• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion"


Snow changed his position once the Democrats started to reveal just how corript the two GSEs were.

Care to post that exchange ? NAH !!

It would wreck your desperate and highly innacurate false narrative that Bush was to blame.

But even with that quote you're still trying to say as the Republicans and Bush were pushing for a third party regulator to reign in the coruption WHILE Bush was also agreeing with the Democrats that Fannie and Freddie were in good shape.

Makes a lot of sense VERN. Kinda like your Fannie and Freddie profit thread.

Oh and Bush killed the HR bill Vern but supported the Senate bill that actually had teeth.

What happened to that senate bill in 2007 VERN ?
 

That is not correct. Falling stock markets in the end of 2008 didn't make the "recession great" - the recession became the Great Recession because of the extended period of high unemployment, which is a feature of government overreaction to the market collapse. The Bush Recession was done in the summer of 2009, thanks largely to measures that he put in place.


Precisely, except that TARP was a lending, not a spending program. Take the monies paid back, subtract them from Obama's revenues, and add them to Bush's, and you'll get a more accurate picture of who-owns-what; additionally, Bush bailed out the auto companies, largely it seems because Obama wanted him to.


Government revenues are higher today than they have been in U.S. history and we still have a $600Bn+ deficit. It's a spending problem.

the biggest cause of the current deficits is revenue collapse.
Click to expand...

The Current Deficit features the Highest Revenues in U.S. history.

President Obama has keep spending flat
Click to expand...

From emergency levels, if you count TARP as a spending program. That's not exactly something to brag about, that you've kept spending to an emergency-level-high for 5 years without being able to demonstrate any kind of impressive results from it.


If the Executive decides to default, that is their decision. We have more than enough monies coming in that we do not have to. This "Default" nonsense is typical Washington political theater.
 

GWB genuinely believed in the mission of enabling home ownership as widely as possible. It's the same side of his persona that has made him a secular saint in the struggle against AIDS in Africa. As for the deficit, BHO has accumulated more debt than any other POTUS, and is on course to accumulate more than all the others combined by the time he leaves office.eace
 
Kushinator said:
The rebounding (albeit slowly) U.S. economy.
Click to expand...

The same economy that has been shedding participants in the workforce at record numbers? The same economy that is creating record numbers of part-time jobs and very few full-time jobs?
 
CanadaJohn said:
The same economy that has been shedding participants in the workforce at record numbers? The same economy that is creating record numbers of part-time jobs and very few full-time jobs?
Click to expand...

That same economy. Crazy huh?
 
Kushinator said:
That same economy. Crazy huh?
Click to expand...

Crazy indeed - it just means that the revenue generated by upping taxes on wealthy Americans and eliminating the payroll tax holiday, along with reductions in expenditures related to the sequester have surpassed the reductions in revenue resulting from the floundering economy.
 

Oh dear God, the Barney Frank meme. Apparently no amount of factual data will prevent conservatives from repeating this silliness.
 

Nonsense.

In the face of the "sequester", total expenditures exceed 2012 levels. It is not all bad news for the GOP, as it was successful in reducing economic growth by roughly a half a percentage point!
 
cpwill said:
Bush bailed out the auto companies, largely it seems because Obama wanted him to. .
Click to expand...

cp, that statement proves that you will post as fact things simply because you wish they were true. Your other statements also prove that but no one can deny this one proves it. prove me wrong cp, back up this statement:

cpwill said:
the recession became the Great Recession because of the extended period of high unemployment, which is a feature of government overreaction to the market collapse.
Click to expand...

don't just repeat. don't just rephrase it. back it up remembering of course that UE started shooting up like a rocket after " the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets ".

cpwill said:
Government revenues are higher today than they have been in U.S. history and we still have a $600Bn+ deficit. It's a spending problem.
Click to expand...

the 700 billion dollar collapse in revenue in 2009 and devastated revenues in subsequent years prove this statement false. But don't dwell on this, focus on " which is a feature of government overreaction to the market collapse"


Perotista said:
Just because I do not spout the rhetoric of the DNC per verbatim with all its slogans, word of the day, etc. I have no credibility. That's fine as I do not spout or trust the same from the RNC either.
Click to expand...

er uh Perotista, you've already proven you have no credibility, you don't need to drive the point home. I clearly stated you have no credibility because you said you saw something that doesn't exist. You didn't say you heard about it. You said you saw it.
 
head of joaquin said:
Oh dear God, the Barney Frank meme. Apparently no
amount of factual data will prevent conservatives from repeating this silliness.
Click to expand...

If there was any "factual data" it wasn't you that supplied it HOJ.

Just think, the two most corrupt entities involved in the Sub-Prime Collapse were staffed by a Democrat and run by Democrats.

Fannie was the primary consumer of privately created MBSs backed by crap loans and started creating their own crap securities 5 years before the private sector got involved.

Well, you of-course know what happened to Franklin Raines but the corruption didn't stop with him as 6 additional F and F Executives were charged and Convicted of securities fraud.

Turns out, they applied subjective standards to over value their collateral and withheld the reporting of over a TRILLION dollars in bad debt. Their corruption was unprecedented and you guys blame Bush. The guy that wanted to appoint a third party regulator in 2003

Don't believe me ? Look up the SEC report on the securities fraud that went on there.

Only the Democrats could pull off a scam that big.

The problem is ( for people like you and Vern) is that they were misleading investors and misclassifying the values of their debt throughout Bush's entire term as the Democrats sat in front of Committees and lied about the fiscal health of the GSEs.

Yup. When people like you and VERN were on sites like these caterwauling about " Bush illegal Wars", Democrats at Fannie and Freddie were in full fraud mode ripping off the American people.

Let me know when you come up woth some "facts".
 


I believe the sequester cuts came into effect because once again the House, Senate & White House couold not reach an agreement. There is no doubt that the sequester played a big role in the deficit reduction projected for 2013. In addition if Obama wants to take sole credit for that reduction, he is being disingenuous.

However, the question was "Can someone explain why those numbers are worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? "

You failed to answer that.
 

BHO has accumulated more debt than any other POTUS.eace
 
Jack Hays said:
BHO has accumulated more debt than any other POTUS.eace
Click to expand...

First off, its not true yet. It will be but not yet. Anyhoo, since you like (eventual) factoids, here's some for you

no President was handed a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit like President Obama.
No president was handed a worse recession in the last 70 years like President Obama.
No President has reduced the deficit as much as President Obama
No President followed a president who doubled the national debt after starting with a surplus like President Obama.
No president had to deal with a republican party that threatened to destroy the economy like President Obama.
No president had to deal with a republican party that threatened to destroy the economy more than once like President Obama.
No President had to deal with a republican party that voted 40 times to repeal a law that reduced the defici and that was actually their idea while screaming about deficits like President Obama
No president had to deal with a delusional ignorant base that thinks destroying the economy is a good idea like President Obama.
No president had to save two million jobs in the auto industry like President Obama

see jack I can post factoids just like you but the problem is the factoids I posted can withstand scrutiny. Yours, not so much. That's why you need to repeat your factoid over and over like a mantra and limit any real conversation about them.
 

BHO became the accumulated debt leader by 2012. He has been Number One for quite a while already.
 

GWB added approximately $5.1T to the national debt, and was the leader when he left office, but BHO has already added $6.3T with over three years still to go. He's on his way to setting a standard that won't be matched.:lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
GWB added approximately $5.1T to the national debt, and was the leader when he left office, but BHO has already added $6.3T with over three years still to go. He's on his way to setting a standard that won't be matched.:lamo
Click to expand...
A good deal of that debt accumulated under Obama was the result of a shortfall of Federal Income and Payroll taxes caused by the great Bush recession. Of course there is also the Medicare part D legislation Bush promoted and got passed which was newer paid for.
 

We have one POTUS at a time and each is responsible for every dime after inauguration. As for Medicare Part D, it's the only part of Medicare that reduces health care costs.eace
 
Jack Hays said:
We have one POTUS at a time and each is responsible for every dime after inauguration. As for Medicare Part D, it's the only part of Medicare that reduces health care costs.eace
Click to expand...
To whom does it reduce Medicare costs, the government or the consumer?
 
pbrauer said:
To whom does it reduce Medicare costs, the government or the consumer?
Click to expand...

Both.

The cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit - Marginal ...
marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/.../the-cost-of-the-medicare-pr...
Sep 15, 2009 - Megan and Andrew Sullivan are having a squabble about how much it cost (and here). I would remind everyone of this recent research result: ...

Tough to link on the iPad.
 

Actually, the sequester cuts came into effect as part of the agreement in 2011 to end the funding/debt ceiling battle in 2011. It was the poison pill that forced the two sides to negotiate better terms in the year that followed - they failed to do so, so the sequester cuts took effect - you may call that a failure, but in my books that was a deal that worked.

I answered it several times - simply put, if you agree the package that came out of the last funding/debt ceiling battle in 2011 has led to a lower in-year deficit this year and for years to come, why not work to get additional, similar reductions in this year's funding/debt ceiling battle, particularly since Democrats and the President are trying desparately to roll back the reductions the sequester legislation mandates on January 1, 2014? Why not try to repeat success instead of simply repeating defeat by rolling over and giving up the good fight?
 

repeat success? Yes the success of droping the U.S. credit score due to political brinkmanship. How much has that cost so far? How about fighting the good fight getting a budget agreement. A budget that reduces expenditures. A budget that redirects some sequester cuts to areas that make more sense to cut. But whatever budget gets agreed to will mean the U.S. will hit their debt ceiling once again. Congress cannot keep approving expenditures and then threatening to shut down government when the bill for those approved expenditures come due.

The Tea Party line of 'that was a different Congress that approved those expenditures' is unacceptable. From an international perspective there is only one U.S. Congress and only one USA. It doesn't change evertime an internal election takes place and new people are voted into office.

Just because you want to defund the ACA does not give you the right to be fiscally irresponsible. You still have to pay your bills. I remember a time when the Republican party not only agreed with honoring financial commitments it was an unshakable tenet.
 
Jack Hays said:
BHO became the accumulated debt leader by 2012. He has been Number One for quite a while already.
Click to expand...

oh, I see, you're using the "debt by inauguration day" metric. You know that metric never existed before President Obama. Its seems before President Obama people just used the Treasury tables broken down by budget year. Intelligent people still do. Just so you know, I didn't have to invent a metric to post my factoids. did you like my factoids. mmmmm, maybe I posted too many and it overwhelmed you.

no President was handed a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit like President Obama.
No president was handed a worse recession in the last 70 years like President Obama.
No President has reduced the deficit as much as President Obama

and again, my factoids can withstand scrutiny. Yours needed a special metric.
 
Vern said:
cp, that statement proves that you will post as fact things simply because you wish they were true. Your other statements also prove that but no one can deny this one proves it. prove me wrong cp, back up this statement:
Click to expand...

Obama embraced and expanded upon the Bush Bailout. :shrug: he got a bad turn-over, and wanted to have a good one.

don't just repeat. don't just rephrase it. back it up remembering of course that UE started shooting up like a rocket after " the erosion of close to $10 trillion in market capitalization from global equity markets ".
Click to expand...

Yup. It also started shooting up after the election of Barack Obama. Correlation =/= Causation.



Which isn't to say that the market crash didn't kill plenty of jobs - the construction industry, for example. But the Recession didn't get the moniker Great because of the 2008/9 Crash - the Recession itself ended in June of 2009. The "Great Recession" picked up it's name because of the failed "recovery":



the 700 billion dollar collapse in revenue in 2009 and devastated revenues in subsequent years prove this statement false.
Click to expand...

Actually no. The collapse in revenue did indeed effect the 2009/10 deficits. It does not impact the deficit today except inasmuch as we owe interest on that debt, leaving the statement that "We have the largest revenues in U.S. history today and the deficit is still $634 Bn" accurate, and the follow-on assessment that "therefore we have a spending problem" equally accurate, especially as we look at the spending we've promised to do in the near future - spending which is unsustainable (and therefore will not be sustained). All that spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, et. al? It's not going to happen. No matter what the tax rates are, you cannot raise enough money to make it happen.

But hey, you don't gotta take it from me. Take it from the CBO, the IMF, the GAO, Nate Silver, the President's own Bi-Partisan Deficit Reduction Commission, the Medicare Actuaries, etc. so on and so forth. The fact that the U.S. has a spending problem now and in the future is a bi-partisan realization ignored only for partisan reasons by those who find raising taxes a politically palatable temporary placebo until they can get out of office.

But don't dwell on this, focus on " which is a feature of government overreaction to the market collapse"
Click to expand...

Enjoy reading.

When you increase government expenditure you increase the portion of GDP being allocated via political incentives rather than by Return on Investment, thereby reducing the productivity of the resources. The result is that - contra Keynes, who failed to realize that you have to do a cost/benefit analysis to an allocation of scarce resources which have alternate uses - government following the political incentives to be seen "doing something" usually does more harm than good. There are two sharp market crashes in the last 100 years that have been followed by this length of high unemployment - and in both incidents, the defining feature was a dramatic expansion in government as the "solution". :roll:
 

1. The ACA is fiscally irresponsible - defunding it or severely damaging it is the fiscally responsible thing to do.

2. Of course the US will continue to hit the debt ceiling if it continues to budget well in excess of the revenue it generates and if drags on the economy, like the ACA, continue to hamper a robust economic recovery. Canada is on track to balance its budget in 2015 - what's Obama's plan for balancing the budget - what's the Democrat's plan? - for that matter, what's the Republican's plan to balance the budget? Failing any plan to balance the budget and lacking any real power to change the trend legislatively, the tea party types you distain are trying to slow the growth of debt and to reign in deficit spending.

You may discredit it and you may condemn it, but those individual soldiers in the tea party movement are doing EXACTLY what their constituents elected them to do and that is stop the madness that is threatening the economic and financial lives of their children and grandchildren and condemning them to a life of servitude to the US treasury. At least they have a plan and they're committed to it. Obama and the Democrat's plan is stagnant drift and let somebody else handle the mess after they're gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…