lol
don't hold your breath waiting.

Yeah - I've yet to see anyone post data from one economist, in 2012, that disputes the CBO's report on the stimulus re: the effect on jobs and GDP.

You're right - don't hold your breathing waiting to see any one here be able to explain "why the stimulus is a massive failure" - other than that they hate Obama.

Math, not welcome here. Point proven again that once math is introduced to a debate on this forum the debate moves on to something else.
Numbers do not lie.

Which is why you haven't been able to quote one economist in 2012 saying the CBO report on the stimulus working (via measurable jobs and GDP data) was false.

Post one. Just one.

I've posted the following economists that say the stimulus worked, with their supporting data via published studies.

Feyrer and Sacerdote.
Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston.
Wilson.
Congressional Budget Office.
Council of Economic Advisors.
Zandi and Blinder.
Oh and Reis.

Where are all those economists saying the stimulus was a massive failure again? Can you name one?

Damned data always gets in the way of propaganda and demogoguery... :p

I'd be impressed if he can remember that there are 50 and not 57 states.

More on Jill Stein:

It’s a hell of a thing when the nominee of the far-left Green Party espouses a stronger work ethic than the President of the United States. But that’s what we’ve come to.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...AwcXWVACadtQuL

i think that's where the stimulus that obama pushed thru failed. it should have been a works/infrstructure package, not a temporary fund to cities to hire more police/fire dept workers and teachers. cause when the money ran out, so did the jobs, because the states couldn't afford to keep them on the payroll.
see, there's not as much of a domino affect when you hire those employees. but when you work on highways, bridges, other infrastructure-purchases are made. equipment, supplies, etc. money flows for those projects in many directions. plus there's the bonus of fixing deteriorating structures.
oh well. maybe next time.

:rolleyes:

yeah, cause that's so damned important that it has to be brought up ad nauseum.

The current administration can make anyone's stomach turn over.

:rolleyes:

:tro:

Hey, Joey? Hey, ARyan? No offense, but you guys are really looking clueless here. Perhaps you are simply unable to understand this?

For the third time, concentrate really hard here, and try to understand this reality:

NOBODY IS SAYING THE DEFICT HASN'T GONE UP!

Only pointing out that Obama has NOT caused a $5 trillion dollar increase. That is not true.

Obama's polices did NOT cause that debt increase. Obama has NOT added "$5 trillion to the deficit and debt" by his policies. That is false.

Obama's policies cost us $1.4 trillion through 2016.

Our paying interest, and basic costs, still, on policies from previous administrations still cost us money, we are still paying for them, we are still compounding interest on them.

Yes, the debt has gone up. The debt would continue to go up, no matter who was president. Why?

Because the interest on the debt compounds, and policies created under previous administrations, that were not paid for, continue to be unfunded and cost us money.

Are you guys really incapable of understanding this most basic concept about how money works?

Bush cost us trillions in unfunded wars, the cost of those wars extending out approximately 20 years well past his presidency. WE ARE STILL PAYING FOR THAT, WITH COMPOUNDING INTEREST! That is NOT the current administrations' fault.

Can you understand that concept?

The ongoing over-time cost of Bushes' wars, and unfunded tax cuts, did not magically stop the day he flew home to Crawford. Can you two not understand that?

Try this for help:



And see this for what has created that ongoing debt - hint, it wasn't the current President. If you want to know why the debt has increased another $5 trillion, put it in the lap of the right person, and stop trying to falsely blame it on someone else.

:zz: The majority of it was "works and infrastructure". Hello? All those bridges and roads and water mains fixed?

And all of this data is why the President has ended Bush policies en masse and enforced his own fairness policies! Oh wait, he hasn't because despite what you want to believe, nothing has changed but the that is spewing the nonsense.

Was that supposed to make any sense? Just another vague, random "Hate Obama" rant?

If you think that "nothing has changed" between November 2008 and now, I beg of you - please do not vote.

Back to the subject: Nobody is disputing the debt has gone up. It would go up if we didn't have any president at all and didn't spend a dime.

That the RWNJ, including Joey and ARyan, have fallen for and keep repeating the blatent falsehood that Obama's policies caused all of it is why this country is currently an international joke - because that superior thinking has given us Mitt Romney as a candidate for president of the United States, and the rest of the adult world wonders what the hell ever happened to America?

Worse health care of any first world nation, only FW nation without universal care, most expensive health care of any first world nation, highest infant death rate, half our country near or at poverty, failing behind 10-20 other countries in reading, science, math, a religious taliban forcing their morality laws on everyone else, a political group denigrating and blaming the poor, homeless, starving. But hey! Let's look at Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann for President! And hope to still be taken seriously in this world??

I dont hate Obama, I dont even know the man, no one does he is completely inaccessible and does not care for politics, in the traditional sense of the word.
Hey let's look at a one term Senator with zero real world experience or any executive or military history to run the largest economy and military in the world. C'mon, comparing Romney to Far right psychos is wrong and you know it, he was Gov of the most liberal state in the union, this is called going along to get along.
It is too bad we are unable to compete with the other glorious western nations and their health and welfare systems as they grapple with 15-20% unemployment and rioting in the streets. If only we could grasp what it is that makes them so great and apply those concepts here, then we would not be an international joke. We could line up with most of Europe and beg Germany to save us too, sounds great, lets do that.

Oh for goodness sakes, seriously? What imaginary planet unhinged from reality do you live on? Hannity World?

And if you want to see rioting in the streets, please, elect Mitt Romney and the Republican European-style austerity financial plan - we'll be right there with Europe ***

Or look at the massive financial misbehavior of the Bush administration, and wonder why we are no longer even in the Top Twenty of the top nations of the world in all the things Bush ignored and fought against while he was busy starting wars to kill a generation of Americans.

Oh - and be sure and vote to overturn the basic start to healthcare reform and education reform Obama started - and get angry over the First Lady and her health initiatives for our kids - getting rid of that will pull us out of the gutter on healthcare and education, for sure!

*** While Europe dealt with the recession and financial crisis via austerity, our country did a stimulus. Gee - who is doing better today?

The deficit was 10.6 Trillion the day Bush left office.

Again, simple mathematics seems to complicate your argument.


Obama inherited a deficit of 10.6 T, only spent 1.4T (your data) and somehow the deficit is now 16 Trillion.



How do you explain the 4 Trillion dollars added over the past 3 years? Is that all service on the debt? 25% interest?

Did Obama accidentally put the 1.4 Trillion on his American Express?

Your phony charts aren't fooling anyone. He is responsible for a 5 Trillion dollars increase to the National debt in 3 years. Period. Fact.

Pointless to argue. You are a true believer and will never see beyond your own opinion or the opinion of those that agree with you. Both of them.

Math isn't welcome here, you must know this by now. BUSH, BUSH, BUSH. The defense is like a 70's porno.

Oooh it's like finding little hidden gems!

This is what I said...

A couple of things... first off I'm curious if #6 would have happened without #12. I don't think so. Do you? Don't you?

Is the part where I said torture is just dandy in invisible ink or what?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Dont you know that even though Obama signed the same exact tax breaks into law as bush did... that debt is still being attributed to Bush? Eventhough it is now and has been for years, the "obama" tax cuts? and all the deficit from the wars in the past 3.5 years is going to Bush's tab... because its not like Obama is the commander in chief or anything.

Its called "obamanomics". blame the guy before you eventhough you continued to govern the EXACT same way as the guy before you.

No, it's more like that answer is ridiculous and silly.

The right kind of math is welcome, and you trying to deny that the debt Bush left us is not still costing us daily is beyond absurd.

Bush didn't wipe out his debt the day he left office, did he? No matter who was president, the Bush debt present on 1/20/2008 continues until about 2020.

Nope. Not all of it. The part due to Bush is attributed to him (massive, major part), and the part due to Obama continuing is attributed to him (much less, but still there).

That is, that's the answer of people who actually care to be discerning and serious and truthful about the causes of our debt, that is.

Please only read my answer if you are serious about discussing our debt. If you just want to continue to talk in sound bites, just skip it, okay? If you want to debate and talk about this in good faith, carry on, I promise I'll do the same.

Naw, you're wrong on the "simple mathematics" part, you can't do that - your assumption of how that works is wrong.

First, should mention that we are both using deficit and debt interchangeably, and we are both wrong to do that - the deficit is the difference between what we take and in and what we spend annually, then the accumulation of that (which Obama has decreased a bit, his federal spending is indeed the lowest since Reagan); and the debt is what we owe.

But we are talking about the same thing - what the country owes in total, right?

Back to the "simple assumption" thing, your math is way off, you are trying to simplistically compare entirely different things.

The debt was 10.6 trillion at end of Bush, is now 16 trillion. Yes, it is. 5.6 trillion of that was added during the past 4 years. Yes, it was.

BTW - if Bushes policies only cost us a little over $5 trillion, why was the debt 10.6 trillion at the end of his term? If you can answer that, you'll know why you can't blame Obama for 100% of the debt that has added on during his term.

BUT - to get back, the question is where did that 5.6 trillion come from? You say it is all due to Obama.

No, it is not.

First, much of that is continued ongoing costs from Bush unpaid-for wars, unpaid-for drug giveaway, and the ongoing cost of Bush massively cutting our income via the tax cuts, while continuing to spend the same amount of money. And yes, when we loan ourselves money, there is tremendous debt service on that, and it compounds exponentially.

So even though Bush left office 1/20/2008, the cost of his policies, the debt we pay on that, continues to rise - the Iran war got more expensive over the past 10 years, Afghanistan, etc (and yes, Obama gets credit for the cost of the surge, etc)

But look again at the orange-red-blue Debt Chart graph in the post above - see the dates? Obama's policy costs do not even kick in until his first budget in 2009, the cost of that coming afterwards - see all the rise in Bush polices from 2008 to 2009-2010?

Obama isn't responsible for that portion of the debt rising even though his term started - and a lot of that old stuff is ongoing even past Obama's term (if it ends in November) and it's still Bush's stuff, left for the next president.

Obama's policies over the past cost 1.4 Trillion, but much of that was paid for (the ACA is virtually "deficit neutral" as scored by CBO), some of course was not - so you can't simply add cost of policies together. to get debt.

So, to attribute the portion of our debt that is due to Obama, due to his policies, you must be able to list the portion of Obama policies (and that includes a portion of the cost of expansion of Bush tax cuts, of course - but NOT all of that, of course) and (Obama's cost of surge in Afghanistan).

Right? We should be able to list the exact Obama policies (all together of which cost $1.4 trillion until 2017) that were put on a charge card, and not self-funded, that will cost us increased debt service in the last two years of his term and ongoing until it's paid for.

And that is clearly NOT $5.7 trillion. Obama has only "cost" us $1.4 trillion, that's absurd, and much of Obama's costs haven't even kicked in yet (and the vast majority are paid for, not put on a charge card)

To attribute that $5.7 trillion all to Obama is simple, factually, obviously false and simplistic.

Nope. Easily provable as wrong.

The charts are from figures supplied by the well-respected and non-partisan Congressional Budget office, no, they are not in any way whatsoever "phoney", that's an absurd charge.

Here's fact on what each of the last two presidents policies have cost - some was paid for, much for Bush, noticeably and regrettably, was NOT.

So, basically, since it's "not Obama's fault" and the deficit did go up, we can deduce that President Obama voted "present" ?

No. Not even close to what I said.

The part of the deficit that is from Bush policies, is his; the part that is Obama's (not $5.7 trillion) is his; the part from before both men is neither of theirs.

Again - the debt when Bush left was nearly twice the actual cost of his policies - WHY was that?

Same reason Obama hasn't been responsible for "raising the debt by $5.7 trillion"

Every president inherits ongoing debt from the previous president. You can't blame a president for policies and debt that is hanging around, due to the guy before him.

That's beyond absurd, but it's exactly what the superficial and shallow are doing with the false attempt to blame Obama for debt not from his policies.

And the non-questioning keep repeating it. It's wrong.

You are ponderous with the "it's all Bush's fault". again.

He ran on a platform in 2008 that was highlighted by a draw down of military influence globally and a decrease in defense spending. He said that would bring the budgets "back in line".

He has not only not done this, but on top of everything else, ignored the constitution by deciding to go to war in Libya by himself, and increasing defense spending year after year.

5 Trillion in 3 years is on him and there is no way you are going to spin it to your deluded beliefs.

I think you don't know what "ponderous" means. Better look that one up.

And I did not even say "it's all Bush's fault".


The costs of presidential policies, extending into the future after the president's terms, is easily measurable and verifiable fact.

"Beliefs" have zero to do with it.

The statement that Obama's policies alone are responsible for 100% of all USA debt service over the past 3-4 years, that Obama's policies alone are responsible for the debt rising $5.7 trillion in the past 3-4 years, is demonstrably false and simply stupid.

It would be as stupid as saying Bush is responsible for 100% of the debt he inherited and was still paying off 2 years into his presidency from previous administrations.

Yes, Joey - Rush and Hannity and The Blaze and Erick Erickson and lying to you that 100% of the current debt in this country is due to Obama. It doesn't pass your own "simple math test" Stop believing their lie. THINK FOR YOURSELF There is no way you can continue to spin this with your deluded beliefs.

Plus the debt blame is pointless. Both parties share the burden and it is true that most of the debt is beyond Obama's control and the debt he did accumulate is a pittance compared to money wasted by former administrations.

Solyndra is a mere drop in the bucket.

One thing that he is handling extremely well is Iran and he seems to understand the timeline and our intelligence agencies aren't dropping the ball.

What's happening is Netanyahu needs conflict to remain in power. Obama sees it for what it is instead of being a Zionist lapdog.

Quite relieving, actually.

:tro:

was reading an article earlier about the impact sanctions are having on the economy over there. further sanctions are coming next month. they need time to work, and i think are already have an effect.

This warms my heart...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy5s8GypSKI

sanctions will make the people of Iran revolt.

factcheck, on obama and his 'deficit dodge'.

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-dodge/

some excerpts:

'President Obama is falsely claiming that his administration’s policies are responsible for “about 10 percent” of the deficits “over the last four years.” The cumulative deficit during that time is nearly $5.2 trillion. Obama signed two bills — the 2009 stimulus and the 2010 tax cut — that alone cost $1.6 trillion during that time, or nearly a third of the cumulative four-year deficit

Obama’s response leaves the false impression that President George W. Bush and the 2008 recession are responsible for a whopping 90 percent of the deficits in the last four years.

It’s true that Obama “inherited the biggest deficit in our history,” as he said on CBS. By the time Obama took office in January 2009, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had already estimated that increased spending and decreased revenues would result in a $1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009, which began Oct. 1, 2008. In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.

But that was just the first of four years of trillion-plus deficits. The last three budgets fall squarely under Obama. And, during that time, the federal government ran up deficits of $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and about $1.2 trillion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 — for a total of nearly $5.2 trillion in deficit spending.'

---------oh, and the 'unfunded bush war'??:

'The Obama administration was authorized to spend $160 billion in 2010 (Table 1-4, “Defense-war related”) and $159 billion in 2011 (Table 4, “Overseas contingency operations”) on the two wars — each more than the $140 billion that was authorized in 2009, which was Bush’s last budget. Obama significantly increased troop levels in Afghanistan in both years. CBO says budget authority for the Afghanistan war jumped from $38 billion in 2009 to $87 billion in 2010 and $98 billion in 2011. Obama requested $115 billion for both wars in 2012. The cost from 2010 to 2012 is more than $400 billion, excluding interest.



But Obama bears more responsibility than he is willing to accept, and misrepresents the Treasury analysis to minimize his responsibility.'

and this nugget:


Josh Gordon, policy director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates for “responsible fiscal policy,” notes the president wants to exclude spending on continuing Bush-era tax and war policies. “The problem is those pieces of legislation had his signatures,” he added.

CBO and the nonpartisan Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative each did their own postmortem analyses of what happened from 2002 to 2011. Without apportioning blame, both reports found the accumulation of legislation changes — tax cuts, war spending and stimulus measures under both presidents — was the “main driver,” as Pew put it.

-------obama skewing facts, by lumping bush policies he has continued into bushes area of responsibility! no, he keeps them going, they are his as well. but nice try.

Don't confuse the deficit with the debt ;)