There was nothing wrong with the U.S. government in 2008

[Mr. Shaman]

The biggest mis conception of Obama is that he inherited a Government that was in shambles. The banking sector and the housing sector was in shambles but the U.S. govt. Was not in that bad of shape.
In fact:
2007 we were within 163 billion of a balanced budget
2008 we signed the peace treaty with Iraq that today we see has came to pass, all troops will be gone in 8 weeks or so
Tarp and the 250 billion that GWB Admin used stopped the banking collapsed and that sector was turned around in months. Not like it was in 07, but also not collapsing either. Most of that money we got back in months

So exactly what was it that Obama inherited that forced him to spend over 4 trillion dollars we did not have?

Tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy........​

January 13, 2008​

"The recession-deniers were muzzled by a horrendous last two weeks of December, and the gloom-and-doomers are now out in force. Their key arguments:

* Plummeting housing will now drag down the rest of the economy.

*The "bad debt" problem is not just "sub-prime" folks who should never have have taken out mortgages in the first place. It includes credit card debt, "high quality" mortgages, car loans, and other leverage that have recently become a consumer way of life.

*Pressure on consumers is leading to a reduction in consumer spending (70% of economy), which, in turn, will lead to a reduction in spending by companies that sell stuff to consumers.

*The question now is not "will there be a recession?" but "how bad will it get?"

*The most optimistic forecasts in a NYT gloom-and-doom round-up are for three crappy quarters, regardless of what the Fed does. Less optimistic forecasts suggest that we are, well, screwed.

After blowing the last downturn, we've been worried this one since last summer (see below). We also suspect that, given the importance of housing to the economy and debt to consumer spending, the recession will be deeper and more prolonged than people think."

"U.S. Economy Screwed"​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y04g6OPLnQ]Obama Dismantles Republican Caucus Part 1 of 7 - YouTube[/ame]

.

.

.

 

[JWBooth]

The world began with the birth of the Messiah GWB. We've suffered through that delusion in your other threads.


In 2008 the government taxed too much, spent too much, made war outside of any best interest of the nation, regulated too much, and inappropriately meddled in the affairs of others, just like it did in 1998, 1988, 1978, 1968, 1958, 1948, 1938, 1928...
That it does so much more now than it did three years ago does not excuse the excesses of the past.

 

[toxicmedia]

I can understand threads that want to minimize the Bush contribution to our economic woes...after all...Obama himself said give me three years or fire me.....so this whole "we didn't know how bad it really was" stuff isn't going to be choked down as easilly, at least not by me.

But to insinuate that there was nothing wrong in 2008, is poppycock!

2 unfinished expensive wars going badly...and a wrecked economy in need of TARP????.....nothing wrong?

 

[JRK]

The tax revenues of the government come from the market. When tax rates decline, revenue to the government declines. When the government spends a trillion dollars on unfunded wars and passes the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ, expenses go up. This is how we went from surpluses to deficits.

When the market recesses, tax receipts decline and automatic stabilizer spending increases. This is why the deficit increased in 2008.

Un funded war?
that is not true

No true? OK then, answer me this: when we added hundreds of billions of dollars to a budget that was already in deficit, which new revenue source was set up to cover the costs?

I did
We have sectors that if were not so restricted would create millions of jobs
the unfunded items in our budgets are the items such as well-fare. those are the un funded items, not the defense of this country'
Understand this and how our constitution was suppose to work
even with that go back to 07 spending levels as well as 4-5% UE we were fine. 2008 had a deficit, so did 2002-2003 from revenue loss

The 2008 budget had the cost of the wars just about as the total deficit, loss of revenue added 250 billion
that revenue loss was not 1.4 trillion
in 2008 we needed to find 200-300 billion budget cuts, not 1.4 trillion

The private sector caused the loss in revenue, not the federal govt

 

[JRK]

I can understand threads that want to minimize the Bush contribution to our economic woes...after all...Obama himself said give me three years or fire me.....so this whole "we didn't know how bad it really was" stuff isn't going to be choked down as easilly, at least not by me.

But to insinuate that there was nothing wrong in 2008, is poppycock!

2 unfinished expensive wars going badly...and a wrecked economy in need of TARP????.....nothing wrong?

2008 was a free market train wreck, not a US govt train wreck
Have you ever heard the phrase "never let a crises go to waste"

 

[JRK]

The world began with the birth of the Messiah GWB. We've suffered through that delusion in your other threads.


In 2008 the government taxed too much, spent too much, made war outside of any best interest of the nation, regulated too much, and inappropriately meddled in the affairs of others, just like it did in 1998, 1988, 1978, 1968, 1958, 1948, 1938, 1928...
That it does so much more now than it did three years ago does not excuse the excesses of the past.

Mr booth in 2008 we needed to find 250 billion in cuts to balance the budget
Now its closer to 1.25 trillion

Mr. Booth it is the resp. of the US govt to defend this country, not supply welfare
My thread was the govt did not cause the mess we had in 2008
the govt was not in that bad of shape, loss of revenue came from the private sector, not the US govt until 2009 when heavy regulations were added to the fossil fuel industry

 

[toxicmedia]

I can understand threads that want to minimize the Bush contribution to our economic woes...after all...Obama himself said give me three years or fire me.....so this whole "we didn't know how bad it really was" stuff isn't going to be choked down as easilly, at least not by me.

But to insinuate that there was nothing wrong in 2008, is poppycock!

2 unfinished expensive wars going badly...and a wrecked economy in need of TARP????.....nothing wrong?

2008 was a free market train wreck, not a US govt train wreck
Have you ever heard the phrase "never let a crises go to waste"

Absolutely correct......and if there isn't a crisis.....both sides will typically manufacture a phony one, complete with all the righeous phony moral outrage for it.

Typical electioneering strategy for the party that's out of power.

 

[grunt11b]

The biggest mis conception of Obama is that he inherited a Government that was in shambles. The banking sector and the housing sector was in shambles but the U.S. govt. Was not in that bad of shape.
In fact:
2007 we were within 163 billion of a balanced budget
2008 we signed the peace treaty with Iraq that today we see has came to pass, all troops will be gone in 8 weeks or so
Tarp and the 250 billion that GWB Admin used stopped the banking collapsed and that sector was turned around in months. Not like it was in 07, but also not collapsing either. Most of that money we got back in months

So exactly what was it that Obama inherited that forced him to spend over 4 trillion dollars we did not have?

The white house, congress and senate, and alot of IOU's.

 

[8537]

Un funded war?
that is not true

No true? OK then, answer me this: when we added hundreds of billions of dollars to a budget that was already in deficit, which new revenue source was set up to cover the costs?

I did
We have sectors that if were not so restricted would create millions of jobs
the unfunded items in our budgets are the items such as well-fare. those are the un funded items, not the defense of this country'
Understand this and how our constitution was suppose to work
even with that go back to 07 spending levels as well as 4-5% UE we were fine. 2008 had a deficit, so did 2002-2003 from revenue loss

You didn't answer my question, you simply regurgitated the three or four talking points you use every time. Do you retype those or just cut and paste?

Which new revenue stream funded the expenses related to the war?

By the way, welfare is funded - quite specifically, in fact. Most programs that we now call welfare were funded by LBJ upon their creation via payroll taxes and a broad-based tax hike. TANF was funded when Clinton signed it into law by transferring moneys out of other related programs.

 

[JRK]

Under Bush the war was funded outside of the budget.
Under Obama the war is funded under the budget.
One difference that I agree with.

That makes no difference to the bottom line. It also should be noted that defending this country is an item our Government is mandated by the constitution to be doing

 

[JRK]

No true? OK then, answer me this: when we added hundreds of billions of dollars to a budget that was already in deficit, which new revenue source was set up to cover the costs?

I did
We have sectors that if were not so restricted would create millions of jobs
the unfunded items in our budgets are the items such as well-fare. those are the un funded items, not the defense of this country'
Understand this and how our constitution was suppose to work
even with that go back to 07 spending levels as well as 4-5% UE we were fine. 2008 had a deficit, so did 2002-2003 from revenue loss

You didn't answer my question, you simply regurgitated the three or four talking points you use every time. Do you retype those or just cut and paste?

Which new revenue stream funded the expenses related to the war?

By the way, welfare is funded - quite specifically, in fact. Most programs that we now call welfare were funded by LBJ upon their creation via payroll taxes and a broad-based tax hike. TANF was funded when Clinton signed it into law by transferring moneys out of other related programs.

No I will not
My tax dollars are by the constitution suppose to defend this country. where we are missing revenue is funding those programs, not the defense of this country

 

[JRK]

$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
spent

Payroll tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
$927.2 billion
income from payroll and SS tax
you want to keep doing this?

as you can see this is where the un funded liability is, not the defense of this country
This is from 2008 and what we needed is 2 million jobs for lost revenue and about 250 billion trimmed here to break even

 

[JWBooth]

Sonny I have never run across a more obtuse individual than yourself.
Yes, Obama is an economic train wreck, but to keep defending the awful economic manipulations under Bush as some sort of high point of human achievement is absurd to the point of astonishing. Every single thing these libs have said about his administration is true. It doesn't excuse that Obama is worse by comparison, but it doesn't make their points any less accurate.

The unnecessary war in Iraq had nothing to very little to do with national defense. Saddam was no threat to anybody but his own citizens. BFD, that describes most of the world's leaders. Going hugely in debt to the Chinese to pay for that absurdity? Now that is a national security problem and it was brought upon us by our own leadership.

 

[8537]

I did
We have sectors that if were not so restricted would create millions of jobs
the unfunded items in our budgets are the items such as well-fare. those are the un funded items, not the defense of this country'
Understand this and how our constitution was suppose to work
even with that go back to 07 spending levels as well as 4-5% UE we were fine. 2008 had a deficit, so did 2002-2003 from revenue loss

You didn't answer my question, you simply regurgitated the three or four talking points you use every time. Do you retype those or just cut and paste?

Which new revenue stream funded the expenses related to the war?

By the way, welfare is funded - quite specifically, in fact. Most programs that we now call welfare were funded by LBJ upon their creation via payroll taxes and a broad-based tax hike. TANF was funded when Clinton signed it into law by transferring moneys out of other related programs.

No I will not
My tax dollars are by the constitution suppose to defend this country. where we are missing revenue is funding those programs, not the defense of this country

So you admit there was no new revenue stream to fund a new program we call "war with Iraq"?

 

[8537]

$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
spent

Payroll tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
$927.2 billion
income from payroll and SS tax
you want to keep doing this?

as you can see this is where the un funded liability is, not the defense of this country
This is from 2008 and what we needed is 2 million jobs for lost revenue and about 250 billion trimmed here to break even

What in the world are you talking about? Those SS and Medicare expense are paid out of the trillions in the fund - paid for.

The war? No trillions set aside to pay for it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The biggest mis conception of Obama is that he inherited a Government that was in shambles.

That is a misconception. The government was fine, it was the economy that was in shambles.

The consequence of six years of tax cuts, deficit spending, and government expansion by the Republican Congress, and the legislation signed into law by GWB, was a deep and massive recession starting in December 2007.

Obama did indeed inherit this economic disaster, and his and subsequent administrations will be working to repair the damage, perhaps for another decade.

 

[JRK]

Sonny I have never run across a more obtuse individual than yourself.
Yes, Obama is an economic train wreck, but to keep defending the awful economic manipulations under Bush as some sort of high point of human achievement is absurd to the point of astonishing. Every single thing these libs have said about his administration is true. It doesn't excuse that Obama is worse by comparison, but it doesn't make their points any less accurate.

The unnecessary war in Iraq had nothing to very little to do with national defense. Saddam was no threat to anybody but his own citizens. BFD, that describes most of the world's leaders. Going hugely in debt to the Chinese to pay for that absurdity? Now that is a national security problem and it was brought upon us by our own leadership.

The Iraq war had the full support of congress, not just GWB, BI PARTISAN SUPPORT
what you see as national defense must not be the same those we elected to represent us seen

Our leadership? how did we ever get in a place were the left is so brain washed that GWB gets the blame for the things Saddam did and did not do that caused that war?
I my mind that is treason. Dis agreeing with the war is a right, that came the 2004 election you had the chance to speak it. To blame the Iraq war on us after 9-11 and 12 years of Saddam lying is irrational

Saddam's Iraq and Support for Terrorism

My testimony focuses on the role and actions of Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism under the control of Saddam Husayn. Iraq under Saddam was a major state sponsor of international terrorism:

Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities or freely use territory under the regime's direct control without explicit permission from Saddam.
Saddam used foreign terrorist groups as an instrument of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection if he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encouraged to attack those Saddam wanted to pressure. If they refused Saddam's "requests," they were exiled from Iraq

raining Camps. Two defectors, one of whom claimed to be a senior mukhabarat officer, alleged they had worked at an Iraqi camp south of Baghdad called Salman Pak, where Islamist terrorists had been trained since 1995. The training included, in particular, hijacking techniques useful in seizing aircraft like the American-made Boeing model in use there. How did the defectors know these were Islamists? The defectors said the men prayed and had beards, obviously marking them as Islamists in Saddam's secular Iraq. The information on the Islamists was provided by the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and was not confirmed by other sources. The existence of a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak has been long known, but the aircraft used for training was an old Soviet Antonov and not a Boeing 707, as the INC sources claimed. See Chris Hedges, "Defectors Cite Iraqi Training for Terrorism," The New York Times, 8 November 2001.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...kYSRAw&usg=AFQjCNFNNIZsb90jtDvGqYZlGW_9LZ3R4w


Just weeks after Clinton bombed the daylights out of suspected hideaways for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, he used his January 1999 State of the Union Address to warn America about both bin Laden and Saddam, mentioning the two terror kingpins almost in the same breath. "We will defend our security wherever we are threatened - as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden's network of terror," Clinton told Congress and the nation. "The bombing our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania reminds us again of the risks faced every day by those who represent America to the world." Moments later Clinton segued into the threat posed by Saddam:

"For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will continue to contain Saddam, and we will work for the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people." But rather than launch an all out assault on what reporters now call the "dubious" assertion that Saddam and bin Laden had made common cause, the press took Clinton's ball and ran with it.

In fact, as researched and documented this week by FrontPageMagazine.com, in 1999 the national news media was replete with reports linking the Butcher of Baghdad and the man who masterminded the killing of 3,000 Americans almost two years ago.

Here are a few highlights gathered by FrontPage from the press' Saddam-bin Laden file – stories that have since conveniently disappeared down the media's memory hole:

Associated Press Worldstream

Feb. 14, 1999 Taliban leader says whereabouts of bin Laden unknown

... Analysts say bin Laden's options for asylum are limited.

Iraq was considered a possible destination because bin Laden had received an invitation from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last month. And Somalia was a third possible destination because of its anarchy and violent anti-U.S. history .... San Jose Mercury News

SUNDAY MORNING FINAL EDITION

Feb. 14, 1999 U.S. WORRIED ABOUT IRAQI, BIN LADEN TIES TERRORIST COULD GAIN EVEN DEADLIER WEAPONS U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ... In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is a renowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden. "It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of
Clinton-Era Reports Cited Saddam-bin Laden Ties

 

[JRK]

The biggest mis conception of Obama is that he inherited a Government that was in shambles.

That is a misconception. The government was fine, it was the economy that was in shambles.

The consequence of six years of tax cuts, deficit spending, and government expansion by the Republican Congress, and the legislation signed into law by GWB, was a deep and massive recession starting in December 2007.

Obama did indeed inherit this economic disaster, and his and subsequent administrations will be working to repair the damage, perhaps for another decade.

deficit spending? was pennies compared to what BHO is spending
Dec 2007 UE was below 5%
the DJIA was @13,500
we had just had a deficit for the year of 153 billion
recession did not start till the last 1/2 of 08, even though every news paper in the leftville will tell you different
File:US GDP per capita change.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dr.Drock]

The biggest mis conception of Obama is that he inherited a Government that was in shambles.

That is a misconception. The government was fine, it was the economy that was in shambles.

The consequence of six years of tax cuts, deficit spending, and government expansion by the Republican Congress, and the legislation signed into law by GWB, was a deep and massive recession starting in December 2007.

Obama did indeed inherit this economic disaster, and his and subsequent administrations will be working to repair the damage, perhaps for another decade.

deficit spending? was pennies compared to what BHO is spending
Dec 2007 UE was below 5%
the DJIA was @13,500
we had just had a deficit for the year of 153 billion
recession did not start till the last 1/2 of 08, even though every news paper in the leftville will tell you different
File:US GDP per capita change.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JRK you need to change your wording, see look even here you're admitting deficit spending, unemployment, billions in defiticts, recessions, etc.

You can argue the gov't wasn't as bad in 2008 as it is now, but you certainly can't say there was "nothing wrong with gov't." Saying and thinking that is about as delusional as a human being can be, so hopefully you're just saying that and don't actually think it.

Now I hate both parties, but I'll give you credit for saying something bipartisan for the first time, in showing support for the democrat congress in '07 and '08.

 

[JRK]

$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
spent

Payroll tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
$927.2 billion
income from payroll and SS tax
you want to keep doing this?

as you can see this is where the un funded liability is, not the defense of this country
This is from 2008 and what we needed is 2 million jobs for lost revenue and about 250 billion trimmed here to break even

What in the world are you talking about? Those SS and Medicare expense are paid out of the trillions in the fund - paid for.

The war? No trillions set aside to pay for it.

what fund?
that 927 billion dollar fund is all we got in 2008, that is all there was
that's all we get bud
there is no fund, where did you hear that at?
SS has more coming in right now than going out, right now
you add the other entitlements and there is a deficit, it is right there in black and white