Edit: I think I've got it right now.

That's it exactly. And as you mentioned in your next post, the money won't last. Once the loan is paid back, the revenue source is gone.

 

[Matt1970]

I'm pretty sure that he's saying that the TARP loans that were repaid in 2013 should be counted to decrease 2009's deficit. That doesn't follow any accounting practice I'm aware of.

Like I think you said before, the government can't be compared to a household or business budget. Seeing as how we will probably never pay back the debt, you are right. The is the equivalent of using a credit card to buy a whole bunch of inventory for your store in 2009 and when the inventory finally sells in 2013 you never pay back the credit card but just consider all the revenue from the sale as profit.

 

[MagickMan]

Put on your favorite shopping shoes, because it is factually, inarguably true that our deficit is shrinking, and well over half of all Americans know it's true. You're probably confusing this with too many Americans not knowing the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. People like you, perhaps?

I know the difference, I understand budget deficits, and there's no way the deficit is shrinking.

And of course loans being paid back in 2013 for loans made in 2009 are conveniently being counted towards 2013's deficit.

Ta'da!

 

[SlickSnake]

Hah! Obama plagiarized portions of Bush's 2007 SOTU speech. It was caught by the guy that was the lead writer on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO2mLIs__xo

Told you so.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36007445&postcount=168

Pretty much.

I can see his speech writers sitting around and checking off all the important things to comment about, and making sure they didn't forget anything. You can practically take the last state of the union speech and update it with a few more current events and essentially just rehash the same old political speech over and over again, forever. Which is why they all sound so similar.

 

[fskimospy]

Like I think you said before, the government can't be compared to a household or business budget. Seeing as how we will probably never pay back the debt, you are right. The is the equivalent of using a credit card to buy a whole bunch of inventory for your store in 2009 and when the inventory finally sells in 2013 you never pay back the credit card but just consider all the revenue from the sale as profit.

No, it's just viewing money out the door as contributing to the deficit and money coming in the door as subtracting from it. Pretty much common sense.

The CBO and other budgeting institutions just adopt the rules that make the most sense, unlike you they aren't trying to find a way to count this in order to win some partisan argument. No sane budget strategy would work the way you suggest.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I know the difference, I understand budget deficits, and there's no way the deficit is shrinking.



Ta'da!

The deficit did shrink significantly in 2013...but we've still got a long way to go! TARP money received was only about $50m or so.

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Pages/TARP-Tracker.aspx

 

[Bowfinger]

I didn't quote MagicMan or Unokitty...I quoted QuantumPion who clearly stated in his first sentence that the deficit was going down. Your reasoning here mystifies me. ...

My reasoning should be obvious. QuantumPion was addressing the same claim I was, that the deficit is not shrinking. You also (initially) made the claim about "one-time" stimulus spending. My comment followed this chain, from your reply to his comment.

If you weren't directing your comments towards me, then I would appreciate it if you take your issues up with them directly. Deal?

Sorry, that's not how discussion works. I started by replying directly to your comment, then moved beyond that to discuss the more general topic as raised a few posts earlier. I agree it is bad form to quote someone, then ignoring their words to launch off into something unrelated, but that's not what happened here.

I will point out that my most negative comments were not aimed at you personally, e.g., "the obsessive Obama haters," not "you obsessive Obama haters," and "the brainless partisan hacks," not "you brainless partisan hacks." That was intentional because I did not intend to include you in those groups. I recognize that's a bit subtle, however, especially if one isn't looking for it, so I will try to be more clear in the future.

Glad to hear it...you just seem to be angry at times.

Agree. However, Republican driven spending cuts and Clinton's agreement to these cuts was a major factor in that surplus. Just saying.

No anger at all. And yes, I believe I've twice acknowledged that the President and Congress share the credit -- and the blame -- for federal spending.

 

[shortylickens]

Just another data point.

Uno

Damn I'm old!

I remember when people complained about being two trillion dollars in debt.

 

[Bowfinger]

I know the difference, I understand budget deficits, and there's no way the deficit is shrinking.

Welcome to America, where you are free to be misinformed if you are determined to do so. Fox "News" insists on it, not a coincidence in your case I suspect.

Ta'da!

Once again, every single year federal expenditures and receipts vary based on a vast assortment of "one-time" factors along with ongoing operational costs. When you add up all the receipts and subtract all the expenditures, the net result is the deficit (or in rare cases, the surplus). As Bill Clinton quipped, it's "Arithmetic", something a great number of Republicans seem to struggle with. The deficit is what it is, the numeric result of a mathematical calculation, regardless of how you want to misrepresent it for partisan gain. Right now, the deficit is shrinking. Fact. Better luck next year, I guess.

 

[Matt1970]

No, it's just viewing money out the door as contributing to the deficit and money coming in the door as subtracting from it. Pretty much common sense.

The CBO and other budgeting institutions just adopt the rules that make the most sense, unlike you they aren't trying to find a way to count this in order to win some partisan argument. No sane budget strategy would work the way you suggest.

I am just pointing out where the added revenue came from. The partisan side of this is people are claiming it is Obama reducing the deficit. The added revenue came as a total shock to everyone, so how they are giving Obama credit is beyond me.

 

[Matt1970]

The deficit did shrink significantly in 2013...but we've still got a long way to go! TARP money received was only about $50m or so.

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Pages/TARP-Tracker.aspx

$50B

 

[SlickSnake]

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/01/29/ap-fact-check-pulverizes-obama-state-of-the-union/



This guy cannot tell the truth...evar!



Here is a clue:
We owe 7 trillion dollars more than when Bush left office. Get to work people, you have a lot of debt to repay!

Excellent catch! And of course I was choking on other fudged fact points in the SOTU speech, as well. This short fact check list could be pages long. And is anyone who is not a comatose, zombie sheeple who only wakes up for the Superbowl, beer, and pizza even surprised?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

$50B

Ooops. Thanks.

 

[Bowfinger]

I am just pointing out where the added revenue came from.

That's rather dishonest. Your $50B contributed to the reduced deficit, but it's only part of the reduction. The deficit would be shrinking even without it.

The partisan side of this is people are claiming it is Obama reducing the deficit. The added revenue came as a total shock to everyone, so how they are giving Obama credit is beyond me.

Who, exactly? I've not memorized all the posts in this thread, so please enlighten us. Who said Obama reduced the deficit? The first post I see (from Vic) merely states the deficit is shrinking, without any mention of Obama.

 

[Matt1970]

That's rather dishonest. Your $50B contributed to the reduced deficit, but it's only part of the reduction. The deficit would be shrinking even without it.

How is pointing out where the money came from being dishonest? And yes, the deficit is shrinking. Did you see me try to say otherwise?

Who, exactly? I've not memorized all the posts in this thread, so please enlighten us. Who said Obama reduced the deficit? The first post I see (from Vic) merely states the deficit is shrinking, without any mention of Obama.

You have said Obama reduced the deficit countless times. I caught this before you edited it out of your post:

And "he" has reduced the deficit dramatically; check the factual data instead of the RNC propaganda. (BTW, you do know it's Congress that passes spending bills, right?)

 

[Bowfinger]

How is pointing out where the money came from being dishonest? And yes, the deficit is shrinking. Did you see me try to say otherwise?

It's your insinuation, but don't worry about it. I certainly don't expect you to be honest about that either.

You have said Obama reduced the deficit countless times. I caught this before you edited it out of your post:

And "he" has reduced the deficit dramatically; check the factual data instead of the RNC propaganda. (BTW, you do know it's Congress that passes spending bills, right?)

You're doing it again. In that context, putting 'he' in double quotes indicates I am using it ironically (see here). That would be enough to tell an intelligent English-speaker that I didn't actually believe "he" was truly responsible. Then, for more slow-witted readers, I add the parenthetical pointing out that Congress passes spending bills. Sadly, even that was to difficult for you to grasp. Perhaps next time I'll add an extra layer of explanation just for people who don't rise to slow-witted.

You really need to take some English classes.


Edit:

And WTF do you mean by, "before I edited it out of" my post? I found that thread, and it's still there in post #21. I also note that I clarified that for you in my very next post (#23), in response to your less than slow-witted challenge:

So was it Obama or was it Congress?

It's a combination of both, which is the point. The President's influence on spending, the economy, and employment is significant, but quite limited. When people talk about "President xyz did this" or "President xyz didn't do that," they are usually imagining powers he doesn't have.

In other words Matty, in your childish compulsion to attack, you've actually shown me being consistent. Whether that's because you're reading impaired or merely dishonest I'll leave for others to decide.

 

[Matt1970]

It's your insinuation, but don't worry about it. I certainly don't expect you to be honest about that either.




You're doing it again. In that context, putting 'he' in double quotes indicates I am using it ironically (see here). That would be enough to tell an intelligent English-speaker that I didn't actually believe "he" was truly responsible. Then, for more slow-witted readers, I add the parenthetical pointing out that Congress passes spending bills. Sadly, even that was to difficult for you to grasp. Perhaps next time I'll add an extra layer of explanation just for people who don't rise to slow-witted.

You really need to take some English classes.

You actually did add another layer of explanation, but it only adds to your dishonesty.

It's a combination of both, which is the point. The President's influence on spending, the economy, and employment is significant, but quite limited. When people talk about "President xyz did this" or "President xyz didn't do that," they are usually imagining powers he doesn't have.

Here you are again, but I guess you will deny this one as well.

Obama has actually been reducing the budget deficit. Fox probably neglected to mention that to you.

I take back the edit part, I see it is still in there.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You really need to take some English classes.

A little levity after a long day in the salt mines.

 

[werepossum]

A little levity after a long day in the salt mines.

LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA-DMoHW1uo
Da da da da da Put my keys in my left pocket.
um um um um um Gun in the right hand side.