Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Doing the deficit math

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 3, 2012, 4:53 p.m. EST by shooz (17837)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Bush really does effect the deficit even today.

The actual Obama addition to the debt is under 1 trillion.

Now can we throw the (R)epelican'ts out?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html?hpid=z4

58 Comments

58 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

Just another post the "righties" can't handle.

They want so bad for things to get worse, they can't handle the simple fact that Bush and the (R)epelican'ts really did do it, and still are effecting it.

Can we throw the bums out now?

Teabaggers first!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_presidents for the dates

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+united+states#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&rdim=state&ifdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en From: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm

39 Jimmy Carter 1-1977 7.6% 1-1981 7.5% Democratic Changed - .1%

40 Ronald Reagan 1-1981 7.5% 1-1989 5.4% Republican Changed + 2.1%

41 George H. W. Bush 1-1989 5.4% 1-1993 7.3% Republican Changed + 1.9%

42 Bill Clinton 1-1993 7.3% 1-2001 4.2% Democratic Changed - 3.1%

43 George W. Bush 1-2001 4.2% 1-2009 7.8% Republican Changed + 3.6%

44 Barack Obama 1-2009 7.8% Current 8.3% Democratic Changed + .5%

If you want the numbers on the deficit I have those as well. There has been a single Republican president that lowered unemployment since 1977. This is from our government folks, not some leftist group.

For a Consumer based economy, unemployment means the people consuming products do not buy stuff. What happens when people don't buy things... more unemployment but only if the scale of the unemployment is massive and long lived.

Short term unemployment can be absorbed and allows companies to build inventory if they so desire. With long term, large scale unemployment the inventory has sat and there is no more room and the companies can no longer absorb the glut.

This leads directly to layoffs, i.e. unemployment. Google layoffs, job cuts, shedding jobs and so on over the last four or five years.

Then add two wars, unpaid tax cuts, lack of investment in the infrastructure and you get where we are today.

Add obstructionist politics.

Add corporate influence and it will only get worse because to keep their jobs our legislators firmly believe they have to advertise themselves and that requires funding. This funding is paid for by corporations and the corporations expect a return on their investment.

It is the citizens' choice to work together to force the legislators to pass a Constitutional Amendment to remove the influence so that the Citizens no longer have to compete with corporations to make changes or continue down the same path to an economy destroyed by the self-interests of the legislators and the corporations funding them.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

This is just another demonstration of how reality challenged the "right", really is.

If you explain to them that (R)epelican'ts actually enlarge government, they just get glassy eyed.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Facts, numbers and reality is what it is and are what it are and these are some of the things some individuals never get. I don't know if it is because these people are to lazy to go find the information or if they just haven't any idea of where to look or perhaps they don't know how to search for it or just never considered the news lied to them.

It gets old having to correct the information and actually present facts to buttress what I post. A standard these folks don't practice. If I am wrong about something I want people to point it out.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

Here is the PROBLEM you cant handle. Obama, during his campaign said he knew how to fix the Bush problem and he hasnt. If you say you can and then you cant your a loser bigger than Bush was. Handle that.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Yes he has. If you add all debt attributable to Bush, 4.9 Trillion and 3.7 Trillion or 8.6 Trillion to George W., and the under 1 Trillion to Obama he is responsible. He did do as he said. Obama only added under 1 Trillion while trying to slow down the Bush related costs.

My best Scotty impersonation... "I am not a miracle worker Captain"

Unemployment was rising when Bush left. When Bush took office unemployment was 3.8% and when he left unemployment was 7.2%.

How can Obama stop a boulder rolling down a hill exactly? Two wars, one seven years long and ramping up just prior to Bush leaving office, unemployment up, housing prices dropping, people losing trillions in equity; all Bush.

What exactly did Obama contribute to the Budget Deficit and therefore the National Debt.

Do your research instead of opening your mouth and demonstrating clearly how stupid you are.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

LOL at your FACTS. See the REAL facts from just one of your liberal agenda news media. (nice try stupid)

CBS News August 22, 2011 6:34 PM The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch. The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion. It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president. The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

[-] 3 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html?hpid=z4

Math is such a nice thing.

Who started the war in Iraq? Did Bush end the war before he left office? Who is responsible for the costs of the war during the Obama presidency?

Bush's tax acts? These continued into the Obama presidency. Is Obama now responsible for those tax cuts?

TARP. The again were Bush, is Obama responsible for the cost of TARP?

The study examined every bill passed and assigned financial responsibility to the president that signed them.

Personal responsibility... you preach personal responsibility until you actually have to accept personal responsibility.

Why not just tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may?

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

You can make ANY claim you want. The FACT IS, obama said that if elected he would solve all the problems. He has not and actually it is worse today that it was even two years ago. If you said you can fix something,,, then fix it. He said he could and he has not. Stop blaming Bush. Obama said he could fix it,,, which is a pretty simple statement.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

So what you continue to say is that Obama is responsible for the Bush wars, the Bush tax cuts and the Bush policies. It was like saying Clinton was responsible for the lack in American security for 9/11; a full 8 months after bush took office.

What exactly is Bush responsible for?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

One thing I'd like to see taken into consideration when these topics come up is that our government does NOT allow the President to operate alone. It takes Congress, Senate, AND President to go to war, and cut or increase taxes, and institute policies.

Bush is not alone in the blame for what went on in Washington DC during his years in the White House. He shares the blame with those who voted in agreement with him, or proposed the freaking laws/bills/policies in the first place.

Bush AND congress/senate signed TARP-a $700 Billion dollar bill. Obama AND congress/senate signed ARRA-a $787 Billion dollar bill.

NOTE:The SAME congress/senate members voted for BOTH. Some of them are still in office today!

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

I think all here have to agree, Obama did not go to war with Iraq or Afghanistan. Once committed it is a mess to disentangle ourselves from the wars.

My thoughts are to fix the problems by understanding what led up to the problems so we don't do it again.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

None of US said we supported Bush's liberal spending. If anything,,,,, YOU liberals should be calling Bush your most favorite debt builder. You like increases in the debt because you want to RAISE it. Bush raised the debt like a liberal and YOU should be happy. But your not. If you want congress to raise the debt today then you LOVED Bush. Funny how that works.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Son, I am not a liberal.

Bush raised the debt by 8.6 Trillion and Obama, a liberal, raised the debt by under one-trillion. In fact every president that raised the debt by any significant amount was in fact supposedly a conservative.

Dismount and step away from your high horse and help fix this country. Removing corporate funding of out political process is not raising the national debt or creating a national deficit.

[-] 1 points by dogod (7) 2 years ago

That's a flawed argument. When Obama took office he inherited all the crappy stuff Bush had done which continues to cause debt. He can't change everything with one stroke of a magic wand. Repairing the huge damages caused by Bush will take more than one President.

As an example, Montreal's Olympic stadium built in 1976 was a fiasco in terms of causing debt. The mismanagement by the mayor at that time made the project skyrocket 10 times in price. The stadium's debt was only paid back in full a few years ago. The decisions that a representative makes in office during his 4 or 8 year period can have consequences that last many generations.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

That is a CRAPand sissy statement. If it was NOT possible to fix the problem then why did he say he could? You only get 4 years to fix it because you never know if you will get re-elected. So,,,, he didnt do what he PROMISED he would do. Find something better than your Bush blaming.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

So do you think Obama knew everything and that Bush stopped screwing things up a year before he left office?

You can continue to beat the dead equine or get on board to remove corporations from our government. The choice is yours.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

(R)epelican'ts wont let him, then there's all the teabaggers that lied to get elected in the states.

(R)epelican'ts are truly repellent liars, and have been since that "I am not a crook" guy.

He was, and they still are.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

You and ZenDog are birds of a feather-

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2009/15-common-cognitive-distortions/

You are the poster boys for cognitive distortions in which you assign everyone who disagrees with you to a category as if ALL of "them" are the same.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

OMG!!!!

You learned a new term.

Still doesn't apply though.

How are (R)epelican'ts NOT lying piles of crap?

Do you think Nixon wasn't a crook?

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I think most, if not all, fiscal conservatives would agree that Bush was a disaster for the debt, just as Obama continues to be.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

Just not very loud, and not while Bush was in office.

In fact most just scream the usual (R)epelican't screeds against anything, that's the least bit liberal..................

See other threads here for proof.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

Left vs Right - divide and conquer - focus on inconsequential differences, DO NOT realize the problem or solution!

Reclaiming Our Central Bank And Monetary Policy

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is the master of all its legislation and commerce." - President James A. Garfield

The "Federal Reserve" is not a government institution but a private central bank owned by a handful of major banks and bond dealers. As such, it is a cartel owned, controlled, and essentially for-profit driven, not by the people of the United States but, instead, by the banking industry's ruling elite. This oligarchic setup generates the most costly, debt-based, money system and greatest conflicts of interest in the history of the world. It is a system clearly at odds with the intent of the founders of the United States of America.

When the power to create our money and credit is in private hands, and based on an exclusive franchise for debt-money creation and sale of bonds at interest - as opposed to direct Treasury financing - then the entire economic and social system is set up for private profit, and debt ruin, at public expense. As history has proven, this structure is virtually guaranteed to result in endless predation, corruption, and eventual collapse at immense public expense.

The founders of this country well understood this very problem and so, in their wisdom, put the “purse powers” in the hands of the most democratic body – i.e., Congress – exactly so the people would have the right and power to vote on their monetary policy every two years, course correct their own society and economy, and escape the predictable ruin of a private debt-money system under which we have no alternative or escape.

Today, however, under a private central bank system we have no such public privilege or power. We are powerless at the hands of the real owners of the “Federal’ Reserve – i.e., the major investment banks and historic banking families both here and abroad. These are the very people and institutions who have profited, geared the structure to their endless, debt-money, advantage and proceeded to rape the system until it collapses and the public is forced to rescue and bailout the very predators and criminals at the helm. In any case, this is a society-controlling power no private entity should ever attain.

http://www.publiccentralbank.com/

[-] 1 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

It's like I've been saying for months now.

It's properly named and aimed correctly.

OccupyWallStreet!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

I agree and find alot of good is resulting from OWS. It is of great value that "we the people" are engaging in sincere exchanges of ideas.

Preceeding the American Revolution, the same type of learning, exchange and networking amongst the people took place as: (1) self governing bodies were formed and (2) militias were organized and in (3) committees of safety and in (4) sermons from the pulpit and in (5) group discussions after church meetings etc.

I am convinced that knowledge is power: "Power to the People."

[-] 1 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

"Conservatives" are still afraid of the simple truth, that it's still Bush that owns the deficit?

It's still the (R)epelican'ts that refuse to co-operate in healing the wrongs they perpetrated on America?

Still glued to FLAKESnews and Limbaugh? .

[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

Why didnt YOUR guy fix it?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

Try hard and tear your eyes away from FLAKESnews.

Then read what I said.

I answered your question, before you asked it.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 2 years ago

LOL at your FACTS. See the REAL facts from just one of your liberal agenda news media. (nice try stupid)

CBS News August 22, 2011 6:34 PM The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch. The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion. It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president. The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13422) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Let me help you out here, snooz. I can see your post went over like a lead balloon. (Maybe because partisan sniping seems to be the only card you play.)

Ezra Klein's been singing this tune for a long time. He's wrong on the numbers and the responsibility. Obama's responsible. He can propose cuts. He hasn't. Klein was cut down to size here: http://tinyurl.com/75btbcy

[-] 1 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

So says the AEI.

A neo-"conservative" ..........................think(sic) tank.

A favorite of Dick Cheney, and ALEC............?

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute#Funding

I'll take Ezra.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

@shooz - Figures. You always dismiss anything not lefty agit-prop.

But here's the Annenberg Center proving Ezra wrong: http://factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

Ezra's just another Democratic Obama shill.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

Proving of course, that you didn't actually read either one.

Even there they admit Obama's debt rise is nowhere near Bush's rise.

I guess that would make you (R)epelican't shill, but we already knew that.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

snooz (citing Ezra): "The actual Obama addition to the debt is under 1 trillion."

Annenberg: "In his first three years in office, Obama added $4.7 trillion debt."

I guess in snooz-land, the Annenberg Center's just another republican shill, eh snooz?

[-] 0 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

They also admitted, they didn't check his numbers ,as they didn't do an assessment, of the numbers.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Still in denial, snooz? Can't face the fact that Obama's spending it faster than he can print it?

What part of the following quote from Annenberg do you not understand?

"by the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30... , the debt will have increased by more dollars in Obama’s first four years than it did in George W. Bush’s entire eight-year tenure, when it rose by $4.9 trillion. The rise under Obama would then be the biggest dollar increase for any president in U.S. history."

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Don't bother. These Marxist buttholes aren't interested in facts. They will only listen to their own propaganda. Notice how every answer they give is right on the talking points of the commie scum central.just except that they are the enemy.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

or tax increases

but we do spend a great deal on m,ilitary

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (21346) 2 years ago

Good article, shooz. Thanks.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

So throw them out. Then what?

[-] -1 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

There will be that many fewer lying (R)epelican't sacks of shit in office.

I think that would be an improvement.

Don't you?

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Okay. So your worshipful democrats are in complete control. Wonderful. They solve everything. What will this country be like then?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

There you go again, trying to paste your worship of (R)epelican'ts on me.

I don't worship any of them, you do!

However, that being said.

If the lying ass piece of shit (R)epelican'ts where gone, the country would definitely be in better shape then it is now.

It's far to convenient to forget the whole 8 years of Bush for you.

Not so much for me.

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

So you agree with one party rule. Thank you for your honesty.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

When did I agree to that?

Reading comprehension not so good?

That's twice in a row now.

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

In the present power structure if your hated republicans were all executed ( which I'm sure a hateful person like you would applaud) then you democrats would wield effective power. Maybe you should wake up.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

There you go again with your '0' approach to comprehension.

I didn't say nor even intimate that.

That's 3 strikes in a row for you now.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Three strikes I'm out. Go away. You Marxist filth make me I'll. Go worship your gods Obama and Pelosi.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17837) 2 years ago

Excuse me?

It's easy. Scroll back up and see my response to "worship".

That's 4 strikes!!!!!

It's a very libe(R)tarian game, don't you think?

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I thought the debt was 15 trillion? How is Obamas part of that only 1trillion?

[-] 1 points by dogod (7) 2 years ago

99% of that debt was caused by Bush's wars and mismanagement of the economy.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

How? Are you saying that Bush's wars caused Obama to spend all that money? And to put so many people on welfare it breaks all records? So you say your god has no responsibility for anything that has occurred in his term? Are you really saying that?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It's called legislation. One president can't simply decide by himself not to fund what the laws passed under the previous administration have mandated. Until the laws are changed (like the Bush tax cuts) which could not be done with a pathologically obstructionist Republican minority in the Senate, filibustering everything, the spending and tax cuts mandated by the previous administration had to continue. That's the law. The president is not a king.

Obama has added to the deficit about 1 trillion dollars do to his initiatives. The other 14 trillion is due to Bush (and some previous administrations) initiatives. Of that 14 trillion, 4.7 trillion dollars was spent by Obama during this administration due to PRE-EXISTING MANDATES (laws) passed before Obama ever took office.

Obama thought he could fix the problem. He was naive to think so and foolish to promise he would. But nobody could foresee that (R)epelican'ts would block him at every turn, in lock-step, exclusively pursuing partisan gain over the welfare of the country.

And, by the, Obama did not "put" people on welfare. The recession did. It is a recession he did not cause, and was well under way before election day.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I see. So Obama and the democrats only care about the welfare of the country? Even while taking millions from the very corporations you protest. Why should America worship and fawn over them like OWS does?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Straw man. I never advocated worship of him or anyone else.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Straw man. You didn't answer the question?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No body should worship any other human being. But nobody should be spreading lies, either. Does that answer it enough for you?