Federal Reserve: Americans $9 Trillion Richer...

[Chris]

That was not a reply.

And your point? You need to add some commentary so we A)Know what you're trying to argue, and B)We know you even have an idea about what you're posting, something I seriously doubt.

So I'm going to try and guess at what you're trying to say since words seemed to have escaped you.

You may be trying to say that Bush increased the debt as a percentage, which is true but Obama has increased it far faster despite what you say about him being some savior of the economy. Whoever made that graph (looks like someone with few computer resources) neglected to include the line where Obama took office, which was right at the start of the huge upswing in debt levels we're experiencing.

You may also be trying to argue that the current debt levels are no big deal because they were higher during FDR as the graph shows. We were not in a debt crises at that time and added debt actually had more power to increase growth back then, we experienced growth at nearly 10% during that time. Now, Obama has also increased debt at a very fast rate too, and yet our economy is still hardly growing. I would feel a lot better about accumulating this much debt if it actually paid off, but obviously it's not.

My point is that...

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

ReaganBushDebt.org

And the current financial crisis was caused by the deregulation of Wall Street by Republican Senator Phil Gramm.

Phil Gramm Says the Banking Crisis Is (Mostly) Not His Fault - TIME

 

[likeabird03]

That was not a reply.

And your point? You need to add some commentary so we A)Know what you're trying to argue, and B)We know you even have an idea about what you're posting, something I seriously doubt.

So I'm going to try and guess at what you're trying to say since words seemed to have escaped you.

You may be trying to say that Bush increased the debt as a percentage, which is true but Obama has increased it far faster despite what you say about him being some savior of the economy. Whoever made that graph (looks like someone with few computer resources) neglected to include the line where Obama took office, which was right at the start of the huge upswing in debt levels we're experiencing.

You may also be trying to argue that the current debt levels are no big deal because they were higher during FDR as the graph shows. We were not in a debt crises at that time and added debt actually had more power to increase growth back then, we experienced growth at nearly 10% during that time. Now, Obama has also increased debt at a very fast rate too, and yet our economy is still hardly growing. I would feel a lot better about accumulating this much debt if it actually paid off, but obviously it's not.

My point is that...

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

ReaganBushDebt.org

And the current financial crisis was caused by the deregulation of Wall Street by Republican Senator Phil Gramm.

Phil Gramm Says the Banking Crisis Is (Mostly) Not His Fault - TIME

Are you seriously retarded, how on earth is anyone supposed to know that you're talking about how 93% of the debt is from Bush's and Reagans taxcuts (statistically impossible - 35% of the debt is obamas in just three years) and about banking regulation? All you posted was a nondescript graph with zero words.

 

[Chris]

That was not a reply.

And your point? You need to add some commentary so we A)Know what you're trying to argue, and B)We know you even have an idea about what you're posting, something I seriously doubt.

So I'm going to try and guess at what you're trying to say since words seemed to have escaped you.

You may be trying to say that Bush increased the debt as a percentage, which is true but Obama has increased it far faster despite what you say about him being some savior of the economy. Whoever made that graph (looks like someone with few computer resources) neglected to include the line where Obama took office, which was right at the start of the huge upswing in debt levels we're experiencing.

You may also be trying to argue that the current debt levels are no big deal because they were higher during FDR as the graph shows. We were not in a debt crises at that time and added debt actually had more power to increase growth back then, we experienced growth at nearly 10% during that time. Now, Obama has also increased debt at a very fast rate too, and yet our economy is still hardly growing. I would feel a lot better about accumulating this much debt if it actually paid off, but obviously it's not.

My point is that...

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

ReaganBushDebt.org

And the current financial crisis was caused by the deregulation of Wall Street by Republican Senator Phil Gramm.

Phil Gramm Says the Banking Crisis Is (Mostly) Not His Fault - TIME

Are you seriously retarded, how on earth is anyone supposed to know that you're talking about how 93% of the debt is from Bush's and Reagans taxcuts (statistically impossible - 35% of the debt is obamas in just three years) and about banking regulation? All you posted was a nondescript graph with zero words.

I will explain it in simple terms.

Most of our National Debt was created by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, said the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to cut taxes for the rich.

Phil Gramm's amendment allowed the creation of the derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

So Republican policies of tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of Wall Street are directly responsible for our huge National Debt and the financial collapse.

What do we do now?

Obama has already solved the deficit problem by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in Dec. 2012, and letting the spending cuts kick in in Jan. 2013.

The only other thing that need to be done is to bring back Glass-Steagall to reregulate Wall Street.

 

[likeabird03]

My point is that...

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

ReaganBushDebt.org

And the current financial crisis was caused by the deregulation of Wall Street by Republican Senator Phil Gramm.

Phil Gramm Says the Banking Crisis Is (Mostly) Not His Fault - TIME

Are you seriously retarded, how on earth is anyone supposed to know that you're talking about how 93% of the debt is from Bush's and Reagans taxcuts (statistically impossible - 35% of the debt is obamas in just three years) and about banking regulation? All you posted was a nondescript graph with zero words.

I will explain it in simple terms.

Most of our National Debt was created by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.

Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, said the tax cuts were a "trojan horse" to cut taxes for the rich.

Phil Gramm's amendment allowed the creation of the derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

So Republican policies of tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of Wall Street are directly responsible for our huge National Debt and the financial collapse.

What do we do now?

Obama has already solved the deficit problem by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in Dec. 2012, and letting the spending cuts kick in in Jan. 2013.

The only other thing that need to be done is to bring back Glass-Steagall to reregulate Wall Street.

Not true, because while revenue is either about the same to slightly down, spending has skyrocketed under Obama. Hence the sort of deficit we're experiencing at this time. Repealing taxcuts for the rich won't plug that hole. You were right about it being less of a problem come Jan 2013 though, because that's when we'll have a president for the first time in a while.

You like graphs don't you?

 

[Sundial]

Start pointing out Obama's record and the subject becomes "BOOOSH! DAT BOOOSHHH!" Never fails.
Obama is the worst president in US history. Hell, he is the worst president ever.

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

Obama saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, doubled the stock market, created 7 straight quarters of GDP growth, created 19 straight months of private sector job growth, got Bin Laden, got Gaddafi, and got us out of Iraq.

And now with the automatic spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2012, Obama has solved the deficit problem as well.

Obama has done a very good job.

Bush caused a trillion dollar deficit?

Oh and 7 quarters of sub-par GDP growth is hardly impressive historically. In fact it's the weakest recovery on record.

Your charts are intentionally misleading. The 09 fiscal year started in Sept. 08, and the budget was made by Bush, not Obama.

So, yes, Bush created a $1 trillion+ federal deficit.

And the recovery is not the "weakest on record". The recovery from the first Bush recession was slower than this one.

 

[likeabird03]

Your charts are intentionally misleading. The 09 fiscal year started in Sept. 08, and the budget was made by Bush, not Obama.

So, yes, Bush created a $1 trillion+ federal deficit.

And the recovery is not the "weakest on record". The recovery from the first Bush recession was slower than this one.

The fiscal year began 3 months before Obama took office but the reckless spending did not. Yes, we had TARP but that has so far been mostly paid back, and instead of it going back into the treasury - it got spent under Obama. So I don't believe that to really count to be honest with you.

The bush recovery was a little slower but two years into it we were growing at a much stronger rate than we are at this time. Also, the recession was the smallest on record and we didn't need as much growth to get out of it. Now is a different story. Historically deep recessions have fast rebounds, but not this time.

I'll take on both of you guys I don't care. Well really it's one anyway since Chris is incapable.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I haven't bothered clicking on the link, but does it bother mentioning how much the dollar has declined in value in that timespan?

CPI 1/1/9 = 211.143
CPI 1/4/11 = 224.906

6.5%, or 2.8% annual average.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'll tell you why that is-

The stock market has increased about 80% - and you know who that mostly benefits.

People close to retirement.

They've been priting money. A large amount of personal debts have been charged off. The Value of that dollar has fallen about 20% since then.

Where did you come up with that 20% figure?

 

[likeabird03]

I'll tell you why that is-

The stock market has increased about 80% - and you know who that mostly benefits.

People close to retirement.

They've been priting money. A large amount of personal debts have been charged off. The Value of that dollar has fallen about 20% since then.

Where did you come up with that 20% figure?

Dollar index, as measured compared to a basket of international currencies. All that money printing has an effect believe it or not.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That was not a reply.

And your point? You need to add some commentary so we A)Know what you're trying to argue, and B)We know you even have an idea about what you're posting, something I seriously doubt.

So I'm going to try and guess at what you're trying to say since words seemed to have escaped you.

You may be trying to say that Bush increased the debt as a percentage, which is true but Obama has increased it far faster despite what you say about him being some savior of the economy. Whoever made that graph (looks like someone with few computer resources) neglected to include the line where Obama took office, which was right at the start of the huge upswing in debt levels we're experiencing.

You may also be trying to argue that the current debt levels are no big deal because they were higher during FDR as the graph shows. We were not in a debt crises at that time and added debt actually had more power to increase growth back then, we experienced growth at nearly 10% during that time. Now, Obama has also increased debt at a very fast rate too, and yet our economy is still hardly growing. I would feel a lot better about accumulating this much debt if it actually paid off, but obviously it's not.

My point is that...

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

ReaganBushDebt.org

And the current financial crisis was caused by the deregulation of Wall Street by Republican Senator Phil Gramm.

Phil Gramm Says the Banking Crisis Is (Mostly) Not His Fault - TIME

Are you seriously retarded, how on earth is anyone supposed to know that you're talking about how 93% of the debt is from Bush's and Reagans taxcuts (statistically impossible - 35% of the debt is obamas in just three years) and about banking regulation? All you posted was a nondescript graph with zero words.

The Bush tax cuts are still in effect.

 

[likeabird03]

The 09 fiscal year started in Sept. 08, and the budget was made by Bush, not Obama.

So, yes, Bush created a $1 trillion+ federal deficit.

Bush did pass that budget, and that was the last time one was ever passed by the way. However I don't remember Bush passing the 800 billion dollar stimulus package, that's a huge chunk of the deficit right there. Stop lying.

 

[likeabird03]

My point is that...

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

ReaganBushDebt.org

And the current financial crisis was caused by the deregulation of Wall Street by Republican Senator Phil Gramm.

Phil Gramm Says the Banking Crisis Is (Mostly) Not His Fault - TIME

Are you seriously retarded, how on earth is anyone supposed to know that you're talking about how 93% of the debt is from Bush's and Reagans taxcuts (statistically impossible - 35% of the debt is obamas in just three years) and about banking regulation? All you posted was a nondescript graph with zero words.

The Bush tax cuts are still in effect.

They were also there during much of the bush administration too, when the deficit was a fraction of what it is now.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Are you seriously retarded, how on earth is anyone supposed to know that you're talking about how 93% of the debt is from Bush's and Reagans taxcuts (statistically impossible - 35% of the debt is obamas in just three years) and about banking regulation? All you posted was a nondescript graph with zero words.

The Bush tax cuts are still in effect.

They were also there during much of the bush administration too, when the deficit was a fraction of what it is now.

Well duh, the economy wasn't doing as poorly.

 

[likeabird03]

The Bush tax cuts are still in effect.

They were also there during much of the bush administration too, when the deficit was a fraction of what it is now.

Well duh, the economy wasn't doing as poorly.

Yes, and it did impact revenue somewhat. But that was also before annual spending increased 38% under Obama.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They were also there during much of the bush administration too, when the deficit was a fraction of what it is now.

Well duh, the economy wasn't doing as poorly.

Yes, and it did impact revenue somewhat. But that was also before annual spending increased 38% under Obama.

Somewhat?

 

[likeabird03]

Well duh, the economy wasn't doing as poorly.

Yes, and it did impact revenue somewhat. But that was also before annual spending increased 38% under Obama.

Somewhat?

Obviously revenue has not dropped off nearly as much as spending has increased, as the graph shows.

 

[likeabird03]

May I ask how you propose stopping revenue from declining in a recession? Apart from raising taxes of course, which wouldn't exactly be wise in a recession.

 

[Sundial]

Your charts are intentionally misleading. The 09 fiscal year started in Sept. 08, and the budget was made by Bush, not Obama.

So, yes, Bush created a $1 trillion+ federal deficit.

And the recovery is not the "weakest on record". The recovery from the first Bush recession was slower than this one.

The fiscal year began 3 months before Obama took office but the reckless spending did not. Yes, we had TARP but that has so far been mostly paid back, and instead of it going back into the treasury - it got spent under Obama. So I don't believe that to really count to be honest with you.

The bush recovery was a little slower but two years into it we were growing at a much stronger rate than we are at this time. Also, the recession was the smallest on record and we didn't need as much growth to get out of it. Now is a different story. Historically deep recessions have fast rebounds, but not this time.

I'll take on both of you guys I don't care. Well really it's one anyway since Chris is incapable.

The Federal deficit was already at -$800 billion when Bush left office. More importantly, the appropriations process was done. The spending and revenue plans were already in place. The first year in office, a new president has to deal with what's been done before he got there.

The 2001 recession ended in Nov. 01. A year and a half later, the economy was still shedding jobs. This time around, the recession began in 2007 and ended the summer of 2009. We've been adding jobs since the beginning of 2010 - almost two years now.

I'm not sure why you say historically deep recessions have fast rebounds. The Great Depression began in 1929. The country didn't really recover until after the second world war was over.

 

[likeabird03]

Your charts are intentionally misleading. The 09 fiscal year started in Sept. 08, and the budget was made by Bush, not Obama.

So, yes, Bush created a $1 trillion+ federal deficit.

And the recovery is not the "weakest on record". The recovery from the first Bush recession was slower than this one.

The fiscal year began 3 months before Obama took office but the reckless spending did not. Yes, we had TARP but that has so far been mostly paid back, and instead of it going back into the treasury - it got spent under Obama. So I don't believe that to really count to be honest with you.

The bush recovery was a little slower but two years into it we were growing at a much stronger rate than we are at this time. Also, the recession was the smallest on record and we didn't need as much growth to get out of it. Now is a different story. Historically deep recessions have fast rebounds, but not this time.

I'll take on both of you guys I don't care. Well really it's one anyway since Chris is incapable.

The Federal deficit was already at -$800 billion when Bush left office. More importantly, the appropriations process was done. The spending and revenue plans were already in place. The first year in office, a new president has to deal with what's been done before he got there.

I've already addressed this issue in regards to appropriations for TARP, which for the most part were recovered, with dividends, with the exception of some investments. And once again, there were many things not already in the budget, like the stimulus for instance.

The 2001 recession ended in Nov. 01. A year and a half later, the economy was still shedding jobs. This time around, the recession began in 2007 and ended the summer of 2009. We've been adding jobs since the beginning of 2010 - almost two years now.

The only gains we had in early 2010 were from census hiring, you could hardly attribute that to anything Obama did. We are two and a half years into the recovery and we're adding jobs at 100K/Month. Two and a half years in to the Bush recovery in the Spring of 2004 we we're picking up between 250K and 350K per month.

I'm not sure why you say historically deep recessions have fast rebounds. The Great Depression began in 1929. The country didn't really recover until after the second world war was over.

In the depression we lost something like a third of our GDP, a depression is very different in nature. I do give you credit for acknowledging that it wasn't the New Deal that got us out of the Depression though.

The reason I say deep recessions are followed by fast rebounds is because history shows us just that. The further the economy falls below it's long term potential or production possibilities frontier the faster it recovers because you have more pent up demand. It's called economics 1A.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your charts are intentionally misleading. The 09 fiscal year started in Sept. 08, and the budget was made by Bush, not Obama.

So, yes, Bush created a $1 trillion+ federal deficit.

And the recovery is not the "weakest on record". The recovery from the first Bush recession was slower than this one.

The fiscal year began 3 months before Obama took office but the reckless spending did not. Yes, we had TARP but that has so far been mostly paid back, and instead of it going back into the treasury - it got spent under Obama. So I don't believe that to really count to be honest with you.

The bush recovery was a little slower but two years into it we were growing at a much stronger rate than we are at this time. Also, the recession was the smallest on record and we didn't need as much growth to get out of it. Now is a different story. Historically deep recessions have fast rebounds, but not this time.

I'll take on both of you guys I don't care. Well really it's one anyway since Chris is incapable.

The Federal deficit was already at -$800 billion when Bush left office. More importantly, the appropriations process was done. The spending and revenue plans were already in place. The first year in office, a new president has to deal with what's been done before he got there.

The 2001 recession ended in Nov. 01. A year and a half later, the economy was still shedding jobs. This time around, the recession began in 2007 and ended the summer of 2009. We've been adding jobs since the beginning of 2010 - almost two years now.

I'm not sure why you say historically deep recessions have fast rebounds. The Great Depression began in 1929. The country didn't really recover until after the second world war was over.

Well, teh Federal deficit is twice that now. What did Obama and the Democrats do to address that? They spent MORE money.
If we've been adding jobs then why is the UE rate 9%, while under Bush it never broke 7%? We're not adding nearly the number of jobs we did under Bush, even during the 2000 recession.
THey don't have fast rebounds. They have steep rebounds, as the economy trends back towards its norm. The Great Depression became that way because of excessive gov't intervention that short circuited the natural stabilizers in a free market.
But the recovery from the 1980's recession was marked by strong growth. This is the weakest recovery on record, despite (or because of) the most gov't intervention post WW2.