What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by hogjack

The Bush Administration contributed in tripling the Federal budget deficit. It surely was an embarassment to genuine, fiscally conservative Republicans but they are a very rare creature indeed. Most Republican office-holders are no different than their counterparts from a fiscal standpoint - they have no discipline and no compunction to change the system.

So, Republicans didn't complain because they luvs ta spend da money, too. They just don't want it to be their money.

Get your facts straight:






President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

* President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/

[JohnnySavage]

Bush's budget didn't include the 800 billion of Medicare Part D, nor did it include funding for the wars, which were passed outside the budget process. Add those two items into bushes budget and subtract them from Obama's - just to be fair.

That's not to say Obama is being fiscally responsible, but give credit where credit is due.

when the US economy finally tanks in a worthwhile way to me (ie when the $=50 pence again) someone tell me?

[bianglemmf]

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretence of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson

[firespin]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

Bush's budget didn't include the 800 billion of Medicare Part D, nor did it include funding for the wars, which were passed outside the budget process. Add those two items into bushes budget and subtract them from Obama's - just to be fair.

That's not to say Obama is being fiscally responsible, but give credit where credit is due.

The charts just above your post do include those costs, so there's no need to make the adjustments you suggest.

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by firespin

The charts just above your post do include those costs, so there's no need to make the adjustments you suggest.

The left side is "actual" which includes the amount actually spent. It doesn't include the amount obligated in that year, for future expenditures. The future obligations don't go away when a new president is sworn in.

[firespin]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

The left side is "actual" which includes the amount actually spent. It doesn't include the amount obligated in that year, for future expenditures. The future obligations don't go away when a new president is sworn in.

You're not making any sense. It doesn't include future expenses, and it also doesn't include the amount that will be collected in future revenues. You have to use the same standard for both.

[hogjack]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Get your facts straight

Fiscal conservatives - of which you are not one - laugh at the Bush/Obama comparison. It's like comparing one bad disease with another: Which one sucks worst?

Both of these BIG GOVERNMENT advocates (along with Congress) represent the "best of" Republican and Democratic fiscal policies which are appalling to say the least. Both of the mainstream parties regularly and with vigor shackle American citizens with massive debt and high taxes by serving their corporate & think-tank masters, legislating over an unchecked morass of programs & bureaucracy, and filling their home base with pet projects galore.

Of course, the politicians are simply responding to their constituency...the American people are ravenous with their entitlement appetites so the citizens get what they deserve. Everyone wants a piece of the taxpayer's pie: the defense industry, the elderly, the poor, government contractors, the international community, etc. But the taxpayers really don't want to pay for it. They're too busy with the next stupid singing or dance contest.


Please don't respond with copy-and-paste bullshit. Have a fucking independent thought.

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by firespin

You're not making any sense. It doesn't include future expenses, and it also doesn't include the amount that will be collected in future revenues. You have to use the same standard for both.

No, you don't.

Future revenue is speculative, while future obligations are fixed.

If I buy a car on credit this year, but don't pay for it until next year, the payment counts against next year's budget.

[hogjack]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

Bush's budget didn't include the 800 billion of Medicare Part D, nor did it include funding for the wars, which were passed outside the budget process.

The Bush Administration was a fucking joke when it came to budgets. Of course, the sycophants had nothing to say then except to jerk off into their American flag handkerchiefs. Maybe Dick Cheney would accidently display a nipple when he showed party members his surgery scars.

Now the Republican Party is up-in-arms over spending. Fucking hilarious. And because everyone recognizes the Grand Ol' Party as a bunch of lying whackjobs the Democrats have a chance to break the cookie jar wide open.

Thanks Republicans. Thanks Democrats. Two parties deserving a beat down.

[Wok]

The debt is huge. How in the world is it going to be paid? Sure, the Chinese and others may be happy to buy our debt, but at some point, it needs to be paid back.

[firespin]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

No, you don't.

Future revenue is speculative, while future obligations are fixed.

If I buy a car on credit this year, but don't pay for it until next year, the payment counts against next year's budget.

Each administration inherits the decisions made by the ones before it, true. That doesn't mean you get to cherry pick what expenses are somebody else's fault. The current administration is still responsible for balancing the budget, or not.

Two -thirds of the current budget goes to social programs (social security, medicare, income transfers, subsidies, etc.) Bush is not responsible for creating those. Do we blame that on FDR?

[firespin]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

No, you don't.

Future revenue is speculative, while future obligations are fixed.

If I buy a car on credit this year, but don't pay for it until next year, the payment counts against next year's budget.

Future obligations are just as "speculative" as future revenues, btw. The government can unilaterally decide to change what it pays out for future programs, and beneficiaries have no recourse except at the ballot box.

At some point it will have to make some changes.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

Bush's budget didn't include the 800 billion of Medicare Part D, nor did it include funding for the wars, which were passed outside the budget process. Add those two items into bushes budget and subtract them from Obama's - just to be fair.

That's not to say Obama is being fiscally responsible, but give credit where credit is due.

Read what I posted the figures for both wars are included in the figures posted, and the war is still on going.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by hogjack

Fiscal conservatives - of which you are not one - laugh at the Bush/Obama comparison. It's like comparing one bad disease with another: Which one sucks worst?

Both of these BIG GOVERNMENT advocates (along with Congress) represent the "best of" Republican and Democratic fiscal policies which are appalling to say the least. Both of the mainstream parties regularly and with vigor shackle American citizens with massive debt and high taxes by serving their corporate & think-tank masters, legislating over an unchecked morass of programs & bureaucracy, and filling their home base with pet projects galore.

Of course, the politicians are simply responding to their constituency...the American people are ravenous with their entitlement appetites so the citizens get what they deserve. Everyone wants a piece of the taxpayer's pie: the defense industry, the elderly, the poor, government contractors, the international community, etc. But the taxpayers really don't want to pay for it. They're too busy with the next stupid singing or dance contest.


Please don't respond with copy-and-paste bullshit. Have a fucking independent thought.

Spin it anyway you want, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. The truth hurts. I know Bush was an irresponsible in his spending, but don't pretend there is any comparison between his spending and Obama's.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by Beco

its not, don't worry. Maybe in selected cities or submarkets, but don't bite on that one.

There's 1.5 Trillion in toxic commercial real estate paper out there. Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT2T2..._embedded#t=91

[Igor_1066]

Originally Posted by The_Trouvere

When the wingnuts say things are going to get worse, that is what they hope for.

That is, after all, the heart, soul, and entirety of Conservatism. The Conservative feels "good" or "bad" based on whether he feels that he is doing "better" or "worse" than his neighbors. Since it is easier to tear down than to raise up, the most efficient way for him to feel better is to work hard to make his neighbors feel worse.

They are temporarily disheartened in that things seem to be getting better, but that will pass. They will soon be back, spewing their bile over everyone available.

[IrezumiKiss]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

I know the President really doesn't have much effect on the economy, but since this thread and others blame Obama for the economy, he must be doing something right.

:P

Just wanted to re-stress this Literotica General Board maxim for those who slept.

[TurdFergeson]

Originally Posted by IrezumiKiss

Just wanted to re-stress this Literotica General Board maxim for those who slept.

He's not even 9 months in and he's almost fixed all the Bush fuck-ups.


:P

[IrezumiKiss]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

He's not even 9 months in and he's almost fixed all the Bush fuck-ups.


:P

When the stock market was really really really bad, it was like Obama was the Antichrist up in here. "Why doesn't Obama DO SOMETHING??? Why isn't he being a PRESIDENT??? Why doesn't the market have any FAITH IN OBAMA???"

Now that it's doing pretty damn good, it's like, "oh Obama had nothing to do with that. Stock market ain't got shit to do with the economy. Only reason it came back was because of some remnants of some people fighting for freedom by watering the tree of liberty."

[firespin]

Originally Posted by IrezumiKiss

When the stock market was really really really bad, it was like Obama was the Antichrist up in here. "Why doesn't Obama DO SOMETHING??? Why isn't he being a PRESIDENT??? Why doesn't the market have any FAITH IN OBAMA???"

Now that it's doing pretty damn good, it's like, "oh Obama had nothing to do with that. Stock market ain't got shit to do with the economy. Only reason it came back was because of some remnants of some people fighting for freedom by watering the tree of liberty."

We just like messin' with you.

I mean, seriously, Italian suits and no ladies?

Unless that's not your thing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[IrezumiKiss]

Originally Posted by firespin

We just like messin' with you.

I mean, seriously, Italian suits and no ladies?

Unless that's not your thing.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Nothing in the world will ever replace the love and quality of a good, busty, voluptuous woman by your side, B'rer Fire. Nothing.

But when you have a cocksucker as templar as Beco/Faneros on your dick, you just have to let his expertise take over until he gets his protein lunch for the day. That's some real trickle-down economics at work!

[Beco]

Originally Posted by IrezumiKiss

Nothing in the world will ever replace the love and quality of a good, busty, voluptuous woman by your side, B'rer Fire. Nothing.

But when you have a cocksucker as templar as Beco/Faneros on your dick, you just have to let his expertise take over until he gets his protein lunch for the day. That's some real trickle-down economics at work!

You on your union lunch break?

[IrezumiKiss]

Originally Posted by Beco

You on your union lunch break?

Union? What are you talking about?

Boy, hurry the fuck up and hand over that package for my secretary to sign before you get slapped in the face again by your pimp for being late!

[Ham Murabi]

Originally Posted by Ulaven_Demorte

With the Dow climbing near 10,000 again what's happened to all of the dire, end of the world ravings of our resident "conservative" economists?

Where is all of this inflation we were warned about? According to reports the Consumer Price Index is down 1.5% overall from last year. Despite Augusts increase in prices, gasoline is still down 30% from the high a year ago.

Despite the dire warnings of some of Lit's resident math wizards the Chinese are still very much interested in buying US Treasury securities.

I guess the sky isn't falling after all.

Some analysts note that when Obama's worst policies appear to be going nowhere - cap and trade, health care reform - the market does well.