Deficit Attention Disorder

[KnobbyWalsh]

Who knew?

Let me get this straight...

You're celebrating because your guy's deficits are decreasing...but we're supposed to just overlook that each of his deficits are the highest deficits in the history of the country?

Wow. That's quite a stretch there. You smell DESPERATE to find something good to say about the man.

Apparently, 'who knew' is not you.

Dude, you better worry about getting your fucked up foot-gear straight! You really CAN drive wearing those things?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, but what you can do is stop saying Obama is increasing the debt when the opposite is true.

Uh, you mean 'deficit'. Or don't you know the difference between the two?

Obama IS increasing the debt. His annual deficits are not increasing...and I never said they were. That makes you a liar.

You just like the lie, be honest.

You were saying?

Congrats, but you know every president has increased the debt, but being mad at only one shows you are skilled at cognitive dissonance

Still doesn't change the fact that yours went to the same party they did. You just don't want to acknowledge it. But hey, that didn't stop you from being mad at just one president when it was Bush. Congrats, you are now a hypocrite.

Quiet you.

 

[Star]

Yet, it's still higher than at any point in history...by a long shot.

Your yammering on like this is akin to the world's worst serial killer saying "The good news is that I killed fewer people this year than last year. Sure, I still killed more this year than any other serial killer in history...but at least I'm trending in the right direction. So I must be a good guy...yea me!"

Pathetic, just pathetic.

In 1968, LBJ added a 10% surcharge to personal income taxes resulting in a balanced budget in Nixon's first year in office -- how do you suggest we eliminate the deficit to reduce the debt?
.

Live within our means. Shocking, I know.

No shit Sherlock! but-----but why are you disembling? The question is, "In 1968, LBJ added a 10% surcharge to personal income taxes resulting in a balanced budget in Nixon's first year in office -- how do you suggest we eliminate the deficit to reduce the debt?"

I don't think most of the rightwingers on this message board are smart enough to answer, but you-----you of all the rightwingers on the USMB, you I thought was smart enough to have an answer for what you whine about - was I wrong about you?
.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Here is a simple math lesson:

Debt as it stands now under President Obama (5/1/13):

$16,758,168,229,380.21 (and counting)

Debt as it stood on Inauguration Day 2009:

$10,626,877,048,913.08

A difference of:

$6,131,291,180,467.13

Debt as it was on Inauguration Day 2001:

$5,727,776,738,304.64

Debt as it was the last day of Bush's last term:

$10,626,877,048,913.08

A difference of:

$4,899,100,310,608.44

So debt is going up 1.5 times as fast in half the time under The ONE.

It is already roughly 1 and 1/2 times the amount in just over 4 years as it took W to increase it in 8 years.

The lolberal Democrat noise machine (i.e, the main stream media) is doing a remarkable job of attempting to muddy the waters.

 

[FA_Q2]

Deficit amnesia my ass. Obama has spent an unprecedented amount. Bush started this retarded level of deficit spending on his last year and instead of reigning it back in, Obama used it as the new normal. Remember, that year includes the massive payoff to the banks because of their ineptitude. Even though that 700 billion dollar disaster accounts for a chunk of that spending, it never went away. We are still in major deficit mode that is averaging far more than twice what Bush’s red ink represents.
Historical Tables | The White House
2003 -377,585
2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701
2008 -458,553
2009 -1,412,688
2010 -1,294,373
2011 -1,299,593
2012 -1,086,963

There is no real reduction here. The deficits are HUGE and they are going to continue to be huge in the foreseeable future.

You need to go back further. Ronald Wilson Reagan began the modern practice of financing economic growth through deficit spending.

No, I don’t. The point was not about who started this mess but it was directly refuting Obama as being a big spender and creator of deficits. I need not look any further than Obama’s deficits and the one that he is being compared to – Bush. With Obama averaging over a trillion a year and Bush averaging over a 300 bill, I don’t see how we can call Obama a ‘small government spender.’ It is asinine and completely ignores current government spending trend. Look at the projections – the spending increases at an alarming rate (which is almost always projected to low) and they hope to counter that by massive increases in revenue (something that is always estimated to high).

The point is Obama’s deficits, not Reagans, and whining about him has no bearing on this topic.

 

[eflatminor]

In 1968, LBJ added a 10% surcharge to personal income taxes resulting in a balanced budget in Nixon's first year in office -- how do you suggest we eliminate the deficit to reduce the debt?
.

Live within our means. Shocking, I know.

No shit Sherlock! but-----but why are you disembling? The question is, "In 1968, LBJ added a 10% surcharge to personal income taxes resulting in a balanced budget in Nixon's first year in office -- how do you suggest we eliminate the deficit to reduce the debt?"

I don't think most of the rightwingers on this message board are smart enough to answer, but you-----you of all the rightwingers on the USMB, you I thought was smart enough to have an answer for what you whine about - was I wrong about you?
.

You cannot say with any level of certainty what measures resulted in more or less revenue to the government coffers. Your 10% surcharge may have very well resulted in a reduction if revenue (as tax rate increases sometimes do), while other factors bolstered the economy, resulting in more revenue. There is but one sure fire way to balance a budget. Don't spend what you don't have.

 

[Staidhup]

Here is the only link required to address this stream of nonsense.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

The problem with the liberal mindset is their inability to face reality.

 

[Darkwind]

The federal deficit has never fallen as fast as it’s falling now

Yet, it's still higher than at any point in history...by a long shot.

Your yammering on like this is akin to the world's worst serial killer saying "The good news is that I killed fewer people this year than last year. Sure, I still killed more this year than any other serial killer in history...but at least I'm trending in the right direction. So I must be a good guy...yea me!"

Pathetic, just pathetic.

In 1968, LBJ added a 10% surcharge to personal income taxes resulting in a balanced budget in Nixon's first year in office -- how do you suggest we eliminate the deficit to reduce the debt?
.

You take the percentage of deficit per year, double it and then cut the budget by that amount of dollars. Real dollars.

And guess what? Obama won't even have to wait until the first year of the next president to balance the budget.

He can have a balanced budget by Oct, 2013 AND he can use the surplus to pay down the debt at a rate in excess of the interest.

Do you have an answer OTHER than confiscating more money?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Uh, you mean 'deficit'. Or don't you know the difference between the two?

Obama IS increasing the debt. His annual deficits are not increasing...and I never said they were. That makes you a liar.



You were saying?

Congrats, but you know every president has increased the debt,

Duh. Everyone knows that.

But please, tell us again how Obama isn't increasing the debt...

but being mad at only one shows you are skilled at cognitive dissonance

What makes you think I supported ANY deficit spending? I did not, never have.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Obama's deficit spending is higher than any other president's...by a long shot, and regardless of which direction they're currently heading. Sorry if the truth doesn't fit your agenda.

So every Pres does it, but you're only mad at Obama. Got it.

 

[Freemason9]

Yet, it's still higher than at any point in history...by a long shot.

Your yammering on like this is akin to the world's worst serial killer saying "The good news is that I killed fewer people this year than last year. Sure, I still killed more this year than any other serial killer in history...but at least I'm trending in the right direction. So I must be a good guy...yea me!"

Pathetic, just pathetic.

Do you realize that ALL PRESIDENTS since Carter have presided over record deficits and record "debt?" This began with Ronald Wilson Reagan. Reagan increased federal spending to record levels and ran record deficits. So did Bush I, and Bush II.

Perhaps you are simply being a partisan hack.

No shit Sherlock. That doesn't change the fact that Obama's deficits are larger than any other President in history, by a long shot. That you won't acknowledge that fact makes you a...well, hack.

Beginning with Ronald Wilson Reagan, EVERY president's deficits have been the largest in history. By "long shots."

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do you realize that ALL PRESIDENTS since Carter have presided over record deficits and record "debt?" This began with Ronald Wilson Reagan. Reagan increased federal spending to record levels and ran record deficits. So did Bush I, and Bush II.

Perhaps you are simply being a partisan hack.

No shit Sherlock. That doesn't change the fact that Obama's deficits are larger than any other President in history, by a long shot. That you won't acknowledge that fact makes you a...well, hack.

Beginning with Ronald Wilson Reagan, EVERY president's deficits have been the largest in history. By "long shots."

He knows that too but his outrage gets lost when you talk about others Presidents, but it comes back when we talk about Obama because you know, deficits are important beginning in 2008

 

[Freemason9]

Also, deficits don't matter. I wish they didn't even publish a so-called "budget," that seems to simply create confusion. Most Americans somehow equate it to a credit card statement or a local government budget.

The difference, of course, is that the U.S. government creates money--it MUST do so to match economic growth (and, in the case of the economic collapse of 2007-08, to replace money that disappeared).