9/4/2012 1:47 PM
9/4/2012 1:58 PM
Posted by jvford on 9/4/2012 7:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 9/4/2012 7:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by antoncresten on 9/4/2012 6:54:00 AM (view original):
Then why has the deficit grown by nearly $5b in less than four years?
You really don't know the answer to that question?  (And it's trillion, not billion)
Of course. This is an easy one.

We are growing the deficit simply due to not taxing enough. It really isn't a spending problem.

SS really isn't going bankrupt. Funding for Medicare is actually booming. We just need more tax revenue.

Nutting also ignored costs associated with the auto bailout and any FY 2009 stimulus spending.

Add it all up, and it's preposterous to claim the $3.52 trillion in spending in FY 2009 was all Bush's fault and that Obama's budget clock should start ticking on October 1, 2009.

Also of note is that programs such as TARP and the stimulus package were sold to the American people as emergency spending that wouldn't be recurring.

As the last budget agreed upon by the executive and legislative branches prior to the financial crisis projected spending of $3.1 trillion, that's the baseline from which new budgets should operate adjusted for inflation.

Unfortunately as we conservatives correctly predicted at the time, this wouldn't end up being the case, and the new baseline would be what was finally spent in 2009.

As such, while the President and his shills in the media celebrate what they claim to be "flat spending" in Obama's first term, the FY 2013 budget projects outlays $700 billion greater than the last budget before the financial crisis, a 23 percent increase.

If that's what these folks call "flat," we're all in a lot of trouble.

But this is clearly the goal: to revise history before the election to manipulate the public into thinking that spending hasn't gone up under Obama.

Like everything else, it's all Bush's fault!


Furthermore, Bush's spending stopped in Jan 2009, yet they credit all of Nobamas initial spending to Bush:

Obama didn't come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch's Nutting says that's Bush's spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn't need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

 

9/4/2012 2:02 PM

9/4/2012 2:11 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 9/4/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by raucous on 9/4/2012 6:39:00 AM (view original):
A much more telling chart.

Job "creation" can be spun many ways. THIS is the real numbers that matter.


So it seems that you're arguing that Obama has done much better with job creation?
9/4/2012 2:15 PM
He has done much better claiming to have created jobs.

The chart above reflects actual job numbers.

I am mostly interested in actual facts since neither side seems capable of giving them to us straight.

9/4/2012 2:19 PM
But that chart clearly shows that job creation by Obama is competitive with job creation by Bush.  Especially considering that one was doing it during a artificial economic boom and the other during a recession.
9/4/2012 2:19 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 9/4/2012 8:09:00 AM (view original):

More hypocrisy from the Democrats:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dems-dont-seem-to-oppose-id-requirements-when-it-comes-to-their-convention/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

How’s this for irony: Democratic convention organizers are requiring journalists applying for press credentials to display their state-issued ID not once, not twice, but three times.

The stringent ID rules for journalists at the Democrat Party‘s convention seem a bit odd considering the party’s broad, alarmist stance on voter ID laws. The ID laws have drawn harsh criticism from the liberal establishment, including Vice President Joe Biden who has called the practice “voter suppression” and MSNBC hosts who’ve called the laws “racist” and “a GOP conspiracy.”

But for some reason, ID rules aren’t racist when it comes to security at the Democrat National Convention



So then it is far more important to check the credentials of something like who gets in the DNC, but casting a vote for the POTUSA, is not worthy of ID checks?.

9/4/2012 2:21 PM

9/4/2012 2:29 PM
Posted by jvford on 9/4/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):
But that chart clearly shows that job creation by Obama is competitive with job creation by Bush.  Especially considering that one was doing it during a artificial economic boom and the other during a recession.
It would appear that it is not as great as Dems claim. nor as bad as Reps claim.

It is quite a disparity from the one you originally posted.
Can you at least admit that?

9/4/2012 2:33 PM
And for all the blame being cast on the Congress, let's not forget :


President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat  when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

That is the SENATE, not Congress. Maybe Nobama should stop trying to pass crap.
9/4/2012 2:35 PM
9/4/2012 3:09 PM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 9/4/2012 2:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jvford on 9/4/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):
But that chart clearly shows that job creation by Obama is competitive with job creation by Bush.  Especially considering that one was doing it during a artificial economic boom and the other during a recession.
It would appear that it is not as great as Dems claim. nor as bad as Reps claim.

It is quite a disparity from the one you originally posted.
Can you at least admit that?

1) I haven't posted any charts
2) I see no problem with leaving off boom years when posting a chart that shows recession job creation
9/4/2012 3:12 PM
9/5/2012 8:07 AM
9/5/2012 8:14 AM
First of all, not that you care about the truth, but just in case anyone else does, no plan that I'm aware of would change a single thing about this old lady's plan. All changes are proposed for FUTURE senior citizens.

Secondly, If she's been on welfare for 50 years I'd say that she is indeed a "freeloader", and is definitely part of the problem. Sad that you and others can't see that.
of 8

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.