Enough of the "we inherited the deficit" crap

C

cszulc

Enough of it!

If Obama is so fiscally aware, why the hell did he and his Dem colleagues add $1 trillion to the national debt in a period of 6 months, 11 days, while the fastest George W. Bush did it was 2.5 years? (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5209497.shtml)

I can't believe Obama is still going around spewing that BS considering he approved the $787 billion stimulus, $350 billion 2nd half of TARP.

Plus he's going for a $3.69 trillion FY2010 budget, hilariously named "A New Era of Responsibility".

He even states it is his responsibility now and we don't want to look backward, yet he still bashes Bush:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/07/obama-its-my-economy-fine-give-it-to-me.php

ENOUGH!
 
Quote from cszulc:

Enough of it!

If Obama is so fiscally aware, why the hell did he and his Dem colleagues add $1 trillion to the national debt in a period of 6 months, 11 days, while the fastest George W. Bush did it was 2.5 years? (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5209497.shtml)
More...

Because the 2009 budget was written in 2008, under Bush. Obama has amalgamated all the "off-budget" "emergency expenditures" (such as the Iraq war) into the budget numbers. Additionally, he incorporated TARP, signed by Bush, into the budget. Additional to this he needed to stimulate the economy due to there being a massive run on the banks in October (also under Bush.)

So there's a little more honest accounting going on.

If it makes you feel better the CBO's deficit projections now improve to $300 billion in a few years, which is better than it has been.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

Because the 2009 budget was written in 2008, under Bush. Obama has amalgamated all the "off-budget" "emergency expenditures" (such as the Iraq war) into the budget numbers. Additionally, he incorporated TARP, signed by Bush, into the budget. Additional to this he needed to stimulate the economy due to there being a massive run on the banks in October (also under Bush.)

So there's a little more honest accounting going on.
More...

Exactly.

The "neo-con" Bush lovers here on ET would have you believe that Bush included the cost of the IRAQ WAR in his budgets ($1 trillion as of FY-2010)
He did not. Obama is.

Bush's budget numbers were about as REAL as a $3 bill. Yet, we continue to have people post on ET as if all they do is regurgitate stuff from Glenn Beck and Faux News.

It's a shame that our young people aren't able to figure out how to think for themselves for a change. It seems to be a disease in this Country.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
 
Bush's FY06 budget proposal included no funding for the wars at all. No clothing, no food, no armor, no transportation, no ammunition for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. That was Bush's official proposal.

Just the FACTS.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

"... If it makes you feel better the CBO's deficit projections now improve to $300 billion in a few years, which is better than it has been.
More...

Let's not forget... the CBO OFTEN projects "lower deficits".. rarely achieves them.
 
No Democrat is ever going to be stupid enough to hand a Republican a surplus again, not after what Bush did. After destroying the progress Clinton made, he topped it off by allowing Paulson to run rampant at the very end with TARP.
That icing on the cake guaranteed no Democrat is going to eat the poison of the Republican line about fiscal responsibility.
The party for the right is over. We all now know just how dishonest your constant baying about the deficit is. All your whining now is just that. Like some cheese with that?
 
We're in some deep doodoo nowadays, I'm convinced of that... this partisan bickering is not helping at all... I just read an article that pointed out that consumer borrowing is the biggest leading indicator in recoveries but our consumers are tapped out, and tapping out at a high rate too...

What if we've seen the last of jobless recoveries? Everybody assumes that recovery has to follow downturn but what if it just doesn't happen this time? The trend has been forty years of longer and longer unemployment times for laid off workers and that increasingly morphing into jobless recoveries.. the next phase would seem to be no recovery at all since increasing consumer debt is not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.. and it is the only thing that can possibly drive recovery in an economy where 70% of spending is by the consumer...

so BO Pelosi and Company is expanding the Public Sector to create jobs, in the context of falling tax revenues.. It's pretty obvious that can't work at all.. the only real solution is to drastically shrink government but voters are looking to government to solve things and they could be in that mood for a long time... it could get worse from here really... BO might be beating a dead horse, telling us it's going to get up and get going here pretty soon, and look, it's body temp isn't falling as fast as it was [as it approaches ambient]...

I'm just saying...
 
Quote from maxpi:

so BO Pelosi and Company is expanding the Public Sector to create jobs, in the context of falling tax revenues.. It's pretty obvious that can't work at all..
More...

Huh? Bush presided over the largest expansion of government since the great depression.

Why can't it work?

the only real solution is to drastically shrink government but voters are looking to government to solve things and they could be in that mood for a long time.
More...

Your macro-economics needs work. What happens in an economy when one of the largest employers drastically lays off workers -- who buys products then?

.. it could get worse from here really... BO might be beating a dead horse, telling us it's going to get up and get going here pretty soon, and look, it's body temp isn't falling as fast as it was [as it approaches ambient]...

I'm just saying...
More...

Well so far, so good. The run on the banks hasn't reoccurred yet, and that's reassuring.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

Huh? Bush presided over the largest expansion of government since the great depression.

Why can't it work?



Your macro-economics needs work. What happens in an economy when one of the largest employers drastically lays off workers -- who buys products then?



Well so far, so good. The run on the banks hasn't reoccurred yet, and that's reassuring.
More...

If the government got smaller during the good times then your macro argument would be a reasonable one.

But, who pays for the government spending when an ever increasing portion of the the economy is the government.
 
Quote from jem:

If the government got smaller during the good times then your macro argument would be a reasonable one.

But, who pays for the government spending when an ever increasing portion of the the economy is the government.
More...

That's a myth, actually. Before Bush and his massive government expansion, according to this the size of government has been relatively stable over time:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/09/the_size_of_gov.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top