| Name: |
MartiniMan
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Unem over 10%. Deficit up 19%
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 11:52:44 AM
|
The Messiah today said unemployment will continue to rise to over 10% and the deficit for next year alone is going to be $1.5 trillion (19% higher than the last projection). My gosh, and I remember all the gnashing of teeth and incessant wailing about Bush's $440 billion deficit (he's a piker when compared to Obama). Obama's approach to governance will add what now looks like $15 trillion to our national debt over the next ten years.....and that's without the trillions he wants to spend on the health care takeover.
How's that hopey-changey thing working out for you moderates and independents? But we're getting out of Iraq.......
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Do Not.....
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 1:14:44 PM
|
confuse them with facts MM. I'm quite sure it is all Bush's fault. It has almost become comedic watching the news at night. Facts and figures, ignore them........ it's all about change.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Do Not.....
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 5:57:25 PM
|
Its not all Bush's fault, but if you included all the "emergency" appropriations (Iraq war, TARP, disaster relief) in Bush's last budget it would have been $1.3 trillion. Throughout his 8 years he used this accounting methods to keep the budget deficit lower than it was in reality (after all it is real money and did add to the debt). In Bush's 8 years not one penny for the military in Iraq or Afganistan was ever included in his general budget request. Obama has put the war funding, stimulus and emergency funding on budget. You may not like he's spending but are you at least willing to say he is being more honestabout it? Probably not. Also, unless something has changed from this morning's news I believe the budget announcement was to be that this year's deficit was to be about 8% less than originally forcast.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Do Not.....
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 7:39:44 PM
|
Not what they are saying on CNBC ... watching it right now. Darn conservative station reports the real facts and truth. Don't you hate that. Obama's first budget is 11% of GDP ... how can you even defend that with a straight face. Excuse me while I go throw up.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bedget versus deficit
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 8:02:44 PM
|
Maybe I was not clear, the DEFICIT is going to be $1.5 trillion, not the budget. Bush's deficit was indeed $440 billion in his last budget. And Democrats decried the ruin of our country....and yet not a peep over the Messiah's $1.5 trillion...... hmmmmmm
Harry Reid is down by 11% despite the fact that he is going to raise $25 million from special interests for his reelection campaign. Perhaps a repeat of Tom Daschle?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
By the way
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 8:03:50 PM
|
You are wrong about the deficit being 8% less, the headline was 19% greater than originally forecast.......
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bedget versus deficit
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 9:24:35 PM
|
Bush's last budget was $440 billion in the red but it did not even include $125 billion for Iraq/Afganistan, $700 billion for TARP and billions more for disaster relief. ALL real money appropriated as emergency spending not counted into the deficit but adding to the debt. Now where I come from we call that "cooking the books". Obama is pumping out barrels of red ink but he doesn't hide the fact. The WH issued the 10 year estimate of $9 trillion today while CBO's current estimate is $7 trillion. Do you ever remember W handing an estimate MORE than CBO? I sure don't. Cuss Obama all you want but he is being honest while W was not.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Current budget
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 9:29:01 PM
|
deficit estimate has been lowered $200 billion because of TARP money repaid with interest and the decision that funds included for possible additional TARP funding will not be needed.
|
was not and is not "spending" it was loans to add liquidity to the banking system. Don't get me wrong, I did not support that and Obama "changed" its intent by trying to control the banking system and control executive pay, then buying car companies etc. Many banks paid it back when they learn the new Obama conditions and those that have not are paying huge interest on the money and in somecases the equity will make the government money, not lose.
So the Tarp was not counted in Bush's spending and it is not counted in Obama's.
Why do you have a problem with the facts ... Obama is spending like a drunken salior. MM is talking about the defict on Obama's spending and the measure is the same as Bush ... he is not talking the budget. TOTAL government spending under Obama vs Bush .... war and all. If anything Obamas should be going down with less Iraq spending.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bedget versus deficit
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 10:22:04 PM
|
Uh sorry Archie, but the TARP money goes into the current year budget deficit and let's remember, this is not the "Bush" TARP. Your beloved Messiah voted for it while he was still a Senator. Remember from civics class, only Congress has the purse strings. The President can propose but at the end of the day the Democrat controlled House and Senate voted for the expenditure. While the TARP money is not all Obama's it is more his and the Dems in Congress than Bush's. Keep trying......
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Not according to the WH
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 10:25:46 PM
|
Here is the money(pun intended)quote from Bloomberg.
"U.S. unemployment will surge to 10 percent this year and the budget deficit will be $1.5 trillion next year, both higher than previous Obama administration forecasts because of a recession that was deeper and longer than expected, White House budget chief Peter Orszag said."
But I suppose your source for your statements knows more about what is going on than the White House budget chief. In fact, you may be right about that.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here are the facts
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 10:57:00 PM
|
On Aug 20 it was reported (I googled and found on NBC) that THIS years deficit would be $250 billion less than the May estimate because of the reasons I stated above.
Today Bloomberg reported that NEXT years deficit would be $200 billion higher than earlier estimates and that the WH had raised the 10 year deficit from $7 trillion to $9 trillion. According to NPR this evening the CBO still says $7 trillion over 10 years.
I may not have the superior intellect of MM and WW but I do know the difference between budget and deficit.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Here are the facts
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 11:07:09 PM
|
He!!, all those numbers are awful. They want us taxpayers to tighten our belts and spend less. It is a bit disingenuous (did Hodja spell that right?) for the Government to spend so wildly when we are expected to cut back. Seems the people are serving the Government, and I could swear it is supposed to be the other way around.
Nasreddin Hodja
PS: I am going to bed. I will need all my energy tomorrow to be able to get my students to wash my donkey.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hodja
|
|
Date:
|
8/25/2009 11:28:15 PM
|
I'm sorry I didn't see your post before you went to bed .. but please .. .on Wednesday please post and explain "I will need all my energy tomorrow to be able to get my students to wash my donkey." I don't have a clue what this means ... and I will literally be waiting to hear your explanation. And I don't mean that as a criticism in any way ... that is just an extremely intriguing post and I can't wait to hear the backstory. If I have missed prior posts that would explain this I apologize. No offence intended ... I am honestly intrigued. Thanks.
|
| Name: |
MrHodja
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hodja
|
|
Date:
|
8/26/2009 7:37:59 AM
|
Too long a story to recount here. Google Nasreddin Hodja, and read about why he rides into town sitting backward on his donkey.
My first operational tour in the Air Force in the late 60s was at Cigli AB, Turkey.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Dated information
|
|
Date:
|
8/26/2009 10:52:12 AM
|
So, you are trying to refute an August 25th quote from the White House budget office with an August 20th piece from NBC. Well, that settles that.
What is it about this factual presentation of a quote from the White House itself that causes you to want to argue about it? I just don't get it. Either he is lying or you are mistaken. Which is it?
Are you seriously now going to defend the profligate spending that is occurring by trying to split hairs on who said what and when? C'mon Archie, either you never really cared about budget deficits when you were hammering Bush about his or you have two sets of deficit standards, one for Republicans and one for Democrats. I am really OK either way because I am used to the double standards of liberals. It just offends our sensibility to engage in this kind of discussion and no amount of spin is going to change the facts.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Dated information
|
|
Date:
|
8/26/2009 4:17:31 PM
|
Can't you read. The two pieces of info I posted are related in that they both concern yearly budget deficits. Your original post, which I confirmed' was in regards to the increase in the projected budget deficit for NEXT year...I'll say it again NEXT year. My post was that on 8/20 it was announced that the projected deficit for THIS year...again THIS year was reduced. Talking to you people is as B. Frank so beautifully said "like arguing with the dining room table".
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
In summation
|
|
Date:
|
8/26/2009 4:21:06 PM
|
I'm not claiming either statement is true or untrue, good or bad, fact or fiction. I'm saying we are talking about two different statements about two different yearly budgets. Now, go polish yourself!
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Dated information
|
|
Date:
|
8/26/2009 7:03:57 PM
|
Oh I'm sorry. I didn't notice you changed the subject but then again that's what liberals do when faced with uncomfortable facts like Obama's dropping poll numbers (down to 51% approval in Gallup and dropping steadily with disapproval numbers likewise on the way up, up, up. I now how hard it is to accept the fact that your leftist beliefs represent less than 30% of the country and dropping fast as well.
I am sure you and Barney Frank have much in common, including disdain for his constituents (but then again they send him back to Washington every two years so I can't say that I blame either of you).
And what does go polish yourself mean anyway? I would be offended if I knew what it meant....oh, wait a second, nothing you could say or write could really offend me more than your sycophantic support for the Messiah.....
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Connecticut Lakes
»
Hopeville Pond
Login
|
Home
