Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
We Have a "Paying For It Problem"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GarfieldJL" data-source="post: 62488720" data-attributes="member: 320660"><p>There isn't exactly a difference between the two.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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)...</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p><em>We all know about TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, <strong>which spent $700 billion</strong> in taxpayers&#8217; money to bail out banks after the financial crisis. That money was scrutinized by Congress and the media.</em></p><p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/" target="_blank">The true cost of the bank bailout | Need to Know | PBS</a></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><em>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</em></p><p><em>Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:</em></p><p><em>Ronald Reagan</em></p><p><em>1981-88 4.2 %</em></p><p><em>1982-89 4.2</em></p><p><em>Average 4.2</em></p><p><em>George H. W. Bush</em></p><p><em>1989-92 4.0</em></p><p><em>1990-93 4.3</em></p><p><em>Average 4.2</em></p><p><em>Bill Clinton</em></p><p><em>1993-2000 0.8</em></p><p><em>1994-2001 0.1</em></p><p><em>Average 0.5</em></p><p><em>George W. Bush</em></p><p><em>2001-08 2.0</em></p><p><em>2002-09 3.4</em></p><p><em>Average 2.7</em></p><p><em>Barack Obama</em></p><p><em>2009-12* 9.1</em></p><p><em>2010-12 8.7</em></p><p><em>Average 8.9</em></p><p><em>*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated</em></p><p><em>Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012</em></p><p><em>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&#8217;s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf</a>, p. 49.)</em></p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/" target="_blank">The Facts About Budget Deficits: How The Presidents Truly Rank - Forbes</a></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><em>The President is not proposing to cut spending by $400 billion. He&#8217;s only proposing to reduce future spending growth by that amount. In other words, his &#8220;spending cut&#8221; is only a cut if you play the <a href="http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/exposing-dishonest-washington-budget-math-with-john-stossel/" target="_blank">dishonest DC game of measuring &#8220;cuts&#8221; against a baseline</a> of ever-expanding government.</em></p><p><em>To give you an idea of what this really means, here&#8217;s my chart showing the CBO projection of what will happen to spending if the budget is left on autopilot. That&#8217;s the blue line.</em></p><p><em>The red line, by contrast, shows the impact of Obama&#8217;s supposed $400 billion cut. Feel free to pull out a magnifying glass to examine the difference between the two lines.</em></p><p><a href="http://freedomandprosperity.org/2012/blog/big-government/obama%E2%80%99s-fiscal-plan-real-tax-hikes-and-fake-spending-cuts/" target="_blank">Center for Freedom and Prosperity >> Obamaâ&#8364;&#8482;s Fiscal Plan: Real Tax Hikes and Fake Spending Cuts</a></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p><em>Moreover, even this doesn&#8217;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.</em></p><p><em>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&#8217;t count, reports the total rate for the unemployed and underemployed (part time for economic reasons) as 22.8%.</em></p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/11/obamas-real-unemployment-rate-is-14-7-and-a-recessions-on-the-way/" target="_blank">Obama's Real Unemployment Rate Is 14.7%, And A Recession's On The Way - Forbes</a></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>Democrats took control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections, in case you've forgotten.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GarfieldJL, post: 62488720, member: 320660"] There isn't exactly a difference between the two. 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)... 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. [I]We all know about TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, [B]which spent $700 billion[/B] in taxpayers’ money to bail out banks after the financial crisis. That money was scrutinized by Congress and the media.[/I] [URL="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/"]The true cost of the bank bailout | Need to Know | PBS[/URL] [I]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[/I] [I]Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:[/I] [I]Ronald Reagan[/I] [I]1981-88 4.2 %[/I] [I]1982-89 4.2[/I] [I]Average 4.2[/I] [I]George H. W. Bush[/I] [I]1989-92 4.0[/I] [I]1990-93 4.3[/I] [I]Average 4.2[/I] [I]Bill Clinton[/I] [I]1993-2000 0.8[/I] [I]1994-2001 0.1[/I] [I]Average 0.5[/I] [I]George W. Bush[/I] [I]2001-08 2.0[/I] [I]2002-09 3.4[/I] [I]Average 2.7[/I] [I]Barack Obama[/I] [I]2009-12* 9.1[/I] [I]2010-12 8.7[/I] [I]Average 8.9[/I] [I]*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated[/I] [I]Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012[/I] [I]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 [URL]http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf[/URL], p. 49.)[/I] [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/"]The Facts About Budget Deficits: How The Presidents Truly Rank - Forbes[/URL] [I]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 [URL="http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/exposing-dishonest-washington-budget-math-with-john-stossel/"]dishonest DC game of measuring “cuts” against a baseline[/URL] of ever-expanding government.[/I] [I]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.[/I] [I]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.[/I] [URL="http://freedomandprosperity.org/2012/blog/big-government/obama%E2%80%99s-fiscal-plan-real-tax-hikes-and-fake-spending-cuts/"]Center for Freedom and Prosperity >> Obama’s Fiscal Plan: Real Tax Hikes and Fake Spending Cuts[/URL] 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. [I]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.[/I] [I]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%.[/I] [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/11/obamas-real-unemployment-rate-is-14-7-and-a-recessions-on-the-way/"]Obama's Real Unemployment Rate Is 14.7%, And A Recession's On The Way - Forbes[/URL] 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]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
We Have a "Paying For It Problem"
Top
Bottom