Could Obama lose?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Okay, sure, I agree...but that doesn't happen over night, or willy nilly. There needs to be an actual plan...and you don't start counting savings until you actually realize them. Romney's plan is idiotic. Besides, Romney wants to increase spending in the largest government department!

Saying Romney's plan is idiotic isn't an argument. What about it bugs you?

[Smallc]

Saying Romney's plan is idiotic isn't an argument. What about it bugs you?

What? I said that trying to cut taxes before you've realized savings from any mythical shrinking of government (while dramatically increasing the DoD budget) is idiotic, especially for a country with so much debt. That was the argument. It was pretty hard to miss.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Smallc

[kimmy]

I confess, Jerry, you've got me a little bewildered: you dumped so much BS on me all at once that I don't even know where to start shoveling myself out.

Romney's plan reduces taxes for everybody, not just Mitt Romney. He is giving everyone across the board a permanent 20% cut. So if you paid $35,000 in tax last year, under Romney that you will have $7,000 more in your pocket.

Now what would you rather, yet another Obama stamped boring government bursary for liberal arts college, or a cool 7 GR in cash. I know my answer! Talk about direct economic stimulus!

We're going to slash taxes for corporations! And we're going to slash taxes for rich guys! And we're going to slash taxes for poor people too! And everybody in between! And we're going to cut capital gains taxes so that YOU can be a bigtime investor JUST LIKE MITT! And we're going to increase defense spending! And we're going to slash the deficit! And we're not going to cut Medicare by one penny! And we're not going to cut Social Security by one penny! And we're going to give Kimmy a magic dancing pony just like Ann's! And we're going to give Shady some tanning-bed coupons! And a stash of "special herbs" for Gosthacked! And for you, Jerry, we're going to give you a BRIDGE! A FREAKING BRIDGE! IN BROOKLYN!

And we're going to pay for all of this by defunding Planned Parenthood. And cutting bursaries to liberal arts colleges.

Are you dumb enough to believe this stuff, Jerry? Or are you hoping everybody else is dumb enough to believe this stuff? This is freaking delusional.

This together with his corporate tax cut is almost certain to unleash the 2 trillion dollars in corporate cash just sitting on the sidelines worrying about what kind of regulation or tax Obama is going to shove down their throat next. Can you say boom time?

Can you say fantasy?

By contrast, Obama wants more of your money, to do what with, I guess we will have to "pass the bill to find out what's in it" to quote Nancy Pelosi. TO him, it doesn't really matter. He's been pretty clear with the electorate - surprisingly honest, in fact - about his belief that the middle class is a borg of public sector employees - teachers, police, and the like - not software salesmen or small business owners - you know, people who actually create wealth.

As for so what, my only point is this: this whole fairness/envy thing is a waste of time and a cynical way to run a campaign. Should Romney pay a little more? Sure. But look at facts: the top 10% income earners already pay 70% of the tax burden. Look it up.

Are you saying "the rich already pay more than their fair share"? BS. If the figure you quoted is true, then all it does is illustrate how absurdly immense the gap between the rich and the rest of society has become.

It's funny how members of Team Elephant are always protesting that talking in terms of "classes" is inappropriate, and yet you're here arguing that the rich, as a class, pay too big a share.

Willard-- and I only keep picking on Willard because he's one rich guy whose taxes we've had a chance to look at, for at least one year-- Willard paid 13.9% in 2010. I defy you to explain why 13.9% is too high a tax burden for a guy who made $21 million, when Americans who earn a fraction as much pay taxes at a much higher rate. Don't fall back on this "well rich people as a group pay this much" BS, tell me why Mitt Romney as an individual should pay less than the 13.9% he paid in 2010.

Why should somebody like Mitt have a lower tax rate than somebody like his secretary?

BTW, sorry I couldn't sit through the Jon Lovitz video. He's one of the most annoying people on earth even when he's not whining about how hard done-by he is. A talentless douche like him complaining that he pays too much taxes? That guy should get up every morning and thank his lucky stars or whatever god it is that he believes in that he isn't serving Breakfast Burgers down at BK.

Even if you let the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest Americans, studies show that only makes up about $40 billion in revenue - in other words, nothing. SO don't be fooled, Obama isn't paying for the countries lollipops on the backs of a few rich people. It's just his plan to demonize a few rich people so he can get back into the white house with no real plan at all.

You Republican cheerleaders seem to think that $40 billion should be the last place they should look for money to address the deficit, and I think it should be the very first place they look.

You can say "bah, it's only $40 billion", but $40 billion would fund one hell of a lot of food stamps or Earned Income Tax Credits or work skills training, and all of that is a way better use for it than giving it to Mitt and his friends.

-k

[waldo]

And yet he increased spending less than any other president in the last 30 years. So why is that? You're smart. Figure it out.

ya, both MLW members, 'GostHacked'... and the Jerry... have been playing fast and loose with your reference. Nothing like Politifact's Truth-O-Meter to add in a dose of perspective/reality:

Mostly True

:

Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years."

:lol:

Did you even read what is in your link? It clearly only assigns $140 billion out of $1.6 trillion to Obama.

My point remains very clear and easy to understand: the unique events in late 2009 cause a massive one time spike in spending. Using this as a baseline for Obama's spending is misleading for two reasons.

First, the baseline is unusually high due to TARP and Stimulus. A real fiscal hawk would have seen spending go down to previous levels again after such an unusually high one time event. Instead, Obamas spending continued at those levels and even continued to rise further.

Think of it as a family budget: your monthly spend is $6,000. Now your BBQ catches fire and burns the back door, some siding and part of the eavestrough. Total cost to remodel? $5,000. So this month, instead of the $6,000 nut, you have an $11,000 nut.

In Obama's world, you just keep on spending $11,000 every following month - that's your new baseline, but you're a fiscal hawk because you kept it at $11,000 for a few years.

c'mon Jerry... which is it... which way are you really going to play this... just how much shinola are you prepared to throw down, hey? I mean, really... is Grover Norquist falsely trumpeting himself as the real head of the U.S. Government? Are you giving House Republicans a free pass here Jerry... for all that Obama spending you say happened?

you ask, did I read my own link's article content (referencing back to the WSJ/Marketwatch source)... sure did Jerry - along with several of it's critiques. What isn't generally questionable, what is generally accepted... year to year, president to president, is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. Any respective president only begins to shape the budget in the second year of an administration..... the 2009 fiscal year began four months before Obama moved into the White House... the major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Do you dispute this Jerry?

but 2009 is a special case, isn't it Jerry? It's so special that in one breath we have all these guys, like you, hyping how Dubbya saved the global economy with TARP... and in the next breath assigning all those related monies to Obama? I mean, I'll quote your own words again, if you'd like, hey? Would you like that Jerry? So the question comes down to dividing up those monies properly between Bush and Obama... while still wanting to keep all that 'TARP global saving' with Bush... cause you still want to keep all that for your 'Bush global saving' talking point, right Jerry?

in your whine over properly establishing the baseline, the WSJ/Marketwatch writer, as you point out, reassigned $140 billion from Bush to Obama... but what Politifact did after acknowledging some of the critiques against that reassignment level, was to reevaluate the baseline acknowledging the critiques - recognizing the expressed critics wants to reassign more monies from Bush to Obama... more than the $140 billion figure you're whining over (shifting that figure higher to between $307 billion and $456 billion). But guess what Jerry, if you actually read what you're asking me if I read, you'd acknowledge that even accepting to the full reassignment values of monies the critics suggest be done, Obama spending only rises either one position rank amongst U.S. Presidents --- either moving up one rank position (at the low end of the reassignment monies amount), or moving up two rank positions (at the high end of the reassignment monies amount). In either case, Jerry... your baseline whine doesn't hold any weight/substance... just like most/all of what you're blathering on about. And, of course, neither does the associated Romney claim hold any weight/substance... it's false... the Romney claim is/remains false:

-

Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years."

[Bitsy]

The United States is the brokest nation in the history of the world. The non-partisan CBO says if they continue on the current path, the economy shuts down in 2027. That's not that far off.

Citation from the CBO, not what Ryan says the CBO says. Thanks.

Medicare. WIthout serious reform, the program is insolvent by 2020. Obama has no answer for this.

Social Security. See medicare above. Obama has no serious answer for this.

Obama negotiated with Republicans and put Medicare and SS on the table during the debit debt level debate; Boehner walked away because he wanted more reduction that Obama was willing to give without some revenue increase.

Expiration of tax cuts? This is a political game. Raising taxes on the wealthiest gives the USA an extra 40 billion each year. So instead of a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit, now you have a $1.56 trillion dollar deficit. Yay!

Citation please on the 40 billion per year additional revenue. The figures that I have seen says letting the cuts expire will generate 850 billion over 10 years.

The earth has warmed and cooled many times. Obama hasn't done a thing to help or hinder this natural fluctuation, nor will he ever. Oh, besides giving money to his buddies at fake companies like Solyndra, of course.

It appears that you are a denier so I can see why this would not be an issue for you. Romney is described as a climate change agnostic, Ryan a climate change denier. I believe in science and the evidence that it has provided; I think we are seeing the effects of global warming on a terrifying scale. Obama has raised fuel standards; he is negotiating a black carbon reduction initiative unfortunately his clean energy plans that has been stymied in Congress.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Bitsy

[JerrySeinfeld]

c'mon Jerry... which is it... which way are you really going to play this... just how much shinola are you prepared to throw down, hey? I mean, really... is Grover Norquist falsely trumpeting himself as the real head of the U.S. Government? Are you giving House Republicans a free pass here Jerry... for all that Obama spending you say happened?

you ask, did I read my own link's article content (referencing back to the WSJ/Marketwatch source)... sure did Jerry - along with several of it's critiques. What isn't generally questionable, what is generally accepted... year to year, president to president, is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. Any respective president only begins to shape the budget in the second year of an administration..... the 2009 fiscal year began four months before Obama moved into the White House... the major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Do you dispute this Jerry?

but 2009 is a special case, isn't it Jerry? It's so special that in one breath we have all these guys, like you, hyping how Dubbya saved the global economy with TARP... and in the next breath assigning all those related monies to Obama? I mean, I'll quote your own words again, if you'd like, hey? Would you like that Jerry? So the question comes down to dividing up those monies properly between Bush and Obama... while still wanting to keep all that 'TARP global saving' with Bush... cause you still want to keep all that for your 'Bush global saving' talking point, right Jerry?

in your whine over properly establishing the baseline, the WSJ/Marketwatch writer, as you point out, reassigned $140 billion from Bush to Obama... but what Politifact did after acknowledging some of the critiques against that reassignment level, was to reevaluate the baseline acknowledging the critiques - recognizing the expressed critics wants to reassign more monies from Bush to Obama... more than the $140 billion figure you're whining over (shifting that figure higher to between $307 billion and $456 billion). But guess what Jerry, if you actually read what you're asking me if I read, you'd acknowledge that even accepting to the full reassignment values of monies the critics suggest be done, Obama spending only rises either one position rank amongst U.S. Presidents --- either moving up one rank position (at the low end of the reassignment monies amount), or moving up two rank positions (at the high end of the reassignment monies amount). In either case, Jerry... your baseline whine doesn't hold any weight/substance... just like most/all of what you're blathering on about. And, of course, neither does the associated Romney claim hold any weight/substance... it's false... the Romney claim is/remains false:

-

Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years."

I see you're still having a bit of trouble. Even if you shift $456 billion to Obama, the baseline after TARP and the rest of stimulus is far higher than would have been in it's absence, by about $1.2 trillion dollars.

I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand basic mathematics. You can twist the numbers all day long, but you cannot deny that Obama has added $5 trillion to the national debt in just 3.5 years, more than any President in history.

This guy has made trillion WITH A "T" a household word, and just expects us all to act like TRILLION ISN'T THAT BIG A DEAL, BECAUSE ON A "PERCENTAGE BASIS" (debatable) HE'S ADDING LESS.

Let's be frank, when you're adding $5 trillion to your national debt every 3.5 years, does the rate of growth really matter? It took 70 years for the debt to get from zero to 10 trillion. And 3.5 to get from 10 to $15 (actually 16) trillion.

And his (and your) best retort is "hey at least the rate is a bit slower". That's insanity.

If your mortgage is $500K and you decide to borrow another $250K, you just increased your household debt by 50%. If you can't pay the bills, does it really matter that 500 to 750 is a "slower rate" that $250 to $500K? Nope. WHen your country's debt is the same size as your entire economy, you are in the same company as Iceland (which went bankrupt), Ireland (which almost did) and Portugal (which is currently the whipping boy of the international bond markets.

Dude at least be honest with yourself on this. Anyone can play with percentages and growth rates. Ask yourself this? How long did it take GW Bush to add (working from memory here) $5 trillion in debt to the government tab? His entire 8 year term.

Obama added the same amount in less than 4 years. This is a fact, get your facts straight before you start bandying about with percentages.

But hey, why let something like, you know, facts, get in the way of a good Democrat "hey spending is just fine" spin?

For your next trick, let me guess. "Spending is just fine, in fact, we're INCREASING spending and raising taxes to pay for it".

You know, because that's worked so well for the past 40 years regardless of party in power and worked even better in, you know, France, Greece, Portugal, Italy...

Obama's slogan shouldn't be "FORWARD". Why not just be honest like the Europeans? how about this:

"MORE"

The Dems aired an ad of Paul Ryan throwing grandma off a cliff. The GOP should counter...with a video of Obama throwing the entire country off a cliff - a fiscal cliff.

Edited September 5, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[dre]

I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand basic mathematics. You can twist the numbers all day long, but you cannot deny that Obama has added $5 trillion to the national debt in just 3.5 years, more than any President in history.

Sure but Bush held the record before that, and someone else will hold the record next.

http://20millionminutes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-National-Debt-Chart-1940-to-2011-226x300.gif

Do you know what an exponential curve is?

Take a look at the trend on that graph. Its a trend that shows an ever steepening line with each administration borrowing much more than the previous one. The only brief change in the trend was under Clinton and that was only because he had the good fortune to serve during a gigantic boom.

This isnt about presidents its a course that was plotted almost 30 years ago, and all these presidents just stood at the helm did what the technocrats that really run the economy told them to do, and stayed the course.

I know its fun to bash one political party or the other, but Americas debt spiral is truly bipartisan! You have two parties that want to do all kinds of big spending, and both of them are afraid to utter the word "tax hike" to pay for any of this spending... So the borrowing continues! And no matter which party is at the helm when theres signs of a recession or slowdown, the answer is the same! Sell bonds, and dump the proceeds into the economy with the hope it result in growth.

Any mainstream politician will do the same thing. Nobody wants to be the guy that goes down in history for passing economy crippling austerity measures, reforming entitlements, and dismantling the global US military machine. And thats what it would take to make a serious dent in those numbers. Even if they think its the RIGHT thing to do they STILL wont do it, because they dont align policy around long term health and sustainability they align policy around winning the next election.

Edited September 5, 2012 by dre

[waldo]

c'mon Jerry... which is it... which way are you really going to play this... just how much shinola are you prepared to throw down, hey? I mean, really... is Grover Norquist falsely trumpeting himself as the real head of the U.S. Government? Are you giving House Republicans a free pass here Jerry... for all that Obama spending you say happened?

.

in your whine over properly establishing the baseline, the WSJ/Marketwatch writer, as you point out, reassigned $140 billion from Bush to Obama... but what Politifact did after acknowledging some of the critiques against that reassignment level, was to reevaluate the baseline acknowledging the critiques - recognizing the expressed critics wants to reassign more monies from Bush to Obama... more than the $140 billion figure you're whining over (shifting that figure higher to between $307 billion and $456 billion). But guess what Jerry, if you actually read what you're asking me if I read, you'd acknowledge that even accepting to the full reassignment values of monies the critics suggest be done, Obama spending only rises either one position rank amongst U.S. Presidents --- either moving up one rank position (at the low end of the reassignment monies amount), or moving up two rank positions (at the high end of the reassignment monies amount). In either case, Jerry... your baseline whine doesn't hold any weight/substance... just like most/all of what you're blathering on about. And, of course, neither does the associated Romney claim hold any weight/substance... it's false... the Romney claim is/remains false:

-

Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years."

I see you're still having a bit of trouble.

I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand basic mathematics. You can twist the numbers all day long, but you cannot deny that Obama has added $5 trillion to the national debt in just 3.5 years, more than any President in history.

Dude at least be honest with yourself on this. Anyone can play with percentages and growth rates. Ask yourself this? How long did it take GW Bush to add (working from memory here) $5 trillion in debt to the government tab? His entire 8 year term.

Obama added the same amount in less than 4 years. This is a fact, get your facts straight before you start bandying about with percentages.

Sure but Bush held the record before that, and someone else will hold the record next.

http://20millionminutes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-National-Debt-Chart-1940-to-2011-226x300.gif

Do you know what an exponential curve is?

Take a look at the trend on that graph. Its a trend that shows an ever steepening line with each administration borrowing much more than the previous one. The only brief change in the trend was under Clinton and that was only because he had the good fortune to serve during a gigantic boom.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry... what kind of voodoo-economics baseline scam are you running, hey? If you have trouble with the math reassigning Bush monies to Obama, I'd suggest you take it up with the Wall Street Journal/Marketwatch, Politifact... and the critics of the original WSJ/Marketwatch article that Politifact acknowledged and responded to. In any case, MLW member, 'dre', has quite properly brought the real focus down on your continued shinola... you know, where you want to assign all your stated, "global saving glory", to Bush... while disproportionately casting Bush monies/decisions/impacts on Obama. This lil' trending ditty about says it all, in terms of recognizing just what did happen in relation to the recession/stimulus undertakings within both Bush/Obama administrations... coupled with the administration transitions and what Obama did inherit from Bush (as in any first year incoming presidential term reflects back upon the budget cast by the last year of the outgoing presidential term)... notwithstanding the two Republican wars that Obama had/has to deal with - don't forget the Republican wars, hey Jerry! So Jer, what do you think about the linked graphic trend growth rates, year over year (Bush to Obama)... note the Obama, Green text 'Trend is Improving' designation, hey Jerry! And like I initially pointed out Jerry, why are you intentionally/purposely negating the influence of the Republican TeePartee driven House and Grover Norquist... you know, the guy pulling all the Republican strings? Why be dissing Grover, hey Jerry?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry... what kind of voodoo-economics baseline scam are you running, hey? If you have trouble with the math reassigning Bush monies to Obama, I'd suggest you take it up with the Wall Street Journal/Marketwatch, Politifact... and the critics of the original WSJ/Marketwatch article that Politifact acknowledged and responded to. In any case, MLW member, 'dre', has quite properly brought the real focus down on your continued shinola... you know, where you want to assign all your stated, "global saving glory", to Bush... while disproportionately casting Bush monies/decisions/impacts on Obama. This lil' trending ditty about says it all, in terms of recognizing just what did happen in relation to the recession/stimulus undertakings within both Bush/Obama administrations... coupled with the administration transitions and what Obama did inherit from Bush (as in any first year incoming presidential term reflects back upon the budget cast by the last year of the outgoing presidential term)... notwithstanding the two Republican wars that Obama had/has to deal with - don't forget the Republican wars, hey Jerry! So Jer, what do you think about the linked graphic trend growth rates, year over year (Bush to Obama)... note the Obama, Green text 'Trend is Improving' designation, hey Jerry! And like I initially pointed out Jerry, why are you intentionally/purposely negating the influence of the Republican TeePartee driven House and Grover Norquist... you know, the guy pulling all the Republican strings? Why be dissing Grover, hey Jerry?

I'm not a partisan on this particular issue, and have never claimed GW Bush to be a fiscal conservative, so to use your vernacular - why be putting' words in my mouth?

I don't have time to dissect your gibberish right now, but meantime you can answer me two questions:

1. How many years did it take GW Bush to accumulate $5 Trillion dollars in debt?

2. How many years did it take Barack Hussein Obama to accumulate $5 Trillion dollars in debt?

Oh wait - maybe he can add another $5 Trillion in his next term! $5 Trillion on top of the existing $15 Trillion is only a 33% growth in the debt! What an "improvement" from the 50% growth rate in his first term!!

But why stop there? Let's elect Joe Biden in 2016, he can add $5 Trillion more in debt. Hey the national debt will be 200% of the US economy, but spending growth will only be 25% over the term! Success!!

If we could only get the national debt up to $40 Trillion then add another $5 Trillion the growth rate would only be about 12.5% over the entire term of one President. Wow!

Edited September 5, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[waldo]

Dude at least be honest with yourself on this. Anyone can play with percentages and growth rates. Ask yourself this? How long did it take GW Bush to add (working from memory here) $5 trillion in debt to the government tab? His entire 8 year term.

Obama added the same amount in less than 4 years. This is a fact, get your facts straight before you start bandying about with percentages.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry... what kind of voodoo-economics baseline scam are you running, hey? If you have trouble with the math reassigning Bush monies to Obama, I'd suggest you take it up with the Wall Street Journal/Marketwatch, Politifact... and the critics of the original WSJ/Marketwatch article that Politifact acknowledged and responded to. In any case, MLW member, 'dre', has quite properly brought the real focus down on your continued shinola... you know, where you want to assign all your stated, "global saving glory", to Bush... while disproportionately casting Bush monies/decisions/impacts on Obama. This lil' trending ditty about says it all, in terms of recognizing just what did happen in relation to the recession/stimulus undertakings within both Bush/Obama administrations... coupled with the administration transitions and what Obama did inherit from Bush (as in any first year incoming presidential term reflects back upon the budget cast by the last year of the outgoing presidential term)... notwithstanding the two Republican wars that Obama had/has to deal with - don't forget the Republican wars, hey Jerry! So Jer, what do you think about the linked graphic trend growth rates, year over year (Bush to Obama)... note the Obama, Green text 'Trend is Improving' designation, hey Jerry! And like I initially pointed out Jerry, why are you intentionally/purposely negating the influence of the Republican TeePartee driven House and Grover Norquist... you know, the guy pulling all the Republican strings? Why be dissing Grover, hey Jerry?

I'm not a partisan on this particular issue, and have never claimed GW Bush to be a fiscal conservative, so to use your vernacular - why be putting' words in my mouth?

1. How many years did it take GW Bush to accumulate $5 Trillion dollars in debt?

2. How many years did it take Barack Hussein Obama to accumulate $5 Trillion dollars in debt?

Oh wait - maybe he can add another $5 Trillion in his next term! $5 Trillion on top of the existing $15 Trillion is only a 33% growth in the debt!

Jerry, how did I miss your bipartisan slant on this? But really, there is no need for you to repeat yourself... the linked graphic answered you the first time. You repeating your, 'comparative to Bush', talking point is nothing more than your weak, lame-assed attempt to dodge just what impact the Bush admin had on the first Obama term... notwithstanding the recession/stimulus impact. Nothing was more telling on your overall position than for you to tout the, 'global saving Bush', while absolutely negating any/all Bush impacts on the Obama term. Jerry, make sure to tune into the convention speeches tonight; apparently, the BigDog Clinton intends to speak directly to the debt issue and what Bush left Obama to deal with... along with the related Republican Party of No's direct and purposeful obstructionist efforts. I'm sure your self-proclaimed bipartisan self will warmly embrace Bill Clinton's speech, right Jerry? As for your self-serving projections on Obama's next term, do the U.S. National Debt growth, year over year, trending numbers in the linked graphic support your projection? Let me know if you're having trouble with the numbers and I'll whip up a trendline graphic for ya, hey Jerry?

[GostHacked]

I'm not a partisan on this particular issue, and have never claimed GW Bush to be a fiscal conservative, so to use your vernacular - why be putting' words in my mouth?

I don't have time to dissect your gibberish right now, but meantime you can answer me two questions:

1. How many years did it take GW Bush to accumulate $5 Trillion dollars in debt?

2. How many years did it take Barack Hussein Obama to accumulate $5 Trillion dollars in debt?

Oh wait - maybe he can add another $5 Trillion in his next term! $5 Trillion on top of the existing $15 Trillion is only a 33% growth in the debt! What an "improvement" from the 50% growth rate in his first term!!

But why stop there? Let's elect Joe Biden in 2016, he can add $5 Trillion more in debt. Hey the national debt will be 200% of the US economy, but spending growth will only be 25% over the term! Success!!

If we could only get the national debt up to $40 Trillion then add another $5 Trillion the growth rate would only be about 12.5% over the entire term of one President. Wow!

I think Romney could add 5 trillion more in debt in TWO years.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jerry, how did I miss your bipartisan slant on this? But really, there is no need for you to repeat yourself... the linked graphic answered you the first time. You repeating your, 'comparative to Bush', talking point is nothing more than your weak, lame-assed attempt to dodge just what impact the Bush admin had on the first Obama term... notwithstanding the recession/stimulus impact. Nothing was more telling on your overall position than for you to tout the, 'global saving Bush', while absolutely negating any/all Bush impacts on the Obama term. Jerry, make sure to tune into the convention speeches tonight; apparently, the BigDog Clinton intends to speak directly to the debt issue and what Bush left Obama to deal with... along with the related Republican Party of No's direct and purposeful obstructionist efforts. I'm sure your self-proclaimed bipartisan self will warmly embrace Bill Clinton's speech, right Jerry? As for your self-serving projections on Obama's next term, do the U.S. National Debt growth, year over year, trending numbers in the linked graphic support your projection? Let me know if you're having trouble with the numbers and I'll whip up a trendline graphic for ya, hey Jerry?

I'll repeat it again. I don't think Bush was a fiscal hawk. Never did. That said, TARP saved the world from global financial collapse. This is a fact. TARP also heightened the baseline making Obama's spending rate increase look comparatively smaller. This is also a fact.

You still haven't answered my 2 very basic questions. That's a lot of words. Isn't that what you guys are best at? Racking up debt and then spinning it? Usually when someone can't answer two basic questionsm, and instead goes on a wild ramble defending their "guy" instead of dealing with, you know, facts, it's telling. If it makes you feel better, go ahead and whip up that trendline.

Meantime, answer the two questions:

1. How many years did it take GW Bush to add $5 trillion to the US national debt?

2. How many years did it take Barack Hussein Obama to add $5 Trillion to the national debt?

Answer the questions.

Edited September 5, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[waldo]

Meantime, answer the two questions:

1. How many years did it take GW Bush to add $5 trillion to the US national debt?

2. How many years did it take Barack Hussein Obama to add $5 Trillion to the national debt?

Answer the questions.

Jerry, are you deef? Is that all your self-proclaimed bipartisan self can muster? Is Barack Hussein Obama the same guy as Barack Obama? You're on a roll, Jerry! While you're so conveniently negating the impact of your favoured son, George Walker Bush (that's the same guy as, 'the son of Bush', 'Bush 43', 'Dubbya') on the Obama first term, perhaps you could zero in on the Obama spending your bluster is really targeting. And don't forget the two Republican wars Obama has to deal with, right Jerry? Make sure to watch the BigDog tonight, hey Jerry?

[cybercoma]

"Here's what your nuanced reasoning is going into the octagon against" hahaha

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=123060

[Smallc]

"Here's what your nuanced reasoning is going into the octagon against" hahaha

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=123060

Happy Labour Day everyone....

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jerry, are you deef? Is that all your self-proclaimed bipartisan self can muster? Is Barack Hussein Obama the same guy as Barack Obama? You're on a roll, Jerry! While you're so conveniently negating the impact of your favoured son, George Walker Bush (that's the same guy as, 'the son of Bush', 'Bush 43', 'Dubbya') on the Obama first term, perhaps you could zero in on the Obama spending your bluster is really targeting. And don't forget the two Republican wars Obama has to deal with, right Jerry? Make sure to watch the BigDog tonight, hey Jerry?

Ahh yes. The familiar "it's Bush's fault" refrain. First Prez in history who doesn't take any resposibility.

Got any new material, or will we be hearing more regurgitation of Democrat talking points?

But yes, should be a nice break to see Bill Clinton talk tonight, leading up to finger-pointer in chief on Thursday.

It's actually pretty smart to run on Clinton's economy - after all, Barack Hussein Obama can't run on the economy, you know, he actually presides over, right?

Or should we call him Barry, which he called himself up until he finished Law School then mysteriously changed his name to one he chose from a book which would sonud more authentic - Barack? Was that around the time he started attending a racist church for TWENTY YEARS? Not sure on that one.

I should remind you that Bill Clinton's most famous line was "the era of big government is over". I like Ari Fleischer's comment last night: Obama's line is more like "the era of big government being over, is over". Classic. I guess, what can we really expect from a guy like Barry who, you know with no real resume to speak of, his first real job was, you know, being President of the United States.

Here's a homework project for you: look at this chart...

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg

And since you're so intent on attributing Obama's spending to Bush, then why is spending still at $3.5 billion annually? Shouldn't it be at $2.7 billion, the number we were all at before TARP and stimulus?

Edited September 5, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[Smallc]

I like how people who only speak 'the truth', when presented with actual facts, stick to telling 'the truth'.

[waldo]

Jerry, are you deef? Is that all your self-proclaimed bipartisan self can muster? Is Barack Hussein Obama the same guy as Barack Obama? You're on a roll, Jerry! While you're so conveniently negating the impact of your favoured son, George Walker Bush (that's the same guy as, 'the son of Bush', 'Bush 43', 'Dubbya') on the Obama first term, perhaps you could zero in on the Obama spending your bluster is really targeting. And don't forget the two Republican wars Obama has to deal with, right Jerry? Make sure to watch the BigDog tonight, hey Jerry?

Ahh yes. The familiar "it's Bush's fault" refrain. First Prez in history who doesn't take any resposibility.

Got any new material, or will we be hearing more reguritation of Democrat talking points?

Or should we call him Barry, which he called himself up until he finished Law School then mysteriously changed his name to one he chose from a book which would sonud more authentic - Barack? Was that around the time he started attending a racist church for TWENTY YEARS? Not sure on that one.

the Obama accountability you favour is one that completely negates any/all Bush admin impact, notwithstanding the recession/stimulus influence. Why are you so reluctant to touch... my linked graphic trend numbers... talking point? Is there a problem? I'm also noticing you aren't keen to take a bite on my suggestion you speak directly to the (types/amounts of) spending itself... why so, Jerry?

and now you trot out the Barry vs. Barack, uhhh... talking point, hey? There's really nothing circumspect about the change - Obama's addressed it directly. Barack is his formal name... you know that right? Barry was a nickname, one, apparently - in 1980 (over 30 years ago), he didn't like (anymore). Why Jerry, I have a buddy named Richard, who we used to call Rickee... he didn't like that, and thought it would be nice to call himself Dick (as is done by many Richards). Of course, for a few years the boy's were incessantly playing off Dick jokes and he wandered on back to naming himself Richard... you wouldn't like to be called a Dick either, would you Jerry?

[JerrySeinfeld]

the Obama accountability you favour is one that completely negates any/all Bush admin impact, notwithstanding the recession/stimulus influence. Why are you so reluctant to touch... my linked graphic trend numbers... talking point? Is there a problem? I'm also noticing you aren't keen to take a bite on my suggestion you speak directly to the (types/amounts of) spending itself... why so, Jerry?

and now you trot out the Barry vs. Barack, uhhh... talking point, hey? There's really nothing circumspect about the change - Obama's addressed it directly. Barack is his formal name... you know that right? Barry was a nickname, one, apparently - in 1980 (over 30 years ago), he didn't like (anymore). Why Jerry, I have a buddy named Richard, who we used to call Rickee... he didn't like that, and thought it would be nice to call himself Dick (as is done by many Richards). Of course, for a few years the boy's were incessantly playing off Dick jokes and he wandered on back to naming himself Richard... you wouldn't like to be called a Dick either, would you Jerry?

A little thin skinned there on the whole Barack Hussein/Barry thing aren't we? Never ceases to amaze how utterly oversensitive Dems can be.

Sorry did I just bring up skin? Must be a racist

Thought you were gonna whip up an ol' trendline for me? Well get like a busy little beaver and whip it up, and then we can talk.

That's a nice little sleight of hand: "the TARP and Stimulus were one offs, but we kept spending at that same (spiked) level every year since, so we took the spiked spending, kept that as our new baseline and TADA! we're fiscal hawks"

You're still evading the simple, basic questions. Really is it that difficult for you to answer a simple question?

1. How long did it take George Walker Bush to add $5 Trillion dollars to the national debt?

2. How long did it take Barack Hussein Obama to add $5 Trillion dollars to the national debt?

Simple, easy questions. Here's a hint, try google first.

Edited September 5, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[bud]

A little thin skinned there on the whole Barack Hussein/Barry thing aren't we? Never ceases to amaze how utterly oversensitive Dems can be.

Sorry did I just bring up skin? Must be a racist

Thought you were gonna whip up an ol' trendline for me? Well get like a busy little beaver and whip it up, and then we can talk.

That's a nice little sleight of hand: "the TARP and Stimulus were one offs, but we kept spending at that same (spiked) level every year since, so we took the spiked spending, kept that as our new baseline and TADA! we're fiscal hawks"

You're still evading the simple, basic questions. Really is it that difficult for you to answer a simple question?

1. How long did it take George Walker Bush to add $5 Trillion dollars to the national debt?

2. How long did it take Barack Hussein Obama to add $5 Trillion dollars to the national debt?

Simple, easy questions. Here's a hint, try google first.

if you weren't defending bush while screaming about the black guy, then you'd have some credibility.

i'm not here to defend obama or his policies, because many of his economic policies and the system that has been put into place has been carried over from the bush era. the stimulus plan was started out by bush, when the economy started nosediving and then the torch was passed onto obama.

do you think if mccain had miraculously won, things would be different? do you think mccain would not be paying wallstreet back for all the election money they poured into both parties?

give up this charade jerry.

[JerrySeinfeld]

if you weren't defending bush while screaming about the black guy, then you'd have some credibility.

i'm not here to defend obama or his policies, because many of his economic policies and the system that has been put into place has been carried over from the bush era. the stimulus plan was started out by bush, when the economy started nosediving and then the torch was passed onto obama.

do you think if mccain had miraculously won, things would be different? do you think mccain would not be paying wallstreet back for all the election money they poured into both parties?

give up this charade jerry.

I think you're misinterpreting my praise for one policy decision - TARP - with "defending" Bush. TARP was essential. Anyone who knows anything about what happened that day knows this. If you have any questions, watch the PBS documentary "inside the meltdown", a pretty good account of what went down in those few days.

Additionaly, anyone who actually followed George W Bush's domestic policy knows it wasn't exactly conservative. National Prescription Drug program was a hugely expensive social program and something you would be more likely to find in a Democrat playbook as "how to buy votes" in most decades. Bush wasn't a fiscal hawk and I would never claim him to be one.

But that doesn't excuse what's going on now...you know, in the present tense, where we all live...today?

Let's exclude 2008 and 2009 altogether, since there is some debate as to how to assign that huge cash injection during a huge crisis.

Bush's 2007 Budget spent 2.7 trillion dollars.

Obama's 2010 budget spent 3.55 trillion. That's a 25% increase in the size of government. And if you don't believe me, then just look at this chart:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/outlays-GDP.png

The last time we had a government this big was under - you guessed it - CARTER. And we all know how well THAT went.

Let me retort by saying, I think Obama's robots would have a little more credibility if they didn''t cry "Bush did it" everytime someone says something negative about their guy.

Edited September 5, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[waldo]

the Obama accountability you favour is one that completely negates any/all Bush admin impact, notwithstanding the recession/stimulus influence. Why are you so reluctant to touch... my linked graphic trend numbers... talking point? Is there a problem? I'm also noticing you aren't keen to take a bite on my suggestion you speak directly to the (types/amounts of) spending itself... why so, Jerry?

and now you trot out the Barry vs. Barack, uhhh... talking point, hey? There's really nothing circumspect about the change - Obama's addressed it directly. Barack is his formal name... you know that right? Barry was a nickname, one, apparently - in 1980 (over 30 years ago), he didn't like (anymore).

A little thin skinned there on the whole Barack Hussein/Barry thing aren't we? Never ceases to amaze how utterly oversensitive Dems can be.

Jerry, if showing you're pulling it out of your ass is being "thin skinned"...

That's a nice little sleight of hand: "the TARP and Stimulus were one offs, but we kept spending at that same (spiked) level every year since, so we took the spiked spending, kept that as our new baseline and TADA! we're fiscal hawks"

You're still evading the simple, basic questions. Really is it that difficult for you to answer a simple question?

1. How long did it take George Walker Bush to add $5 Trillion dollars to the national debt?

2. How long did it take Barack Hussein Obama to add $5 Trillion dollars to the national debt?

Simple, easy questions. Here's a hint, try google first.

you can take your junkyard dog act and place it where you pull the rest of your shinola from... I've asked you several questions you refuse to address, repeatedly. This U.S. National Debt, year over year, growth trending numbers graphic, really seems to have you on edge, flummoxed - why so, Jerry? I've referred you now several times to this graphic for the answer to your simple basic questions... somehow, somehow... you don't want to acknowledge this graphic, at all. Likewise, your unwillingness to actually address the spending types/amounts 2010-2012 is quite telling... although I do note you've dropped suggestion that 2009 shouldn't actually be attributed to Obama... after all, hey? Good on ya - we're making progress. Now, just run down through the actual spending - it will certainly show where Obama has been spending... but it also shows some other things, doesn't it Jerry? Oh that's right, you don't want to go there either. You'd sooner play the Barry vs. Barack nonsense, or beak-off about the 'racist church' or tout the Shrub's global saving...

by the way Jerry, I'm a Canadian - you're losing whatever modicum of perspective you may hold when you refer to me as an, 'oversensitive Dem'... or speak to the affect on "we (Americans)" as you've now done, several times, in other concurrently running thread posts. When you do that Jerry, you sound like a wannabe... and you better check with Shady, cause you've cutting into his turf. Oh wait... you aren't an American, are you Jerry?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jerry, if showing you're pulling it out of your ass is being "thin skinned"...

you can take your junkyard dog act and place it where you pull the rest of your shinola from... I've asked you several questions you refuse to address, repeatedly. This U.S. National Debt, year over year, growth trending numbers graphic, really seems to have you on edge, flummoxed - why so, Jerry? I've referred you now several times to this graphic for the answer to your simple basic questions... somehow, somehow... you don't want to acknowledge this graphic, at all. Likewise, your unwillingness to actually address the spending types/amounts 2010-2012 is quite telling... although I do note you've dropped suggestion that 2009 shouldn't actually be attributed to Obama... after all, hey? Good on ya - we're making progress. Now, just run down through the actual spending - it will certainly show where Obama has been spending... but it also shows some other things, doesn't it Jerry? Oh that's right, you don't want to go there either. You'd sooner play the Barry vs. Barack nonsense, or beak-off about the 'racist church' or tout the Shrub's global saving...

by the way Jerry, I'm a Canadian - you're losing whatever modicum of perspective you may hold when you refer to me as an, 'oversensitive Dem'... or speak to the affect on "we (Americans)" as you've now done, several times, in other concurrently running thread posts. When you do that Jerry, you sound like a wannabe... and you better check with Shady, cause you've cutting into his turf. Oh wait... you aren't an American, are you Jerry?

Gee, when 2 of the 3 the worst debt growth years on the chart belong to Obama's first two years (and the 3rd was Bush's final year), the only place to go was down.

Bush 2007: 2.7 Trillion

Obama 2010: 3.5 Trillion (roughly)

Obama 2011: 3.5 Trillion (roughly)

Obama 2012: 3.5 Trillion (roughly)

Did Obama rapidly expand the size of government by 25%? Yes he did. Did it stay roughly the same after he did that? Again, the answer is yes, which is where you get your little "trending" spin from.

Correcting for 2008 and 2009, this President has exploded he size of government.

You still haven't answered the same basic easy questions. I'd hate to accuse you of dodging:

1. How long did it take George Walker Bush to add $5 Trillion dollars to the national debt?

2. How long did it take Barack Hussein Obama to add $5 Trillion dollars to the national debt?

Still waiting, Einstein.

[dre]

Sure but Bush held the record before that, and someone else will hold the record next.

http://20millionminutes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/US-National-Debt-Chart-1940-to-2011-226x300.gif

Do you know what an exponential curve is?

Take a look at the trend on that graph. Its a trend that shows an ever steepening line with each administration borrowing much more than the previous one. The only brief change in the trend was under Clinton and that was only because he had the good fortune to serve during a gigantic boom.

This isnt about presidents its a course that was plotted almost 30 years ago, and all these presidents just stood at the helm did what the technocrats that really run the economy told them to do, and stayed the course.

I know its fun to bash one political party or the other, but Americas debt spiral is truly bipartisan! You have two parties that want to do all kinds of big spending, and both of them are afraid to utter the word "tax hike" to pay for any of this spending... So the borrowing continues! And no matter which party is at the helm when theres signs of a recession or slowdown, the answer is the same! Sell bonds, and dump the proceeds into the economy with the hope it result in growth.

Any mainstream politician will do the same thing. Nobody wants to be the guy that goes down in history for passing economy crippling austerity measures, reforming entitlements, and dismantling the global US military machine. And thats what it would take to make a serious dent in those numbers. Even if they think its the RIGHT thing to do they STILL wont do it, because they dont align policy around long term health and sustainability they align policy around winning the next election.

Bump.

[waldo]

you can take your junkyard dog act and place it where you pull the rest of your shinola from... I've asked you several questions you refuse to address, repeatedly. This U.S. National Debt, year over year, growth trending numbers graphic, really seems to have you on edge, flummoxed - why so, Jerry? I've referred you now several times to this graphic for the answer to your simple basic questions... somehow, somehow... you don't want to acknowledge this graphic, at all. Likewise, your unwillingness to actually address the spending types/amounts 2010-2012 is quite telling... although I do note you've dropped suggestion that 2009 shouldn't actually be attributed to Obama... after all, hey? Good on ya - we're making progress. Now, just run down through the actual spending - it will certainly show where Obama has been spending... but it also shows some other things, doesn't it Jerry? Oh that's right, you don't want to go there either. You'd sooner play the Barry vs. Barack nonsense, or beak-off about the 'racist church' or tout the Shrub's global saving...

Gee, when 2 of the 3 the worst debt growth years on the chart belong to Obama's first two years (and the 3rd was Bush's final year), the only place to go was down.

wow, you're finally acknowledging the graphic... disingenuously acknowledging it, that is. MLW member, 'dre', is again reminding both of us of the bipartisan (exponential) trending nature of that U.S. National debt. To some degree, I believe I've acknowledged it - but also provided a more granular look, particularly focused on Clinton-to-Bush-to-Obama. You refuse to accept Bush policies/decisions had... and continue to have... a most significant impact on the spending levels within Obama's first term. You play off the standard Rethug talking point suggesting an avoidance of Obama accountability. As I said to you previously: "the Obama accountability you favour is one that completely negates any/all Bush admin impact, notwithstanding the recession/stimulus influence".

by the by Jer... again, which way is the U.S. National Debt trending under Obama's first term?