BOOM! There goes the market!

[TallGuy6]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

No, I'm not going to invest time on a closed mind. If you tell me that you'll change your position if I show you that the majority of the deficit was a hand-off from Bush, I'll give you the numbers. But you won't.

That's the answer of someone who's look at the numbers and realizes the argument is flawed. OR, someone who is afraid to look because then their belief is blown apart.

Table 1.4 (from www.omb.gov) (from 3.1)
Year Receipts Outlays Deficit Nat. Defense
2001 1.991T 1.826T (0.128T) 0.305T
2002 1.853T 2.011T 0.158T 0.348T
2003 1.782T 2.160T 0.378T 0.405T
2004 1.880T 2.293T 0.413T 0.456T
2005 2.154T 2.472T 0.318T 0.495T
2006 2.407T 2.655T 0.248T 0.522T
2007 2.568T 2.729T 0.161T 0.551T
2008 2.524T 2.983T 0.459T 0.615T
2009 2.105T 3.518T 1.413T 0.661T
2010 2.163T 3.456T 1.293T 0.694T
2011 2.174T 3.819T 1.645T (est) 0.768T

The facts above don't show "trillions" uncounted for "Bush's wars"....if you look deeper into the numbers, the gains in National Defense are coming from large jumps in Military Personnel costs and Operation and Maintenance as well as Procurement and Military Construction.

Depending on how you count the years for a President, I see it as follows:
Bush (8 yrs) 2001-2008 $2.007T in debt
Obama (3 yrs) 2009-2011 $4.351T in debt

Now, if you get "clever" and decide the year after a President leaves office belongs to that President:
Bush (8 yrs) 2002-2009 $3.548T in debt
Obama (2 yrs) 2010-2011 $2.938T in debt

So from the above, you'd have a case for saying a President in office for 8 yrs ran up more debt than a President in office for 2 yrs....but then if you factor in the projected deficits for the next 2 yrs (for Obama), he will clearly spend more in 4 yrs than Bush did in 8 yrs...and God forbid, if Obama gets relected, his 8 yr record will more than double what Bush spent.

[Lust4xxxLife]

TG6 - Impressive. However, I have a different perspective of the data presented.

Clinton passed a budget run-rate surplus to Bush. No wars.

Bush passed a budget run-rate deficit of more than a trillion dollars to Obama with two large wars and an economic melt-down triggered by the real-estate collapse.

It's fair to say that Obama has so far failed to clean up the messes passed to him from Bush, which is disappointing a lot of people, including me, but I don't see a lot of 'Obama messes' that I can point to yet. Not only that, Obama wanted to end the unfunded tax-breaks for the wealthy, but the house would have none of it. He wants to end the tax subsidies for oil that we can't afford and don't need... but the house will have none of it.

Bottom line, in my opinion, Bush and Obama are both failures. Bush fucked up our economy and commenced two wars, and Obama has failed to make enough progress cleaning up the mess. Obviously, I think the root of the problem is Bush.

Note: it's also fair to say that Clinton planted the seed for the housing market collapse, but Bush had eight years to see what was happening and do something about it ...and did nothing to head it off. Eight years means you own it, in my opinion.

I'm glad that Bush is gone, and I'd rather not have Obama for another term. But if not Obama, who? I have yet to spot a candidate that doesn't depress me.

[TallGuy6]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

TG6 - Impressive. However, I have a different perspective of the data presented.

Clinton passed a budget run-rate surplus to Bush. No wars.

Bush passed a budget run-rate deficit of more than a trillion dollars to Obama with two large wars and an economic melt-down triggered by the real-estate collapse.

It's fair to say that Obama has so far failed to clean up the messes passed to him from Bush, which is disappointing a lot of people, including me, but I don't see a lot of 'Obama messes' that I can point to yet. Not only that, Obama wanted to end the unfunded tax-breaks for the wealthy, but the house would have none of it. He wants to end the tax subsidies for oil that we can't afford and don't need... but the house will have none of it.

Bottom line, in my opinion, Bush and Obama are both failures. Bush fucked up our economy and commenced two wars, and Obama has failed to make enough progress cleaning up the mess. Obviously, I think the root of the problem is Bush.

Note: it's also fair to say that Clinton planted the seed for the housing market collapse, but Bush had eight years to see what was happening and do something about it ...and did nothing to head it off. Eight years means you own it, in my opinion.

I'm glad that Bush is gone, and I'd rather not have Obama for another term. But if not Obama, who? I have yet to spot a candidate that doesn't depress me.

The 9/11 hit was right there...easy to spot. Hammered any gains handed over to Bush. Denying that means you just think it's "Bush's fault".

Over-regulation is square in the camp of Obama, that is harm. His administration believes that over-regulation stimulates the Economy because companies must hire people to follow those regulations.

If you check back on the "history" of the housing market collapse, the BUsh Administration went to Congress several times, warning of the impending doom. (it's all documented). Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and several other low-lifes told them "everything is fine". Even protected the leaders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...why? Because they were "friends". It's all there in black and white. You just need to choose to read it with an un-biased eye.

Obama had a House and Senate that would have blown him in public if he asked...what did he do? Spent us into a continued recession. You can't even begin to say that the turnover of the House in JANUARY is causing him to not be able to fix any mess. They are stopping him from making it worse. As I'll remind you, it was a Republican controlled House that *forced* Clinton into the Budget deals that got passed along to Bush.

Lastly, jack up the tax rates on the "rich" to 90%....you still run a deficit of $1T each year because WE SPEND TOO MUCH. Period. Obama had tripled-down on that. And he's not interested in doing anything about it but raise the tax receipts. You can't collect that much tax. If you try, you'll end the Economy as we know it. And that has history to prove it.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by TallGuy6

The 9/11 hit was right there...easy to spot. Hammered any gains handed over to Bush. Denying that means you just think it's "Bush's fault".

Over-regulation is square in the camp of Obama, that is harm. His administration believes that over-regulation stimulates the Economy because companies must hire people to follow those regulations.

If you check back on the "history" of the housing market collapse, the BUsh Administration went to Congress several times, warning of the impending doom. (it's all documented). Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and several other low-lifes told them "everything is fine". Even protected the leaders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...why? Because they were "friends". It's all there in black and white. You just need to choose to read it with an un-biased eye.

Obama had a House and Senate that would have blown him in public if he asked...what did he do? Spent us into a continued recession. You can't even begin to say that the turnover of the House in JANUARY is causing him to not be able to fix any mess. They are stopping him from making it worse. As I'll remind you, it was a Republican controlled House that *forced* Clinton into the Budget deals that got passed along to Bush.

Lastly, jack up the tax rates on the "rich" to 90%....you still run a deficit of $1T each year because WE SPEND TOO MUCH. Period. Obama had tripled-down on that. And he's not interested in doing anything about it but raise the tax receipts. You can't collect that much tax. If you try, you'll end the Economy as we know it. And that has history to prove it.

TG6 - again, thanks for the dialog. I feel your passion. I disagree with some of your points.

A few comments...

1. If not Obama, who? Do we agree that we're seeing the bottom of the barrel with the current crop of candidates? John Huntsman seems like the smartest, but something tells me he's as much of a 'crowd pleaser' as Obama. Tell me who you think would do a better job, and please be specific.

2. The Iraq war was corrupt and unnecessary. Bush was Commander in Chief. Major, major screw-up that wouldn't have happened without his personal order. Do you disagree? Do you think Iraq was warranted? Please start your answer with yes or no.

3. The initial bombings in Afghanistan were cool. That sent OBL scurrying into Pakistan and sent a message. Why have we been there for the last 8 years? We didn't need another vietnam-style war that we were unwilling to win. Russia is laughing at us because our cock-up is bigger than theirs now. Are you happy that we put so many boots on the ground?

4. What Obama over-regulation are you referring to and what is the cost? I've already agreed that Obama has failed to clean up the mess he was handed, but I still don't see the new problems he has caused. He's a janitor cleaning up someone else's mess, not a mess-maker. I WISH he would grow a pair and start dealing with some of our problems.

5. I realize that ending tax cuts for the rich that most Americans don't enjoy wouldn't solve the budget problem. But it would help and it would send a message. There is no single silver bullet so we need a number of actions and that's one of them. Resisting that easy one is a sign to me that Republicans are clueless. Why do we think we can support a 1st world standard of living with 2nd world tax rates? Do you think we can?

6. I completely agree that Obama squandered the advantage he had in his first two terms. No balls.

My points are simple: Bush was a colossal fuck-up, Obama is not fixing it, and so far there is no hope in sight. If you disagree... I'm all ears.

Cheers,


L4L

[TallGuy6]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

TG6 - again, thanks for the dialog. I feel your passion. I disagree with some of your points.

A few comments...

1. If not Obama, who? Do we agree that we're seeing the bottom of the barrel with the current crop of candidates? John Huntsman seems like the smartest, but something tells me he's as much of a 'crowd pleaser' as Obama. Tell me who you think would do a better job, and please be specific.

2. The Iraq war was corrupt and unnecessary. Bush was Commander in Chief. Major, major screw-up that wouldn't have happened without his personal order. Do you disagree? Do you think Iraq was warranted? Please start your answer with yes or no.

3. The initial bombings in Afghanistan were cool. That sent OBL scurrying into Pakistan and sent a message. Why have we been there for the last 8 years? We didn't need another vietnam-style war that we were unwilling to win. Russia is laughing at us because our cock-up is bigger than theirs now. Are you happy that we put so many boots on the ground?

4. What Obama over-regulation are you referring to and what is the cost? I've already agreed that Obama has failed to clean up the mess he was handed, but I still don't see the new problems he has caused. He's a janitor cleaning up someone else's mess, not a mess-maker. I WISH he would grow a pair and start dealing with some of our problems.

5. I realize that ending tax cuts for the rich that most Americans don't enjoy wouldn't solve the budget problem. But it would help and it would send a message. There is no single silver bullet so we need a number of actions and that's one of them. Resisting that easy one is a sign to me that Republicans are clueless. Why do we think we can support a 1st world standard of living with 2nd world tax rates? Do you think we can?

6. I completely agree that Obama squandered the advantage he had in his first two terms. No balls.

My points are simple: Bush was a colossal fuck-up, Obama is not fixing it, and so far there is no hope in sight. If you disagree... I'm all ears.

Cheers,


L4L

When you answer your original argument that Bush "hid" trillions in the budget that Obama inherited, we'll talk more about new subjects. I showed you the facts and you've deflected to other topics.

I never defended Bush, nor Obama. I pointed my debate at your assertion that "trillions" in war costs were never on the Budget and that Obama put them on the budget and that's why he's buried us deeper in debt.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Originally Posted by TallGuy6

When you answer your original argument that Bush "hid" trillions in the budget that Obama inherited, we'll talk more about new subjects. I showed you the facts and you've deflected to other topics.

I never defended Bush, nor Obama. I pointed my debate at your assertion that "trillions" in war costs were never on the Budget and that Obama put them on the budget and that's why he's buried us deeper in debt.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't think that Bush 'hid' trillions in the budget that Obama inherited, nor did I post it. I checked all my posts in case I had a brain fart and I didn't see any reference to 'hidden trillions'. I think Bush started with a surplus and ran it up to a $1T+ run-rate, but I don't think it was hidden.

I'm still interested in my question of "If not Obama, then who?" It seems that not one person here is behind any of the current candidates, which is telling.

Cheers,

L4l

[TallGuy6]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't think that Bush 'hid' trillions in the budget that Obama inherited, nor did I post it. I checked all my posts in case I had a brain fart and I didn't see any reference to 'hidden trillions'. I think Bush started with a surplus and ran it up to a $1T+ run-rate, but I don't think it was hidden.

I'm still interested in my question of "If not Obama, then who?" It seems that not one person here is behind any of the current candidates, which is telling.

Cheers,

L4l

Maybe....but you did say:
I hold George Bush accountable for the majority of our current fiscal challenges because the majority of our budget deficit was a lateral pass from his regime to the current one.

Given the data I showed, please tell me how Pres. Bush handed off all that extra spending that was approved by Pelosi/Reid/Obama.

Did they not sign the bills? Did Bush forge the signature?
Just like on any purchase contract, you sign, you are responsible....unless you'd like to claim they weren't of sound mind...which we'd agree on. But then I'd want them all tossed out of office because of that.

Will Bush still be responsible for the 2012 Fiscal year? 2013? 2014?

I think you are reasonable on most things, but the "blame Bush" mentality is quite a disorder that you need to correct.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

I'm still interested in my question of "If not Obama, then who?" It seems that not one person here is behind any of the current candidates, which is telling.

It certainly is.

The Obama administration is obviously an unmitigated disaster, but I don't see any potential leaders on the horizon -- just a bunch of people offering the same old political platitudes. That's no longer good enough.

Obama was "hired" to fix problems, not let existing ones fester and create new ones of his own. Now who is going to clean up the wreckage left by two consecutive incompetent and irresponsible presidents?

We desperately need the government equivalent of a superstar corporate turnaround specialist -- someone who's not worried about winning the next election, and not afraid to step on some toes.

It's pretty depressing, but I think this article offers a concise overview of our current predicament:

http://www.tnr.com/article/economy/9...s-entitlements

The author is a judge, but he is a well-known specialist in the economic analysis of law, sometimes simply referred to as "law and economics." You might note that he is also a co-author, along with famed economist Gary Becker, of the excellent Becker-Posner blog.

Here's a link for those who may be interested:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/

[Boltfan]

Ed Whitacre is available :-)

Though he may try to aquire Mexico or Canada.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Boltfan

Ed Whitacre is available :-)

Though he may try to aquire Mexico or Canada.

Mexico?

Well, if he could increase the supply of available Latinas, I bet a lot of guys could, um, get behind that plan!

[Boltfan]

Latinas from the south and some cool air from the great white north.

[TexRich]

Our Nitwit in Chief......

from the L.A. Times:

Reporting from Vineyard Haven, Mass.—
As the president tried to concentrate on his golf swing Wednesday, fierce fighting continued in Libya, officials surveyed damage from a magnitude 5.8 earthquake and Hurricane Irene hurtled toward the East Coast.

[timpage]

Interesting to watch the Republicans throw stones at Obama for his failure to clean up the mess they created. Brazen hypocrisy.

Even more interesting when you note the utter lack of any suggestion of a sensible solution being offered by their camp. Same bullshit, different day: Cut taxes. As if the wall street types and the corporations are going to dash out and start hiring the millions of Americans out of work when they find out they are going to make $20 billion next year due to tax savings, instead of $17 billion. Absurd. The self-evident nature of the fallacy that cutting taxes is going to solve this problem (uhhh, the Bush tax cuts that have been in place for ten years now) sits there staring you guys in the face but the robotic repetition of the mantra has been going on for so long now that you can't let little things like facts get in the way.

What got us into this mess? I dunno....lots of things....but the government wasn't one them, that's just a bullshit political argument that will be utilized to gain an advantage in the upcoming elections. The housing bubble didn't pop because of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It burst because of shortsightedness, stupidity and greed on the part of the private sector. No regulation of collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, absurdly skewed ratings by the bond-rating agencies, who are on the payroll of the very Wall Street tycoons who make billions as a result of those ratings. And still are, by the way.

And tell me who is going to fix this problem for us according to the Republicans? Rick Perry, the front-runner (at least this week)? Sure, he is. This man is going to dismantle social security, repeal the 16th amendment and end federal income tax....oh, and presumably outlaw the teaching of evolution in our schools since he doesn't believe in it. Perry is just a dumber, more conservative version of Bush, a thing I thought not possible until recently.

All that having been said, a big well-done to most of the posters on this thread. Interesting stuff.

[Boltfan]

Originally Posted by timpage

What got us into this mess? I dunno....lots of things....but the government wasn't one them...


No regulation of collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, absurdly skewed ratings by the bond-rating agencies...

So the government wasn't the problem but no regulation was part of the problem? Isn't oversight the job of congress? Which is it exactly?

[timpage]

Good point Boltfan, surprises me to hear you'd be a fan of government regulation of the financial markets.

But, maybe I was talking about self-regulation?.....that's what the free market does, right? If that darn big old bad government would just get out of the way, the market would self-regulate and everyone will get rich. Unless everyone doesn't and the greed and selfishness I referenced in my first post clouds the judgment of the "self-regulators" who are choosing between making dump-trucks full of money for themselves while screwing folks like, mmmm, I dunno, Americans with mortgages....and doing the right thing by being prudent, thinking long-term and having the best interests of everyone as their primary goal, rather then just themselves. A fairy tale, I know....like most Republican talking points.

Tell me more about your ideas for government regulation of the financial markets! Exciting idea!