PDA

View Full Version : Lying Liars and the Deficit Lies They Tell


Rohirrim
01-31-2013, 04:34 PM
Here are the facts: In Reagan's first term, government spending grew 8.7 percent per year. In his second term, it grew 4.9 percent per year. Under Bush Sr., 5.4 percent per year. Under Clinton's two terms, 3.2 percent and 3.9 percent. Under Bush Jr., 7.3 percent and 8.1 percent.

Got all those numbers? Okay. Brace yourself. Under Obama: 1.4 percent.

Our current budget deficit has nothing to do with out-of-control Democratic spending and everything to do with a massive recession, tax cuts, two wars, and a scare campaign that Republicans have been successfully waging for decades to cover up their serial fiscal irresponsibility. Whether you let them fool you again is entirely up to you.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-11-02/news/fl-aocol-oped1102-20121102_1_budget-deficit-george-w-bush-republicans

Arkie
01-31-2013, 05:52 PM
Spending goes up hundreds of billions each year. A percentage point today equals at least 10x more spending than it did 30 years ago simply because it's based on the previous year, which is usually at an all-time high.

TonyR
02-05-2013, 12:55 PM
^ That's quite the rationalization. Percentages are better measurements than dollars for this type of comparison.

orinjkrush
02-05-2013, 02:56 PM
i really do think the Repubs try to bankrupt government intentionally, and then show how "gubmint dont werk". Demonsh*ts are actually more responsible in government because they believe in it.

BroncoBeavis
02-05-2013, 03:42 PM
New version of the same old shell game. Democrats kept running funding through the last few Bush months by continuing resolution. No FY2009 budget was passed and signed until the beginning of Obama's term (March of 2009). Congressional Democrats knew they couldn't get their wish list signed off on by Bush, so they didn't pass it until he was gone.

Ironic that they go straight from hiding their budget from Bush to blaming it on him. But that's exactly what's happening here.

Plus, all that TARP and Stimulus action was supposed to be a quick crisis-response infusion of cash into the economy. But Democrats, as many warned would happen, made it the new floor and kept growing spending from there. And for any of you arguing Obama wouldn't have done any of that. Good luck. He voted for it.

The fy2008 budget (the last one Bush had any say in) was $2.98 trillion. The fy2009 budget was $3.5 trillion, signed late by President Obama. Then a month later Obama rolled out his fy2010 budget request at $3.55T, which in reality became $3.7T.

And they've yet to pass a budget since. But having a 20% increase handed to you in your first few months in office makes that a little easier cushion to work with.

Arkie
02-05-2013, 05:30 PM
^ That's quite the rationalization. Percentages are better measurements than dollars for this type of comparison.

Percentages alone are misleading. 1% today is bigger than 8% when spending started increasing. Look at the graph and you can visualize it.

http://sportsinreview.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DEBT.jpg

cutthemdown
02-05-2013, 06:39 PM
Great stuff debunking yet again another liberal jack off thread.

DenverBrit
02-05-2013, 06:43 PM
Percentages alone are misleading. 1% today is bigger than 8% when spending started increasing. Look at the graph and you can visualize it.



You really have to compare % of GDP, not a $ amount for obvious reasons.

For instance, $1 in 1940, is worth $16.43 today.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Arkie
02-05-2013, 07:03 PM
You really have to compare % of GDP, not a $ amount for obvious reasons.

For instance, $1 in 1940, is worth $16.43 today.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Even as a % of GDP, it's the highest it's been since it spiked during WWII.

DenverBrit
02-05-2013, 07:31 PM
Even as a % of GDP, it's the highest it's been since it spiked during WWII.

Some important distinctions, bolded.

2001 vs. 2011
Cause of change between CBO's 2001 projection of a $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002–2012 and the $6.1 trillion debt increase that actually occurred.

In June 2012, CBO summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.[35][36]

The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:

$3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
$1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
$1.5 trillion - Increased non-defense discretionary spending
$1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
$1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
$0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)[36]

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%).

Several other articles and experts explained the causes of change in the debt position.[37][38][39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

Forbes:

Why Our Current National Debt is not the Largest in History
The overwhelming majority of people believe the national debt has never been as large as it is today. However, like so much popular information regarding the federal government’s budget, it simply isn’t true. It’s been much larger, and that period of history hardly saw the collapse of the US economy. Furthermore, many economies that we would consider sound and strong actually have more debt than we do. On top of all that, federal government debt is not analogous to that in the private-sector because it represents an injection of wealth, not a drag on growth.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/02/26/national-debt-not-largest/

BroncoBeavis
02-05-2013, 08:16 PM
Some important distinctions, bolded.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

Forbes:

Why Our Current National Debt is not the Largest in History

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/02/26/national-debt-not-largest/

Another important distinction is control of Congress. There's a reason President Obama hasn't gotten a budget passed since 2010. And his proposals have been so laughably expensive since then that they've been universally discarded by virtually every member of Congress. If you look at any of Obama's federal budget proposals, the status quo seems like a bargain. Even Tony's friend Andy Sullivan took it as a slap in the face.

If you look at what Obama's proposed, Congress isn't tying his hands from making things better. They're keeping him from making it worse.

Play2win
02-05-2013, 08:16 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the next 20 years is just going to correct what GWB ****ed up in just **TWO** freaking years.

cutthemdown
02-07-2013, 03:49 PM
LOL there is nothing Bush did that will **** America up for 20 yrs. That is liberals admitting their ideas don't work well but we like them anyways because at least we get our way.

BroncoBeavis
02-07-2013, 04:23 PM
LOL there is nothing Bush did that will **** America up for 20 yrs. That is liberals admitting their ideas don't work well but we like them anyways because at least we get our way.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. If they hold power for a thousand years, they'll still blame everything wrong on the 8 years prior. :)

Arkie
02-07-2013, 05:31 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the next 20 years is just going to correct what GWB ****ed up in just **TWO** freaking years.

Well, the first 4 years didn't go as planned. That leaves us 16 years to dig ourselves out of a bigger hole.

nyuk nyuk
02-09-2013, 08:45 AM
Our current budget deficit has nothing to do with out-of-control Democratic spending and everything to do with a massive recession, tax cuts, two wars, and a scare campaign that Republicans have been successfully waging for decades to cover up their serial fiscal irresponsibility. Whether you let them fool you again is entirely up to you.[/I]
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-11-02/news/fl-aocol-oped1102-20121102_1_budget-deficit-george-w-bush-republicans

Yes, Republicans' fault. Bottom line here:

Recession and war wasn't accepted as a reason under Bush by libs, so...

Shoe is on the other foot.

nyuk nyuk
02-09-2013, 08:46 AM
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. If they hold power for a thousand years, they'll still blame everything wrong on the 8 years prior. :)

Clearly. I also see people still crying "hanging chads."

W*GS
02-09-2013, 09:19 AM
Percentages alone are misleading. 1% today is bigger than 8% when spending started increasing. Look at the graph and you can visualize it.

Stupid chart. Not even constant dollars.

W*GS
02-09-2013, 09:20 AM
Amazing how the righties put Bush's misadministration into their collective memory hole.

TonyR
02-09-2013, 09:37 AM
Amazing how the righties put Bush's misadministration into their collective memory hole.

Sullivan commented on this very subject yesterday:

When you have a party that hasn’t been able to repudiate the worst administration in modern times, and actually still attempt to hail it as some kind of achievement with respect to Iraq or Afghanistan or the debt, you cannot persuade anyone you have changed, or want to change.

Someone in the GOP needs to take Bush-Cheney apart, to show how they created the debt crisis we are in, by throwing away a surplus on unaffordable tax cuts, launching two unfunded wars, and one new unfunded entitlement. They need to take on the war crimes that has deeply undermined the soul of the United States. They need to note the catastrophic negligence that gave us the worst national security lapse since Pearl Harbor (9/11) despite being warned explicitly in advance, accept weak and false intelligence to launch a war they were too incompetent to fight or win, sat back as one of the worst hurricanes all but took out a major city, and was so negligent in bank regulation that we ended up with Lehman and all that subsequently took place.

These were not minor errors. They were catastrophic misjudgments which took an era of peace, surplus and prosperity and replaced it with a dystopia of massive debt, a lawless executive branch, two unwinnable wars, and a record of war crimes that had their source in the very Oval Office.

When will the Republicans hold themselves accountable for the things that have persuaded so many that this bunch of fanatics and deniers are unfit for government? When will they speak of Bush and Cheney and repudiate them? http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/08/the-gops-real-problem/

Queue the haters!!!

Arkie
02-09-2013, 09:54 AM
Stupid chart. Not even constant dollars.

Those are nominal dollars. The reason they aren't constant is because of the Fed's inflation tax. That being said, wages aren't even close to keeping up with that graph.

W*GS
02-09-2013, 10:02 AM
Those are nominal dollars. The reason they aren't constant is because of the Fed's inflation tax. That being said, wages aren't even close to keeping up with that graph.

You can make up any rationale you want, but the graph is deceptive.

Why not include nominal GDP too?

DenverBrit
02-09-2013, 10:07 AM
You can make up any rationale you want, but the graph is deceptive.

Why not include nominal GDP too?

That would require a balanced look at the historical context. 8')

Rohirrim
02-09-2013, 10:19 AM
When you have a party that hasn’t been able to repudiate the worst administration in modern times, and actually still attempt to hail it as some kind of achievement with respect to Iraq or Afghanistan or the debt, you cannot persuade anyone you have changed, or want to change.

Someone in the GOP needs to take Bush-Cheney apart, to show how they created the debt crisis we are in, by throwing away a surplus on unaffordable tax cuts, launching two unfunded wars, and one new unfunded entitlement. They need to take on the war crimes that has deeply undermined the soul of the United States. They need to note the catastrophic negligence that gave us the worst national security lapse since Pearl Harbor (9/11) despite being warned explicitly in advance, accept weak and false intelligence to launch a war they were too incompetent to fight or win, sat back as one of the worst hurricanes all but took out a major city, and was so negligent in bank regulation that we ended up with Lehman and all that subsequently took place.

These were not minor errors. They were catastrophic misjudgments which took an era of peace, surplus and prosperity and replaced it with a dystopia of massive debt, a lawless executive branch, two unwinnable wars, and a record of war crimes that had their source in the very Oval Office.

When will the Republicans hold themselves accountable for the things that have persuaded so many that this bunch of fanatics and deniers are unfit for government? When will they speak of Bush and Cheney and repudiate them?

There you have it, in a nutshell, by Andrew Sullivan. The Right lives in its own little bubble of misinfo and self-delusion. With their tax cuts and deregulation, they disemboweled 80 years of progressive governance. And now they blame the resulting disaster on progressive-ism.

W*GS
02-09-2013, 10:25 AM
You can make up any rationale you want, but the graph is deceptive.

Why not include nominal GDP too?

Yes, let's:

http://www.futuretimeline.net/subject/images/us-gdp-1900-2010-2020-future.jpg

W*GS
02-09-2013, 10:26 AM
And, of course, debt as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.futuretimeline.net/subject/images/us-debt-as-percentage-of-gdp-1900-2010-2020.jpg

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2013, 11:52 AM
Sullivan commented on this very subject yesterday:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/08/the-gops-real-problem/

Queue the haters!!!

Its always fun to watch Andy ”nuke Iraq" Sullivan's various bipolar ravings.

BroncoBeavis
02-09-2013, 11:56 AM
Yes, let's:

http://www.futuretimeline.net/subject/images/us-gdp-1900-2010-2020-future.jpg

Graphs where future fictional years show the fastest growth are awesome.

BroncoLifer
02-09-2013, 03:56 PM
Sullivan commented on this very subject yesterday:



Did he follow it up with any Trig Palin comments?

nyuk nyuk
02-10-2013, 11:20 AM
I'm quite sure if I looked in the archives of the Mane that I would find defenses of the debt under GW Bush... I'm quite sure.

W*GS
02-10-2013, 11:24 AM
I'm quite sure if I looked in the archives of the Mane that I would find defenses of the debt under GW Bush... I'm quite sure.

Yep, from one or more of your previous incarnations.