So what's the take on Obamanomics so far?

[GG]

Did they need? Yes. Did they get, yes. That's all you need to know. You are so absolutly brainwashed, Mr. Shake Down, that you will believe, invent or lie to yourself about whatever you need to. You cannot be reasoned with.

 

How about answering the question?

 

Did they need the cash or relaxation of accounting rules? What was the cash used for to bail them out? What was the purpose of TARP?

[Booster4324]

Please show me where there was a surplus under Clinton. I'll start you off with the proper site:

 

Debt to the Penny

 

He is talking a surplus to the yearly budget, not the national debt. At least I assume that is what he is talking about. Even then I think Joe is incorrect as that was the planned budget and they left out things that were known or at least anticipated expenses. Like disaster relief and the expenditures on Iraq.

[Taro T]

He is talking a surplus to the yearly budget, not the national debt. At least I assume that is what he is talking about. Even then I think Joe is incorrect as that was the planned budget and they left out things that were known or at least anticipated expenses. Like disaster relief and the expenditures on Iraq.

That surplus ONLY existed on paper by including social security receipts. You know monies that came in that were specifically designated to be spent (in the future) on paying out social security benefits. Remember Al Gore with his lockbox?

 

If that social security money was taken out, there was still a deficit.

 

Which is why the national debt continued to grow during a period of a "surplus." Which by definition CAN'T happen if you are running a true surplus.

[DC Tom]

That surplus ONLY existed on paper by including social security receipts. You know monies that came in that were specifically designated to be spent (in the future) on paying out social security benefits. Remember Al Gore with his lockbox?

 

If that social security money was taken out, there was still a deficit.

 

Which is why the national debt continued to grow during a period of a "surplus." Which by definition CAN'T happen if you are running a true surplus.

 

Sure it can. There's plenty of accounting tricks that'll let you do that. Simplest, off the top of my head: keep a good chunk of spending out of the budget, and fund it with "supplemental funding" bills. It's how the Bush Administration kept their deficits in the $300B/yr range, rather than the actual $700B/yr range - funding the Iraq war with supplemental funding bills.

 

The real problem is that, while you're technically right, people are also stupid. That's why "the deficit" doesn't tell the whole story.

[Taro T]

Sure it can. There's plenty of accounting tricks that'll let you do that. Simplest, off the top of my head: keep a good chunk of spending out of the budget, and fund it with "supplemental funding" bills. It's how the Bush Administration kept their deficits in the $300B/yr range, rather than the actual $700B/yr range - funding the Iraq war with supplemental funding bills.

 

The real problem is that, while you're technically right, people are also stupid. That's why "the deficit" doesn't tell the whole story.

And that's why the debt was going up by a lot closer to $1T/yr rather than $0.3T/yr during most of the last decade. "But the deficit's ONLY $350B, so we're good, right?"

[Alaska Darin]

Sure it can. There's plenty of accounting tricks that'll let you do that. Simplest, off the top of my head: keep a good chunk of spending out of the budget, and fund it with "supplemental funding" bills. It's how the Bush Administration kept their deficits in the $300B/yr range, rather than the actual $700B/yr range - funding the Iraq war with supplemental funding bills.

 

The real problem is that, while you're technically right, people are also stupid. That's why "the deficit" doesn't tell the whole story.

The government makes Enron look like the example for how accounting is done.

[Magox]

Taro and Alaska both touched on the shifting of S.S receipts, but no one talks about the Tech bubble and it's tax revenue benefits. It started when? And when did it pop?

[....lybob]

U.S. president Party Term years Start debt/GDP End debt/GDP Increase debt ($T) Increase debt/GDP

 

Roosevelt/Truman D 1945–1949 117.5% 93.1% 0.05 -24.4%

Harry Truman D 1949–1953 93.1% 71.4% 0.01 -21.7%

Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957 71.4% 60.4% 0.01 -11.0%

Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961 60.4% 55.2% 0.02 -5.2%

Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965 55.2% 46.9% 0.03 -8.3%

Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969 46.9% 38.6% 0.05 -8.3%

Richard Nixon R 1969–1973 38.6% 35.6% 0.07 -3.0%

Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977 35.6% 35.8% 0.19 +0.2%

Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 35.8% 32.5% 0.28 -3.3%

Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 32.5% 43.8% 0.66 +11.3%

Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 43.8% 53.1% 1.04 +9.3%

George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 51.1% 66.1% 1.40 +15.0%

Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 66.1% 65.4% 1.18 -0.7%

Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% 0.45 -9.0%

George W. Bus R 2001–2005 56.4% 63.5% 1.73 +7.1%

George W. Bush R 2005–2009 63.4% 83.4% 2.63 +20.0%

Barack Obama D 2009–2013 83.4%

[....lybob]

U.S. president Party Term years Start jobs* End jobs* created (in millions) Average annual increase

 

 

 

 

Roosevelt/Truman D 1945-1949 41,903 44,675 +2.8 +1.8%

Harry Truman D 1949-1953 44,675 50,145 +5.5 +3.0%

Dwight Eisenhower R 1953-1957 50,145 52,888 +2.7 +1.4%

Dwight Eisenhower R 1957-1961 52,888 53,683 +0.8 +0.4%

Kennedy/Johnson D 1961-1965 53,683 59,583 +5.9 +2.6%

Lyndon Johnson D 1965-1969 59,583 69,438 +9.9 +3.9%

Richard Nixon R 1969-1973 69,438 75,620 +6.2 +2.2%

Nixon/Ford R 1973-1977 75,620 80,692 +5.1 +1.7%

Jimmy Carter D 1977-1981 80,692 91,031 +10.3 +3.1%

Ronald Reagan R 1981-1985 91,031 96,353 +5.3 +1.5%

Ronald Reagan R 1985-1989 96,353 107,133 +10.8 +2.7%

George H. W. Bush R 1989-1993 107,133 109,725 +2.6 +0.6%

Bill Clinton D 1993-1997 109,725 121,231 +11.5 +2.6%

Bill Clinton D 1997-2001 121,231 132,469 +11.2 +2.3%

George W. Bush R 2001-2005 132,469 132,453 -0.02 -0.003%

George W. Bush R 2005-2009 132,453 133,549 +1.1 +0.2%

Barack Obama D 2009- 133,549 130,470 (Jun. 2010) -3.1 (Jun. 2010) -1.5%

[....lybob]

The US Unemployment Rate - 1948 to 2009

 

 

1948 3.75 Truman

1949 6.05

1950 5.21

1951 3.28

1952 3.03

1953 2.92 Eisenhower

1954 5.59

1955 4.37

1956 4.12

1957 4.30

1958 6.84

1959 5.45

1960 5.54

1961 6.69 Kennedy

1962 5.57

1963 5.64 Johnson

1964 5.16

1965 4.51

1966 3.79

1967 3.84

1968 3.56

1969 3.49 Nixon

1970 4.98

1971 5.95

1972 5.60

1973 4.86

1974 5.64 Ford

1975 8.48

1976 7.70

1977 7.05 Carter

1978 6.07

1979 5.85

1980 7.18

1981 7.62 Reagan

1982 9.71

1983 9.60

1984 7.51

1985 7.19

1986 7.00

1987 6.18

1988 5.49

1989 5.26 Bush, G.H.W.

1990 5.62

1991 6.85

1992 7.49

1993 6.91 Clinton

1994 6.10

1995 5.59

1996 5.41

1997 4.94

1998 4.50

1999 4.22

2000 3.97

2001 4.76 Bush, G.W.

2002 5.78

2003 5.99

2004 5.53

2005 5.08

2006 4.63

2007 4.61

2008 5.76

2009 9.26 Obama

[IDBillzFan]

The US Unemployment Rate - 1948 to 2009

 

2001 4.76 Bush, G.W.

2002 5.78

2003 5.99

2004 5.53

2005 5.08

2006 4.63

2007 4.61

2008 5.76

2009 9.26 Obama

 

You know what's funny. Liberals talk all day about how Bush screwed the economy. And yet if you look at unemployment starting in 2007 to present...essentially, once Democrats took control of Congress...it's pretty embarrassing.

 

Democrats can take unemployment from 4.61 to 9.26 pretty damn fast.

[meazza]

Amen to that. The economy is slowly improving, stock values are going up instead of down, financial institutions have stabilized, American car companies are recovering, and all this despite a Recovery Act that was too small, but was the most that they could get approved, and a continual effort by Republicans to put political theatre ahead of what's best for the economy. Of course it's little comfort for all the unemployed, of which I was one at the end of the Bush term but have been working for the past year. Since private companies are making profits but sitting on their cash reserves, it's left to the government to further stimulate job growth. We've seen the failure of trickle-down economics, hopefully voters will remember it was Bush and the Republican Congress that took a surplus to a deficit, enacted tax cuts for the wealthy without corresponding spending cuts, started an off-budget war in Iraq, and promoted less regulation for the financial and energy industries. That tiger won't change it's stripes.

 

FAIL

 

Get your hands on a Bloomberg terminal and look up the volatility. Tell me how stock prices are going up again? I think the roller coaster rides at Six Flags swing up and down less.

[EC-Bills]

That is debt, not deficits. There is a huge difference

 

Which you obviously have no clue about. I suggest you go look up how one contributes to the other.

[bills_fan]

You know what's funny. Liberals talk all day about how Bush screwed the economy. And yet if you look at unemployment starting in 2007 to present...essentially, once Democrats took control of Congress...it's pretty embarrassing.

 

Democrats can take unemployment from 4.61 to 9.26 pretty damn fast.

 

But unemployment is a lagging indicator. We were already screwed by serial bubble-blowing (of which both parties bear responsibilities) well before the Dems took Congress.

[OCinBuffalo]

At this point?

 

Defending Barack Obama is like defending Dick Jauron.

 

If you do it, you keep finding yourself trapped by saying "it can't get worse, he's hit rock bottom, he knows he needs to do things to improve the offense, and he's doing them", and then it gets worse...in some way you never saw coming, or thought was remotely possible.

 

It's not the fact that there are modicums of truth in the pre-fabricated crap they spew out in press conferences. It's the fact that both idiots knew those things were true BEFORE they took the job, and so did we. Telling us that you performed poorly because you couldn't deal with the requirements of the job....means you suck at the job, regardless of how many marketing tested, "words that sell", you infuse into your "statement".

 

I would feel pity for the people whose lot in life is to defend this dolt, if it wasn't for the fact that these are the same people who CHOSE to define their credibility based on their ability to attack the previous dolt.

 

BushBad '= ObamaGood. It's not a 0 sum thing. Hopefully some liberals have gained some wisdom from this, that is about the best we can expect....unless Obama finally gets real about governing, and does what Clinton did.

[Magox]

The US Unemployment Rate - 1948 to 2009

 

 

2009 9.26 Obama

Oh, so you're saying Obama inherited a 9.26% unemployment rate? Yet he promised that if we didn't pass the "Stimulus" (harty har har) Bill, that unemployment rate would reach 8%. Hold on a sec, you mean that he and his team of economists didn't know the rate was already above 8% ??

 

Man, he's a bigger dumbass than meets the eye.

 

As DC TOM says

 

Holy Revisionist Batman!!

[IDBillzFan]

Just noticed the Dow is down over 240 points right now. If going up 100 shows that Obama is not anti-business, what does it mean when it's down 240?

[Rob's House]

Just noticed the Dow is down over 240 points right now. If going up 100 shows that Obama is not anti-business, what does it mean when it's down 240?

 

Apparently you haven't heard, but iPad sales are strong.

[OCinBuffalo]

Just noticed the Dow is down over 240 points right now. If going up 100 shows that Obama is not anti-business, what does it mean when it's down 240?

Apparently you haven't heard, but iPad sales are strong.

 

It really has come all the way down to this, hasn't it?

 

Ahh, I just keep thinking about what this board was like leading up to the 2006 elections...I remember stumbling into a bunch of political operatives in a bar in Center City, Philly around that time....all that hubris...could have mopped it up with a bucket...

 

and to quote the Greatful Dead...Now? There is "nothing left to do but, smile, smile, smile".

[meazza]

Just noticed the Dow is down over 240 points right now. If going up 100 shows that Obama is not anti-business, what does it mean when it's down 240?

 

At the beginning of next week, the Dow will recover. How many heart attacks are being caused by this rollercoaster ride we call a stock market?