Time for paul, newt and santorum to quit...

GDP 2010: $14526.5
GDP 2011: $15094.4

Increase in GDP - $567.9 billion

Increase in Government spending between the Bush years and the Obama years (so far) - 656.54 billion.

567.9 billion - 656.54 billion = -88.64 billion

Without increased Government spending, the gain would not have occurred.

 

I'm talking about FY 2011, specifically, but you can include FY 2010 as well.

FY 2010 deficit, $1,293,700,000,000.
Revenue shortfall from Bush's BEST revenue $405 billion. An additional deficit of $888,400,000,000.

FY 2011 deficit $1,299,600,000,000.
Revenue shortfall from Bush's BEST revenue, $264 and a half billion.
An additional deficit of $1.035 TRILLION.

Gave him and the Democrats a pass on the FY2009 deficit. of $1.4 trillion even though I chalk that up to DEMOCRAT SPENDING.


www.usgovernmentrevenue.com

 

Bush budget of 2009 .. 1.4 Trillion deficit.

The other thing about Bush is that his spending increased at very high rate.

2001 - 1846.4
2002 - 1983.3
2003 - 2112.6
2004 - 2232.8
2005 - 2369.9
2006 - 2518.4
2007 - 2674.2
2008 - 2878.1
2009 - 2917.5

Obama
2010 - 3002.8
2011 - 3030.2


The difference between Obama and Bush is that Bush inherited a balanced budget.

Obama was handed a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

That type of deficit does not dissappear overnight.

Obama has not increased spending that much. Not like Bush.

 

Not a penny of the FY 2009 spending/deficit went into the FY 2010 or FY 2011 spending/deficits.

Might I ask for the link to where you get your spending numbers?

I get FY 2010 at $3.456 Trillion, and FY 2011 at $3.603 trillion
deficits of FY 2010, $1.293 trillion, FY 2011 $1.299 trillion

 

I did not say that the 2009 spending deficit went into 2010. Once programs are initiated however it is not so easy to retract that spending, especially if that spending has maintained these programs for years.


FY 2009 was 3.518 Trillion 1.413 T deficit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

The previous years spending (going back to 2001) I copied from a previous post from someone else. I think these numbers subtract the interest because they seem low.

 

Your Wiki link is for the President budget Proposal. Regretfully, it has nothing to do with actual SPENDING done by Congress.

Bush budget for FY 2009 $3.1 trillion, with a deficit of $400 billion. That was forced on him by a Democrat Congress, there was a long hard fight over that budget.

Regardless the president cannot veto spending. Especially since he was out of office 3 months after the FY began.

The actual spending by the Democrat Congress [NOT obama's fault] was $3.518 trillion. And the deficit was $1.413 trillion.

Spending $418 billion over what Bush approved and $1.013 TRILLION over the Bush approved amount.

And since both wars have cost $1.2 trillion from the beginning until NOW, THEY are NOT the reason.

But the failed, UN-budgeted, $800 billion, Stimulus bill was in the SPENDING.

The 2010 and 2011 spending I mentioned above
2010 $3.456 trillion, 2011, $ 3.603 trillion
Interest was 2010 $196.2 billion for a net of $3.260 spending. 2011 interest, $230 billion, for a net of $3.373 trillion

Bush for FY 2007 had spending of $2.729 Trillion less interest of $237.1 billion for a net of $2.492 trillion. [Revenue of $2.568 trillion, a record]

That year Bush's interest rate was higher than today, and his $237.1 billion interest was greater than his $160.7 billion deficit.

 

The figure in the wiki link gives "estimated" and actual spending.

The deficit for 2009 "actual" was 1.4 Trillion. (400 billion was the estimate)

The budget was not "forced on Bush". Obviously if congress could "force Bush" there would be nothing to fight over.

The long hard fight was because Bush wanted to spend more !!

 

You've changed your initial position again. You're now saying that if federal, state and local governments were spending at the 2009-2011 average in 2010 and then moved back to the 2001-2008 average spending in 2011, that the change in GDP from 2010 to 2011 would be negative.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your fabricated claim, "If the Government was spending at pre-Obama levels, we would still be at a negative GDP figure."

 

Alright, you win this round. I was mistaken. Happy?

 

That's not what the polls are saying these days. Not even close. Romney should drop out of the race with the rest of them and let the convention appoint somebody.

 

Actually, I'd prefer an apology for the following dishonest claims slandering my character:

1. That I show how "little" I understand the issues
2. That I am a disenfranchised liberal who is a libertarian soley because of the anti-war/pro-drug platform
3. That I swallow a good amount of left-wing propaganda and pro-Obama rhetoric.

Considering everything you said in the 2nd paragraph was proven to be a fabrication.

 

Winning one argument doesn't disprove those character traits, so you will not be getting an apology from me. I highly doubt what I said actually bummed you out, but if it did, maybe another thread where you talk about yourself, coupled with another rock star picture or yourself will make you feel better. I'd hate for your messageboard ego to take a knock.

 

You supported your false assertions about my character by your second paragraph. Your second paragraph was proven completely false, so all you were left with were baseless slanders. If you're going to accuse me of having those character traits, maybe you should try again to prove that your claims about my character are true. Otherwise you could do the honorable thing and apologize. I won't get my hopes up about the latter because an honorable person wouldn't slander somebody else for no reason.

 

What makes you think I have no reason? This wasn't my first encounter with you. If I based my assumptions completely on what transpired in this particular thread, you might have a point. Fortunately, that isn't the case. I could go through you post history to support my arguments, but I really don't see a point. You have already conceded that you aren't well liked, but it isn't for the reasons you've stated (i.e "I'm a right winger").

Besides, I would think you'd have better things to do, right now. Paul isn't going to win, so you should start preparing yourself for the Obama vote you said you would give later this year. That, and I'm sure there are a few American flags lying in the street that you haven't run over yet with your car. An apology from me would probably be the last on your list of priorities, wouldn't you say?

 

He's never had a single thought of voting for anyone but obama.

 

And what about the spending and deficits for FY 2010 and 2011. None of obama's budget proposals have been passed by either the House or the Senate. We have operated on Continuing Resolutions since Mar 2009. One idiot tried to claim a budget had been passed and posted a link to the Continuing Resolution Agreement that is in place now.
In what THEY call, "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression," Democrats and their Democrat president cannot find a way to pass a budget.
The Republican House passed one last year and sent it on to the Senate as the law requires. The Senate still has not brought it up on the Senate floor.
Now the Republican House has proposed an new budget and the Democrats are stepping on each other to get to the mike to criticize that budget, but still have offered NONE of their own. House or Senate. Nor will Harry Reid bring obama's FY2013 budget PROPOSAL to the Senate floor.

Please explain how this demonstrates fiscal responsibility?

 

It doesn't. However, based upon my analysis of House Republican budgets, all of Congress' and the President's proposals have been inadequate.

 

It does not demonstrate fiscal responsibility IMO.

Do not mistake my defense of Obama for being accused of things that he had no control over for agreement with things that he did do.

That Obama has managed to rack up deficits in excess of 1.3 Trillion without the getting a budget passed shows how much power the President has.

I think the current efforts on the part of both parties to reduce the deficit fall well short of the mark.

2 Trillion over 10 years is 200 Billion a year. This is not a big enough dent in the 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit. Even if the economy picks up and we bring in an extra 200 Billion this still leaves a deficit of 900 Billion.

This kind of deficit spending is unsustainable.

These people are playing political games with our future.

Contrary to the blatherings of the Fed and Pundits after the 2008 crash " no one saw this comming", there were many that saw this comming.

Merideth Whitney, Martin Armstrong, Niall Ferguson, Faber, Roubini, Soros, Rogers, Lord Moog, James Dale Davidson and so on.

Of the folks that actually predicted the 2008 Crash there is not one that does has not claimed that the current levels of deficit spending are unsustainable and that the longer we continue the more damage be sustained when the piper comes calling .. and the piper always comes.

It is friggen painful to watch ..

What we need are hero's on both sides of the isle to stand up and start telling people the truth.

The only one I have seen who has a plan that even remotely addresses the current situation is Ron Paul. (It is not that I agree with all aspects of Ron Pauls plan .. I dont and think there are many alterantives).

What I will say is that Paul is the only one that has put forth any ideas that seriously address the current situation.

There is some wacky stuff that comes out of Pauls mouth but there is also more truth that comes out of his mouth than I have heard from a politician in many decades.

 

But Paul is an all talk no action joke, and is finished politically now. He never accomplished anything in 3 decades in Congress when he was young. Now he's old and through.

I'm NOT a Republican [conservative yes, Republican No.] but I see the last time we had a Republican president with a Republican controlled Congress the Spending was $160.7 billion more than the revenue and the interest on the debt was $237 billion. If you take out the interest as so many liberals want to EXCUSE for obama, then Bush had a SURPLUS. Since then Democrats took control and then installed an incompetent fool for a president. And their last interest was $230 billion but they spent $1.299 trillion more than the revenue and the revenue was only $265 billion short of the highest revenue the nation ever had.

That tells me that since there are no available heroes and Paul has never remotely qualified for hero consideration, the only thing to do is try Republicans again. They were vilified for doing such a terrible job then but compared to the fiscal insanity of today the Republicans look great by comparison.

 

You keep repeating this story but it just does not wash.

I explained to you that Bush and the republicans supported the Budgets of 2008 and 2009 .. in particular the continued increase in war and military spending which is the largest unrecouperated spending in the Budget.

You claim in one sentence that Obama is able to spend without premission of congress and in the next second you claim that Bush could not spend without permission of congress.

This type hypocrisy is why we are in the position we are.

 

I see you're resorting to lying again. I never once said that I would vote for Obama. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe that you didn't just make that up.

You neo-cons are all the same. When your baseless claims are proven wrong, you resort to fabrications and ad hominems.

 

Exactly the kind of lie I would expect from somebody who actually believes there is a meaningful difference between Republicans and Democrats.

You neo-cons are all the same. When your baseless claims are proven wrong, you resort to fabrications and ad hominems.

 

Yes, because voting for a block of cheddar cheese (has the chance of winning the Presidency as Paul), and rooting for Obama to win is not the same as voting for Obama.

You lose this round.

 

root    /rut or, sometimes, rʊt/ Show Spelled[root or, sometimes, root] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1. to encourage a team or contestant by cheering or applauding enthusiastically.
2. to lend moral support: The whole group will be rooting for him.

vote
verb (used with object)
8. to enact, establish, or determine by vote: to vote a proposed bill into law.
9. to support by one's vote: to vote the Republican ticket.
10. to advocate by or as by one's vote: to vote that the report be accepted.
11. to declare or decide by general consent: They voted the trip a success.
12. to encourage or cause to vote, especially in a particular way.

Source: dictionary.com

I see you're resorting to lying again. I never once said that I would vote for Obama. Please explain how "root" and "vote" are synonymous. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe that you didn't just make that up.

You neo-cons are all the same. When your baseless claims are proven wrong, you resort to fabrications and ad hominems.

 

Repubs who will choose Romney or Santorum over Obama are statists. I don't know much about Newt's platforms, however.