hot of the AP

[mikem12]

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

 

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090429/D97SCPI00.html

Edited April 30, 2009 by mikem12

[stephenhawkings]

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

FACT:

POLITICIANS

CREATE

DEFICITS

Edited April 30, 2009 by NickF1011
Quote edited.

[Critic]

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...p;f=72&id=2

 

Dont' copy and paste entire articles (DMCA Copyright Notice). Announcement started 7th August 2007

BlueOvalNews Staff

Please note that it's against our policy to cut and paste entire articles from other publications into this site.

 

Rather than cutting/pasting entire articles into this site, we recommend that you only cute/paste a small part of the article (a few sentences or a paragraph) and then link to the rest of the article.

 

Here's an example.

 

Finally, please note that wholesale copying of articles may constitute copyright infringement.

 

Digital Millennium Copyright Act "DMCA" Notice.

Edited April 30, 2009 by NickF1011
Quote edited.

[J-150]

so the dream candidate that was going to change the way Washington works is no different than any other politician. Telling you what you want to hear to get elected.

[NickF1011]

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...p;f=72&id=2

 

Dont' copy and paste entire articles (DMCA Copyright Notice). Announcement started 7th August 2007

BlueOvalNews Staff

Please note that it's against our policy to cut and paste entire articles from other publications into this site.

 

Rather than cutting/pasting entire articles into this site, we recommend that you only cute/paste a small part of the article (a few sentences or a paragraph) and then link to the rest of the article.

 

Here's an example.

 

Finally, please note that wholesale copying of articles may constitute copyright infringement.

 

Digital Millennium Copyright Act "DMCA" Notice.

 

Thanks, but please don't add to the aggravation by quoting the entire article he quoted. :D

 

Mikem, could you please cut out the article and provide a link instead? Thank you.

[RaZor]

Interesting to note that the writers failed to point out that the Fed deficit went from $5.1 tillion to $10.7 trillion during the Bush admin and that even though the Dems had a bare majority in Congress the last two years, the Reps exercised of 100 filibusters to keep anything that was not in their line from proceeding for passage.

[Critic]

Interesting to note that the writers failed to point out that the Fed deficit went from $5.1 tillion to $10.7 trillion during the Bush admin and that even though the Dems had a bare majority in Congress the last two years, the Reps exercised of 100 filibusters to keep anything that was not in their line from proceeding for passage.

 

Oh, your cloudy the issue with real facts.. Let the original poster have his fun. Thing's like this just harden the public to the Party of NO.

That's what hurts, the louder they shout, the less that listen.

[suv_guy_19]

Interesting to note that the writers failed to point out that the Fed deficit went from $5.1 tillion to $10.7 trillion during the Bush admin and that even though the Dems had a bare majority in Congress the last two years, the Reps exercised of 100 filibusters to keep anything that was not in their line from proceeding for passage.

 

 

Just a correction. That's the debt you're talking about, not deficit.

Edited April 30, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[mikem12]

Thanks, but please don't add to the aggravation by quoting the entire article he quoted. :D

 

Mikem, could you please cut out the article and provide a link instead? Thank you.

 

 

done

 

Mike

[RaZor]

Just a correction. That's the debt you're talking about, not deficit.

Oh yeah, you're correct - and I might also point out that the "debt" does not take into account the true debt cost of the Iraq/Bush war (which is over $3trillion when all costs are counted - more than 3x's that counted in the debt), nor does it take into account the IOU's of the money borrowed from Soc Sec. during that period. But then that would be taking "personal responsibility", wouldn't it? Oh wait . . . that only applies to common folk, doesn't it?

 

You're also right Critic, what was I thinking? Defections from the GOP are mounting . . . I heard it is down to 25% (nat'lly registered) now -- just yesterday. I should just shut up. Sorry.

 

Funny thing about it is I ought to call a (well known) Rep national activist that I told, "This party is going to self-destruct!" and he blasted me - when I left them more than a decade ago. Whoa, would that be fun.

[NickF1011]

Oh yeah, you're correct - and I might also point out that the "debt" does not take into account the true debt cost of the Iraq/Bush war (which is over $3trillion when all costs are counted - more than 3x's that counted in the debt), nor does it take into account the IOU's of the money borrowed from Soc Sec. during that period. But then that would be taking "personal responsibility", wouldn't it? Oh wait . . . that only applies to common folk, doesn't it?

 

You're also right Critic, what was I thinking? Defections from the GOP are mounting . . . I heard it is down to 25% (nat'lly registered) now -- just yesterday. I should just shut up. Sorry.

 

Funny thing about it is I ought to call a (well known) Rep national activist that I told, "This party is going to self-destruct!" and he blasted me - when I left them more than a decade ago. Whoa, would that be fun.

 

I really do hope the Republican party does self-destruct. Then perhaps someone can form a real party in this country to take its place. I mean really, for the past couple of decades the Republicans have just been slightly-more-to-the-right Democrats anyway. That's sort of the part I find funny about Democrats who criticize the Republican party. In the end, the differences between them now are so miniscule that they are really criticizing themselves.

 

So go ahead, blame Bush for the spending. Blame Bush for Iraq. Blame everything on Bush. As far as I'm concerned, he was never representative of his party in the first place. He was an out of control spender like everyone else in Washington these days. People are starting to get sick of it. Republican, Democrat. It doesn't matter. The people are getting fed up with the way Washington is being run. And so far, none of Obama's "change" has taken place. The electorate will remember that.

Edited April 30, 2009 by NickF1011

[Critic]

I really do hope the Republican party does self-destruct. Then perhaps someone can form a real party in this country to take its place. I mean really, for the past couple of decades the Republicans have just been slightly-more-to-the-right Democrats anyway. That's sort of the part I find funny about Democrats who criticize the Republican party. In the end, the differences between them now are so miniscule that they are really criticizing themselves.

Actually Nick I'm with you on this but Not just Republican, but both parties, I thought the last 10 years was we were suppose to work TOGETHER, but it just doesn't seem to be,

 

I'd want to trace it back to Clinton and the impeachment, but that's bringing politics into it...

 

What party can I get going that I can join? the WHIGs?

[NickF1011]

Actually Nick I'm with you on this but Not just Republican, but both parties, I thought the last 10 years was we were suppose to work TOGETHER, but it just doesn't seem to be,

 

I'd want to trace it back to Clinton and the impeachment, but that's bringing politics into it...

 

What party can I get going that I can join? the WHIGs?

 

Jack Nicholson summed it up best when talking about Gotham, except it now aptly applies to Washington, D.C.

 

[RaZor]

And so far, none of Obama's "change" has taken place. The electorate will remember that.

Lemme git dis straight . . . you actually thought that Wash DC could be changed in 100 days?

 

You're kidding (out of frustration I presume), right?

 

By the way,l I'm an Independent - a moderate - which I recognized a decade and half ago, that the Reps had great disdain for. Either you get in step with them, or else. . . back to their base . . . means they won't be able to win a nat'l election for decades. . .maybe even a generation. . . just the opposite of what Heir Rove predicted back in 2003.

 

Yes, the Dems have their problems too (the far left) . . . as a matter of fact, the more one moves to either extreme, the more removed they are from our populace.

[NickF1011]

Lemme git dis straight . . . you actually thought that Wash DC could be changed in 100 days?

 

You're kidding (out of frustration I presume), right?

 

By the way,l I'm an Independent - a moderate - which I recognized a decade and half ago, that the Reps had great disdain for. Either you get in step with them, or else. . . back to their base . . . means they won't be able to win a nat'l election for decades. . .maybe even a generation. . . just the opposite of what Heir Rove predicted back in 2003.

 

Yes, the Dems have their problems too (the far left) . . . as a matter of fact, the more one moves to either extreme, the more removed they are from our populace.

 

I'm not kidding. Who cares if it has only been 100 days? Has he demonstrated anything that shows he is about change? Nope. He has pretty much mirrored Bush's spending policies so far with no end to that in sight. So as far as I'm concerned, that "change" isn't anywhere on the horizon. And frankly, the kind of change he was campaigning on is the kind of change I can do without.

 

And by the way, I'm an independent also.

[J-150]

Lemme git dis straight . . . you actually thought that Wash DC could be changed in 100 days?

 

 

No, even though Obama implied that he could.

 

No, I think most people expected that within 100 days we would see that, for the most part, there was going to be a new way of doing things.

 

You know, honesty being one of the more important things Obama promised and thus far has not delivered.

[V8 Ford]

Interesting to note that the writers failed to point out that the Fed deficit went from $5.1 tillion to $10.7 trillion during the Bush admin and that even though the Dems had a bare majority in Congress the last two years, the Reps exercised of 100 filibusters to keep anything that was not in their line from proceeding for passage.

To put things in perspective, the federal debt increased from 51% of the GDP to 75% of the GDP under bush. Assuming 2% growth on the year, it will increase from 75% of the GDP to 87% of the GDP under Obama in his first year. His budget projects that it will go to 92% by the end of his second term. With a no recessions prediction, the percent national debt will stabilize at around 88% of the GDP while the government runs a 600 billion dollar deficit indefinitely. Under the current budget, 8 years of Obama will increase the federal debt by 7.2 trillion dollars. The only problem is that's a no recession prediction. The Bush budgets projected a return to the black by 2014 with a no recession prediction.

 

Yeah, Bush didn't do anything about spending, but he never increased the national budget by 33% in one year (1 trillion dollars more spending between 2008 and 2009, accounting for almost all of the deficit for this term and the rest of the projections), and Bush doesn't set the budget anymore.

 

The one saving grace for both of them is that the debt won't approach over 100% of the GDP, which is when it becomes really problematic. Running a deficit is bad for economic growth of a nation, but as long as its reasonably lower than the entire GDP, growth prevents it from becoming a real problem (like would be implied by political adverts).

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/asset.aspx?AssetId=764

Edited May 1, 2009 by V8 Ford

[J-150]

V8,

 

those are some scary-ass numbers.

 

and definitely not sustainable.

 

 

People need to realize that we needed this recession. Too much money has been used holding it back. By skipping the naturally scheduled recession that should have occured in the early 2000s (should have happened even if Sept 11 didn't) we have doubled the pain for this one.

 

Its the natural economic cycle.

 

 

Continuing to pay to hold it back is making it worse.

[grbeck]

Oh yeah, you're correct - and I might also point out that the "debt" does not take into account the true debt cost of the Iraq/Bush war (which is over $3trillion when all costs are counted - more than 3x's that counted in the debt), nor does it take into account the IOU's of the money borrowed from Soc Sec. during that period. But then that would be taking "personal responsibility", wouldn't it? Oh wait . . . that only applies to common folk, doesn't it?

 

You're also right Critic, what was I thinking? Defections from the GOP are mounting . . . I heard it is down to 25% (nat'lly registered) now -- just yesterday. I should just shut up. Sorry.

 

Funny thing about it is I ought to call a (well known) Rep national activist that I told, "This party is going to self-destruct!" and he blasted me - when I left them more than a decade ago. Whoa, would that be fun.

 

Here is some more information for balance:

 

One year ago, in July 2007, the Kaiser Foundation, in partnership with Harvard University and The Washington Post, published the results of a comprehensive study of self-identified independents in the U.S. The study found that although the group is anything but homogenous in their political ideology, a majority lean Democrat side but have lost faith in the party. (emphasis added)

 

Defections from the Democrats were apparently already happening. Now Republicans have joined the trend.

 

And please stop kidding yourself that Democrats like independents anymore than Republicans do. If anything, their dislike of independents is what brings both parties together.

Edited May 1, 2009 by grbeck

[grbeck]

I'm not kidding. Who cares if it has only been 100 days? Has he demonstrated anything that shows he is about change? Nope.

 

That's not entirely fair. He has demonstrated that if you want a high-level federal government job, it doesn't matter if you pay your taxes. That certainly is a change...although not quite the kind most people were hoping for.

[V8 Ford]

V8,

 

those are some scary-ass numbers.

 

and definitely not sustainable.

 

 

People need to realize that we needed this recession. Too much money has been used holding it back. By skipping the naturally scheduled recession that should have occured in the early 2000s (should have happened even if Sept 11 didn't) we have doubled the pain for this one.

 

Its the natural economic cycle.

 

 

Continuing to pay to hold it back is making it worse.

It's sustainable as long as it doesn't reach an unreasonable amount of the GDP, so long as growth compensates for interest payments. It's a bad thing and I certainly don't support it (how in the hell did they find 1 trillion dollars worth of new projects?), but it isn't as bad as some people make it out to be.

 

My understanding on recessions is that they're caused by human fallibility and mistakes. People make poor decisions and wrongly allocate resources, then everything falls apart once the mistake is realized and the damage spreads when people, fearing for their jobs, cut spending and deepen the recession. Maybe they do serve a weeding purpose, but if they do the government has been interfiling with this process for decades with the fed and spending, and this recession is no different.