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

[s0me0nesmind1]

You are the definition of someone who doesn't know how to use the dictionary or understands economics.

The deficit is how much expenditures exceeds income in a given time period. The debt is the amount of accumulated liabilities over time.

You need to listen more to what you are told. It would make you say fewer stupid things.

Bwahaha, so what you are saying is that the dictionary reference I quoted for 'deficit' is incorrect?

Please tell me that is what you are saying. Please? Please? :wub:

 

[Vic]

This is why liberal media needs to be banned. Anyone favoring of it needs to be hanged for stupidity because of quotes JUST LIKE THIS.


The "deficit" is not shrinking, because the deficit is the amount we are in debt. It should be more properly defined as Change in deficit YOY (Year over Year). What is referred to as "shrinking deficit" is simply "Hey mom! I lost less money today than I did yesterday!". How fucking stupid did that just sound?

It's absolutely NOTHING to brag or write home about, and it sure as fuck isn't anything of use. Carry on, peasants.

Sigh... seriously?

 

[Vic]

Debt to GDP ratio is the important part, not the debt number.

For example: if you owe $100 and your income is $10 a year, you're in serious trouble. If you owe $10,000 and your income is $1,000,000 a year, you're totally fine. All debts are relative to the debtor's ability to pay.

This is why saying "we're still adding to the debt" is a dumb argument. The important question is where our debt/GDP ratio is going.

Debts are also relative to the debtor's willingness to pay. That's why banks review credit history. An able borrower doesn't always perform.

I think the US debt is far too high, which is why I applaud the deficit shrinking. Hopefully, we'll start running surpluses.

 

[Vic]

Bwahaha, so what you are saying is that the dictionary reference I quoted for 'deficit' is incorrect?

Please tell me that is what you are saying. Please? Please? :wub:

He said your interpretation is incorrect. Which it is.

 

[compuwiz1]

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!

 

[MagickMan]

Debts are also relative to the debtor's willingness to pay. That's why banks review credit history. An able borrower doesn't always perform.

I think the US debt is far too high, which is why I applaud the deficit shrinking. Hopefully, we'll start running surpluses.

Shrinking? Fuck me, I want their PR people and spin doctors, because if they can convince half of America that that's true, I could leverage enough cash to buy all of the Fortune 500 in <6 months.

 

[Bowfinger]

Shrinking? Fuck me, I want their PR people and spin doctors, because if they can convince half of America that that's true, I could leverage enough cash to buy all of the Fortune 500 in <6 months.

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?

 

[unokitty]

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?

Just another data point.

Uno

 

[QuantumPion]

It's true the deficit is shrinking, I think it is now -$800,000,000,000 per year, down from -$1,400,000,000,000 per year. The debt is still increasing, but it increased slightly less than it did last year. Instead of spending 170% of revenue, we are spending 125% of revenue. The debt will exceed $20,000,000,000,000 soon.

 

[Bowfinger]

Just another data point.

Uno

And ... ? Nobody disputes that there is still a deficit, or that the debt continues to grow. Perhaps you're also one of those Americans who doesn't understand the difference between the deficit and the debt?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's true the deficit is shrinking, I think it is now -$800,000,000,000 per year, down from -$1,400,000,000,000 per year. The debt is still increasing, but it increased slightly less than it did last year. Instead of spending 170% of revenue, we are spending 125% of revenue. The debt will exceed $20,000,000,000,000 soon.

If I recall correctly the year we had a $1.4T deficit included about $800B of one-time stimulus spending. The adjusted baseline for comparison purposes should be about $600B in 2009. However progressives typically prefer to use the $1.4T number to spin their effectiveness in handling the economic crisis.

 

[Bowfinger]

If I recall correctly the year we had a $1.4T deficit included about $800B of one-time stimulus spending. The adjusted baseline for comparison purposes should be about $600B in 2009. However progressives typically prefer to use the $1.4T number to spin their effectiveness in handling the economic crisis.

Sigh. Speaking of spin, your own chart shows that the 2010 and 2011 deficits were almost as high as 2009. This was also due in part to more "one-time" spending to stimulate the economy. Indeed, all deficits -- and all budgets, for that matter -- are a mix of operational expenses and "one-time" expenditures of various sorts. The plain, simple, inarguable fact remains that the deficit has been shrinking since the 2009 peak.

That's a good thing, no matter how much it grates the obsessive Obama haters. It needs to shrink more, absolutely, but the trend is headed in the right direction. Maybe someday we'll actually get back to Clinton's budget surpluses, before Bush 43 sent us back into record deficits with his unfunded tax cuts and his adventure in Iraq.*



*(This is, of course, the point where the brainless partisan hacks start sputtering that it was really a Republican Congress that gets credit for "Clinton's" surplus, and similarly the Bush deficits weren't really his fault because of the economy, 9/11, Clinton, kitchen sink, etc. Which is exactly the point these tools ignore, that the President has influence over spending, but he's not a king, nor is he a wizard who can magically nullify extenuating circumstances. Shit happens.

So let's set all that partisan noise aside and accept a small bit of good news: the deficit is trending in the right direction thanks to a combination of factors including Obama, Congress, and a (slowly) improving economy. Let us hope it continues.)

 

[fskimospy]

If I recall correctly the year we had a $1.4T deficit included about $800B of one-time stimulus spending. The adjusted baseline for comparison purposes should be about $600B in 2009. However progressives typically prefer to use the $1.4T number to spin their effectiveness in handling the economic crisis.

You're spinning this so hard it hurts. Not only were all economic crisis expenditures not located in FY 2009 by any means, but calling some emergency measures 'one time stimulus spending' but somehow exempting other stabilizing measures that really kicked into gear in 2010-11-12 from the same standard has no basis in credible budget analysis.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sigh. Speaking of spin, your own chart shows that the 2010 and 2011 deficits were almost as high as 2009. This was also due in part to more "one-time" spending to stimulate the economy. Indeed, all deficits -- and all budgets, for that matter -- are a mix of operational expenses and "one-time" expenditures of various sorts. The plain, simple, inarguable fact remains that the deficit has been shrinking since the 2009 peak.

That's a good thing, no matter how much it grates the obsessive Obama haters. It need to shrink more, absolutely, but the trend is headed in the right direction. Maybe someday we'll actually get back to Clinton's budget surpluses, before Bush 43 sent us back into record deficits with his unfunded tax cuts and his adventure in Iraq.*


*(This is, of course, the point where the brainless partisan hacks start sputtering that it was really a Republican Congress that gets credit for "Clinton's" surplus, and similarly the Bush deficits weren't really his fault because of the economy, 9/11, Clinton, kitchen sink, etc. Which is exactly the point these tools ignore, that the President has influence over spending, but he's not a king, nor is he a wizard who can magically nullify extenuating circumstances. Shit happens.

So let's set all that partisan noise aside and accept a small bit of good news: the deficit is trending in the right direction thanks to a combination of factors including Obama, Congress, and a (slowly) improving economy. Let us hope it continues.)

I clearly remember progressives spinning the numbers by using the 2009 deficit as an annual spending baseline without acknowledging $800B of one-time stimulus spending. Everything you've read into my post beyond that is all you. But hey...I'm genuinely glad to see the deficit is going down and I hope it continues as well. Feel better now?

However I am curious, please tell me exactly what Clinton did to warrant giving him most of the credit for his surplus?

 

[fskimospy]

I clearly remember progressives spinning the numbers by using the 2009 deficit as an annual spending baseline without acknowledging $800B of one-time stimulus spending. Everything you've read into my post beyond that is all you. But hey...I'm genuinely glad to see the deficit is going down and I hope it continues as well. Feel better now?

However I am curious, please tell me exactly what Clinton did to warrant giving him most of the credit for his surplus?

What $800 billion in one time stimulus spending are you referring to?

 

[fskimospy]

No matter what, this argument is silliness. Republicans want to blast Obama for deficits despite the vast majority of the deficit spending being part of laws that Obama had nothing to do with. Then when improved economic conditions reduce those deficits they don't want to give him credit for that either. Democrats want to blame the 2009 deficit on Bush but then credit Obama for decreasing it despite the fact that (once again) Obama's policies have had a modest effect on it overall.

It's a dumb and pointless argument.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You're spinning this so hard it hurts. Not only were all economic crisis expenditures not located in FY 2009 by any means, but calling some emergency measures 'one time stimulus spending' but somehow exempting other stabilizing measures that really kicked into gear in 2010-11-12 from the same standard has no basis in credible budget analysis.

Good point. If you want to look at the deficit without stimulus spending our deficits would look something like this:

2009 - $1.2T
2010 - $900B
2011 - $1.2T
2012 - $1.1T
2013 - $650B

 

[Matt1970]

If I recall correctly the year we had a $1.4T deficit included about $800B of one-time stimulus spending. The adjusted baseline for comparison purposes should be about $600B in 2009. However progressives typically prefer to use the $1.4T number to spin their effectiveness in handling the economic crisis.

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

 

[fskimospy]

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

Curse them for using standard accounting practices that everyone on planet Earth uses!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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

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.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't get this. Why shouldn't it be counted towards the 2013 deficit? Although the liability occurred in 2009, the expense was actually incurred in 2013. Ah...I see what you're saying now....the 2009 deficit was effectively under reported. How much more than normal would you say?

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.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

I see. These loan repayments are actually reducing current deficits. This won't last for long I imagine as most of the money has been paid back....right?

 

[Bowfinger]

I clearly remember progressives spinning the numbers by using the 2009 deficit as an annual spending baseline without acknowledging $800B of one-time stimulus spending.

Perhaps, but that's not the context in this thread. In this thread, the claim, or at least the insinuation, from MagickMan and Unokitty was that the deficit isn't now shrinking. They are factually wrong.

Everything you've read into my post beyond that is all you.

I don't think I was reading anything into your post beyond the suggestion that the 2009 deficit doesn't count since it contained "one-time" spending. All deficits contain some "one-time" spending, and 2010 and 2011 were nearly as bad as 2009, largely for similar reasons.

Re. the rest, as far as I can remember, you are NOT one who mindlessly blames Obama personally for everything bad, yet consistently excuses Bush by blamestorming everyone else under the sun. There are many people like that, however, including the two I just mentioned. They are empty hacks. The President is not omnipotent, regardless of whether his name is followed with an (R) or a (D). You get that; they do not ... when a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.

But hey...I'm genuinely glad to see the deficit is going down and I hope it continues as well. Feel better now?

I felt fine before. I just pointed out that your post blasting "spin" was equally spin-ful.

However I am curious, please tell me exactly what Clinton did to warrant giving him most of the credit for his surplus?

He was President. The President is responsible for everything. /s

Perhaps you should re-read my post, because my point was the opposite of that. Clinton gets some credit, to be sure, but it's shared with Congress and a booming economy. POTUS has influence, but he's not all-powerful.

 

[fskimospy]

I see. These loan repayments are actually reducing current deficits. This won't last for long I imagine as most of the money has been paid back....right?

Yes loan repayments are reducing current deficits, but they aren't the driving force behind them going down. (in fact, a large portion of the repayments happened in FY2010 and 2011).

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Perhaps, but that's not the context in this thread. In this thread, the claim, or at least the insinuation, from MagickMan and Unokitty was that the deficit isn't now shrinking. They are factually wrong.

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.

I don't think I was reading anything into your post beyond the suggestion that the 2009 deficit doesn't count since it contained "one-time" spending. All deficits contain some "one-time" spending, and 2010 and 2011 were nearly as bad as 2009, largely for similar reasons.

This "one-time" spending was actually spead out over several years...eskimospy corrected me on this point.

Re. the rest, as far as I can remember, you are NOT one who mindlessly blames Obama personally for everything bad, yet consistently excuses Bush by blamestorming everyone else under the sun. There are many people like that, however, including the two I just mentioned. They are empty hacks. The President is not omnipotent, regardless of whether his name is followed with an (R) or a (D). You get that; they do not ... when a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.

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

I felt fine before. I just pointed out that your post blasting "spin" was equally spin-ful.

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

He was President. The President is responsible for everything. /s

Perhaps you should re-read my post, because my point was the opposite of that. Clinton gets some credit, to be sure, but it's shared with Congress and a booming economy. POTUS has influence, but he's not all-powerful.

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