ObamaDebt: Equals 90% of the nation's economic output (GDP)

[_Droopy]

CATO is right, of course, but how are bc or I to be chagrined at this, as this is what we have been saying all along.

This article does not address the astronomical deficits Obama and his Democratic congress have created in just their first year in office, some 14 trillion and climbing in unfunded debt just ten years out. That Obama inherited a declining economy and heavy debt we have already accepted and clearly stated. And none of this, it should be understood, includes Obama's present or future budget requests, cap and trade, or the effects of the EPA's push to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act, any one of which separately could crush the economy. Oh, and let's not minimize the hyperinflation that must follow the creation and spending of 12 trillion in phantom "stimulus" money from either borrowing or printing (the idea the this money can be raised through taxation is ludicrous, as this would mean the utter end of the American economy as anything to speak of in a very direct way).

This is, indeed, one reason the conservative Republican base abandoned Bush and his party in the last election.

[_Droopy]

As Daniel Mitchell of CATO says:

That having been said, Obama has been serving up softballs to the special interests in Washington, so his earned run average may actually wind up being worse than his predecessor's. He promised change, but it appears that Obama wants to be Bush on steroids.

This is where Obama's critics should be directing their attention. Big government won't work any better for Obama than it did for Bush. America's fiscal problem is excessive government spending, and deficits are merely a symptom of that underlying disease. If Obama wants to rejuvenate the economy, he should abandon the Bush policies of big government and interventionism and instead go with free market policies that actually work.

This is nothing more than what I and bc have been saying all along.

Also from CATO:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11591

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/ ... t-peacock/

Do you even know what you are arguing Graham, and why?

[_Droopy]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc108 ... utlook.pdf

[_Kevin Graham]

CATO is right, of course, but how are bc or I to be chagrined at this, as this is what we have been saying all along.

Since you're obviously too dumb to connect the dots, let me take you by the hand and guide you. bcspace said yesterday:

"Obama deficit which currently triples the Bush deficit in only one year"

This is exactly what the article from Cato disproved you friggin idiot! Here it is:

"Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year...[this] is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House."

You cannot even connect two simple dots handed to you on a silver platter and you want us to believe you actually read and comprehend the dozens of Heritage links you provide? You have a habit of dropping links when you can't make an argument. This is typical of intellectual terrorists like yourself.

[Guest]

The great tragedy of the Bush years (with a Republican-controlled Congress) is that they wasted an incredible opportunity to actually act like conservatives. True conservatives should revile Bush and his supporters who squandered such an incredible opportunity. When it came to the economy, Bush was either very, very weak or very, very ignorant (I suspect some combination of both). It pains me to say it, but I'm conservative and even I would prefer "tax and spend" to "borrow and spend" (or even worse, "print and spend").

It also makes it difficult for those of us with some memory to honestly argue for a return to Republican leadership. When the best argument you have is "Well, it's not as bad as the Democrats", then things are pretty bad.

As far as Obama goes in comparison to Bush, I think this video says it all:

THe National Debt

(And the video hasn't been updated to reflect the last year of spending!)

[_Droopy]

CATO is right, of course, but how are bc or I to be chagrined at this, as this is what we have been saying all along.

Since you're obviously too dumb to connect the dots, let me take you by the hand and guide you. bcspace said yesterday:

"Obama deficit which currently triples the Bush deficit in only one year"

This is exactly what the article from Cato disproved you friggin idiot! Here it is:

"Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year...[this] is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House."

You cannot even connect two simple dots handed to you on a silver platter and you want us to believe you actually read and comprehend the dozens of Heritage links you provide? You have a habit of dropping links when you can't make an argument. This is typical of intellectual terrorists like yourself.

1. Are you seriously claiming that this year, Obama and Congress have not bloated the future deficit well beyond Bush's initial input?

2. What has your point here to do with the projected ten year deficits, which are the real Gorilla in the room?

[_Droopy]

Since you're obviously too dumb to connect the dots, let me take you by the hand and guide you. bcspace said yesterday:

"Obama deficit which currently triples the Bush deficit in only one year"

This is exactly what the article from Cato disproved you friggin idiot! Here it is:

"Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year...[this] is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House."

You cannot even connect two simple dots handed to you on a silver platter and you want us to believe you actually read and comprehend the dozens of Heritage links you provide? You have a habit of dropping links when you can't make an argument. This is typical of intellectual terrorists like yourself.

1. Are you seriously claiming that this year, Obama and Congress have not bloated the future deficit well beyond Bush's initial input?

2. What has your point here to do with the projected ten year deficits, which are the real Gorilla in the room?[/quote]

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bus ... -pictures/

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/26/qui ... 9s-budget/


CATO's point is well taken, but not the whole story. Obama has indeed added, in his first year, in both real spending and many trillions of unfunded future obligations, massively to the debt. This in no way gets Bush off the hook, or measn that some of this bloat is not held over from the Bush years.

[_Kevin Graham]

My point, you illiterate dipstick, is that bscpace explicitly stated Obama "tripled" the deficit in his first year, and that argument was shown to be bunk. The article I provided proved this. You went on to say nothing in that article disagrees with anything the two of you have said, which is obviously false. Obama was given the largest deficit in US history. It was there waiting for him before he ever took office, and you two stooges just keep ranting on and on about the Obama deficit as if this is his baby. Funny, because for years I listed to Limbaugh and Hannity excuse the first three years of the Reagan administration, which saw a suffering economy, on the fact that it takes a few years for a President's policies to take effect. And now the same numbskulls jump all over Obama before he's in a friggin year!

Here are the facts. In April of 2009 the CBO projected a deficit of 1.85 trillion but the data in October showed that the deficit was actually 1.4 trillion, which is 450 billion less than expected. But no credit to Obama, no. You're only interested in data you cvan twist to make him look bad. The main thing Obama has done to spend money is to provide stimulus packages for the economy, which is precisely what George Bush did a few times - the last one wasn't even necessary. Bush just liked dishing out money to everyone in the form of stimulus.

Does anyone in their right mind think that if Bush was still President, that he would not have provided similar stimulus packages? He would have, and his would have been geared to benefit the richest 2% of Americans whereas Obama's is geared to benefit the rest of us. But when Bush does it, it is good conservative economics. When Obama does it, it is just another step towards socialism. What idiots.

[_Droopy]

My point, you illiterate dipstick, is that bscpace explicitly stated Obama "tripled" the deficit in his first year, and that argument was shown to be bunk. The article I provided proved this. You went on to say nothing in that article disagrees with anything the two of you have said, which is obviously false.

I never mentioned the tripling of the debt, and I'll let bc deal with your specific - and rather trivial - dissent here. As I mentioned, the Cato article's point is well taken, but I really fail to see how it does anything to pull Obama out of the pit he's dug for himself. All the general criticisms regarding his astronomical additions to the debt this year, and ten years out, still stand and they are not arguable.

Obama has, after all, added substantially to the debt Bush left us. He hasn't tripled it this year? Well, OK, an argument can apparently be made for that.

Obama was given the largest deficit in US history. It was there waiting for him before he ever took office, and you two stooges just keep ranting on and on about the Obama deficit as if this is his baby.

The 12 to 15 trillion of our your children's and their children's economic future he has just spent is his and only his baby (and Pelosi's, Reid's, Waxman's, Dodd's, Frank's, Rangel's, et al, et al, et al, et al...) and yes, the largest expansion of the welfare state since the great society and the original 750 billion "stimulus" bill came on Bush's watch.

And yet, even the smallest of Obama's initiatives dwarf the prescription drug benefit or that original stimulus.

Oh, by the way, has Obama repealed the Bush bailout package, or done anything to bring down the deficit and create jobs in the private sector?

Funny, because for years I listed to Limbaugh and Hannity excuse the first three years of the Reagan administration, which saw a suffering economy, on the fact that it takes a few years for a President's policies to take effect. And now the same numbskulls jump all over Obama before he's in a friggin year!

Fine, that was the second major Carter/Keyneian/progressive recession coming out of the eighties, just as Bush set the stage (after, ironically, a successful second term of a healthy economy grounded in some fair tax cuts, including a fairly substantial capital gains cut) for what Obama has taken in hand.

[_Kevin Graham]

1. Are you seriously claiming that this year, Obama and Congress have not bloated the future deficit well beyond Bush's initial input?

2. What has your point here to do with the projected ten year deficits, which are the real Gorilla in the room?

You dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb ...... listen. You and bcspace keep referring to the Obama deficit, I prove, using a favorite Right Wing source that you apparently approve of, that this is a friggin falsehood. I provide their chart which clearly shows the huge deficit began with Bush. Here it is again:


You then respond to this by saying you agree with it all, that CATO is spot on, etc. But then you give me a link to your precious Heritage Foundation which provides this chart:



What a friggin joke! Heritage says Obama quadruples the deficit! I already refuted this $1.85 trillion nonsense before you even brought it up, but being spectaularly daft as you are, you go ahead and present a chart that has already been refuted, and then claim you agree with both charts above which is impossible. You keep throwing out well outdated articles that were written a year ago which makes you look more the fool for failing to stay afloat with what's been happening. That $1.85 trillion deficit number was based on an earlier projection and was disproved in October of last year when the CBO's figures lowered it to $1.4 trillion. So given what Bush left us, the CBO projected 1.85 trillion for 2009, and Obama cut that by nearly a half trillion in his first six months. Anyone honestly looking at the numbers would have to agree that things were not as bad as originally expected.

The first chart refutes the latter you moron! You can't agree with both. If the CATO chart is accurate, then everything you and bcspace have been wailing and moaning about should be directed at Bush, not Obama. And the CATO chart is correct. The fact that the fiscal year ended in October of 2008 is not a moot point. It is beyond dispute. Only idiots who know little about the subject would say a first term President is responsible for a budget deficit that went into effect four months before he took office. The future ten year projected deficits are big, but they are gradually going down, which is a friggin miracle considering the deficit Bush left us. I'm just wondering what you guys are going to do when Obama cuts the deficit by half after his first term, as he said he would, and as the CBO projects he will. Man you're going to look like a bunch of ignorant monkeys.

The hard facts are right here, and you want to dance around them by pretending to agree with two conflicting arguments just because you don't know how to bring yourself to disagree with a Right Wing source. All your scary numbers are based on the same lame Right Wing sources that have a vested interest in scaring the crap out of people. It is not credibile, and I guess we'll know for sure soon enough.