ginwilly
Well-Known Member
get rid of aggregate demand....... you are just flailing now
The decline in healthcare begins
- Thread starter Winter Woman
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, you won't even defend the obvious lie you just tried to sneak in, because you know you are a lying sack of shit.
even your heroes over at fox news agree that bush left us with a massive, record breaking, $1.5 trillion dollar annual structural deficit. take it up with the entire world and give up this old canard of yours.
bush left a $1.5 trillion deficit for obama to deal with.
under obama's leadership, the deficit has been cut more than in half.
you're welcome, ya lying sack of shit.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.
So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.
Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/79359-these-are-the-true-deficits-bush-800b-obama-14t#ixzz2fxMUyOjt
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Oh look, there's Billy's Dick again. I guess he didn't get the memo about the "whole world".
Try using real math. How much did the debt rise under 8 years of Bush, how much has it risen during 5 years of Obama?
The sad part is, we both agree that Bush was awful. I don't understand your defense of Obama spending and how you call it a reduction.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, you're quoting the guy whose math led him to believe that there would be a romney landslide.
you poor, stupid idiot.
use some real numbers instead.
| 1992 | $290.4 Billion*Deficit | $484 Billion*Deficit | R | D | D |
| 1993 | $255.1 Billion*Deficit | $412.78 Billion*Deficit | D | D | D |
| 1994 | $203.2 Billion*Deficit | $320.5 Billion*Deficit | D | D | D |
| 1995 | $164 Billion*Deficit | $251.53 Billion*Deficit | D | R | R |
| 1996 | $107.5 Billion*Deficit | $160.21 Billion*Deficit | D | R | R |
| 1997 | $22 Billion*Deficit | $32.07 Billion*Deficit | D | R | R |
| 1998 | $69.2 Billion*Surplus | $99.28 Billion*Surplus | D | R | R |
| 1999 | $125.6 Billion*Surplus | $176.16 Billion*Surplus | D | R | R |
| 2000 | $236.4 Billion*Surplus | $320.76 Billion*Surplus | D | R | R |
| 2001 | $127.3 Billion*Surplus | $168.16 Billion*Surplus | R | D | R |
| 2002 | $157.8 Billion*Deficit | $205.2 Billion*Deficit | R | D | R |
| 2003 | $377.6 Billion*Deficit | $479.8 Billion*Deficit | R | R | R |
| 2004 | $413 Billion*Deficit | $511.14 Billion*Deficit | R | R | R |
| 2005 | $318 Billion*Deficit | $380.84 Billion*Deficit | R | R | R |
| 2006 | $248 Billion*Deficit | $287.7 Billion*Deficit | R | R | R |
| 2007 | $161 Billion*Deficit | $181.51 Billion*Deficit | R | D | D |
| 2008 | $459 Billion*Deficit | $498.37 Billion*Deficit | R | D | D |
| 2009 | $1413 Billion*Deficit | $1539.22 Billion*Deficit | D | D | D |
| 2010 | $1294 Billion*Deficit | $1386.92 Billion*Deficit | D | D | D |
| 2011 | $1299 Billion*Deficit | $1350.31 Billion*Deficit | D | D | R |
| 2012 | $1100 Billion*Deficit | $1120.16 Billion*Deficit | D | D | R |
| 2013 | $759 Billion*Deficit | $759 Billion*Deficit | D | D | R |
http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php
"Bush set the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008"
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
get out of here with that dick morris garbage, you lying sack of shit.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
How much of TARP was paid back and who passed the stimulus?
It's really not that difficult. Be honest now, you said the whole world and called me a liar, apparently I'm rubber and you're glue.
BTW, you are getting really dickish again, I can tell you have given up debating real facts. I'm done with you for the night, go call another woman a cunt and feel better about yourself.
It's really not that difficult. Be honest now, you said the whole world and called me a liar, apparently I'm rubber and you're glue.
BTW, you are getting really dickish again, I can tell you have given up debating real facts. I'm done with you for the night, go call another woman a cunt and feel better about yourself.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's because you are lying about what i said and trying to pass off dick morris math as more legitimate than the actual numbers that i posted. as you can see, when you look at real numbers instead of dick morris "math", there was a $1.5 trillion annual deficit left for obama to deal with.
so yeah, i'm gonna be a bit dickish if you tell lies and talk about the "real facts" while waving dick morris math around.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
oh, he's a racist sock puppet to boot.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
One last chance to show you have an inkling of integrity. How much of TARP was paid back and did Bush pass the Stimulus?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
As of November 5, the day before the*2012 presidential election, Morris predicted on his website and in an article in*The Hill*that the Republican candidate,*Mitt Romney, would win the Presidency in a landslide "approaching the magnitude of*Obama's against*McCain." Specifically, he stated that Romney would win 325*electoral*votes and that Obama would win 213.[SUP][46][/SUP][SUP][47][/SUP]*He explained the logic behind his prediction in a video posted at his website.[SUP][48][/SUP]*He made this prediction in the face of an overwhelming consensus among expert pollsters leading up to election night that Obama would win at least the Electoral College and likely the*popular vote.[SUP][49][/SUP]*Morris wrote on his website, "On Sunday, we changed our clocks. On Tuesday, we’ll change our president."[SUP][47][/SUP]*
he's probably totally right about all his other "math" as well, no matter how much actual reality may disagree with him.
he's probably totally right about all his other "math" as well, no matter how much actual reality may disagree with him.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no matter how many times you keep bleating the same nonsense, it doesn't change the historical facts.
bush left obama a $1.5 trillion annual deficit to deal with.
all your retarded dick morris math can not change recorded history.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Daniel Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute, offered a measured assessment in Forbes.
Let’s "take interest payments out of the budget and focus on inflation-adjusted ‘primary spending.’ After all, Presidents shouldn’t be held responsible for the national debt that existed before they took office.
"Looking at these numbers, it turns out that Obama does win the prize for being the most fiscally conservative president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while (George W. Bush) and LBJ again are in last place.
"But I don’t want my Republican friends to get too angry with me, so let’s expand our analysis. Just as we don’t want to blame presidents for net interest payments on debt that was accrued before their tenure, perhaps we should make sure they don’t get credit or blame for defense outlays that often are dictated by external events.
"There’s obviously room for disagreement, but most people will agree that the Cold War and 9/11 meant higher defense spending, regardless of which party controlled the White House. Similarly, the collapse of the Soviet Empire inevitably meant lower military expenditures, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge.
"So let’s now look at primary spending after subtracting defense outlays (still adjusting for inflation, of course). All of a sudden, Reagan jumps to the top of the list by a comfortable margin. LBJ and W continue to score poorly, but Nixon takes over last place.
"But it’s also worth noting that Obama still scores relatively well, beating Clinton for second place. Inflation-adjusted domestic spending (which is mostly what we’re measuring) has grown by 2.0 percent annually during his three years in office.
"So let’s take the preceding set of numbers and subtract out the long-run numbers for deposit insurance, as well as the TARP outlays since 2009. And keep in mind that repayments of TARP monies (as well as deposit insurance premiums) show up in the budget as ‘negative spending.’
"As you can see, this produces a remarkable result. All of a sudden, Obama drops from second to second-to-last. This is because there was a lot of TARP spending in Bush’s last fiscal year (FY2009), which created an artificially high benchmark. And then repayments by banks during Obama’s fiscal years counted as negative spending.
"When you subtract out the big TARP spending surge, as well as the repayments, then Bush 43 doesn’t look quite as bad (though still worse than Carter and Clinton), while Obama takes a big fall.
"In other words, Obama’s track record does show that he favors an expanding social welfare state. Outlays on those programs have jumped by 7.0 percent annually. And that’s after adjusting for inflation! Not as bad as Nixon, but that’s not saying much since he was one of America’s most statist presidents.
"Allow me to conclude with some caveats. None of the tables perfectly captures what any president’s fiscal record. ... And there certainly are strong arguments that bailout spending and defense spending are affected by presidential policies rather than external events.
"And keep in mind that presidents don’t have full power over fiscal policy. The folks on Capitol Hill are the ones who actually enact the bills and appropriate the money."
Let’s "take interest payments out of the budget and focus on inflation-adjusted ‘primary spending.’ After all, Presidents shouldn’t be held responsible for the national debt that existed before they took office.
"Looking at these numbers, it turns out that Obama does win the prize for being the most fiscally conservative president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while (George W. Bush) and LBJ again are in last place.
"But I don’t want my Republican friends to get too angry with me, so let’s expand our analysis. Just as we don’t want to blame presidents for net interest payments on debt that was accrued before their tenure, perhaps we should make sure they don’t get credit or blame for defense outlays that often are dictated by external events.
"There’s obviously room for disagreement, but most people will agree that the Cold War and 9/11 meant higher defense spending, regardless of which party controlled the White House. Similarly, the collapse of the Soviet Empire inevitably meant lower military expenditures, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge.
"So let’s now look at primary spending after subtracting defense outlays (still adjusting for inflation, of course). All of a sudden, Reagan jumps to the top of the list by a comfortable margin. LBJ and W continue to score poorly, but Nixon takes over last place.
"But it’s also worth noting that Obama still scores relatively well, beating Clinton for second place. Inflation-adjusted domestic spending (which is mostly what we’re measuring) has grown by 2.0 percent annually during his three years in office.
"So let’s take the preceding set of numbers and subtract out the long-run numbers for deposit insurance, as well as the TARP outlays since 2009. And keep in mind that repayments of TARP monies (as well as deposit insurance premiums) show up in the budget as ‘negative spending.’
"As you can see, this produces a remarkable result. All of a sudden, Obama drops from second to second-to-last. This is because there was a lot of TARP spending in Bush’s last fiscal year (FY2009), which created an artificially high benchmark. And then repayments by banks during Obama’s fiscal years counted as negative spending.
"When you subtract out the big TARP spending surge, as well as the repayments, then Bush 43 doesn’t look quite as bad (though still worse than Carter and Clinton), while Obama takes a big fall.
"In other words, Obama’s track record does show that he favors an expanding social welfare state. Outlays on those programs have jumped by 7.0 percent annually. And that’s after adjusting for inflation! Not as bad as Nixon, but that’s not saying much since he was one of America’s most statist presidents.
"Allow me to conclude with some caveats. None of the tables perfectly captures what any president’s fiscal record. ... And there certainly are strong arguments that bailout spending and defense spending are affected by presidential policies rather than external events.
"And keep in mind that presidents don’t have full power over fiscal policy. The folks on Capitol Hill are the ones who actually enact the bills and appropriate the money."
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
thanks for the help Chesus, even though I'm pretty sure it was on accident.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
TARP Is Not Over: Yes, some cash has been repaid.But the quarterly report from the Special Inspector General of TARP this January says everything you need to know: “TARP will continue to exist for years. TARP programs that support the housing market and certain securities markets are scheduled to last until as late as 2017, and the Treasury can spend an additional $51 billion on these programs during those years.”
Massive Mortgage Appropriations in the Works? Perhaps the biggest shock to many is the fact that $45.60 billion has been allocated to “Treasury Housing Programs Under TARP,” that include refinancing help and mortgage forgiveness to some with FHA loans. But of that total, a measly $3.83 billion has been disbursed. Call me a cynic, but it doesn’t seem like Washington to just leave all those billions of dollars untapped …
Realized Losses Are $11.46 Billion: So far, of course. That figure is according to this week’s update from the Treasury and doesn’t include projected losses.
Projected Losses of Around $70 Billion: Believe it or not, that’s significantly better than first thought. In August 2008, before TARP was signed into law, U.S. Treasury estimates projected losses of as much as $341 billion. By late 2009, that number was slashed to just $141 billion. Early this year, those losses were cut to $70 billion.
Total Repaid to Date Is $342.16 Billion: Again, as of Monday. With a total payout of $470.12 billion, that means taxpayers have only been repaid 72.7% of the initial bailout package.
Massive Mortgage Appropriations in the Works? Perhaps the biggest shock to many is the fact that $45.60 billion has been allocated to “Treasury Housing Programs Under TARP,” that include refinancing help and mortgage forgiveness to some with FHA loans. But of that total, a measly $3.83 billion has been disbursed. Call me a cynic, but it doesn’t seem like Washington to just leave all those billions of dollars untapped …
Realized Losses Are $11.46 Billion: So far, of course. That figure is according to this week’s update from the Treasury and doesn’t include projected losses.
Projected Losses of Around $70 Billion: Believe it or not, that’s significantly better than first thought. In August 2008, before TARP was signed into law, U.S. Treasury estimates projected losses of as much as $341 billion. By late 2009, that number was slashed to just $141 billion. Early this year, those losses were cut to $70 billion.
Total Repaid to Date Is $342.16 Billion: Again, as of Monday. With a total payout of $470.12 billion, that means taxpayers have only been repaid 72.7% of the initial bailout package.
Forced to work in "this perverted industry"? They are the forces that created the industry. Think a nurse practitioner feels bad about collecting $125k or more a year? How much would these people earn under a 100% government controlled system? (a good question, their earnings may climb, at first) What would happen if the AMA had not created an oligarchy that strictly limits the number of doctors graduating medical schools every year? (and for that matter, limiting the number of medical schools in the US) If doctors had to actually earn your money in a free market, their incomes would be considerably reduced, workaholic doctors excepted.
canndo
Well-Known Member
this is why it is so tough to talk to people. Rather than point out where the article is "a load of shit", rather than say ANYTHING at all, you seem to just deny out of hand, likely because the statement does not comport with your belief and nothing more. What about that article is wrong and why?
canndo
Well-Known Member
It is so much easier to impugn the source than it is to present facts.
Moldy
Well-Known Member
Too late? What's going to happen? Heath care is shit in this country now. I think we are listed at 46th in the world. I don't know why you think the Amerikan Health Care Scam is so great but here ya go. It's not a real industry, it's fucking robbery.
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
All that is probably true, but it's just ~10% tax. You still have to pay out of pocket, unless you have an extended stay or extreme operation. Instead of just a medical debt, you have a fine for your medical expenses. If you don't pay, you don't get the Obamacare card. If you don't have the Obamacare card, you go to jail for not making bail. They already do this with car insurance when you don't pay a ticket. It used to be you could never go back to the city you got the ticket, now because of mandatory car insurance fraud, you can't register your car until ALL fines and bails are paid.
Fuck Obama!
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
What is not paid by medicaid ( alot) is payed for by people like me who have insurance in the form of higher premiums
Ask any auto insurance salesman why premiums are so high
and the answer is
Uninsured motorists