U.S. hits debt ceiling. Democrat Idiot Obama Spends America Into Bankruptcy.
Piggy Bank Empty
ne/
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- It's official: The U.S. government hit
the debt ceiling on Monday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
told Congress.
Geithner said he would have to suspend investments in federal
retirement funds until Aug. 2 in order to create room for the
government to continue borrowing in the debt markets.
The funds will be made whole once the debt limit is increased,
Geithner said. "Federal retirees and employees will be
unaffected by these actions."
He went on to urge Congress once again to raise the country's
legal borrowing limit soon "to protect the full faith and credit
of the United States and avoid catastrophic economic
consequences for citizens."
Congress, meanwhile, is not showing any signs of budging. Many
Republicans and some Democrats say they won't raise it unless
Congress and President Obama agree to significant spending cuts
and other ways to curb debt. (Social Security and Medicare
squeezed)
Geithner told Congress that he estimates he has enough legal
hoop-jumping tricks to cover them for another 11 weeks or so.
But then he said that's it. If lawmakers don't get it together
by Aug. 2, the United States will no longer be able to pay its
bills in full. (Slashing spending alone won't cut it)
The rhetoric about whether to raise the ceiling and under what
conditions has been loud, harsh and, at times, misleading.
Exasperatingly, it's far from over.
What is the debt ceiling exactly? It's a cap set by Congress on
the amount of debt the federal government can legally borrow.
The cap applies to debt owed to the public (i.e., anyone who
buys U.S. bonds) plus debt owed to federal government trust
funds such as those for Social Security and Medicare.
The first limit was set in 1917 and set at $11.5 billion,
according to the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Previously, Congress had to sign off every time the federal
government issued debt. (Take CNNMoney's deficit quiz)
How high is the debt limit right now? The ceiling is currently
set at $14.294 trillion. Based on Treasury's announcement, it
hit that mark on Monday morning.
And by taking various extraordinary measures like suspending
investments in federal retirement funds, Geithner will be able
to bring total debt down enough to allow the government to
continue borrowing until Aug. 2.
How is the ceiling determined? They don't admit it, but
lawmakers tacitly agree to raise the debt ceiling every time
they vote for a spending hike or tax cut.
"Congress has already passed and the president has already
signed legislation that increases spending or decreases
revenues. Those decisions have already been made," said Susan
Irving, director for federal budget issues at the Government
Accountability Office.
So in reality arguing over the debt ceiling is essentially
arguing over whether to pay the bills the country has already
incurred.
Debt ceiling: Time to get real
But politicians who make a stink about the debt ceiling will
always try to make the case that the guy who votes to raise it
is a fiscal spendthrift.
And politics, of course, permeates the whole debate. Lawmakers
who want to make hay of the issue for political gain may push
for a small increase so the debate comes up again soon. Others
may want a bigger increase so they don't have to revisit the
issue for awhile.
How many times has the ceiling been raised? Since March 1962,
the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the
Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred
since 2001.
Expect more of the same over the next decade. Barring major
changes to spending and tax policies, "Congress would repeatedly
face demands to raise the debt limit," CRS wrote.
Why does Congress even bother to set a debt limit? In theory,
the limit is supposed to help Congress control spending. In
reality, it doesn't.
Every time the debt limit needs to be raised, lawmakers and the
president are forced to take stock of the country's fiscal
direction, which isn't a bad thing necessarily.
But the decision about how high to set the ceiling is divorced
from lawmakers' decisions to pass spending hikes and tax cuts.
It's also made after the fact, so it doesn't do much to pull in
the purse strings.
That's why budget experts say it would be better to tie the debt
limit decision to lawmakers' legislative actions.
What happens if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling before
Aug. 2? No one knows for sure. But the going assumption is that
no good can come of it.
What happens if Congress blows the debt ceiling?
Treasury would not have authority to borrow any more money. And
that can be a problem since the government borrows to make up
the difference between what it spends and what it takes in. It
uses that borrowed money to help fund operations and pay
creditors.
Geithner's critics say he could prevent default by simply paying
the interest due to bondholders.
But since average spending -- minus interest -- outpaces revenue
by about $118 billion a month, Geithner won't be able to pay all
the country's bills.
That means he will have to pick and choose who to pay and who to
put off every day. And there's no guarantee that paying interest
while shirking other legal obligations will protect the country
from the perception of default.
Geithner said it would be akin to a homeowner who pays his
mortgage but puts off his car loan, credit cards, insurance
premiums and utilities. The mortgage is taken care of, but the
homeowner's credit could still be damaged.
Ultimately, if lawmakers fail to raise the ceiling this year,
they will have two choices, both awful.
They could either cut spending or raise taxes by several hundred
billion dollars just to get through Sept. 30, which is the end
of the fiscal year. Or they could acknowledge that the country
would be unable to pay what it owes in full and the United
States could effectively default on some of its obligations.
The first option would be impossible to execute without serious
economic repercussions.
And the second option could cripple the economy and send world
markets into a tailspin.
"Not only the default but efforts to resolve it would arguably
have negative repercussions on both domestic and international
financial markets and economies," according to the CRS.
At a minimum, a default could hurt U.S. bonds, the dollar and
investors' portfolios. "Our bond market and stock market would
crash," said former Congressional Budget Director Rudolph Penner.
Will reaching the debt ceiling for good cause a government
shutdown? Not technically.
A government shutdown occurs if lawmakers fail to appropriate
money for federal agencies and programs.
By contrast, if the debt ceiling is breached, Uncle Sam would
still have revenue coming in that could be used to fund the
government, Penner noted.
But if Geithner is coming up short by $118 billion every month,
and lawmakers just decide to cut spending by that amount, that
could effectively mean a partial government shutdown
Peter Franks
What wonderful news.
Ain't the effects of socialism grand?
Strabo
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 13:42:50 +0200, "Piggy Bank Empty"
> <soe...@thief.com> wrote:
>
>> U.S. hits debt ceiling. Democrat Idiot Obama Spends America Into Bankruptcy.
>
> To prove his point his post included the following little gem
>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/16/news/economy/debt_ceiling_deadline/
>> How many times has the ceiling been raised? Since March 1962,
>> the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the
>> Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred
>> since 2001.
>
> dollar tax cut for millionaires and their trillion dollar war against
> the wrong country.
>
> http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/10-inconvenient-truths-about-debt-ceiling#four
> Republican majorities voted to raise the U.S. debt ceiling seven times
> while George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office.
>
> http://forum.goupstate.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5852&start=0
> Dick Cheney's quote? "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
> In 2002 they raised the debt ceiling.
> In 2003 they raised the debt ceiling again.
> In 2004 they raised the debt ceiling again.
> In 2006 they raised the debt ceiling again.
> In 2007 they raised the debt ceiling again.
> In 2008 they raised the debt ceiling TWICE.
>
On target as usual, Winston.
>
> Let's face it. Bush and Obama are both big spending, deficit
> doubling, war mongering borrow-and-spend liberals.
>
As are most federal and state politicians.
We've had ample time to prepare...And we've done our duty in warning others.
Soon TSWHTF.
>
> Anything else is just one party trying to pin it's own sins on the
> other one.
wy
It's not socialism. It's Bush's unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy, 10
years running now thanks to Repugnants' insistence, the two needless
wars Bush started, and Bush's crashing of the economy in '08. You
know, all of the stuff that added $5 trillion to the debt in 8 years,
effectively doubling it to $10 trillion? That's not an easy amount to
correct quickly, no matter who'd be in charge.
DogDiesel
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:llhuv6tmsfkftqbuq...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:23:48 -0400, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Let's face it. Bush and Obama are both big spending, deficit
>>> doubling, war mongering borrow-and-spend liberals.
>>>
>>
>>As are most federal and state politicians.
>
>
> One party spends it on the wealth class
Which gives America jobs.
>
> The other spends it on people.
>
>
>
When it starts spending it on American people only. Then American people
will listen. until then the Commie rat party is getting voted out. Because
they wont abandon their agenda to win. And were sick of their racist
bullshit for votes program.
wy
> president for years.
I guess you slept through the news: Bush handed him a $10 trillion
debt inauguration gift. At least a trillion of Obama's $4.5 trillion
debt since then has been for interest payments for Bush's debt. Bush
- his debt just keeps on growing without him.
>
> The government is bankrupt because of social programs and rampant spending.
The government has been bankrupt since Reagan, when he began raiding
Social Security to build up the military while borrowing money from
other countries at the same time. It's what they called Voodoo
Economics, and it sure put a bad spell on the US to this day.
>
> Let me ask this: Where's the change we can believe in? Â All I'm seeing
> is: excuses, excuses, excuses.
Change can only happen if Repugnants get out of the way.
Peter Franks
So, what exactly was the "change I can believe in" supposed to be?
Because all you are giving is excuses...
>> The government is bankrupt because of social programs and rampant spending.
>
> The government has been bankrupt since Reagan, when he began raiding
> Social Security to build up the military while borrowing money from
> other countries at the same time. It's what they called Voodoo
> Economics, and it sure put a bad spell on the US to this day.
>
>>
>> Let me ask this: Where's the change we can believe in? All I'm seeing
>> is: excuses, excuses, excuses.
>
> Change can only happen if Repugnants get out of the way.
They were out of the way, entirely, for the first two years. I didn't
see any change.
Also, when Democrats are in control, all they do is ramp up their
socialist agenda and cause even more problems, and then blame it on
Republicans/Bush, ref. the housing crisis.
Look, Obama promised change. There hasn't been any change, and it
doesn't matter how much you blame the Republicans.
No change. Obama/Democrats have just continued to spend, spend, spend.
There's no change left, it has ALL been spent.
Obama is a failure by any metric. The country is bankrupt, the debt
ceiling will be raised once again, and to what end?
Peter Franks
I guess you didn't get the news: Obama won the election and has been
president for years.
The government is bankrupt because of social programs and rampant spending.
Let me ask this: Where's the change we can believe in? All I'm seeing
is: excuses, excuses, excuses.
RD Sandman
@k27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
Interesting, since the tax cut (now extension by Obama) will remove $700B
from the revenue stream over the next decade......however, that same tax
cut extension for the middle class will remove $.4.4T from that same
revenue stream, yet I don't see you bitching about that.
the two needless
> wars Bush started,
Even Obama said that Afghanistan was the "right" war and he is pulling
troops out of Iraq on Bush's schedule. The numbers may be somewhat
different, but....
> and Bush's crashing of the economy in '08.
Interestingly, the Democrats were in charge of both the House and Senate
since the 2006 elections and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were giving good
reports on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as late as July of 2008. They
should know, they were the Chairmen of the House and Senate Finance
Committees and had be so since January of 2007.
You
> know, all of the stuff that added $5 trillion to the debt in 8 years,
> effectively doubling it to $10 trillion? That's not an easy amount to
> correct quickly, no matter who'd be in charge.
That is true, but that debt is still currently going in the wrong
direction. It is now $14.3T with no end in sight. Not bad for his first
two years and Democrats first four.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill
and a laxative on the same night.
wy
A change away from another term with Bush was change enough.
>
> >> The government is bankrupt because of social programs and rampant spending.
>
> > The government has been bankrupt since Reagan, when he began raiding
> > Social Security to build up the military while borrowing money from
> > other countries at the same time. Â It's what they called Voodoo
> > Economics, and it sure put a bad spell on the US to this day.
>
> >> Let me ask this: Where's the change we can believe in? Â All I'm seeing
> >> is: excuses, excuses, excuses.
>
> > Change can only happen if Repugnants get out of the way.
>
> They were out of the way, entirely, for the first two years. Â I didn't
> see any change.
http://obamaachievements.org/list
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean nothing happened. Maybe
you simply didn't want to see it - too much FOX News viewing, I guess.
> Also, when Democrats are in control, all they do is ramp up their
> socialist agenda and cause even more problems, and then blame it on
> Republicans/Bush, ref. the housing crisis.
>
> Look, Obama promised change. Â There hasn't been any change, and it
> doesn't matter how much you blame the Republicans.
The pretty chart says otherwise:
http://media.nowpublic.net/images//a0/b/a0bc2cc9c25ec726ed7135ae5a0932fe.jpg
>
> No change. Â Obama/Democrats have just continued to spend, spend, spend.
> Â There's no change left, it has ALL been spent.
It can be turned around, but Repugnants refuse to turn it around. The
country was in deep ka-ka in the early 50s, but increased taxes on the
wealthy helped pull it out of that ka-ka. Things gradually improved
to create a robust Golden Age middle class economy, so much so that by
the end of Johnson's term, even with a Viet Nam War going on, the
country was in tip-top fiscal shape and unemployment was under 4% for
his last 3 years in office. Under 4%. Like down to 3.5% - 3 years.
But that can only happen if the rich chip in and the Repugnants have
no interest in seeing them part with their millions and billions.
>
> Obama is a failure by any metric. Â The country is bankrupt, the debt
> ceiling will be raised once again, and to what end?
Obama hasn't failed at anything. His term isn't over and the book is
far from being written on his presidency. But yeah, the debt ceiling
will be raised, the Repugnants will blink on that. They know they
have no choice, but in the meantime they'll keep posturing and blow
hot hair to try to make themselves look good in the eyes of ... well,
someone. Maybe look good in their own eyes?
wy
Nobody should get a tax cut. The math don't add up if you have to
borrow money and pay back more of it with the accrued interest just to
pay for cuts. I believe in short-term pain for long-term gain, it's
the only way out of it. Tax cuts should only be made when the
government is running in surplus mode. Meaning they'd rarely be made.
>
> Â the two needless
>
> > wars Bush started,
>
> Even Obama said that Afghanistan was the "right" war and he is pulling
> troops out of Iraq on Bush's schedule. Â The numbers may be somewhat
> different, but....
Afghanistan was where al-Qaeda was originally based, not in Iraq.
Iraq was a pointless and costly diversion.
>
> > and Bush's crashing of the economy in '08.
>
> Interestingly, the Democrats were in charge of both the House and Senate
> since the 2006 elections and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were giving good
> reports on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as late as July of 2008. Â They
> should know, they were the Chairmen of the House and Senate Finance
> Committees and had be so since January of 2007.
It doesn't matter what Frank said. No one was telling the truth
upfront, they were all in denial, but everyone in the industry knew
what bad vibes they were gettting, going back as early as 2005.
Warnings were put forth to the government but Bush-Asleep-at-the-Wheel
and gang just weren't paying attention. The true genesis of the
beginning of the collapse was:
October 2004: SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms—
Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan
Stanley. Freed from government imposed limits on the debt they can
assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1, buying massive
amounts of mortgage-backed securities and other risky investments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline#2005
Yep, that was under Bush Watch, folks, or more like Bush Coma.
>
> Â You
>
> > know, all of the stuff that added $5 trillion to the debt in 8 years,
> > effectively doubling it to $10 trillion? Â That's not an easy amount to
> > correct quickly, no matter who'd be in charge.
>
> That is true, but that debt is still currently going in the wrong
> direction. It is now $14.3T with no end in sight. Â Not bad for his first
> two years and Democrats first four.
A trillion of that has been for interest on Bush's debt. Or did you
forget that the interest on Bush's debt is still being paid and
probably won't be paid off for at least a decade before the interest
on Obama's debt, thanks to Bush, kicks in?
RD Sandman
news:69ad01dd-f43e-42da...@fq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
Or entitlements....or defense....or whatever... We need to run on what
money we receive in revenue and that would include paying down the debt.
I believe in short-term pain for long-term gain, it's
> the only way out of it. Tax cuts should only be made when the
> government is running in surplus mode. Meaning they'd rarely be made.
Rarely? When is the last time the government really ran in surplus mode?
>> �the two needless
>>
>> > wars Bush started,
>>
>> Even Obama said that Afghanistan was the "right" war and he is
>> pulling troops out of Iraq on Bush's schedule. �The numbers may be
>> somewhat different, but....
>
> Afghanistan was where al-Qaeda was originally based, not in Iraq.
> Iraq was a pointless and costly diversion.
IOW, *one* needless war.....not two. (I am not including Libya, the war
that isn't.)
>> > and Bush's crashing of the economy in '08.
>>
>> Interestingly, the Democrats were in charge of both the House and
>> Senate since the 2006 elections and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were
>> giving good reports on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as late as July of
>> 2008. �They should know, they were the Chairmen of the House and
>> Senate Finance Committees and had be so since January of 2007.
>
> It doesn't matter what Frank said. No one was telling the truth
> upfront, they were all in denial, but everyone in the industry knew
> what bad vibes they were gettting, going back as early as 2005.
Yep, back when both Bush and McCain were yelling to get more regulation
back into the housing industry only to be ignored by both parties.
> Warnings were put forth to the government but Bush-Asleep-at-the-Wheel
> and gang just weren't paying attention. The true genesis of the
> beginning of the collapse was:
>
> October 2004: SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five
> firms� Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and
> Morgan Stanley. Freed from government imposed limits on the debt they
> can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1, buying massive
> amounts of mortgage-backed securities and other risky investments.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline#2005
>
> Yep, that was under Bush Watch, folks, or more like Bush Coma.
Conveniently you forget the dot.com bust, the over emphasis on surpluses
under Clinton that could not come to fruition and all the toxic loans in
the housing industry which went bust. Both sides were to blame, mon ami.
If you wish to stick it to Bush because it happened on his watch, you
damn well should do the same for Obama.
>> � You
>>
>> > know, all of the stuff that added $5 trillion to the debt in 8
>> > years, effectively doubling it to $10 trillion? �That's not an easy
>> > amount t
> o
>> > correct quickly, no matter who'd be in charge.
>>
>> That is true, but that debt is still currently going in the wrong
>> direction. It is now $14.3T with no end in sight. �Not bad for his
>> firs
> t
>> two years and Democrats first four.
>
> A trillion of that has been for interest on Bush's debt.
No, it wasn't. It was an estimated $604B (presented to you in an earlier
post) or do you always exaggerate?
Or did you
> forget that the interest on Bush's debt is still being paid and
> probably won't be paid off for at least a decade before the interest
> on Obama's debt, thanks to Bush, kicks in?
IOW, no matter what happens is not going to be Obama's fault, no matter
what..... Is that your opinion?
Peter Franks
None of what you say refutes the claim that Obama is spending us into
bankruptcy.
Peter Franks
It does matter. You are quick to blame Bush for everything, and then
dismiss Frank as "doesn't matter".
> No one was telling the truth
> upfront, they were all in denial
So, why single out Bush?
> , but everyone in the industry knew
> what bad vibes they were gettting, going back as early as 2005.
> Warnings were put forth to the government but Bush-Asleep-at-the-Wheel
> and gang just weren't paying attention. The true genesis of the
> beginning of the collapse was:
>
> October 2004: SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms�
> Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan
> Stanley. Freed from government imposed limits on the debt they can
> assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1, buying massive
> amounts of mortgage-backed securities and other risky investments.
Why were MBSs risky? Because of sub-prime borrowers. Why were there so
many new sub-prime borrowers? Because the socialists wanted the poor to
be able to buy nice fancy homes and new Escalades so that they could
pretend they were rich.
The problem wasn't MBSs (although they exacerbated the core issue), the
core issue was the mandate to extend mortgages to people that were
unqualified to purchase a house, and subsequently defaulted.
If there were no sub-prime borrowers defaulting on loans, MBSs and
leveraged borrowing/debt there wouldn't have been a housing meltdown.
wy
>
> >> No change. Â Obama/Democrats have just continued to spend, spend, spend.
> >> Â Â There's no change left, it has ALL been spent.
>
> > It can be turned around, but Repugnants refuse to turn it around. Â The
> > country was in deep ka-ka in the early 50s, but increased taxes on the
> > wealthy helped pull it out of that ka-ka. Â Things gradually improved
> > to create a robust Golden Age middle class economy, so much so that by
> > the end of Johnson's term, even with a Viet Nam War going on, the
> > country was in tip-top fiscal shape and unemployment was under 4% for
> > his last 3 years in office. Â Under 4%. Â Like down to 3.5% - 3 years.
> > But that can only happen if the rich chip in and the Repugnants have
> > no interest in seeing them part with their millions and billions.
>
> >> Obama is a failure by any metric. Â The country is bankrupt, the debt
> >> ceiling will be raised once again, and to what end?
>
> > Obama hasn't failed at anything. Â His term isn't over and the book is
> > far from being written on his presidency. Â But yeah, the debt ceiling
> > will be raised, the Repugnants will blink on that. Â They know they
> > have no choice, but in the meantime they'll keep posturing and blow
> > hot hair to try to make themselves look good in the eyes of ... Â well,
> > someone. Â Maybe look good in their own eyes?
>
> None of what you say refutes the claim that Obama is spending us into
> bankruptcy.
Not voluntarily. About a quarter of each year's budget goes to
servicing the debt. Bush's debt. About $400 billion a year now.
Nice going, Georgie. That's already double the annual interest of
what it was in 1988.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
RD Sandman
news:ff3ca138-ca54-4a02...@q1g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 21, 3:54�ｿｽpm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> On 6/21/2011 12:35 PM, wy wrote:
>> >> What wonderful news.
>>
>> >> Ain't the effects of socialism grand?
>>
>> > It's not socialism. �ｿｽIt's Bush's unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy,
>> > 1
> 0
>> > years running now thanks to Repugnants' insistence, the two
>> > needless wars Bush started, and Bush's crashing of the economy in
>> > '08. �ｿｽYou know, all of the stuff that added $5 trillion to the debt
>> > in 8 years, effectively doubling it to $10 trillion? �ｿｽThat's not an
>> > easy amount t
> o
>> > correct quickly, no matter who'd be in charge.
>>
>> I guess you didn't get the news: Obama won the election and has been
>> president for years.
>
> I guess you slept through the news: Bush handed him a $10 trillion
> debt inauguration gift.
And Bush was handed a $5T debt inaugaration gift.
At least a trillion of Obama's $4.5 trillion
> debt since then has been for interest payments for Bush's debt.
Since Obama's inaugaration, the debt payment was $187B in 2009 and $237B in
2010 and so far, about $180B(estimated) in 2011. Not quite a trillion.
Just over half that at $604B(estimated).
Bush
> - his debt just keeps on growing without him.
Here is overall debt since 2000:
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 ==> Obama become president in Jan.
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 ==> Dems control both Houses in Jan.
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
And if you look historically, the debt has grown every year since 1951 when
it dropped almost $2B.
>> The government is bankrupt because of social programs and rampant
>> spendin
> g.
>
> The government has been bankrupt since Reagan, when he began raiding
> Social Security to build up the military while borrowing money from
> other countries at the same time. It's what they called Voodoo
> Economics, and it sure put a bad spell on the US to this day.
Amazing that that phenomenon of borrowing from Social Security continues
today. It has been done by every administration probably since 1937 since
revenue in was larger than output until this year.
>> Let me ask this: Where's the change we can believe in? �ｿｽAll I'm
>> seeing is: excuses, excuses, excuses.
>
> Change can only happen if Repugnants get out of the way.
What really, really needs to get out of the way is blind, ignorant
partisanship from BOTH sides.
Dan
And none of what you say confirms the claim.
Dan
Dan
Nonsense.
> The problem wasn't MBSs (although they exacerbated the core issue), the
> core issue was the mandate to extend mortgages to people that were
> unqualified to purchase a house, and subsequently defaulted.
No, the core problem was that MBSs were fraudulent securities. Because
they were so profitable (most fraud is), they themselves generated
interest in creating mortgages that could be packaged and sold, which
generated shady practices of mortgage generation, and "insurance" (both
of which was allowed by deregulation), which generated shady evaluation
processes (hm, this guy will say the house is worth $250K, and that guy
will say the house is worth $100K; which guy should we hire?), which in
turn generated shady inspection procedures (partially because of the
sheer volume of inspections required, partly as in the evaluation
decision, above). About the only province that was not materially
involved (though certainly peripherally) was the construction business,
though even there problems existed.
No, FM & FM were next to insignificant in the entire process. Were the
rules in place as were in place in 2000, this whole worldwide fraudulent
scam could never have taken place; were people aware that the rules had
changed, no one would have bought the securities.
Fraud up and down the line, which was illegal mere months/years before,
was the proximate cause - Republicans' avowed determination to blindly
deregulate that which they did not understand was the ultimate cause.
QED, Republicans were the cause.
> If there were no sub-prime borrowers defaulting on loans, MBSs and
> leveraged borrowing/debt there wouldn't have been a housing meltdown.
There have been sub-prime borrowers for decades, at least - they had
next to nothing to do with the housing meltdown.
Do pay attention before you put your fat little fingers to the keyboard
next time.
Dan
Peter Franks
OK, so we agree: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
Have a nice day.
Peter Franks
"Confirmation" was in the original posting.
Peter Franks
Wrong. Bush pushed for regulation and oversight, Democrats objected
because it would infringe on the poor being able to get sub-prime loans.
Look harder.
>
>> If there were no sub-prime borrowers defaulting on loans, MBSs and
>> leveraged borrowing/debt there wouldn't have been a housing meltdown.
>
> There have been sub-prime borrowers for decades, at least - they had
> next to nothing to do with the housing meltdown.
Historically, they were few and far between. With the elimination of
redlining and the guarantee that the Federal National Mortgage
Association would buy ANY and EVERY loan, no matter how sub-prime it
was: THAT was the core.
> Do pay attention before you put your fat little fingers to the keyboard
> next time.
Don't talk to me that way.
Scout
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:itqstk$cbr$1...@dont-email.me...
I've seen a lot of change.
Massive increases in government spending
Massive increases in the amount of our deficits.
Massive increases in the rate at which our debt piles up
Massive increases in the number of unemployed
Massive increases in the number of conflicts we are involved in
Massive increases in blaming others
Peter Franks
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:10:35 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>> It's not socialism. It's Bush's unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy, 10
>>> years running now thanks to Repugnants' insistence,
>>
>> Interesting, since the tax cut (now extension by Obama) will remove $700B
>>from the revenue stream over the next decade
>
>
> The bulk of the money goes to the class that does not need it or spend
> it.
>
> The loss of real wages by the middle class, the loss of 14,000,000
> jobs, the massive deregulation, failure of oversight, manipulation of
> the tax code to allow out of country investment and not pay taxes on
> the return to shareholders and CEO's is immoral.
How is it immoral?
RD Sandman
news:9beab4ad-f72a-4564...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>> >>>>> �Yo
> u
>> >>>>> know, all of the stuff that added $5 trillion to the debt in 8
>> >>>>> year
> s,
>> >>>>> effectively doubling it to $10 trillion? �That's not an easy
>> >>>>> amou
> nt to
>> >>>>> correct quickly, no matter who'd be in charge.
>>
>> >>>> I guess you didn't get the news: Obama won the election and has
>> >>>> been president for years.
>>
>> >>> I guess you slept through the news: Bush handed him a $10
>> >>> trillion debt inauguration gift. �At least a trillion of Obama's
>> >>> $4.5 trilli
> on
>> >>> debt since then has been for interest payments for Bush's debt.
>> >>> �Bu
>> >> � �There's no change left, it has ALL been spent.
>>
>> > It can be turned around, but Repugnants refuse to turn it around.
>> > �Th
> e
>> > country was in deep ka-ka in the early 50s, but increased taxes on
>> > the wealthy helped pull it out of that ka-ka. �Things gradually
>> > improved to create a robust Golden Age middle class economy, so
>> > much so that by the end of Johnson's term, even with a Viet Nam War
>> > going on, the country was in tip-top fiscal shape and unemployment
>> > was under 4% for his last 3 years in office. �Under 4%. �Like down
>> > to 3.5% - 3 years
> .
>> > But that can only happen if the rich chip in and the Repugnants
>> > have no interest in seeing them part with their millions and
>> > billions.
>>
>> >> Obama is a failure by any metric. �The country is bankrupt, the
>> >> debt ceiling will be raised once again, and to what end?
>>
>> > Obama hasn't failed at anything. �His term isn't over and the book
>> > is far from being written on his presidency. �But yeah, the debt
>> > ceiling will be raised, the Repugnants will blink on that. �They
>> > know they have no choice, but in the meantime they'll keep
>> > posturing and blow hot hair to try to make themselves look good in
>> > the eyes of ... �well
> ,
>> > someone. �Maybe look good in their own eyes?
>>
>> None of what you say refutes the claim that Obama is spending us into
>> bankruptcy.
>
> Not voluntarily. About a quarter of each year's budget goes to
> servicing the debt. Bush's debt.
The percentage of budget to service the debt is currently between 7 and
8%. Medicare/MedicaidSocial Security is 55% smd defense is about 20%.
Doesn't leave much for discretionary spending does it.
About $400 billion a year now.
> Nice going, Georgie. That's already double the annual interest of
> what it was in 1988.
>
> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Yep, but not all of it was on his watch. We have had debt for decades
and it hasn't gone down since 1951.
Scout
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:e51cdb7b-ec34-400d...@o4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
What a stupid idiot you are. Bush wasn't even running for reelection. He
couldn't. So that change would have occurred no matter who was elected. So
we can't credit Obama with that.
>> >> The government is bankrupt because of social programs and rampant
>> >> spending.
>>
>> > The government has been bankrupt since Reagan, when he began raiding
>> > Social Security to build up the military while borrowing money from
>> > other countries at the same time. It's what they called Voodoo
>> > Economics, and it sure put a bad spell on the US to this day.
>>
>> >> Let me ask this: Where's the change we can believe in? All I'm seeing
>> >> is: excuses, excuses, excuses.
>>
>> > Change can only happen if Repugnants get out of the way.
>>
>> They were out of the way, entirely, for the first two years. I didn't
>> see any change.
>
> http://obamaachievements.org/list
Hardly an unbiased source, but let's play with it.
"Increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to the
highest level since 1992"
Can you say Higher deficits and more debt?
"Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010"
So he "restored" his own legislation? Wow, what an achievement.
"Played a lead role in G-20 Summit re: financial crisis"
Yep, by showing how he could increase our financial crisis by massive debt
generation.
"Created task force to fight deficit"
Then ran up the largest deficits in US history. Looks like his task force
wasn't up to controlling Obama's spending.
You know, I'm looking through here and I really don't see anything of
significance other than a lot of spending and Obamacare. The rest is
basically fluff.
> Just because you don't see it doesn't mean nothing happened. Maybe
> you simply didn't want to see it - too much FOX News viewing, I guess.
>
>> Also, when Democrats are in control, all they do is ramp up their
>> socialist agenda and cause even more problems, and then blame it on
>> Republicans/Bush, ref. the housing crisis.
>>
>> Look, Obama promised change. There hasn't been any change, and it
>> doesn't matter how much you blame the Republicans.
>
> The pretty chart says otherwise:
>
> http://media.nowpublic.net/images//a0/b/a0bc2cc9c25ec726ed7135ae5a0932fe.jpg
And then you have Obama who wipes all of that out.
Generating more Debt than Bush and doing so in 1/2 the time. That's quite an
impressive achievement.
wy
Before going straight up in 1981 at double the pace of the previous 6
years. Reagan Revolution and Voodoo Economics, you know. It finally
began to level off during Clinton, but oops, here we go with Baby Bush
again and his amBushwhacking of America as he resumed the steep upward
climb, picking up where his dad left off 8 years earlier.
wy
What's the budget? $1.6 trillion. What's the interest on the debt?
$400 billion. That adds up to a quarter to me. The Treasury Dept.,
too. For this fiscal year, it's already at $275.3 billion.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Don't you just love being amBushwhacked?
Scout
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:9beab4ad-f72a-4564...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
BULLSHIT.
Scout
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:itrf0t$4jh$1...@dont-email.me...
Simple, Yoorghis wants it and someone else is getting it.
Scout
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:c9c68459-34c4-407b...@b3g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 21, 8:50 pm, "Scout"
> It wouldn't've changed one bit if McCain and Palin had been elected.
On the contrary, it would have still be another term without Bush.
Oh, and seems to me that Obama is proving himself to be more "Bush" than
Bush was.
More spending, more deficits, more debt, more wars, more unemployment, more
destruction of the economy.
Hell, what's left that you complain about Bush doing that Obama isn't doing
bigger, faster, or more of?
> You're not loooking hard enough, not that you'd have to look that hard
> to begin with. But then, that's to be expected with your ilk. Just
> pick the easy targets that you feel comfortable belittling.
Then you should have no problems picking out 5 significant examples of
absolutely amazing achievements.
So let's see them.
>> > Just because you don't see it doesn't mean nothing happened. Maybe
>> > you simply didn't want to see it - too much FOX News viewing, I guess.
>>
>> >> Also, when Democrats are in control, all they do is ramp up their
>> >> socialist agenda and cause even more problems, and then blame it on
>> >> Republicans/Bush, ref. the housing crisis.
>>
>> >> Look, Obama promised change. There hasn't been any change, and it
>> >> doesn't matter how much you blame the Republicans.
>>
>> > The pretty chart says otherwise:
>>
>> >http://media.nowpublic.net/images//a0/b/a0bc2cc9c25ec726ed7135ae5a093...
>>
>> And then you have Obama who wipes all of that out.
>
> Thanks to Bush who made it possible.
Nope, Bush didn't sign that spending legislation Obama did.
> It's the Bush domino effect,
> don't you know?
Oh, so we can credit Bush sr for all the wonderful things that happened
under Clinton, and naturally that makes Clinton responsible for everything
that happened under Bush jr.
> He played with matches and didn't cause a brush fire
> but a total forest fire, and it's still spreading.
And Obama is sitting there throwing gasoline on it.
>> Generating more Debt than Bush and doing so in 1/2 the time. That's quite
>> an
>> impressive achievement.
>
> Bush increased the debt by 200%.
Yep, Bush increased the debt by 4.7 Trillion
> Obama so far has increased it by
> only 40%,
Only because Obama started with a big debt, but already he's spend 3/4 of
what Bush did in just over 2 years and his own projections show that he will
add more to the debt than Bush did and do so in half the time or less.
Oh, and I note how you attempted to mislead and misinform people by posting
percentages rather than actual debt created.
> a quarter of that needed to pay off the interest on Bush's
> debt.
Bullshit. You really need to check your facts on this.
> You were saying with your feeble math?
That I know the facts better than you.
And your "creative" math doesn't alter the truth of my statements one bit.
Scout
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:e39a9bdb-687f-4e28...@p6g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Booming economy. Maybe the Voodoo economics actually worked though it took
some time?
Interesting how despite the massive increasing in revenue Clinton managed to
increase the amount of government spending in order to avoid not running up
the debt.
> but oops, here we go with Baby Bush
> again and his amBushwhacking of America as he resumed the steep upward
> climb, picking up where his dad left off 8 years earlier.
>
> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
Yep, and I notice your graph doesn't consider Obama. Why is that?
>
wy
It wouldn't've changed one bit if McCain and Palin had been elected.
>
You're not loooking hard enough, not that you'd have to look that hard
to begin with. But then, that's to be expected with your ilk. Just
pick the easy targets that you feel comfortable belittling.
>
> > Just because you don't see it doesn't mean nothing happened. Â Maybe
> > you simply didn't want to see it - too much FOX News viewing, I guess.
>
> >> Also, when Democrats are in control, all they do is ramp up their
> >> socialist agenda and cause even more problems, and then blame it on
> >> Republicans/Bush, ref. the housing crisis.
>
> >> Look, Obama promised change. Â There hasn't been any change, and it
> >> doesn't matter how much you blame the Republicans.
>
> > The pretty chart says otherwise:
>
> >http://media.nowpublic.net/images//a0/b/a0bc2cc9c25ec726ed7135ae5a093...
>
> And then you have Obama who wipes all of that out.
Thanks to Bush who made it possible. It's the Bush domino effect,
don't you know? He played with matches and didn't cause a brush fire
but a total forest fire, and it's still spreading.
>
> Generating more Debt than Bush and doing so in 1/2 the time. That's quite an
> impressive achievement.
Bush increased the debt by 200%. Obama so far has increased it by
only 40%, a quarter of that needed to pay off the interest on Bush's
debt. You were saying with your feeble math?
Scout
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:2c45cf55-9930-4a63...@o4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
I wish the budget were only $1.6 Trillion, actually our deficit for this
year is nearly what you claim the budget to be.
For your information the budget for FY2011 was $3.8 Trillion dollars with a
projected deficit of $1.5 Trillion
If you don't know the budget then you can hardly figure the percentage of
the budget the interest is.
> What's the interest on the debt?
> $400 billion. That adds up to a quarter to me.
Only because you're a dumb ass that pulls figures out of your ass rather
than checking the facts.
Oh, and the budget for FY2010 was $3.55 Trillion, and the year before that
was $3.1 Trillion and the year before that was $2.9 Trillion.
In fact, I don't think we've had a budget that low since 2001.
Congrats wy your guess is only about a decade out of date, and over $2
Trillion dollars off, for you that must be like hitting a bull's-eye.
So I stand by my statement.
BULLSHIT.
Your claim was and is BULLSHIT.
Maybe if you didn't pull numbers out of your ass you might have more luck,
but I suppose that's asking to much of you.
Scout
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:7sk207d1je2fh25n1...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:54:05 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>The percentage of budget to service the debt is currently between 7 and
>>8%. Medicare/MedicaidSocial Security is 55% smd defense is about 20%.
>>Doesn't leave much for discretionary spending does it.
>
> Not when revenues are decimated, and you add 80% of the $15 Trillion
> to it, you halfwit.
Really? 80% of the $15 Trillion is interest?
Got any numbers to back that up fruitcup?
Scout
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:lqk207tn3mvni1gjt...@4ax.com...
> You stupid fuckwit
>
> It's YOU that's giving it to them
yea, and like I said you want it instead.
Oh the immorality of you not getting what you haven't earned.....
Peter Franks
Sure, but that doesn't answer the question.
wy
Palin would've been the proxy Bush. No change.
>
> Oh, and seems to me that Obama is proving himself to be more "Bush" than
> Bush was.
"Seems" - that's just wishful thinking. It's not rooted in any
reality.
>
> More spending, more deficits, more debt, more wars, more unemployment, more
> destruction of the economy.
That's what Bush was all about - more. And he simply made sure you
had more of more even after he left. Crafty little S.O.B., ain't he?
>
> Hell, what's left that you complain about Bush doing that Obama isn't doing
> bigger, faster, or more of?
Bush cut a jugular vein, so Obama has to do bigger, faster and more of
to stop the uncontrolled bleeding and not let the patient die.
It's on the list. I know how tough it is for you to go through it all
and be dazzled, if not blinded, by all the accomplishments, but give
it a shot.
>
> >> > Just because you don't see it doesn't mean nothing happened. Â Maybe
> >> > you simply didn't want to see it - too much FOX News viewing, I guess.
>
> >> >> Also, when Democrats are in control, all they do is ramp up their
> >> >> socialist agenda and cause even more problems, and then blame it on
> >> >> Republicans/Bush, ref. the housing crisis.
>
> >> >> Look, Obama promised change. Â There hasn't been any change, and it
> >> >> doesn't matter how much you blame the Republicans.
>
> >> > The pretty chart says otherwise:
>
> >> >http://media.nowpublic.net/images//a0/b/a0bc2cc9c25ec726ed7135ae5a093...
>
> >> And then you have Obama who wipes all of that out.
>
> > Thanks to Bush who made it possible.
>
> Nope, Bush didn't sign that spending legislation Obama did.
Who knows what spending legislation you're hallucinating about.
>
> > Â It's the Bush domino effect,
> > don't you know?
>
> Oh, so we can credit Bush sr for all the wonderful things that happened
> under Clinton, and naturally that makes Clinton responsible for everything
> that happened under Bush jr.
No. You can credit Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconcilation Act of
1993, his blueprint of how to tackle the economy during his term in
office. Hey, it kind of worked, too. In fact, it worked so well, one
can only imagine where you'd be today if Clinton were still in office
for another decade and still stuck with his OBR Act and Bush was just
someone else's bad nightmare. Hmm, where would you have been today?
Oh, no, I feel a time travel spell coming on ......
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Fri_Dec_29_151111_2000.html
>
> > Â He played with matches and didn't cause a brush fire
> > but a total forest fire, and it's still spreading.
>
> And Obama is sitting there throwing gasoline on it.
Gasoline and water look the same. It's water. But I know how you can
be confused by it being gasoline. It's all the fumes trapped in your
brain.
>
> >> Generating more Debt than Bush and doing so in 1/2 the time. That's quite
> >> an
> >> impressive achievement.
>
> > Bush increased the debt by 200%.
>
> Yep, Bush increased the debt by 4.7 Trillion
>
> > Obama so far has increased it by
> > only 40%,
>
> Only because Obama started with a big debt, but already he's spend 3/4 of
> what Bush did in just over 2 years and his own projections show that he will
> add more to the debt than Bush did and do so in half the time or less.
It's not how much he spent, it's the rate that counts. And the rate
has him at only 40%. Which means at the current rate, in 2 1/2 years
he'll be at 80% and 2 1/2 years after that at 120%. Throw in the last
six months of an 8-year term and he will have only added 144% over
Bush's $10 trillion. That may add up to $24 trillion, but at least it
won't be an increase of another 200% - the rate of increase will have
been slowed by 56 percentage points. So, yeah, Obama is doing better,
interest payments on the debt included.
>
> Oh, and I note how you attempted to mislead and misinform people by posting
> percentages rather than actual debt created.
>
> > a quarter of that needed to pay off the interest on Bush's
> > debt.
>
> Bullshit. You really need to check your facts on this.
Didn't I already post this for you and you still decided to ignore it?
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
>
> > You were saying with your feeble math?
>
> That I know the facts better than you.
You haven't come up with any.
>
> And your "creative" math doesn't alter the truth of my statements one bit.
But you haven't proved your statements to be true, so they possibly
can't be. Sorry to burst your bubble like that.
wy
No, it didn't work. What worked was increasing taxes three times and
the Tax Reform Act of 1986 with its hideous redefinition of the AMT
designed to rip off more money from the small people.
>
> Interesting how despite the massive increasing in revenue Clinton managed to
> increase the amount of government spending in order to avoid not running up
> the debt.
Well, whatever the trick was, all the data has his economy overall as
having performed the best since the 60s, back in those good old days
of Democrat domination and under 4% unemployment.
>
> > but oops, here we go with Baby Bush
> > again and his amBushwhacking of America as he resumed the steep upward
> > climb, picking up where his dad left off 8 years earlier.
>
> >http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
>
> Yep, and I notice your graph doesn't consider Obama. Why is that?
Feel free to scrounge around for a more recent one.
wy
I wasn't including the deficit in the budget. The deficit is added to
the debt.
>
> If you don't know the budget then you can hardly figure the percentage of
> the budget the interest is.
>
> Â > What's the interest on the debt?
>
> > $400 billion. Â That adds up to a quarter to me.
>
> Only because you're a dumb ass that pulls figures out of your ass rather
> than checking the facts.
>
> Oh, and the budget for FY2010 was $3.55 Trillion, and the year before that
> was $3.1 Trillion and the year before that was $2.9 Trillion.
The deficit is not part of the budget, it becomes part of the debt.
This is the budget:
http://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/budget-details.png
>
> In fact, I don't think we've had a budget that low since 2001.
Of course it was lower, you're just not going far back enough.
>
> Congrats wy your guess is only about a decade out of date, and over $2
> Trillion dollars off, for you that must be like hitting a bull's-eye.
>
> So I stand by my statement.
Stupid statement. But to be expected you'd stand by it.
>
> BULLSHIT.
>
> Your claim was and is BULLSHIT.
>
> Maybe if you didn't pull numbers out of your ass you might have more luck,
> but I suppose that's asking to much of you.
It's "too" much, not "to" much.
Winston_Smith
>On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:23:48 -0400, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> Let's face it. Bush and Obama are both big spending, deficit
>>> doubling, war mongering borrow-and-spend liberals.
>>>
>>
>>As are most federal and state politicians.
>
>Difference is:
>
>One party spends it on the wealth class
>
>The other spends it on people.
The bankers and wall street. That's your "people".
DogDiesel
>
> The government is bankrupt because of social programs and rampant
> spending.
The government has been bankrupt since Reagan, when he began raiding
Social Security to build up the military while borrowing money from
other countries at the same time. It's what they called Voodoo
Economics, and it sure put a bad spell on the US to this day.
>
> Let me ask this: Where's the change we can believe in? All I'm seeing
> is: excuses, excuses, excuses.
Change can only happen if Repugnants get out of the way.
The change you want. Isn't the change America wants.
DogDiesel
You didnt count the 13 trillion for obama care that hant been counted yet.,
Scout
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:2f79a89a-5f65-45cf...@u30g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
So now you are refuting yourself at telling us the prior President isn't
responsible for what occurs.
I will simply note your double standard and hypocrisy
Scout
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:onn207h4cs61bme5g...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:47:14 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Doesn't leave much for discretionary spending does it.
>>>
>>> Not when revenues are decimated, and you add 80% of the $15 Trillion
>>> to it, you halfwit.
>>
>>Really? 80% of the $15 Trillion is interest?
>
> 80%+ of the National debt was your fuckwit republicans, idiotboy
Actually according to a detailed analysis only a bit less than 50% is the
result of Republicans, and a bit over 50% is the result of Democrats.
Would you care for the spreadsheet showing the analysis going back to the
Founding of our nation?
Scout
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:c9be9972-5b9f-46cd...@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, but the budget includes the deficit. Otherwise you wouldn't have a
budget deficit. Dumbass.
>> If you don't know the budget then you can hardly figure the percentage of
>> the budget the interest is.
>>
>> > What's the interest on the debt?
>>
>> > $400 billion. That adds up to a quarter to me.
>>
>> Only because you're a dumb ass that pulls figures out of your ass rather
>> than checking the facts.
>>
>> Oh, and the budget for FY2010 was $3.55 Trillion, and the year before
>> that
>> was $3.1 Trillion and the year before that was $2.9 Trillion.
>
> The deficit is not part of the budget, it becomes part of the debt.
Then explain how we have a $3.8 Trillion dollar budget for FY2011 if the
deficit isn't part of the budget?
Sorry, but trying to redefine the terms just illustrates your continued
ignorance of the facts.
> This is the budget:
>
> http://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/budget-details.png
Hardly, as it is incomplete.
This is the actual budget.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget.pdf
Pay particular attention to
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/summary.pdf
Look under 2011 and Outlays. That is the budget, some $3.8 Trillion dollars.
>> In fact, I don't think we've had a budget that low since 2001.
>
> Of course it was lower, you're just not going far back enough.
So you're telling me your guess is even further out of date than I stated?
Ok, if you wish to tell me your guess was even more inaccurate, I won't
contest it.
>> Congrats wy your guess is only about a decade out of date, and over $2
>> Trillion dollars off, for you that must be like hitting a bull's-eye.
>>
>> So I stand by my statement.
>
> Stupid statement. But to be expected you'd stand by it.
And yet, it presents facts you can't refute.
>> BULLSHIT.
>>
>> Your claim was and is BULLSHIT.
>>
>> Maybe if you didn't pull numbers out of your ass you might have more
>> luck,
>> but I suppose that's asking to much of you.
>
> It's "too" much, not "to" much.
Oh, gee a SPELLING flame, that certainly is significant next to your failure
to know the current budget much less the fact that any deficits are part of
the budget and hence the term "budget deficit".
Scout
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:e8c4b53b-ac3a-4e24...@e7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
And Obama is a proxy Bush with the only change being to do more of the
things you claim you didn't like about Bush.
>> Oh, and seems to me that Obama is proving himself to be more "Bush" than
>> Bush was.
>
> "Seems" - that's just wishful thinking. It's not rooted in any
> reality.
Your reality naturally having next to nothing to do with the reality of
everyone else.
>> More spending, more deficits, more debt, more wars, more unemployment,
>> more
>> destruction of the economy.
>
> That's what Bush was all about - more. And he simply made sure you
> had more of more even after he left. Crafty little S.O.B., ain't he?
And isn't it great to see Obama carrying on with what Bush was all about?
>> Hell, what's left that you complain about Bush doing that Obama isn't
>> doing
>> bigger, faster, or more of?
>
> Bush cut a jugular vein, so Obama has to do bigger, faster and more of
> to stop the uncontrolled bleeding and not let the patient die.
Right, Bush cuts the jugular so Obama cuts the Aorta, and the patient is now
losing blood twice as fast.
What's next, where Obama stabs the patient in the heart?
IOW, you can't find them either.
>> >> > Just because you don't see it doesn't mean nothing happened. Maybe
>> >> > you simply didn't want to see it - too much FOX News viewing, I
>> >> > guess.
>>
>> >> >> Also, when Democrats are in control, all they do is ramp up their
>> >> >> socialist agenda and cause even more problems, and then blame it on
>> >> >> Republicans/Bush, ref. the housing crisis.
>>
>> >> >> Look, Obama promised change. There hasn't been any change, and it
>> >> >> doesn't matter how much you blame the Republicans.
>>
>> >> > The pretty chart says otherwise:
>>
>> >> >http://media.nowpublic.net/images//a0/b/a0bc2cc9c25ec726ed7135ae5a093...
>>
>> >> And then you have Obama who wipes all of that out.
>>
>> > Thanks to Bush who made it possible.
>>
>> Nope, Bush didn't sign that spending legislation Obama did.
>
> Who knows what spending legislation you're hallucinating about.
The spending Obama signed that you blame Bush for.
>> > It's the Bush domino effect,
>> > don't you know?
>>
>> Oh, so we can credit Bush sr for all the wonderful things that happened
>> under Clinton, and naturally that makes Clinton responsible for
>> everything
>> that happened under Bush jr.
>
> No.
Oh, so we can't blame Bush for what's happening under Obama then?
Ok, I can work with that too, just as long as you're being consistent we're
good.
Scout
"DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:itska5$9ql$1...@dogdiesel.eternal-september.org...
So according to you if McCain were elected then Bush would have been sworn
in as President for a 3rd term?
You must be a graduate of our current public school system.
wy
No, that's what you're saying, not what I'm saying at all. Nice to
know you like to imagine what I say, though.
wy
Counting money that hasn't been spent yet is a pointless exercise in
futility and adds up to nothing.
RD Sandman
> On 6/21/2011 4:28 PM, wy wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 7:02 pm, Peter Franks<n...@none.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2011 2:17 PM, wy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 21, 4:56 pm, Peter Franks<n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2011 1:44 PM, wy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 21, 3:54 pm, Peter Franks<n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2011 12:35 PM, wy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 17, 8:59 am, Peter Franks<n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2011 4:42 AM, Piggy Bank Empty wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/16/news/economy/debt_ceiling_dead
>>>>>>>>>> li ne/
>>>>>>> The government is bankrupt because of social programs and
>>>>>>> rampant spending.
>>>
>>>>>> The government has been bankrupt since Reagan, when he began
>>>>>> raiding Social Security to build up the military while borrowing
>>>>>> money from other countries at the same time. It's what they
>>>>>> called Voodoo Economics, and it sure put a bad spell on the US to
>>>>>> this day.
>>>
>>>>>>> Let me ask this: Where's the change we can believe in? All I'm
>>>>>>> seeing is: excuses, excuses, excuses.
>>>
>>>>>> Change can only happen if Repugnants get out of the way.
>>>
>>>>> They were out of the way, entirely, for the first two years. I
>>>>> didn't see any change.
>>>
>>>> http://obamaachievements.org/list
>>>
>>>> Just because you don't see it doesn't mean nothing happened. Maybe
>>>> you simply didn't want to see it - too much FOX News viewing, I
>>>> guess.
>>>
>>>>> Also, when Democrats are in control, all they do is ramp up their
>>>>> socialist agenda and cause even more problems, and then blame it
>>>>> on Republicans/Bush, ref. the housing crisis.
>>>
>>>>> Look, Obama promised change. There hasn't been any change, and it
>>>>> doesn't matter how much you blame the Republicans.
>>>
>>>> The pretty chart says otherwise:
>>>
>>>> http://media.nowpublic.net/images//a0/b/a0bc2cc9c25ec726ed7135ae5a09
>>>> 3...
>>>
>>>>> No change. Obama/Democrats have just continued to spend, spend,
>>>>> spend.
>>>>> There's no change left, it has ALL been spent.
>>>
>>>> It can be turned around, but Repugnants refuse to turn it around.
>>>> The country was in deep ka-ka in the early 50s, but increased taxes
>>>> on the wealthy helped pull it out of that ka-ka. Things gradually
>>>> improved to create a robust Golden Age middle class economy, so
>>>> much so that by the end of Johnson's term, even with a Viet Nam War
>>>> going on, the country was in tip-top fiscal shape and unemployment
>>>> was under 4% for his last 3 years in office. Under 4%. Like down
>>>> to 3.5% - 3 years. But that can only happen if the rich chip in and
>>>> the Repugnants have no interest in seeing them part with their
>>>> millions and billions.
>>>
>>>>> Obama is a failure by any metric. The country is bankrupt, the
>>>>> debt ceiling will be raised once again, and to what end?
>>>
>>>> Obama hasn't failed at anything. His term isn't over and the book
>>>> is far from being written on his presidency. But yeah, the debt
>>>> ceiling will be raised, the Repugnants will blink on that. They
>>>> know they have no choice, but in the meantime they'll keep
>>>> posturing and blow hot hair to try to make themselves look good in
>>>> the eyes of ... well, someone. Maybe look good in their own eyes?
>>>
>>> None of what you say refutes the claim that Obama is spending us
>>> into bankruptcy.
>>
>> Not voluntarily. About a quarter of each year's budget goes to
>> servicing the debt. Bush's debt. About $400 billion a year now.
>> Nice going, Georgie. That's already double the annual interest of
>> what it was in 1988.
>>
>> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
>>
>
> OK, so we agree: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
He's also wrong on the numbers.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill
and a laxative on the same night.
RD Sandman
news:e39a9bdb-687f-4e28...@p6g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 21, 8:54�pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>> wy <w...@myself.com> wrote
>> innews:9beab4ad-f72a-4564-a88b-becaa143ff53@m1
> 8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>> The percentage of budget to service the debt is currently between 7
>> and 8%. �Medicare/MedicaidSocial Security is 55% smd defense is about
>> 20%. Doesn't leave much for discretionary spending does it.
>>
>> �About $400 billion a year now.
>>
>> > Nice going, Georgie. �That's already double the annual interest of
>> > what it was in 1988.
>>
>> >http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
>>
>> Yep, but not all of it was on his watch. �We have had debt for
>> decades and it hasn't gone down since 1951.
>
> Before going straight up in 1981 at double the pace of the previous 6
> years. Reagan Revolution and Voodoo Economics, you know. It finally
> began to level off during Clinton,
No, it didn't. It still increased under Clinton. His surpluses were
only *budget* surpluses, not overall ones.
but oops, here we go with Baby Bush
> again and his amBushwhacking of America as he resumed the steep upward
> climb, picking up where his dad left off 8 years earlier.
>
> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
Why don't you use government sources? Just asking....
RD Sandman
news:2c45cf55-9930-4a63...@o4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 21, 9:24�pm, "Scout"
> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> "wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9beab4ad-f72a-4564...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com
>> ...
> �You
>> >> >>>>> know, all of the stuff that added $5 trillion to the debt in
>> >> >>>>> 8 years,
>> >> >>>>> effectively doubling it to $10 trillion? �That's not an easy
>> >> >>>>> a
> mount
>> >> >>>>> to
>> >> >>>>> correct quickly, no matter who'd be in charge.
>>
>> >> >>>> I guess you didn't get the news: Obama won the election and
>> >> >>>> has b
> een
>> >> >>>> president for years.
>>
>> >> >>> I guess you slept through the news: Bush handed him a $10
>> >> >>> trillion debt inauguration gift. �At least a trillion of
>> >> >>> Obama's $4.5 tri
> llion
>> >> >>> debt since then has been for interest payments for Bush's
>> >> >>> debt.
> �Bush
>> >> >>> - his debt just keeps on growing without him.
>>
>> >> >> So, what exactly was the "change I can believe in" supposed to
>> >> >> be? Because all you are giving is excuses...
>>
>> >> > A change away from another term with Bush was change enough.
>>
>> >> >>>> The government is bankrupt because of social programs and
>> >> >>>> rampant spending.
>>
>> >> >>> The government has been bankrupt since Reagan, when he began
>> >> >>> raidi
> ng
>> >> >>> Social Security to build up the military while borrowing money
>> >> >>> fro
> m
>> >> >>> other countries at the same time. �It's what they called
>> >> >>> Voodoo Economics, and it sure put a bad spell on the US to
>> >> >>> this day.
>>
>> >> >>>> Let me ask this: Where's the change we can believe in? �All
>> >> >>>> I'm seeing
>> >> >>>> is: excuses, excuses, excuses.
>>
>> >> >>> Change can only happen if Repugnants get out of the way.
>>
>> >> >> They were out of the way, entirely, for the first two years. �I
>> >> >> d
> idn't
>> >> >> see any change.
>>
>> >> >http://obamaachievements.org/list
>>
>> >> > Just because you don't see it doesn't mean nothing happened.
>> >> > �Mayb
> e
>> >> > you simply didn't want to see it - too much FOX News viewing, I
>> >> > gues
> s.
>>
>> >> >> Also, when Democrats are in control, all they do is ramp up
>> >> >> their socialist agenda and cause even more problems, and then
>> >> >> blame it on Republicans/Bush, ref. the housing crisis.
>>
>> >> >> Look, Obama promised change. �There hasn't been any change, and
>> >> >> i
> t
>> >> >> doesn't matter how much you blame the Republicans.
>>
>> >> > The pretty chart says otherwise:
>>
>> >> >http://media.nowpublic.net/images//a0/b/a0bc2cc9c25ec726ed7135ae5a
>> >> >093
> ...
>>
>> >> >> No change. �Obama/Democrats have just continued to spend,
>> >> >> spend, spend.
>> >> >> � �There's no change left, it has ALL been spent.
>>
>> >> > It can be turned around, but Repugnants refuse to turn it
>> >> > around.
> �The
>> >> > country was in deep ka-ka in the early 50s, but increased taxes
>> >> > on t
> he
>> >> > wealthy helped pull it out of that ka-ka. �Things gradually
>> >> > improv
> ed
>> >> > to create a robust Golden Age middle class economy, so much so
>> >> > that
> by
>> >> > the end of Johnson's term, even with a Viet Nam War going on,
>> >> > the country was in tip-top fiscal shape and unemployment was
>> >> > under 4% fo
> r
>> >> > his last 3 years in office. �Under 4%. �Like down to 3.5% - 3 ye
> ars.
>> >> > But that can only happen if the rich chip in and the Repugnants
>> >> > have no interest in seeing them part with their millions and
>> >> > billions.
>>
>> >> >> Obama is a failure by any metric. �The country is bankrupt, the
>> >> >> d
> ebt
>> >> >> ceiling will be raised once again, and to what end?
>>
>> >> > Obama hasn't failed at anything. �His term isn't over and the
>> >> > book
> is
>> >> > far from being written on his presidency. �But yeah, the debt
>> >> > ceil
> ing
>> >> > will be raised, the Repugnants will blink on that. �They know
>> >> > they have no choice, but in the meantime they'll keep posturing
>> >> > and blow hot hair to try to make themselves look good in the
>> >> > eyes of ... �w
> ell,
>> >> > someone. �Maybe look good in their own eyes?
>>
>> >> None of what you say refutes the claim that Obama is spending us
>> >> into bankruptcy.
>>
>> > Not voluntarily. �About a quarter of each year's budget goes to
>> > servicing the debt.
>>
>> BULLSHIT.
>
> What's the budget? $1.6 trillion.
The estimated outlay for 2011 is $3.8T and the amount for debt service is
$207B.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_gs.php
Do you think we have dueling websites?
Of course, for 2011, we really don't have any budget, just quesstimates.
What's the interest on the debt?
> $400 billion. That adds up to a quarter to me. The Treasury Dept.,
> too. For this fiscal year, it's already at $275.3 billion.
>
> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
>
> Don't you just love being amBushwhacked?
Jeff M
>> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
>
> Why don't you use government sources? Just asking....
I'd imagine that, to get an adequate grasp of the big picture, you'd
need to look at both official and a variety of credible not-too-partisan
outside sources.
Peter Franks
He/she/it is wrong on a lot of things, but at least he/she/it has
admitted that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
wy
$207 billion isn't right. Already for this fiscal year it's reached
$275.3 billion with still 4 more months to tally.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Unless you mean 2011 as referring to 2011-12, in which case if the
debt service is estimated to be $207 billion, then that can only mean
it's getting much better. The last time it was $207 billion was back
in the 80s. But I still don't think it's right.
Peter Franks
> wrote:
>
>>> He's also wrong on the numbers.
>>
>> He/she/it is wrong on a lot of things, but at least he/she/it has
>> admitted that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Yep. Looks like we all agree: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
Scout
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:hi6407hg9fsb8bakt...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:23:33 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Actually according to a detailed analysis only a bit less than 50% is the
>>result of Republicans, and a bit over 50% is the result of Democrats.
>
> Carter handed Reagan a $900 billion debt
>
> Thru Reagan to Bush--The debt grew to $14 Trillion
BULLSHIT.
Yet another lie from Yoorghis.
Free hint for the dumb ass lying idiot Yoorghis, when Obama was inaugurated
the debt stood at:
$10,626,877,048,913
The current debt after 2.4 years of Obama spending money like a drunken
sailor in a whore house with a credit card is:
$14,344,512,410,044
So what you are telling us that despite running record breaking deficits
Obama only added some $344 Billion to the debt.
BULLSHIT.
Try telling your lies somewhere else Yoorghis because you've got no
creditability here.
Scout
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:f8e37986-34ec-4cdb...@c20g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
Oh, then Bush isn't responsible for what is occurring under Obama?
Good to know that you blame Obama for what Obama is doing then rather than
trying to blame it all on Bush like other liberals.
wy
> On 6/22/2011 2:06 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:14:51 -0700, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> He's also wrong on the numbers.
>
> >> He/she/it is wrong on a lot of things, but at least he/she/it has
> >> admitted that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>
> >> ======================================================
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
>
> Yep. Â Looks like we all agree: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
You were bankrupt since Reagan doubled the debt to $2 trillion and
legitimized the looting of Social Security at the same time. If you
weren't, then Reagan would've had no need to loot SS.
wy
No, that's your own feel-good conclusion, not mine at all.
Scout
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:bd4436bc-4d30-476d...@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
So is it Bush's fault?
Scout
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:slg5075cmlmb6etfh...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:38:30 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> Thru Reagan to Bush--The debt grew to $14 Trillion
>>
>>BULLSHIT.
>
>
>
>>===============================================================
>
> The public debt on 9/30/1981 (Mr. Carter's last budget year) was
> $997,855,000,000.00.
>
> The public debt on 9/29/1989 (Mr. Reagan's last budget year) was
> $2,857,430,960,187.32.
>
> Mr. Reagan added $1,859,575,960,187.32 to the public debt.
>
> The public debt on 9/30/1993 (Mr. Bush's - the elder - last budget
> year) was $4,411,488,883,139.38.
>
> Mr. Bush added $1,554,057,922,952.06 to the public debt.
>
>
> The public debt on 9/30/2001 (Mr. Clinton's last budget year) was
> $5,807,463,412,200.06.
>
> Mr. Clinton added $1,395,974,529,060.68 to the public debt.
>
>
> The public debt on 9/30/2009 (Mr. Bush's last budget year) was
> $11,909,829,003,511.70.
>
> Mr. Bush added $6,102,365,591,311.64 to the public debt.
>
> The public debt on 3/3/2011 was $14,182,086,199,057.00.
I believe that 2011 is when Obama is in office, and quite some time after
Bush left office.
So looks like by your own numbers, your claim was BULLSHIT.
> Mr. Obama has added $2,272,257,195,545.30 to the public debt.
And another piece of BULLSHIT.
Obama has added over $3 Trillion dollars to the debt. Indeed it looks like
you are off by over a full $1 Trillion dollars.
I will just note that your claims are regularly BULLSHIT and not to be
trusted.
Scout
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:nkg507tt89ifu2q9a...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:47:22 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 6/22/2011 2:06 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:14:51 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> He's also wrong on the numbers.
>>>>
>>>> He/she/it is wrong on a lot of things, but at least he/she/it has
>>>> admitted that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>>>
>>>> ======================================================
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
>>
>>Yep. Looks like we all agree: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>
> So, among all your other feats of stupidity---you can't read either?
>
>
>
>
>>===============================================================
>
> The public debt on 9/30/1981 (Mr. Carter's last budget year) was
> $997,855,000,000.00.
>
> The public debt on 9/29/1989 (Mr. Reagan's last budget year) was
> $2,857,430,960,187.32.
>
> Mr. Reagan added $1,859,575,960,187.32 to the public debt.
>
> The public debt on 9/30/1993 (Mr. Bush's - the elder - last budget
> year) was $4,411,488,883,139.38.
>
> Mr. Bush added $1,554,057,922,952.06 to the public debt.
>
>
> The public debt on 9/30/2001 (Mr. Clinton's last budget year) was
> $5,807,463,412,200.06.
>
> Mr. Clinton added $1,395,974,529,060.68 to the public debt.
>
>
> The public debt on 9/30/2009 (Mr. Bush's last budget year) was
> $11,909,829,003,511.70.
>
> Mr. Bush added $6,102,365,591,311.64 to the public debt.
>
> The public debt on 3/3/2011 was $14,182,086,199,057.00.
>
> Mr. Obama has added $2,272,257,195,545.30 to the public debt.
>
> Of the $13.184 trillion dollar debt added since (and not including)
> Mr. Carter, the Republican administrations have added $9.516 trillion
> (72.2%) and the Democratic presidents have added $3.668 trillion
> (27.8%).
And of course, Congress had absolutely nothing to do with any of that,
right?
wy
Is what Bush's fault?
Peter Franks
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:47:22 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/22/2011 2:06 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:14:51 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> He's also wrong on the numbers.
>>>>
>>>> He/she/it is wrong on a lot of things, but at least he/she/it has
>>>> admitted that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>>>
>>>> ======================================================
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
>>
>> Yep. Looks like we all agree: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
> The public debt on 3/3/2011 was $14,182,086,199,057.00.
>
> Mr. Obama has added $2,272,257,195,545.30 to the public debt.
Right, just as I said: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
Peter Franks
Doesn't really matter, does it; Obama is president NOW and is spending
us into bankruptcy.
RD Sandman
_TnZ2dnUV...@giganews.com:
The problem is sorting out just what outside sources are not partisan to
one extent or the other.
RD Sandman
news:4f5febca-4912-4c91...@n28g2000vbs.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 22, 1:50�pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>> wy <w...@myself.com> wrote
>> innews:2c45cf55-9930-4a63-8409-74e839c0061f@o4
> g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Jun 21, 9:24 pm, "Scout"
>> > <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> >> "wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:9beab4ad-f72a-4564...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.c
>> >>om
>> >> ...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 21, 7:02 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On 6/21/2011 2:17 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Jun 21, 4:56 pm, Peter Franks<n...@none.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 6/21/2011 1:44 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>> On Jun 21, 3:54 pm, Peter Franks<n...@none.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> On 6/21/2011 12:35 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>> On May 17, 8:59 am, Peter Franks<n...@none.com> wrote
>> >:
>> >> >> >>>>>> On 5/17/2011 4:42 AM, Piggy Bank Empty wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/16/news/economy/debt_ceiling
>> >> >> >>>>>>>_de adl
>> >> >> >e5a 093
Which is why we have deficits.
> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
>
> Unless you mean 2011 as referring to 2011-12, in which case if the
> debt service is estimated to be $207 billion, then that can only mean
> it's getting much better. The last time it was $207 billion was back
> in the 80s.
The budgeted amount for debt service in 2009 was $187B or 5% of the
budget. Ever wonder why deficits pop up?
> But I still don't think it's right.
Keep in mind, it is a budget number, not reality.
RD Sandman
7f2925...@fr19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 22, 5:47�pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> On 6/22/2011 2:06 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:14:51 -0700, Peter Franks<n...@none.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>> He's also wrong on the numbers.
>>
>> >> He/she/it is wrong on a lot of things, but at least he/she/it has
>> >> admitted that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>>
>> >> =======================
> ==============================>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
>>
>> Yep. �Looks like we all agree: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>
> You were bankrupt since Reagan doubled the debt to $2 trillion and
> legitimized the looting of Social Security at the same time. If you
> weren't, then Reagan would've had no need to loot SS.
>
>
SS has been looted for decades and counted against the overall costs.
RD Sandman
news:bd4436bc-4d30-476d...@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>> >> So now you are refuting yourself at telling us the prior President
>> >> isn
> 't
>> >> responsible for what occurs.
>>
>> >> I will simply note your double standard and hypocrisy
>>
>> > No, that's what you're saying, not what I'm saying at all.
>>
>> Oh, then Bush isn't responsible for what is occurring under Obama?
>
> No, that's what you're saying, not what I'm saying at all.
>
>>
>> Good to know that you blame Obama for what Obama is doing then rather
>> tha
> n
>> trying to blame it all on Bush like other liberals.
>
> No, that's your own feel-good conclusion, not mine at all.
>
>
>
Just why do you hold Bush responsible for what happened under his watch
but don't hold Obama responsible for what has happened under his?
Jeff M
> Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:q6ydncxzAO9ao5
> _TnZ2dnUV...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 6/22/2011 12:33 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> wy<w...@myself.com> wrote in
>> [snip]
>>>> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
>>>
>>> Why don't you use government sources? Just asking....
>>
>> I'd imagine that, to get an adequate grasp of the big picture, you'd
>> need to look at both official and a variety of credible not-too-partisan
>> outside sources.
>>
>
> The problem is sorting out just what outside sources are not partisan to
> one extent or the other.
ALL sources are at least a little bit partisan, in that the authors will
have their own point of view and biases, if only unconscious ones, at
least.
Peter Franks
> asshole franks.
Right into bankruptcy.
Your numbers don't lie: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
RD Sandman
That's true, but nowhere near like the Daily Best, Daily Kos, Huffington
Post, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck.
Peter Franks
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:02:04 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Your numbers don't lie: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>
> of republican stupidity.
That stupidity continues.
> The numbers CLEARLY show that spending to stave off disaster is
> required.
Go into more debt to get out of debt? Hardly.
We are heading into bankruptcy, Obama is at the helm. Handcart, meet hell.
You can froth and foam all you want about Republicans, Bush, or whatever
group you have uncontrollable hatred for -- I don't really care. The
fact remains, Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
Dan
> On 6/21/2011 5:00 PM, Dan wrote:
>>>>>>>> years running now thanks to Repugnants' insistence, the two
>>>>>>>> needless
>>>>>>>> wars Bush started, and Bush's crashing of the economy in '08. You
>>>>>>>> know, all of the stuff that added $5 trillion to the debt in 8
>>>>>>>> years,
>>>>>>>> effectively doubling it to $10 trillion? That's not an easy
>>>>>>>> correct quickly, no matter who'd be in charge.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess you didn't get the news: Obama won the election and has been
>>>>>>> president for years.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you slept through the news: Bush handed him a $10 trillion
>>>>>> debt inauguration gift. At least a trillion of Obama's $4.5 trillion
>>>>>> debt since then has been for interest payments for Bush's debt. Bush
>>>>>> - his debt just keeps on growing without him.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what exactly was the "change I can believe in" supposed to be?
>>>>> Because all you are giving is excuses...
>>>>
>>>> A change away from another term with Bush was change enough.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The government is bankrupt because of social programs and rampant
>>>>>>> spending.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The government has been bankrupt since Reagan, when he began raiding
>>>>>> Social Security to build up the military while borrowing money from
>>>>>> other countries at the same time. It's what they called Voodoo
>>>>>> Economics, and it sure put a bad spell on the US to this day.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me ask this: Where's the change we can believe in? All I'm
>>>>>>> seeing
>>>>>>> is: excuses, excuses, excuses.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Change can only happen if Repugnants get out of the way.
>>>>>
>>>>> see any change.
>>>>
>>>> http://obamaachievements.org/list
>>>>
>>>> Just because you don't see it doesn't mean nothing happened. Maybe
>>>> you simply didn't want to see it - too much FOX News viewing, I guess.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, when Democrats are in control, all they do is ramp up their
>>>>> socialist agenda and cause even more problems, and then blame it on
>>>>> Republicans/Bush, ref. the housing crisis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look, Obama promised change. There hasn't been any change, and it
>>>>> doesn't matter how much you blame the Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> The pretty chart says otherwise:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No change. Obama/Democrats have just continued to spend, spend, spend.
>>>>> There's no change left, it has ALL been spent.
>>>>
>>>> It can be turned around, but Repugnants refuse to turn it around. The
>>>> country was in deep ka-ka in the early 50s, but increased taxes on the
>>>> wealthy helped pull it out of that ka-ka. Things gradually improved
>>>> to create a robust Golden Age middle class economy, so much so that by
>>>> the end of Johnson's term, even with a Viet Nam War going on, the
>>>> country was in tip-top fiscal shape and unemployment was under 4% for
>>>> his last 3 years in office. Under 4%. Like down to 3.5% - 3 years.
>>>> But that can only happen if the rich chip in and the Repugnants have
>>>> no interest in seeing them part with their millions and billions.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama is a failure by any metric. The country is bankrupt, the debt
>>>>> ceiling will be raised once again, and to what end?
>>>>
>>>> Obama hasn't failed at anything. His term isn't over and the book is
>>>> far from being written on his presidency. But yeah, the debt ceiling
>>>> will be raised, the Repugnants will blink on that. They know they
>>>> have no choice, but in the meantime they'll keep posturing and blow
>>>> hot hair to try to make themselves look good in the eyes of ... well,
>>>> someone. Maybe look good in their own eyes?
>>>
>>> bankruptcy.
>>
>> And none of what you say confirms the claim.
>
> "Confirmation" was in the original posting.
Not even close.
Dan
Peter Franks
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:43:53 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/23/2011 2:43 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:02:04 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your numbers don't lie: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>>>
>>> My numbers CLEARLY show that 80% of that $14 Trillion were the result
>>> of republican stupidity.
>>
>> That stupidity continues.
>>
>>> The numbers CLEARLY show that spending to stave off disaster is
>>> required.
>>
>> Go into more debt to get out of debt? Hardly.
>>
>> We are heading into bankruptcy, Obama is at the helm. Handcart, meet hell.
>>
>> You can froth and foam all you want about Republicans, Bush, or whatever
>> group you have uncontrollable hatred for -- I don't really care. The
>> fact remains, Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>
> those like you, that deliberately, out of your own racial hatred,
> twist the truth, as to who really destroyed the economy, that placed
> us on that path of bankruptcy.
Racial? Hardly.
Socialism destroyed the economy, as I've shown numerous times. But that
isn't what we are discussing now, is it. What we are discussing is that
Obama is spending us into bankruptcy. You may believe that spending
more imaginary $$ will somehow save us from your perception of a
disaster, I don't share that sentiment. But again, that isn't what we
are discussing now either, is it. What we are discussing is that Obama
is spending us into bankruptcy, that is, unless you can convince me that
he either isn't spending, or we aren't headed for bankruptcy.
Scout
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:hi6407hg9fsb8bakt...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:23:33 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Actually according to a detailed analysis only a bit less than 50% is the
>>result of Republicans, and a bit over 50% is the result of Democrats.
>
> Carter handed Reagan a $900 billion debt
>
> Thru Reagan to Bush--The debt grew to $14 Trillion
Let's just stop right here and call
BULLSHIT
Again
When Bush left office the debt stood at just over $10 Trillion dollars.
So once again we see that you lie, regularly, often and about the same
things.
Scout
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:jpi607lsqgimrnbr5...@4ax.com...
> Republican congress under Bush
And a Democrat congress under Bush.
However, I will note that you haven't answered the question.
Did Congress have anything to do with the debt?
Scout
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:itvn9h$nnn$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 6/22/2011 9:36 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:47:22 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/22/2011 2:06 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:14:51 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> He's also wrong on the numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> He/she/it is wrong on a lot of things, but at least he/she/it has
>>>>> admitted that Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>>>>
>>>>> ======================================================
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
>>>
>>> Yep. Looks like we all agree: Obama is spending us into bankruptcy.
>
>> The public debt on 3/3/2011 was $14,182,086,199,057.00.
And isn't it amazing how you claimed when Bush left office it was $14
Trillion
>> Mr. Obama has added $2,272,257,195,545.30 to the public debt.
So why isn't the debt $16 Trillion then?
I mean $14 Trillion + $2 Trillion = $16 Trillion
Looks to me like your numbers are off, WAY off.
Oh, and Obama has added some $3.4 Trillion to the debt.
Scout
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:fj670792u24p2vf73...@4ax.com...
> He spent the fucking money to keep us from total collapse you dumb
> asshole franks.
Great, then Bush can be said to have spent it for the same reason given all
the recessions and bubble collapses he had to deal with.
I mean fair's, fair, right?