Why no "tea" Parties under Bush?

[Damocles]

Here:

See that big spike on the left there? That's WWII spending. See that little spike on the right there? That's peak Obama spending. If the graph showed a projection of the next ten budget years it would remain flat at about 22% just like from 1981-1995.

And what was the spending at the end of the war? ... I'll give you a hint. Its initials are 22%. The next year it dropped to 15% which was sustainable and did not accrue debt. We began fiscal irrepsonsibility under Kennedy and haven't turned back since.

It's rubbish to say it is Keynesian. Keynes never advocated huge deficits during the good times too. Please note that the spike of Obama spending is definitely within the spike of the last year of WWII spending and drops down above the more responsible levels.

Thank you for posting evidence of what I have been stating.

 

[Bonestorm]

And what was the spending at the end of the war? ... I'll give you a hint. Its initials are 22%. The next year it dropped to 15% which was sustainable and did not accrue debt. We began fiscal irrepsonsibility under Kennedy and haven't turned back since.

It's rubbish to say it is Keynesian. Keynes never advocated huge deficits during the good times too. Please note that the spike of Obama spending is definitely within the spike of the last year of WWII spending and drops down above the more responsible levels.

Thank you for posting evidence of what I have been stating.

I can post the op-ed you read, too.

You think that saying that "Obama proposes spending in line with the end of WWII for the foreseeable future" proves something. It doesn't. It is a line you read in an op-ed that you think informed you of some important fact when in reality the author mislead you into believing that this is a big increase in spending. It isn't. It is actually a cut from Reagan's peak spending and in line with spending since Nixon. Then you come here and trot out the talking point without actually looking at the numbers.

Words from the wise: Don't believe everything you read on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. More often than not they're misleading you.

 

[Damocles]

I can post the op-ed you read, too.

You think that saying that "Obama proposes spending in line with the end of WWII for the foreseeable future" proves something. It doesn't. It is a line you read in an op-ed that you think informed you of some important fact when in reality the author mislead you into believing that this is a big increase in spending. It isn't. It is actually a cut from Reagan's peak spending and in line with spending since Nixon. Then you come here and trot out the talking point without actually looking at the numbers.

Words from the wise: Don't believe everything you read on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. More often than not they're misleading you.

Except it isn't. If you see the point at the bottom of the Obama Peak, it is still at the same point, if not a bit higher, than Reagan's.

The very chart you used shows exactly what I have stated. This level of spending is unprecedented except during a world war. I can understand a spike for stimulus, everybody can. The problem is it doesn't drop to sustainable levels at all and concludes with a "halving" of a quadrupled deficit.

 

[Bonestorm]

Except it isn't. If you see the point at the bottom of the Obama Peak, it is still at the same point, if not a bit higher, than Reagan's.

The very chart you used shows exactly what I have stated.

Uh, the chart doesn't show anything about "permanent" levels of spending. Here are the dishonest posts:

Yup and dropped precipitously after that, reached that peak again 3 times during Bush and now is scheduled to permanently land there.

You've already admitted that this one is full of shit on the "precipitously" front. Now just admit it is full of shit on the permanent front. Same for this one:

We're talking about the Debt and how it will not be repaid for generations, thus pushing off payment for our own largesse to our grandchildren.

The US is once again at WWII levels of spending by percentage to GDP, and now set to be at that level permanently.

By contrast at the end of WWII, spending dropped from 22% to 15% in less than a year.

We're not at WWII levels of spending. That's misleading at best. And again, the chart shows nothing about permanent levels of spending.

Here's the op-ed you cribbed. Maybe it will help you with some more misleading talking points:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569611695588763.html

 

[Damocles]

Uh, the chart doesn't show anything about "permanent" levels of spending. Here are the dishonest posts:



You've already admitted that this one is full of shit on the "precipitously" front. Now just admit it is full of shit on the permanent front. Same for this one:



We're not at WWII levels of spending. That's misleading at best. And again, the chart shows nothing about permanent levels of spending.

Here's the op-ed you cribbed. Maybe it will help you with some more misleading talking points:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569611695588763.html

I say permanent because specific programs are created that set spending at those levels, unless he plans actual cuts in other areas of government this level of spending will be permanent and there is nothing that shows he will use that "scalpel" that he spoke of yet. And I'm not "cribbing" any op-eds, you dink. It's entirely possible that I have some knowledge of things all by myself...

My number one point, and one that you cannot refute, is the fact that there is no plan at all to actually reduce any of the debt, only to increase it and as long as American's feel "entitled" to BMW levels of government on a used KIA level of income that will continue. These protests are an attempt to get people to wake up to that fact.

 

[Bonestorm]

Except it isn't. If you see the point at the bottom of the Obama Peak, it is still at the same point, if not a bit higher, than Reagan's.

The very chart you used shows exactly what I have stated. This level of spending is unprecedented except during a world war. I can understand a spike for stimulus, everybody can. The problem is it doesn't drop to sustainable levels at all and concludes with a "halving" of a quadrupled deficit.

To address what you've added. The chart doesn't show budget projections for the next 10 years. It ends with the projected stimulus spending. If it project out the line would drop to about where it was during the 1980s.

 

[Bonestorm]

I say permanent because specific programs are created that set spending at those levels, unless he plans actual cuts in other areas of government this level of spending will be permanent.

You say permanent because that is the talking point. I get it.

 

[Damocles]

You say permanent because that is the talking point. I get it.

I say permanent, because any person with logic can understand how I get there. As far as "talking points", that is projection. You use them in an attempt to defend the indefensible (IMO) overspending of the new Administration, thus you suspect all others of doing the same on the other side. The reality is I come to this conclusion without having read even the op-ed you produced that you believe I have read. You are an apologist, using the talking points you have been handed.

 

[Bonestorm]

I say permanent, because any person with logic can understand how I get there. As far as "talking points", that is projection. You use them in an attempt to defend the indefensible (IMO) overspending of the new Administration, thus you suspect all others of doing the same on the other side. The reality is I come to this conclusion without having read even the op-ed you produced that you believe I have read.

Whatever, guy. Obama is merely following in Reagan's footsteps on spending. Why don't you frame it that way if it's not a Republican talking point? How about something like "Obama proposes permanent spending as a percentage of GDP at levels less than Reagan." That'll work.

Same with the "end of WWII" nonsense. It's a Republican talking point that is more about heat than light. Why don't we try "Obama proposes permanent spending as a percentage of GDP at the average level of every president since Nixon (except Clinton, who spent less than any other president in that period as a percentage of GDP)?" OK. Maybe that one is a bit long but you catch my drift here.

 

[Damocles]

Whatever, guy. Obama is merely following in Reagan's footsteps on spending. Why don't you frame it that way if it's not a Republican talking point? How about something like "Obama proposes permanent spending as a percentage of GDP at levels less than Reagan." That'll work.

Same with the "end of WWII" nonsense. It's a Republican talking point that is more about heat than light. Why don't we try "Obama proposes permanent spending as a percentage of GDP at the average level of every president since Nixon (except Clinton, who spent less than any other president in that period as a percentage of GDP)?" OK. Maybe that one is a bit long but you catch my drift here.

Yeah, "following Reagans footsteps", which part of I think every person since Kennedy (and inclusive of Kennedy) has spent irresponsibly means I think that his spending was great? Not one of those Presidents even during good times have lowered the level of generational debt we have accrued, nor does this one plan to.

Irresponsible spending is irresponsible spending. I spoke of it and didn't vote for Bush the second time because of it, I didn't vote for McCain because of it. And we only have plans for more of it in the future. And instead of learning from the past, all we got was somebody to patch the bubble so it can one more time expand...

 

[Bonestorm]

Yeah, "following Reagans footsteps", which part of I think every person since Kennedy (and inclusive of Kennedy) has spent irresponsibly means I think that his spending was great? Not one of those Presidents even during good times have lowered the level of generational debt we have accrued, nor does this one plan to.

Irresponsible spending is irresponsible spending. I spoke of it and didn't vote for Bush the second time because of it, I didn't vote for McCain because of it. And we only have plans for more of it in the future.

I don't have any qualms with your position, just quit being dishonest and/or deceptive about what it is you have a problem with.

 

[Damocles]

I don't have any qualms with your position, just quit being dishonest and/or deceptive about what it is you have a problem with.

I have been direct and told you what I disagree with, I have told you how I got there and why I think what I think. All you have done is try to dismiss my opinion as "talking points" and provide evidence that I was correct.

So, I'm following what you say and have "quit" being dishonest about my position.

 

[Bonestorm]

I have been direct and told you what I disagree with, I have told you how I got there and why I think what I think. All you have done is try to dismiss my opinion as "talking points" and provide evidence that I was correct.

So, I'm following what you say and have "quit" being dishonest about my position.

I'm not dismissing your position at all, just the misleading talking points you use to get others to agree with you. I understand why you use them. As I said "Obama proposes permanent spending at WWII levels" is a whole lot sexier than "Obama proposed permanent spending at levels of every president since Nixon and at levels lower than Reagan."

 

[Damocles]

I'm not dismissing your position at all, just the misleading talking points you use to get others to agree with you. I understand why you use them. As I said "Obama proposes permanent spending at WWII levels" is a whole lot sexier than "Obama proposed permanent spending at levels of every president since Nixon and at levels lower than Reagan."

And again, I do not get any "talking points" and what you have read here today are my own conclusion based on information I have gathered. While I know you get "talking points" to show how to be an apologist for the indefensible, it does not mean that everybody uses the same.

 

[uscitizen]

Bush is a coffee drinker you dork!

I thought he said it was Jim Beam or his marriage?

 

[uscitizen]

And again, I do not get any "talking points" and what you have read here today are my own conclusion based on information I have gathered. While I know you get "talking points" to show how to be an apologist for the indefensible, it does not mean that everybody uses the same.

LOL, that said a lot of nothing.

 

[Damocles]

LOL, that said a lot of nothing.

It said what I needed it to say, my points in this thread are mine and from no other source.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Love this. We do have something in common.
A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker. - The Buddha

It said what I needed it to say, my points in this thread are mine and from no other source.