So, you want to talk deficits?

[VinnieKulick]

We know, Bush ran up a deficit.

Here's what Obama's doing.







So, we all agree that Bush's economic plan was to blame for the deficit (even though the Dems had no problem agreeing to the budgets submitted in most cases) so that should mean that all the Obamabots can agree that he's spending us into oblivion, right?

[Ugmo]

I love this graph.



It speaks a thousand words.

EDIT: Michelle Malkin, eh?

[VinnieKulick]

Great Graph Ugmo, can you get it updated with the Obama numbers?


And yeah, michelle malkin hosted the graphs from the House of Representatives (that's the little logo in the bottom corner).

What? You didn't think you'd see it on CNN did you?

[KillaforniaROCKER]

shit is only going to get worse.

hold on to your butts.....and your jobs!!!

this shit has the potential to get real nasty..

[Ugmo]

Great Graph Ugmo, can you get it updated with the Obama numbers?

And yeah, michelle malkin hosted the graphs from the House of Representatives (that's the little logo in the bottom corner).

What? You didn't think you'd see it on CNN did you?

Yes, it is a great graph. The Obama numbers are on there. It's that pale yellow stimulus section, and you can clearly see how little of the long term deficit results from Obama's spending.

The bottom line is you are blaming him for deficits that are largely his predecessor's fault.

And it was Michelle Malkin who added the misleading comments making it look like Obama is to blame for these huge deficits, rather than GWB's policies and the economic downturn.

[VinnieKulick]

Ugmo, Ugmo, Ugmo.

If that was Obama's ONLY spending, I'd agree. But his normal BUDGET is the highest in history. His deficit spending is the highest in history. He raised the cap of how far into debt we COULD go, by more than the amount of Bush's deficits (so basically he can spend all the money that was the OLD debt level, and THEN pile on Bush size spending on top of it.

[Ugmo]

The lion's share of Obama's excess spending is the stimulus package. It's right there in that graph. Without that stimulus package, the economy shrinks and the long-term tax revenues also shrink. The stimulus package is the responsible thing to do.

Don't keep deflecting attention away from the fact that your guys got us into this mess, not Obama.

[VinnieKulick]

Jesus fuck, for the last time. I am NOT deflecting away that Bush ran up a deficit. We've all agreed on that.



Obama is still spending at record rates, and running the deficit higher, even without the stimulus spending.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

[Ugmo]

Jesus fuck, for the last time. I am NOT deflecting away that Bush ran up a deficit. We've all agreed on that.

Obama is still spending at record rates, and running the deficit higher, even without the stimulus spending.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

He has no other choice, thanks to the perfect pile of shit left on his plate by his predecessor - why is that so hard to comprehend?

[VinnieKulick]

The lion's share of Obama's excess spending is the stimulus package.

BZZZ Try again.
http://projects.propublica.org/tables/s ... g-progress
There's "only" $249 billion left to spend. The rest is already paid out.

So, how much of the $3.8 trillion budget is really the stimulus money?

[Ugmo]

The lion's share of Obama's excess spending is the stimulus package.

BZZZ Try again.
http://projects.propublica.org/tables/s ... g-progress
There's "only" $249 billion left to spend. The rest is already paid out.

So, how much of the $3.8 trillion budget is really the stimulus money?

You're fudging the numbers here. Obama's new budget is 3.8 trillion. The 2009 budget (much of which was Bush's) was just over 3.5 billion. Not that much of an increase when you consider that the cost of the two wars is actually reflected in this budget and wasn't reflected in the last one.

[VinnieKulick]

You're fudging the numbers here. Obama's new budget is 3.8 trillion. The 2009 budget (much of which was Bush's) was just over 3.5 billion. Not that much of an increase when you consider that the cost of the two wars is actually reflected in this budget and wasn't reflected in the last one.

Fudging the numbers? How can you blame Bush for running up a deficit, and then excuse the next president for spending MORE than Bush did?

That's like blaming your ex girlfriend when your current one cheats on you.

[vanitybinge]

Jesus fuck, for the last time. I am NOT deflecting away that Bush ran up a deficit. We've all agreed on that.

Obama is still spending at record rates, and running the deficit higher, even without the stimulus spending.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

He has no other choice, thanks to the perfect pile of shit left on his plate by his predecessor - why is that so hard to comprehend?

he has no other choice because he does what he's told just like Bush. Look who he's got in his cabinet, ALL BANKERS. Bilderbergs and their friends are sucking us dry like a fucking leech, and you put all the blame on bush or Obama? When are YOU going to get the point that they're not leaders at all and they're just puppets to their higher $authority$

[Ugmo]

Fudging the numbers? How can you blame Bush for running up a deficit, and then excuse the next president for spending MORE than Bush did?

That's like blaming your ex girlfriend when your current one cheats on you.

Vinnie, are you intentionally misunderstanding me or something? Obama's deficit is largely based on policies established by Bush, such as the unfunded tax cuts and prescription drug financing, and the stimulus programs. It is a little higher this year than last year largely because the cost of the two wars is actually reflected in the numbers, which wasn't the case until now.

[VinnieKulick]

A dollar is a dollar.

If the government spends it on bullets and not band aids, it's still spent.

Deficit spending (spending more than you take in) is still deficit spending.

When Obama rings up big numbers and he's still spending more than we're taking in, it doesn't matter WHY we're not taking in enough, we're still spending too much.

[Ugmo]

A dollar is a dollar.

If the government spends it on bullets and not band aids, it's still spent.

Deficit spending (spending more than you take in) is still deficit spending.

When Obama rings up big numbers and he's still spending more than we're taking in, it doesn't matter WHY we're not taking in enough, we're still spending too much.

Great, then will you please accept that Obama deserves a fraction of the blame, because his fucking hands are tied on this? As I said in the other thread (it's exhausting keeping this discussion going in two different threads, BTW), the debt won't be paid down any time soon. That cannot be done without the wars coming to an end, the economy improving, the Bush tax cuts fully expiring and a major overhaul being implemented for entitlements (which in itself is illusory because it's going to be a herculean task getting those kind of cuts in popular programs through Congress).

[vanitybinge]

A dollar is a dollar.

If the government spends it on bullets and not band aids, it's still spent.

Deficit spending (spending more than you take in) is still deficit spending.

When Obama rings up big numbers and he's still spending more than we're taking in, it doesn't matter WHY we're not taking in enough, we're still spending too much.

Great, then will you please accept that Obama deserves a fraction of the blame, because his fucking hands are tied on this? As I said in the other thread (it's exhausting keeping this discussion going in two different threads, BTW), the debt won't be paid down any time soon. That cannot be done without the wars coming to an end, the economy improving, the Bush tax cuts fully expiring and a major overhaul being implemented for entitlements (which in itself is illusory because it's going to be a herculean task getting those kind of cuts in popular programs through Congress).

How about auditing the Federal Reserve?

[Ugmo]

How about auditing the Federal Reserve?

Ron Paul fan, eh?

I'm not sure that would save a whole lot of money, let alone the 1.6 trillion bucks needed to balance the budget. And apparently the Fed is fully, independently audited every year anyway.

[vanitybinge]

How about auditing the Federal Reserve?

Ron Paul fan, eh?

I'm not sure that would save a whole lot of money, let alone the 1.6 trillion bucks needed to balance the budget. And apparently the Fed is fully, independently audited every year anyway.

Honestly I hate quoting the guy because whenever I do someone uses it as an excuse to dismiss whatever point I'm making.

I'd like to see the source that says the Fed is audited every year, because despite what I just said, RP has been trying to get this done for about 38 years now. I think someone would have told him he's wasting his time by now.

As for the numbers, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out. Take the total amount of money the Fed has loaned the United States over the past eighty years, and add up the interest that's accrued over that time. Subtract that interest from the deficit, and call an 86 on our debt to the Fed in the better interest of the country.

If the govt can take your house for the "better of the city", we should be able to nix our debt to the bank wether they like it or not. I know it sounds extreme, but so are the numbers today.

[Ugmo]

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/26 ... dit26?pg=2

He noted that a full, independent audit of the Fed's financial operations is conducted every year and that Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has taken steps to increase the amount of information the central bank releases.

I'll be honest, I don't have the slightest clue whether what you're proposing is realistic or not.

[vanitybinge]

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/26 ... dit26?pg=2

He noted that a full, independent audit of the Fed's financial operations is conducted every year and that Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has taken steps to increase the amount of information the central bank releases.

I'll be honest, I don't have the slightest clue whether what you're proposing is realistic or not.

Shit that's a first! I'll check this article and do some more research, and come back to this thread after a couple nice fluffy bowls. I should be able to give you some numbers then.

[Ugmo]

I'll check this article and do some more research, and come back to this thread after a couple nice fluffy bowls. I should be able to give you some numbers then.

I reserve the right to question your reefer-induced math!

[VinnieKulick]

So, we're ending a war, yet the defense budget increases.

Its a fucking mess either way. Just spending our asses into debt hell isn't the answer.

Where's that "balanced budget amendment" legislation?

[VinnieKulick]

The US debt is on track to hit a congressionally proposed debt ceiling of 14.3 trillion dollars by the end of February, the Treasury said Wednesday, a day ahead of a key vote to raise it to that level.
"Based on current projections, Treasury expects to reach the debt ceiling as early as the end of February. However, the government's cash flows are volatile, making it difficult to forecast a precise date," the Treasury said in a statement.
The current limit on the public debt of the United States is 12.374 trillion dollars.
The US debt exceeded 12.349 trillion dollars on Monday, according to Treasury data.
The US House of Representatives will vote Thursday on whether to raise the US debt limit to a historic 14.3 trillion dollars, allowing the United States to borrow another 1.9 trillion dollars.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said representatives would take up the measure a week after the Senate approved the higher debt ceiling in a 60-39 vote.
In December, both houses agreed to increase the debt limit by an interim amount of 290 billion dollars to ensure the US government would continue to function.
The Senate also last week passed an amendment to legislation raising the debt ceiling that requires new budget items to be paid for, dubbed "pay-as-you-go."
The measure is intended to prevent the federal government from spending money it does not have and to control the massive US budget deficit.
The House has adopted a similar measure.

[vanitybinge]

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/26 ... dit26?pg=2

He noted that a full, independent audit of the Fed's financial operations is conducted every year and that Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has taken steps to increase the amount of information the central bank releases.

I'll be honest, I don't have the slightest clue whether what you're proposing is realistic or not.

Scott G. Alvarez, the Fed's general counsel, said that when Congress allowed GAO audits of the Fed in 1978, it specifically exempted certain "highly sensitive areas," including monetary policy deliberations and actions, discount window operations, and transactions with foreign central banks and governments.

OK Hold up the fun bus here. You can audit us, but not the discount windows, and all intergovernmental transactions? What kind of fucking audit does that leave you with?


Detailed information about those activities "would cause the markets and the public to lose confidence in the independence and judgment of the Federal Reserve," Alvarez told the committee.
Translation:
So giving details about what we do would cause the public to lose confidence in what we do? Therefore, you can't know what we do!



He noted that a full, independent audit of the Fed's financial operations is conducted every year and that Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has taken steps to increase the amount of information the central bank releases.
Oh there's a name you can trust with your oatmeal! We shouldnt force him to let us conduct a whole audit, because he told us more this year than he did last year.

Alvarez said GAO audits were not like traditional accounting audits. The congressional watchdog has power to question Fed officials and to make policy judgments about the central bank's operations.

Actually, any court of audit can question whoever they are auditing. DUH!


"The concern that we have is that monetary policy, to be effective . . ., has to be as free as possible from political considerations," Alvarez said.
yeaaaa, but...in the seventies, mortage rates were running twenty percent, because the FED was getting 15%! Obviously, no politicians were pushing this for political interest, it happened because inflation was so high so the FED figured if they could slow down borrowing they could stem the inflation. There's no way in hell any pundits would get behind a policy to give the FED 15-18%. So that bit is true.


But Paul questioned what the Fed was hiding.

"Fifteen or 20 years ago, nobody really cared," he said, noting that most people knew the Fed only for its interest-rate decisions. "Now they're wondering whether it isn't the Fed that stirred things up."



All this meandering weak ass logic is just dodging the real questions with nanny panny bullshit answers. This only convinces me more that a full and proper audit is needed. I think the real rat under the entire economic rug is right there.

[vanitybinge]

[quote="VinnieKulick"]The US debt is on track to hit a congressionally proposed debt ceiling of 14.3 trillion dollars by the end of February, the Treasury said Wednesday, a day ahead of a key vote to raise it to that level.
"Based on current projections, Treasury expects to reach the debt ceiling as early as the end of February. However, the government's cash flows are volatile, making it difficult to forecast a precise date," the Treasury said in a statement.
The current limit on the public debt of the United States is 12.374 trillion dollars.
The US debt exceeded 12.349 trillion dollars on Monday, according to Treasury data.
The US House of Representatives will vote Thursday on whether to raise the US debt limit to a historic 14.3 trillion dollars, allowing the United States to borrow another 1.9 trillion dollars.

OK kiddies put on your math hats ( I know most of you are older than me dont remind me)
$14.3 Trillion minus $12.349 Trillion is $1.951 Trillion.
We borrow $1.9 from the FED, and that leaves $.051 Trillion left over. That's the interest.

In big zeros, that means the interest on this new loan is $510,000,000,000.00. Five-hundred-ten Billion dollars interest!

[Ugmo]

VB - don't take this the wrong way, but I propose you lay off the reefer for a while.

[vanitybinge]

VB - don't take this the wrong way, but I propose you lay off the reefer for a while.

Come on don't get cheap on me! I made valid points and you know it, so if you want to question my criticism on that article then by all means go ahead. Or, maybe you need a bowl to catch up!

[vanitybinge]

So, we all agree that Bush's economic plan was to blame for the deficit (even though the Dems had no problem agreeing to the budgets submitted in most cases) so that should mean that all the Obamabots can agree that he's spending us into oblivion, right?

Why not just stick to a comparison between 2009 and 2010. Increased spending on health care and defense and unemployment account for most of the difference.

Compare Bush's 2009 Budget to Obama's 2010 Budget.

About that graph. I'm curious as to how much of the increased spending in each area is due to inflation, and what's due to conscious spending on programs. I say this because the increase looks smaller than what I would expect to see(with the exception of unemployment)

[Ugmo]

VB - don't take this the wrong way, but I propose you lay off the reefer for a while.

Come on don't get cheap on me! I made valid points and you know it, so if you want to question my criticism on that article then by all means go ahead. Or, maybe you need a bowl to catch up!

Sorry dude, I don't quite understand your math. We "borrow" that money from the Fed? How do we borrow if from the Fed since "we" (well, American taxpayers) finance the Fed in the first place?