# 111th Congress added more debt than first 100 Congresses COMBINED



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

Take a gooood gander there lefties.  While I'm sure this type of fiscal suicide pleases yall in the name of some type of "equality", I would still like to see yall explain away this insanity, or still, somehow claim that this treasonous, socialist, epic fail is ANYTHING other than THAT.


(CNSNews.com) - The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

*That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.*

*The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
*
*In fact, the 111th Congress not only has set the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history, but also has out-stripped its nearest competitor, the 110th, by an astounding $1.262 trillion in new debt.*

111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S. | CNSnews.com


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 28, 2010)

nice try with that fuzzy math. 

Under GWB the US debt accumulated was $4 trillion. 
"On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch."

Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt - Couric & Co. - CBS News

R1 = FAIL


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> nice try with that fuzzy math.
> 
> Under GWB the US debt accumulated was $4 trillion.
> "On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch."
> ...



*^^^^^^^*





*Take yet another good look lefties.  Here is "Common Sense" the same moron I pwned in our lil SS privatization debate he ran from.  KNOWING HE CAN'T REFUTE MY FACTS, HE DEFLECTS, AND TRIES TO SWITCH THIS FROM CONGRESS, TO A PRESIDENT.*

My OP stands, Common Sense fails in uncommonly stupid fashion.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

And for extra good pwny measure, Ima expose CS's sad attempt @ a rebuttal (FROM CBS) as BS:

Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama&#8217;s Deficits 






But not only does President Obama&#8217;s budget fail to reduce deficits &#8220;overnight&#8221;, his budget actually moves them in the opposite direction. President Obama&#8217;s budget would:

* Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
* Borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010;
* Leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion in as late as 2020;

The chart above compares the President&#8217;s budget deficit projections to the Congressional Budget Office&#8217;s budget deficit projections under current law. In other words, the policy changes embodied in President Obama&#8217;s 2011 Budget puts our country $2.5 trillion deeper in debt by 2020 than it other wise would be if current law were left unchanged.

President Obama&#8217;s bailouts, massive stimulus spending, and other dangerous interventionist policies (some of which began in 2008) have made Americans less economically free. The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom analyzes just how economically &#8220;free&#8221; a country is, and this year America saw a steep and significant decline, enough to make it drop altogether from the &#8220;free&#8221; category, the first time this has happened in the 16 years we&#8217;ve been publishing these indexes. The United States dropped to &#8220;mostly free.&#8221; As the Index shows, lack of freedom has a direct, negative effect on job growth. It should be no surprise that President Obama&#8217;s policies have taken us down the path to fewer jobs and record deficits.

Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama&#8217;s Deficits in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 28, 2010)

Ive pwned your ass so many times its ridiculous. your article stated Obama added $3.22 Trillion to the US debt, and claimed it was more than all other congresses combined. while i simply pwned you by showing and proving that GWB added $4 trillion to debt. hmmmm basic math shows that $4 trillion is more than $3.22 trillion.

and your idea of privatization of SS lacked an real substance or spending controls. you simply wanted to give the tax dollars form SS to bankers on wall street. yup, after the govt had to bail them out, great idea jackass. 

youre not only a failure, but an epic failure.

wow, its great seeing as you want to try and predict the future. there is not budget past this current fiscal year. and we all remember that Bush pushed through the war spending under emergency spending and it was not added to the budget or the deficit until Obama did so.


the foundry, yet another highly reputable website for conservatives


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Ive pwned your ass so many times its ridiculous. your article stated Obama added $3.22 Trillion to the US debt, and claimed it was more than all other congresses combined. while i simply pwned you by showing and proving that GWB added $4 trillion to debt. hmmmm basic math shows that $4 trillion is more than $3.22 trillion.
> 
> and your idea of privatization of SS lacked an real substance or spending controls. you simply wanted to give the tax dollars form SS to bankers on wall street. yup, after the govt had to bail them out, great idea jackass.
> 
> youre not only a failure, but an epic failure.



*^^^^^^^*




*
Ima give you one last chance to save some face here sheep.  Not only are you unable to refute my facts, continue to deflect in that you're tryna talk bout GWB instead of HIS Congress which spent NOWHERE NEAR as much as the 111th, but my last post blows your silly CBS math outta the water.*


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

I should book mark this thread.....any lefties wanna rush in here and drag Cs's seizing sore loser self outta here?

*Again, HE KNOWS HE'S BEAT, SO HE DEFLECTS AND TRIES TO DIVERT TO GWB'S SPENDING, AS OPPOSED TO THE 110TH CONGRESS' COMPARED TO THE 111TH CONGRESS'.  Which is the WHOLE POINT of this thread*

Not only is that obvious "fuck I'm beat code" but I then proceed to annihilate his saaaaad excuse for a source:

*CBS-HOME OF RATHERGATE*.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

I repeat, does any embarrassed lefty wanna mosey on in here and offer a REAL response to my factual, accurate OP?

"Common Sense" just made a permanent home for himself on my pwned belt looks like.  Anyone else wanna join?


----------



## The Infidel (Dec 28, 2010)

Facts will trump BS any day of the week.... nice job!


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

The Infidel said:


> Facts will trump BS any day of the week.... nice job!



Thanks man.

Still waiting on an even SEMI-intelligent lefty to weigh in here......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 28, 2010)

"The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)&#8212;during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury."

your exact words moron, you said the $3.22 trillion worth of debt is more than the first 100 combined. 

show me a news source not called the foundry, or fox news or sean hannity that backs this up?

then also show me how the bush years stack up to this congress, then again you also have to add in the wars, which he doesnt do. once again, nice fuzzy math. 

since your math doesnt account for inflation, you again fail:






the debt from 1940 to 1976 adjusted for inflation is more than $3.22 trillion.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 28, 2010)

if youre idiotic mind is referring the deficit, then yes the deficit for the 111th congress was $3.22 trillion and was more than the first 100 combined, when adjusted for inflation. 

maybe you should education yourself on the difference between debt and deficit.


----------



## California Girl (Dec 28, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Facts will trump BS any day of the week.... nice job!
> ...



I think, perhaps, you have bored them all to death.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

*Common Sense wrote:*



> The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)&#8212;during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury."





> your exact words moron, you said the $3.22 trillion worth of debt is more than the first 100 combined.



-SIGH-

I thought you woulda learned your lesson by now, oh well.  Link/image blitz pwning time:

Related:

Projected Deficit:
In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade.
Projected Deficit - washingtonpost.com







> show me a news source not called the foundry, or fox news or sean hannity that backs this up?



*(Newsroom America) -- Though it is being hailed as the most productive legislature in a generation, the 111th Congress was also one of the hardest on the U.S. Treasury, having added more red ink to the nation's debt than the country's first 100 congresses combined, a report said Tuesday.
*
Cybercast News Service said an analysis of the 111th Congress' fiscal legislation found that lawmakers added more than $3.2 trillion to the nation's debt, or $10,429.64 more per person.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/88460/report:_111th_congress_added_more_debt_than_first_100_congresses.html





> then also show me how the bush years stack up to this congress, then again you also have to add in the wars, which he doesnt do. once again, nice fuzzy math.



*These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T*
By Dick Morris - 02/02/10 06:37 PM ET

President Barack Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced &#8220;when I walked in the door&#8221; of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) might have said, &#8220;You lie,&#8221; but we&#8217;ll settle for &#8220;You distort.&#8221;

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: &#8220;lies, damn lies and statistics.&#8221

Here are the facts:

In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit &#8212; officially &#8212; up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

*So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won&#8217;t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
*
These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T - TheHill.com

*A REAL EYE OPENER ! Bush debt vs Obama debt*

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.
Amazingly Enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense.  So once more,  a short civics lesson.  Budgets do not come from the White House.  They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.  They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.  In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.  For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.  At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.  And where was Barack Obama during this time?  He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.  Let&#8217;s remember what the deficits looked like during that period: 





After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he&#8217;s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama&#8217;s first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. &#8220;We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,&#8221; Pelosi said in 2007. &#8220;That&#8217;s fiscal irresponsibility.&#8221;
*
Now, under Obama, the national debt &#8212; and the interest payments &#8212; will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.*

&#8220;We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,&#8221; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama&#8217;s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. &#8220;But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.&#8221;

At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama&#8217;s spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. *In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congress&#8217;s remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.*

The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to &#8220;connect the dots&#8221; &#8212; that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. *Obama&#8217;s current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And that&#8217;s before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.*
Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending | Washington Examiner

*NOW:*
*AGAIN, you do nothing to try to absolve the 111th CONGRESS from the OP of my OP, cuz you know you can't.  Deflecting and tryna compare a Prez. to a Congress is just sad.  As I've proved time and time again, Obama spends/spent waaaay more than GWB has, and so has this failed, horrid, Jackass Congress.  MAN UP, admit you're wrong, beat, you obviously can't find any proof that the last GOP Congress outspent this one, cuz you know they didn't.*


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

^^.......Tis teh greatest pwnage I have dealteth to date......^^

I doubt I will be able to find a graphic to properly detail such win...........I must look.....................


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

Also, future reference for any other lefty sheep who wanna try to shoot me, the messenger.....

My obvious OP of my OP was that BOTH debt and deficit (MAINLY DEFICIT) has skyrocketed under Obama, and this (D) Congress.  This is obviously big news, damming news, so I posted it.

If an article makes a mistake, like confusing the debt/deficit, SHOOT THEM, *even tho I posted how both are @ records......*


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 28, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> And for extra good pwny measure, Ima expose CS's sad attempt @ a rebuttal (FROM CBS) as BS:
> 
> Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obamas Deficits


Again the dishonest Heritage Foundation phony deficit chart which leaves out Bush's OFF BUDGET DEFICIT SPENDING. 2008 alone had $1 TRILLION in OFF BUDGET DEFICIT SPENDING!!!!!!!!

The chart is a perfect example of how STUPID and GULLIBLE a person must be to be a CON$ervative. Off budget DEFICIT SPENDING is NOT "deficit spending!"


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 28, 2010)

i like graphs too:












To calculate how much responsibility Democrats had, we examined the votes for the big-ticket items. 

&#8226; The Omnibus. Congress did not complete work on nine of the 13 appropriations bills before Obama was elected, so the work was delayed until he took office and the bills were bundled together into what's known as an omnibus spending bill. Congress passed the $410 billion package with support from 16 Republicans in the House. The Senate approved the measure by voice vote, so there's no way to know how many Republicans supported it. 

&#8226; The TARP . President Bush asked for the TARP funding, and in both chambers, Republicans voted for the measure (91 House Republicans and 34 Senate Republicans, to be exact). 

&#8226; The economic stimulus bill. It passed with very little GOP support; no House Republicans voted for it, and only three Senate Republicans did. 

&#8226; War funding . It passed in June 2009 with only five GOP votes in the House and 36 in the Senate.

We should mention that today's deficit is also the result of policies put in place under the Bush administration such as tax cuts, the war in Iraq and new Medicare prescription drug coverage. 

Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, discussed the predicament in a June 9, 2009, New York Times article about whom to blame for the deficit: 

"Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years," he said. "On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he&#8217;s not fixing it." 

That brings us back to the Freedom Project's claim. By one standard &#8212; total dollars &#8212; the group is right that fiscal year 2009 will have the largest deficit in history. But it comes up second if you measure it by share of GDP, as many economists prefer. As for the second part, it's not correct to blame all the spending on Democrats. Yes, the Obama administration and the Democratic-led Congress are responsible for a good chunk of that spending &#8212; but many elements were backed by lots of Republicans, including President Bush. The Freedom Project glosses over this important detail, so we rate the claim Half True.
PolitiFact | Freedom Project claims the deficit is the biggest in history ? and that Democrats are to blame


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 28, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> "The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury."
> 
> your exact words moron, you said the $3.22 trillion worth of debt is more than the first 100 combined.
> 
> ...



Yep he said all other congresses combined.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 28, 2010)

Who cares?


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 28, 2010)

you do.

But keep up the front.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 28, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.


Again those those numbers dishonestly exclude the OFF BUDGET DEFICIT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!
When you include ALL deficit spending you get:
2002 $563 BILLION
2003 $592 BILLION
2004 $598 BILLION
2005 $574 BILLION
2006 $510 BILLION
2007 $549 BILLION
2008 $1.43 TRILLION


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > And for extra good pwny measure, Ima expose CS's sad attempt @ a rebuttal (FROM CBS) as BS:
> ...



Welcome to the pwned list, you sad, nit picking troll.



> The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury."





> your exact words moron, you said the $3.22 trillion worth of debt is more than the first 100 combined.



-SIGH-

I thought you woulda learned your lesson by now, oh well.  Link/image blitz pwning time:

Related:

Projected Deficit:
In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade.
Projected Deficit - washingtonpost.com







> show me a news source not called the foundry, or fox news or sean hannity that backs this up?



*(Newsroom America) -- Though it is being hailed as the most productive legislature in a generation, the 111th Congress was also one of the hardest on the U.S. Treasury, having added more red ink to the nation's debt than the country's first 100 congresses combined, a report said Tuesday.
*
Cybercast News Service said an analysis of the 111th Congress' fiscal legislation found that lawmakers added more than $3.2 trillion to the nation's debt, or $10,429.64 more per person.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/88460/report:_111th_congress_added_more_debt_than_first_100_congresses.html





> then also show me how the bush years stack up to this congress, then again you also have to add in the wars, which he doesnt do. once again, nice fuzzy math.



*These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T*
By Dick Morris - 02/02/10 06:37 PM ET

President Barack Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced when I walked in the door of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) might have said, You lie, but well settle for You distort.

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.)

Here are the facts:

In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit  officially  up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

*So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably wont be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
*
These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T - TheHill.com

*A REAL EYE OPENER ! Bush debt vs Obama debt*

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.
Amazingly Enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense.  So once more,  a short civics lesson.  Budgets do not come from the White House.  They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.  They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.  In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.  For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.  At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.  And where was Barack Obama during this time?  He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.  Lets remember what the deficits looked like during that period: 





After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, hes adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obamas first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years, Pelosi said in 2007. Thats fiscal irresponsibility.
*
Now, under Obama, the national debt  and the interest payments  will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.*

We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obamas Fiscal Responsibility Summit. But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.

At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obamas spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. *In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congresss remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.*

The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to connect the dots  that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. *Obamas current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And thats before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.*
Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending | Washington Examiner


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 28, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Ive pwned your ass so many times its ridiculous. your article stated Obama added $3.22 Trillion to the US debt, and claimed it was more than all other congresses combined. while i simply pwned you by showing and proving that GWB added $4 trillion to debt. hmmmm basic math shows that $4 trillion is more than $3.22 trillion.
> ...



Loss of tax revenue counts as debt, moron.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 28, 2010)

The recent tax bill adds almost a trillion to the debt and the GOP, not to mention the rightwingers here, supported it overwhelmingly.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 28, 2010)

"As we have noted here before, the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced"
Obama: No More War Spending Tricks | Danger Room | Wired.com

Real Bush Numbers:
2002 $563 BILLION
2003 $592 BILLION
2004 $598 BILLION
2005 $574 BILLION
2006 $510 BILLION
2007 $549 BILLION
2008 $1.43 TRILLION (thanks edthecynic)


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

*I have posted recent, accurate, objective, factual, varied responses after being called out here.  They really can't be refuted, as anyone who actually took the time to read that whole post would see THEY'RE COLD, HARD FACTS.*

*I have obviously more than proved my main point (deficit) "Common Sense" even admitted that.*

He has little credibility left as anything else he posts will likely be as irrelevant, bias, or flawed as his 1st CBS link.

I dunno why Carb is here, that's the same sheep I megapwned with my Gallup poll after he claimed conservatism was "dead"

I shall tho be checking back in on this thread regularly, hopefully SOMEONE will FINALLY arrive with some real points..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 28, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> *I have posted recent, accurate, objective, factual, varied responses after being called out here.  They really can't be refuted, as anyone who actually took the time to read that whole post would see THEY'RE COLD, HARD FACTS.*
> 
> *I have obviously more than proved my main point (deficit) "Common Sense" even admitted that.*
> 
> ...



Your numbers don't work if they're adjusted for inflation, so your whole premise is horseshit.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 28, 2010)

actually you claimed that the *debt *was more than first 100 congresses, not the *deficit*. so once again youve pwned yourself.

maybe you should have bought a dictionary for xmas and started to read it. or maybe a high school eduction could help you with that too.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 28, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The recent tax bill adds almost a trillion to the debt and the GOP, not to mention the rightwingers here, supported it overwhelmingly.



you did not think they were really conservatives did you?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 28, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The recent tax bill adds almost a trillion to the debt and the GOP, not to mention the rightwingers here, supported it overwhelmingly.
> ...



They are the 2nd Santa Claus in Jude Wanniski's 'Two Santa Clauses Theory'.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 28, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> The recent tax bill adds almost a trillion to the debt and the GOP, not to mention the rightwingers here, supported it overwhelmingly.


Yeah, and the excuse the dimwits used it would add to the deficit, but they didn't care about that when they pushed the screw America socialist health care bill through under a bunch of lies. Idiots!!!!


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

AmericanFirst said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The recent tax bill adds almost a trillion to the debt and the GOP, not to mention the rightwingers here, supported it overwhelmingly.
> ...



Know what else is great, good for a LOL?

*The lefty sheep here are raving bout some "off budget deficit" BS and the cost of the war WHEN OBAMA HAS ALREADY, LONG SINCE, MADE AFGHANISTAN HIS WAR.*

He's expanded it, approved the funding, etc.

The lefties here do seem to be gettin desperate.

Better add that shit to HIS column, but they won't.  Judging from the collective IQ amassed by the left here, they likely still think GWB is still in office and "planting WMDs in Iraq"


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 28, 2010)

did Bush ever find any WMD's???? didnt think so....


----------



## kiwiman127 (Dec 28, 2010)

We have been presented a one-sided analysis and with a one-sided analysis usually the entire spectrum is not included.
So here's a link to; _Critics Still Wrong on What&#8217;s Driving Deficits in Coming Years 
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers_
Critics Still Wrong on What?s Driving Deficits in Coming Years &mdash; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
I'm not going copy & paste the article, we're all grown ups, we can all go to the link and read their opinion.
Now this is from the left leaning _Center on Budget and Policy Priorities_ that deals with amongst things that weren't mentioned in the previous extensive copy & paste posts.
This piece also addresses the Heritage Foundations analysis and points out how Heritage excluded data traditionally used in baseline analysis.
My opinion is that the 111th Congress DID spend like a drunken sailor on steroids.  BUT, there is a fact that those who goose-step to talking points will not acknowledge, the Bush future deficits that the 111th Congress had to include in their expenditures to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.  An example would be Medicare Part D @ approximately annual cost of$90-100 billion dollars.
Also there are the future costs of previous actions with the war in Iraq and the increasing action in Afghanistan such as the treatment of our troops with physical and mental injuries that will have to treated for years and in some cases decades. The replacement of equipment damaged by combat action or from the wear-and-tear of a sandy environment.
These are just a few of items that will be included in future budgets for years to come and are basically inherited not only by the 111th Congress but also the 112th, 113th and so on.
Obama and the Dems with the 111th Congress have also left future deficits that will be included in future federal budgets for years to come. I certainly don't idolize future presidents or congresses.
In conclusion this thread does not meet the truth test or the very basics of federal fiscal economics 101.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 28, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...


Obviously that is a list of posters who have pwned YOU! 

And just to put the cherry on top, Obama"s first fiscal budget, 2010, was LESS than Bush's last fiscal budget.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026151.php

October 15, 2010
*DEFICIT SHRINKS FROM LAST YEAR'S RECORD....* Deficit hawks probably won't be pleased with the total, but they should at least be pleased with the direction.
The federal government budget deficit shrank in fiscal  2010, but the big gap was only $122 billion lower than the record high  set a year ago.  
The U.S. spent $1.294 trillion more than it collected in the  fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the Treasury Department said Friday.
  The deficit amounted to 8.9% of gross domestic product. That's down  from fiscal 2009, when the deficit of $1.416 trillion was 10.0% of GDP.
  Spending fell and revenues rose in fiscal 2010 as the economy  recovered from the deep recession that contributed to the nation's  troubled fiscal condition.​  If this sounds familiar, it's because the Congressional Budget Office  reported on its estimate of the federal budget deficit for FY2010 would  just last week. Today's Treasury report is the _official_ deficit tally, though as it turns out, the CBO projection was almost on the nose.


*The $1.294 trillion shortfall is smaller than last year's total; it's  slightly lower than the deficit President Obama inherited from his  predecessor; *and the final figure was smaller than projections made by  the administration and the CBO earlier this year.


  Want to have some fun? Ask your favorite Tea Partier whether the  deficit they claim to care so much about is higher or lower now than  when Obama took office. They won't care for the answer, but it's true.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 28, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Liberal Democrats generally weren't in favor of escalating the Afghanistan war.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You're still unable to refute the facts I posted, when I quoted you, calling you out.

Try that 1st, you sad, brainwashed lil sheep and MAYBE I'll give your very likely flawed, bias, excuse for a source a gander.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

*Nobody has addressed these facts yet.....how typical........*

Projected Deficit:
In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade.
Projected Deficit - washingtonpost.com







> show me a news source not called the foundry, or fox news or sean hannity that backs this up?



*(Newsroom America) -- Though it is being hailed as the most productive legislature in a generation, the 111th Congress was also one of the hardest on the U.S. Treasury, having added more red ink to the nation's debt than the country's first 100 congresses combined, a report said Tuesday.
*
Cybercast News Service said an analysis of the 111th Congress' fiscal legislation found that lawmakers added more than $3.2 trillion to the nation's debt, or $10,429.64 more per person.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/88460/report:_111th_congress_added_more_debt_than_first_100_congresses.html





> then also show me how the bush years stack up to this congress, then again you also have to add in the wars, which he doesnt do. once again, nice fuzzy math.



*These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T*
By Dick Morris - 02/02/10 06:37 PM ET

President Barack Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced when I walked in the door of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) might have said, You lie, but well settle for You distort.

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.)

Here are the facts:

In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit  officially  up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

*So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably wont be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
*
These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T - TheHill.com

*A REAL EYE OPENER ! Bush debt vs Obama debt*

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.
Amazingly Enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense.  So once more,  a short civics lesson.  Budgets do not come from the White House.  They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.  They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.  In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.  For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.  At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.  And where was Barack Obama during this time?  He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.  Lets remember what the deficits looked like during that period: 





After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, hes adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obamas first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years, Pelosi said in 2007. Thats fiscal irresponsibility.
*
Now, under Obama, the national debt  and the interest payments  will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.*

We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obamas Fiscal Responsibility Summit. But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.

At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obamas spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. *In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congresss remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.*

The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to connect the dots  that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. *Obamas current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And thats before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.*
Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending | Washington Examiner


----------



## Care4all (Dec 28, 2010)

Fiscal year 2009 is PRESIDENT BUSH'S, not Obama's....The fiscal year 2009 began Oct1 2008, under President Bush and it is attributed to President Bush's presidency....this includes the 2008 Bail outs added, and the TARP added...

President Bush's 2 terms added nearly $6 trillion to the National Debt, for his 8 years....not 4 trillion but +/- $6 trillion....


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

How bout it lefty sheep?

Instead of deflecting, lying, slandering, revising, etc, how bout yall actually try to refute the objective, factual points in my last post?

That silly "off the book" BS aint winning yall nothin  Lord knows how much socialist pork I could find if I did that same search with Barry Hussein.  I highly doubt yall want me to go down that road.

-Crickets-


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Fiscal year 2009 is PRESIDENT BUSH'S, not Obama's....The fiscal year 2009 began Oct1 2008, under President Bush and it is attributed to President Bush's presidency....this includes the 2008 Bail outs added, and the TARP added...
> 
> President Bush's 2 terms added nearly $6 trillion to the National Debt, for his 8 years....not 4 trillion but +/- $6 trillion....



Proof.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Fiscal year 2009 is PRESIDENT BUSH'S, not Obama's....The fiscal year 2009 began Oct1 2008, under President Bush and it is attributed to President Bush's presidency....this includes the 2008 Bail outs added, and the TARP added...
> ...



It's just a FACT dear!  President Bush was president for 8 years...his first fiscal budget was for fiscal year 2002.....

FISCAL
BUDGET
2002         FIRST 4 YEARS
2003
2004
2005
-------------
2006         LAST 4 YEARS
2007
2008
2009

Obama's first Fiscal Budget began October 1 2009 for fiscal year 2010.


President Clinton's last budget attributed to him was fiscal year 2001, beginning october 1 2000, ending september 30, 2001.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Dec 29, 2010)

October 1, 2001-The first day of GWB's first fiscal budget year the National Debt is *5,806,151,389,190.21*September 30, 1009-The last day of GWB's last fiscal budget year the National Debt is
*11,909,829,003,511.75*Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

AND:

Definition: Fiscal Year is a term that is used to differentiate a budget or financial year from the calendar year. It is commonly abbreviated as FY.

The Federal Fiscal Year runs from October 1 of the prior year through September 30 of the next year. For example: 

&#8226;FY 2010 runs from October 2009 through September 2010.
&#8226;FY 2011 is from October 2010 through September 2011.
&#8226;FY 2012 is from October 2011 through September 2012.
Fiscal Year - Define Federal Fiscal Year - What Is the Calendar for the Fiscal Year


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

Care4all said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



*Verifiable PROOF please. *


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

kiwiman127 said:


> October 1, 2001-The first day of GWB's first fiscal budget year the National Debt is *5,806,151,389,190.21*September 30, 1009-The last day of GWB's last fiscal budget year the National Debt is
> *11,909,829,003,511.75*Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
> 
> AND:
> ...



Your 1st link don't even work.
*
Even if your "info" is accurate, Obama is also well positioned to dwarf GWB's debt @ record pace and level, just as he has his deficits.*


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...


You posted NO facts!!!!!!!!!
Bush NEVER had a deficit under $500 BILLION yet not one of your charts shows a deficit of over $410 billion. Furthermore your charts only show Bush as president for 7 fiscal budgets 2002 to 2008 trying to pass off Bush's 2009 budget as Obama's.

You've been pwaned so badly by your own CON$ervative sources you are just tooooooooo STUPID to know it!


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*^^^^^^^^^*







*Just like how you lefty sheep try to pass off Afghanistan as GWB's war WHEN HE AINT EVEN PREZ. ANYMORE, IT'S BARRY HUSSEIN'S WAR, AND SO IS ITS EXPENSES.*

Give it up sheep, stop embarrassing yourself and go save some face.  After all, you freak shows are only 20% of the population TOPS.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > October 1, 2001-The first day of GWB's first fiscal budget year the National Debt is *5,806,151,389,190.21*September 30, 1009-The last day of GWB's last fiscal budget year the National Debt is
> ...



yes Obama will, but he inherited a running budget deficit of nearly 1.5 trillion from the last budget of President Bush......he STARTED with that....his first fiscal budget that just ended, he reduced the running deficit by about 100 billion....but this year it is estimated that it will go back up to the all time high under Bush or even higher perhaps?

whereas President Bush began with a running budget with +/-100 billion SURPLUS.....


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

STILL awaiting someone to FINALLY, CREDIBLY, refute my points, objective links, etc.

All I've gotten so far is links that don't work from Kiwi, and trolling from, this weirdo, brainwashed, lil Nazi edthecynic.

-Crickets-......................


----------



## kiwiman127 (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > October 1, 2001-The first day of GWB's first fiscal budget year the National Debt is *5,806,151,389,190.21*September 30, 1009-The last day of GWB's last fiscal budget year the National Debt is
> ...



OK, try this.  Go to U.S. National Debt Clock
scrool down the page and you'll see; "Also, the U.S. Department of the Treasury provides *daily, monthly, and yearly figures *for the Debt--to the penny! These are the figures I use to calibrate this Debt Clock." Click on the link, with the linked page you can pick the day, month and year for a start date and an ending date..  I went with October 1, 2001 and finished with September 30, 2009.

Yes, Obama will have more in deficits than GWB. As a No-Label I'm not forced to be married to either failed ideology (the right or left).  That way I get to be objective, you should try it sometime.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 29, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.
> ...





(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...


Hey DOOFUS!!!!! The quote under the chart YOU posted yourself proves Clinton's last fiscal year was 2001 and Bush's 8 began 2002!!!!

You've been pwned by your OWN post


----------



## Care4all (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> STILL awaiting someone to FINALLY, CREDIBLY, refute my points, objective links, etc.
> 
> All I've gotten so far is links that don't work from Kiwi, and trolling from, this weirdo, brainwashed, lil Nazi edthecynic.
> 
> -Crickets-......................



the article and ops you posted from cns news and others are simply WRONG, and there is nothing there that is the truth or worth refuting...just simply wrong from the get go.....the charts and graphs have switched years and made it appear that Bush's last fiscal budget of 2009, was Obama's and it was not....they did not show the money spent in the budget on the 2 wars, nor Katrina, nor the bailouts nor the TARP, all money spent under the Bush admin, but kept "off budget".....

The whole premise is a bunch of falsities.......


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

Care4all said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



I covered that misconception in my big post tho.  This just further tells me that no one even bothered to read it and just wants to make shit up.

Again:

These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T
By Dick Morris - 02/02/10 06:37 PM ET

President Barack Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced when I walked in the door of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) might have said, You lie, but well settle for You distort.

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.)

*Here are the facts:*

*In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.
*
But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit  officially  up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

*So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably wont be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.*

Then  he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obamas 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

*So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.*

These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T - TheHill.com


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

Care4all said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > STILL awaiting someone to FINALLY, CREDIBLY, refute my points, objective links, etc.
> ...



Actually, you're wrong.  *If you bothered to read the article I just posted again, you'd see that TARP IS included THE BAILOUTS TOO.*

Actually try reading it sometime.  Also, as I've said, Afghanistan is clearly Obama's war now, and so are its expenses.  *This might come as a shock to you, but GWB aint Prez. anymore.*


----------



## Care4all (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...



AS I SAID, Dick Morris is LYING, when he says the 2009 budget was OBAMA'S, IT WAS NOT!   Obama's first fiscal budget that he was responsible for with Congress, was the Budget for fiscal2010 which becan october 1 2009....

the fy2009 budget that Dick Morris attributed to Obama, was President Bush's and began October 1 2008  

edit....obama might have added 300 billion to the bush budget....


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

Time to pwn another brainwashed, flaming, National Socialist wacko lib troll.

*Attention edthecynic.  You continue to embarrass yourself to nit picking my posts, YOU HAVE YET TO ATTEMPT TO TRY to refute the other 90%  Perhaps cuz you know you can't.
*

*The whole forum is  @ you right now troll.  Last chance for your lil waste of bandwith self to post something of remote credibility, or else make your home on my pwned belt.*







*(Newsroom America) -- Though it is being hailed as the most productive legislature in a generation, the 111th Congress was also one of the hardest on the U.S. Treasury, having added more red ink to the nation's debt than the country's first 100 congresses combined, a report said Tuesday.
*
Cybercast News Service said an analysis of the 111th Congress' fiscal legislation found that lawmakers added more than $3.2 trillion to the nation's debt, or $10,429.64 more per person.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/88460/report:_111th_congress_added_more_debt_than_first_100_congresses.html





> then also show me how the bush years stack up to this congress, then again you also have to add in the wars, which he doesnt do. once again, nice fuzzy math.



*These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T*
By Dick Morris - 02/02/10 06:37 PM ET

President Barack Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced &#8220;when I walked in the door&#8221; of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) might have said, &#8220;You lie,&#8221; but we&#8217;ll settle for &#8220;You distort.&#8221;

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: &#8220;lies, damn lies and statistics.&#8221

Here are the facts:

In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit &#8212; officially &#8212; up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

*So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won&#8217;t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
*
These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T - TheHill.com

*A REAL EYE OPENER ! Bush debt vs Obama debt*

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.
Amazingly Enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense.  So once more,  a short civics lesson.  Budgets do not come from the White House.  They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.  They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.  In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.  For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.  At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.  And where was Barack Obama during this time?  He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.  Let&#8217;s remember what the deficits looked like during that period: 

After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he&#8217;s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama&#8217;s first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. &#8220;We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,&#8221; Pelosi said in 2007. &#8220;That&#8217;s fiscal irresponsibility.&#8221;
*
Now, under Obama, the national debt &#8212; and the interest payments &#8212; will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.*

&#8220;We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,&#8221; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama&#8217;s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. &#8220;But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.&#8221;

At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama&#8217;s spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. *In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congress&#8217;s remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.*

The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to &#8220;connect the dots&#8221; &#8212; that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. *Obama&#8217;s current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And that&#8217;s before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.*
Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending | Washington Examiner


----------



## Care4all (Dec 29, 2010)

But note, that clinton's last budget was for fy 2001...ending sept 2001....and president Bush ADDED a great deal to that budget with the bail outs for 9/11 to the airlines and help for homeland security to the city, and he also passed his tax cuts and gave us all a refund in august...all before the end of president clinton's fiscal budget....but guess what?  It still gets attributed to clinton and as clinton's budget.....


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

Care4all said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Even with that, you NOW SEE that TARP and the BAILOUT ARE INCLUDED.  Adjusted, Obama's deficits are STILL worse than Bush's.

I can pull up other links, articles, etc if you want, I got em for days.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> STILL awaiting someone to FINALLY, CREDIBLY, refute my points, objective links, etc.
> 
> All I've gotten so far is links that don't work from Kiwi, and trolling from, this weirdo, brainwashed, lil Nazi edthecynic.
> 
> -Crickets-......................



Obviously you never read my Post #35 nor did you read the information within the link I supplied. You used rightwing sites and call them objective? So I used a left leaning site (which I pointed out by the way) to counter-balance your rightwing site.  
The fact of the matter, Obama's budgets will all have defict spending carried over from Bush policies.  The 112th, 113th, 114th and so on will have deficit spending attributed to both GWB/GOP and Obama/Dem programs.  That's the way our federal fiscal economic system works.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 29, 2010)

in mid to late 2008 we had TARP, we had Fannie and freddie bailouts and take over, we had AIG bailout, we had goldman sachs bailout, we had the first Auto bailout etc etc etc etc etc.....

You simply can not believe that the minute a person takes office, all that is in the works and happening gets put upon the person that just started....that is simply not the case....

the CBO did an analysis of who is responsible for the ongoing deficit/debt added and it has stated that Obama's legislation and actions is about 10% of the running problem, and president Bush, and Bush 1 and Reagan etc etc actions taken accounts for the rest....  laws and legislation affecting the defict is an accumilated thing...like the Republicans adding the medicare pill bill costing hundreds of billions was legislated but NOT PAID FOR.....this defict continues until the law is changed to eliminate it or they find a way to pay for it with additional taxes or cuts....the interest payment that we are now paying on the 12 trillion national debt is an inherited bill, not one that is obama';s fault....this is the debt that was created before his presidency that we have to pay the 300 billion on each year....

the budget is not done in a vacuum and ends year after year, the cost of what is or has been legislated continues....


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Time to pwn another brainwashed, flaming, National Socialist wacko lib troll.
> 
> *Attention edthecynic.  You continue to embarrass yourself to nit picking my posts, YOU HAVE YET TO ATTEMPT TO TRY to refute the other 90%  Perhaps cuz you know you can't.
> *
> ...


Every one of your DISHONEST CON$ervative sources uses the same phony numbers and the same 7 year Bush presidency!!!! CON$ always lie in packs!!!!! Count the number of Bush fiscal budgets in the above chart you were STUPID enough to post.

Again you prove you are tooooooo STUPID to know you've been pwned by your OWN posts and your OWN sources!!!


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

*Care4all wrote:*


> You simply can not believe that the minute a person takes office, all that is in the works and happening gets put upon the person that just started....that is simply not the case....


*Again, I'm telling you my article puts the bailouts, TARP, etc. ON BUSH.*


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

*NOTICE THE SOURCE IS THE CBO, NOT HERITAGE.  THEY ONLY POSTED IT.  Wanna call that "bias" too?*





** 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.*
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures : Fire Andrea Mitchell!

Obama Raises 2010 Deficit Estimate to $1.5 Trillion (Update3) - Bloomberg

*FROM ABC:*

By DAVID MUIR
Feb. 1, 2010

President Obama announced a $3.83 trilion budget today that he hopes will fight unemployment while freezing spending on some government programs. It's a huge price tag, and it's worsening an enormous, record-setting budget deficit -- $1.6 trillion.

Many people are now asking how we got here. Especially when it was not long ago that we had a surplus. Here's a breakdown of the recent history:

In 2000, when President Clinton left office, the U.S. was in the black by $236 billion. At the time, number crunchers projected a surplus for at least 10 years.

But just two years later, we were in the red by $158 billion. The aftermath of 9/11 effectively froze the nation's economy. And President Bush enacted his first round of tax cuts.

By 2004, the deficit had more than doubled, to nearly $413 billion. The U.S. had invaded Iraq, and, economists point out, there was another round of tax cuts.

*By the end of 2008, the banking system was near collapse. Bush signed a $700 billion bank bailout package, and the deficit grew to $438 billion.

Then Obama took office and soon enacted the $787 billion economic recovery plan. That brings us to $1.4 trillion in debt...and still counting. *

Obama Budget: History of the Federal Budget Deficit - ABC News
*
From CBS:*
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1, 2010
Obama Budget Projects $1.56T Deficit
*
The result is a budget plan that would give the country trillion-dollar-plus deficits for three consecutive years. Obama's new budget projects a spending increase of 5.7 percent for the current budget year and forecasts that spending would rise another 3 percent in 2011 to $3.83 trillion.*

Obama Budget Projects $1.56T Deficit - CBS News

The Budget
The Next Bubble: Obama's Budget Deficit
Joshua Zumbrun, 03.20.09, 06:00 PM EDT

*The U.S. could be in the hole $2.3 trillion more than expected--and that's if the economy performs well.

WASHINGTON, D.C.--As President Obama prepares to send his budget to Congress next week, he's run into a bit of a stumbling block. The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that the national debt under the president's budget will be $2.3 trillion deeper than the White House estimates.

Now for the real bad news: Both estimates are optimistic. If the economy continues to deteriorate faster than economists project, those numbers will balloon further. 

Over the next decade, the CBO projects that the White House budget will run $9.3 trillion in deficits. The White House projection had been $7 trillion.*

The Next Bubble: Obama's Budget Deficit - Forbes.com

*Obama's budget deficit heading further up*

The federal budget deficit is projected to remain above $1.4 trillion through next year as a result of the current recession, the White House announced this afternoon.

*The accumulated national debt goes up no matter what. It's currently $13.2 trillion and projected to top $15 trillion by the end of 2011 and $25 trillion by the end of 2020.*

Obama's budget deficit heading further up - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

*I got links for days, you complain bout "objectivity"?  How bout them lefty sites like ABC, AND CBS?  *

It's unfucking deniable.

"Common Sense" already admitted I was right bout the deficit.  I'm also proving I'm right bout the debt.

Of course predictable, lil brainwashed sheep like edthecynic will lie, distort, and try to troll their way to a rebuttal, and they will continue to FAIL.

Next.......


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Time to pwn another brainwashed, flaming, National Socialist wacko lib troll.
> ...



*^^^^^^^*





*That's why I added the other links and articles you moron.  Why I made sure to include what those left out IE TARP AND THE BAILOUTS.*


You STILL have yet to refute ANY of the links I posted, sheep.  Still gonna try to nit pick?  Or are you done humiliating yourself now?


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

*Any other wacko, commie troll flamers like edthecynic wanna get mega pwned?*

Is this desperate nit pickin seriously the best yall can do?

*ME 3>edthecynic0*

Yall are gonna need a better rep...preferably one with rep points.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> *NOTICE THE SOURCE IS THE CBO, NOT HERITAGE.  Wanna call that "bias" too?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey DOOFUS! It says Heritage.org right in the lower right hand corner.

Again, the Bush numbers used accounting gimmicks to keep the bulk of Bush's DEFICIT SPENDING off budget. Obama eliminated the dishonest Bush gimmicks. Every Bush deficit was over $500 BILLION. His total deficit for EIGHT (8) years was $ 6 TRILLION, $2.5 trillion on budget and $3.5 trillion off budget. Bush spent more off budget than on!!!!!!!!! So your dishonest charts compare dishonest Bush bookkeeping to Obama's HONEST books!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
*Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise*

 By JACKIE CALMES
  Published: February 19, 2009 
               WASHINGTON  For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush  used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest  bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the  next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration  officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses. 
But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax. 


Recent presidents and Congresses were complicit in the ploy involving  the alternative minimum tax. While that tax was intended to hit the  wealthiest taxpayers, it was not indexed for inflation. That fact and  the tax breaks of the Bush years have meant that it could affect  millions of middle-class taxpayers. 
*If they paid it, the  government would get billions of dollars more in tax revenues, which is  what past budgets have projected.* But it would also probably mean a  taxpayer revolt. So *each year the White House and Congress agree to  patch the alternative tax for inflation, and the extra revenues never  materialize.*


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...


Dang you are STUPID. There was a lot more than TARP and the bailouts OFF BUDGET!!!!! Bush used 4, count them FOUR, accounting gimmicks to create his phony budget deficits. These were pointed out to you earlier in this thread and you simply ignore them and post the same 7 year budget lies over and over. No matter how many times you post Bush budgets that use the gimmicks and compare them to Obama's budget that doesn't use the gimmicks you expose your complete dishonesty!!!


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

*edthecynic wrote:*


> Hey DOOFUS! It says Heritage.org right in the lower right hand corner.


*THE SOURCE SAYS CBO, YOU ILLITERATE, BRAINWASHED MORON.  HERITAGE ONLY POSTED IT.  STILL NIT PICKIN?  Of course you are, you know you're beat, and now you're just flat out LYING.*



> Again, the Bush numbers used accounting gimmicks to keep the bulk of Bush's DEFICIT SPENDING off budget. Obama eliminated the dishonest Bush gimmicks. Every Bush deficit was over $500 BILLION. His total deficit for EIGHT (8) years was $ 6 TRILLION, $2.5 trillion on budget and $3.5 trillion off budget. Bush spent more off budget than on!!!!!!!!! So your dishonest charts compare dishonest Bush bookkeeping to Obama's HONEST books!!!


*LOL EVEN THE LEFTY I SITES I CITED SHIT ON YOUR ASININE CLAIM FROM THE LYING, BIAS, LEFTY NYT.  Damn dude no wonder you have so few rep points and NO FRIENDS HERE. *




> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
> *Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise*
> 
> By JACKIE CALMES
> ...




*NEWSFLASH MORON: THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE IS THE BIBLE WHEN IT COMES TO DEFICITS AND DEBT, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY MORE TRUSTWORTHY THAN THE FAR LEFT NYT.  YOUR LINK EVEN SAYS "DEFICITS WILL RISE"  THANKS FOR PWNING YOURSELF.*

*Is this it?  This seriously the BEST you can do?

It's over Obamabot, YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T REFUTE THESE ARTICLES, LINKS, HELL YOU COULDN'T EVEN REFUTE MY LAST SET.*

I'M PWNING YOUR SHEEP ASS WITH LEFTY SITES NOW.  This is how bad you're FAILING.

Give it up troll.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





I gotta double pwn you now?  Damn.....
*
The theories from your insanely bias, flawed, lying, NYT are pwned BY MY OFFICIAL FIGURES FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.*

It's over sheep.  You're clearly melting down.  You can't refute SHIT, just post asinine claims from JOKE SOURCES.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 29, 2010)

> [edit] Deficit
> 
> With projected receipts less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicts a net deficit of approximately $400 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $11.4 trillion. Actual tax receipts totaled approximately $2.1 trillion - significantly less than the $2.7 trillion expected. The actual deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion.





> The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.


2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...


The CBO numbers for Bush use the 4 gimmicks, and you know it. Play dumb all you want, but you fool no one but yourself.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

*Oh no.......am I doin it?  Yes I am, IMA PWN edthecynic USING HIS PRECIOUS NYT:*


*Economic View
Whats Sustainable About This Budget?*

By N. GREGORY MANKIW
Published: February 13, 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMAS 2011 budget, released this month, bears the title A New Era of Responsibility.
David G. Klein

Lets invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt, the president said in his State of the Union address. Lets meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here.

Noble aspirations, indeed. *But do the numbers inside the document support the rhetoric surrounding it?*

*It may be tempting to assume that a balanced budget is the natural benchmark. Certainly, the Obama budget comes nowhere close to achieving that goal.* But there are reasons to think that this standard is far too strict.

*Recent history illustrates this principle. From 2005 to 2007, before the recession and financial crisis, the federal government ran budget deficits, but they averaged less than 2 percent of gross domestic product. Because this borrowing was moderate in magnitude and the economy was growing at about its normal rate, the federal debt held by the public fell from 36.8 percent of gross domestic product at the end of the 2004 fiscal year to 36.2 percent three years later.

That is, despite substantial wartime spending during this period, budget deficits were small enough to keep the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio under control.**

The troubling feature of Mr. Obamas budget is that it fails to return the federal government to manageable budget deficits, even as the wars wind down and the economy recovers from the recession. According to the administrations own numbers, the budget deficit under the presidents proposed policies will never fall below 3.6 percent of G.D.P. By 2020, the end of the planning horizon, it will be 4.2 percent and rising.*

*As a result, the governments debts will grow faster than the economy. The administration projects that the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio will rise in each of the next 10 years. By 2020, the governments debts will equal 77.2 percent of G.D.P. This level of indebtedness has not been seen since 1950, in the aftermath of the borrowing to finance World War II.*

*Making matters worse, these bleak budget projections are based on relatively optimistic economic assumptions. The administration forecasts economic growth of 3.0 percent from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2010, followed by 4.3 percent the next year. By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office predicts growth of 2.1 percent and 2.4 percent for these two years. Lower growth would mean less tax revenue, larger budget deficits and a more rapidly increasing debt-to-G.D.P. ratio.*
*
The president seems to understand that the fiscal plan presented in his budget is not sustainable and, as such, is not really a plan at all. That is why the budget prominently calls for a fiscal commission that will be charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation. The goal, the budget says, is to stabilize the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio at an acceptable level once the economy recovers.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/economy/14view.html


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

Annnnd THAT'S what I call some megapwnage people.

Ima bounce now, gettin tired.  I'll leave edthecynic to continue to lie, distort, and slander his way into a continuing troll fit as there's really no way he can come back from this humiliation.

It's obvious he's yet another, sad, brainwashed Obamabot, with asinine claims from joke sources.

Worst part is, I just finished em off with his most precious source.

Now sheep, when you see your stupid name on my pwned belt, you'll know, and never forget why.  Save some face, run, and go learn how to actually debate somewhere.  Take the advice.........

Case.  Set.  Match.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> *edthecynic wrote:*
> 
> 
> > Hey DOOFUS! It says Heritage.org right in the lower right hand corner.
> ...


Well then, you should have no trouble linking to CBO directly to get the chart!!!!!

Again you show your complete ignorance of how your OWN CON$ervative sources lie to you. It was Heritage who took CBO numbers that used Bush's 4 gimmicks and DISHONESTLY combined them in a chart with Obama's that don't use the same gimmicks. You will not find that chart anywhere on the CBO web site!!!!! 

And that is exactly why you are a typical CON$ervative, you are tooooooo STUPID to know when you've been lied to even after it's been shown to you!


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> *Oh no.......am I doin it?  Yes I am, IMA PWN edthecynic USING HIS PRECIOUS NYT:*
> 
> 
> *Economic View
> ...


*
The NY Times has many CON$ervative writers and all CON$ cook their stats because thay know fools like you are tooooooo STUPID to catch them. That is why no honest person ever trusts any stat from a CON$ervative source.

I highlighted in red very obvious cooking of the stats that you completely missed.

First of all the writer is using debt numbers that use Bush's 4 gimmicks making his deficits look smaller. Second he is not including ALL debt only "PUBLIC DEBT." TOTAL debt is the public debt PLUS the inter-governmental DEBT, which is money borrowed from the SS surplus, etc. I especially like how the liar brings up "substantial wartime spending" when he knows that spending was not included in the debt figures, and YOU swallowed it whole!!! 

So rather than the debt to GDP falling from 36.8% in 2004 to 36.2% the TOTAL debt ratio ROSE from 62.18% in 2004 to 63.99% in 2007.

Total debt to GDP was 56.46% in Clinton's last budget and 83.29% with Bush's last budget!!!!*


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...



Listen.  Please.  

1)  Your source for this information did not adjust the historical numbers for inflation, so the comparison is meaningless.  Period.

2)  Debt is created when revenues are lower than spending.  That means, now pay attention, please, that if tax revenues fall, which normally occurs in a recession, that contributes to the debt.  Now look at this chart:






See what happens in 2009 and 2010?  The 2 years of the 111th Congress?  Revenues are down from 2008 both years.  That loss of revenue contributed to the deficits of those 2 years, but, and this is important so please pay attention,

that revenue loss was not caused by the 111th Congress's spending.

See?  So, in short, the claims of the source you cited are simply inaccurate.

You shouldn't try to make points based on inaccurate data, or premises, or assumptions.  That makes for a bad argument, and that's why you will inevitably get shot down, refuted, and, most likely, mocked in the process.  

It's not fun to be wrong, but it is avoidable, if you're willing to work a little at it.


----------



## editec (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Take a gooood gander there lefties. While I'm sure this type of fiscal suicide pleases yall in the name of some type of "equality", I would still like to see yall explain away this insanity, or still, somehow claim that this treasonous, socialist, epic fail is ANYTHING other than THAT.
> 
> 
> (CNSNews.com) - The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)&#8212;during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.
> ...


 
So you must just HATE the Republican/Democratic compromise, right?

You know the one that will be forcing the government to borrow another $800 billion dollars?


----------



## Ropey (Dec 29, 2010)

Obama is attempting to reverse the method of castrating the other party, called "Starving the Beast" which is usually the method of the Republicans. It's been turned on them and they do not like it as this means that when they get into office, there's not much money around for what the Dems call aggressive war.

I will be interested to see how the Republicans extricate themselves from this 'choking off' when next in power.

Interesting times ahead.

Starve the beast

Starving the beast can get pretty interesting.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 29, 2010)

Ropey said:


> Obama is attempting to reverse the method of castrating the other party, called "Starving the Beast" which is usually the method of the Republicans. It's been turned on them and they do not like it as this means that when they get into office, there's not much money around for what the Dems call aggressive war.
> 
> I will be interested to see how the Republicans extricate themselves from this 'choking off' when next in power.
> 
> ...



Starving the beast has never worked, it's not working, and it can never work.

The beast has a credit card.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...



What a crock!
From the conservative Cato Institute!

*Dont Blame Obama for Bushs 2009 Deficit*

Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obamas policies have led to an explosion of debt. 
[chart]

. . . But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House


Don&#8217;t Blame Obama for Bush&#8217;s 2009 Deficit | Cato @ Liberty


----------



## pubrela (Jul 18, 2011)

Yep...and they continue to spend


----------



## Lasher (Jul 18, 2011)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Take a gooood gander there lefties.  While I'm sure this type of fiscal suicide pleases yall in the name of some type of "equality", I would still like to see yall explain away this insanity, or still, somehow claim that this treasonous, socialist, epic fail is ANYTHING other than THAT.
> 
> 
> (CNSNews.com) - The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.
> ...



__________________
"THIS is what a young, urban, Latino, GAY REPUBLICAN looks like now adays."-ME
"THERE IS 1 GOD, HE IS YAHWEH. THE ONLY WAY TO HIM IS THRU HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST. FIND HIM BY FOLLOWING THE HOLY SPIRIT. OR FOLLOW YOURSELF TO HELL MOTHERFUCKER."-ME

Just curious - does all this self-deprecation really apply to you, and why do you find it necessary to let everyone here know these facts?


----------



## Polk (Jul 18, 2011)

The OP is a great mathematician. He found a way to make 3.5 trillion greater than 10 trillion.


----------



## Modbert (Jul 18, 2011)

pubrela said:


> Yep...and they continue to spend



And that was your contribution as to why a 7 month old dead thread had to be necro'ed?


----------



## CountofTuscany (Jul 19, 2011)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Take a gooood gander there lefties.  While I'm sure this type of fiscal suicide pleases yall in the name of some type of "equality", I would still like to see yall explain away this insanity, or still, somehow claim that this treasonous, socialist, epic fail is ANYTHING other than THAT.
> 
> 
> (CNSNews.com) - The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.
> ...


And they still have more time to rack up more.


----------

