I wish more had. Then we could have cut epending a while back and not had to deal with the President's "compromise" of merely doubling the national debt as opposed to the default of tripling it.
At the end of Bill Clinton's 2nd term the national debt was 5.769 trillion. At the end of bush's second term the national debt was10.413 trillion. (source)
dmarks believes Obama is going to increase the national debt to more than 20 trillion? When? At the end of his second term?
I don't know what you're basing this conclusion on dmarks, but I think your source is full of shit. How did they arrive at this wildly incorrect figure? Must have been through the use of teabag math.
Here's an idea... Take the total value of the national debt increase since Bush took the reigns of power until the present (11 years and 7 months) and compute the yearly average over those years.
Then multiple that number by 8 years of a potential Obama run run and my bet is Obama will blow that number out of the water w-d.
Nothing to do with teabags. This looks like another example of when the facts end up being so much different from your opinion that your IQ goes down and you lash out with insults.
Bush debt at end of his terms: $10.7 trillion.
Obama debt as of a month ago: $14.3 trillion.
A different of $3.6 trillion. That's $3.6 trillion alone in Obama's first 3 years. Which is about $1.2 trillion a year on average.
Obama wants to serve a 2nd term. 8 years of $1.2 trillion dollar deficits = $9.6 trillion.... bringing the total national debt up to more than $20 trillion. A doubling of what Bush left us.
Rather than being wildly incorrect, there's nothing wild here.
DMARKS - I was hoping that w-d would do my math which gave Obama a dilution in the interest of "fairness", or yours which is the most accurate projection based on Obama's record alone.
As we await w-d's response.
Hopefully it will be a rational and unemotional rebuttal.
dmarks: Click here for the source. Nothing to do with teabags.
The article you linked to does not predict that the national debt when Barack Obama leaves office at the end of two terms will be 20 trillion dollars.
dmarks: [my conclusion is not] wildly incorrect...
All one has to do is examine the facts to determine how incredibly wrong you are.
bush signed the bank bailout right before he left office. Also, during the first 10 months of the Obama administration we were operating under the 2008 bush budget. Also, the stimulus was needed due to the Conservative-caused recession.
And, don't forget the two illegal wars started by the last president that were still going on when Obama assumed office.
If the economy had been healthy and there were no wars that money wouldn't have been spent. You're blaming Barack Obama because he inherited a (conservative-caused) disaster.
And let's not forget that the Republicans forced the president to extend the bush tax cuts for another two years, and just recently they refused to raise the debt ceiling if any new taxes were a part of the deal.
I say a majority of the new debt can be directly attributed to bush and the Republicans (and their teabag accomplices).
But even IF you attribute all that new debt to President Obama.... The bailout and stimulus were one-time events... and now the teabags have forced spending cuts. Future spending will be at a lower level.
So to look at the spending that has taken place so far and deduce the same level of spending will continue, and thus the debt will be 20 trillion when Obama leaves office... it's total bullshit.
That's OK if you don't want to call it "teabag math" though. We can call it "dmarks math". Either way the 20 trillion figure is definitely wildly incorrect.
I agree with some of what you're saying, wd. But nobody held a gun to Mr. Obama's head and forced him to send those 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. And the stimulus package was, IMHO, poorly constructed. The tax rebates did nothing but blow a hole in the deficit and the shovel-ready infrastructure projects were anything but. Mr. Obama gets a scant B- at best.
WD said: "Also, during the first 10 months of the Obama administration we were operating under the 2008 bush budget."
Actually, we were operating under the Barack Obama budget. He could have pushed to throw out the Bush budget and put in a new one. Instead, he kept it, and made it worse with even more waste spending.
"And, don't forget the two illegal wars started by the last president that were still going on when Obama assumed office."
It's easy to forget this, as both wars were legal. Despite the claims of armchair attorneys, and your completely fictional and slanderous falsehood that it was "illegal".
But on both of these proper and justified retaliations, you are doubly wrong: Obama could have gotten all of the troops out by the end of January had he so chose. He did not. He made these wars his own.
"I say a majority of the new debt can be directly attributed to bush and the Republicans (and their teabag accomplices)."
None of the new debt since Obama took office can be attributed to Bush.
"But even IF you attribute all that new debt to President Obama."
I am only attributing to Obama the debt he is responsible for. No more, no less.
"You're blaming Barack Obama because he inherited a (conservative-caused) disaster."
No. I am blaming Obama for his own decisions. Which started in January 2009.
"So to look at the spending that has taken place so far and deduce the same level of spending will continue, and thus the debt will be 20 trillion when Obama leaves office... it's total bullshit."
You do have a point. Things usually end up worse than how politicians predict them to be. And the current President has been exceptionally dishonest. So the $20 trillion figure might be way low.
The only way it will end up being less than $20 trillion at the end of the Obama presidency is if the Obama presidency ends with the inauguration of a new President on January 2013.
But Will, if you're agreeing with me (or "some" of what I'm saying), you're clearly disagreeing (and strongly) with your best bud dmarks. He, in no uncertain terms, says I am totally and completely wrong. NONE of what I've said is right according to him.
As for your criticisms, I can't say I disagree. I'm not a partisan Obama apologist. That said, I place the lion's share of the blame completely in the Conservative's lap.
The decifit will end up being far less than 20 trillion -- unless the voters do not elect Obama to a second term (or the Cons steal the election again)... then I agree that it could be a lot higher. I'd bet my life on it.
Hasn't happened yet. Sorry, the sore loser, crybaby attitude of it not being a proper election result unless the people make the choice you like doesn't fly.
Bush won in 2000 and 2004 the exact way Obama won in 2008, and Clinton won in 1996: enough people actually voted for them in enough states to result in an electoral victory. Sorry, pundit opinions are not law. I can say Obama stole the election in 2008, and I would have as much standing as the "Bush stole the election" boobs.
"The decifit will end up being far less than 20 trillion"
I hope you are right, actually. We will see if Obama can get it way below $1 trillion a year starting this coming year. Or if we elect more conservatives next year, anyway, then it would go down a lot more yet.
I am so far beyond the blame game now. The way that I see it, both sides have contributed to the problem and unless these folks can find a way to work together, trillion dollar deficits and one-term Presidencies might end up being a way of life.
Will: I am so far beyond the blame game now. The way that I see it, both sides have contributed to the problem [yada yada yada]...
You are wrong on both counts. I don't mean that that you are personally not "beyond" the blame game, but that you're wrong to be beyond it.
It is actually very important to identify what has been done wrong in the past so we don't repeat the same mistakes in the future. Of course what comes along with that is the identification of who is responsible for what was done wrong.
Conservatives don't want us to do this because then it would become evident that Conservative economic policies are responsible for why we are in the predicament we are in.
Conservative policies championed by both sides, yes, but CONSERVATIVE policies.
Work together? I think not. Like Voltron (I believe) said... I'm not going to compromise with those who wish to destroy America by allowing them to destroy it just a little.
The only solution is to get rid of the crazy teabagger radicals. Working with them should not be considered, IMHO.
The president should have invoked the 14th amendment to raise the debit ceiling and rejected the Republican "deal".
wd, we established that the Gramm, etc. bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. We also established the fact that President Clinton was the President during this time period. We also established that Franklin Raines (a Democrat) was as corrupt as hell and a major player in this fiasco. We also established that even somebody as anti-Republican as Alec Baldwin recognized that people like Barney Frank were totally clueless on this F and F mess. And the Democrats weren't swayed by "Conservative policies". They were driven by their own idiotic agenda that everybody should own their own home. Social engineering, in other words.
I agree with you, btw. Mr. Obama SHOULD have rejected this compromise. But he (probably) wouldn't have had to use the 14th amendment. Trust me, there are enough sane Republicans left that they could have passed the usual one-line raise the debt-ceiling bill and nobody would have been the worse off for it (save for maybe the tea partiers who would have voted against it). Obama blinked, essentially. That, and his leadership was nonexistent.
Will: we established that the Gramm, etc. bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Wrong. We established that Democrats to often act like Conservatives. Phil Gramm, a Republican, pushed the bill. Clinton was a conservative Democrat who listened to Conservative economic advisors. Conservatives and their ideology of deregulation are to blame.
There is nothing wrong with helping people own their own homes, or social engineering... you just can't mix that with conservative economics or you'll get a disaster.
FYI, Wikipedia correctly points out "virtually all law and governance has the effect of changing behavior and can be considered social engineering to some extent".
Obama is another Conservative Democrat. As I see it the only answer is to end this 30 year failed Conservative experiment and turn control over to the Progressives.
I just pray that the people realize this is what we HAVE to do before we slide into another Republican Great Depression.
38 Conservative Democrats (including Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd), huh? Wow, it must have been contagious back then.......I wonder if there's a vaccine in the pipeline.
Clinton and Obama are both Conservative Democrats. What else would you call a Democrat that ended welfare as we know it? Or a Democrat, in the lead up to passage of health care reform, took single payer off the table?
Clinton and Obama are both third way Democrats... Wikipedia says the third way "has also been heavily criticized by many social democrats [and] democratic socialists... as a BETRAYAL of left-wing values".
A politician can NOT be liberal or leftist while BETRAYING left-wing values!
I suggest dmarks educate himself before making any more silly comments like, "I measure from the center, unlike some who measure only from their personal point of view".
21 comments:
I'm surprised by a rating even this high, ;)
Those who approve must have voted for the Tea Party.
I wish more had. Then we could have cut epending a while back and not had to deal with the President's "compromise" of merely doubling the national debt as opposed to the default of tripling it.
At the end of Bill Clinton's 2nd term the national debt was 5.769 trillion. At the end of bush's second term the national debt was10.413 trillion. (source)
dmarks believes Obama is going to increase the national debt to more than 20 trillion? When? At the end of his second term?
I don't know what you're basing this conclusion on dmarks, but I think your source is full of shit. How did they arrive at this wildly incorrect figure? Must have been through the use of teabag math.
Here's an idea... Take the total value of the national debt increase since Bush took the reigns of power until the present (11 years and 7 months) and compute the yearly average over those years.
Then multiple that number by 8 years of a potential Obama run run and my bet is Obama will blow that number out of the water w-d.
Kust sayin...
Click here for the source.
Nothing to do with teabags. This looks like another example of when the facts end up being so much different from your opinion that your IQ goes down and you lash out with insults.
Bush debt at end of his terms: $10.7 trillion.
Obama debt as of a month ago: $14.3 trillion.
A different of $3.6 trillion. That's $3.6 trillion alone in Obama's first 3 years. Which is about $1.2 trillion a year on average.
Obama wants to serve a 2nd term. 8 years of $1.2 trillion dollar deficits = $9.6 trillion.... bringing the total national debt up to more than $20 trillion. A doubling of what Bush left us.
Rather than being wildly incorrect, there's nothing wild here.
DMARKS - I was hoping that w-d would do my math which gave Obama a dilution in the interest of "fairness", or yours which is the most accurate projection based on Obama's record alone.
As we await w-d's response.
Hopefully it will be a rational and unemotional rebuttal.
Waiting...
dmarks: Click here for the source. Nothing to do with teabags.
The article you linked to does not predict that the national debt when Barack Obama leaves office at the end of two terms will be 20 trillion dollars.
dmarks: [my conclusion is not] wildly incorrect...
All one has to do is examine the facts to determine how incredibly wrong you are.
bush signed the bank bailout right before he left office. Also, during the first 10 months of the Obama administration we were operating under the 2008 bush budget. Also, the stimulus was needed due to the Conservative-caused recession.
And, don't forget the two illegal wars started by the last president that were still going on when Obama assumed office.
If the economy had been healthy and there were no wars that money wouldn't have been spent. You're blaming Barack Obama because he inherited a (conservative-caused) disaster.
And let's not forget that the Republicans forced the president to extend the bush tax cuts for another two years, and just recently they refused to raise the debt ceiling if any new taxes were a part of the deal.
I say a majority of the new debt can be directly attributed to bush and the Republicans (and their teabag accomplices).
But even IF you attribute all that new debt to President Obama.... The bailout and stimulus were one-time events... and now the teabags have forced spending cuts. Future spending will be at a lower level.
So to look at the spending that has taken place so far and deduce the same level of spending will continue, and thus the debt will be 20 trillion when Obama leaves office... it's total bullshit.
That's OK if you don't want to call it "teabag math" though. We can call it "dmarks math". Either way the 20 trillion figure is definitely wildly incorrect.
I agree with some of what you're saying, wd. But nobody held a gun to Mr. Obama's head and forced him to send those 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. And the stimulus package was, IMHO, poorly constructed. The tax rebates did nothing but blow a hole in the deficit and the shovel-ready infrastructure projects were anything but. Mr. Obama gets a scant B- at best.
WD said: "Also, during the first 10 months of the Obama administration we were operating under the 2008 bush budget."
Actually, we were operating under the Barack Obama budget. He could have pushed to throw out the Bush budget and put in a new one. Instead, he kept it, and made it worse with even more waste spending.
"And, don't forget the two illegal wars started by the last president that were still going on when Obama assumed office."
It's easy to forget this, as both wars were legal. Despite the claims of armchair attorneys, and your completely fictional and slanderous falsehood that it was "illegal".
But on both of these proper and justified retaliations, you are doubly wrong: Obama could have gotten all of the troops out by the end of January had he so chose. He did not. He made these wars his own.
"I say a majority of the new debt can be directly attributed to bush and the Republicans (and their teabag accomplices)."
None of the new debt since Obama took office can be attributed to Bush.
"But even IF you attribute all that new debt to President Obama."
I am only attributing to Obama the debt he is responsible for. No more, no less.
"You're blaming Barack Obama because he inherited a (conservative-caused) disaster."
No. I am blaming Obama for his own decisions. Which started in January 2009.
"So to look at the spending that has taken place so far and deduce the same level of spending will continue, and thus the debt will be 20 trillion when Obama leaves office... it's total bullshit."
You do have a point. Things usually end up worse than how politicians predict them to be. And the current President has been exceptionally dishonest. So the $20 trillion figure might be way low.
The only way it will end up being less than $20 trillion at the end of the Obama presidency is if the Obama presidency ends with the inauguration of a new President on January 2013.
But Will, if you're agreeing with me (or "some" of what I'm saying), you're clearly disagreeing (and strongly) with your best bud dmarks. He, in no uncertain terms, says I am totally and completely wrong. NONE of what I've said is right according to him.
As for your criticisms, I can't say I disagree. I'm not a partisan Obama apologist. That said, I place the lion's share of the blame completely in the Conservative's lap.
The decifit will end up being far less than 20 trillion -- unless the voters do not elect Obama to a second term (or the Cons steal the election again)... then I agree that it could be a lot higher. I'd bet my life on it.
"or the Cons steal the election again"
Hasn't happened yet. Sorry, the sore loser, crybaby attitude of it not being a proper election result unless the people make the choice you like doesn't fly.
Bush won in 2000 and 2004 the exact way Obama won in 2008, and Clinton won in 1996: enough people actually voted for them in enough states to result in an electoral victory. Sorry, pundit opinions are not law. I can say Obama stole the election in 2008, and I would have as much standing as the "Bush stole the election" boobs.
"The decifit will end up being far less than 20 trillion"
I hope you are right, actually. We will see if Obama can get it way below $1 trillion a year starting this coming year. Or if we elect more conservatives next year, anyway, then it would go down a lot more yet.
I am so far beyond the blame game now. The way that I see it, both sides have contributed to the problem and unless these folks can find a way to work together, trillion dollar deficits and one-term Presidencies might end up being a way of life.
Will: I am so far beyond the blame game now. The way that I see it, both sides have contributed to the problem [yada yada yada]...
You are wrong on both counts. I don't mean that that you are personally not "beyond" the blame game, but that you're wrong to be beyond it.
It is actually very important to identify what has been done wrong in the past so we don't repeat the same mistakes in the future. Of course what comes along with that is the identification of who is responsible for what was done wrong.
Conservatives don't want us to do this because then it would become evident that Conservative economic policies are responsible for why we are in the predicament we are in.
Conservative policies championed by both sides, yes, but CONSERVATIVE policies.
Work together? I think not. Like Voltron (I believe) said... I'm not going to compromise with those who wish to destroy America by allowing them to destroy it just a little.
The only solution is to get rid of the crazy teabagger radicals. Working with them should not be considered, IMHO.
The president should have invoked the 14th amendment to raise the debit ceiling and rejected the Republican "deal".
wd, we established that the Gramm, etc. bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. We also established the fact that President Clinton was the President during this time period. We also established that Franklin Raines (a Democrat) was as corrupt as hell and a major player in this fiasco. We also established that even somebody as anti-Republican as Alec Baldwin recognized that people like Barney Frank were totally clueless on this F and F mess. And the Democrats weren't swayed by "Conservative policies". They were driven by their own idiotic agenda that everybody should own their own home. Social engineering, in other words.
I agree with you, btw. Mr. Obama SHOULD have rejected this compromise. But he (probably) wouldn't have had to use the 14th amendment. Trust me, there are enough sane Republicans left that they could have passed the usual one-line raise the debt-ceiling bill and nobody would have been the worse off for it (save for maybe the tea partiers who would have voted against it). Obama blinked, essentially. That, and his leadership was nonexistent.
Will: we established that the Gramm, etc. bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Wrong. We established that Democrats to often act like Conservatives. Phil Gramm, a Republican, pushed the bill. Clinton was a conservative Democrat who listened to Conservative economic advisors. Conservatives and their ideology of deregulation are to blame.
There is nothing wrong with helping people own their own homes, or social engineering... you just can't mix that with conservative economics or you'll get a disaster.
FYI, Wikipedia correctly points out "virtually all law and governance has the effect of changing behavior and can be considered social engineering to some extent".
Obama is another Conservative Democrat. As I see it the only answer is to end this 30 year failed Conservative experiment and turn control over to the Progressives.
I just pray that the people realize this is what we HAVE to do before we slide into another Republican Great Depression.
38 Conservative Democrats (including Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd), huh? Wow, it must have been contagious back then.......I wonder if there's a vaccine in the pipeline.
Will: 38 Conservative Democrats (including Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd), huh?
I said, "Democrats to often act like Conservatives". I didn't say every Democrat who voted for it joined the Blue Dog caucus.
Ahem. Clinton was a liberal, leftist Democrat. Not as far to the left as some, but left of center.
The same is true of President Obama.
I measure from the center, unlike some who measure only from their personal point of view.
Will said: "38 Conservative Democrats (including Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd)"
Haha. Of course. Once you establish that Obama and Clinton are conservatives, the word has no meaning anymore.
Clinton and Obama are both Conservative Democrats. What else would you call a Democrat that ended welfare as we know it? Or a Democrat, in the lead up to passage of health care reform, took single payer off the table?
Clinton and Obama are both third way Democrats... Wikipedia says the third way "has also been heavily criticized by many social democrats [and] democratic socialists... as a BETRAYAL of left-wing values".
A politician can NOT be liberal or leftist while BETRAYING left-wing values!
I suggest dmarks educate himself before making any more silly comments like, "I measure from the center, unlike some who measure only from their personal point of view".
Post a Comment