Tea Parties Spread across Nation

The biggest ever then is chump change compared to Obama's debt now!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most of this next deficit is W's debt - Obama's first budget under his control will be next year's,which will also be the first one with solid Dem Congressional control. The Obama share of this year's is smaller than W's from last year.

And the point remains - no hoopla over W's huge deficits, the biggest in the history of the world, before the collapse. You even recalled them as no big deal.

Comedy note: to get all worked up about Obama, you have to go back to before 1985. Why? Because compared to Reagan and W, and compared with the needs of his situation, Obama looks more or less reasonable - with much better excuses for his deficit piling. But Reagan is some kind of hero of you fools, and you supported W against any number of more moderate, less profligate, more economically prudent politicians. What does it take to buy you guys a clue?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

THE Obama, is responsible for the passage of the 787 billion dollar stimulus package, it is money that we don't have, so THE Obama already has a 787 billion dollar deficit and THE Obama has only been in office 100 days, now add the cost of servicing and interest of that debt package we are looking at 3 trillion dollars of deficit from THE Obama, THE Obama, not President Bush.

So tell us ice, what do you want to call THE Obamas 787 billion dollar deficit?

And what do you want to say about THE Obama and HIS calls for enactment of the Bush Stimulus?

That would make THE Obama a partner of GW in this lunacy.

Obama, in His New Role as President-Elect, Calls for Stimulus ...
Nov 8, 2008 ... Obama, in His New Role as President-Elect, Calls for Stimulus Package. Damon Winter/The New York Times. President-elect Barack Obama, ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08obama.html

 

But the deficit would still be recorded under bush which you are tyrying to dishonestly record under Obama. When Obama is no longer president The deficits from his last budget will be recorded under him even though he will notbe in office at the end of that fiscal year. Obama doesn't have any deficit of yet because HIS budget, the 2010 one isn't, yet the one being used. The first part of the next presidents term whether it is in 2013 or 2017( God willing) will not have deficits recorded for them until Obama's respective fiscal year budgets have ended.

 

Do you have a logical neuron in your brain? THE Obama's stimulus of $787 billion dollar is deficit spending, the money isn't in the treasury, it is borrowed.

Now let look at THE Obama's budget for 2010 and beyond shall we;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The CBO baseline cumulative deficit for the Obama 2010-2019 budget is $9.3 trillion. How much additional deficit and debt does Mr. Obama add relative to a do-nothing budget with none of his programs? Mr. Obama's "debt difference" is $4.829 trillion -- i.e., his tax and spending proposals add $4.829 trillion to the CBO do-nothing baseline deficit. The Obama budget also adds $177 billion to the fiscal year 2009 budget. To this must be added the $195 billion of 2009 legislated add-ons (e.g., the stimulus bill) since Mr. Obama's election that were already incorporated in the CBO baseline and the corresponding $1.267 trillion in add-ons for 2010-2019. This brings Mr. Obama's total additional debt to $6.5 trillion, not his claimed $2 trillion reduction. That was mostly a phantom cut from an imagined 10-year continuation of peak Iraq war spending.

The claim to reduce the deficit by half compares this year's immense (mostly inherited) deficit to the projected fiscal year 2013 deficit, the last of his current term. While it is technically correct that the deficit would be less than half this year's engorged level, a do-nothing budget would reduce it by 84%. Compared to do-nothing, Mr. Obama's deficit is more than two and a half times larger in fiscal year 2013. Just his addition to the budget deficit, $459 billion, is bigger than any deficit in the nation's history. And the 2013 deficit is supposed to be after several years of economic recovery, funds are being returned from the financial bailouts, and we are out of Iraq.

Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.

 

yes far more than you actually.THE Obama's stimulus of $787 billion dollar is deficit spending, the money isn't in the treasury, it is borrowed.

I have and I also got my data not from the WSJ but the CBO directly which tells a different picture.

No buffalo that's what your fucking up. Your trying to put 2009 nine fiscal year shortfalls and their corrections on Obama which is dishonest. If I'm running company and I don't allocate enough funds to pay roll and my successor rectifies that and the company takes a loss that year or quarter is the loss my fault or my successors fault. Also lets not forget that compared to bush's 2009 budget mandatory spending is to go down 17.9% and your interchanging debt and deficit when the two words do not mean the same thing. source http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf

Phantom cut my ass. The spending would still have been their if the republicans controlled it.

A do-nothing budget I can just imagine how you would have been howling if that happened. Its not a realistic comparison. And can you say inflation.

he hasn't raised taxes on people making less than $250,000. and if I remember correctly you didn't seem to care about the debt's increasing of our "taxes" when it was your man bush doing it. This is the same tired old political tactic of applying differing standards to those your support and oppose with much higher ones being for those that you oppose.



and nice job quoting the OPINION section of the WSJ. I mean its not like that has any well known political biases.

 

pjdude to quote you;

Isn't that what I already stated?, that THE Obama has already built a deficit of $787 billion dollar deficit, and it only the first 100 days.

The WSJ a Right wing Publication? that is absolutly funny, you don't have the bonafides to disput the source, so you go the typical liberal route of trying to dismiss the source, well the soure is
from the CBO, so tell me how they are not valid?

Plus the fact that Michael J. Boskin is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the T. M. Friedman Professor of Economics at Stanford University, that is why I chose the article.

So you are tell me that He doesn't know far more then you on the subject, it is called research, checking the source, something that you fail to do far to often.

Again, grasshopper, do the research before you spew your puerility for all to see.

 

That was a typing fuck up.

No buffalo Your source is the wall street journal Opinion pages something that even before murdoch got his grubby little paws on had a well known right wing bias. Its source is the CBO but considering their known biases it is hard to believe that they are accurately presenting data. I don't see the point in trying to dispute it. That would legitimize a biased source something which I am steadfastly against.( typical liberal route of dismissing a source. That's funny because I remember you dismissing my main source in a universal health care thread out of hand despite the fact it had no biased language and had used actual research papers and research write ups as sources. Oh well it must be your Alzheimer's acting up again.)I mean I wouldn't trust a Nazi on the state of jewish affairs and I'm not going to accept your source for the same reasons. Its biases are so well known to make all things said on subjects related to its biases rendered suspect.

And if it were in any other publication or any other part of the WSJ I would have accepted it as a possible good source barring research.

No you chose it because it conformed to your biases just like 90% of people do.

No my dear unintelligent acquaintance I shall leave that conceit to you.

More baseless slander from the great slanderer I see.

I have. and I also use sources that aren't known for their biases something you should try. Though you probably won't, I mean god forbid you might have to question your beliefs.

 

pjdude you wouldn't know a unbiased source if it jumped up and bit you, and it is still a fact that the source is a lettered professor of reputable schools and a Senor Fellow at the Hoover Institution and the T. M. Friedman Professor of Economics at Stanford University, you don't have the standing or gravitas to dismiss a Letted Professor's work out of hand.

Now what are your bona-fide? your still sitting at home with your feet under Mamas table, sleeping in your baby bed, and just maybe back in school to finally get your diploma, something you should have already had, carping about your lack of a job, and how unfair the world is because you can't get er done.

Now prove the information and the source wrong, your dismissal of the facts as right wing bias doesn't change the fact as to their validity and factuality.

 

Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.

and it is still in the WSJ opinion pages a place that has a strong right wing bias.

Typical you can't best me intelectualy so you insult me. and do just as bad of job of it.

Well I did post the 2010 budget but I guess that doesn't count as rebuttal

But the bias of their source they are posted into calls in to question of their validity and factuality with out outside corroboration. I could explain why this is but I doubt you would listen or understand.

 

Still can't meet the standards, and you wanted to meet me in a formal debate:roflmao: you can't make a debate on this forum, you run like hell, and cry the WSJ has a strong right wing bias, like that excuses you from any logical reply.

Yes, :roflmao: looks like the CBO doesn't agree with you or THE Obama, they project a Total Deficit -$9,270 -$6,969 billion dollars.

http://www.crfb.org/documents/CBOAnalysisofBudget.pdf

CBO’s Analysis of the President’s FY2010 Budget Blueprint
March 26, 2009


Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its Preliminary
Analysis of the President’s Budget. The Committee for a Responsible Federal
Budget has warned that the President’s budget is not aggressive enough in
reducing the medium or long-term deficit (President Obama's FY2010 Budget,
More on President Obama's FY2010 Budget), and CBO’s analysis projects a
significantly worse situation than the Administration does, with the
President’s Budget plan resulting in larger and continuously rising budget
deficits.
The budget proposal would increase the debt held by the public from $5.8
trillion, or 40.8 percent of GDP, in 2008 to $17.3 trillion, or 82.4 percent of
GDP, by 2019. This is significantly larger than CBO’s baseline estimate of
$11.8 trillion, or 56 percent of GDP in 2019. It is also far greater than the debt
levels projected by the Administration under its policy proposals of $15.4
trillion or 67 percent of GDP in 2019.

Debt Held by the Public (percent of GDP)

0%
10%
20%
30%
40% in 1999
50% in 2009
60% in 2010
70% in 2014
80% in 2017
90% in 2019


Revenue, Spending, and Deficit Projections

Over the next ten years, CBO projects the President’s budget plan would result in large
and sustained deficits. These deficit projections are considerably higher than those put
forward by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) -- $9.3 trillion over ten years
compared to OMB’s estimate of roughly $7 trillion. Whereas OMB projects that the
deficit will level out after 2013 at around 3 percent of GDP, CBO projects it will simply
hit a trough in 2013, at 4.1 percent of GDP, before steadily rising to 5.7 percent of GDP
by 2019.
Differences in projections can be seen both in estimates of the budget baseline, and in
cost estimates for the President’s policy proposal. By and large, these differences are
driven by CBO’s newer and more pessimistic economic assumptions.

Baselines

Included in CBO’s analysis is a re-estimation of their budget baseline – the cost of
policies under current law. Under this baseline, the deficit hits nearly $1.7 trillion (11.9
percent of GDP) in 2009 and over $1.1 trillion (7.9 percent of GDP) in 2010. As the
economy recovers, the stimulus tapers off, and the 2001/2003 tax cuts expire, deficits are
reduced, falling to $282 billion in 2015 before rising to $423 billion in 2019. Over that
period, deficits would rise from 1.6 to 2 percent of GDP.
The CBO baseline ten-year deficit projection has increased from $3.1 trillion to $4.4
trillion due largely to the costs of the recent stimulus legislation. If OMB’s baseline were
to be calculated with the same standards as CBO’s, (rather than assuming some policies
that are not current law) it would show a deficit of $2.8 trillion. In other words, CBO’s

Policy Changes

While $4.4 trillion in deficits over ten years are projected under its baseline, CBO
projects President Obama’s policy proposals would add roughly $4.8 trillion to the
deficits – resulting in $9.3 trillion in total deficits. The bulk of these costs would come
from renewing policies such as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for families making under
$250,000 a year, patching the Alternative Minimum Tax, and continuing to block
reductions in physician payments under Medicare.

Effect of Policy Changes in the President’s Budget (billions)

Renew Most 2001/2003 Tax Cuts -$2,104 -$2,065
Index Alternative Minimum Tax -$447 -$576
Making Work Pay Tax Credit -$537 -$537
Other Tax Changes -$121 -$29
Medicare Pay Patches -$285 -$317
Increase Pell Grants* -$98 -$117
Financial Stability Programs -$125 $0
Reform Student Loans $94 $54
Cap-and-Trade Revenue $629 $646
Health Care Reform^ -$606 -$634
Limit Itemize Dedication Rate $311 $318
Reduce Medicare/Medicaid Costs $295 $316
Change in Defense Discretionary Spending+ -$151 $29
Change in Non-Defense Discretionary Spending -$637 -$487
Other Tax/Spending Changes -$22 $62
Debt Service Payments -$1,023 -$779
Total Cost of New Policies -$4,829 -$4,116
BEA Baseline -$4,441 -$2,8

Total Deficit -$9,270 -$6,969

In billions of Dollars​

 

Um I am pretty sure these standards you speak of require you to not use biased sources but than again you have never been very good at meeting the standards you wish to aply to others. And I have shattered you in a normal debate and would shatter you in a formal debate.

Firstly I can and do make debates though it is hard with people like you who have a I'm right fuck the world mentality. Secondly, I haven't run like hell from any debate though it is funny coming from someone as craven as yourself. Thirdly, I didn't say the WSJ had a right wing bias just its opinion pages. Out side of the opinion pages it is a rather top notch publication.

A logical reply would be lost on someone like yourself using poor and biased sources.

very good buffalo you finally did what was required for your original source to be accepted. you corroborated it. and it only took like 4 posts of coaxing to do so. Your learning very good. Now their is a basis for me to start from.


from my first read through I noticed something that doesn't help your cause. You failed mention the time difference in between the CBO report and the OMB report which accounts for differing economic projections which the report plainly states that almost all the differences between the two are caused by this. Also the Blue Chip Consensus projects numbers for growth closer in line to the OMB which may mean that the OMB and BCC are using midline projections and the CBO using low line projections which distorts the findings though this will take more research to see if it is the case.

 

pjdude, don't make me laugh, you didn't even see it coming.

I gave you a basis to answer to from the beginning, you just didn't have the ability, you ducked the debate with your usual chirping and dancing and it's a biased right wing source, you haven't answered to one point, with any facts documentation or citation.

Pittyfull just Pittyfull.

Got a job yet? or still with your feet under Mamas table?


CBO figures, not pie in the sky figures, grasshopper, THE Obama is using pie in the sky, if everything goes exactly as planned numbers, and there is a gentleman that THE Obama is forgetting about, Mr Murphey.

THE Obamas numbers already don't add up, THE Obamas 2010 budget is already $1 trillion dollars bigger than the last Bush budget, add to that a $787billion Stimulus.

Even the White House numbers show a massive deficit.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures
Posted March 24th, 2009 at 10.20am in Ongoing Priorities.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

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.

President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

 

This article will probably be removed from the THR.com site soon.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i888016761f9ec824f862a5c265de605c
Things got testy Wednesday at the GE shareholders meeting courtesy of several complaints about political bias at its media division, NBC Universal.

Just don't expect to see the fireworks at the company's webcast of the event, which contains prepared remarks from CEO Jeff Immelt and CFO Keith Sherin but leaves out their interaction with shareholders.

A GE spokesman clarified that the corporation doesn't typically broadcast the shareholders meeting in its entirety.

Just before GE board members were re-elected, shareholders asked about 10 questions of a mostly political nature concerning the viewpoints of MSNBC and CNBC, according to attendees.

First up was a woman asking about a reported meeting in which Immelt and NBC Uni CEO Jeff Zucker supposedly told top CNBC executives and talent to be less critical of President Obama and his policies.

Immelt acknowledged a meeting took place but said no one at CNBC was told what to say or not say about politics.

During the woman's follow-up question, her microphone was cut off. Later, during the umpteenth question about MSNBC, another shareholder's microphone was cut, according to multiple attendees.

"The crowd was very upset with MSNBC because of its leftward tilt," one attendee said. "Some former employees said they were embarrassed by it."

One specific complaint about MSNBC concerned Keith Olbermann's interview of actress Janeane Garofalo, who likened conservatives to racists and spoke of "the limbic brain inside a right-winger."

"They were upset that Olbermann didn't bother to challenge her," one GE shareholder said.

Immelt said he takes a hands-off approach to what is reported on the company's news networks, which prompted a shareholder to criticize him for not managing NBC Uni effectively

 

Yes, the profit margin and ratings shares, are looking like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's, totally in the toilet, and someone pulled the handle.

 

??? OK? You didn't see the down fall of the bushies policies, you were all full steam ahead. I had a feeling that they would end in disaster.

I do not debate arguments based on biased sources because it legitimizes them. I didn't duck the debate I told you straight out that with out corroboration their was nothing to debate because you were relying on a known biased source, the WSJ opinion pages. and after you did thankfully provide corroboration you left out key points of information in an effort to strengthen your arguement. The difference in time between the forecasts and the Blue Chip Consensus being closer to Obama's(the OMB's) projections. While not illogical it is dishonest.

So the 50 forecasts that the blue chip uses are using pie in the sky numbers because the trend with the OMB's numbers?

a lie. The CBO reports the 2009 budget at 3.1 trillion and that the 2010 is 3.6 trillion. thats less than trillion more.

yes something I haven't denied.

You really don't bother to check if your sources are biased as long as they agree with you?

You and your biased sites. The heritage foundation is known to fudge its numbers to push its conservative message.

already proven to be a lie.

Obama is providing oversight on them unlike bush making sure the money is being used for proper purposes.

which in the long run will reduce costs.

considering the state of our education system this is a good thing.

More people in poverty means anti poverty programs cost more.

more conservative lies. Bush pushed the tax burden on lower income tax payers and Obama is seeking to reverse that trend.

um bush presided over a national debt increase of 5 trillion dollars. Under his rule our national debt doubled. So you and your lovely biased conservative source are fudging the numbers.

 

i never understood this whole mortgage thing. people who dont pay their bills or cant afford to buy houses defaulted on their home loans.

is that some kind of surprise?

 

No it isn't, and that is the problem, the Democrats wrote legislation that required banks to make loans to people who didn't qualify.

Joseph R. Mason, who is a finance professor at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and a consultant at Criterion Economics:

Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well:

 

And now a democrat is in charge of the world. Stalin finally has what he wished for.