US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Coito ergo sum]

Non sequitur.

You'll need to think about this very hard.

The assertion that "people who claim that Obama tripled the deficit are either misled or are trying to mislead" does not contradict in any way the statement that "Money Obama spent is money Obama spent." You do see that, right?

Moreover, "truthout" -- as reputable and convincing a source as that is - is just wrong about this.

See this article: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508 ... sh-on-debt

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Note: all data in that article are from the government, not from a partisan source

Ummm, do you know what "programmed spending" is?

Sure, but you need to phrase your arguments in the form of....well, an argument. Issue: "people who claim that Obama tripled the deficit are either misled or are trying to mislead" - My position based on the White House Office of Management and Budget: "Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush." - looks like more than triple.

Your response, taking the position that the deficit has not tripled is: ?

"people who claim that Obama tripled the deficit are either misled or are trying to mislead"

Are we done here?

As far as I'm concerned, yes - because Truthout has been proven wrong by the White Office of Management and Budget: "Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush." And, that's referring only to fiscal years that Obama had control over. It does not include the 2009 budget, which Obama did not sign, except for a spending bill in 2009 that added about a $256 billion to the deficit.

But, do try again to skate around that.

[Schneibster]

Bush raised the deficit by over 80%. Obama hasn't even raised it by 10% yet.

"People who claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are either misled or are trying to mislead."

We done here?

[Coito ergo sum]

"Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush."

That's the fact. That's more than triple.

It can't be much clearer than that. And, he's looking to do even more. Without Obama's new $400, 000,000,000 program he's going to announce tonight, we're already on track for $1.4 billion this year. So, the deficit sure ain't comin' down.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[Schneibster]

Bush raised the deficit by over 80%. Obama hasn't even raised it by 10% yet.

That's eight times bigger.

We done here?

[Coito ergo sum]

The numbers speak for themselves. You lose.

Read this closely:

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column). Rather, Obama's record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10) , while Bush's should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508 ... sh-on-debt

[Schneibster]

Bush spent eight times more.

You lose.

[Seth]

Bush spent eight times more.

You lose.

Fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."

Doesn't matter what Bush spent, the issue is strictly how much Obama IS SPENDING. It's a fallacy to say that it's okay for Obama to spend as much as, or more than Bush spent merely because Bush spent money. It's not about who can spend more, it's about who can spend LESS.

[Schneibster]

Bush spent eight times more.

You lose.

Fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."

No. You're ignoring programmed spending.

[Coito ergo sum]

Bush spent eight times more.

You lose.

Bush was in office for 8 years. 8 x 410 = 3,280 -- that's $3.2 trillion over 8 years.

Obama -- 2010 -- $1.56 trillion -- 2011 - $1.65 trillion (estimated) = $3.21 trillion. Two years. Not counting, of course, whatever he is announcing tonight.

You're holding on too tight, Cougar. You've lost the edge.

[Coito ergo sum]

Bush spent eight times more.

You lose.

Fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."

Doesn't matter what Bush spent, the issue is strictly how much Obama IS SPENDING. It's a fallacy to say that it's okay for Obama to spend as much as, or more than Bush spent merely because Bush spent money. It's not about who can spend more, it's about who can spend LESS.

Frankly, since the "Stimulus" was, according to some, so insufficient and small, if Bush had spent less, then that would have made matters worse....

[Schneibster]

You're assuming spending will continue at levels that it will not by law that has already been passed but has not yet taken effect. That's a direct lie. Sorry, you lose.

[Schneibster]

Bush spent eight times more.

You lose.

Fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."

Doesn't matter what Bush spent, the issue is strictly how much Obama IS SPENDING. It's a fallacy to say that it's okay for Obama to spend as much as, or more than Bush spent merely because Bush spent money. It's not about who can spend more, it's about who can spend LESS.

Frankly, since the "Stimulus" was, according to some, so insufficient and small, if Bush had spent less, then that would have made matters worse....

Bush spent on a war we never shoulda got into, that Obama got us out of. (If you get to assume things that have not yet happened, I get to too. At least mine is in line with what's actually likely to happen, not assuming something against the law will happen.)

[Coito ergo sum]

Bush spent eight times more.

You lose.

Fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."

No. You're ignoring programmed spending.

Which makes no sense, since the Democratic Congress (both House and Senate) could have changed anything they wanted in 2007, 2008, and 2009 - especially 2009 when Obama was President.

The Budget is not carved in Stone. Note, in 2009 - Obama signed a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column) - so Bush is blamed in 2009 for a 1/3 of the total deficit that year, which resulted from a Democrat sponsored Omnibus spending bill, which was signed by a Democrat President. Plus, $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009...

You're just digging your hole deeper, my friend.

[Schneibster]

Bush spent eight times more.

You lose.

Fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."

No. You're ignoring programmed spending.

Which makes no sense,

So it's your position that there were no laws passed before Obama was President?

OK.

[Coito ergo sum]

Bush spent eight times more.

You lose.

Fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."

Doesn't matter what Bush spent, the issue is strictly how much Obama IS SPENDING. It's a fallacy to say that it's okay for Obama to spend as much as, or more than Bush spent merely because Bush spent money. It's not about who can spend more, it's about who can spend LESS.

Frankly, since the "Stimulus" was, according to some, so insufficient and small, if Bush had spent less, then that would have made matters worse....

Bush spent on a war we never shoulda got into,

So what? According to Keynsian economics that you have been championing, it doesn't matter where the government spends the money. Just like how World War 2 dug us out of the Great Depression...

Or, are you saying now what I've been saying - that some spending is not helpful....perhaps, like, big wastes of money like turtle crossings and Senator's unused airports...etc.?

that Obama got us out of. (If you get to assume things that have not yet happened, I get to too.

I have no problem with you saying Obama got us out of Iraq. He basically did. They're pulling our combat troops down to $8,000. It's pretty much the schedule we would have been on no matter who was President since he didn't change the Bush policy, and Obama has acknowledge that the "surge" worked and Iraq has been a great success. Round of applause to all concerned, including Obama, from me.

At least mine is in line with what's actually likely to happen, not assuming something against the law will happen.)

I haven't "assumed" anything. You can chop $400,000,000 off the budget deficit so far to account for the fact that we're only in September, if you want to. It would still put Obama at $2.8 trillion for two years, compared to Bush's $3.2 trillion over 8 years. Moreover, Bush gets saddled with the Democrat $400 billion dollar Omnibus spending bill in 2009, and the $256 billion in Stimulus spending in 2009. So, Obama gets a pass, the way the numbers are calculated, on $656 billion of spending that his Congress passed and he signed, only because it occurred in the 2009 fiscal year.