"Obama Deficit" is Due to the Mess Bush Left
mg
"Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the
Numbers
By Kathy Ruffing and James R. Horney
Revised February 17, 2010
Some critics charge that the new policies pursued by President Obama
and the 111th Congress caused the huge federal budget deficits that
the nation now faces. In fact, the tax cuts enacted under President
George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic
downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next
ten years (see Figure 1).
The deficit for fiscal 2009 was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was the largest deficit relative to the
size of the economy since the end of World War II. If current policies
are continued without changes, deficits will likely approach those
figures in 2010 and remain near $1 trillion a year for the next
decade.
The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels
in the near term, however, were largely outside the new
Administration�s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the
presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost
of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that
period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great
Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we
would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
While President Obama inherited a dismal fiscal legacy, that does not
diminish his responsibility to propose policies to address our fiscal
imbalance and put the weight of his office behind them. Although
policymakers should not tighten fiscal policy in the near term while
the economy remains fragile, they and the nation at large must come to
grips with the nation�s long-term deficit problem. But we should not
mistake the causes of our predicament.
Recession Caused Sharp Deterioration in Budget Outlook
Whoever won the presidency in 2008 was going to face a grim fiscal
situation, a fact already well known as the presidential campaign got
underway. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) presented a sobering
outlook in its 2008 summer update,[1] and during the autumn, the news
got relentlessly worse. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two
government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that became embroiled in the
housing meltdown, failed in early September; two big financial firms �
AIG and Lehman Brothers � collapsed soon thereafter; and others
teetered. In December 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research
confirmed that the nation was in recession and pegged the starting
date as December 2007. By the time CBO issued its new projections on
January 7, 2009 � two weeks before Inauguration Day � it had already
put the 2009 deficit at well over $1 trillion.[2]
The recession battered the budget, driving down tax revenues and
swelling outlays for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other
safety-net programs.[3] Using CBO�s August 2008 projections as a
benchmark, we calculate that the changed economic outlook accounts for
over $400 billion of the deficit each year in 2009 through 2011 and
slightly smaller amounts in subsequent years. Those effects persist;
even in 2018, the deterioration in the economy since the summer of
2008 will account for over $250 billion in added deficits, much of it
in the form of additional debt-service costs.
Financial Rescues, Stimulus Add to Deficits in Near Term
The government put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship in
September 2008.[4] In October of that year, the Bush Administration
and Congress enacted a rescue package to stabilize the financial
system by creating the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).
Together, TARP and the GSEs accounted for $245 billion (including
extra debt-service costs) of fiscal 2009�s record deficit. Their
contribution then fades quickly (see Figure 1).
In February 2009, the new Obama Administration and Congress enacted a
major package � the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) � to
arrest the economy�s plunge. Mainstream economists overwhelmingly
argued that, to combat the recession, the federal government should
loosen its purse strings temporarily to spur demand, with a mix of
assistance to the unemployed, aid to strapped state and local
governments, tax cuts, spending on infrastructure, and other measures.
By design, this package added to the deficit. In the fall of 2009,
policymakers enacted several smaller measures to spur recovery and aid
the unemployed. By our reckoning, the combination of ARRA and these
other measures account for $1.1 trillion in deficits over the
2009-2019 period (including the associated debt service). Their
effects are highly concentrated in 2009 through 2011 and fade
thereafter, delivering a boost to the economy during its most
vulnerable period.[5]
Bush Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook
Some commentators blame recent legislation � the stimulus bill and the
financial rescues � for today�s record deficits. Yet those costs pale
next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the
deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because
many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed
into CBO�s and other organizations� budget projections.
Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration � tax cuts and
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan � accounted for over $500 billion of
the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in
deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service
costs. [6] (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for
further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are
unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily
dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those
temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and
the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure
1).
Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous
Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next
decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to
address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health
care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.[7]
The Effect of President Obama�s Budget
The key question is: where do we go from here? President Obama�s 2011
budget proposes to reduce anticipated deficits over the next ten
years, chiefly by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule for
high-income taxpayers, closing certain tax loopholes and reforming the
international tax system, keeping estate taxes at their 2009
parameters, enacting health care reform along the lines of the Senate-
and House-passed bills, and freezing (in aggregate) most
appropriations for non-security domestic programs for the next three
years. The President also backs another round of temporary recovery
measures that would boost the deficit in 2010 through 2012, a proposal
that is appropriate in size and well targeted. [8]
According to the Administration�s own estimates, its budget would
reduce deficits by $2.1 trillion over the 2011-2019 period � or (more
appropriately) by $1.2 trillion, when using a baseline that (like
CBPP�s) assumes a gradual phasedown of operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan and does not count future reductions in costs there as
lowering the deficit. (See Figure 2.) The Congressional Budget Office
and the Joint Committee on Taxation are currently sifting through
President Obama�s budget proposals, and we await the results of that
analysis. Although the Administration and CBO figures will certainly
not match exactly � for a variety of economic, technical, and
conceptual reasons � it is clear that, using a reasonable benchmark,
the President�s budget proposals would reduce future deficits by a
significant amount.[9]
Like most fiscal analysts, we believe that the Administration and
Congress will need to take considerably larger steps. The President
himself acknowledges that his proposals do not fully put the budget on
a sustainable footing and is establishing a bipartisan fiscal
commission to recommend more substantial deficit reductions. First and
foremost, policymakers will need to restrain the growth of health care
costs � especially as we gain more knowledge of how to accomplish
that. Among other steps, they also will need to consider the extent to
which additional revenues should contribute to deficit reduction."
Not Sure
> "Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
> Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the
> Numbers
Still hysterically blaming everyone you can think of except your
Messiah, eh? Continue sucking, whore :)
Sid9
"Not Sure" <fred1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb01b04d-c3cb-46e9...@i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On May 9, 8:31 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
>> Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the
>> Numbers
>
> Still hysterically blaming everyone you can think of except your
> Messiah, eh? Continue sucking, whore :)
He speaks FACTS.
You are delusional!
You want names to blame?
Reagan
HW Bush
Gingrich
Grover Norquist
bush,jr
The Republican hate America gang!
>>
>> By Kathy Ruffing and James R. Horney
>>
>> Revised February 17, 2010
>>
>> Some critics charge that the new policies pursued by President Obama
>> and the 111th Congress caused the huge federal budget deficits that
>> the nation now faces. In fact, the tax cuts enacted under President
>> George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic
>> downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next
>> ten years (see Figure 1).
>>
>> The deficit for fiscal 2009 was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of
>> Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was the largest deficit relative to the
>> size of the economy since the end of World War II. If current policies
>> are continued without changes, deficits will likely approach those
>> figures in 2010 and remain near $1 trillion a year for the next
>> decade.
>>
>> The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels
>> in the near term, however, were largely outside the new
>> Administration�s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the
>> presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost
>> of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that
>> period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great
>> Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we
>> would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
>>
>> While President Obama inherited a dismal fiscal legacy, that does not
>> diminish his responsibility to propose policies to address our fiscal
>> imbalance and put the weight of his office behind them. Although
>> policymakers should not tighten fiscal policy in the near term while
>> the economy remains fragile, they and the nation at large must come to
>> grips with the nation�s long-term deficit problem. But we should not
>> mistake the causes of our predicament.
>>
>> Recession Caused Sharp Deterioration in Budget Outlook
>> Whoever won the presidency in 2008 was going to face a grim fiscal
>> situation, a fact already well known as the presidential campaign got
>> underway. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) presented a sobering
>> outlook in its 2008 summer update,[1] and during the autumn, the news
>> got relentlessly worse. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two
>> government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that became embroiled in the
>> housing meltdown, failed in early September; two big financial firms �
>> AIG and Lehman Brothers � collapsed soon thereafter; and others
>> teetered. In December 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research
>> confirmed that the nation was in recession and pegged the starting
>> date as December 2007. By the time CBO issued its new projections on
>> January 7, 2009 � two weeks before Inauguration Day � it had already
>> put the 2009 deficit at well over $1 trillion.[2]
>>
>> The recession battered the budget, driving down tax revenues and
>> swelling outlays for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other
>> safety-net programs.[3] Using CBO�s August 2008 projections as a
>> benchmark, we calculate that the changed economic outlook accounts for
>> over $400 billion of the deficit each year in 2009 through 2011 and
>> slightly smaller amounts in subsequent years. Those effects persist;
>> even in 2018, the deterioration in the economy since the summer of
>> 2008 will account for over $250 billion in added deficits, much of it
>> in the form of additional debt-service costs.
>>
>> Financial Rescues, Stimulus Add to Deficits in Near Term
>> The government put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship in
>> September 2008.[4] In October of that year, the Bush Administration
>> and Congress enacted a rescue package to stabilize the financial
>> system by creating the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).
>> Together, TARP and the GSEs accounted for $245 billion (including
>> extra debt-service costs) of fiscal 2009�s record deficit. Their
>> contribution then fades quickly (see Figure 1).
>>
>> In February 2009, the new Obama Administration and Congress enacted a
>> major package � the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) � to
>> arrest the economy�s plunge. Mainstream economists overwhelmingly
>> argued that, to combat the recession, the federal government should
>> loosen its purse strings temporarily to spur demand, with a mix of
>> assistance to the unemployed, aid to strapped state and local
>> governments, tax cuts, spending on infrastructure, and other measures.
>> By design, this package added to the deficit. In the fall of 2009,
>> policymakers enacted several smaller measures to spur recovery and aid
>> the unemployed. By our reckoning, the combination of ARRA and these
>> other measures account for $1.1 trillion in deficits over the
>> 2009-2019 period (including the associated debt service). Their
>> effects are highly concentrated in 2009 through 2011 and fade
>> thereafter, delivering a boost to the economy during its most
>> vulnerable period.[5]
>>
>> Bush Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook
>> Some commentators blame recent legislation � the stimulus bill and the
>> financial rescues � for today�s record deficits. Yet those costs pale
>> next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the
>> deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because
>> many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed
>> into CBO�s and other organizations� budget projections.
>>
>> Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration � tax cuts and
>> the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan � accounted for over $500 billion of
>> the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in
>> deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service
>> costs. [6] (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for
>> further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are
>> unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily
>> dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those
>> temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and
>> the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure
>> 1).
>>
>> Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous
>> Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next
>> decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to
>> address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health
>> care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.[7]
>>
>> The Effect of President Obama�s Budget
>>
>> The key question is: where do we go from here? President Obama�s 2011
>> budget proposes to reduce anticipated deficits over the next ten
>> years, chiefly by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule for
>> high-income taxpayers, closing certain tax loopholes and reforming the
>> international tax system, keeping estate taxes at their 2009
>> parameters, enacting health care reform along the lines of the Senate-
>> and House-passed bills, and freezing (in aggregate) most
>> appropriations for non-security domestic programs for the next three
>> years. The President also backs another round of temporary recovery
>> measures that would boost the deficit in 2010 through 2012, a proposal
>> that is appropriate in size and well targeted. [8]
>>
>> According to the Administration�s own estimates, its budget would
>> reduce deficits by $2.1 trillion over the 2011-2019 period � or (more
>> appropriately) by $1.2 trillion, when using a baseline that (like
>> CBPP�s) assumes a gradual phasedown of operations in Iraq and
>> Afghanistan and does not count future reductions in costs there as
>> lowering the deficit. (See Figure 2.) The Congressional Budget Office
>> and the Joint Committee on Taxation are currently sifting through
>> President Obama�s budget proposals, and we await the results of that
>> analysis. Although the Administration and CBO figures will certainly
>> not match exactly � for a variety of economic, technical, and
>> conceptual reasons � it is clear that, using a reasonable benchmark,
>> the President�s budget proposals would reduce future deficits by a
>> significant amount.[9]
>>
>> Like most fiscal analysts, we believe that the Administration and
>> Congress will need to take considerably larger steps. The President
>> himself acknowledges that his proposals do not fully put the budget on
>> a sustainable footing and is establishing a bipartisan fiscal
>> commission to recommend more substantial deficit reductions. First and
>> foremost, policymakers will need to restrain the growth of health care
>> costs � especially as we gain more knowledge of how to accomplish
Ray Fischer
>On May 9, 8:31�pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
>> Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the
>> Numbers
And from the right wing we get a typically reasoned and argued
rebuttal...
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kevin Cunningham
> On May 9, 8:31 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
> > Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the
> > Numbers
>
> Still hysterically blaming everyone you can think of except your
> Messiah, eh? Continue sucking, whore :)
>
>
>
And now you are faced with some one in complete denial. A scum sucker
who still supports Bush, the administration that gave you the biggest
debt in history, two failed wars, faggotry as a principle of
government and the personal courage of...well...it's the lowest in
history. All three repug heavy hitters, Bush, Cheney and Rove never
served, never will.
How about the huge debt that Bush ran up and up? Have any thought
about that or hasn't Rush given you your thought for the day?
Mitchell Holman
38a6cc...@i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> On May 9, 8:31�pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
>> Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the
>> Numbers
>
> Still hysterically blaming everyone you can think of except your
> Messiah, eh? Continue sucking, whore :)
Recession started in December 2007
Dec 1, 2008
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy slipped into recession
in December 2007, the nation's business cycle arbiter declared
on Monday, and the downturn could be the worst since World War
Two.
The National Bureau of Economic Research said its business cycle
dating committee members met by conference call on Friday and
concluded that the economic expansion that started in November
2001 had ended. The previous period of economic expansion, which
ended in 2001, lasted 10 years.
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE4B05YX20081201
Lamont Cranston
> On May 9, 8:31 pm, mg<mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
>> Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the
>> Numbers
>
> Still hysterically blaming everyone you can think of except your
> Messiah, eh? Continue sucking, whore :)
Still hysterically denying the culpability of your Messiah, huh?
Continue licking his ass, cunt.
Buster Norris
<sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On May 9, 11:34�pm, Not Sure <fred1321...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 9, 8:31�pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
>> > Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the
>> > Numbers
>>
>> Still hysterically blaming everyone you can think of except your
>> Messiah, eh? Continue sucking, whore :)
>>
>>
>>
>
>And now you are faced with some one in complete denial. A scum sucker
>who still supports Bush, the administration that gave you the biggest
>debt in history, two failed wars, faggotry as a principle of
>government and the personal courage of...well...it's the lowest in
>history. All three repug heavy hitters, Bush, Cheney and Rove never
>served, never will.
You sure are a nasty little bitch............................
nobody
Obama has been in charge for over year and things continue to get
worse. So what good has all that new debt he has produced done for
us?
Mitchell Holman
news:9r9iu5dtfcukj8qmo...@4ax.com:
Housing starts are up, job creation is up, the
stock market is up, retail sales are up, the Bush
Recession is winding down. Looks like change IS
happening.....
> So what good has all that new debt he has produced done for
> us?
>
Since when have conservatives cared about debt?
"Deficits don't matter"
Dick Cheney, Jan 11, 2004
cheshi...@gmail.com
nobody
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
Gas prices are up, unemployment's up, taxes are up on virtually all
levels. Looks like change IS happening....
Ray Fischer
>On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:20:46 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>Recession started in December 2007
>>Dec 1, 2008
>>
>>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy slipped into recession
>>in December 2007, the nation's business cycle arbiter declared
>>on Monday, and the downturn could be the worst since World War
>>Two.
>>
>>The National Bureau of Economic Research said its business cycle
>>dating committee members met by conference call on Friday and
>>concluded that the economic expansion that started in November
>>2001 had ended. The previous period of economic expansion, which
>>ended in 2001, lasted 10 years.
>>http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE4B05YX20081201
>
>Obama has been in charge for over year and things continue to get
>worse.
Stop lying, asshole. By almost every measure things are getting
better.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
nobody
How's that unemployment rate doing?
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:20:46 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>
>>>>Recession started in December 2007
>>>>Dec 1, 2008
>>>>
>>>>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy slipped into recession
>>>>in December 2007, the nation's business cycle arbiter declared
>>>>on Monday, and the downturn could be the worst since World War
>>>>Two.
>>>>
>>>>The National Bureau of Economic Research said its business cycle
>>>>dating committee members met by conference call on Friday and
>>>>concluded that the economic expansion that started in November
>>>>2001 had ended. The previous period of economic expansion, which
>>>>ended in 2001, lasted 10 years.
>>>>http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE4B05YX20081201
>>>
>>>Obama has been in charge for over year and things continue to get
>>>worse.
>>
>>Stop lying, asshole. By almost every measure things are getting
>>better.
>
>How's that unemployment rate doing?
Employment is up. Hiring is up.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Lamont Cranston
Correct. The umemployment rate jumped a bit last month because the
increased availability of jobs has caused people to start looking for
work again. 286,000 jobs were added last month, the highest in 4 years.
Siobhan Medeiros
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:05:53 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
>
>
>
>
> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in
> >news:9r9iu5dtfcukj8qmo...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:20:46 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
> >>>Not Sure <fred1321...@gmail.com> wrote in news:fb01b04d-c3cb-46e9-a086-
> >>>38a6ccf95...@i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
Actually, retard, taxes are DOWN. The other stuff can be laid
squarely on Bush's plate.
Fucking Republicans - they set the house on fire and complain when it
burns down.
Lamont Cranston
> out of you on usenet.
Taxes are at their lowest level in 60 years, dumbfuck. I'd tell you to
start thinking for yourself instead of repeating Limbaugh lies, but you
are incapable of thinking. What happened to you when you were growing
up in your trailer park?
Siobhan Medeiros
> out of you on usenet.
And the stalker shows up yet again. Go away, asshole.
Fredric L. Rice
Bullshit.
>Hiring is up.
Bullshit.
Hiring Census workers doesn't replace any of the *real* jobs that
the Bush regime lost.
---
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
Siobhan Medeiros
wrote:
They threw him out for stalking.
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>How's that unemployment rate doing?
>>Employment is up.
>
>Bullshit.
>
>>Hiring is up.
>
>Bullshit.
The Labor Department's monthly snapshot of the job market,
released on Friday, showed that employers added 290,000 jobs in
April - the largest gain in four years - and that they did
so across a broad swath of industries. The United States has now
added jobs for four consecutive months.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/business/economy/08jobs.html
>Hiring Census workers
Those don't include census workers, rightard. If you didn't have your
head up your ass you'd have seen the BLS statistics and noted that
they don't include government jobs in those numbers.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Siobhan Medeiros
> Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote:
>
And I doubt they hired 290,000 census workers.
nobody
Unemployment is up.
nobody
You'll believe anything you read apparently. My local property taxes
have shot up 15% in one year with more to come. The same is true all
over the state. What is done on a federal level can have a ripple
effect right down to a town.
>
>Fucking Republicans - they set the house on fire and complain when it
>burns down.
And spending additional trillions we don't have will do what exactly?
BTW, you "forgot" to note that the Dems have controlled all
legislation for the last several years now.
Fredric L. Rice
>Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote:
>>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>How's that unemployment rate doing?
>>>Employment is up.
>>Bullshit.
>>>Hiring is up.
>>Bullshit.
> The Labor Department's monthly snapshot of the job market,
> released on Friday, showed that employers added 290,000 jobs in
> April
And you believed them. Amazing. Some people will believe anything.
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Siobhan Medeiros
><sbm...@telus.net> wrote:
>>On May 11, 9:58�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:05:53 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>> > � �Housing starts are up, job creation is up, the
>>> >stock market is up, retail sales are up, the Bush
>>> >Recession is winding down. Looks like change IS
>>> >happening.....
>>>
>>> Gas prices are up, unemployment's up, taxes are up on virtually all
>>> levels. �Looks like change IS happening....
>>
>>Actually, retard, taxes are DOWN. The other stuff can be laid
>>squarely on Bush's plate.
>
>You'll believe anything you read apparently. My local property taxes
>have shot up 15% in one year with more to come.
So your local property taxes are the standard we should use when
measuring whether the nation's federal taxes have gone down.
Not very smart, are you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote:
>>>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>How's that unemployment rate doing?
>>>>Employment is up.
>>>Bullshit.
>>>>Hiring is up.
>>>Bullshit.
>> The Labor Department's monthly snapshot of the job market,
>> released on Friday, showed that employers added 290,000 jobs in
>> April
>
>And you believed them.
Lessee, do I believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an agency that
keep track of the nation's employment statistics, or do I believe some
ignorant rightard know-nothing who will lie in order to rationalize
his hatred.
Tough call there, rightard, but you lose.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
More people optimistic about finding a job.
How did you get to be so bitter?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Siobhan Medeiros
> Siobhan Medeiros' clueless little boy wrote:
>
> > And the stalker shows up yet again.
>
> sunshine. You ever going to get the balls to come back to can.politics
> or are you afraid of getting beaten up again?
Well, look who's not doing their research now.
Mitchell Holman
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
Funny how many people come to that conclusion
after dealing with "nobody" for awhile..........
Harold Burton
mg <mgke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
> Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the
> Numbers
Must be why BO has trippled them.
snicker.
Harold Burton
<2b6982b2-7f17-4f4a...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Siobhan Medeiros <sbm...@telus.net> wrote:
Only by leftards. Congress, the thing that controls spending and
taxation has been controlled by DumboCRAPS for quite a few years now.
snicker
Harold Burton
Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
Much like the fools who want to blame everything on Bush. Tell us what
branch of the guvmint controls spending and taxation. Tell us who
controlled that branch of the guvmint for the last quite a few years
now. Tell us why leftards are so afraid of taking responsibility for
their fuckups.
snicker.
Mitchell Holman
F800B3.223...@news.newsguy.com:
Only for what he is responsible for.
> Tell us what
> branch of the guvmint controls spending and taxation. Tell us who
> controlled that branch of the guvmint for the last quite a few years
> now. Tell us why leftards are so afraid of taking responsibility for
> their fuckups.
>
Nov. 4, 2008: The day when everything went
from being Clinton's fault to being Obama's fault.
Mitchell Holman
Maybe that explains the rising stock market, the rising
housing market, the rising consumer confidence, falling gas
prices, the new job creation numbers.......
Change we can believe in!
Fredric L. Rice
Knowing what you do about the Federal government, why do you continue
to believe anything that you're told? President Obama's lies merely
pick up where the Bush regimes' left off, why do you persist in
*knowingly* believing lies?
'Scuze me while I whip this out!
Fredric L. Rice
>Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote:
>>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote:
>>>>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>How's that unemployment rate doing?
>>>>>Employment is up.
>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>Hiring is up.
>>>>Bullshit.
>>> The Labor Department's monthly snapshot of the job market,
>>> released on Friday, showed that employers added 290,000 jobs in
>>> April
>>And you believed them.
>Lessee, do I believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an agency that
>keep track of the nation's employment statistics, or do I believe some
>ignorant rightard know-nothing who will lie in order to rationalize
>his hatred. Tough call there, rightard, but you lose.
Relax, Ray. Unclench those teeth and try to reason.
You believe the same agency that has been lying to the American people
during the Bush regime simply because now that a Democrat is in the
White House you think the numbers are magically accurate now.
You have a mind that the fascist State just loves. No reason. No thinking.
Belief in elitist jingoistic lies predicated solely on unrelated men in
public office who call themselves your chosen Political Party, and that's
just good enough for you to swallow after you suck.
'Scuze me while I whip this out!
nobody
Local taxes directly relate to the health of the State which relate to
the health of the overall country. You haven't noticed that many
states are in trouble fiscally as a direct result of the recession?
>
>Not very smart, are you?
Very short sighted, aren't you?
nobody
More people *have* to find a job due to the recession.
>
>How did you get to be so bitter?
Since when do you consider relating facts to be "bitter"?
nobody
The stock market went back up simply because it over corrected for the
recession. Falling gas prices? Where do you live, the moon?
Mitchell Holman
news:lu6qu59g1jdbu8pot...@4ax.com:
No pain at the pump this Memorial Day
May 13, 2010
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Gas prices have been drifting
lower over the past week, which is welcome news for drivers
who are gearing up to hit the road for Memorial Day weekend.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/13/news/economy/gasoline_prices/
GAS PRICE ARE FALLING
WBNG News
May 13, 2010
(WBNG Binghamton) As the temperature climbs, typically
so do gas prices. But with Memorial Day just two weeks
away, the price to fill up your tank is actually going
down.
http://www.wbng.com/news/local/93739849.html
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Siobhan Medeiros
>>><sbm...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>On May 11, 9:58�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:05:53 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>>>> > � �Housing starts are up, job creation is up, the
>>>>> >stock market is up, retail sales are up, the Bush
>>>>> >Recession is winding down. Looks like change IS
>>>>> >happening.....
>>>>> Gas prices are up, unemployment's up, taxes are up on virtually all
>>>>> levels. �Looks like change IS happening....
>>>>Actually, retard, taxes are DOWN. The other stuff can be laid
>>>>squarely on Bush's plate.
>>>You'll believe anything you read apparently. My local property taxes
>>>have shot up 15% in one year with more to come.
>>So your local property taxes are the standard we should use when
>>measuring whether the nation's federal taxes have gone down.
>
>Knowing what you do about the Federal government,
Knowing what I do about rightard assholes I don't believe a single
word that isn't backed up with evidence.
> why do you continue
>to believe anything that you're told?
Why do you believe the hucksters and extremists? Why do you trot out
bizarre conspiracy theories whenever the facts don't agree with your
cult insanity?
Because you're stupid?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 13 May 2010 17:35:14 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Siobhan Medeiros
>>><sbm...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>On May 11, 9:58�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:05:53 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>
>>>>> > � �Housing starts are up, job creation is up, the
>>>>> >stock market is up, retail sales are up, the Bush
>>>>> >Recession is winding down. Looks like change IS
>>>>> >happening.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Gas prices are up, unemployment's up, taxes are up on virtually all
>>>>> levels. �Looks like change IS happening....
>>>>
>>>>Actually, retard, taxes are DOWN. The other stuff can be laid
>>>>squarely on Bush's plate.
>>>
>>>You'll believe anything you read apparently. My local property taxes
>>>have shot up 15% in one year with more to come.
>>
>>So your local property taxes are the standard we should use when
>>measuring whether the nation's federal taxes have gone down.
>
>Local taxes directly relate to the health of the State
Which has nothing at all to do with the federal tax rate.
Obviously you're trying, and failing, to justify your cult idiocy.
You would rather believe in lies than face the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote:
>>>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote:
>>>>>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>How's that unemployment rate doing?
>>>>>>Employment is up.
>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>>Hiring is up.
>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>> The Labor Department's monthly snapshot of the job market,
>>>> released on Friday, showed that employers added 290,000 jobs in
>>>> April
>>>And you believed them.
>>Lessee, do I believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an agency that
>>keep track of the nation's employment statistics, or do I believe some
>>ignorant rightard know-nothing who will lie in order to rationalize
>>his hatred. Tough call there, rightard, but you lose.
>
>Relax, Ray. Unclench those teeth and try to reason.
I just did, rightard.
>You believe the same agency that has been lying to the American people
But you're an ignorant rightard know-nothing who will lie in order to
rationalize your hatred and so you lose yet again. Wild, irrational
claims of mass conspiracies are not enough.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
And that changed in the last month?
You really are not very smart.
>>How did you get to be so bitter?
>
>Since when do you consider relating facts to be "bitter"?
Since when do you consider disinformation and joy in people's
misfortunes to be "relating facts"?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Lamont Cranston
Simply a lie. Bush's last budget had a $1.2 trillion deficit.
>
>
> snicker.
Only dumbfucks snicker after telling a lie.
Salty Stan
> Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skeptictank.org> wrote:
>
>
> >Knowing what you do about the Federal government,
>
> Knowing what I do about rightard assholes I don't believe a single
> word that isn't backed up with evidence.
>
LOL! How about that Rice? You're a rightard asshole?
> > why do you continue
> >to believe anything that you're told?
>
> Why do you believe the hucksters and extremists? Why do you trot out
> bizarre conspiracy theories whenever the facts don't agree with your
> cult insanity?
>
> Because you're stupid?
Hmm, yeah, Ray, you let him have it. Got to put right-wing assholes in
their place.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
nobody
Yes.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
>
>You really are not very smart.
>
>>>How did you get to be so bitter?
>>
>>Since when do you consider relating facts to be "bitter"?
>
>Since when do you consider disinformation and joy in people's
>misfortunes to be "relating facts"?
When have I provided disinformation or taken joy in people's
misfortunes? Try not to let actual facts get in way of a good rant.
nobody
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
The trend over time since Obama took charge is rising prices. From
http://www.eia.doe.gov/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html
Jan 05, 2009 167.2
Jan 12, 2009 177.2
Jan 19, 2009 183.2
Jan 26, 2009 181.3
Feb 02, 2009 187.1
Feb 09, 2009 189.7
Feb 16, 2009 193.1
Feb 23, 2009 186.8
Mar 02, 2009 191
Mar 09, 2009 191.8
Mar 16, 2009 188.5
Mar 23, 2009 194.4
Mar 30, 2009 203
Apr 06, 2009 201.1
Apr 13, 2009 202.5
Apr 20, 2009 203.1
Apr 27, 2009 201.6
May 04, 2009 204.5
May 11, 2009 221.8
May 18, 2009 228.1
May 25, 2009 241.4
Jun 01, 2009 250.2
Jun 08, 2009 260
Jun 15, 2009 263.9
Jun 22, 2009 265
Jun 29, 2009 259.3
Jul 06, 2009 256.3
Jul 13, 2009 247.9
Jul 20, 2009 241.1
Jul 27, 2009 246
Aug 03, 2009 251.1
Aug 10, 2009 259.6
Aug 17, 2009 258
Aug 24, 2009 257.2
Aug 31, 2009 255.3
Sep 07, 2009 251.9
Sep 14, 2009 249.9
Sep 21, 2009 247.7
Sep 28, 2009 242.5
Oct 05, 2009 239.6
Oct 12, 2009 243.2
Oct 19, 2009 253.2
Oct 26, 2009 264.1
Nov 02, 2009 266
Nov 09, 2009 262.7
Nov 16, 2009 258.5
Nov 23, 2009 260.3
Nov 30, 2009 259.4
Dec 07, 2009 260.1
Dec 14, 2009 256
Dec 21, 2009 254.6
Dec 28, 2009 256.4
Jan 04, 2010 262.7
Jan 11, 2010 271.7
Jan 18, 2010 270.3
Jan 25, 2010 266.6
Feb 01, 2010 261.8
Feb 08, 2010 261.1
Feb 15, 2010 256.3
Feb 22, 2010 262.1
Mar 01, 2010 267.1
Mar 08, 2010 272.1
Mar 15, 2010 276
Mar 22, 2010 279.2
Mar 29, 2010 276.5
Apr 05, 2010 279.5
Apr 12, 2010 282.9
Apr 19, 2010 283.1
Apr 26, 2010 281.5
May 03, 2010 286.4
May 10, 2010 287
nobody
>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>On 13 May 2010 17:35:14 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Siobhan Medeiros
>>>><sbm...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>On May 11, 9:58�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:05:53 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>>
>>>>>> > � �Housing starts are up, job creation is up, the
>>>>>> >stock market is up, retail sales are up, the Bush
>>>>>> >Recession is winding down. Looks like change IS
>>>>>> >happening.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gas prices are up, unemployment's up, taxes are up on virtually all
>>>>>> levels. �Looks like change IS happening....
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, retard, taxes are DOWN. The other stuff can be laid
>>>>>squarely on Bush's plate.
>>>>
>>>>You'll believe anything you read apparently. My local property taxes
>>>>have shot up 15% in one year with more to come.
>>>
>>>So your local property taxes are the standard we should use when
>>>measuring whether the nation's federal taxes have gone down.
>>
>>Local taxes directly relate to the health of the State
>
>Which has nothing at all to do with the federal tax rate.
You don't think the amount of money the feds give the states directly
effects state budgets?
Ray Fischer
It has nothing to do with the federal tax rate, dumbass.
How stupid are you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
So you claim that only now do people have to find jobs.
You really are a stupid liar.
>http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
That shows that hiring is going up.
>>You really are not very smart.
>>
>>>>How did you get to be so bitter?
>>>
>>>Since when do you consider relating facts to be "bitter"?
>>
>>Since when do you consider disinformation and joy in people's
>>misfortunes to be "relating facts"?
>
>When have I provided disinformation or taken joy in people's
>misfortunes?
Just above, dumbass.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
nobody
effects state budgets, yes or no?
Ray Fischer
"State budgets" are not a "federal tax rate", dumbshit.
NoBody
>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>On 14 May 2010 16:32:26 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 13 May 2010 17:35:14 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>You'll believe anything you read apparently. My local property taxes
>>>>>>>>have shot up 15% in one year with more to come.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So your local property taxes are the standard we should use when
>>>>>>>measuring whether the nation's federal taxes have gone down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Local taxes directly relate to the health of the State
>>>>>
>>>>>Which has nothing at all to do with the federal tax rate.
>>>>
>>>>You don't think the amount of money the feds give the states directly
>>>>effects state budgets?
>>>
>>>It has nothing to do with the federal tax rate, dumbass.
>>
>>You don't think the amount of money the feds give the states directly
>>effects state budgets,
>
>"State budgets" are not a "federal tax rate", dumbshit.
>
State budgets are directly effected by the federal tax rate as that
rate effects what the states get back from the feds.
>How stupid are you?
Irony anyone?
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 14 May 2010 16:32:26 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 13 May 2010 17:35:14 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>You'll believe anything you read apparently. My local property taxes
>>>>>>>>>have shot up 15% in one year with more to come.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So your local property taxes are the standard we should use when
>>>>>>>>measuring whether the nation's federal taxes have gone down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Local taxes directly relate to the health of the State
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which has nothing at all to do with the federal tax rate.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't think the amount of money the feds give the states directly
>>>>>effects state budgets?
>>>>
>>>>It has nothing to do with the federal tax rate, dumbass.
>>>
>>>You don't think the amount of money the feds give the states directly
>>>effects state budgets,
>>
>>"State budgets" are not a "federal tax rate", dumbshit.
>
>State budgets are directly effected by
"State budgets" are not a "federal tax rate", dumbshit.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NoBody
State budgets are directly effected by the amount of money they
receive from the feds. Learn to comprehend what you read before
responding.