Drunken Dem spending...

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...1049536.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

The reason for these rising deficits is the huge increases in federal spending--the intended growth of the federal government--that Congress and the president are pushing. The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2020.

I wonder if Obama could blame Bush for the deficits he inherited one more time...

Apparently the President controls the purse strings and not Congress... yeah, that must be it. It is the same failed line of thinking that leads so many left wing nuts to proclaim that it was Clinton that provided the 'balanced budgets' of the late 90's and nearly had an actual decrease in debt for fiscal year 2000.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

and yes... i know... Bush is partly to blame for continuing to sign off on the Dems spending spree.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

How DARE you suggest that the president is not omnipotent?!?!?!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

*awaits onceler's usual "you're a liar" post*

 

[Onceler]

*awaits onceler's usual "you're a liar" post*

Did I upset you before?

Hey, btw - still waiting for your list of Obama economic policies that you think are "good"....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Did I upset you before?

Hey, btw - still waiting for your list of Obama economic policies that you think are "good"....

i'm finished talking to you in that thread. until you show an ounce of honesty, you can go fuck yourself onceler. i gave you an honest answer and you shit on it. i'm not kidding btw, i truly gave you my honest answer that you asked for.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...1049536.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion



I wonder if Obama could blame Bush for the deficits he inherited one more time...

Apparently the President controls the purse strings and not Congress... yeah, that must be it. It is the same failed line of thinking that leads so many left wing nuts to proclaim that it was Clinton that provided the 'balanced budgets' of the late 90's and nearly had an actual decrease in debt for fiscal year 2000.

Tax revenues were depressed in 2008 and 2009. Deficits in this time are at least justified.

The Dems obviously passed the last, most balanced budget in 2007. I don't see why you give them no credit for that, when it was the last year it would have been reasonable to pass a balanced budget.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And why does no one talk about drunken Bush tax cuts? Trillions upon trillions of drunken tax cuts we couldn't afford that did the economy no good. The money may as well have been put in an incinerator.

 

[Onceler]

i'm finished talking to you in that thread. until you show an ounce of honesty, you can go fuck yourself onceler. i gave you an honest answer and you shit on it. i'm not kidding btw, i truly gave you my honest answer that you asked for.

That wasn't an honest answer.

And you're upset because you're cornered again. You said you only wanted Obama's "bad" policies to fail, if we can take your word for it, but of course, you can't name an economic policy that he has that you think is "good."

Ergo - you want his economic policies, and the economy, to fail.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

And why does no one talk about drunken Bush tax cuts? Trillions upon trillions of drunken tax cuts we couldn't afford that did the economy no good. The money may as well have been put in an incinerator.

so the tax cuts during the first so called mini recession, did nothing? is this what you're saying? because that would be interesting, given, obama's stimulus has many bush type tax cuts to stimulate the economy. i supported bush's tax rebates/cuts back then....and i support obama's same tax cuts now. but ib1, who has fled the forum, supports NO tax cuts.

 

[Topspin]

hEY WTF you guys. It's OK for your grand kids to get a few extra trillion in dept. As long as Obama gets to play politics and shave 1 or 2% points off the GDP loss in the natural recession.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Did I upset you before?

Hey, btw - still waiting for your list of Obama economic policies that you think are "good"....

a list of good Obama policies?......lol......no wonder you've had to wait....

 

[Bonestorm]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...1049536.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion



I wonder if Obama could blame Bush for the deficits he inherited one more time...

Apparently the President controls the purse strings and not Congress... yeah, that must be it. It is the same failed line of thinking that leads so many left wing nuts to proclaim that it was Clinton that provided the 'balanced budgets' of the late 90's and nearly had an actual decrease in debt for fiscal year 2000.

Hilarious. The Republicans cut taxes (decrease revenues), increase spending and then blame the Democrats for deficit spending during a recession.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Tax revenues were depressed in 2008 and 2009. Deficits in this time are at least justified.

The Dems obviously passed the last, most balanced budget in 2007. I don't see why you give them no credit for that, when it was the last year it would have been reasonable to pass a balanced budget.

Actually the 2007 budget was passed in March of 2006. The budget comes up PRIOR to the actual year starting.

Also... while I agree revenues were depressed in 2009, why do you say 2008? Unemployment did not start to spike until the end of the year, thus it was not likely to effect income tax revenue. On the corporate side it is hard to tell exactly how much they were effected.

I found this link.... it looks to be accurate, but take it with a grain of salt...

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...e=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s#copypaste

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And why does no one talk about drunken Bush tax cuts? Trillions upon trillions of drunken tax cuts we couldn't afford that did the economy no good. The money may as well have been put in an incinerator.

I have and so have others... many times.

Side note... that chart of yours takes a lot of space in the sigs...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That wasn't an honest answer.

And you're upset because you're cornered again. You said you only wanted Obama's "bad" policies to fail, if we can take your word for it, but of course, you can't name an economic policy that he has that you think is "good."

Ergo - you want his economic policies, and the economy, to fail.

Could you two please not derail another thread with your personal issues?????

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hilarious. The Republicans cut taxes (decrease revenues), increase spending and then blame the Democrats for deficit spending during a recession.

No you fucking moron, that is NOT the point.

I know you are a complete hack and will have a hard time comprehending this, which is why you created your strawman above.

The POINT dear little hack is that Obama continues to state... over and over and over and over again that Bush handed him the deficits. That is blatantly false. The DEM Congress is the one who handed him the high deficits. The Point dear little hack is that the Democrats had every bit as much control as Bush over them.

Also... take a look at the revenue chart I linked to... (revenue is in second column)... revenues did not decrease. Total revenues increased except for 2004. This just further shows that no matter what happens the idiots in DC will outspend. It did dip down in 2009 (which is expected given the tax losses in 2008)

1998 8679.66 3003.79
1999 9353.5 3168.45
2000 9749.1 3457.77
2001 10058.2 3756.33
2002 10642.3 3388.04
2003 11142.1 3671.43
2004 11607 3594.74
2005 12638.4 4016.19
2006 13090.8 4438.39
2007 13715.7 4732.97
2008 14441.4 4816.27
2009 14237.2 4441.46

 

[Bonestorm]

No you fucking moron, that is NOT the point.

I know you are a complete hack and will have a hard time comprehending this, which is why you created your strawman above.

The POINT dear little hack is that Obama continues to state... over and over and over and over again that Bush handed him the deficits. That is blatantly false. The DEM Congress is the one who handed him the high deficits. The Point dear little hack is that the Democrats had every bit as much control as Bush over them.

First, you ignore the first six years of the Bush Administration an attempt to blame the entire deficit on the 2008 and 2009 budget years which is total garbage. Second, you ignore the long-term budget implications of the policies enacted by the Republicans, specifically, tax cuts (decreasing revenues) and the Medicare prescription drug benefit (increasing spending). Third, you ignore that the budgets approved by Congress FY08 and FY09 contained overall spending at about the same level as the budgets submitted by the Bush Administration.

Also... take a look at the revenue chart I linked to... (revenue is in second column)... revenues did not decrease. Total revenues increased except for 2004. This just further shows that no matter what happens the idiots in DC will outspend. It did dip down in 2009 (which is expected given the tax losses in 2008)

1998 8679.66 3003.79
1999 9353.5 3168.45
2000 9749.1 3457.77
2001 10058.2 3756.33
2002 10642.3 3388.04
2003 11142.1 3671.43
2004 11607 3594.74
2005 12638.4 4016.19
2006 13090.8 4438.39
2007 13715.7 4732.97
2008 14441.4 4816.27
2009 14237.2 4441.46

Your revenue chart looks odd to say that the least. Revenues decreased from 2007 to 2008 and then again from 2008 to 2009 (along with drops from 2000 to 2001, 2001 to 2002 and 2002 to 2003).

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

First, you ignore the first six years of the Bush Administration an attempt to blame the entire deficit on the 2008 and 2009 budget years which is total garbage. Second, you ignore the long-term budget implications of the policies enacted by the Republicans, specifically, tax cuts (decreasing revenues) and the Medicare prescription drug benefit (increasing spending). Third, you ignore that the budgets approved by Congress FY08 and FY09 contained overall spending at about the same level as the budgets submitted by the Bush Administration.

No you pathetic little hack, that is not what I did. I did not blame the entire deficit on 2008 and 2009. I also did not ignore any long term budget implications. No I did not ignore that Bush was also responsible.

Again, like I stated, your partisan blinders make it hard for you to comprehend (and I understand that)... My POINT is that Obama is continually pointing and shouting over and over and over again that he 'inherited' the deficits from Bush and them evil Republicans. When in fact his party has controlled Congress since 2007. His party had control of the budgets in 2008 and 2009.

I do also note that you mention long term implications of policies... but forgot to mention the removal of Glass Steagall and the role that had in the need for deficit spending... but oh... that is right... it was because Bush wasn't President at the time. The removal of Glass Steagall had a far greater impact on the current mess than the Bush tax cuts.

Your revenue chart looks odd to say that the least. Revenues decreased from 2007 to 2008 and then again from 2008 to 2009 (along with drops from 2000 to 2001, 2001 to 2002 and 2002 to 2003).

As I noted to Water, I was not positive on the site used.... you obviously have another source, it would be nice if you just provided it when you make statements suggesting the numbers I posted are wrong.

 

[Bonestorm]

No you pathetic little hack, that is not what I did. I did not blame the entire deficit on 2008 and 2009. I also did not ignore any long term budget implications. No I did not ignore that Bush was also responsible.

Again, like I stated, your partisan blinders make it hard for you to comprehend (and I understand that)... My POINT is that Obama is continually pointing and shouting over and over and over again that he 'inherited' the deficits from Bush and them evil Republicans. When in fact his party has controlled Congress since 2007. His party had control of the budgets in 2008 and 2009.

I do also note that you mention long term implications of policies... but forgot to mention the removal of Glass Steagall and the role that had in the need for deficit spending... but oh... that is right... it was because Bush wasn't President at the time. The removal of Glass Steagall had a far greater impact on the current mess than the Bush tax cuts.

Guy, the title of your thread is "Dem Drunken Spending." In order to write something that obtuse you have to ignore everything I mentioned above. It's not up for debate, regardless of the names that you call me.

As I noted to Water, I was not positive on the site used.... you obviously have another source, it would be nice if you just provided it when you make statements suggesting the numbers I posted are wrong.

Fuck off. You're wrong on the numbers. Accept it and move on.