Obama's Deficit Lies

[Toke]

Why do I get the feeling that real socialists laugh at the accusations that Obama is a socialist?

I have no idea, you must be hallucinating.

 

[Upchurch]

Why do I get the feeling that real socialists laugh at the accusations that Obama is a socialist?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,496446,00.html

 

[Grizzly Bear]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,496446,00.html

I especially found this section rather interesting:

LLEWELLYN: No, and most of the people who are writing about socialism don't know anything about it either. You know, the discussion that emerged in the campaign was — you know, very surreal. It didn't — it wasn't based on facts. It was more like name-calling.

I mean, if you want to be honest, and you want to take who of the four people running for national office was actually the most socialistic, it was Sarah Palin — because she administered a state that says that the oil revenues are collectively owned...

BECK: Right.

LLEWELLYN: ... and she used her position as governor to force the oil companies to pay the state more money, which they then redistributed to the people. Now, I have a feeling that that's what Chavez does in Venezuela, that people like you criticize him for. So, you know, that would, at least, be a more serious discussion .

The Palin policy was actually interesting to its own merits I'll have to admit.

The redistribution he talks about concerning her however, I'm not sure where that makes your point... Isn't he by referencing Palin's policy making a direct statement analogous to "spreading the wealth"? Oil companies are too rich, therefore they can afford to pay for us, and lift us off the floor. Can somebody tell me how this is different than spreading the wealth around as it applies to the principals Obama laid out for taxing the rich and giving to the poor? Details aside from the fact that Obama's policies are not aimed purely at industry but individuals and couples as well making over 250,000 [so is claimed] a year...

Apparently we've got one policy highlighted... thank you Upchurch

 

[jaydeehess]

This is as much BS as the notion that $8.5 trillion in additional national debt over the next 10 years will make our country well. It's as much BS as the claim Obama is going to reduce the deficit to half of the deficit he said helped cause the economic crisis. And of course, none of you anti-warriors will EVER take the time to look at what the costs might have been had we done nothing about Iraq.

That's a dodge of the point of my post.

GWBush kept the cost of fighting a war out of the budgets he produced.
How is that honest budgeting?
$16B/month x 12 months = $192billion a year.
I asked what other items GWB might have skipped over in his supposed $500 billion budget.

"oh honey, I bought a new truck. I included the cost of the truck in our household budget but let's not bother even thinking about the cost of actually using it? I'm sure it will all work out."

 

[BeAChooser]

I haven't seen you admit that Obama was right.

The fact is Obama was not correct in saying "we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression", AT THE TIME HE MADE THAT STATEMENT (which was February 5th). Sure, things have grown worse since then (in large part due to his actions) but at the time he made that statement, this recession was not worse than the one in 1981-82 on many, many levels. I proved this by comparing specific figures (unemployment rate, inflation rate, the delta in real GDP, the delta in industrial production, the 30 year mortgage rate, and the "misery index"). I can't help but notice that you never contested any of those figures in the thread where that topic was discussed: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135124 . Even the February 27th issue of the leftist New York Times supports my statement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1

the Commerce Department gave a harsher assessment for the last three months of 2008. In place of an initial estimate that the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 3.8 percent — already abysmal — the government said that the pace of decline was actually 6.2 percent, making it the worst quarter since 1982. ... snip ... Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent

You need to give this a rest because you are only embarrassing yourself. And if you continue to derail this thread with this lie, I'm going to report you. You can either stick to the topic of THIS thread's OP or go back to that other thread. Here we are talking about a whole new set of lies. The deficit.

future debt is less worrying then current crisis.

In your opinion. But that's all it is ... an opinion. I find it interesting that when Bush was president he was constantly attacked for increasing the National Debt by the democrats on this forum. Likewise, Ronald Reagan. And Clinton was held up as a model by democrats just for slowing the growth of the National Debt. They gave him total credit for reducing the deficit (never mind that was due just as much to republican actions). But all of the sudden, the National Debt and deficits don't matter.

Where's the wealth producers right now?

Well all I can say is you and Obama better find some, if you don't want this economy to tank completely and make Americans so angry that leftists lose their majority (and then some) in Congress two years from now. I'll even give you a helpful hint, joobz ... governments do not create wealth by stealing it from people with a history of producing wealth and giving it to people who have a history of not producing wealth. Governments do not create wealth by punishing the successful and rewarding the unsuccessful. Carve those in stone.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I can't help but notice that you don't want to discuss how deficits under the Obama budget are projected NEVER to drop below half a trillion dollars and will be over 700 billion in 10 years and climbing.

Don't care.

There you go folks ... your typical Obama supporter. They don't even care that it was their hero who said "the country would face another economic crisis if it did not address its debt problems soon." Who said "If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road."

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I can't help but notice that you have nothing to say about the OMB's concern that just the stimulus spending bill alone is going to negatively impact GDP growth downstream.

Not a concern.

There you go folks ... your typical Obama supporter.

You seem to be stuck on stupid.

Careful, that might almost be judged a personal attack.

I'd like for you to consider where the wealth producers are? Look at what "stimulated" the economy the past 100 years. At the center of each boom was a technological advance. (industrialization, automobiles, trains, flight, computers, internet, ...) Advances that came out of research. Many of which wouldn't have happened without government investment.

ROTFLOL! I hate to tell you this, but government didn't invent ANY of the things you named ... except perhaps the last two and even there, private research and development played a HUGE role in their becoming what they are now. And in most cases, any stimulation of the economy was not sudden (which Obama claims is our need) and was a spinoff, not the actual goal of the development. At best, Obama is spending a few tens of billions (out of his trillion in pork) on developing what are mostly rather dubious and still very inefficient technologies. In terms of the current crisis ... which you say is paramount to everything else, we'd be far better off if he'd at least devote those resources to building nuclear power plants using existing technology. But he won't because that would make Gore and the rest of the environmental wackos who support him unhappy.

Since 2000, there was not a single investment increase into science. Not the NSF or the NIH.

So you don't think the NSF and NIH have been conducting science the last decade? Of course they have.

But you think we need more research. OK. In September, Obama said he was going to double National Institute of Health (NIH) funding ... OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS. I guess that corresponds to him doubling the National Debt over the same period. But tell us, joobz, how is the country going to be able to afford ANY science if we are running deficits of over 500 billion throughout the entire period? The New York Times is noting (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1 ) that the collapse of the economy is threatening to undermine all these glorious plans.

And what EXACTLY do you hope the NIH will accomplish? Extend the lives of non-producers so they can live off the producers even longer? And you realize, of course, that if Obama succeeds in nationalizing health care, the need for new drugs is going to evaporate anyway. It's no coincidence that countries with socialized medicine do not create the majority of the new drugs on the market. Their citizens are not allowed to use them. Their citizens often have to come to our country to get those drugs. Ah, the wonders of socialism.

I'd like for you to look into potasium beryllium fluoroborate (KBBF). China has a corner on that market and they know it.

Nah, why don't you just link us to the article that spells out this latest bit of doom and gloom.

Remember when Japan was going to dominate the world? Now it's China. But notice something. While Obama is pushing us towards socialism, the Chinese are moving in the direction of the free market. I can't help but notice that you can't point to one time in history when a government doing what Obama is now doing has succeeded in bringing wealth and prosperity to a society. NOT ONCE. NOT ONCE.

So as you say ... *crickets*

 

[BeAChooser]

You are running in circles again, BAC. First you claim that the financial crisis is not nearly as bad as 73-75 and 81-82, then you accused me of the straw man claim that you don't think the economic situation is bad now, and now you repeat that 3 weeks ago the economic situation isn't as bad as it was in 73-75 and 81-82. Which is it, BAC?

I'll simply repeat what I just told joobz.

The fact is Obama was not correct in saying "we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression", AT THE TIME HE MADE THAT STATEMENT (which was February 5th). Sure, things have grown worse since then (in large part due to his actions) but at the time he made that statement, this recession was not worse than the one in 1981-82 on many, many levels. I proved this by comparing specific figures (unemployment rate, inflation rate, the delta in real GDP, the delta in industrial production, the 30 year mortgage rate, and the "misery index"). I can't help but notice that you never contested any of those figures in the thread where that topic was discussed: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135124 . Even the February 27th issue of the leftist New York Times supports my statement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1

the Commerce Department gave a harsher assessment for the last three months of 2008. In place of an initial estimate that the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 3.8 percent — already abysmal — the government said that the pace of decline was actually 6.2 percent, making it the worst quarter since 1982. ... snip ... Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent

You might learn something if you read the rest of what I posted him too.

 

[jj]

Here we see it again, someone who is so determined to "defeat Obama" that he or she doesn't care even a tiny bit how bad the country gets hurt.

What's more attributing the decline to "Obama's actions" is obviously false and dishonest, if anything, the new decline is pure annoyance at not being allowed to get a 100 mil salary while driving your company bankrupt.

Why do some people hate America when Obama leads it?

 

[joobz]

The fact is Obama was not correct in saying "we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression", AT THE TIME HE MADE THAT STATEMENT (which was February 5th).

So, he knew better than you did before you did.
He was more aware of the reality of our economic conditions than you.
He was not lying about it, just simple better informed and more clearly in touch with facts than you.

Thank you for admitting it.

 

[joobz]

ROTFLOL! I hate to tell you this, but government didn't invent ANY of the things you named ...

you know even less about research than I thought.

 

[gdnp]

I'll simply repeat what I just told joobz.

The fact is Obama was not correct in saying "we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression", AT THE TIME HE MADE THAT STATEMENT (which was February 5th). Sure, things have grown worse since then (in large part due to his actions) but at the time he made that statement, this recession was not worse than the one in 1981-82 on many, many levels. I proved this by comparing specific figures (unemployment rate, inflation rate, the delta in real GDP, the delta in industrial production, the 30 year mortgage rate, and the "misery index"). I can't help but notice that you never contested any of those figures in the thread where that topic was discussed: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135124 . Even the February 27th issue of the leftist New York Times supports my statement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1

I'm guessing that if you had been in New Orleans on August 28th 2005 you'd be claiming "this storm isn't so bad...it's hardly raining...we had higher winds back in '65 during Hurricane Betsy..."

You might learn something if you read the rest of what I posted him too.

what I learned I can't post without violating my membership agreement.

Originally Posted by joobz View Post
future debt is less worrying then current crisis.

In your opinion. But that's all it is ... an opinion.

An opinion shared by Stiglitz, Krugman, Roubini, Geithner, Bernanke, Greenspan, Volker...

 

[BeAChooser]

That's a dodge of the point of my post.

So bogusly claiming that we've spent $3 trillion on a failed war wasn't your point? Those claims are exactly what I labeled them.

GWBush kept the cost of fighting a war out of the budgets he produced.

The deficit figures that I cited for FY2008 and earlier do indeed include the cost of fighting the Iraq war over the last 6 years. And Bush's FY2008 budget, as an example, included both $481.4 billion in discretionary funding for the DoD AND $142 billion to continue the War on Terror, of which Iraq is a part. Both were submitted in February of 2007, so how can you claim that he kept fighting the war out of the budgets he submitted?

 

[BeAChooser]

attributing the decline to "Obama's actions" is obviously false and dishonest, if anything, the new decline is pure annoyance at not being allowed to get a 100 mil salary while driving your company bankrupt.

So, jj, how many more tens of billions of dollars do you think Obama is going to throw at AIG? They've been at the government trough FOUR times so far (to the tune of $180 billion so far) and the problem doesn't appear to be fixed ... not even close to fixed. It just announce a $62 billion dollar loss for one quarter!

Could it have something to do with the CEO of the company, Edward M. Liddy, being a crook (remember that retreat to a fancy resort after the first bailout installment?) and a liar? With regards to the latter, you should have seen O'Reilly's report on that the other night. Damning. But then someone like you probably never watches O'Reilly. Right?

Has Obama just been taken in by Liddy's lies, like so many others on Capital Hill? And if he has, is that the kind of leadership we really need micro-managing an unprecedented $3.6 trillion dollar budget in a socialist-style spending spree that is slated to extend into the next decade while doubling the National Debt (even with much higher taxes)?

And if he hasn't been taken in by the lies, then explain why would Obama want to keep giving money to the company? Especially given that when all is said and done, AIG may simply go bankrupt. That's what experts are saying. In which case it will money down the drain, disappearing into the pockets of ... well ... people like Liddy I suppose. Is that the sort of decision making that is supposed to inspire confidence that the government can successfully micro-manage our economy? Is that the sort of *change* we can look forward to during Obama's socialist style spending spree that will funded by stealing tens of trillions from producers and giving much of it to non-producers over the next 10 years?

 

[BeAChooser]

you know even less about research than I thought.

Well by all means ... prove to us that government invented the automobile. Or flight. Or industrialization. Or trains. Or even the computer.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm guessing that if you had been in New Orleans on August 28th 2005 you'd be claiming "this storm isn't so bad...it's hardly raining...we had higher winds back in '65 during Hurricane Betsy..."

I guess you no longer want to discuss the topic.

An opinion shared by Stiglitz, Krugman, Roubini, Geithner, Bernanke, Greenspan, Volker...

ROTFLOL!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/01/stiglitz-slams-federal-ba_n_162914.html

Stiglitz Slams Federal Bad Bank Idea: "Cash For Trash"

... snip ...

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz said any decision by President Barack Obama to establish a so-called bad bank to rid financial companies of toxic assets risks swelling the national debt.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/11/stiglitz200811

by Joseph E. Stiglitz November 2008

... snip ...

These bailouts contribute to growing deficits in the short run, and to perverse incentives in the long run. Market economies work only when there is a system of accountability, but C.E.O.’s, investors, and creditors are walking away with billions, while American taxpayers are being asked to pick up the tab.

And gee, Stiglitz didn't seem to think massive deficits and debt were a good idea in his recent article "The $10 Trillion Dollar Hangover". Wonder what he thinks about Obama doubling that figure over the next 10 years? Oh that's right, he's clearly a democrat so of course anything Obama does is ok.

Want me to quote the others in your list?

 

[gdnp]

ROTFLOL!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/01/stiglitz-slams-federal-ba_n_162914.html



http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/11/stiglitz200811



And gee, Stiglitz didn't seem to think massive deficits and debt were a good idea in his recent article "The $10 Trillion Dollar Hangover". Wonder what he thinks about Obama doubling that figure over the next 10 years? Oh that's right, he's clearly a democrat so of course anything Obama does is ok.

LOL.

Stiglitz criticizes some aspects of how the stimulus is formulated, and from that you conclude that he opposes the stimulus? What planet do you live on again? What do you think of recent Stiglitz quotes like this, BAC?

While economic stimulus fever is sweeping the nation one cable news channel at a time, some are skeptical it won’t do anything – because it isn’t large enough.


Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economic Science and the most cited economist in the world according to a Research Papers in Economics/University of Connecticut December 2008 study, told Bloomberg TV on Jan. 8 it will fall short.


“It will boost it,” Stiglitz said. “The real question is – is it large enough and is it designed to address all the problems. The answer is almost surely it is not enough, particularly as he’s had to compromise with the Republicans.”

Hmm. Does that sound to you like a deficit hawk?

Want me to quote the others in your list

Don't you think you've made enough of a fool of yourself already?

 

[gdnp]

I guess you no longer want to discuss the topic.

What's the point? In BAC-land the severity of the crisis grows and shrinks daily depending on which way the wind is blowing.

But if you wish, I'll give you another chance.

Do you think this is the worst financial crisis since the great depression, as many economists do, or do you think that this is a recession milder than the ones in the 70's and 80's? Which way is the wind blowing today?

 

[joobz]

Well by all means ... prove to us that government invented the automobile. Or flight. Or industrialization. Or trains. Or even the computer.

Without Gibbs (At Yale), we'd not have thermodynamics which was used for the engine development of the car.

 

[Darat]

ROTFLOL! Tell you what, Darat. Why don't you ask Upchurch. He started a thread titled "Bush's socialist plan" back in September 2008 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123062&highlight=upchurch ) so maybe he can identify what constitute socialist policies for you.

I don't intend to ask anyone else about something that you posted so back to my question: What are his socialist policies?

 

[Upchurch]

BAC, perhaps you would like to suggest what we ought to be doing that might help get the economy moving again?

 

[joobz]

BAC, perhaps you would like to suggest what we ought to be doing that might help get the economy moving again?

Well, you can't expect him to have better solutions the Obama when he clearly admits to not understanding the economy as well as Obama does.

The fact is Obama was not correct in saying "we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression", AT THE TIME HE MADE THAT STATEMENT (which was February 5th).

Here is his admission that On Februrary 5th, Obama knew more about the economy than BeAChooser. It's only now that BeAChooser is aware of the reality the Obama knew a month ago.