Obama 6(...66)

[rufus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

But we are arguably in the worst way in 7 decades, what with the economy and losing the war to the Taliban/al Queda.

How can we be losing the war to the Taliban/Al Qaeda?

Big Jim Ritt(or was it Major Dick?) assured us repeatedly that any time more than one Talibani reared his head, they were immediately smoked. Are you telling me that the Ritt is wrong? Or worse, a liar?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

No context? If I didn't know better, I'd say you're a newbie, as I've been giving context to this issue for quite a few years. Get with the game.

I know you disagree with the point, Bob - but to seriously stand here an argue that Bush's deficits and Obama's deficits are one and the same is just not honest. They've arisen for totally different objectives and under totally different circumstances.

Now, that may not change your conclusion (and it's clear from your posts that it doesn't), but simply saying 'deficits BAD ' isn't exactly illuminating.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I know you disagree with the point, Bob - but to seriously stand here an argue that Bush's deficits and Obama's deficits are one and the same is just not honest. They've arisen for totally different objectives and under totally different circumstances.

Now, that may not change your conclusion (and it's clear from your posts that it doesn't), but simply saying 'deficits BAD ' isn't exactly illuminating.

Have you no memory?

I didn't say they are one and the same, and you know I didn't. Take off your partisan glasses for at least a moment. Or maybe you think there was no difference between Hitler and Stalin, the comparison I used? I know you're purposely obtuse toward me at times, but to pretend I haven't gone into a lot of detail about how bad the federal deficit is for a number of years shows just makes you look silly. Despite some of your responses, I really am struggling to believe you have no grasp of how going into debt trillion after trillion after trillion is not a good thing. Maybe you like inflationary pressure, an undermined currency, gradual loss of national sovereignty, and all the other fun things that go with a federal deficit that is burgeoning out of control. Or maybe you just wantonly go into debt in your personal life without worrying about the future?

The reasons for the deficit spending are somewhat different, but the overall theme is that the federal government's spending is careening further and further out of control. Or do you just not care if we place such unmanageable burdens on future generations? That's the message I'm getting, and I couldn't disagree more strongly.

Taking on more and more debt is like a ship that gets more and more ice on it. Every time you take on more, your ability to respond becomes more and more sluggish. The difference is, any wise ship captain removes ice as soon and as much as possible. But, rather than ever remove any of the deficit, the feds are effectively pouring more on more water to freeze on our already ice-laden ship of state.

 

[Bill]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I'll take a shot at this.

First, Bush was hardly "chump change." In 2007 the Comptroller of the GAO estimated that Bush had added $32 trillion to the government's fiscal exposures up to that date, 7 years into his presidency, or about $4.5T per year. When the GAO comes up with comparable numbers about Obama, we can debate who had a higher burn rate.

Sorry, but you can't blame those numbers on Bush. The vast majority of that 32T is Social Security and Medicare entitlement obligations, which have been spiraling out of control for years due in no small part to the thieves we call Congress (both parties). Aside from adding the Medicare Drug benefit, which wasn't a good idea, Bush contributed very little to that amount. That number was going to be huge no matter who was president during those years.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Sorry, but you can't blame those numbers on Bush. The vast majority of that 32T is Social Security and Medicare entitlement obligations, which have been spiraling out of control for years due in no small part to the thieves we call Congress (both parties). Aside from adding the Medicare Drug benefit, which wasn't a good idea, Bush contributed very little to that amount. That number was going to be huge no matter who was president during those years.

Too funny. Tell me did he pay for this or did he just add it?

How about that black hole Iraq? How was that paid for?

These threads are just too much comedy.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Too funny. Tell me did he pay for this or did he just add it?

How about that black hole Iraq? How was that paid for?

These threads are just too much comedy.

Even the most vocal opponent of Bush can't claim with a straight face that Iraq costs were very noticeable compared to the 32 trillion being referenced here. But, Iraq is a convenient fig leaf to hide behind rather than acknowledge budget problems with things like Social Security and Medicare.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

The people that are actually serious about debating the text of HR 3200 will do something totally crazy - they will actually CLICK on the link and READ the text! Wild, wacky stuff I tell ya!

Given you have yet to visit the link yourself, are incapable of citing a single word from it, but rather can only regurgitate the commentary of others who also cannot cite one word from the text, I can see this is going nowhere.

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

How can we be losing the war to the Taliban/Al Qaeda?

Big Jim Ritt(or was it Major Dick?) assured us repeatedly that any time more than one Talibani reared his head, they were immediately smoked. Are you telling me that the Ritt is wrong? Or worse, a liar?

Let's not be a dope, mmmmkay?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Let's not be a dope, mmmmkay?

You're asking a lot on this board!

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Even the most vocal opponent of Bush can't claim with a straight face that Iraq costs were very noticeable compared to the 32 trillion being referenced here. But, Iraq is a convenient fig leaf to hide behind rather than acknowledge budget problems with things like Social Security and Medicare.

More hilarity from Bob. If Iraq costs are so UN-noticeable then certainly we can afford Health Care cause by all accounts it costs less than Iraq has on a monthly basis.

As for SS/Medicare. Abolish it. No problem here. But at least I'm not the one whining about one costs while excusing another.

 

[Bill]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Too funny. Tell me did he pay for this or did he just add it?

How about that black hole Iraq? How was that paid for?

These threads are just too much comedy.

The cost of the war in Iraq, although expensive, is less than 700 billion dollars thus far. If Al Gore had been elected president in 2000 and was still serving in 2007 when this report was made, the GAO would still have been reporting in the neighborhood of a 30+ trillion dollar fiscal exposure amount in 2007, maybe more. The Social Security and Medicare entitlement obligations are spiraling out of control regardless of who is president. Kepler was just trying to pull a fast one on us. That 32 trillion figure can't be blamed on any recent president, regardless of party. If you want to blame it on a president, then blame it on FDR; those entitlement programs were started on his watch.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

More hilarity from Bob. If Iraq costs are so UN-noticeable then certainly we can afford Health Care cause by all accounts it costs less than Iraq has on a monthly basis.

As for SS/Medicare. Abolish it. No problem here. But at least I'm not the one whining about one costs while excusing another.

How is pointing out the large size difference of one compared to the other somehow "excusing another"? And I didn't say anything about affording or not affording health care, eh? And your inconsistency in saying we need health care, but you'd abolish Medicare is ludicrous. Try responding to what I actually say.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

The best part of these peeing contests is the usual he did it so its ok if my guy does it

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Let's not be a dope, mmmmkay?

Really? Cause The Ritt was the super-secret anti-terrorism uber-patriot with all the inside scoop on this stuff. Surely, what he was telling us couldn't be false, could it? Not The Ritt!!!

Or perhaps just like most of the Bush administration, he couldn't tell his azz from his elbow.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Really? Cause The Ritt was the super-secret anti-terrorism uber-patriot with all the inside scoop on this stuff. Surely, what he was telling us couldn't be false, could it? Not The Ritt!!!

Or perhaps just like most of the Bush administration, he couldn't tell his azz from his elbow.

It's been what, 3-4 years since Ritt has been around these parts? Maybe consider poking at someone who has been posting in recent years?

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

This rant is nice, Bob, but completely useless without any context.

Paul Krugman reminds us of that fact:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/crowding-in/



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/the-true-fiscal-cost-of-stimulus/



Anyway, just reflexively saying that spending is bad without any consideration of the context misses the point.

Krugman is an ideologue... the only time you toss the textbooks is when the situation is beyond them... we aren't. Everything is laid out as it is the only thing that's different is that we're panicking about the stark figures and hope that if we do something ideologically pure then things will work out.

After all, if you toss the textbooks then all you have left is gut ideology. Krugman isn't even appealing to some honed 6th sense on the markets. He's appealing to his base holistic beliefs.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

How is pointing out the large size difference of one compared to the other somehow "excusing another"? And I didn't say anything about affording or not affording health care, eh? And your inconsistency in saying we need health care, but you'd abolish Medicare is ludicrous. Try responding to what I actually say.

I did. You excused the Iraq War and didn't excuse Medicare/SS.

As far as my position, I never said we NEED Health Care. I've stated my displeasure with the way things currently are. Two different things.

I've also stated that I can fix Health Care and the budget tomorrow. All you have to do is cover everyone from birth to 65. Once your 65 you are on your own, SS, just abolish it, then guys like you don't have to whine about it anymore. Problem solved.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

I did. You excused the Iraq War and didn't excuse Medicare/SS.

I did neither. If you think so, you are imagining things.

Noting that one thing is much much larger than the other doesn't mean that one or the other is being endorsed or not.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Well then.... Good detective work. I must admit that I have been remiss in keeping up to date on YubaNet.com, that "forum for top-notch citizen journalism, putting readers in control of the site's content." While I don't mean to slander the good name of the citizens of Nevada Country, California, I'm just not entirely convinced of how analagous the GAO article one of them reprinted on their citizen-run online newspaper is to what I'm talking about.

Is a report from the Department of the Treasury under Bush a more acceptable source for you?

"Exposures" are what you'd have to pay if you added up all your legally binding contracts in today's money. Here's a brief analysis from the year prior to the report cited. (The comments are quite conservative, as you will see, ascribing a significant portion of the increase to "time bomb" increases in pre-existing entitlements. If you accept that analysis, then you could blame the increases on FDR or 70 years of ensuing Congressional and Executive oversight or the SCOTUS in the 30's for declaring the New Deal to be Constitutional.)

I don't have breakdowns of exposures by president, but according to a quotation from the report:

"The federal government's fiscal exposures totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007, up more than $2 trillion from September 30, 2006, and an increase of more than $32 trillion from about $20 trillion as of September 30, 2000," Walker said. "This translates into a current burden of about $175,000 per American or approximately $455,000 per American household."

The question is whether Bush was in control of that increase. He was certainly in control of the wars and his budgets. Depending on your ideological inclination the financial misconduct that resulted in the crash and the bailouts were at least aided and abetted by his party's abhorrence of financial oversight, but that departs from math.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 6(...66)

Kepler was just trying to pull a fast one on us.

Yes. I was intentionally misleading with something that could be immediately refuted, because that's how I roll.

I'd expect that from dtp, not you. Thanks.