Brick Top
New Member
I find it somewhat unnerving that anyone would be familiar with the taste of those two things separately, let alone the combination of the two.
George W. Bush: The Food Stamp President
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
I find it somewhat unnerving that anyone would be familiar with the taste of those two things separately, let alone the combination of the two.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
best i can tell, his point is: ireland GOOD, america BAD, obama BAD!
http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Ireland
not my words, i just found this to be a humorous description of ireland. now label me a racist!
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
There's an article about China buying more treasuries than disclosed.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE75T2MI20110630?irpc=932
Buck, way off the mark as usual. I said our policies are working while we're cutting spending, your policies are adding to your national debt and not improving the economy any more than the nations undertaking austerity. Is that so difficult to assimilate into the grey matter?
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE75T2MI20110630?irpc=932
Buck, way off the mark as usual. I said our policies are working while we're cutting spending, your policies are adding to your national debt and not improving the economy any more than the nations undertaking austerity. Is that so difficult to assimilate into the grey matter?
Brick Top
New Member
Yep ... Dubya is to blame for all Obama's woes. If Dubya had not been so terrible then Obama would have the nation running smoother than a Swiss watch.
Or so Obama prays you will be stupid enough to believe.
In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.
I find it amazing, and a bit amusing, that all that, and more, has totally been forgotten about, hidden covered up, had a new history written for it just so Obama might not look like precisely what he is, the biggest mistake the American electorate has ever made and the very worst president of all time, or at least of the modern era.
Or so Obama prays you will be stupid enough to believe.
In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.
I find it amazing, and a bit amusing, that all that, and more, has totally been forgotten about, hidden covered up, had a new history written for it just so Obama might not look like precisely what he is, the biggest mistake the American electorate has ever made and the very worst president of all time, or at least of the modern era.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
You mean the Fed is printing dollars and the Treasury is issuing bonds, right?
tet1953
Well-Known Member
Great minds think alike, BT. Look at post #124 lol
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how long do you suppose it will take to get off the bailout teet and have a credit rating that is not "junk"?
tet1953
Well-Known Member
Last time I looked (few months ago) the China share was more like 15 or 20 percent, not that the difference matters all that much. But guess who is an even bigger creditor. Social Security. Several trillion we "owe" that, and that is part of the 15 trillion debt. Now is as good a time as any to reiterate an off the wall idea I had. No one expects that the SS debt will ever be paid back, right? I mean, they'll do whatever they do with SS but paying back what they have raided over the last 30 years won't be part of it. So, since we actually owe this money to ourselves, why not write it off? What real ramifications would that have, other than to instantly reduce our debt by several trillion?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i remember that 2001 recession.
banks being bailed out, housing sector collapsing, massive layoffs...or not.
funny how shrub had 6 years to do something about what you fault as the main cause of the recession and did nothing but brag about his "ownership society" during his SOTU addresses.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
How long before China sells all of its Treasuries, pushing up interest rates and effectively crippling the US currency and economy?
The bailout finishes in 2013 tho so you know, and by 2015 our deficit will be less than 3% of GDP...that's what you call genuine recovery, not this "put it on the credit card" mentality the great Obama follows.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
china ain't gonna do shit to us. we buy too much of their cheap crap.
i never asked about your deficit by the way, that's your weak attempt at deflection. i asked when we can look forward to seeing your bonds as anything but "junk".
and for your edification, reagan was the one who started the whole "put it on the credit card" mentality, he raised the debt ceiling way more than obama ever will.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Obama added 50% to your National Debt in just 3 fuckin years, you need to put the bong down man.
Brick Top
New Member
Originally Posted by Brick Top
Yep ... Dubya is to blame for all Obama's woes. If Dubya had not been so terrible then Obama would have the nation running smoother than a Swiss watch.
Or so Obama prays you will be stupid enough to believe.
In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.
I find it amazing, and a bit amusing, that all that, and more, has totally been forgotten about, hidden covered up, had a new history written for it just so Obama might not look like precisely what he is, the biggest mistake the American electorate has ever made and the very worst president of all time, or at least of the modern era.
Precisely where did I state what was, or what I believed to be, "the main cause of the recession?
Please point it out to me.
Like Obama, Dubya inherited a recession. It was not as deep of one and it's official start date was an entire seven whole weeks into his presidency, which meant that the economy was more than already on the ropes and out on it's feet when handed to Dubya, and that there is nothing in the world that any president, from any party, could have done to turn a healthy economy around and into a recession in only seven weeks, or solved the problems and avoided it.
But I do grow tired of what is a lying portrayal of how the entire Dubya years were a major failure, a lost 8-years, 8-years of one failure after another when, other than just at the end, the opposite is actually true
Dubya took the recession that was handed to him and turned it into an all time record of 52 continual months of job creation.
To compare than to Obama. Obama came in with unemployment in the 7% range and swiftly drove it up to the 9% range where it hovered, for roughly three full years, until only fairly recently did it begin to slightly drop, but still no where near to the level it was when Obama took over.
Yep, Omaba sure handled the recession he was handed better than Dubya handled the recession he was handed.
Plus productivity increased, per capita incomes increased and the GDP grew by more than 17%, for a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion ..... again all things that Obama has not even come ever so slightly close to even just beginning to do.
Yep, but of course it is all Dubya's fault that Obama is the worst president in the history of the U.S.A. If Dubya could have stretched out that record 52 consecutive months of job creation just a little longer, to set an even longer even more impressive all time economic record for the U.S., then maybe Obama wouldn't look as utterly useless and as completely lost and hopeless as he is.
Yep it's all Dubya's fault for not having a 100% spotless, totally flawless 8-year presidency, right to the very last day, and then handing Obama a super-strong economy. That is the singular reason why the community organizer was so totally overwhelmed and over-matched by the toughest job in the world, that of course is the job of being president of the U.S.
I hope the voters of the U.S. long remember this the next time they consider electing a block president for president of the U.S. over someone else with skills and experience.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the only policy obama signed into law that has added anything to the deficit was the stimulus, which you apparently no longer wish to discuss.
the rest are continuations of his predecessors which he is unable to get rid of, largely thanks to gop obstructionism in the house. he did try to get rid of a huge contributor passed by his direct predecessor and was blocked.
i can forgive you on being uninformed/willfully ignorant about how our nation works, but i really would like to see you justify your 50% claim, as it is another LIE from a partisan HACK.
still not making any guesses on when you'll get out of junk bond territory? LOL!
like i said, you guys should have stuck with sheep. in addition to fabric to keep you warm during all but one day of the summer, you get a sexual partner with no ability to turn you down.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
in other threads. perhaps you never said "main cause", but you sure brought it up left and right as if it were. my main point is that you like to be intellectually dishonest and blame the housing collapse on democrats alone when history is pretty clear that bush had both houses of congress to work with and did nothing. in fact, he BRAGGED about it.
big difference here than what obama inherited.
obama inherited a full blown recession that was many times worse than what shrub got, and shrub had some time to head it off at the pass. and a balanced budget.
i won't disagree with the main thrust of your post, which is that shrub was not 8 years straight of fail. but the fail was spectacular and not seen in decades and decades.
and now hacks like harrekin want to blame obama for all the spending shrub signed into law.
it really is quite comical.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Ok then, under Obamas 3 year tenure the national debt increased by 50%...you happy now? He's the guy who signs the dotted line tho, no? He couldn't even do anything with a Blue upper and lower house, seriously, it's become clear youre just an Obama fan-boy.
Brick Top
New Member
It is clear that you do not follow politics closely and over the long haul, and instead. like a dry sponge. soak up all the little left-wing media soundbites.
In 2001 Dubya first asked Congress to look at sub-prime lending and head off what was seen as a looming problem. Yes he liked the 'press' that comes with an "ownership society," but he also saw the trouble brewing. Over the years repeated requests were made. At no time did Republican's have a majority in Congress where they could act on their own and make needed changes. To get the job done required the help of Democrats, which they flatly refused each and every time, along with going on the record stating that there was no looming disaster, that the program was safe and sound, and so incredibly safe and sound that even more such horrible loans should be made.
That is historical fact, not party spin.
I posted a link to a House Committee meeting on the topic were Democrats absolutely refused to accept that there was even minimal danger and said things like how they were "pissed off" wasting time on a non-issue and that it was nothing more than a "political witch hunt." etc.
Dubya could not d it by decree ... he needed Congress .... Congressional Republicans could not do it on their own, they needed the help of Democrats. Not one, of all the times asked, did Democrats even come close to saying there might be something worth at least looking into. Instead they said, no fix is needed because no problem exists.
If Obama really wants and needs to point a finger at who is responsible for the sub-prime lender disaster, if he wants to be honest for a change, he should be pointing at himself and other Democrats in Congress who in the past abjectly refused to accept there was a problem brewing and vehemently refused to help Dubya and Congressional Democrats attempt to head it off the best they could.
The major problems Barry has found himself utterly lacking in skill to overcome are largely the making of his own party refusing to help head off a catastrophic disaster that was foreseen as far back as 2001.
Even if nothing more had been done than the program scaled back, or ended, at least the problem would have been minimized by some amount. But Democrats refused to accept the truth and instead went on the record as saying that the program was so very safe that there should even be an increase in such loans.
Of course we all saw where that ignorant belief took us.
Brick Top
New Member
A few facts to mix in with all the pure bullshit that's being spread around.
[h=1]A decade of spiraling deficits[/h]Posted July 12, 2010
Last Friday while speaking at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas about the economy, President Obama said:
And these were all the consequence of a decade of misguided economic policies a decade of stagnant wages, a decade of declining incomes, a decade of spiraling deficits.I want to focus on that last phrase: a decade of spiraling deficits.
The best way to compare deficits over time is as a share of the economy. This first graph shows budget deficits during President Bushs tenure. On this graph deficits are positive, so up is bad. The dotted green line shows the average deficit since 1970 for comparison (2.6% of GDP). As always you can click on the graph for a larger version.
This graph does not show a decade of spiraling deficits. It instead shows eight years of deficits averaging 2.0 percent of GDP, followed by a horrible ninth year as the markets collapsed and the economy plunged into recession. (Budget wonks who want to understand why I think we should look at nine years for a Presidency rather than eight can read this.) Even 2008′s bigger deficit than 2007 can be mostly explained by a revenue decline as the economy slipped into recession pre-crash. Before the crash of late 2008 President Bushs budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points smaller than the historic average. Deficits did not spiral during the Bush presidency or the decade. They bumped around the historic average, then spiked up in the last year.
Yeah, but what about that horrible 8.3% in 2009 when President Bush left office? That figure is a combination of a severe decline in federal revenues as the economy tanked, plus the projected costs of TARP for fiscal year 2009. If we include that terrible ninth year in the Bush average (as we should), then the average Bush deficit is still only 2.7%, one tenth of a percentage point above the average over the past four decades. (All data are from CBOs historic tables.)
Yes, that last year sucked. Yes, when President Obama took office he faced an enormous projected budget deficit for his first year in office (which jumped from 8.3% when President Bush left in January to 9.9% at the end of that fiscal year). But it is inaccurate and misleading to characterize the previous decade as a decade of spiraling deficits.
Am I making too big a deal out of one phrase? I dont think so, because President Obamas economic and political argument centers on redefining the entire Bush tenure as an economic failure. There is therefore a big difference between a decade of failure and seven years-of-pretty-good, followed a disaster in year eight.
One could argue that the last year was a result of policies built up during the prior seven years, but thats a different argument about financial sector policies. Instead the President and his allies are claiming that the Presidents policies resulted in a decade of spiraling deficits. That is obviously false.
Now let us look at the decade we are now beginning. The blue line shows CBOs estimate of projected budget deficits if President Obamas latest budget is enacted as proposed. Numbers are once again from CBO.
Which exactly is the decade of spiraling deficits? The last one, or the one were beginning now?
For comparison:
- Bush average: 2.7% (including the 8.3% for FY 2009 when President Bush left office in January);
- Obama average (projected for two terms spanning nine fiscal years): 6.35%
If youre disturbed by looking at nine budget years for an eight year Presidency, I wrote this to explain why I think it makes sense.
This graph shows a sharp projected decline as we recover from the crash/recession followed by a steady upward climb. If President Obamas budget is enacted as proposed, his smallest budget deficit will be bigger than the largest pre-crash Bush deficit.
Lets look at it another way. Lets focus only on a hypothetical second term for President Obama, when the effects of the 2008 crash and 2009 recession are far behind us. A second Obama term would span five budget years: FY 2013 through FY 2017. CBO says the budget deficit would average 4.5% in that second term. Thats almost two percentage points above the historic average, 1.8 points above the Bush full-term average including the crash year, and one point higher than the highest pre-crash Bush deficit.
The steady deficit climb under the Obama budget that begins in 2014 looks like it fits the description spiraling deficits for at least the last seven years of this decade.
President Obama is incorrect when he labels the last decade as one of spiraling deficits. The Bush presidency was characterized by eight years of deficits with no long-term upward trend and which averaged significantly less than the historic average, followed by a financial crash and a year of severe recession and a consequently large deficit.
If the President is right when he says that a decade of spiraling deficits are the consequence of a decade of misguided economic policies, he is looking at the wrong decade. I dont see how he can justify his own budget.
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/07/12/spiraling-deficits/
