Why is no one cheering the falling deficit?

[Paperman299]

I don't recall the numbers (so don't go apeshit on me) but when Bush left office, the National Debt was (something like) 10-11 Trillion dollars. It is now nearly 18 Trillion.

Call me when we see it go down even one penny.

Either the national debt goes down (whether either side likes it or not) and the unfunded mandates are cut back from the IMPOSSIBLE 271 TRILLION dollars, or we will experience the greatest depression the WORLD has ever seen, let alone America.

This horseshit is absolutely unsustainable. If an idiot like ME can put two and two together, why the HELL can't the morons that we send to DC not figure this simple logic out? Apparently they are all using common core.

At the end of FY2009 (Bush's last budget)....

Bush's last budget was FY2008.
FY2009 was signed into law in March 2009.

FY2009 was created in 2008, under Bush.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At the end of FY2009 (Bush's last budget)....

Bush's last budget was FY2008.
FY2009 was signed into law in March 2009.

FY2009 was created in 2008, under Bush.

Yet even the most conservative estimates say that Obama spent money that was not part of the Bush budget. The reason for that is that there was a fucking stimulus passed in 2009 that had nothing to do with Bush. By the way, the reason Obama's numbers aren't worse than they are is that all of the Bush TARP money was repaid, unlike the Obama TARP money. The government conveniently counted the repayment as income, and put off most of the increased spending under Obama because cash accounting rules allow them to pretend debts don't actually exist.

 

[Paperman299]

Bush's last budget was FY2008.
FY2009 was signed into law in March 2009.

FY2009 was created in 2008, under Bush.

Yet even the most conservative estimates say that Obama spent money that was not part of the Bush budget. The reason for that is that there was a fucking stimulus passed in 2009 that had nothing to do with Bush. By the way, the reason Obama's numbers aren't worse than they are is that all of the Bush TARP money was repaid, unlike the Obama TARP money. The government conveniently counted the repayment as income, and put off most of the increased spending under Obama because cash accounting rules allow them to pretend debts don't actually exist.

And an expensive stimulus, over $800 billion. A big solution to a big problem But it was spread out over years, being between $200 and $300 billion per year. Plus, as I've noted, most economists thought the stimulus should have been even bigger. None of this changes, however, that the vast majority of our current incredible deficit was set in place by Bush.

Are you talking about this TARP money?

No complaints on the graph.

 

[DiamondDave]

Oppies..

Has anyone noticed that the U.S. budget deficit has plunged by nearly $1 trillion since its peak in 2009? Probably not.

It has become a politically inconvenient truth that budget deficits will only grow and never decline, and yet, an astounding $1 trillion dollars has been hacked from the annual shortfall.

Read More › CBO estimates lower deficits as health subsidies fall

The winding down of two decade-long wars, fiscal restraint, stronger than forecast economic growth, hence higher tax receipts, and higher tax rates, have all contributed to a very significant decline in government red ink.

And it certainly has defied conventional wisdom in Washington that wrongly suggested that such a turnabout was even remotely possible.

Recall the prevailing wisdom on budget deficits just five short years ago. This report from the Washington Post, July 24th, 2010, suggests that trillion-dollar deficits would become the norm after "The Great Recession," not the exception:


"The latest forecast from the White House budget office shows the deficit rising to $1.47 trillion this year, forcing the government to borrow 41 cents of every dollar it spends. Contrary to official projections, the budget gap will not begin to narrow much in 2011, because of an unexpectedly big drop in tax receipts … The White House predicted Friday it will not dip below 8 percent until the end of 2012."
The Congressional Budget Office is cutting its estimates of the U.S. deficit to $492 billion due to lower-than-expected Obamacare premiums, reports CNBC's Eamon Javers.


Oops! The deficit peaked in 2009 and has been on a rapid downward trajectory ever since.
Why is no one cheering the falling deficit??economy?Commentary!

There goes that "big spending" argument..

Look.. the manager in my position previously lost $1Mil a year... I came in and lost $1.9MIL a year for my first 4 years.. I have only lost $1.8MIL this year... PRAISE ME

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FY2009 was created in 2008, under Bush.

Yet even the most conservative estimates say that Obama spent money that was not part of the Bush budget. The reason for that is that there was a fucking stimulus passed in 2009 that had nothing to do with Bush. By the way, the reason Obama's numbers aren't worse than they are is that all of the Bush TARP money was repaid, unlike the Obama TARP money. The government conveniently counted the repayment as income, and put off most of the increased spending under Obama because cash accounting rules allow them to pretend debts don't actually exist.

And an expensive stimulus, over $800 billion. A big solution to a big problem But it was spread out over years, being between $200 and $300 billion per year. Plus, as I've noted, most economists thought the stimulus should have been even bigger. None of this changes, however, that the vast majority of our current incredible deficit was set in place by Bush.

Are you talking about this TARP money?

No complaints on the graph.

What are you raving about? Did I claim that the stimulus was all spent in 2009? Did I not say that the payback of the TARP occurred? Are you simply arguing with people in your head in order not to admit that you were wrong in your claim that all 2009 spending is because of Bush?

 

[M14 Shooter]

At the end of FY2009 (Bush's last budget)....

Bush's last budget was FY2008.
FY2009 was signed into law in March 2009.

FY2009 was created in 2008, under Bush.

FY2009 was passed and signed into law in March 2009
By Obama.

 

[Paperman299]

Yet even the most conservative estimates say that Obama spent money that was not part of the Bush budget. The reason for that is that there was a fucking stimulus passed in 2009 that had nothing to do with Bush. By the way, the reason Obama's numbers aren't worse than they are is that all of the Bush TARP money was repaid, unlike the Obama TARP money. The government conveniently counted the repayment as income, and put off most of the increased spending under Obama because cash accounting rules allow them to pretend debts don't actually exist.

And an expensive stimulus, over $800 billion. A big solution to a big problem But it was spread out over years, being between $200 and $300 billion per year. Plus, as I've noted, most economists thought the stimulus should have been even bigger. None of this changes, however, that the vast majority of our current incredible deficit was set in place by Bush.

Are you talking about this TARP money?

No complaints on the graph.

What are you raving about? Did I claim that the stimulus was all spent in 2009? Did I not say that the payback of the TARP occurred? Are you simply arguing with people in your head in order not to admit that you were wrong in your claim that all 2009 spending is because of Bush?

Hey, you brought up the stimulus and its role in Obama's spending. We can't pretend putting that spending in perspective in a fiscal discussion is irrelevant. And you've made a distinction between two types of TARP money, with a second category of money not repaid.

As to your last bit, you know, if my acknowledging Obama's $20 billion or so of spending in Bush's budget is all this thread's denialists need to retreat from their position that FY2009 was Obama's budget, then I will absolutely agree and accept that concession.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And an expensive stimulus, over $800 billion. A big solution to a big problem But it was spread out over years, being between $200 and $300 billion per year. Plus, as I've noted, most economists thought the stimulus should have been even bigger. None of this changes, however, that the vast majority of our current incredible deficit was set in place by Bush.

Are you talking about this TARP money?

No complaints on the graph.

What are you raving about? Did I claim that the stimulus was all spent in 2009? Did I not say that the payback of the TARP occurred? Are you simply arguing with people in your head in order not to admit that you were wrong in your claim that all 2009 spending is because of Bush?

Hey, you brought up the stimulus and its role in Obama's spending. We can't pretend putting that spending in perspective in a fiscal discussion is irrelevant. And you've made a distinction between two types of TARP money, with a second category of money not repaid.

As to your last bit, you know, if my acknowledging Obama's $20 billion or so of spending in Bush's budget is all this thread's denialists need to retreat from their position that FY2009 was Obama's budget, then I will absolutely agree and accept that concession.

Sigh.

I mentioned the stimulus because I was refuting your claim that the entire fucking 2009 budget belongs to Bush. Since a portion of the stimulus was paid out in 2009, and Bush had nothing to do with that, it was completely relevant. As for TARP, what I said is that the government counted the repayment of TARP as revenue. I threw in an aside about all the money Busk handed out to the banks being repaid, and your link backed up my statement.

If you really want to know why you are an idiot figure out why the CBO estimates that Obama added $200 billion in new spending to the Bush budget and then when he got credit for $300 billion worth of revenue from TARP. Many A few people, including myself, actually went through and broke all the numbers down in the other threads where an Obamazombie tried to pull the crap that Obama didn't increase the deficit, feel free to look up the numerous threads on the subject if you want to understand. If, on the other hand, you prefer to pretend that you already have the answers because, well, math class is tough, keep pretending I am the problem here. As I recall, that has been your strategy in the previous threads.

 

[RandallFlagg]

And an expensive stimulus, over $800 billion. A big solution to a big problem But it was spread out over years, being between $200 and $300 billion per year. Plus, as I've noted, most economists thought the stimulus should have been even bigger. None of this changes, however, that the vast majority of our current incredible deficit was set in place by Bush.

Are you talking about this TARP money?

No complaints on the graph.

What are you raving about? Did I claim that the stimulus was all spent in 2009? Did I not say that the payback of the TARP occurred? Are you simply arguing with people in your head in order not to admit that you were wrong in your claim that all 2009 spending is because of Bush?

Hey, you brought up the stimulus and its role in Obama's spending. We can't pretend putting that spending in perspective in a fiscal discussion is irrelevant. And you've made a distinction between two types of TARP money, with a second category of money not repaid.

As to your last bit, you know, if my acknowledging Obama's $20 billion or so of spending in Bush's budget is all this thread's denialists need to retreat from their position that FY2009 was Obama's budget, then I will absolutely agree and accept that concession.

Well, since the stimulus was brought up, I would like someone - ANYONE - to explain to me exactly WHAT HAPPENED to all that money? And now why is it being bandied about that Obama is about to ask for MORE stimulus money for "roads and infrastructure". Wasn't that 860 BILLION dollars supposed to do just that?

I can account for $500 Million that Barry simply GAVE to the crooks at Solyndra - but that's about it. Wasn't "Plugs" Biden going to give us a "report" about the money each year? I guess the brain trusts over at NBC, ABC, CBS and MSNBC forgot to get those reports?

 

[Paperman299]

Sigh.

I mentioned the stimulus because I was refuting your claim that the entire fucking 2009 budget belongs to Bush. Since a portion of the stimulus was paid out in 2009, and Bush had nothing to do with that, it was completely relevant. As for TARP, what I said is that the government counted the repayment of TARP as revenue. I threw in an aside about all the money Busk handed out to the banks being repaid, and your link backed up my statement.

If you really want to know why you are an idiot figure out why the CBO estimates that Obama added $200 billion in new spending to the Bush budget and then when he got credit for $300 billion worth of revenue from TARP. Many A few people, including myself, actually went through and broke all the numbers down in the other threads where an Obamazombie tried to pull the crap that Obama didn't increase the deficit, feel free to look up the numerous threads on the subject if you want to understand. If, on the other hand, you prefer to pretend that you already have the answers because, well, math class is tough, keep pretending I am the problem here. As I recall, that has been your strategy in the previous threads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO0cvqT1tAE

I'm sort of exasperated with how bewilderingly trite all the points you've brought into this discussion are. Like a tiny dog on a houseguest it doesn't like you keep seizing on this idea that, rather than correctly attributing FY2009 and its tripling of the deficit to Bush rather than Obama, what I've actually been doing is stating in absolute terms that all spending in 2009 was from Bush - which I haven't.

And for Pete's sake, so what if I had? if you had bothered to acknowledge or even notice that the prevailing topic of discussion was who was responsible for the tripling of the deficit, instead of targeting me for not already adding into the discussion a detail important to you but which even conservatives and Obama critics dismiss as insignificant, you might actually have added to the thread rather than degrading it. Of course, that would have taken an Obama-2009-deficit-increase-sized morsel of humility.

And then we come back to TARP, where the pettiness of your arguments continue to amaze. Since I'm just as willing to forget your baffling claim that "Obama TARP money" was never repaid as your are, let's put that aside. So the government counted the returned TARP money (amounting to roughly that same number as that which my conservative blogger linked above called "trivial"), plus the interest, as revenue rather than...something else. What of it? There's no conspiracy here. How ground-down is this discussion, that the anti-Obama argument has retreated from "he tripled the deficit" to "that money Obama got back with interest should have been counted differently." If Bush had still been president when his TARP investments came back, are you submitting they would not have been counted as revenue? And would any conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) given the slightest hoot, either way?

You know, I'm not surprised a link of mine supported your facts. You have the facts at your disposal and your logic has merit. You're the first Obama critic on this thread to concede that it is Bush who is responsible for nearly the entirety of the deficit which we used to have. So let me be clear that it's your premise that any of these points you raise somehow overshadow this critical, though much-debated, fact and return culpability to Obama for the deficit which completely baffles me. And if that is not your aim, then honestly I have no idea what your aim was.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

This is the first time ON ANY WEBSITE, that a republican has even acknowledged that TARP was on Bush's watch.

That's progress!!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

The deficit, not the debt, is higher than in Bush's second to last year in office. The debt of course is much higher.
More fun with numbers from the Obama crowd. Math is hard!

 

[Listening]

And wait until Wall Street gets a wiff of that...

Indeed. This is what should happen to Obama voters:

It's too bad none of the folks who keep making those threats can actually make them happen, eh?

Where was the threat ?

Answer: There wasn't one.

He said should happen....not will make it happen.

Moron.

You only read what you want to read.

Your thread has been skewered from the start and this is all you can say ?

You lost this one...BIG TIME.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Indeed. This is what should happen to Obama voters:

It's too bad none of the folks who keep making those threats can actually make them happen, eh?

Where was the threat ?

Answer: There wasn't one.

He said should happen....not will make it happen.

Moron.

You only read what you want to read.

Your thread has been skewered from the start and this is all you can say ?

You lost this one...BIG TIME.

IF he can read And comprehend. He wouldn't know a threat if it jumped up and bit him on his Lilly white ass. I never threatened ANYONE. However, I wouldn't mind walking down the street watching these progressive Nazis getting slapped across the chops. It would make me smile.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is the first time ON ANY WEBSITE, that a republican has even acknowledged that TARP was on Bush's watch.

That's progress!!!!

Wrong. Totally wrong. Every thread where some brain dead leftist claimed TARP saved the U.S. economy had someone point out it was started by Bush.
The initial idea of TARP was fine. Extending it to automakers, as Bush did, and then anyone wanting a handout, as Obama did, was wrong.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This is the first time ON ANY WEBSITE, that a republican has even acknowledged that TARP was on Bush's watch.

That's progress!!!!

Wrong. Totally wrong. Every thread where some brain dead leftist claimed TARP saved the U.S. economy had someone point out it was started by Bush.
The initial idea of TARP was fine. Extending it to automakers, as Bush did, and then anyone wanting a handout, as Obama did, was wrong.

Indeed. Obama took Bush's stimulus and gave the majority of it away to cronies. It was "supposed" to go for "roads, bridges and infrastructure" but it simply vanished.

And now Obama is talking of another "stimulus" package. One can only surmise that he is, once again, going to "reward" those who have stood by him on his way out the door.

 

[The T]

Indeed. This is what should happen to Obama voters:

It's too bad none of the folks who keep making those threats can actually make them happen, eh?

Where was the threat ?

Answer: There wasn't one.

He said should happen....not will make it happen.

Moron.

You only read what you want to read.

Your thread has been skewered from the start and this is all you can say ?

You lost this one...BIG TIME.

Sure he lost...and he is licking his wounds as any below PAR DOG would...and any statist SCUMBAG. Yeah Sallow, I mean YOU.

 

[The T]

This is the first time ON ANY WEBSITE, that a republican has even acknowledged that TARP was on Bush's watch.

That's progress!!!!

Wrong. Totally wrong. Every thread where some brain dead leftist claimed TARP saved the U.S. economy had someone point out it was started by Bush.
The initial idea of TARP was fine. Extending it to automakers, as Bush did, and then anyone wanting a handout, as Obama did, was wrong.

Indeed. Obama took Bush's stimulus and gave the majority of it away to cronies. It was "supposed" to go for "roads, bridges and infrastructure" but it simply vanished.

And now Obama is talking of another "stimulus" package. One can only surmise that he is, once again, going to "reward" those who have stood by him on his way out the door.

It vanished into Blue States that supported him with NO paper trail. And those same States are still failing/flailing.

 

[Listening]

If Obama would send me some money, I promise to spend it.

Would that help .

 

[The T]

If Obama would send me some money, I promise to spend it.

Would that help .

Just think if they really did that? MOST of it went into the pockets of politicians...and the UNION bosses....