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

[Sean Renaud]

Making reference to in an explanation of the assumptions used in a given scenario is no ringing endorsement of it use as policy. It's merely an assumption, one of many that brought them to certain judgments. Their only stated requirement were budget cuts in spending of 4 plus trillion, they said nothing about raising taxes so further spending could take place.

When someone sayd I did this because, that's no reason to believe they did this because of what they said. You could have worked the impossible and found another way to get to that same conclusion!

 

[koalabear]

Updated: 08/10/2011 03:03 ET
DOW 10,919.82 -319.95

 

[busybody..]

NIGGER* owns it!

Flashback July 2009: Obama Says It’s His Economy, “Give It To Me” — Now: Still Blaming “Problems He Inherited”…
July 2009:


“My administration has a job to do as well and that job is to get this economy back on its feet, that’s my job and it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us into this mess and suddenly say ‘this is Obama’s economy,’ that’ fine, give it to me, my job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe. So, I welcome the job. I want the responsibility.”

Monday night:

(Reuters) — President Barack Obama said on Monday he inherited many of the country’s problems with high debt and deficits when he entered the White House, sounding a theme likely to dominate his 2012 re-election campaign.

Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser, where families paid $15,000 to get a picture with him, Obama defended his economic record and noted that problems in Europe were affecting the United States.

“We do have a serious problem in terms of debt and deficit, and much of it I inherited,” Obama said. The financial crisis, he said, made the problem worse.



*O'Fendy still OH! FENDED

 

[koalabear]

NIGGER* owns it!

Flashback July 2009: Obama Says It’s His Economy, “Give It To Me” — Now: Still Blaming “Problems He Inherited”…
July 2009:


“My administration has a job to do as well and that job is to get this economy back on its feet, that’s my job and it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us into this mess and suddenly say ‘this is Obama’s economy,’ that’ fine, give it to me, my job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe. So, I welcome the job. I want the responsibility.”

Monday night:

(Reuters) — President Barack Obama said on Monday he inherited many of the country’s problems with high debt and deficits when he entered the White House, sounding a theme likely to dominate his 2012 re-election campaign.

Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser, where families paid $15,000 to get a picture with him, Obama defended his economic record and noted that problems in Europe were affecting the United States.

“We do have a serious problem in terms of debt and deficit, and much of it I inherited,” Obama said. The financial crisis, he said, made the problem worse.



*O'Fendy still OH! FENDED

Good Ole Oblamer.

 

[koalabear]

$INDU 10,718.65Down-521.12 -4.64%
Dow Jones Industrial Average Index

 

[koalabear]

at the bell.

Updated: 08/10/2011 04:00 ET
DOW 10,716.84 -522.93

 

[coastal-boy]

Imagine that...we live in a World where issues other than our own affect the Market. Why are people surprised?

 

[koalabear]

Imagine that...we live in a World where issues other than our own affect the Market. Why are people surprised?

You are the only one surprised.

 

[mercury14]

Prove it. Saying it is easy.


That's why we've been down-graded. Faulty assumptions all 'round.

S&P said cut $4 trillion of of the deficit over 10 years. You're calling it my responsibility to prove that they really meant what they said? What?

Of course that's can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt because they'd still be free to downgrade us no matter what. But it would be highly odd for them to downgrade after taking their recommendations. Since you think the S&P was lying why not take it up with them?

 

[mercury14]

Prove it. Saying it is easy.

No, proving it is easy too. S&P said cut $4 trillion of of the deficit over 10 years. If we did that (whether revenue increases were part of the equation or not), they would not downgrade us.

That's why we've been down-graded. Faulty assumptions all 'round.

Nope, the S&P's reasons for downgrading us are clearly something else.

 

[mercury14]

Bush was not an Austrian.


We established that during his presidency.

Yesterday's targeted Obama tax cuts are todays "loopholes" for the rich.

Bush did nothing to reduce the influence of government in the markets, therefore, he looked like a Democrat when it came to the economy.

He was as close to Richard Nixon as Obama is to Mussolini...

Nope, the fact is, Bush was a Keynsian. And Republicans during his administration (most of whom are still around) were Keynsians as well. According to you, Keynsian policies check out just fine. Then you talk out of the other side of your mouth and say that Keynsianism has been dis-proven.

Hypocrite.

 

[mercury14]

You know what the real shame with Merc/daley/ulaven/sean is?

It's not that they're so shit ignorant. I don't believe they're stupid, you know, like in mentally retarded. The facts are available to them like every one else. We are all working from the same set of facts. It's just that one side is delusional AND malicious.

The problem seems to be that the useful idiot brigade don't share the same goals as the fiscal conservatives here.

The economically sane want to restore the US to the path of fiscal sanity and return to GDP growth, job creation, and productivity increases while keeping the planet save for peace, democracy and the global free market of ideas, capital, goods and services. In short the fiscal cons want us to continue to build on the progress we have made in the last century. Once all Americans wanted this, we just differed on how to get there.

But looking at the posts from Merc/daley/ulaven and other shit-for-brains it seems as if the new Liberal agenda is based upon taking other people's money by force and spreading it around to their friends. How's that working out in England, mates? Or Greece? Or the old Soviet Union? I know, I know. It's the old song....don't know much about history....

The blatant, eye-watering hypocrisy here is that Republicans staunchly defend their Medicare. Republican voters (like Dems and independents) want Medicare intact. Then Republicans turn around and bemoan the evils of taxing people to pay for Medicare. What? Which is it? Do you want to get rid of Medicare or not? You can't have it both ways.

Social security? Again you want it both ways. WHAAAA! CLASS WARFARE IS EVIL! (Just don't touch my benefits, right?)

taking other people's money by force

Ah yes, here we have another hypocrite. The same conservatives who wave around the constitution call taxation robbery. Gawd you guys are funny. Yes you love the constitution. You're just not informed about what's actually in it.

 

[koalabear]

S&P said cut $4 trillion of of the deficit over 10 years. You're calling it my responsibility to prove that they really meant what they said? What?

Of course that's can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt because they'd still be free to downgrade us no matter what. But it would be highly odd for them to downgrade after taking their recommendations. Since you think the S&P was lying why not take it up with them?

No, proving it is easy too. S&P said cut $4 trillion of of the deficit over 10 years. If we did that (whether revenue increases were part of the equation or not), they would not down



Nope, the S&P's reasons for downgrading us are clearly something else.

Nope, the fact is, Bush was a Keynsian. And Republicans during his administration (most of whom are still around) were Keynsians as well. According to you, Keynsian policies check out just fine. Then you talk out of the other side of your mouth and say that Keynsianism has been dis-proven.

Hypocrite.

The blatant, eye-watering hypocrisy here is that Republicans staunchly defend their Medicare. Republican voters (like Dems and independents) want Medicare intact. Then Republicans turn around and bemoan the evils of taxing people to pay for Medicare. What? Which is it? Do you want to get rid of Medicare or not? You can't have it both ways.

Social security? Again you want it both ways. WHAAAA! CLASS WARFARE IS EVIL! (Just don't touch my benefits, right?)



Ah yes, here we have another hypocrite. The same conservatives who wave around the constitution call taxation robbery. Gawd you guys are funny. Yes you love the constitution. You're just not informed about what's actually in it.

Watch the Moron rant, rant, rant, rant, MORON.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Imagine that...we live in a World where issues other than our own affect the Market. Why are people surprised?

clearly, your way of "government" isn't working and its time for government to live within their means. and pay off the debt.

that means we must start by terminating 40% of all the fucktard government workers

 

[MeeMie]

Rather than dealing with reality and fact, him, and those like him, are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

It's HORRIBLE that S&P downgraded the US from triple A, to AA+

Talk about talking out of both sides of one's mouth ...

So... nobody thought about it, or put any weight into it...

Just more manufactured outrage from the wingnuts...

No where in the report did I see S&P mention Obama's culpability for the downgrade

"A possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur."


You can start with Obama's culpability for spending; and, for those spending cuts the S&P mentioned which were initiated by the GOP.

You might recall, Obama's original idea was to raise the debt ceiling without any plan whatsoever to reduce spending nor increase taxes - he just demanded that the debt ceiling be raised.


Let's take a look at Obama's culpability regarding his excessive spending spree ...

Some of the numbers that stand out in Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012 (and outlook through 2021):

$3.73 trillion — total spending this year
(25 percent of GDP, highest levels since World War Two).

$46 trillion — total spending over the next decade.

$8.7 trillion — total new spending over the same period.

$26.3 trillion — Total new debt, including entitlement obligations, predicted by 2021.

$7.2 trillion — Total deficit predicted by the end of the decade.

$1.1 trillion — How much the White House estimates the proposal will reduce the deficit over the next ten years.

$4 trillion — How much the president’s deficit commission recommended reducing the deficit over the next ten years to avoid financial catastrophe.

$1.6 trillion — The projected annual deficit for 2011 (11 percent of GDP), increased from $1.3 trillion spree in 2010.

$2 trillion — Amount the budget will raise taxes on business and upper-income families over the next ten years, if the Bush-era tax rates expire in 2012 (for incomes $250,000 and up).

$50 billion — Amount the administration plans to spend this year on infrastructure and transportation “investments.” (ie: shovel ready)

$30 billion — Amount dedicated to a “National Infrastructure Bank to invest in projects of regional or national significance to the economy,” including the much-touted high-speed rail initiative.

$77.4 billion — Funding allocated for the Department of Education, a 22 percent increase from 2010 levels, and a 35 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$29.5 billion — Total spending on the Department of Energy, a 22 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$9.9 billion — Funding allocated for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 30 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$150 billion — Total amount the White House plans to spend next year on research and development programs.

9.1 percent — Unemployment rate in August 2011 accounts for a massive reduction in taxable income resources.

ZERO — Political risk the president was willing to assume by proposing meaningful reform to entitlement programs.




President Obama's spending spree in his first 100 days in office initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II

Obama's health-care plan alone adds about $950 billion - $75 billion to the 10-year cost of the $871 billion Senate health-overhaul bill, and includes new taxes.
Health policy experts say that President Obama's plan to expand health insurance coverage will cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Obama is adding over $26 trillion of new debt in the next ten years alone.

The country is heading toward financial ruin, Obama’s leading the way... and, the spendthrift culprits responsible point their fingers at those who attempt to curtail their idiotic spending spree.

 

[cebalrai]

Watch the Moron rant, rant, rant, rant, MORON.

You would look more intelligent if you countered his facts with some of your own.

 

[koalabear]

You would look more intelligent if you countered his facts with some of your own.

Hi mercMORON.

 

[cebalrai]

Talk about talking out of both sides of one's mouth ...

Bush started two wars that are costing us $4 trillion, or about 30% of the entire US debt.. He and the Republicans have never wanted to pay for them. How come you forgot to mention this in your idiotic analysis?

Still not sourcing your C&Ps, moron? Hiding the fact that you're secretly C&Ping from the fucking waste of electrons called the NRO??? You lying, dishonest, irresponsible douche...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259691/obamas-spending-spree-numbers-andrew-stiles#

 

[NeverEndingMe]

You would look more intelligent if you countered his facts with some of your own.

wow, are you have a "Al Gore" break down?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

S&P said cut $4 trillion of of the deficit over 10 years. You're calling it my responsibility to prove that they really meant what they said? What?

Of course that's can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt because they'd still be free to downgrade us no matter what. But it would be highly odd for them to downgrade after taking their recommendations. Since you think the S&P was lying why not take it up with them?

clearly what we need is more government spending. after all, look at all that obama spending and look at what's that's gotten us. oh wait

 

[NeverEndingMe]

government spending isn't debt, when they add millions to the government payroll its a good thing!

remember, welfare is part of the GDP

Watch the Moron rant, rant, rant, rant, MORON.

 

[MeeMie]

Bush started two wars that are costing us $4 trillion, or about 30% of the entire US debt.. He and the Republicans have never wanted to pay for them. How come you forgot to mention this in your idiotic analysis?

Still not sourcing your C&Ps, moron? Hiding the fact that you're secretly C&Ping from the fucking waste of electrons called the NRO??? You lying, dishonest, irresponsible douche...

And, there you have it, folks!




The classic loonie mantra:

• loonie gang bang
• fault the source
• point finger elsewhere
• namecalling
• insult integrity and intelligence
• answer a question with another question
• refuses to read info stating already knows what's in it
• Deflect, Deny, Divert
• BLAME BUSH!

It's a pattern easily recognizable, used in varying degrees, simultaneously and/or one jab at a time

 

[cebalrai]

And, there you have it, folks!




The classic loonie mantra:

• loonie gang bang
• fault the source
• point finger elsewhere
• namecalling
• insult integrity and intelligence
• answer a question with another question
• refuses to read info stating already knows what's in it
• Deflect, Deny, Divert
• BLAME BUSH!

It's a pattern easily recognizable, used in varying degrees, simultaneously and/or one jab at a time

Yeah that's what you get for getting your information from the NRO. Sources should be examined and vetted. That goes for people on the right and the left. Don't you agree?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

and clearly we must celebrate when a government agency loses 10-50 million. after all, what's 50 million here...10 million there? guess that's why obama is happy medicare has 500 million a year in fraud, cuz what's $500,000,000 a year in fraud for one government dept?

And, there you have it, folks!




The classic loonie mantra:

• loonie gang bang
• fault the source
• point finger elsewhere
• namecalling
• insult integrity and intelligence
• answer a question with another question
• refuses to read info stating already knows what's in it
• Deflect, Deny, Divert
• BLAME BUSH!

It's a pattern easily recognizable, used in varying degrees, simultaneously and/or one jab at a time

 

[lustatopia]

Talk about talking out of both sides of one's mouth ...











"A possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur."


You can start with Obama's culpability for spending; and, for those spending cuts the S&P mentioned which were initiated by the GOP.

You might recall, Obama's original idea was to raise the debt ceiling without any plan whatsoever to reduce spending nor increase taxes - he just demanded that the debt ceiling be raised.


Let's take a look at Obama's culpability regarding his excessive spending spree ...

Some of the numbers that stand out in Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012 (and outlook through 2021):

$3.73 trillion — total spending this year
(25 percent of GDP, highest levels since World War Two).

$46 trillion — total spending over the next decade.

$8.7 trillion — total new spending over the same period.

$26.3 trillion — Total new debt, including entitlement obligations, predicted by 2021.

$7.2 trillion — Total deficit predicted by the end of the decade.

$1.1 trillion — How much the White House estimates the proposal will reduce the deficit over the next ten years.

$4 trillion — How much the president’s deficit commission recommended reducing the deficit over the next ten years to avoid financial catastrophe.

$1.6 trillion — The projected annual deficit for 2011 (11 percent of GDP), increased from $1.3 trillion spree in 2010.

$2 trillion — Amount the budget will raise taxes on business and upper-income families over the next ten years, if the Bush-era tax rates expire in 2012 (for incomes $250,000 and up).

$50 billion — Amount the administration plans to spend this year on infrastructure and transportation “investments.” (ie: shovel ready)

$30 billion — Amount dedicated to a “National Infrastructure Bank to invest in projects of regional or national significance to the economy,” including the much-touted high-speed rail initiative.

$77.4 billion — Funding allocated for the Department of Education, a 22 percent increase from 2010 levels, and a 35 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$29.5 billion — Total spending on the Department of Energy, a 22 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$9.9 billion — Funding allocated for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 30 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$150 billion — Total amount the White House plans to spend next year on research and development programs.

9.1 percent — Unemployment rate in August 2011 accounts for a massive reduction in taxable income resources.

ZERO — Political risk the president was willing to assume by proposing meaningful reform to entitlement programs.




President Obama's spending spree in his first 100 days in office initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II

Obama's health-care plan alone adds about $950 billion - $75 billion to the 10-year cost of the $871 billion Senate health-overhaul bill, and includes new taxes.
Health policy experts say that President Obama's plan to expand health insurance coverage will cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Obama is adding over $26 trillion of new debt in the next ten years alone.

The country is heading toward financial ruin, Obama’s leading the way... and, the spendthrift culprits responsible point their fingers at those who attempt to curtail their idiotic spending spree.

And those are the facts that Merc and the big spending liberals are in denial over. Instead they still want to BLAME BUSH and Bush's wild eye Keynsian economic policies. At this late date, blaming Bush for Obama Socialism is a tad bit dishonest.

For the record, I didn't support Bush's economic policy and was worried about the debt trajectory even before the mad clown posse led by Obama hijacked our economy.

But how does the fact that Bush spent too much in any way justify Obama committing the US to economy suicide? It's like saying Bush drove the car into the ditch so the only solution was for Obama to douse it in gasoline and set it on fire!!!