RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office

RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 9:57:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Mr.Rogers, if you knew anything at all about history, you would know that tax cuts RAISE revenue rather than decrease it. President Reagan knew this and proved it. President Bush knew this and proved it. And President John Kennedy knew this and proved it. Why are dumbocrats so blind to the truth and simple facts? Really? Tax cuts raise revenue? SO if the government had 1000 units of revenue, and reduce it by 100; it would produce more units of revenue than adding an additional 100 units on it (making it 1100)? Like to see the math on this one....

joether -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 10:06:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallClevDom It's a mistake to give credit or blame to the President for the state of the economy. First, most economic programs have significant lag effect, meaning it may be 2 years or more before the impact is felt by the major indicators. Second, there are way too many variables that impact the economy, most of which are out of the authority of the President. An earthquake in Pakistan, a terror attack in Jordan or a coup d'etat in Paraguay all affect the price of Rice Krispies in Peoria. Third, constitutionally, Congress carries just as much sway over the economy as the President. Lastly, private enterprise is the primary source of economic impact. The president of Citibank holds as much influence over the economy as does the President of the US. The point being, it's very short-sighted to ascribe the state of the economy solely, or even significantly, to the President. Yet, if the economy was bad, ALL the Republicans and conservatives would be bashing the President right now. Since it is quite the opposite, where are all the cheers and 'thank you, Mr President' cards from them? The President holds more political and economic sway over the national economy than the CEO of Citibank. With a stroke of a pen, he change dynamics in the financial world within minutes. How often do we notice the CEO of Citibank doing the same thing? When Congress actually worked, they could have as much sway over the national economy. ...Howver, we have Republicans controlling Congress right now. They only two things they have managed in over a year is to get a budget and a few more failed attempts to shut down the Affordable Care Act. Frankly, Americans should fire the Republicans and install an overwhelming number of Democrats. Then you'll see REALLY things getting done in Congress!

mnottertail -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 10:09:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Every liberal trumpets the fact that the last clinton budget had a surplus of 200 billion. It simply isn't true. Clinton took social security obligations off book. We still had to pay for it - it was just no longer reported as part of the budget. Wrong, there is no such a thing as off book Lyndon Johnson put the SS on budget in 68. Nixon fucked around with that some. Then it went off budget and counted in the deficit under St. Wrinklemeat. Then it went off budget and off deficit under ReadMyLips Bush. Clinton had nothing to do with that. All nutsuckers demonstrating their propaganda, lies, and innumeracy simultaneously.

joether -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 10:13:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler The increase in debt during Bush is much higher than during Obama. Republicans are always worried about the budget when they are not increasing it more than usual You are completely wrong. Go to the DoT and publish the numbers. It isn't even close. The debt obama incurred exceeds the debt of all presidents combined if you leave out bush - who was the second highest. Yes, study the debt objectively. President Obama has placed alittle over a trillion in his seven years. So we have three sets of values that arrive at the $16+ trillion: A : The Bush Years B : The Obama Years C : Interest/deficit on the Debt A + B + C = $16+ trillion So if Bush ended with $10 trillion, Obama has $1 trillion; that means the other $5 trillion comes from out-of-whack deficits (originally created under the Bush and Republican controlled Congress) with interest. You hate the inconvenient truth: your politics and bullshit, like other conservatives/libertarians, have tried to bankrupt the nation. You say your 'fiscal conservative'. A REAL fiscal conservative would have stated they would not go along with tax cuts until the budget cuts were 'in stone'. To bad the Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress didn't have any of them, eh? We wouldn't be in this problem if they had a few million real 'fiscal conservatives'.....

crazyml -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 10:20:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Mr.Rogers, if you knew anything at all about history, you would know that tax cuts RAISE revenue rather than decrease it. President Reagan knew this and proved it. President Bush knew this and proved it. And President John Kennedy knew this and proved it. Why are dumbocrats so blind to the truth and simple facts? Really? Tax cuts raise revenue? SO if the government had 1000 units of revenue, and reduce it by 100; it would produce more units of revenue than adding an additional 100 units on it (making it 1100)? Like to see the math on this one.... Oh that'll be the lovely myth that innumerate republicans cling to. Its been debunked tons of times.

Phydeaux -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 12:24:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Every liberal trumpets the fact that the last clinton budget had a surplus of 200 billion. It simply isn't true. Clinton took social security obligations off book. We still had to pay for it - it was just no longer reported as part of the budget. Wrong, there is no such a thing as off book Lyndon Johnson put the SS on budget in 68. Nixon fucked around with that some. Then it went off budget and counted in the deficit under St. Wrinklemeat. Then it went off budget and off deficit under ReadMyLips Bush. Clinton had nothing to do with that. All nutsuckers demonstrating their propaganda, lies, and innumeracy simultaneously. As usual, as you are absent any kind of creditable citation, I am ignoring your crap. The point remains - there was never a surplus during the clinton years.

Phydeaux -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 12:32:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler The increase in debt during Bush is much higher than during Obama. Republicans are always worried about the budget when they are not increasing it more than usual You are completely wrong. Go to the DoT and publish the numbers. It isn't even close. The debt obama incurred exceeds the debt of all presidents combined if you leave out bush - who was the second highest. Yes, study the debt objectively. President Obama has placed alittle over a trillion in his seven years. So we have three sets of values that arrive at the $16+ trillion: A : The Bush Years B : The Obama Years C : Interest/deficit on the Debt A + B + C = $16+ trillion So if Bush ended with $10 trillion, Obama has $1 trillion; that means the other $5 trillion comes from out-of-whack deficits (originally created under the Bush and Republican controlled Congress) with interest. You hate the inconvenient truth: your politics and bullshit, like other conservatives/libertarians, have tried to bankrupt the nation. You say your 'fiscal conservative'. A REAL fiscal conservative would have stated they would not go along with tax cuts until the budget cuts were 'in stone'. To bad the Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress didn't have any of them, eh? We wouldn't be in this problem if they had a few million real 'fiscal conservatives'..... And if we all smoked crack your numbers would look fantastic. However, cracked induced hallucinations are more realistic than the crap you spew. I posted the numbers from the US Treasury on post 32 and 33. Deficits on budgets bush signed: 2.185 trillian Deficits on bills Obama signed: 7.026 trillion with more to come.

mnottertail -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 12:38:23 PM)
The point is, I dont need credible citations, I am one, your nutsucker citations are ignorant crap. Furthermore, nobody cares what a lying pissant such as yourself thinks. You are derailing because you have no credible citation that it is 'off book' or that Clinton took it 'off book', and I suspect you googled it, found out as always you were felching nutsuckerism, and now you are skulking away from it as ususal. Uh, thats why budgets and deficits are beside the point, that is just jacking off (what you do) and the debt and the revenue are the numbers that mean something. He had a 200B BUDGET surplus. Meaning, the congress said we are going to take this in for revenue, and spend this on our nutsucker asswipe. The economy being in better shape than the nutsuckers calculated while they were felching each other in the minneapolis airport bathroom, and more revenue was taken in, and less was spent than the nutsuckers had felched. Therefore a 200B Budget surplus. But here is a hint for you, the Social Security Administration is probably the most credible citation we have on Social Security. So, that is the main thing. You are proven to be toiletlicking and then say, your point remains, no, it doesnt you great bleeding poofter, because it is all built on falsehoods. Nutsucerkisms felched from other nutsuckers and their slobber blogs.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 2:01:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler That's not why he signed it, but the timing of TARP and the credit bill that was vetoed by Bill Clinton and voted for by Hillary when she was in congress seems like the men behind the curtain pulling strings. Well, duh. Now that you're caught up with the rest of us.... [8D] lol

DesideriScuri -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 2:02:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC Mr.Rogers, if you knew anything at all about history, you would know that tax cuts RAISE revenue rather than decrease it. President Reagan knew this and proved it. President Bush knew this and proved it. And President John Kennedy knew this and proved it. Why are dumbocrats so blind to the truth and simple facts? Really? Tax cuts raise revenue? SO if the government had 1000 units of revenue, and reduce it by 100; it would produce more units of revenue than adding an additional 100 units on it (making it 1100)? Like to see the math on this one.... Go to the IRS and check. Income tax revenues went up under Bush, even though there were tax cuts.

mnottertail -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 2:35:14 PM)
Nope, didnt happen, the rebates dropped revenue 35 billion the first year alone, the next year about 10 billion, had they not been enacted, revenue would have been up about 10 billion (so a 20 billion loss) the next year 138 billion decline, the next a 71 billion decline. So from the 2001 cut, revenue went in the shitter the next four years. 2005 it came back up, but then we were in the housing bubble and the war economy, and that went in the shitter starting with housing, the next year, and the war just after that.

MrRodgers -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 3:54:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Every liberal trumpets the fact that the last clinton budget had a surplus of 200 billion. It simply isn't true. Clinton took social security obligations off book. We still had to pay for it - it was just no longer reported as part of the budget. Wrong, there is no such a thing as off book Lyndon Johnson put the SS on budget in 68. Nixon fucked around with that some. Then it went off budget and counted in the deficit under St. Wrinklemeat. Then it went off budget and off deficit under ReadMyLips Bush. Clinton had nothing to do with that. All nutsuckers demonstrating their propaganda, lies, and innumeracy simultaneously. As usual, as you are absent any kind of creditable citation, I am ignoring your crap. The point remains - there was never a surplus during the clinton years. Oh yes there was from the CBO and most every measure including those by the right and it is all over the fucking Internet. In fact if I remember correctly, the CBO projected that if the tax structure were left alone, there would have been a $5.6 trillion 10 year surplus and if devoted only to debt...we'd have been just about out of debt by 2010. And oh BTW, not including soc. sec. HERE and HERE I like this one, repub deficits and GDP vs Dem deficits and GDP I rest my case HERE You surprise me with that one Phy. I try my best to be as objective as possible and never insult people here or anywhere unless they really deserve it. (Trump) But to claim that there was no Clinton surplus is I think, the single greatest partisan-driven incorrect statement you've made here. And to remind you and those, I grew up in a conservative Michigan (Detroit) household where my mother actually worked for Geo. Romney and became even more conservative reading the Wash. Post, Buckley, Will Etc. and the trouble is, the repubs of today from Reagan on...are anything but conservative. Even Buckley crumbled into a spinmiester and corporatist. a few years before his death. Look at Goldwater, he'd be appalled at corp. America, wall street and what the repubs have been up to, since RR.

Phydeaux -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 5:52:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Every liberal trumpets the fact that the last clinton budget had a surplus of 200 billion. It simply isn't true. Clinton took social security obligations off book. We still had to pay for it - it was just no longer reported as part of the budget. Wrong, there is no such a thing as off book Lyndon Johnson put the SS on budget in 68. Nixon fucked around with that some. Then it went off budget and counted in the deficit under St. Wrinklemeat. Then it went off budget and off deficit under ReadMyLips Bush. Clinton had nothing to do with that. All nutsuckers demonstrating their propaganda, lies, and innumeracy simultaneously. As usual, as you are absent any kind of creditable citation, I am ignoring your crap. The point remains - there was never a surplus during the clinton years. Oh yes there was from the CBO and most every measure including those by the right and it is all over the fucking Internet. In fact if I remember correctly, the CBO projected that if the tax structure were left alone, there would have been a $5.6 trillion 10 year surplus and if devoted only to debt...we'd have been just about out of debt by 2010. And oh BTW, not including soc. sec. HERE and HERE I like this one, repub deficits and GDP vs Dem deficits and GDP I rest my case HERE You surprise me with that one Phy. I try my best to be as objective as possible and never insult people here or anywhere unless they really deserve it. (Trump) But to claim that there was no Clinton surplus is I think, the single greatest partisan-driven incorrect statement you've made here. And to remind you and those, I grew up in a conservative Michigan (Detroit) household where my mother actually worked for Geo. Romney and became even more conservative reading the Wash. Post, Buckley, Will Etc. and the trouble is, the repubs of today from Reagan on...are anything but conservative. Even Buckley crumbled into a spinmiester and corporatist. a few years before his death. Look at Goldwater, he'd be appalled at corp. America, wall street and what the repubs have been up to, since RR. Again, you ignored the facts that I posted. I agree that media has widely reported that there was a budget surplus. You ignored and did not read either of the articles that detailed exactly how that was accomplished. Ie., by not counting social security obligations as part of the budget - as it had been done for the last 50 years. The bottom line - is if we had a budget surplus, the federal debt would have gone done. As I showed from the actual federal data - the debt continued to rise. Look - if you take the entire entitlement spending off book - you'd show a budget surplus too - but it would still be nonsense.

AtUrCervix -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 5:59:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Sorry, I should have said budget deficit increased more under Bush than Obama Last Clinton budget had a surplus of over 200 billion. The last Budget signed by Bush had a deficit of Over 450 billion. 2015 Budget was Less than a 450 billion deficit Basically, budget deficit increased during Bush by almost 900 billion.Budget deficit is less for 2015 than 2008. Obama accumulated more debt, but bailing out the American economy AND having to deal with the aftermath of foolish war was expensive Deficit/debt. (Both increased....exponentially....under Obama). Budget surplus under Clinton was 37 billion and...if you look up the "debt"...it didn't fall....under Clinton or....anyone else since the early 1800's. (Are you on crack or, simply just making up shit?)

Phydeaux -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/9/2016 6:12:02 PM)
Read the damn article. In 1993 congress passed orba, with not a single republican vote. Social security was taking in money hand over fist - but that money was supposed to be in a lock box for social security trustees. So that money is "owed" to social security recipients. What happened, is that SS was required to buy federal treasuries. The amount of federal treasuries they bought were treasuries that the public did not have to buy. So it gave the appearance of reducing the debt owed. And rather reporting the debt as the sum of the intragovernmental debt and the public debt, the intragovernmental debt was taken off book. Poof. No more deficit. Read the damn article : http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

mnottertail -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/10/2016 7:13:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Again, you ignored the facts that I posted. I agree that media has widely reported that there was a budget surplus. You ignored and did not read either of the articles that detailed exactly how that was accomplished. Ie., by not counting social security obligations as part of the budget - as it had been done for the last 50 years. And I will point out that is not a fact as I did before. It is simple nutsucker cockgargling. The fact is that during the HW Bush administration that was changed to not count it. It had not been done for the last 50 years, the untying of SS from budgetary concerns started with the great nutsucker icon St. Wrinklemeat. As much as the nutsucker crowd tries to redefine the English language - that is not correct historically nor linguistically. https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

DominantWrestler -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/10/2016 8:23:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler That's not why he signed it, but the timing of TARP and the credit bill that was vetoed by Bill Clinton and voted for by Hillary when she was in congress seems like the men behind the curtain pulling strings. Well, duh. Now that you're caught up with the rest of us.... [8D] lol Ive known about the hands behind the curtain since I was quite young. Growing up with 9/11 and Bush's vengeful and greedy follies removed the veil of innocence from the eyes of much of my generation. It just seemed a little blatant for groups with billions (much more likely trillions) of dollars to figure out how to manipulate politics

mnottertail -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/10/2016 9:51:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Read the damn article. In 1993 congress passed orba, with not a single republican vote. Social security was taking in money hand over fist - but that money was supposed to be in a lock box for social security trustees. So that money is "owed" to social security recipients. What happened, is that SS was required to buy federal treasuries. The amount of federal treasuries they bought were treasuries that the public did not have to buy. So it gave the appearance of reducing the debt owed. And rather reporting the debt as the sum of the intragovernmental debt and the public debt, the intragovernmental debt was taken off book. Poof. No more deficit. Read the damn article : http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Nope, pure asswipe. There is no off book. And a deficit was reported. Nutsuckers are particularly shown to be toiletlicking when so majestically innumerate try to lie and pretend about finance and fiscal responsibilty. Treasuries that the 'public' doesn't need to buy does not reduce any 'appearance' of debt owed, it isnt something you can cockgargle with. Treasuries are public debt. Period. Intragovernmental debt has never been taken off book (since there is no off book) nor off budget. Public debt is public debt, and further asswipe from you ...here is how it really is, Public debt is made up of T bills and the like, things the american citizenry (for example) can buy from the government. Intragovernmental debt and holdings is when nutsuckers rob from social security, by example. Fuckin IOUs. Nutsuckers are strangers to it all.

mnottertail -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/10/2016 9:54:34 AM)
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm Dont try to nutsucker slobber propagandize when it is so easy to disprove. Stay in the nutsucker realms of expertise, lying, innuendo, impugn, nutsucker slobber blogs parroting.

Phydeaux -> RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office (2/10/2016 10:27:48 AM)
Fiscal Year Year Ending National Debt Deficit FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion So which year did the debt go down idiot?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02