four more years of bush / cheney?

[Bonestorm]

Again, it was not, and still pretends that the baseline was not raised. Even if the spending in FY 2009 attributed to Bush was attributed to Obama (it wasn't, not in the figures he uses) it still is the case that the baseline was reset at that incredibly high spending rate which is perpetuated for 20 years in the most recently proposed budget from Obama.

Yes, it was. Read it. I quoted it for fuck's sake.

His spending has been atrocious, and we still haven't received value for it.

Not really when you actually look at the numbers.

Are you better off than you were over 5 Trillion in debt ago?

As I said previously (and you ignored) throwing out the debt figure in a conversation solely about spending is disingenuous. You have to talk about revenues, too, which you don't like to talk about since you supported the Bush tax cuts that are the singular policy decision most responsible for our debt problems.

 

[Damocles]

Yes, it was. Read it. I quoted it for fuck's sake.

Did you not read the words?

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

They count the $140 Billion that I said they count. However, in that FY Obama asked for and got the spending I listed that is not included in that figure. It says that "Obama is not responsible for that increase.

Not really when you actually look at the numbers.

Really, when you actually look at the numbers. This figure of 1.4% is based on that increased baseline.

As I said previously (and you ignored) throwing out the debt figure in a conversation solely about spending is disingenuous. You have to talk about revenues, too, which you don't like to talk about since you supported the Bush tax cuts that are the singular policy decision most responsible for our debt problems.

I never supported tax cuts that were not offset by spending cuts, you are just making sh*t up now.

And saying, "Bush did it too!" doesn't change that spending increased by a large magnitude and the only way you get the 1.4% figure is if you do not account for the increased baseline, and the reason that no budgets pass.

 

[Bonestorm]

Did you not read the words?



They count the $140 Billion that I said they count. However, in that FY Obama asked for and got the spending I listed that is not included in that figure. It says that "Obama is not responsible for that increase.

No, it says Obama is not responsible for the following:

When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Not that Obama is not responsible for the spending in 2009 that he authorized.

Really, when you actually look at the numbers. This figure of 1.4% is based on that increased baseline.

Nope.

I never supported tax cuts that were not offset by spending cuts, you are just making sh*t up now.

Yes, you did. You supported the Bush tax cuts and they were not offset be spending cuts.

And saying, "Bush did it too!" doesn't change that spending increased by a large magnitude and the only way you get the 1.4% figure is if you do not account for the increased baseline, and the reason that no budgets pass.

I'm not saying "Bush did it to," I'm saying that shouting "debt!" is stupid if you don't want to talk about revenue, which you don't. Spending did not increase by a large magnitude including the spending that Obama authorized in 2009. You're just wrong. Sorry.

 

[Damocles]

No, it says Obama is not responsible for the following:



Not that Obama is not responsible for the spending in 2009 that he authorized.

Yet it does not list the spending he asked for and specifically states that they were counting the $140 Billion from October (that was in the 2010 FY).

Basically, it simply doesn't account for the rest of the spending he asked for in that FY.

Nope.

Yep.

Yes, you did. You supported the Bush tax cuts and they were not offset be spending cuts.

I did not. That's childish nonsense. Although, like Obama, I supported the extension because I do not believe it is wise to raise taxes into a recession.

I don't suddenly support stupid ideas because it comes from a party. Stop trying to project your personality onto me.

I'm not saying "Bush did it to," I'm saying that shouting "debt!" is stupid if you don't want to talk about revenue, which you don't. Spending did not increase by a large magnitude including the spending that Obama authorized in 2009. You're just wrong. Sorry.

The drop in revenue does not even come close to closing the gap in the deficit between Bush's insane 400 Billion to the currently more insance $1.2 Trillion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Technically speaking, there is no such thing as "Obama spending," since the president has yet to present a budget Congress can approve." ~Dixie

That's really smart.

Yeah, I know... it was downright brilliant, wasn't it?

 

[Bonestorm]

Yet it does not list the spending he asked for and specifically states that they were counting the $140 Billion from October (that was in the 2010 FY).

Basically, it simply doesn't account for the rest of the spending he asked for in that FY.

Let's get specific, Damo. What spending was authorized by Obama in 2009 that you think is unaccounted for with respect to the Obama numbers, excluding 140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009," which are already accounted for?

I did not. That's childish nonsense. Although, like Obama, I supported the extension because I do not believe it is wise to raise taxes into a recession.

Yes, you did. When the Bush tax cuts were proposed and passed you supported their passage. There were no accompanying spending cuts. That's what happened.

I don't suddenly support stupid ideas because it comes from a party. Stop trying to project your personality onto me.

FARGLE BARGLE.

The drop in revenue does not even come close to closing the gap in the deficit between Bush's insane 400 Billion to the currently more insance $1.2 Trillion.

There was also this recession thing. Maybe you heard about it. There were also additional tax cuts that maybe you heard about in the stimulus bill and the payroll tax cut.

Also, too, the 2009 deficit was projected to be $1.2 Trillion before Obama was sworn in to office. That $400 billion number is bullshit.

 

[Damocles]

Let's get specific, Damo. What spending was authorized by Obama in 2009 that you think is unaccounted for with respect to the Obama numbers, excluding 140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009," which are already accounted for?

I listed it.

$825 Billion in Stimulus asked for and received by Obama, $200 Billion in TARP II (Chip S)... The story states that they counted $140 Billion, which I pointed out was in October which is on the next FY. The story then accounts for the TARP and other programs which it says were not Obama's fault and tells you what they did count, the $140 Billion...

Yes, you did. When the Bush tax cuts were proposed and passed you supported their passage. There were no accompanying spending cuts. That's what happened.

Link it up. I support tax cuts when they are accompanied by spending cuts. Blind support has never been part of my personality, you are projecting your own actions onto me.

FARGLE BARGLE.

Yeah!

There was also this recession thing. Maybe you heard about it. There were also additional tax cuts that maybe you heard about in the stimulus bill and the payroll tax cut.

Oh noees! That doesn't change the increase in spending.

Also, too, the 2009 deficit was projected to be $1.2 Trillion before Obama was sworn in to office. That $400 billion number is bullshit.

Yeah, because it included the 700 TARP program. However, due to baseline budgeting, increases during the fiscal year set the new baseline, especially if no budget passes and spending is set in stone at the previous year's spending (Not budgeted, actual spending)...

Spending increased under Obama, and much of it remains unaccounted for in this particular story.

 

[Jarod]

I don't think we'll ever see anything like the Bush/Cheney admin again. Even with Romney, I would expect him to focus roughly 100% more on the economy & domestic issues. I think a large part of Bush's failure w/ the economy was the fact that he basically ignored domestic policy - negligence, borne of his obsession w/ Iraq.

And on the foreign policy front, let's definitely hope we never see anything like that again. I have enough faith in Romney that he won't be a complete idiot & pursue a careless, costly policy in the same vein as what we saw w/ the Bush admin.

I agree with this.

 

[Jarod]

Oh - are you back in "he's just like Bush?" mode?

Seems like only yesterday you were in "he's a dangerous communist" mode...

So Bush was a socialist? Im so confused.

 

[Bonestorm]

I listed it.

$825 Billion in Stimulus asked for and received by Obama, $200 Billion in TARP II (Chip S)... The story states that they counted $140 Billion, which I pointed out was in October which is on the next FY. The story then accounts for the TARP and other programs which it says were not Obama's fault and tells you what they did count, the $140 Billion...

(1) The $825 billion is not all spending. It includes tax cuts. Only $494 was spending. Of that, only $114 billion was spent in FY2009. The author of the piece added to that figure other miscellaneous spending, including CHIP. (2) There was no TARP II. TARP II was just the second wave of TARP money that was already authorized under Bush.

Link it up. I support tax cuts when they are accompanied by spending cuts. Blind support has never been part of my personality, you are projecting your own actions onto me.

How the hell do you expect me to link it up? It's true that you supported the Bush tax cuts. It's true that the Bush tax cuts were not accompanied by spending offsets.



Yeah!

Oh noees! That doesn't change the increase in spending.

Actually, it does via automatic stabilizers, but that's not important. The point, Damo, is that when you're talking about debt, you have to talk about revenues in addition to spending. And the recession put a huge dent in revenues.

Yeah, because it included the 700 TARP program. However, due to baseline budgeting, increases during the fiscal year set the new baseline, especially if no budget passes and spending is set in stone at the previous year's spending (Not budgeted, actual spending)...

Spending increased under Obama, and much of it remains unaccounted for in this particular story.

Yes, it did include the TARP program. As it should, given that the money was spent in FY09.

And, actually, all of Obama's spending is accounted for. You just refuse to admit it because it destroys the narrative you've created for yourself.

 

[Jarod]

LOL. This ignores the baseline that was massively increased with the stimulus and the 400 Billion in March.

Seriously, it plays on the fact that nobody understands baseline budgeting. The reality: Bush overspent by 400 Billion, Obama set a new baseline with 1.2 Trillion deficit and predicts to continue that deficit level even after an assumption of tax increases and the assumption of wars ending for the next 20 years in his own projections.

That he's pretty satisfied with the new baseline and is "growing slowly" after that is actually quite funny and shouldn't be promoted by people who pay attention.

I understand baseline spending, but its still very relevant...... The percentage of increase in spending has slowed dramatically under President Obama.

 

[Jarod]

I did. I was simply explaining how it simply doesn't put in spending that Obama dropped on us in 2009 and puts that on Bush. We spent 400 Billion asked for by Obama in March of 2009, we then spent 700 Billion (actually more) on Stimulus, and in October we spent 140 Billion all asked for and spent by Obama and which were used to set the new baseline used in the 2010 figures of a budget that Obama offered but nobody at all, not even one D, voted for. Same thing happened with the 2011 budget...

You may want to pretend that people who pay attention can't understand that spending asked for in 2009 may count against the 2009 budget offered by Bush, but the extra spending asked for by Obama would be outside the budget and should be counted as Obama spending, since he was the one that asked for it, but you would be pretending.

Almost any economist will tell you that it was necessary to get us past the mess we were in in 08'.

 

[Jarod]

Actually, no it doesn't. It attributes the stimulus spending and other major spending in 2009 passed by Obama to Obama:



So, you're just plain wrong.





Actually, I'm not pretending anything since the 2009 spending by Obama is attributed to Obama. Someone is pretending, but it ain't me.

I understood it the way you did General! Im not sure where Damocles got his numbers. But that guy is going to belive what he wants to belive.

 

[Jarod]

Again, it was not, and still pretends that the baseline was not raised. Even if the spending in FY 2009 attributed to Bush was attributed to Obama (it wasn't, not in the figures he uses only money spent in October or later counts against Obama in his figures) it still is the case that the baseline was reset at that incredibly high spending rate which is perpetuated for 20 years in the most recently proposed budget from Obama.

His spending has been atrocious, and we still haven't received value for it.

Are you better off than you were over 5 Trillion in debt ago?

Actually, I am.. and I believe while they may not understand it or know it, all Americans are, because without the 5 Trillion we would likely still be in a depression.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And on the foreign policy front, let's definitely hope we never see anything like that again. I have enough faith in Romney that he won't be a complete idiot & pursue a careless, costly policy in the same vein as what we saw w/ the Bush admin.

I'd like to point out, the Obama/Liberal foreign policy for the middle east, is not working. We were told, if America gets out and minds it's own business, and stops starting wars over there, they would stop radicalizing and trying to kill us, but they haven't. If anything, the radicals are more in control than ever, and our completely feckless foreign policy has yet to come back to bite us in the ass on this... it WILL inevitably. We once had a strong and stable ally in Egypt... that is gone now. We once had, at least a handle on Libya and it's nutbag leader... GONE! We've all but turned our backs on our ally, Israel, and Iran is still defiantly giving us the finger, which was never going to happen once the Great Obama was elected! We're supposed to be dancing arm-in-arm with Ahmadinejad by now, who is just happy we got rid of Cowboy Bush and elected a 'worldly' man like Obama.

The results of our Liberal-created military 'erectile dysfunction' over there, has resulted in gasoline costing $4 a gallon, and LAUGHS at the IDEA we might once again see it below $2, as it was under Bush. This has caused essentially everything that is transported, to skyrocket in price, which is the last thing a fledgling over-burdened economy needs. This is not to say that we need to be over there blowing shit up, so we can have $2 gas, but the fact of the matter is, the Obama/Liberal idea of how to deal with radical Ismlamofascists, has not worked. By any honest measure, it has been an abject failure, just like everything else this man has tried.

Time will tell, just how much it has hurt us, in terms of intelligence gathering and strategic advantage. Something tells me, if the Iranians blocked the Straits of Hormuz today, and threatened to launch an attack on Israel if we tried to defy it, this administration would literally sit on it's thumbs and DO NOTHING! Just as they did with Egypt and Libya! If that should happen, and it could happen at any moment, look for your gas pumps to show $10 gallon overnight. In six months, you'll gladly pay $20 a gallon, IF you can find it. You wanna know what a gallon of milk or pound of ground beef will cost you then???

 

[Jarod]

I'd like to point out, the Obama/Liberal foreign policy for the middle east, is not working. We were told, if America gets out and minds it's own business, and stops starting wars over there, they would stop radicalizing and trying to kill us, but they haven't. If anything, the radicals are more in control than ever, and our completely feckless foreign policy has yet to come back to bite us in the ass on this... it WILL inevitably. We once had a strong and stable ally in Egypt... that is gone now. We once had, at least a handle on Libya and it's nutbag leader... GONE! We've all but turned our backs on our ally, Israel, and Iran is still defiantly giving us the finger, which was never going to happen once the Great Obama was elected! We're supposed to be dancing arm-in-arm with Ahmadinejad by now, who is just happy we got rid of Cowboy Bush and elected a 'worldly' man like Obama.

The results of our Liberal-created military 'erectile dysfunction' over there, has resulted in gasoline costing $4 a gallon, and LAUGHS at the IDEA we might once again see it below $2, as it was under Bush. This has caused essentially everything that is transported, to skyrocket in price, which is the last thing a fledgling over-burdened economy needs. This is not to say that we need to be over there blowing shit up, so we can have $2 gas, but the fact of the matter is, the Obama/Liberal idea of how to deal with radical Ismlamofascists, has not worked. By any honest measure, it has been an abject failure, just like everything else this man has tried.

Time will tell, just how much it has hurt us, in terms of intelligence gathering and strategic advantage. Something tells me, if the Iranians blocked the Straits of Hormuz today, and threatened to launch an attack on Israel if we tried to block it, this administration would literally sit on it's thumbs and DO NOTHING! Just as they did with Egypt and Libya! If that should happen, and it could happen at any moment, look for your gas pumps to show $10 gallon overnight. In six months, you'll gladly pay $20 a gallon, IF you can find it. You wanna know what a gallon of milk or pound of ground beef will cost you then???

I doubt Ill pay $20.00, I expect Ill pay a third of that, unless God gives me some financial advice while Im in the shower pondering how GWB lookes in blue jeans!

 

[Damocles]

I understand baseline spending, but its still very relevant...... The percentage of increase in spending has slowed dramatically under President Obama.

Yes, after the baseline is applied. Specifically listing only the "rate" without regard to the fact that the spending level increased up to the baseline is simply shabby maths.

 

[Jarod]

Yes, after the baseline is applied. Specifically listing only the "rate" without regard to the fact that the spending level increased the baseline is simply shabby maths.

Its still very signifigant when evaluating the president and comparing him to others. Things must slow before they reverse. We had that argument over the unemployment rate, as the rate of job loss got slower and slower every month you argued it was not good news... as I said would happen, the trend continued into job creation and remains in the "creating jobs" catagory today, the slowing of job losses was a very posative sign.

The slowing of increases in spending is also a posative sign.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually, I am.. and I believe while they may not understand it or know it, all Americans are, because without the 5 Trillion we would likely still be in a depression.

We are currently experiencing the LONGEST period of little or no economic growth. Even the Great Depression, did not last this long. We had the credit standing and clout to borrow $5 trillion, in order to supposedly "jump start the economy" but that hasn't worked. Unemployment remains above 8%, which was never even supposed to happen, if we approved the first stimulus, which was about $700 bil. Since then, unemployment spiked at over 10%, and REAL unemployment was upwards of 20%, and higher for some minorities and groups. New jobs are being created slower than workers are entering the workforce, and we already have MILLIONS out there, who haven't found a job, in spite of their education. Most of us are living in this very real world, we are dealing with it in our personal lives, we are making hard choices and sacrifices in order to survive. To pretend that we were in some 'tin pan alley' situation under Bush, but now we're all better, is nothing but Liberal FANTASY!

 

[Damocles]

(1) The $825 billion is not all spending. It includes tax cuts. Only $494 was spending. Of that, only $114 billion was spent in FY2009. The author of the piece added to that figure other miscellaneous spending, including CHIP. (2) There was no TARP II. TARP II was just the second wave of TARP money that was already authorized under Bush.

Again, the author of the story made it clear what he counted, the $140 Billion. You can rehash it, but the sentence you posted simply restated what I had. All of that spending was not counted, AND that the story does not take into account the massively increased baseline.

How the hell do you expect me to link it up? It's true that you supported the Bush tax cuts. It's true that the Bush tax cuts were not accompanied by spending offsets.

I don't care how you do it. You keep repeating what I supposedly thought. I simply tell you what I thought and said.

Yeah!

Yeah!

Actually, it does via automatic stabilizers, but that's not important. The point, Damo, is that when you're talking about debt, you have to talk about revenues in addition to spending. And the recession put a huge dent in revenues.

And yet, it does not account for the difference between Bush's average (insanely large) $400 Billion in Deficit as opposed to the $1.2 Trillion, and it very much does not cause a continued projection of that kind of deficit projected even after the assumption of tax increase and wars ending. This dude's spending is off the charts. So much so, Senators of your own party will not associate their name to his budgets.

Yes, it did include the TARP program. As it should, given that the money was spent in FY09.

Duh, the 700 Billion Tarp.. Which I noted in the first frickin' post of this type was Bush's, but my point was that it also increased the baseline, which increased more with increased spending asked for and received by Obama....

Once again, I was not in support of TARP without serious reform attached because I knew that without the push to get the reform it would never happen to true effect. So far my prediction has borne out.

And, actually, all of Obama's spending is accounted for. You just refuse to admit it because it destroys the narrative you've created for yourself.

Just huge chunks are listed on Bush's tab due to the FY 2009 thing. Again, the dude listed what he counted after "all those things didn't count against Obama" he flat stated it. The $140 Billion spent in FY 2010 (October of 2009).