Way to go Obama III!

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6637513885592874.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

UNPRECEDENTED new government spending this past fiscal year. Not since 1945 has the deficit spending been as high (as a percentage of GDP). Obama likes touting UNPRECEDENTED things.... I am not sure whether he will highlight this one though. Especially given the fact that Dems are telling us how the Reps are hurting us with 'austerity' measures.

Side note.... year over fiscal year the interest payments on our debt rose 16.7%.... AWESOME. Dung must be proud, because that interest expense really doesn't matter since real interest rates are flat to negative. Right dung?

 

[Damocles]

Bush III has really outdone his predecessors.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Bush III has really outdone his predecessors.

UNPRECEDENTED!

 

[Bonestorm]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6637513885592874.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

UNPRECEDENTED new government spending this past fiscal year. Not since 1945 has the deficit spending been as high (as a percentage of GDP). Obama likes touting UNPRECEDENTED things.... I am not sure whether he will highlight this one though. Especially given the fact that Dems are telling us how the Reps are hurting us with 'austerity' measures.

Actually, deficit spending was higher as a percentage of GDP in both 2009 and 2010. We should be spending a hell of a lot more. Of the Fed should just print lots more money and give it to people.

Side note.... year over fiscal year the interest payments on our debt rose 16.7%.... AWESOME. Dung must be proud, because that interest expense really doesn't matter since real interest rates are flat to negative. Right dung?

Not accepting free money today because you are paying a lot of interest on money you borrowed yesterday is fucking stupid. What's particularly weird about this from you is that you claim to support a surge in spending in large scale infrastructure projects. Well, how do you want to pay for that? Increase taxes, borrow money or print money? It seems to me that borrowing money at negative interest rates is probably the smartest route. Apparently, you disagree. Well, what's your preference.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, deficit spending was higher as a percentage of GDP in both 2009 and 2010. We should be spending a hell of a lot more. Of the Fed should just print lots more money and give it to people.

You are correct, Obama's other two years were indeed worse. He now has the three worst years since 1945.... UNPRECEDENTED!

Not accepting free money today because you are paying a lot of interest on money you borrowed yesterday is fucking stupid. What's particularly weird about this from you is that you claim to support a surge in spending in large scale infrastructure projects. Well, how do you want to pay for that? Increase taxes, borrow money or print money? It seems to me that borrowing money at negative interest rates is probably the smartest route. Apparently, you disagree. Well, what's your preference.

You crack me up with your 'free money' crap.

 

[Bonestorm]

You are correct, Obama's other two years were indeed worse. He now has the three worst years since 1945.... UNPRECEDENTED!

I don't think you understand what the term "unprecedented" means. If you can point to a time in the past when a particular event occurred (say, 1945), such an event is not "unprecedented." Nor is it "UNPRECEDENTED!"

And it's really not all that surprising that the most severe recession since the Great Depression and the lowest government revenues as a percentage of GDP since 1950 would lead to the highest deficit spending since that era. In fact, it is about what you would expect under the circumstances.

You crack me up with your 'free money' crap.

That's not really an answer to the question. And you do understand the concept of negative real interest rates, don't you?

 

[Rune]

A ten year long war is also unprecedented.

 

[Onceler]

How is this Obama? The righties on the board are always telling me that Congress holds the purse-strings...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It needs to grow much more.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Show me one other period in American history where tax receipts have fallen by almost a quarter over such a short period?

 

[Damocles]

How is this Obama? The righties on the board are always telling me that Congress holds the purse-strings...

And when most of the spending was passed who controlled the congress and the White House? Who promoted the stimulus, for instance... Was it the republicans, or was it passed through a democrat-controlled congress at the urging of a Democrat President named Bush III?

Does anybody remember that this President promised not to use supplemental spending?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't think you understand what the term "unprecedented" means. If you can point to a time in the past when a particular event occurred (say, 1945), such an event is not "unprecedented." Nor is it "UNPRECEDENTED!"

I am mocking the fact that Obama uses it all the time. Also, the THREE year run of worst deficits since 1945 is indeed unprecedented. Never before have we had three such bad years since 1945.

And it's really not all that surprising that the most severe recession since the Great Depression and the lowest government revenues as a percentage of GDP since 1950 would lead to the highest deficit spending since that era. In fact, it is about what you would expect under the circumstances.

Must apologize for Obama, Must apologize for Obama....

That's not really an answer to the question. And you do understand the concept of negative real interest rates, don't you?

Yes, but you apparently do not. With your logic, we should just run inflation up to 20%, then we could borrow for free forever and ever as long as interest rates stayed under 20%.

It isn't free you dolt. The more you borrow/print, the greater the upward pressure you put on inflation. That money also HAS to be paid back or refinanced in the future. If we borrow $5 Trillion today at low rates and use the 10 yr or 20 yr bond.... we have to refi or pay that debt back in 10 or 20 yrs. You are taking massive interest rate risks or assuming that you have to have massive increases in tax rates to pay that off. A concept dumbasses like you fail to look at. You look solely at the short term and say, 'well right now, it be cheap, so lets just borrow the max'. It is similar to a consumer saying '0% financing on my credit card for six months! Well hell, I will just max that bastard out now and pay it off in six months' That works IF you have the money to pay it back in six months. If you don't... you are going to get fucked.

 

[Bonestorm]

And when most of the spending was passed who controlled the congress and the White House? Who promoted the stimulus, for instance... Was it the republicans, or was it passed through a democrat-controlled congress at the urging of a Democrat President named Bush III?

Revenues matter.

Does anybody remember that this President promised not to use supplemental spending?

Nope. I don't remember that. Quote it. What I remember is that the President said he would end the abuse of supplemental spending bills, such as using them as the exclusive means to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How is this Obama? The righties on the board are always telling me that Congress holds the purse-strings...

Obama is President, it is all on him according to lefties.

That said, Obama is the leader of the country and for each of his terms his party has failed to pass a budget. So technically it is on the Dem led Congress, but I threw Obama under the bus, just for fun. FYI... fiscal year 2012 is on the Rep led House and Dem led Senate. One has passed a budget, the other has not. Want to take a stab at which one is completely failing in their duty?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Revenues matter.



Nope. I don't remember that. Quote it. What I remember is that the President said he would end the abuse of supplemental spending bills, such as using them as the exclusive means to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

and instead he would just run this country into the ground. Instead he would just continue on without a single passed budget in his three years in office. You don't need supplemental spending bills when you don't even have a budget.

 

[Bonestorm]

I am mocking the fact that Obama uses it all the time. Also, the THREE year run of worst deficits since 1945 is indeed unprecedented. Never before have we had three such bad years since 1945.

Point to the last time in three years revenues were less than 15% of GDP.

Must apologize for Obama, Must apologize for Obama....

It's called perspective.

Yes, but you apparently do not. With your logic, we should just run inflation up to 20%, then we could borrow for free forever and ever as long as interest rates stayed under 20%.

Not really. We are experiencing negative real interest rates while maintaining the FED's target inflation rate. Dumbass.

It isn't free you dolt. The more you borrow/print, the greater the upward pressure you put on inflation. That money also HAS to be paid back or refinanced in the future. If we borrow $5 Trillion today at low rates and use the 10 yr or 20 yr bond.... we have to refi or pay that debt back in 10 or 20 yrs. You are taking massive interest rate risks or assuming that you have to have massive increases in tax rates to pay that off. A concept dumbasses like you fail to look at. You look solely at the short term and say, 'well right now, it be cheap, so lets just borrow the max'. It is similar to a consumer saying '0% financing on my credit card for six months! Well hell, I will just max that bastard out now and pay it off in six months' That works IF you have the money to pay it back in six months. If you don't... you are going to get fucked.

But the interest rates on treasuries are not teaser rates like a 0% introductory APR on a credit card, you jackass. The rates are locked in. And they are negative. And we have a dramatic need for infrastructure investment that will have to occur in the near term anyway.

It's just plain stupid to not take advantage of historically low interest rates to pay for things that we will have to pay for anyway and which will help to close the output gap. Apparently, you would prefer taxing productive endeavors to borrowing for next to nothing. That's just stupid.

 

[Damocles]

Revenues matter.



Nope. I don't remember that. Quote it. What I remember is that the President said he would end the abuse of supplemental spending bills, such as using them as the exclusive means to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So... You don't think that using it for all spending, including those same wars, is abusing it?

Please, you have got to be deliberately ignoring the reality to get there. One used it to spend on wars, he calls it abuse and then uses it for every single dime he spends, including those same wars.

Fine, so far the "abuse of" supplemental spending is "Unprecedented" during this President's partial term.

 

[Onceler]

Obama is President, it is all on him according to lefties.

That said, Obama is the leader of the country and for each of his terms his party has failed to pass a budget. So technically it is on the Dem led Congress, but I threw Obama under the bus, just for fun. FYI... fiscal year 2012 is on the Rep led House and Dem led Senate. One has passed a budget, the other has not. Want to take a stab at which one is completely failing in their duty?

Well, the formula for "who is responsible" is too complex for me. Per many of the righties on this board, it's who controls Congress...but that's only for current spending, regardless of when measures actually passed. Unless the Democrats control Congress, at any time. And Bush was absolved for any spending after 2006 no matter what, because Dems controlled Congress after that; but he's not responsible for anything pre-2006 either, because somehow (and I wasn't aware of this at the time), but Barney Frank had some sort of Marshall-law control of both the Executive & Legislative branches of gov't (not sure about the judiciary).

It's a lot to handle. Way above my head, quite frankly.

 

[Bonestorm]

So... You don't think that using it for all spending, including those same wars, is abusing it?

Please, you have got to be deliberately ignoring the reality to get there. One used it to spend on wars, he calls it abuse and then uses it for every single dime he spends, including those same wars.

Fine, so far the "abuse of" supplemental spending is "Unprecedented" during this President's partial term.

No, I don't. Unlike Bush, Obama has submitted comprehensive budget requests to Congress, which included funding for expected costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and all other government operations. Whether Congress passes a budget or not is not within his control.

 

[Damocles]

No, I don't. Unlike Bush, Obama has submitted comprehensive budget requests to Congress, which included funding for expected costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and all other government operations. Whether Congress passes a budget or not is not within his control.

Actually it is, considering his own party controlled both houses of congress for more than half the time he has held the office. Pretending that he has no responsibility towards submitting such irresponsible budgets even his own party can't support them is pretense. 100% of his spending is "supplemental spending abuse".

One thing we know that you and Obama agree on, absolutely in no way is he ever responsible for anything that has ever happened during his Presidency. Nothing at all can be said to be his responsibility, the buck has never even appeared in his presence, let alone stopped near his desk to have a chat.