It would be interesting to see our liberal friends try to explain how Obama's economic agenda differs in any substantial way from that of G. W. Bush.
Just take a look at the last four years: Rapid increases in government spending on phony "stimulus" packages and all sorts of other payoffs to favored constituencies, massive "corporate welfare", unpaid-for tax cuts and entitlement expansions, a complete failure to effectively reform and regulate the financial sector, crony capitalism run amok, etc.
Does anyone seriously believe that Obama has made something remotely resembling a serious attemt to fix anything?
- Texas Contrarian
- 08-09-2012, 03:47 PM
- Whirlaway
- 08-09-2012, 03:54 PM
Here is a small step start: Stop paying billions of dollars to illegals who fraudulatenly file for refunds with the IRS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And fire the IRS administrators who managed the payments.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...nder-program-/
And fire the IRS administrators who managed the payments.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...nder-program-/
- CuteOldGuy
- 08-09-2012, 03:55 PM
Now we're talking, CBJ7. Your latent fear of being homosexual yourself is coming out. Why don't you and WDF get together, say "homo" and giggle.
- CJ7
- 08-09-2012, 04:02 PM
It would be interesting to see our liberal friends try to explain how Obama's economic agenda differs in any substantial way from that of G. W. Bush.
Just take a look at the last four years: Rapid increases in government spending on phony "stimulus" packages and all sorts of other payoffs to favored constituencies, massive "corporate welfare", unpaid-for tax cuts and entitlement expansions, a complete failure to effectively reform and regulate the financial sector, crony capitalism run amok, etc.
Does anyone seriously believe that Obama has made something remotely resembling a serious attemt to fix anything? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
well I suppose we can take a look at this and deduct one of the last 4 years from the record then compare .. and I'll post that next.
- Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
- President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
- Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
- On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”
- CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
- Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.
- CJ7
- 08-09-2012, 04:06 PM
cont;
note: some funding still attributed to previous legislation, some not ..
Obise record ...
$2 billion for children’s health insurance. On Feb. 4, Obama signed a bill expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program, covering millions of additional children (a Democratic bill Bush had vetoed in the previous Congress). “CBO estimates that the act will increase mandatory outlays by $2 billion in 2009,” CBO later stated (page 5).
$114 billion in stimulus spending. Obama signed the stimulus bill Feb. 17. While headlines proclaimed a $787 billion price tag, about 27 percent of the total was actually for tax cuts, not spending. And most of the spending didn’t take place until after fiscal 2009. CBO initially put the total spent in fiscal 2009 at $107.8 billion, but the following year it revised the figure upward to $114 billion, in a report issued in August 2010 (page 13).
$32 billion of the “omnibus” spending bill Obama signed on March 11, 2009, to keep the agencies that Bush had not fully funded running through the remainder of the fiscal year. The $410 billion measure included $32 billion more than had been spent the previous year, according to a floor statement by Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top-ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee. (See page H2790 in the Congressional Record.) “An 8 percent—or a $32 billion—increase in 1 year on top of the stimulus package is simply unnecessary and unsustainable,” he declared.
A case can be made that Obama shouldn’t be held responsible for the entire $32 billion increase. The $410 billion was only $20 billion more than Bush had requested, according to Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the appropriations chairman. (See page H2800.) And CBO later figured the increase amounted to only $9 billion over what it was projecting on the assumption that the levels Bush approved for the first part of the year would be extended for the entire year (page 5).
But it was Obama who signed the bill, so we assign responsibility for the full annual increase to him, not Bush.$2 billion for deposit insurance. The “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act” that Obama signed May 20 had among its many provisions some changes to the federal program that insures bank deposits. CBO later estimated that would increase fiscal 2009 outlays by $2 billion (page 54).
$31 billion in “supplemental” spending for the military and other purposes. Obama pushed for and signed on June 24 another spending measure. The press dubbed it a “war funding” bill, but it actually contained $26 billion for non-defense measures (including funding for flu vaccine against the H1N1 virus, and for the International Monetary Fund) in addition to $80 billion for the military.
Only a portion of the total $106 billion it authorized would actually be spent during the remaining three months of fiscal 2009, however. Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, stated on June 18: “The conference report includes $105.9 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2009, which will result in outlays in 2009 of $30.5 billion.” (See page S6776.)
Here again, a case can be made that Obama isn’t responsible for the entire $31 billion. Economist Mitchell argues that $25 billion in military spending should be assigned to Bush, because “Bush surely would have asked for at least that much extra spending.” But he didn’t. So rather than speculate, we’ll assign it all to Obama, who asked for it.$2 billion in additional “Cash for Clunkers” funding. Obama signed this measure Aug. 7, providing “emergency supplemental” funding for a stimulus program that offered $3,500 to $4,500 to car owners who traded in an old car for a new one with higher fuel economy. Nearly all was spent in fiscal 2009. (See page 959.)
$20 billion for GM and Chrysler bailouts. At one point the government had paid out nearly $80 billion to support the automakers. But some of this was Bush’s doing, and much has been repaid and will be in the future.
Here’s how we arrived at our $20 billion figure for Obama:
By the time Obama took office, Bush already had loaned nearly $21 billion to the two automakers from funds appropriated originally for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and had committed the government to lend $4 billion more. But Bush left decisions on further aid to Obama, who poured in additional billions.
By the end of the fiscal year, the Treasury had made approximately $76 billion in loans and equity investments to GM, Chrysler and their respective financing entities (some had already been repaid). But for budget accounting purposes, not all of this was counted as federal spending under the TARP law. That’s because the government stood to receive loan repayments with interest, and held nearly 61 percent of the stock of the reorganized General Motors. What was counted as spending was — in rough terms — the difference between the estimated future value of those assets to taxpayers and their initial cost.
Treasury put the net cost of the GM and Chrysler support during fiscal 2009 at $45 billion (see page 110, the “Total subsidy cost” line under the heading “AIFP,” for Automotive Industry Financing Program). That’s the amount officially booked as a federal outlay for fiscal 2009.
We assume — we think reasonably — that the $25 billion committed under Bush would have been lost had Obama done nothing. So we subtract the full amount of Bush’s commitment from the net total of $45 billion that Treasury initially estimated for fiscal 2009.
For the record, the ultimate total cost of the auto bailout is now estimated to be lower than initially expected. It is put at $21 billion by the Treasury Department (see page 5) and and only $19 billion by CBO (see Table 3). But those lowered estimates don’t affect what was booked as spending in fiscal 2009
note: some funding still attributed to previous legislation, some not ..
Obise record ...
$2 billion for children’s health insurance. On Feb. 4, Obama signed a bill expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program, covering millions of additional children (a Democratic bill Bush had vetoed in the previous Congress). “CBO estimates that the act will increase mandatory outlays by $2 billion in 2009,” CBO later stated (page 5).
$114 billion in stimulus spending. Obama signed the stimulus bill Feb. 17. While headlines proclaimed a $787 billion price tag, about 27 percent of the total was actually for tax cuts, not spending. And most of the spending didn’t take place until after fiscal 2009. CBO initially put the total spent in fiscal 2009 at $107.8 billion, but the following year it revised the figure upward to $114 billion, in a report issued in August 2010 (page 13).
$32 billion of the “omnibus” spending bill Obama signed on March 11, 2009, to keep the agencies that Bush had not fully funded running through the remainder of the fiscal year. The $410 billion measure included $32 billion more than had been spent the previous year, according to a floor statement by Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top-ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee. (See page H2790 in the Congressional Record.) “An 8 percent—or a $32 billion—increase in 1 year on top of the stimulus package is simply unnecessary and unsustainable,” he declared.
A case can be made that Obama shouldn’t be held responsible for the entire $32 billion increase. The $410 billion was only $20 billion more than Bush had requested, according to Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the appropriations chairman. (See page H2800.) And CBO later figured the increase amounted to only $9 billion over what it was projecting on the assumption that the levels Bush approved for the first part of the year would be extended for the entire year (page 5).
But it was Obama who signed the bill, so we assign responsibility for the full annual increase to him, not Bush.$2 billion for deposit insurance. The “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act” that Obama signed May 20 had among its many provisions some changes to the federal program that insures bank deposits. CBO later estimated that would increase fiscal 2009 outlays by $2 billion (page 54).
$31 billion in “supplemental” spending for the military and other purposes. Obama pushed for and signed on June 24 another spending measure. The press dubbed it a “war funding” bill, but it actually contained $26 billion for non-defense measures (including funding for flu vaccine against the H1N1 virus, and for the International Monetary Fund) in addition to $80 billion for the military.
Only a portion of the total $106 billion it authorized would actually be spent during the remaining three months of fiscal 2009, however. Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, stated on June 18: “The conference report includes $105.9 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2009, which will result in outlays in 2009 of $30.5 billion.” (See page S6776.)
Here again, a case can be made that Obama isn’t responsible for the entire $31 billion. Economist Mitchell argues that $25 billion in military spending should be assigned to Bush, because “Bush surely would have asked for at least that much extra spending.” But he didn’t. So rather than speculate, we’ll assign it all to Obama, who asked for it.$2 billion in additional “Cash for Clunkers” funding. Obama signed this measure Aug. 7, providing “emergency supplemental” funding for a stimulus program that offered $3,500 to $4,500 to car owners who traded in an old car for a new one with higher fuel economy. Nearly all was spent in fiscal 2009. (See page 959.)
$20 billion for GM and Chrysler bailouts. At one point the government had paid out nearly $80 billion to support the automakers. But some of this was Bush’s doing, and much has been repaid and will be in the future.
Here’s how we arrived at our $20 billion figure for Obama:
By the time Obama took office, Bush already had loaned nearly $21 billion to the two automakers from funds appropriated originally for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and had committed the government to lend $4 billion more. But Bush left decisions on further aid to Obama, who poured in additional billions.
By the end of the fiscal year, the Treasury had made approximately $76 billion in loans and equity investments to GM, Chrysler and their respective financing entities (some had already been repaid). But for budget accounting purposes, not all of this was counted as federal spending under the TARP law. That’s because the government stood to receive loan repayments with interest, and held nearly 61 percent of the stock of the reorganized General Motors. What was counted as spending was — in rough terms — the difference between the estimated future value of those assets to taxpayers and their initial cost.
Treasury put the net cost of the GM and Chrysler support during fiscal 2009 at $45 billion (see page 110, the “Total subsidy cost” line under the heading “AIFP,” for Automotive Industry Financing Program). That’s the amount officially booked as a federal outlay for fiscal 2009.
We assume — we think reasonably — that the $25 billion committed under Bush would have been lost had Obama done nothing. So we subtract the full amount of Bush’s commitment from the net total of $45 billion that Treasury initially estimated for fiscal 2009.
For the record, the ultimate total cost of the auto bailout is now estimated to be lower than initially expected. It is put at $21 billion by the Treasury Department (see page 5) and and only $19 billion by CBO (see Table 3). But those lowered estimates don’t affect what was booked as spending in fiscal 2009
- CuteOldGuy
- 08-09-2012, 04:15 PM
Cut and pasted. No source. Who the hell cares, it's still all Bush's fault, and will remain so when Obama fails in his second term. Same old shit.
- CJ7
- 08-09-2012, 04:25 PM
Cut and pasted. No source. Who the hell cares, it's still all Bush's fault, and will remain so when Obama fails in his second term. Same old shit. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuythe sources are imbedded live links aka known as those blue underlined words
is there anything else I can teach you today?
- CuteOldGuy
- 08-09-2012, 04:27 PM
Where was the lead article? You could obviously teach cutting and pasting.
- Texas Contrarian
- 08-09-2012, 04:35 PM
Why not distill all that into just a couple of sentences?
Something like this, for instance:
Obama inherited a terrible mess; therefore, he can be excused for exacerbating our fiscal problems by cramming through huge, politically motivated "stimulus packages" and other payoffs to his favorite constituencies, just like his predecessor did for years.
There's no need to worry about the tough choices entailed in something like Simpson-Bowles; the Fed will just create as much money as we need out of thin air.
What could possibly go wrong with a sound agenda like that?
You people who suffer from blind partisanship and Obama idolatry are just amazing!
Something like this, for instance:
Obama inherited a terrible mess; therefore, he can be excused for exacerbating our fiscal problems by cramming through huge, politically motivated "stimulus packages" and other payoffs to his favorite constituencies, just like his predecessor did for years.
There's no need to worry about the tough choices entailed in something like Simpson-Bowles; the Fed will just create as much money as we need out of thin air.
What could possibly go wrong with a sound agenda like that?
You people who suffer from blind partisanship and Obama idolatry are just amazing!
- Little Stevie
- 08-09-2012, 04:42 PM
- Guest050715-1
- 08-09-2012, 04:47 PM
Well, you keep bringing up Bush. I'm saying I will never vote for him again. Actually, I never voted for him in the first place, but I won't this time either.
Now do you want to get to something relevant? Or does that interfere with your Obama worship? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
That's it then; me too. I'll never vote for Bush or Regan again. (PS, I never voted for W.)
Now we're talking, CBJ7. Your latent fear of being homosexual yourself is coming out. Why don't you and WDF get together, say "homo" and giggle. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyWe have another happy poster that has a homo-speak tell. Gives me a warm fuzzy sigh
. Gotta say I prefer it to his snarky, Eddie Haskell tell like this one though. is there anything else I can teach you today? Originally Posted by CJ7
Why not distill all that into just a couple of sentences? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnightI've been trying to help him with his composition for a while now. I'm pretty sure it's a waste of time.
- CJ7
- 08-09-2012, 04:52 PM
Why not distill all that into just a couple of sentences?
Something like this, for instance:
Obama inherited a terrible mess; therefore, he can be excused for exacerbating our fiscal problems by cramming through huge, politically motivated "stimulus packages" and other payoffs to his favorite constituencies, just like his predecessor did for years.
There's no need to worry about the tough choices entailed in something like Simpson-Bowles; the Fed will just create as much money as we need out of thin air.
What could possibly go wrong with a sound agenda like that?
You people who suffer from blind partisanship and Obama idolatry are just amazing! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
do you consider posting facts that lead to either side of the aisle partisan?
if that were the case, I wouuldnt have posted Obamas spending record.
as for condensing facts into simple sentences, that could be taken as an opinion regarded as drivel.
- CJ7
- 08-09-2012, 05:03 PM
- Texas Contrarian
- 08-09-2012, 05:12 PM
do you consider posting facts that lead to either side of the aisle partisan? Originally Posted by CJ7Of course not, but is that what's going on here?
You justifiably condemn George W. Bush's bad economic agenda and disastrous fiscal record -- but when Obama simply piles on more fiscal follies, you give him a pass!
If that's not blind partisanship, please tell us what it is.
It is a turnaround just to have someone repairing them instead of adding to them! Originally Posted by Little StevieGeez, are you fucking kidding?
What the hell is it that you think he's actually repairing?
- Guest050715-1
- 08-09-2012, 05:14 PM
Why not distill all that into just a couple of sentences?
Something like this, for instance:
Obama inherited a terrible mess; therefore, he can be excused for exacerbating our fiscal problems by cramming through huge, politically motivated "stimulus packages" and other payoffs to his favorite constituencies, just like his predecessor did for years.
There's no need to worry about the tough choices entailed in something like Simpson-Bowles; the Fed will just create as much money as we need out of thin air.
What could possibly go wrong with a sound agenda like that?
You people who suffer from blind partisanship and Obama idolatry are just amazing! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
do you consider posting facts that lead to either side of the aisle partisan?
if that were the case, I wouuldnt have posted Obamas spending record.
as for condensing facts into simple sentences, that could be taken as an opinion regarded as drivel. Originally Posted by CJ7
I'm going to enjoy this. But remember Captain, you may end up debating what the definition of bashing or is is. LOL