Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Warren Dew]

Have no illusions: those deficits would be looking very similar if McCain were in office right now.

True, but only because McCain is as stupid as Obama about the economy - and would still have had an overwhelmingly Democratic congress to contend with.

[Ian]

LOL - I love how Obama supporters descry the Bush deficits, but are perfectly fine with exponentially bigger ones now.

Happy to do it, too. And nobody is perfectly fine with the current deficits - but we know who's really to blame for them.
Have no illusions: those deficits would be looking very similar if McCain were in office right now.

BTW - Your horseshit shredding of every sentence of my earlier post is a perfect example of why I won't be bothering with this thread again. FFS.

The people that are really to blame for them is the Congress, especially (which has been Democratically controlled since 2006) and the President. The spending that has occurred in 09 and 10 is not Bush's spending.

Horseshit shredding? What's horseshit are your posts, full of nonsense about "please oh please raise MY taxes, I've been dying to pay more." If you were really dying to pay more, you'dve fucking paid more, and you didn't. Nobody was stopping you.

And, this sorry-ass blame Bush crap is a load of fucking bull. I remember, full well, the recession that coincided with Bush taking office, and not a god-damn Democrat or liberal to be found suggested that it had anything to do with the previous administration. It was the "Bush recession" and "see how great everything was under Clinton, and now Bush is here and it's a recession." Modern day liberals are so transparently hypocritical and poseur boosters it's not even funny.

For once, stop playing the "big daddy Republicans are to blame for everything" card - it's been going on since the 80s - like the Democrats are for some reason just powerless to do anything because the big-bad Republicans won't let them. For fuck's sake - you've got a fucking landslide majority in the House and almost 60 fucking votes in the Senate, and the Presidency, and possibly a majority on the Court -- it's teetering -- and STILL there is no responsibility on the part of the Democrats?

It's like how the fucking liberals claim that prior to Obama there was some god-damn capitalist free for all which "got us where we are" - without one fucking minute recognizing that the Democrats have controlled Congress, handily, for the better part of the last fucking 80 years - by a fucking country mile. But, of course, oh, no, the Democrats had nothing at all to do with anything. Now you're going to try to pawn off a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit on the previous administration.

That fucking mutt won't even beg for food, let alone hunt.

Jeez, you sound like every other Republican talking head out there. "Hey look everybody, the deficit exploded over the last two years! Look who's administration it is! 2+2=4, it's that simple. Now, you should really vote Republican - 'cause we're all about fiscal responsibility, dontcha know."


The giant deficit is, above all, a product of two things: 1) a huge economic downturn and 2) the stimulus package. Any knucklehead can see that much.
As for #1, Obama was not remotely responsible for it, obviously. Maybe he's the #1 guy to blame for the recovery getting sluggish, I'll grant you that that is a good debate.
As for #2, the stimulus was initiated by W. Bush and totally inevitable regardless of who won the White House. (Nor is it unprecedented in history, btw). If McCain was in right now, the stimulus might've looked different in detail, but not in principle.

Therefore I conclude: Fuck the goddamn motherfucking bastard Republicans.

Btw - The "recession" that was in place when Bush took office was only one in a technical sense. The dot-com/tech bubble deflated. Unemplyment hardly moved. Inflation and interest rates hardly moved. Consumer confidence hardly moved. Most people didn't even notice it.

Also btw - Are you seriously implying that people will take it upon themselves to fork over more taxes, even if they think they ought to be raised. Tell me you're not serious. I'll be happy to pay more - but little ol' me ain't gonna make a dent in the budget. Obama and Congress can make the decision to increase my taxes and then I'll be more than happy to comply - that's why I voted for him.

[Santa_Claus]

George Bush (and all Presidents back to Reagan) just too greedy, too dumb and too interested in self and "freinds and family" to grasp the fundamental problems of the US economy - can only borrow up the yazoo if you can show the world you can earn the wealth. had 30 years of smoke and mirrors (I know, I've done well out of it) where folk have got confused between wealth & money.

Ponzi economics.

And a couple of years ago the dooda hit the fan. but that was only a symptom of the underlying disease - I think Obama understands, but he could be faking it! the Debts he runs up are immaterial, it's the economy he leaves behind that will count - the irony is that to get back to (genuinely) being a wealth creator (on the scale the US needs to support it's global reach, that underpins it's economic model) will require yet more smoke & mirror ponzi economics. and debt!

Or he could just be driving the final nails into the US economy. We'll all know in 10 years time...........

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - I love how Obama supporters descry the Bush deficits, but are perfectly fine with exponentially bigger ones now.

Happy to do it, too. And nobody is perfectly fine with the current deficits - but we know who's really to blame for them.
Have no illusions: those deficits would be looking very similar if McCain were in office right now.

BTW - Your horseshit shredding of every sentence of my earlier post is a perfect example of why I won't be bothering with this thread again. FFS.

The people that are really to blame for them is the Congress, especially (which has been Democratically controlled since 2006) and the President. The spending that has occurred in 09 and 10 is not Bush's spending.

Horseshit shredding? What's horseshit are your posts, full of nonsense about "please oh please raise MY taxes, I've been dying to pay more." If you were really dying to pay more, you'dve fucking paid more, and you didn't. Nobody was stopping you.

And, this sorry-ass blame Bush crap is a load of fucking bull. I remember, full well, the recession that coincided with Bush taking office, and not a god-damn Democrat or liberal to be found suggested that it had anything to do with the previous administration. It was the "Bush recession" and "see how great everything was under Clinton, and now Bush is here and it's a recession." Modern day liberals are so transparently hypocritical and poseur boosters it's not even funny.

For once, stop playing the "big daddy Republicans are to blame for everything" card - it's been going on since the 80s - like the Democrats are for some reason just powerless to do anything because the big-bad Republicans won't let them. For fuck's sake - you've got a fucking landslide majority in the House and almost 60 fucking votes in the Senate, and the Presidency, and possibly a majority on the Court -- it's teetering -- and STILL there is no responsibility on the part of the Democrats?

It's like how the fucking liberals claim that prior to Obama there was some god-damn capitalist free for all which "got us where we are" - without one fucking minute recognizing that the Democrats have controlled Congress, handily, for the better part of the last fucking 80 years - by a fucking country mile. But, of course, oh, no, the Democrats had nothing at all to do with anything. Now you're going to try to pawn off a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit on the previous administration.

That fucking mutt won't even beg for food, let alone hunt.

Jeez, you sound like every other Republican talking head out there. "Hey look everybody, the deficit exploded over the last two years! Look who's administration it is! 2+2=4, it's that simple. Now, you should really vote Republican - 'cause we're all about fiscal responsibility, dontcha know."


The giant deficit is, above all, a product of two things: 1) a huge economic downturn and 2) the stimulus package. Any knucklehead can see that much.
As for #1, Obama was not remotely responsible for it, obviously. Maybe he's the #1 guy to blame for the recovery getting sluggish, I'll grant you that that is a good debate.
As for #2, the stimulus was initiated by W. Bush and totally inevitable regardless of who won the White House. (Nor is it unprecedented in history, btw). If McCain was in right now, the stimulus might've looked different in detail, but not in principle.

Therefore I conclude: Fuck the goddamn motherfucking bastard Republicans.

Btw - The "recession" that was in place when Bush took office was only one in a technical sense. The dot-com/tech bubble deflated. Unemplyment hardly moved. Inflation and interest rates hardly moved. Consumer confidence hardly moved. Most people didn't even notice it.

Also btw - Are you seriously implying that people will take it upon themselves to fork over more taxes, even if they think they ought to be raised. Tell me you're not serious. I'll be happy to pay more - but little ol' me ain't gonna make a dent in the budget. Obama and Congress can make the decision to increase my taxes and then I'll be more than happy to comply - that's why I voted for him.

You're the one asking to be taxed more. I didn't realize your desire to be taxed more required you to be compelled to do it. If you were speaking rhetorically, then that's fine.

The Stimulus Package was not initiated by Bush, not the one voted in during Obama's Presidency, and I, for one, strongly opposed the "stimulus" nonsense under Bush as well. It was doomed to failure, and it failed. And, they, with Stimulus II under Obama, did the same thing again, expecting a different result, and it didn't work again.

The reality is these Stimulus programs are bailouts for the wealthy, and that's it. They are massive influxes of funds to banking institutions which should have been made to pay for their own mistakes. Others would have picked over their bones, as it should be. Fuck them, and fuck the massive corporate welfare that just keeps getting more massive.

Nothing done has helped anyone improve their position, except the banks and the massively wealthy, and the politicians who stood to lose if they appeared as if they had "done nothing."

I'm happy to blame the fucking Republicans. Those sacks of crap are the ones that put through TARP and the first Stimulus package, and look at the deficits that ran up. A boatload of shit! And, the Dems took that as fucking carte motherfucking blanche to just see the Republicans and raise them three trillion dollars. Fuck 'em!

There! Now I'm sure I'm going to be sorry for these last few posts, as they are infused with more than a modicum of Budweiser. I disclaim all responsibility for these rants as a result.

[Ian]

How can you say "the stimulus failed"? For one thing, it's hard to take credit for things that haven't happened - such as a global Depression, which more than a few distinguished people have said would have been the case if no form of government intervention had ever happened. Uncle Sam has used spare tires before.
It's also a long term investment - only 2/3 of it will have been spent by the end of this year. Nobody is really in a position to say whether it failed or not.

If your only definition is whether it turned the US economy from freefall to a bull market within a year and a half, then yes I'd say it failed.

One thing I think we both agree upon: the neocon Republicans of the Bush years were terrible in terms of fiscal responsibility. Maybe the Democrats are no better, I can't say. If the economy was still in the shape it was in the mid-2000s with Obama as president right now, would we be on track towards a balanced budget again in the forseeable future? I dunno. Thing is, I don't know that the GOP has the people to really correct things either. It's the one thing I actually like about the Tea Party: they don't like debt (although they REALLY don't like taxes. And realistically, spending can only be cut by so much so fast).

Anywho, I prefer talking about the macro stuff. I could point out short-term stuff like the Dow surging on news that manufacturing is up, or Bernanke's pep talk a few days ago about how a double dip isn't anticipated, or that the quarter million jobs lost over the last two months is a fraction of the million created in the four months before that. But I won't post those on a regular basis or elaborate on them. I don't like to look too closely at bits of news, not when the whole picture is so vast.

[Warren Dew]

As for #2, the stimulus was initiated by W. Bush and totally inevitable regardless of who won the White House. (Nor is it unprecedented in history, btw). If McCain was in right now, the stimulus might've looked different in detail, but not in principle.

The $787 billion stimulus bill was entirely an Obama administration creation. McCain might have botched it just as badly, but there's at least a chance that he would have allowed a bipartisan bill containing an even mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than the actual bill, which was almost all spending and has proven to be useless in facilitating a recovery.

TARP was passed under Bush, but while I think it was stupid, it was not a stimulus bill. It was not designed to add any net money to the economy, and ultimately it seems like it won't, as nearly all of it has already been repaid. It's not contributing to the huge increases in the deficit since Obama was elected.

It's to be pointed out that the majority of Republicans in Congress voted against both these bills, so the huge increase in the deficit in the last few years certainly can't be blamed on "the Republicans" in general, even if you do blame Bush.

Btw - The "recession" that was in place when Bush took office was only one in a technical sense. The dot-com/tech bubble deflated. Unemplyment hardly moved. Inflation and interest rates hardly moved. Consumer confidence hardly moved. Most people didn't even notice it.

The tech bubble bursting was just as big a deal as the housing bubble bursting - and millions of people did lose their jobs, even if you didn't happen to notice it.

The difference was that the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress responded to the tech crash with stimulus in the form of a predictable, economy friendly set of tax cuts with immediate effect, while Obama and the Democrats in Congress responded to the housing crash with a bunch of opaque, delayed pork barrel spending that had, if anything, a negative effect on the economy as a whole. It also helped that Greenspan was a much more competent chairman of the Federal Reserve than is Bernanke.

The depth and length of the current recession isn't because it's some exception to the normal business cycle - it isn't. It's because the government has exacerbated this particular recession with economically bankrupt policies.

Also btw - Are you seriously implying that people will take it upon themselves to fork over more taxes, even if they think they ought to be raised. Tell me you're not serious. I'll be happy to pay more - but little ol' me ain't gonna make a dent in the budget. Obama and Congress can make the decision to increase my taxes and then I'll be more than happy to comply - that's why I voted for him.

It seems what you really want is for everyone else's taxes to be increased, not just yours.

[Randydeluxe]

LOL - I love how Obama supporters descry the Bush deficits, but are perfectly fine with exponentially bigger ones now.

Posting *anything* from the NY Post in debate is... embarrassing, man.

It seems like all of the different threads (how many are there?) that are nothing more than CES banging on about anything he can construe to support his impressive hatred for the President could be combined into one.

[Svartalf]

Mmmh... remind me what Obama did to explode the deficits like that? or is part of that due to programs launched under bush and flowering under his successor?

What program are you referring to?

No - Obama has been President since 1/09, and it is 9/10, right now. The Congress has been solidly Democratically controlled since 1/06. This can't be foisted on Bush. Obama, Reid and Pelosi have had UNPRECEDENTED power to do as they pleased with control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency in numbers not seen before. THEY chose their course.

None in particular. I just know that it's not uncommon for administrations to launch bill that will generate spendings over several years, so that it's not uncommon either for such programsj, if not violently aborted by direct action of a new administration, to go on weighing on charts such as you show without the current admin being directly responsible.

Actually, that was an honest question due to the graphics showing such an explosion of spending, while bush had been already quite busy doing that (he was the one who started the bailout for instance), I wondered if that was his legacy, or what Obama did with such extreme effects.

If you intend to answer, please be plain, I'm not fencing this time, just trying to get a fair image of the situation (assuming, of course, the diagram is honest and not cooked up from cherrypicked bits for propaganda effect, but I also assume you posted it in good faith).

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - I love how Obama supporters descry the Bush deficits, but are perfectly fine with exponentially bigger ones now.

Posting *anything* from the NY Post in debate is... embarrassing, man.

It seems like all of the different threads (how many are there?) that are nothing more than CES banging on about anything he can construe to support his impressive hatred for the President could be combined into one.

What a joke. I don't hate the President. I disagree with much of what he has done, but not all. I especially disagree with his fiscal policies, which have been irresponsible, threatened the US AAA bond rating, increased the debt beyond even Bush's wildest imagination, and pandered to groups that he wants to cater to politically (prime example: his gift to unions over the weekend).

This is a thread about the economic downturn, and the facts are the facts.

And, the chart is sourced - it wasn't just made up by the NY Post.

[Coito ergo sum]

Mmmh... remind me what Obama did to explode the deficits like that? or is part of that due to programs launched under bush and flowering under his successor?

What program are you referring to?

No - Obama has been President since 1/09, and it is 9/10, right now. The Congress has been solidly Democratically controlled since 1/06. This can't be foisted on Bush. Obama, Reid and Pelosi have had UNPRECEDENTED power to do as they pleased with control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency in numbers not seen before. THEY chose their course.

None in particular. I just know that it's not uncommon for administrations to launch bill that will generate spendings over several years, so that it's not uncommon either for such programsj, if not violently aborted by direct action of a new administration, to go on weighing on charts such as you show without the current admin being directly responsible.

Actually, that was an honest question due to the graphics showing such an explosion of spending, while bush had been already quite busy doing that (he was the one who started the bailout for instance), I wondered if that was his legacy, or what Obama did with such extreme effects.

If you intend to answer, please be plain, I'm not fencing this time, just trying to get a fair image of the situation (assuming, of course, the diagram is honest and not cooked up from cherrypicked bits for propaganda effect, but I also assume you posted it in good faith).

The additional spending, by and large, is a function of the present Congress, and not something they were "required" to do under programs that Bush instituted. The spending programs have been massive, and yes, Bush was no fiscal conservative, but Obama is schooling him, and showing him how it's done.

[Tero]

let's look into the future

Washington D.C., 2030, Jan 15th -- Having thought itself just above the riff raff and the unemployed, yesterday the entire middle class entered the ranks of the unemployed.

The average family still enjoys a McDonalds meal once a week, but the country is now officially unemployed except for the 10% that are illegal aliens and doing all the manual work.

Upper middle class folks, a 5% category, still have work making web sites for their own products made in China.

[Ian]

let's look into the future

Washington D.C., 2030, Jan 15th -- Having thought itself just above the riff raff and the unemployed, yesterday the entire middle class entered the ranks of the unemployed.

The average family still enjoys a McDonalds meal once a week, but the country is now officially unemployed except for the 10% that are illegal aliens and doing all the manual work.

Upper middle class folks, a 5% category, still have work making web sites for their own products made in China.

I disagree. Not about major economic problems around 2030, but more about the nature of them.

The "Silver Tsunami" is coming. Baby boomers will be retiring in great numbers over the next couple decades. The US demographic pyramid will have a bit of a mushroom top. As they leave the job market, unemployment will be very low, maybe low enough to drive wages very high. But those wages will be squeezed to death by high inflation and/or taxes, as Social Security, health care and other services are pushed to their limits.

[Ian]

Obama and Congress can make the decision to increase my taxes and then I'll be more than happy to comply - that's why I voted for him.

It seems what you really want is for everyone else's taxes to be increased, not just yours.

Bingo! Just about everybody else's, anyway. Probably yours too.

[Feck]

I must be stupid and not get the point ,but the government could Spend money on infrastructure during a recession and on training and education ,granted that means higher borrowing but it also feeds cash into the economy and prepares the country for the recovery ?

and fuck-it when you earn lots in a time of recession is it so fucking terrible if you pay a little more tax ? Is it so hard for those that have a comfortable lifestyle to have a few less holidays or maybe run a car for 4 years not 2 before replacing it ?

relying on the trickle down effect (oh fuck why does that sound so shit and demeaning to poor people ) in the hope that the rich will spend their money at home and not abroad and somehow this will en-power poor people is wrong . A recession just means that the poor will work harder ,take less pay and be more easily abused by those with wealth .Top down economics is a fucking lie we can't all get jobs starching the collars of rich people or changing their oil !

[Warren Dew]

Is it so hard for those that have a comfortable lifestyle to have a few less holidays or maybe run a car for 4 years not 2 before replacing it ?

If those "comfortable" enough to buy cars buy them every 4 years when they had been buying them every 2, that's half the auto workers thrown out of work.