The Republicans are the Problem

[Alceste]

They always say this, but they don't have any evidence that the benefits of stimulus exceed the costs (debt, inflation, waste, opportunity cost).
Moreover, any actual gains would be reduced for many years by paying back the debt. If it fails, what do they say? We just didn't spend enuf.
No analysis I've seen ever includes costs. it's simply faith-based economics which justifies ever greater spending.

Sure we do.

Charts That Should Get Obama Reelected - Business Insider

Over to you.

 

[Revoltingest]

We have been paying taxes, printing fiat currency & borrowing for stimulus since 2008 (contrary to the claim in the above graph), when
Bush signed it into law. Yet 4 years later, the economy is still languishing.
Bush signs stimulus package into law - Business - Stocks & economy | NBC News
But if one were to argue that the Bush agenda (which became the Obama agenda) is the correct approach, that would point towards his
re-election. I say it's time to ditch the Bush & Obama approach (Bushbama? Obushma?), & start living within our means, while encouraging
all businesses...not just connected crony capitalists.

We should all note that there have been business cycles throughout the history of the country, & we always recovered, even when government
did nothing to stimulate it (pre-1900). Since 'natural' cycles would exist anyway, we should be cautious about looking at correlation between
a policy & economic response. Note that the Bush stimulus was coincident with a drop in GNP too. Stimulus spending, with its unknown
cost vs benefit effect, might be no better a predictor than sunspots or hemlines.

 

[1robin]

Sure we do.

Charts That Should Get Obama Reelected - Business Insider

Over to you.

Even if this were true and It defies every stat I have ever seen it would still be meaningless. This would have to be directly offset by the fact we are a further 4 trillion in the hole above the normal negative we run concerning the budget. I could show a graph saying I doubled my net worth yesterday from $100 to $200 but I leave out the fact that I for some reason spent $1000 which enabled me to get the extra $100 then it is an absurd and misleading chart.

 

[Alceste]

Even if this were true and It defies every stat I have ever seen it would still be meaningless. This would have to be directly offset by the fact we are a further 4 trillion in the hole above the normal negative we run concerning the budget. I could show a graph saying I doubled my net worth yesterday from $100 to $200 but I leave out the fact that I for some reason spent $1000 which enabled me to get the extra $100 then it is an absurd and misleading chart.

The deficit is also falling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/b...r-2012-fiscal-year-falls-to-1-1-trillion.html

 

[1robin]

The deficit is also falling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/b...r-2012-fiscal-year-falls-to-1-1-trillion.html

Yeah, and Santa is real, Big foot invented calculus, and the private sector is doing just fine.

President Obama is falsely claiming that his administration’s policies are responsible for “about 10 percent” of the deficits “over the last four years.” The cumulative deficit during that time is nearly $5.2 trillion. Obama signed two bills — the 2009 stimulus and the 2010 tax cut — that alone cost $1.6 trillion during that time, or nearly a third of the cumulative four-year deficit.
How could he have been so wrong? Although he said “the last four years,” the administration tells us that he was referring to a Treasury analysis of a 10-year period from 2002 to 2011 — which includes all eight years of the Bush administration and excludes the 2012 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30 with a $1.17 trillion deficit.

We’re also told that Obama meant 12 percent, not 10 percent, and that 12 percent figure does not represent a percentage of cumulative deficits ($6 trillion) during those 10 years. It’s 12 percent of $11.9 trillion — which is the difference between the Congressional Budget Office’s rosy 10-year budget projection issued in January 2001 ($5.9 trillion in cumulative surpluses from 2002 to 2011) and what actually happened ($6 trillion in deficits).
The Treasury Department analysis claims that Obama’s polices are responsible for 12 percent of “the changes in deficit projections since January 2001,” but even that figure is too low, as we will explain later.
FactCheck.org : Obama’s Deficit Dodge

​

The 2011 budget deficit for the federal government is $1.299 trillion according to numbers just released by the U.S. Treasury. That is the second highest deficit in history. In fact, Barack Obama now has the dubious distinction of the three highest deficits all happening on his watch.
From the Hill:

The U.S budget deficit for fiscal year 2011 is $1.299 trillion, the second largest shortfall in history.

The nation only ran a larger deficit for the 2009 fiscal year, which included the dramatic collapse of financial markets and a huge bailout effort by the government. The nation's deficit that year was $1.412 trillion.
This year's deficit is slightly higher than fiscal year 2010, when the nation ran a $1.293 trillion deficit. Fiscal years run through Sept. 30.
​

Obama will likely make it four in a row one year from now as his own budget shop is estimating a $1.1 trillion deficit for 2012.
The 2009 deficit still holds the record at $1.412 trillion. In 2010 the deficit reached $1.293. In just three years, more than $4 trillion of red ink has been added to the debt. The government's fiscal year ends September 30.
Prior to the Obama Administration, the largest nominal deficit ever recorded was $458 billion in 2008, the last year of the Bush Administration. That is barely one-third of each of the Obama Administration's dubious deficit records.
Barely a month into office back in 2009, the ever-confident Obama promised "to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office."
That looks like yet another promise he won't be keeping.
Official: Obama Owns Three Largest Deficits Ever - Bob Beauprez - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

You are dangerously close to running completely out of counter points and I expect that the old trusty "any statistic that does not show Obama in his full omnipotence and immaculance is biased" is just around the corner.


Please put the Kool Aid down and step away from the voting booth. I kid of course.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, and Santa is real, Big foot invented calculus, and the private sector is doing just fine.

President Obama is falsely claiming that his administration’s policies are responsible for “about 10 percent” of the deficits “over the last four years.” The cumulative deficit during that time is nearly $5.2 trillion. Obama signed two bills — the 2009 stimulus and the 2010 tax cut — that alone cost $1.6 trillion during that time, or nearly a third of the cumulative four-year deficit.
How could he have been so wrong? Although he said “the last four years,” the administration tells us that he was referring to a Treasury analysis of a 10-year period from 2002 to 2011 — which includes all eight years of the Bush administration and excludes the 2012 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30 with a $1.17 trillion deficit.

We’re also told that Obama meant 12 percent, not 10 percent, and that 12 percent figure does not represent a percentage of cumulative deficits ($6 trillion) during those 10 years. It’s 12 percent of $11.9 trillion — which is the difference between the Congressional Budget Office’s rosy 10-year budget projection issued in January 2001 ($5.9 trillion in cumulative surpluses from 2002 to 2011) and what actually happened ($6 trillion in deficits).
The Treasury Department analysis claims that Obama’s polices are responsible for 12 percent of “the changes in deficit projections since January 2001,” but even that figure is too low, as we will explain later.
FactCheck.org : Obama’s Deficit Dodge

​

The 2011 budget deficit for the federal government is $1.299 trillion according to numbers just released by the U.S. Treasury. That is the second highest deficit in history. In fact, Barack Obama now has the dubious distinction of the three highest deficits all happening on his watch.
From the Hill:

The U.S budget deficit for fiscal year 2011 is $1.299 trillion, the second largest shortfall in history.

The nation only ran a larger deficit for the 2009 fiscal year, which included the dramatic collapse of financial markets and a huge bailout effort by the government. The nation's deficit that year was $1.412 trillion.
This year's deficit is slightly higher than fiscal year 2010, when the nation ran a $1.293 trillion deficit. Fiscal years run through Sept. 30.
​

Obama will likely make it four in a row one year from now as his own budget shop is estimating a $1.1 trillion deficit for 2012.
The 2009 deficit still holds the record at $1.412 trillion. In 2010 the deficit reached $1.293. In just three years, more than $4 trillion of red ink has been added to the debt. The government's fiscal year ends September 30.
Prior to the Obama Administration, the largest nominal deficit ever recorded was $458 billion in 2008, the last year of the Bush Administration. That is barely one-third of each of the Obama Administration's dubious deficit records.
Barely a month into office back in 2009, the ever-confident Obama promised "to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office."
That looks like yet another promise he won't be keeping.
Official: Obama Owns Three Largest Deficits Ever - Bob Beauprez - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

You are dangerously close to running completely out of counter points and I expect that the old trusty "any statistic that does not show Obama in his full omnipotence and immaculance is biased" is just around the corner.


Please put the Kool Aid down and step away from the voting booth. I kid of course.

Obama added roughly $500 billion to the $1.3 billion deficit Bush left him with due to the stimulus bill, which successfully stopped the free-fall of the US economy, and has been reducing the deficit ever since. It now sits at $1.1 trillion, which is still lower than the deficit he inherited from the Republicans.

I'm not arguing that he's perfect, but his main fault is continuing Bush's un-funded tax cuts and wars, and he's certainly better than a candidate who wants to add another $5 trillion to the deficit with dramatic tax cuts, plus $2 trillion in unnecessary military spending the pentagon doesn't even want.

You have one candidate who's doing an admittedly mediocre job of reducing the deficit (it's stable now, and shrinking slowly) and one candidate who is vowing to make the problem much, much worse ($7 trillion in non-funded tax cuts and new military spending). Who you gonna call?

BTW, I'm not voting in your election. I'm Canadian. I'm simply trying to talk some sense into you folks. Like the rest of the civilized world, I don't want those idiotic freaking religious lunatics you call "the Republicans" to have their deranged, twitchy, paranoid fingers hovering over all the big red buttons on the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

 

[esmith]

Obama added roughly $500 billion to the $1.3 billion deficit Bush left him with due to the stimulus bill, which successfully stopped the free-fall of the US economy, and has been reducing the deficit ever since. It now sits at $1.1 trillion, which is still lower than the deficit he inherited from the Republicans.

You do realize that there is a difference between the deficit and the debt don't you? Obama has been running around a $1.2trilllion deficit every year. When Obama came into office the debt was $10.626 trillion, it is now over $16trillion. Now back to debt and deficit, the debt is what the nation owes its creditors, the deficit is the difference between what is taken in by revenue every year and what the government spends every year. Understand the difference now?

 

[Alceste]

You do realize that there is a difference between the deficit and the debt don't you? Obama has been running around a $1.2trilllion deficit every year. When Obama came into office the debt was $10.626 trillion, it is now over $16trillion. Now back to debt and deficit, the debt is what the nation owes its creditors, the deficit is the difference between what is taken in by revenue every year and what the government spends every year. Understand the difference now?

Did you even read my post before replying? It references the deficit, and only the deficit, and in the correct context. Try again.

 

[esmith]

Did you even read my post before replying? It references the deficit, and only the deficit, and in the correct context. Try again.

Yes I read it and you are wrong. Suggest you look at the following figures.

Bush Deficits
2007 $161 billion
2008 $459 billion
2009 $1.413 trillion

Obama Deficits
2010 $1.293 trillion
2011 $1.3 trillion
2012 %1.089 trillion
That data was from US Federal Deficit by Year 2008_2017 - Charts Analysis

Now look at the debt
2008 $10 Trillion
2009 $11.9 Trillion
2010 $13.5 Trillion
2011 $14.8 Trillion
2012 $16.4 Trillion
Data from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt

 

[Shermana]

By your numbers, it appears that less numbers were added to the remaining deficit each year under Obama than under Bush. In fact, between 2011 and 2012 we see a major drop in the spending by $200 billion. Compare to the increase of 2007-2008.

 

[1robin]

Obama added roughly $500 billion to the $1.3 billion deficit Bush left him with due to the stimulus bill, which successfully stopped the free-fall of the US economy, and has been reducing the deficit ever since. It now sits at $1.1 trillion, which is still lower than the deficit he inherited from the Republicans.

What? Even if what you were told to believe was true that still leaves you claiming that the $500 billion Obama added to the deficit is actually lowering it. You must have mistyped something there. Did you just ignore the stats in the post I gave last? I can supply a hundred that say the same thing. This reminds me of the black knight in Monte Python. Arthur cut his arm off and blood is squirting every where and his arm is laying on the ground. but the night would not give up so Arthur told him he was missing an arm and he responded no he wasn't isn't.

I'm not arguing that he's perfect, but his main fault is continuing Bush's un-funded tax cuts and wars, and he's certainly better than a candidate who wants to add another $5 trillion to the deficit with dramatic tax cuts, plus $2 trillion in unnecessary military spending the pentagon doesn't even want.

What in the world? Alceste I have debated you enough to know you are far too intelligent to make claims like this. I think you emotional overcommitment to a false ideology is making you confuse grasping at straws with guiding a foundation with titanium girders. Let's see what we got here. There is no such thing as funding a tax cut strictly speaking. Regardless Reagan cut taxes and created 12 million Jobs. Bush set records concerning revenue increases during a few of the years in office. Romney has never suggested anything that even remotely implies a significant increase in the deficit. Even if he had I would rather take a chance on him has as you yet not cost us a dime than go with the guy that has actually spent that much and indicated if his hands are untied with reelection it will get even worse. I work in the defense industry and was a soldier for 9 years there is no such thing as weapons the pentagon as a whole does not want. Plus Romney never has said he would increase the defense budget even though it needs it to my knowledge but would be a better use of money than Obamas green energy bottom less pit. We fought two wars over ten years and rebuilt Iraq into a vastly better nation than it has ever been. That cost around 900 billion. Obama spent more than that on one stimulus package that didn't do anything. The only shovel ready jobs that liar actually had were the United States' grave diggers. Not only that he actually laughed when he was finally boxed in so bad he had to be honest and admit there are no shovel ready jobs and never were. He laughs as he spends you grandchildren money of nothing and yet you love him for it. It is as baffling as the poor old women who's husband is beating her yet she claims he really loves her and she won't get out.

You have one candidate who's doing an admittedly mediocre job of reducing the deficit (it's stable now, and shrinking slowly) and one candidate who is vowing to make the problem much, much worse ($7 trillion in non-funded tax cuts and new military spending). Who you gonna call?

This is truly bizarre. We have a man that has spent by some estimates:
Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov
That was from CBO numbers. Yet your koolaid induce psychosis claims the exact opposite. I kid again about the Kool aid of course.

BTW, I'm not voting in your election. I'm Canadian. I'm simply trying to talk some sense into you folks. Like the rest of the civilized world, I don't want those idiotic freaking religious lunatics you call "the Republicans" to have their deranged, twitchy, paranoid fingers hovering over all the big red buttons on the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

The only thing Canada ever gave us worth having was the rock band Rush and the machenzy brothers. So take off you hoser, aye. Thanks for Rush by the way, they are my favorite. You mean those republican lunatics that freed the slaves, destroyed the USSR, and have been the only impediment to liberal moral relativism that stripped God out of everything they could and really kicked in starting in the 60's and has produced millions of abortions, sky rocketing teen pregnancy, out of control births out of wedlock, and the decimation of the traditional family unit. Not to mention both started and lost the only war we ever have lost. Not only produced the recession we are in but actually stopped the republicans from fixing it in 2002, and then of all things blamed it on Bush. Truly and utterly pathetic. (not aimed at you personally). I do not know where you get your numbers but if I were you I would put them back, and check back into reality.

 

[Alceste]

Yes I read it and you are wrong. Suggest you look at the following figures.

Bush Deficits
2007 $161 billion
2008 $459 billion
2009 $1.413 trillion

Obama Deficits
2010 $1.293 trillion
2011 $1.3 trillion
2012 %1.089 trillion
That data was from US Federal Deficit by Year 2008_2017 - Charts Analysis

Now look at the debt
2008 $10 Trillion
2009 $11.9 Trillion
2010 $13.5 Trillion
2011 $14.8 Trillion
2012 $16.4 Trillion
Data from US Federal Debt by Year 2008_2017 - Charts Tables History

Apologies, reading again, it seems I wrote "1.3 billion" when I mean to write "1.3 trillion" regarding the deficit Bush left to the democrats. Sorry if that confused you. Everything else in my post is correct, and your own numbers only affirm that.

We are not talking about the debt. You're the one who is confusing one for the other.

 

[Alceste]

1Robin, your post was to long, irrelevant to my comments and hysterical. I didn't read the whole thing. Care to boil it down to your main point? You're addressing my comment that since Obama inherited the 1.3 trillion dollar deficit from Bush, it's been gradually shrinking, and now sits below 1.1 trillion. I accept that is a very high deficit, and ask you why you believe voting for a man who is pledging to add trillions to the deficit in non-funded military spending and massive tax cuts is going to help.

 

[1robin]

1Robin, your post was to long, irrelevant to my comments and hysterical. I didn't read the whole thing. Care to boil it down to your main point? You're addressing my comment that since Obama inherited the 1.3 trillion dollar deficit from Bush, it's been gradually shrinking, and now sits below 1.1 trillion. I accept that is a very high deficit, and ask you why you believe voting for a man who is pledging to add trillions to the deficit in non-funded military spending and massive tax cuts is going to help.

Too long, that is a new one. I have never seen nor heard anyone use that as a reason to dismiss something. I also do not understand your color commentary on its character. My response was a direct response to your claims. I might have gotten a little preachy but have no idea why those parts can't be ignored and just my claims specifically addressing the issue evaluated. I do that very thing dozens of times a day. I will consider reposting a scaled down version but I will take a break and think it over first, and would rather prefer that you at least read and respond to the issue specific portions, or explain why it is that you claim it did not specifically address your claims so I may recalibrate in a way that is satisfactory to you. Any way have a good one, I will talk at you soon.

 

[Alceste]

Too long, that is a new one. I have never seen nor heard anyone use that as a reason to dismiss something. I also do not understand your color commentary on its character. My response was a direct response to your claims. I might have gotten a little preachy but have no idea why those parts can't be ignored and just my claims specifically addressing the issue evaluated. I do that very thing dozens of times a day. I will consider reposting a scaled down version but I will take a break and think it over first, and would rather prefer that you at least read and respond to the issue specific portions, or explain why it is that you claim it did not specifically address your claims so I may recalibrate in a way that is satisfactory to you. Any way have a good one, I will talk at you soon.

I skimmed it again and I can't see anything of substance. The first chunk is the only relevant part to my own comment, regarding the deficit. The fact is, Obama inherited a deficit of 1.3 trillion from the republicans, and added 500 billion worth of stimulus, which turned the economic collapse around, and now the deficit has shrunk to 1.1 trillion.

Your second chunk of text appears to be just a lengthy tirade of personal insults, disorganized fictions about Romney's platform and general ranting. I can't find anything in there to address, except to point out that Romney is indeed promising to increase the deficit: he is promising enormous tax cuts and huge increases in military spending, like Bush, and providing no details on how these costly initiatives are to be funded. I take this to indicate that, like Bush, he actually hasn't got a plan as to how these programs are to be funded. He's just going to help out his rich buddies, start a few pointless wars and hope it all works out for the best.

Boy was that ever a successful strategy the last time it was tried!

 

[esmith]

By your numbers, it appears that less numbers were added to the remaining deficit each year under Obama than under Bush. In fact, between 2011 and 2012 we see a major drop in the spending by $200 billion. Compare to the increase of 2007-2008.

I still do not understand the apparent misunderstanding of "deficit" vs "debt". Maybe I can put it in simpler terms:

I will use a single person in this explanation
Year 1
1.You make $30,000 a year income
2. Your total expenditures for the year are $40,000
3. You have a deficit of $10,000
4. You borrow $10,000 dollars over the year to meet you obligations
5. You now have a debt of $10,000
Year 2
1.You have a starting debt of $10,000
2. You have a starting deficit of $0.00
3. You make $35,000 a year in income
4. You have total expenditures for the year of $50,000
5. You have a deficit of $15,000
6. You borrow $15,000 over the year to meet your obligations
7. You now have a debt of $25,000
Year 3
1. You have a starting debt of $25,000
2. You have a starting deficit of $0.00
3. Your have a total yearly income of $35,000
4. You have total expenditures for the year of $40,000
5. You have a deficit of $5,000
6. You borrow $5,000 over the year to meet your obligations
7. You now have a debt 0f $30,000
Year 4
1. You have a starting debt of $30,000
2. You have a starting deficit of $0.00
ad nauseam

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding between debt and deficit

 

[esmith]

I skimmed it again and I can't see anything of substance. The first chunk is the only relevant part to my own comment, regarding the deficit. The fact is, Obama inherited a deficit of 1.3 trillion from the republicans, and added 500 billion worth of stimulus, which turned the economic collapse around, and now the deficit has shrunk to 1.1 trillion.

The "deficit" does not carry over from year to year, only the debt does.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The "deficit" does not carry over from year to year, only the debt does.

Yes, and till we address the deflict, we will never pay a penny on the debt. Can you imagie never paying any of your debt off ever?

 

[Revoltingest]

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For reference.....

 

[Alceste]

The "deficit" does not carry over from year to year, only the debt does.

Is this why you keep insisting people don't know the difference between the deficit and the debt?

Yes, I know this. However, Obama inherited two unfunded wars and a costly unfunded tax cut, as well as the worst economic situation in history. The costs of such things are pretty much locked in. You can't just stop paying for them all of a sudden. You've got to chip away, like Clinton did. I think Obama was foolish to extend the tax cuts, personally, but it seems that in America you must pledge not to raise taxes in order to get the job. In his second term, he is going to increase taxes on the very rich, and says so. That will help reduce the deficit. Ta-da! No voodoo economics required.

Anyway, I've agreed with you that Obama has not done a very good job reducing the deficit. I just don't know why you believe a guy who wants to slash taxes to the tune of $5 trillion and increase military spending by $2 trillion is a better bet. That just seems crazy to me. If the deficit is what concerns you, you should be voting for whoever wants to raise taxes the most.