Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Discussion and Debate > Politics > American Politics
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

American Politics Forum for political discussion that applies specifically to the United States.

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Unread 22nd February 2013, 06:29 AM
Contributor

31 Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Party: CA-Conservatives Country: Canada Member For 2 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 27th December 2011
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 5,603
Blessings: 213,357
My Mood Happy
Reps: 155,481,386,512,240,096 (power: 155,481,386,512,248)
Dave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond repute
Dave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Bubbahotep View Post
And the dem party put this moron in a position of leadership. That should you everything you need to know about the state of the dem party. Ran by, and consisting of fiscal fools.


Just pointing out for the record.... when Clinton left office in 2001, he had a 236 Billion Dollar Surplus.

When Bush left office in 2008, he had a 1.4 Trillion Dollar Deficit.

Currently, 4 years later, Obama is running a 1 Trillion Dollar Deficit, which is 400 Billion better than Bush, and the deficit is still falling.


I should point out I'm typically Center-Right wing, however the numbers don't lie.... If we're looking at fiscal irresponsibility, the Republicans take the cake.
__________________
The Political Compass Test:
Economic: Left/Right: +0.12/10
Social: Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18/10
Reply With Quote
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #82  
Unread 22nd February 2013, 10:08 AM
Sanctimonious old crackpot

74 Gender: Male Faith: Protestant Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 4th February 2006
Posts: 11,110
Blessings: 322,811
Reps: 686,678,209,707,061,376 (power: 686,678,209,707,081)
OldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond repute
OldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond repute
[quote=contango;62475783]
Did you have any thoughts on what those products or services could be?
Doesn't matter as long as trade is balanced. If we buy $1 in goods from them they must buy $1 in goods from us. Our goods will be more expensive than theirs and the trade might seem unfair. Consider a far eastern country that sells us woven baskets and buys medicine from us with those dollars. Medicine is more expensive than woven baskets and they will only be able to purchase a limited amount using dollars gained in trade with us. We cannot base our trade with them on what they need, but on what they can pay for. Otherwise you might get unbalanced trade, huge trade deficits, and an impossibly large national debt.........oh wait.

One of our problems is that we use trade as an arm of foreign policy, trying to lift nations out of poverty, but at the expense of our own economy. We want to flood these nations with western technology in hopes of making lasting allies. In this we have failed miserably. Instead of building infrastructure for the people we provide arms for their dictatorial governments.

We actually need Donald Trump as Secretary of Commerce. He seems to know how to 'deal'.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Unread 22nd February 2013, 03:45 PM
contango's Avatar
...and you shall live...

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Country: United Kingdom Member For 4 Years Steward
 
Join Date: 9th July 2010
Location: Sometimes here, sometimes there
Posts: 3,601
Blessings: 1,129,374,245
My Mood Sleepy
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,854,784)
contango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond repute
contango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by oldwiseguy View Post
Doesn't matter as long as trade is balanced. If we buy $1 in goods from them they must buy $1 in goods from us. Our goods will be more expensive than theirs and the trade might seem unfair. Consider a far eastern country that sells us woven baskets and buys medicine from us with those dollars. Medicine is more expensive than woven baskets and they will only be able to purchase a limited amount using dollars gained in trade with us. We cannot base our trade with them on what they need, but on what they can pay for. Otherwise you might get unbalanced trade, huge trade deficits, and an impossibly large national debt.........oh wait.

One of our problems is that we use trade as an arm of foreign policy, trying to lift nations out of poverty, but at the expense of our own economy. We want to flood these nations with western technology in hopes of making lasting allies. In this we have failed miserably. Instead of building infrastructure for the people we provide arms for their dictatorial governments.

We actually need Donald Trump as Secretary of Commerce. He seems to know how to 'deal'.
So are you saying that if we buy, say, $1m worth of plastic doodads from China then we can't buy anything more from China until we sell $1m worth of something, anything, to China? Or that our purchase of their plastic doodads is conditional upon their purchase of an equal amount of goods or services from us?

In theory it seems like a good idea but in practice it's hard to see how it would work. If the Chinese decide they don't want anything from us and just sell their wares elsewhere the result is that we lose the cheap imports, which means the price of everything rises, the consumer stops spending and the economy implodes. It essentially means we can't import anything unless we export something of comparable value and, if we currently don't have anything that other nations want (after all, if we did there wouldn't be a huge trade deficit), it's hard to see how it could work.
__________________
Isa 54:17 NKJV No weapon formed against you shall prosper, And every tongue which rises against you in judgment You shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their righteousness is from Me," Says the LORD.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Unread 22nd February 2013, 03:55 PM
Regular Member

Gender: Male Faith: Methodist Party: US-Republican Country: United States Member For 1 Years
 
Join Date: 10th December 2012
Posts: 6,611
Blessings: 107,771
My Mood Cynical
Reps: 2,868,488,481,619,386,368 (power: 2,868,488,481,619,394)
GarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond repute
GarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Dave Ellis View Post
Just pointing out for the record.... when Clinton left office in 2001, he had a 236 Billion Dollar Surplus.

When Bush left office in 2008, he had a 1.4 Trillion Dollar Deficit.

Currently, 4 years later, Obama is running a 1 Trillion Dollar Deficit, which is 400 Billion better than Bush, and the deficit is still falling.


I should point out I'm typically Center-Right wing, however the numbers don't lie.... If we're looking at fiscal irresponsibility, the Republicans take the cake.
Your numbers are not accurate putting it mildly.


The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

$4.899 trillion in 8 years

versus

$4.939 trillion in under 4 years


To claim that Obama has been more fiscally responsible than Bush is laughable. Btw, I don't consider accounting gimmicks to be responsible accounting, I consider it to be Bernie Madoff accounting.
__________________
Proud Autistic Conservative
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Fox News is being branded by the left as a network of “right wing extremists.” Since when does daring to question the policies and motivations of government define extremism?
It used to define journalism. -- Mike Shortage, "CNN and NBC News: Is journalistic integrity dead?" Washington Times, February 19, 2013

If you would like the link to the article, it's in the profile page.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Unread 22nd February 2013, 06:32 PM
Sanctimonious old crackpot

74 Gender: Male Faith: Protestant Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 4th February 2006
Posts: 11,110
Blessings: 322,811
Reps: 686,678,209,707,061,376 (power: 686,678,209,707,081)
OldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond repute
OldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by contango View Post
So are you saying that if we buy, say, $1m worth of plastic doodads from China then we can't buy anything more from China until we sell $1m worth of something, anything, to China? Or that our purchase of their plastic doodads is conditional upon their purchase of an equal amount of goods or services from us?

In theory it seems like a good idea but in practice it's hard to see how it would work. If the Chinese decide they don't want anything from us and just sell their wares elsewhere the result is that we lose the cheap imports, which means the price of everything rises, the consumer stops spending and the economy implodes. It essentially means we can't import anything unless we export something of comparable value and, if we currently don't have anything that other nations want (after all, if we did there wouldn't be a huge trade deficit), it's hard to see how it could work.
It couldn't be any worse than the 'theory' we're employing now. Our plan seems to be, "We need a bigger truck".

Regarding nations that won't play fair, I say cut 'em loose. We really should be rebuilding our domestic markets.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Unread 22nd February 2013, 07:45 PM
contango's Avatar
...and you shall live...

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Country: United Kingdom Member For 4 Years Steward
 
Join Date: 9th July 2010
Location: Sometimes here, sometimes there
Posts: 3,601
Blessings: 1,129,374,245
My Mood Sleepy
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,854,784)
contango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond repute
contango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond reputecontango has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by oldwiseguy View Post
It couldn't be any worse than the 'theory' we're employing now. Our plan seems to be, "We need a bigger truck".

Regarding nations that won't play fair, I say cut 'em loose. We really should be rebuilding our domestic markets.
How do you define "playing fair"? Our interests aren't their interests and they will look after their own interests just as we (in theory at least) look after ours.

I'm not sure if you're seriously suggesting that if we pay China $1m for a boatload of plastic doodads we should expect China in return to give us the $1m back in exchange for $50,000 worth of medicines just because "that's what they can pay", although reading your posts I can't be entirely sure. If that is what you're suggesting I can't see China being overly keen on the idea.

Ultimately when an economy is based on consumers borrowing and spending but doesn't make any of the things they buy the inevitable result is that the borrowed money floods out of the country, ending up in the countries that actually make the stuff people want to buy, and a trade deficit accumulates. Shifting the economy so it isn't so heavily focussed on debt would be a good thing, it's just a question of how (and whether) to ease the financial pain of those who bought assets with debt only to watch their value plummet as lenders use criteria more rigorous than "check species, check pulse, approve loan".
__________________
Isa 54:17 NKJV No weapon formed against you shall prosper, And every tongue which rises against you in judgment You shall condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their righteousness is from Me," Says the LORD.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Unread 22nd February 2013, 07:55 PM
Contributor

31 Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Party: CA-Conservatives Country: Canada Member For 2 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 27th December 2011
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 5,603
Blessings: 213,357
My Mood Happy
Reps: 155,481,386,512,240,096 (power: 155,481,386,512,248)
Dave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond repute
Dave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Your numbers are not accurate putting it mildly.


The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

$4.899 trillion in 8 years

versus

$4.939 trillion in under 4 years


To claim that Obama has been more fiscally responsible than Bush is laughable. Btw, I don't consider accounting gimmicks to be responsible accounting, I consider it to be Bernie Madoff accounting.

Do you have no understanding of economics? Do you understand the difference between deficit and debt?

If you take over a government that is making posting a 236 billion dollar surplus, and wind up with a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, racking up nearly 5 Trillion in debt along the way, that is gross fiscal incompetence.

If you take over a government that is losing 1.4 trillion a year, it doesn't matter how good of an economist you are, it's inevitable you are going to pile on a ton more debt until you can right the financial situation. You simply can't balance that kind of deficit out overnight, it's going to take years to correct. The country was in such a state that it lost a couple hundred billion dollars before Obama was even able to get his first budget put together.

You are approaching this as if they started in a similar situation. They didn't. Bush inherited the first u.s. budget surplus since the 1950s. Obama inherited the largest budgetary deficit in global history. So comparing the total debt during their time in office is a useless stat. The only way that would matter is if they both started off in a neutral and similar position.

Obama has managed to cut 400 billion from the deficit despite being mired in a recession. That in itself is pretty impressive. This number is continuing to fall, and should be under the trillion mark this year.

This isn't "madoff" economics. These are real numbers. The numbers say Clinton ran things fairly well economically, bush took a good situation and trashed it to an unprecedented amount, and Obama is slowly but steadily righting the ship.

Do I agree with all his economic policies? Not at all. But to say Obama is doing worse than Bush from an economic standpoint is simply absurd. Anyone looking from an objective viewpoint would say the same thing.
__________________
The Political Compass Test:
Economic: Left/Right: +0.12/10
Social: Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18/10
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Unread 23rd February 2013, 12:37 AM
Sanctimonious old crackpot

74 Gender: Male Faith: Protestant Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 4th February 2006
Posts: 11,110
Blessings: 322,811
Reps: 686,678,209,707,061,376 (power: 686,678,209,707,081)
OldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond repute
OldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond reputeOldWiseGuy has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by contango View Post
How do you define "playing fair"? Our interests aren't their interests and they will look after their own interests just as we (in theory at least) look after ours.

I'm not sure if you're seriously suggesting that if we pay China $1m for a boatload of plastic doodads we should expect China in return to give us the $1m back in exchange for $50,000 worth of medicines just because "that's what they can pay", although reading your posts I can't be entirely sure. If that is what you're suggesting I can't see China being overly keen on the idea.

Ultimately when an economy is based on consumers borrowing and spending but doesn't make any of the things they buy the inevitable result is that the borrowed money floods out of the country, ending up in the countries that actually make the stuff people want to buy, and a trade deficit accumulates. Shifting the economy so it isn't so heavily focussed on debt would be a good thing, it's just a question of how (and whether) to ease the financial pain of those who bought assets with debt only to watch their value plummet as lenders use criteria more rigorous than "check species, check pulse, approve loan".
We have two choices: Fix the problem, or deny that we have one. So far we claim to have a problem but act as if we don't. Very confusing.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Unread 23rd February 2013, 03:37 PM
Regular Member

Gender: Male Faith: Methodist Party: US-Republican Country: United States Member For 1 Years
 
Join Date: 10th December 2012
Posts: 6,611
Blessings: 107,771
My Mood Cynical
Reps: 2,868,488,481,619,386,368 (power: 2,868,488,481,619,394)
GarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond repute
GarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond reputeGarfieldJL has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Dave Ellis View Post
Do you have no understanding of economics? Do you understand the difference between deficit and debt?
There isn't exactly a difference between the two.

Originally Posted by Dave Ellis View Post
If you take over a government that is making posting a 236 billion dollar surplus, and wind up with a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, racking up nearly 5 Trillion in debt along the way, that is gross fiscal incompetence.
There was only one year where Bush had a spending deficit of over a trillion dollars, and that was primarily due to TARP (which was $700 billion)...

Originally Posted by Dave Ellis View Post
If you take over a government that is losing 1.4 trillion a year, it doesn't matter how good of an economist you are, it's inevitable you are going to pile on a ton more debt until you can right the financial situation. You simply can't balance that kind of deficit out overnight, it's going to take years to correct. The country was in such a state that it lost a couple hundred billion dollars before Obama was even able to get his first budget put together.
Seriously stop misrepresenting the facts, there was only 1 year that Bush's yearly budget deficit was above a Trillion dollars and that was entirely due to TARP in 2008... Obama's was pulling trillion dollar deficits when TARP was paid back by the banks, otherwise Obama's deficit record would be even worse than it already is.
We all know about TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which spent $700 billion in taxpayers’ money to bail out banks after the financial crisis. That money was scrutinized by Congress and the media.
The true cost of the bank bailout | Need to Know | PBS

Originally Posted by Dave Ellis View Post
You are approaching this as if they started in a similar situation. They didn't. Bush inherited the first u.s. budget surplus since the 1950s. Obama inherited the largest budgetary deficit in global history. So comparing the total debt during their time in office is a useless stat. The only way that would matter is if they both started off in a neutral and similar position.

I decided to use three sets of calculations for each president: first, the deficit-to-GDP ratio from the fiscal year he took office to the fiscal year he left minus one (thus, for Reagan: 1981-88); second, from his first fiscal year plus one to the fiscal year he left (thus, 1982-89); and third, an average of the first two
Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:
Ronald Reagan
1981-88 4.2 %
1982-89 4.2
Average 4.2
George H. W. Bush
1989-92 4.0
1990-93 4.3
Average 4.2
Bill Clinton
1993-2000 0.8
1994-2001 0.1
Average 0.5
George W. Bush
2001-08 2.0
2002-09 3.4
Average 2.7
Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9
*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated
Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012
The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ssets/spec.pdf, p. 49.)

The Facts About Budget Deficits: How The Presidents Truly Rank - Forbes

Originally Posted by Dave Ellis View Post
Obama has managed to cut 400 billion from the deficit despite being mired in a recession. That in itself is pretty impressive. This number is continuing to fall, and should be under the trillion mark this year.
The President is not proposing to cut spending by $400 billion. He’s only proposing to reduce future spending growth by that amount. In other words, his “spending cut” is only a cut if you play the dishonest DC game of measuring “cuts” against a baseline of ever-expanding government.
To give you an idea of what this really means, here’s my chart showing the CBO projection of what will happen to spending if the budget is left on autopilot. That’s the blue line.
The red line, by contrast, shows the impact of Obama’s supposed $400 billion cut. Feel free to pull out a magnifying glass to examine the difference between the two lines.
Center for Freedom and Prosperity >> Obama’s Fiscal Plan: Real Tax Hikes and Fake Spending Cuts

Originally Posted by Dave Ellis View Post
This isn't "madoff" economics. These are real numbers. The numbers say Clinton ran things fairly well economically, bush took a good situation and trashed it to an unprecedented amount, and Obama is slowly but steadily righting the ship.
Last I checked Bush tried to fix the housing problem back in 2003 and was demonized by the media... Republicans in congress tried to fix the problem as well but were stonewalled by individuals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Furthermore, Obama hasn't righted the ship, the only reason the numbers show we're back to 2009 levels is because millions of Americans have given up looking for work.


Moreover, even this doesn’t nearly fully account for the 8.2 million Americans who have given up hope during the Obama term of office, and dropped out of the work force altogether. When you are considered out of the work force, you are no longer counted as unemployed, even though you still do not have a job, and you still want and are available for work.
The U6 unemployment rate counts only 2.5 million of those 8.2 million who have given up hope and dropped out during the Obama years. The ShadowStats website, which counts the long term discouraged workers the government doesn’t count, reports the total rate for the unemployed and underemployed (part time for economic reasons) as 22.8%.

Obama's Real Unemployment Rate Is 14.7%, And A Recession's On The Way - Forbes

Originally Posted by Dave Ellis View Post
Do I agree with all his economic policies? Not at all. But to say Obama is doing worse than Bush from an economic standpoint is simply absurd. Anyone looking from an objective viewpoint would say the same thing.
Look I know you'd like to believe things are starting to turn around, but the fact is that Obama's policies are driving us off a cliff. The economy didn't go south for the Bush Presidency until after Democrats had control of congress.

Democrats took control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections, in case you've forgotten.

The reason why the numbers seem so good is because millions of Americans are longer counted since they've given up looking for a job out of despair.
__________________
Proud Autistic Conservative
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Fox News is being branded by the left as a network of “right wing extremists.” Since when does daring to question the policies and motivations of government define extremism?
It used to define journalism. -- Mike Shortage, "CNN and NBC News: Is journalistic integrity dead?" Washington Times, February 19, 2013

If you would like the link to the article, it's in the profile page.

Last edited by GarfieldJL; 23rd February 2013 at 06:08 PM. Reason: Accidentally left out a quote
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Unread 23rd February 2013, 06:05 PM
Contributor

31 Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Party: CA-Conservatives Country: Canada Member For 2 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 27th December 2011
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 5,603
Blessings: 213,357
My Mood Happy
Reps: 155,481,386,512,240,096 (power: 155,481,386,512,248)
Dave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond repute
Dave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond reputeDave Ellis has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
There isn't exactly a difference between the two.
I rest my case.... There is a major difference. If you don't know the difference between deficit and debt, you have no right to start yammering on about the economy. It's clear you have a lack of a basic understanding of how it works, and as shown by the rest of the data in this post, you are prone to using bad statistics.

Oh, and just so you know, Deficit is the amount of money the government spends over and above it's available revenue on an annual basis. So, for example, say this year the government brought in $100, but they spent $120, they would have a deficit of $20.

Debt on the other hand is the accumulated long term money that you owe people. So, for example, all the combined money we've had to borrow to fund the deficits that we have not paid back yet is the debt. We also pay interest on the debt, the same way you would pay interest on any loan you receive.

So, say in the year we were talking about above, if you had a debt of $5,000 already, with a $20 dollar deficit, that means you have a debt of $5020 next year.

Likewise, if you have a budget surplus as the country did under Clinton (i.e. the government brought in $100 and spent $90), you can use some of the extra money to pay off the outstanding debt.

So in the case of Bush, he inherited a country with a $230 Billion Surplus, and in the span of 8 years racked up a $1400 Billion Deficit.

Obama inherited a country with a $1400 Billion Deficit, and reduced it to roughly $1000 Billion. It's projected to fall further to $980 Billion by the end of the fiscal year. That's a 30% deficit reduction since he took power.

However, even though he's cut the deficit by 30%, he's still piling on close to a trillion in debt annually, due to the leftover deficit from the Bush years that he is trying to bring under control.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
There was only one year where Bush had a spending deficit of over a trillion dollars, and that was primarily due to TARP (which was $700 billion)...
That is correct, the recession played a fairly large contributing factor to the huge jump in deficits during the later bush years. However the deficit steadily grew during his presidency even when the economy was still good.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Seriously stop misrepresenting the facts, there was only 1 year that Bush's yearly budget deficit was above a Trillion dollars and that was entirely due to TARP in 2008... Obama's was pulling trillion dollar deficits when TARP was paid back by the banks, otherwise Obama's deficit record would be even worse than it already is.
We all know about TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which spent $700 billion in taxpayers’ money to bail out banks after the financial crisis. That money was scrutinized by Congress and the media.
The true cost of the bank bailout | Need to Know | PBS
If you want to talk about Obama's deficit record and how fast he's getting it under control, I refer you on to this article "US Deficit shrinking at the fastest pace since World War Two" from Investors Business Daily:

U.S. Deficit Shrinking At Fastest Pace Since WWII, Before Fiscal Cliff - Investors.com

P.S. Simply stating Bush only racked up a trillion dollar deficit once isn't really a great defense. In this example it means he took a good situation in his early years and it went so far south that in his last year of presidency he became the first president to rack up a trillion dollar plus deficit.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
I decided to use three sets of calculations for each president: first, the deficit-to-GDP ratio from the fiscal year he took office to the fiscal year he left minus one (thus, for Reagan: 1981-88); second, from his first fiscal year plus one to the fiscal year he left (thus, 1982-89); and third, an average of the first two
Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:
Ronald Reagan
1981-88 4.2 %
1982-89 4.2
Average 4.2
George H. W. Bush
1989-92 4.0
1990-93 4.3
Average 4.2
Bill Clinton
1993-2000 0.8
1994-2001 0.1
Average 0.5
George W. Bush
2001-08 2.0
2002-09 3.4
Average 2.7
Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9
*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated
Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012
The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ssets/spec.pdf, p. 49.)

Haha, oh no you don't.

The statistics above are flawed, and flawed due to reasons you have already brought up in this very post.

You can't go by the span of an entire presidency. As you've already stated, bush ran reasonable deficits throughout most of his presidency and they only got out of control towards the end. So, using the average of his presidency is a flawed number, it hides the fact things got worse and worse under his administration, and it hides the recession his policies contributed a lot to creating.

Likewise, it makes Obama look far worse, as the deficit numbers only appear during his presidency.

However, what is telling within your stats is the difference between your first number, and your second number. That exposes the change from a year to year basis and gives more of a true picture here (the truest picture would be to involve year by year figures)

The difference between bushes 2001-2008 and 2002-2009 numbers is 1.4%, that's a huge deficit jump given the fact it's one year in an 8 year average. Whereas with Obama, the 2008-2012 to 2010-2102 is a 0.4% reduction, showing a deficit drop, and if the stat was correct to the other ones and included 2013, you'd see far more than a 0.4% drop.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
The President is not proposing to cut spending by $400 billion. He’s only proposing to reduce future spending growth by that amount. In other words, his “spending cut” is only a cut if you play the dishonest [snip]
Apparently you fail to recognize this isn't a proposal. This has already happened.

So, if you want to go on about describing dishonest games and all that, check your own stats. The deficit has fallen by $400 Billion during his presidency, and it is continuing to fall at the fastest rate since WW2.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Last I checked Bush tried to fix the housing problem back in 2003 and was demonized by the media... Republicans in congress tried to fix the problem as well but were stonewalled by individuals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
What did they propose, and what was the rationale for stopping it? And I want data, not assertions about some lefty conspiracy or whatever.

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Furthermore, Obama hasn't righted the ship, the only reason the numbers show we're back to 2009 levels is because millions of Americans have given up looking for work.
You're correct, he hasn't righted the ship, however it is clearly on route to being righted. And do you have data to back up your last assertion?

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
Moreover, even this doesn’t nearly fully account for the 8.2 million Americans who have given up hope during the Obama term of office, and dropped out of the work force altogether. When you are considered out of the work force, you are no longer counted as unemployed, even though you still do not have a job, and you still want and are available for work.
The U6 unemployment rate counts only 2.5 million of those 8.2 million who have given up hope and dropped out during the Obama years. The ShadowStats website, which counts the long term discouraged workers the government doesn’t count, reports the total rate for the unemployed and underemployed (part time for economic reasons) as 22.8%.
Do you have stats to back up your assertions that these workers have dropped out because they've "given up hope"?

The article you linked is playing statistical games with population numbers to create stats it wants to. Go look at the actual data from a first-source like the agency that tracks national employment numbers.


Look I know you'd like to believe things are starting to turn around, but the fact is that Obama's policies are driving us off a cliff. The economy didn't go south for the Bush Presidency until after Democrats had control of congress.

Democrats took control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections, in case you've forgotten.

The reason why the numbers seem so good is because millions of Americans are longer counted since they've given up looking for a job out of despair.[/quote]
__________________
The Political Compass Test:
Economic: Left/Right: +0.12/10
Social: Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18/10
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
blame game


Return to American Politics

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:26 AM.