I wonder what Danforth is going to say about this. Probably that it's just fox news.

Oh, I forgot. It's all Bush's fault. Damn.

I think we have finally hit rock bottom on unemployment. There is no place left to go but up. I said that a few months ago but I have revised my prediction.

"I wonder what Danforth is going to say about this. Probably that it's just fox news."

I'd say it's awful, and it's going to get worse. But any idiot would realize without the stimulus, it would be even worse. Personally, I thought the official rate would be more like 12%-15% by now.

"Oh, I forgot. It's all Bush's fault."

Here's a clue: Obama wasn't President when the economy melted down. Who's fault would YOU call it?

Just ask yourself this: which economy would you rather have inherited? The one Clinton left Bush, or the one Dubya left Obama? Then think how bad off we'd be if Dubya had inherited the mess Dubya left behind.

Then think how bad off we'd be if Dubya had inherited the mess Dubya left behind.

#5 | Posted by Danforth

Don't you mean McCain? We would be even worse off now, plus Putin would be rearing his ugly head that you could see from Alaska. You betcha.

We continue to outsource jobs but expect employment to increase. What is wrong with this picture?

Government jobs in government run health care that is.

#4 | Posted by KBM at 2010-01-09 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can you spell AFSCME?

"Don't you mean McCain?"

No, I mean Dubya. As bad as Boy George fucked things up, the only worse scenario I can imagine is if Boy George had inherited an economy as fucked up as Boy George left behind.

We continue to outsource jobs but expect employment to increase. What is wrong with this picture?

#7 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-09 10:39 PM

We're too smart for dem dare jobs. In fact we should sell off our beef herd too and import our meat. It's cheaper and it'll keep down the number of illegal aliens.

BTW, that's exactly what we're doing, exception being the illegal alien part.

Selling off/outsourcing our ability to feed ourselves is a great strategy for the communists in our government that want to pound the final nails in our once capitalistic economy.

As I stated elsewhere,

When enough people drop out of the "job seeking" category, we'll see a drop in the unemployment rate, but not a drop in the number of unemployed.

Theoretically, we can get to 0% unemployment but actually have 25% of the workforce not working, but no longer seeking work.

So as people give up looking for work, expect the "unemployment rate" to drop. But it will not be a realistic measure anymore.

"Selling off/outsourcing our ability to feed ourselves is a great strategy for the communists in our government that want to pound the final nails in our once capitalistic economy."

That is just hilarious. Communists in our government are responsible for the greed of capitalists who recognize the profit potential of cheap labor in China and other 3rd world places.
Corporate greed will kill the goose, the goose is gasping for breath as I post.
Read from today's NYT:
"Who's Sleeping Now?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN"

I am hopeful that we've hit bottom and 2010 will be the year that we start to see some job growth and optimism about the future again.

So as people give up looking for work, expect the "unemployment rate" to drop. But it will not be a realistic measure anymore.

If people can afford not to look for work, and they stop looking because they give up, there's an argument to be made that they shouldn't be counted among the unemployed. If a house with two working parents becomes one worker and one caring for the kids at home, if that second parent stops looking for a job at all it would be misleading to count them among the unemployed.

I am hopeful that we've hit bottom and 2010 will be the year that we start to see some job growth and optimism about the future again.

---------

The banker cocksuckers won't LET it hit bottom. All those houses and commercial properties that they are keeping off the market to keep the prices from falling would allow for a real recovery.

America is being held hostage by the very fuckers that run the show here.

The sooner people understand this the better.

Democrats/republicans, both owned.

Many people look for work to qualify for unemployment insurance. When the benefits stop they stop looking. That doesn't mean they wouldn't re-enter the workforce if the opportunity presented itself. Anyone who wants a job and doesn't have one is unemployed whether or not they are actively seeking a job.

"Government jobs in government run health care that is."

The immediate demand will be for analysts/programmers/etc. for the insurance companies to spend your premiums on in order to comply with the administrative clusterfuck that is "healthcare" reform.

"Oh, I forgot. It's all Bush's fault."

Here's a clue: Obama wasn't President when the economy melted down. Who's fault would YOU call it?

#5 | Posted by Danforth - FLAG; incapable of analyitical thought

"FLAG; incapable of analyitical(sic) thought"

Ya gotta love the self-retorting flag.

"Obama & the Dems controlled ALL FED spending since Nov 2006"

Flag: / Flunked Civics

"If people can afford not to look for work, and they stop looking because they give up, there's an argument to be made..."
#13 | Posted by rcade

Rcade what if a majority percentage of those people go on the welfare (SSI/Medicaid) roles?
It would be nice to see if there is data available to compare those numbers.

who in the hell will hire people when you have no idea what the cost will be when the government gets done with health insurance,cap and tax and many more mandates.

These figures are published every month, and probably more often than not show a great disparity. I wonder why this particular report is getting such press?

Dirty little people?

Small business growth comes from the availability of credit and confidence in the economy to try and grow... confidence in the economy is directly related to confidence in leadership which should also be a hope that the right direction in the economy will provide credit...
None of this is happening...leadership is not working...credit not available, noone is going to risk hiring and, as stated above, NOONE in Washington or the business community has ANY confidence on how screwed up costs will be if this Oboner health bill passes...
if it were not so serious and tragic, it would almost be as laughable as this leader in office..
the current bill gives no consideration to the small business and how they will fund the extra costs involved... there is not money now due to tight economy; why would one believe that 'added costs' are going to stimulate small business????

#23 | Posted by dr soul

That is exactly the way I see it. My business doesn't use credit the way a lot of others do, but the majority operate that way. Confidence is the issue. It was the issue three years ago and it's only gotten worse.

meh,

the same argument was made during W's first term, during the recession.

so the unemployment rate doesn't take into account certain factors but a leveling off of the unemployment rate definitely means that layoffs have slowed.

it doesn't take into effect those who are just plain unemployed.

the article is complete bullshit since it does not take general EU employment practices into consideration. Even the lowest level job has employee protection against termination. that means after their probationary period it is very difficult and costly to fire employees. So companies are very cautious about hiring even during boom times. On the flip since they over hire previously and the costs of termination are quite expensive they are very hesitant to fire even in down turns.

The US operates completely different with it's "at will" employment policies. It should have a much wider growth in unemployment due to it's lax employment regulations.

Lying conservatives reporting once again

the article is complete bullshit since it does not take general EU employment practices into consideration. Even the lowest level job has employee protection against termination. that means after their probationary period it is very difficult and costly to fire employees. So companies are very cautious about hiring even during boom times. On the flip since they over hire previously and the costs of termination are quite expensive they are very hesitant to fire even in down turns.

The US operates completely different with it's "at will" employment policies. It should have a much wider growth in unemployment due to it's lax employment regulations.

Lying conservatives reporting once again

We continue to outsource jobs but expect employment to increase. What is wrong with this picture?

#7 | Posted by danni

My God woman, this is the second time in a week we have agreed. I guess all that is left is for hell to freeze over. Look out you GW believers.

If we pass Cap and Trade you will see many more jobs going off-shore. Do you realy think a feed lot operator is going to pay the government a tax on his cattle farting?

Why do you think most of the 'smoke stack' industries have left already? It couldn't be due to the increased costs of doing business here in the US. ALL of the costs!!!

"Obama & the Dems controlled ALL FED spending since Nov 2006"

Flag: / Flunked Civics

#18 | Posted by Danforth

I guess you can't read the constitution. Can you even read? All spending starts in the House and has to pass the Senate before it ever reaches the President.

"All spending starts in the House and has to pass the Senate before it ever reaches the President."

And the President has a veto if he disagrees, which he used when he disagreed with the Dems, and the Republicans had the power of filibuster, which they had already used in record numbers by the midway point in the Congressional term.

Now...what was it you said about reading?

So... I guess that means it is totaly in the hands of the president. Just exactly are you trying to say dan. Spell it out for me.

"So... I guess that means it is totaly in the hands of the president."

And whom do you think proposes the budget?

"Just exactly are you trying to say dan."

The President proposes, and the Congress disposes.

And the President has a veto if he disagrees, which he used when he disagreed with the Dems, and the Republicans had the power of filibuster, which they had already used in record numbers by the midway point in the Congressional term.

#32 | Posted by Danforth

r u sayin' today's economy is a result of Bush tellin' Pelosi & Reid what legislation to write since 2006? . . .

or . . .

is it a result of simply allowing the Reid & Pelosi Dem majority to ram bills thru & Bush being too pussified to veto everything

I'll await your clarification

need a lifeline?? . .
phone a friend? . . ask the audience? . . make shit up??

I really don't think that people who are losing jobs are necessarily second incomes in a family. And that those who have given up are the same.

But even if they were, it means that many families are underwater economically. They aren't just cutting back on expenses.

It means they will walk away from their debts, including their mortgage. And the crisis will hit its second wave.

I guess you are dumb enough to believe a dem congress is going to follow the wishes of a republican president.

Like Markh said, need a lifeline?? . .
phone a friend? . . ask the audience? . . make shit up??

An article from Mary Rosh, how precious.

An article from Mary Rosh, how precious.

#38 | Posted by reinheitsgebot

that said - -
the Canuks are doing some awsome shooting in Afghan at 1700-2300 metres using 50 cal BMG rifles w/Lilja barrels . . .

un-fkn-believable - - thats like 2 miles

"I'll await your clarification"

Simple: show me ONE financial bill the Dems wrote and Dubya signed between January 2007 and the meltdown.

What?!?

There were NONE???

"I guess you are dumb enough to believe a dem congress is going to follow the wishes of a republican president."

Feel free to meet the challenge of post #40. Since there were none, it's obvious we were operating under rules written and signed into law by Republicans.

The really sad thing about all of this unemployment and bleak economic news, is that if a conservative were in the white house, we would be out of the recession and well on our way to 4% unemployment. Not Bush, a Conservative.

" if a conservative were in the white house, we would be out of the recession and well on our way to 4% unemployment."

What do you believe "a conservative" would have done after inheriting what Dubya left behind?

#40 - show me ONE financial bill the Dems wrote and Dubya signed between January 2007 and the meltdown

Feel free to meet the challenge of post #40. Since there were none, it's obvious we were operating under rules written and signed into law by Republicans.

#41 | Posted by Danforth

cbo site has 10+ pages of "direct spending" House bills signed into law by Bush in your time-frame

Years ago they used to measure unemployment differently--if those measurements were used today we would probably be around the 17% rate of unemployment---this will be why Obama will be a one termer--ONCE AGAIN, he was totally unqualified to be president---never ran a thing or business in his life, probably never looked at a financial or P&L statement and if he did, wouldn't know what he was looking at---no economics background---how in the world can he make any decisions in the financial arena without any background or experience in the real world---especially if given opposing views and info---the poor guy is twirling around on a string not knowing what to do.

I would also suggest the inflation rate has been understated for years since the government changed the methodology of reporting the CPI years ago--- just as the unemployment rate is under-reported.

Agreed, MAT. He was the right candidate at the right time... and capitalized on the opportunity.

A serious question... with BHO as a "black" POTUS, has he damaged the future chances of another minority (female or other race) ascending to POTUS?

Agreed, MAT. He was the right candidate at the right time... and capitalized on the opportunity.

A serious question... with BHO as a "black" POTUS, has he damaged the future chances of another minority (female or other race) ascending to POTUS?

#47 | Posted by OohRah

Great question---I don't think so ---Obama was an unusual happening in history--the barrier has been broken and I don't think the American people are the racists the leftist media and others attempt to promote--in the future I believe the electorate will not be drawn to the uniqueness any longer if it's a black guy and they'll look more at qualifications-- however, it may still linger for the first woman that runs but after this experience, the electorate may be a little bit more discerning.

Just ask yourself this: which economy would you rather have inherited? The one Clinton left Bush, or the one Dubya left Obama? Then think how bad off we'd be if Dubya had inherited the mess Dubya left behind.

#5 | Posted by Danforth
I would rather have the one the republican congress left the this democrat congress, than the one this democrat congress will leave the next republican on...

"I would rather have the one the republican congress left the this democrat congress"

You're joking, right?

Name one financial bill the Dems wrote before the meltdown that Dubya signed into law.

"cbo site has 10+ pages of "direct spending" House bills signed into law by Bush in your time-frame"

Name one that changed the underlying rules.

MAT-
You seem to be both agreeing and disagreeing with me, especially regarding race.

I think Obama has been the "mulligan"... no longer will we sympathize with a "clean and articulate" guy who doesn't have a "Negro dialect"... and vote for him to prove to ourselves that we aren't a bunch of racists. (Of course it would help if Reps could run a better candidate)

We've gotten it out of our system. Granted, we might vote for a female under those same conditions, but then I'd hope we'd focus on experience, voting record, qualifications, personal qualities, etc.

There should be a moritorium on all such issues until our economy is back leading the world.

#12 | Posted by danni
That is the best thing you have ever said. No more pushing the courts or sueing for "equal rights" leaving things the way they are.

"cbo site has 10+ pages of "direct spending" House bills signed into law by Bush in your time-frame"

Name one that changed the underlying rules.

#51 | Posted by Danforth

Dan you're arguing about details that don't matter--this thing (Ponzi Scheme) was starting to crack when Bush inherited the presidency and he kicked the can down the road to Obama who is desperately trying to kick it further down the road--he won't be successful since negative events are happening with increasing frequency--they're just going to make it worse trying to avoid the inevitable.

You're merely talking about bills that spent roughly the same as the Republican Congress had been spending under Bush. There's a world of difference between that and changing rules, say, regarding required percentages of reserves for lending institutions.

You won't find one changing the fundamental rules, because either the Republican Congress would have filibustered them, or Bush would've vetoed them.

MAT-
You seem to be both agreeing and disagreeing with me, especially regarding race.

I think Obama has been the "mulligan"... no longer will we sympathize with a "clean and articulate" guy who doesn't have a "Negro dialect"... and vote for him to prove to ourselves that we aren't a bunch of racists. (Of course it would help if Reps could run a better candidate)

We've gotten it out of our system. Granted, we might vote for a female under those same conditions, but then I'd hope we'd focus on experience, voting record, qualifications, personal qualities, etc.

#52 | Posted by OohRah

Oorah, sorry if I was confusing but I can't disagree with any of your above posting---certain people and groups have gotten a lot of mileage out of the racist and sexist label over the years but the vast majority of Americans (especially, today) long for candidates that are qualified, competent, honest and care for the average citizen and they don't care what kind of skin or gender they are.

"you're arguing about details that don't matter"

Underlying rules don't matter?!? You're nuts.

"this thing (Ponzi Scheme) was starting to crack when Bush inherited the presidency "

Bullshit. Bush had true surplus budgets laid at his feet, with surpluses as far as the eye could see. He had a chance to shore up the problems, but instead we got a war of choice and tax cuts mostly for the wealthiest, leaving deficits as far as the eye could see, including exploding deficits the moment Dubya left office.

"they're just going to make it worse trying to avoid the inevitable"

You're probably right. But it'll be hard for history to avoid the fact Dubya was the last President with a chance to turn it around.

I don't care who or what a candidate is as long as they reflect my values and are truthful (and their lives exemplify that---I detest BS).

by danforth;
"Name ONE financial bill the Dems wrote before the meltdown that Dubya signed into law.

- - cbo site has 10+ pages of "direct spending" . .

then by danforth;
OK - "Name one that changed the underlying rules"

- - cbo site has 10+ pages of "direct spending" House bills . . .

next up - - by Dan;
OK - OK . . soo, name a bill that was written by a left-handed Dem lady, who wears glasses, drives a prius, plays the piano, walks with a limp AND whose ex was MURDERED . . .
IN the library . . .
WITH a candlestick . . .
BY Colonel Mustard . . .

Danforth - - you be da man!!

not to worry obamas going to spend 5 billion and create 4 million green jobs,where the hell they are is anyone's guess and without government money it would be about 4,000 jobs.

Bullshit. Bush had true surplus budgets laid at his feet, with surpluses as far as the eye could see. He had a chance to shore up the problems, but instead we got a war of choice and tax cuts mostly for the wealthiest, leaving deficits as far as the eye could see, including exploding deficits the moment Dubya left office.

"they're just going to make it worse trying to avoid the inevitable"

You're probably right. But it'll be hard for history to avoid the fact Dubya was the last President with a chance to turn it around.

#57 | Posted by Danforth

Dan, unfortunately, I'm going have to deal with details now--

Bullshit. Bush had true surplus budgets laid at his feet, with surpluses as far as the eye could see. He had a chance to shore up the problems, but instead we got a war of choice and tax cuts mostly for the wealthiest, leaving deficits as far as the eye could see, including exploding deficits the moment Dubya left office.

"they're just going to make it worse trying to avoid the inevitable"

You're probably right. But it'll be hard for history to avoid the fact Dubya was the last President with a chance to turn it around.

#57 | Posted by Danforth
Bullshit. Bush had true surplus budgets laid at his feet, with surpluses as far as the eye could see. He had a chance to shore up the problems, but instead we got a war of choice and tax cuts mostly for the wealthiest, leaving deficits as far as the eye could see, including exploding deficits the moment Dubya left office.

"they're just going to make it worse trying to avoid the inevitable"

You're probably right. But it'll be hard for history to avoid the fact Dubya was the last President with a chance to turn it around.

#57 | Posted by Danforth

Dan, it looks like I'll have to get into some specifics: Clinton never generated a surplus--all you would have to do is go to the U.S. Treasury site (which updates the national debt daily)--it'll also give you a history of our national debt since January, 1993. Our nat'l debt increased $281 billion from FY1998-FY2000. The deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 ($17.9 billion deficit) Dan, you have remember the fiscal year is from Oct. to the end of Sept of each year and when Clinton left office he and congress had budgetted for the first year of Bush's presidency a $133 billion deficit (FY2001). Now, Dan, are you still with me ---I'll go to the next posting to continue my info--if you have any questions up to this point, please ask.

Dan, it looks like I'll have to get into some specifics: Clinton never generated a surplus--all you would have to do is go to the U.S. Treasury site (which updates the national debt daily)--it'll also give you a history of our national debt since January, 1993. Our nat'l debt increased $281 billion from FY1998-FY2000. The deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 ($17.9 billion deficit) Dan, you have remember the fiscal year is from Oct. to the end of Sept of each year and when Clinton left office he and congress had budgetted for the first year of Bush's presidency a $133 billion deficit (FY2001). Now, Dan, are you still with me ---I'll go to the next posting to continue my info--if you have any questions up to this point, please ask.

#61 | Posted by matsop

Here we go again, Dan. Here's where it gets a little complicated. National debt is made up of "intergovernmental holdings" and "public debt". Public debt of course is held by the public (t-bills,savings bonds, etc); governmental debt is when gov't borrows from itself (social security is the big one). the "public debt" went down 4 years but the governmental debt went up a lot greater and thus the total national debt actually went up--an accounting gimmick---Clinton paid down the public debt by borrowing far more from rhe other side of the ledger (governmental holdings and so every year of his presidency the total national debt went up--he never had a surplus. The government was borrowing huge sums to pay down the public debt and the Washington Press folks (supposed to be smart) didn't have a clue what was happening so they parrotted the surplus line--Dan, do you have any questions?

Selling off/outsourcing our ability to feed ourselves is a great strategy for the communists in our government that want to pound the final nails in our once capitalistic economy.

#10 | POSTED BY WASHBOARD

I guess BUSH SENIOR was a commie..

"Dan, do you have any questions?"

Yes. Besides posting problems, do you also have comprehension problems?

I said Clinton laid true surplus budgets at Dubya's feet. That's true.

#59

Just my luck: a moron who thinks a spending bill -- any spending bill -- is the same as a financial bill.

the democrats took over in 2007 then Bush became a "lame duck" prez. at the end of 2006 when Bush and the Repubs had control, unemployment was 4.4% with record federal tax revenues

"Just my luck: a moron who thinks a spending bill -- any spending bill -- is the same as a financial bill."

Someday you'll learn:

You just can't argue with stupid.

"with record federal tax revenues"

*Sigh*
Yet another Econ 101 flunk-out.

Here's a hint from the clue phone: try using real dollars instead of nominal dollars.

As the devolution continues to the pit, the Left simply consoles itself with remonstrations of GW. It's an implicit recognition that boy wonder is not up to the job of setting things aright. The Hope and Change is becoming the hope for some kind of positive change in 2012.

Yet the track record is not good for either party providing the hoped for change.

But hey, it's all Bush's fault...it's all Bush's fault...it's all Bush's fault.

Bush watch: Last seen on camera high fiving Jerry Jones at the Dallas romp over Philly. Seemed to be enjoying the game.

Dan, do you have any questions?"

Yes. Besides posting problems, do you also have comprehension problems?

I said Clinton laid true surplus budgets at Dubya's feet. That's true.

#64 | Posted by Danforth

Dan, I'm trying to make this easy for you--how did I post problems---I gave you facts instead of myth (which you have been posting about Clinton)--now, if searching for truth and finding it through facts is a "problem" then it exposes you as a partisan who is not interested in facts and truth--Once again, you're dead wrong if you bother to look at the facts by going to the U.S. treasury site---if you do you'll expand your mind instead of being "narrow-minded"---then the next step would be to admit you're wrong and then the king will allow you to join the halls of men.

The only jobs left will be those which require face-to-face transactions, i.e., restaurants, health care, sex, and drugs. People still young enough to switch gears and alter your career paths, take heed! Le gustaria papas fritas con eso?

I said Clinton laid true surplus budgets at Dubya's feet. That's true.

#64 | Posted by Danforth

Dan, the fiscal year is from Oct.- Sept for the congressional budget--Bush took over the Gov. in Jan. of 2001---the budget for his first 8 months in office had already been passed the Oct. of 2000 when Clinton was still president. If you check FACTS again, there was budgetted a $133 billion dollar deficit---Dan, I know this might destroy your confidence in your parrotted knowledge, but you can make the adjustment--I'm in your corner---YOU CAN DO IT!

Here's the real secret that isn't a secret: the unemployment rate for the next couple of months is going to be worse. All those temp hires for the holidays are going to get "let go" and we're going to head uphill toward 11 percent pretty quick.

By the way, anybody but me LOVE semantics? I know it's called 'spin' in modern parlance, but anytime you can take "Clinton taxed the shit out of everybody to increase federal coffers" and turn it into "laid a surplus at Dubya's feet", it's semantics. There should be a Semantics Watch website where politicians' bullshit could be clarified. Totally non-partisan and dedicated to revealing half-truths and obfuscation. Who's with me? We could dedicate whole sections to anyone who is or has served as a White House spokesman.

"Dan, the fiscal year is from Oct.- Sept for the congressional budget--Bush took over the Gov. in Jan. of 2001-"

And what were the projections for every year of Bush's budgets when Clinton took office?

Look, either you're going to rise to basic Economic principles, or you're not. Which is it?

Because it takes a real moron not to admit the huge difference between what Dubya inherited, and what Dubya left behind.

"laid a surplus at Dubya's feet", it's semantics."

Huh?

Do you actually believe inheriting surplus budgets for as far as the eye could see, and leaving behind exploding deficits as far as the eye could see, is merely semantics?!?

Are you yet another fool who couldn't pass a freshman Econ 101 midterm?

"how did I post problems-"

Posting problems, Einstein.

#61 & #62 makes It seem like you have a stuck "paste" key.

"the budget for his first 8 months in office had already been passed the Oct. of 2000 when Clinton was still president. If you check FACTS again, there was budgetted a $133 billion dollar deficit"

And there's where you have comprehension problems: I never claimed Clinton had a surplus. In fact, I've corrected others on this blog who have claimed as much. What I said was that Clinton laid true surplus budgets -- where the SS overcollections didn't have to be used to mask the size of the deficit -- at Bush's feet, meaning the projections for ALL the Bush years were surpluses when Bush took over, yet they were all deficits by the time Bush left, and the monies had been structured so the deficits exploded once Dubya walked out the door.

How about if we go back to the basics, just to see how tethered you are to reality: Yes or no, do you believe Dubya did right by the country with his stewarding of the economy from takeover to handoff?

I'm not saying there wasn't a forecast surplus, I'm saying that the spindoctors can take a given and tell the truth, but not the WHOLE truth. Was there a forecast budget surplus? Yep. Did Clinton do that by reining in government spending or paying for it by raising taxes? Taxes. See, both are true. It's semantics.

Here's my best current example. When asked if it was true that Gitmo detainees were going to get H1N1 vaccinations, he answered that to his knowledge, there wasn't any vaccine at Gitmo or enroute. When pressed, he said the exact same thing a second time. He didn't even answer the question. All he really said was "not right now". Semantics.

What's unfortunate is that lefties and righties and commies and fascists and global warmers and ice agers are all using semantics and spin and confusing us, the world who matters.

I think it was Samuel Clemens who said "there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics". I'd throw in a 4th: lies of omission.

"Did Clinton do that by reining in government spending or paying for it by raising taxes? Taxes."

Wrong: Clinton lowered rates. Revenue grew, in real dollars, because the economy grew.

"See, both are true. It's semantics."

That's not the definition of semantics.

I said Clinton laid true surplus budgets at Dubya's feet. That's true.

#64 | Posted by Danforth

They were proposed budgets. When you leave office it is real easy to project a surplus with just a little lie.

We have not had a balanced budget since JFK got killed. The national debt has gone UP every year.

You can talk about book keeping slight of hand all you but the fact is the national debt hasn't gone down since 1962

"When you leave office it is real easy to project a surplus with just a little lie."

And what lie was that?

laid a surplus at Dubya's feet", it's semantics."

Huh?

Do you actually believe inheriting surplus budgets for as far as the eye could see, and leaving behind exploding deficits as far as the eye could see, is merely semantics?!?

Are you yet another fool who couldn't pass a freshman Econ 101 midterm?

#75 | Posted by Danforth

Dan, I've run businesses and worked with P%L and financial statements---I'm trying to teach you something--listen carefully and answer this question--how in the world could Clinton have budget surpluses (now, remember, Dan, the total government debt is made up of intergovernmental holdings and public debt) when total government debt went up during Clinton's time in office---in fact, debt went up $281 billion in his last 2 years in office---if you can answer that simple question, a light bulb may turn on in your cerebri and you could start on the path to being a new man.

"They were proposed budgets."

Um...that's all budgets are, Einstein.

It wasn't a "proposed budget" in 2000.. It was a forecast surplus based on an actual budget.

I wouldn't expect a "conservative" to understand, as they like to run structural deficits (Reagan, Bush II, etc.)

Here's a handy link on the deficit reduction under Clinton:

"how in the world could Clinton have budget surpluses"

Are you a moron? I never said Clinton ran surpluses. Reread my posts as often as you need until you understand.

"a light bulb may turn on in your cerebri and you could start on the path to being a new man."

Good God, you're pathetic.

I said Clinton laid true surplus budgets at Dubya's feet. That's true.

#64 | Posted by Danforth

Are you a moron? I never said Clinton ran surpluses. Reread my posts as often as you need until you understand.

#85 | Posted by Danforth

Dan, note the above contradiction--why don't you just quit the "dodgeball" and admit you're running around in knots---that's okay to do--the first step to true knowledge--we're here to help.

"Dan, note the above contradiction"

That's not a contradiction, but thanks for admitting you're a moron. Laying surplus budgets for another, and running surpluses yourself, are two different things.

"why don't you just quit the "dodgeball" and admit you're running around in knots---that's okay to do--the first step to true knowledge--we're here to help."

You've become a self-parody of an idiot. It's one thing to be handed your ass again and again; it's something else entirely to denigrate someone when you're too stupid to understand the most basic concepts.

Do you understand the difference between running surpluses yourself, vs. delivering surplus budgets to your successor, or do you need me to use smaller words to help you learn?

"Um...that's all budgets are, Einstein."
#83 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-11 12:02 PM

Here is where I lower myself to a troll like danforth. Pointing out his stupidity and the use of the self-retort line he seems to love to post.

"Pointing out his stupidity and the use of the self-retort line he seems to love to post."

Go right ahead, moron. Where did I self-retort?

Go right ahead, moron. Where did I self-retort?

#89 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-11 12:49 PM

You tell me dumb shit.

"Um...that's all budgets are, Einstein."
#83 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-11 12:02 PM

Um...that's all budgets are (: proposals).

Nice try, speedball. You fucked up again.

Quick: blame me, like you usually do.

"Um...that's all budgets are..."

You need someone to point out that sentence is missing the word "how" ??? Are you really that fucking stupid danforth? Or just proof you don't have the guts to admit you make mistakes?

"Nice try, speedball. You fucked up again."

Says the moron who linked a picture of a double end bag and claimed it was a speedbag. BWHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Laying surplus budgets for another, and running surpluses yourself, are two different things.

#87 | Posted by Danforth

Okay, Dan, let's start slowly---what do you mean "laying surplus budgets" (and please don't say something about laying hens,etc) for another and how they're different then running surpluses yourself--let's start here and then we might be able to build from there.

So...you admit you don't know the difference between running a surplus, and leaving projected surpluses for your successor?

Not surprising.

"Not surprising."

Not as surprising as you ignoring post #92...

"You need someone to point out that sentence is missing the word "how" ?"

No, you need to look at the post to which I was responding, moron.

Until then, tell us again how Daddy Bush knew he would be leaving office in a few months in June of 92, or how Presidential terms are from Inauguration Day to Election Day.

"just proof you don't have the guts to admit you make mistakes?"

Coming from you, the thinnest-skinned pussy on this blog, that's a scream. Every time you make a mistake --- from stupidly claiming NO ONE in the US called it a speedball to suggesting GHWB knew he'd be leaving office 5 months before he lost his bid for re-election --- you immediately blame whomever pointed out your error.

Carry on, dipshit.

So...you admit you don't know the difference between running a surplus, and leaving projected surpluses for your successor?

Not surprising.

#94 | Posted by Danforth

Okay, Dan, that's progress--we've moved the terminology from "laying" to "leaving"---next step how much of a surplus was left and what year---let me help you---FY 2001 was the last year Clinton had a hand in as far as setting a budget---remember Bush wasn't in office in the fall of 2000 when the budget was set---now, I'm assuming you know the difference between a calendar year budget versus a fiscal year budget---if you need help, just let know and I'll try to help you out.

#96...

What's wrong honey? Your little fragile ego hurt because you got a taste of your own medicine? Poor danforth has to resort to lying and making up shit so he doesn't have to admit he makes mistakes. I'm sorry pudding, is there anything I can do?

"that's progress--we've moved the terminology from "laying" to "leaving"-"

So you admit you don't understand that 'laying at Bush's feet' and 'leaving behind for Bush' are the same things?

You've got problems I can't solve, dude. Long-term projections are made all the time. The LT projections when Clinton left office were for true surplus budgets, meaning without counting the SS overcollections. The LT projections when Dubya left office were for massive deficits, even when counting the SS overcollections.

#97...

Matsop, you are wasting your time. He will lie and write what he thinks you mean or said and accuse you of saying it. Lie then deny. Instigate then obfuscate. Danforths rules of blogging.

"Poor danforth has to resort to lying and making up shit so he doesn't have to admit he makes mistakes."

There goes Mr. Pee again...blaming the fact he didn't read the entire post (or have the smarts to actually understand it) on someone else.

Carry on, dipshit.

"He will lie and write what he thinks you mean or said"

Classic projection from Mr. Pee.

Carry on, dipshit.

I think we have finally hit rock bottom on unemployment.

You ain't seen nothing yet. Well not unless you have traveled to India.

"There goes Mr. Pee again...blaming the fact he didn't read the entire post (or have the smarts to actually understand it) on someone else"

This from the whining bitch who questioned what was wrong with this sentence??? Three time no less? "Um...that's all budgets are..."

BWHAAAAA. It's OK danforth, you can pretend you didn't fuck up. Now clear up those tears and continue to lie and deny and where your wifes panties.

"It's OK danforth, you can pretend you didn't fuck up. "

I didn't. You're just too stupid to know that.

Carry on, dipshit.

"where"
Ooops! wear.

See how easy that is to correct a mistake instead of having a hissy fit danforth?

"and where(sic) your wifes(sic) panties."

What a moron. Can't spell, and can't punctuate.

Carry on, dipshit.

Government Spending Chart
Fiscal Years 1994 to 2014 Year GDP-US
$ billion Total Spending-total
$ billion
1994 7072.2 2507.06
1995 7397.7 2634.87
1996 7816.9 2719.43
1997 8304.3 2813.59
1998 8679.66 2923.39
1999 9201.14 3053.51
2000 9749.1 3240.18
2001 10058.2 3434.00
2002 10398.4 3697.75
2003 10886.2 3930.63
2004 11607 4127.66
2005 12339 4402.46
2006 13090.8 4703.79
2007 13715.7 4924.61
2008 14165.6 5356.76
2009 14240.2 6581.85
2010 14728.8 6402.43
2011 15499.8 6672.04
2012 16470.4 6956.03
2013 17497.8 7428.44
2014 18386.4 7938.15

Now, Dan, the above has been pulled from the U.S. Treasury website and the column on the right has to do with total debt every year projected out to the year 2014--these are fiscal year data. Now, Dan, when you look from 1994 to 2000 (or 2001 since Clinton set that budget), you'll notice total debt went up every year---now please educate me on how that could happen if Clinton "ran surpluses" (and please no double talk or other evasive jargon).

"See how easy that is to correct a mistake instead of having a hissy fit"

Yeah. You should do that more often.

"now please educate me on how that could happen if Clinton "ran surpluses""

Reread #85 as many times as it takes to understand.

"Reread #85 as many times as it takes to understand."

Post #77 might help as well.

#97...

Matsop, you are wasting your time. He will lie and write what he thinks you mean or said and accuse you of saying it. Lie then deny. Instigate then obfuscate. Danforths rules of blogging.

#100 | Posted by crispee_oc

Thanks for the tip---I've never had a discourse with Dan before and I'm beginning to see your right---he's like a hummingbird, you can never get your hands around what he's talking about and then you pin him down and he then says something else that is macabre.

I have to admit that i am confused watching this argument.

Perhaps this is a waste of time but.......would you guys start with agreeing on what a "surplus" is?

surplus = tax revenue - spending = positive #
deficit = tax revenue - spending = negative #

"you can never get your hands around what he's talking about"

Only if you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, or if you haven't a clue about exiting Presidents leaving behind ---aka 'laying at the feet of their successors' --- projected budgets.

"would you guys start with agreeing on what a "surplus" is?"

Let's go back further, and see if Matsop understands what a "projection" is.

"He will lie and write what he thinks you mean or said"

Classic projection from Mr. Pee.
#102 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-11 02:21 PM

Ah isn't that cute, danforth going back to the Mr. Pee he stole and uses. Let's see the "classic projections" and see if that refutes what I said about you making stuff up...

(crispee)
Which is why I used the cutoff of June to November 1992 for HW(five months)
#102 | Posted by crispee_oc

It was obvious I used November when a new administration was elected. Somehow you think an outgoing administration is going to start an investigation "after" losing the WH?
#110 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-01-09 04:23 PM |

(danforth)
"What's your point? That 8 months before leaving office -- despite running for re-election -- Presidents can check out? You're a first-class apologist. How would Herbie know he was going to be out of office?"
#120 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 07:37 PM

Posts the idiot who believes GHWB knew in June he'd be leaving office soon.
#123 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 08:04 PM

B. You were the idiot who claimed 5 months, not me. Then, after being corrected, you claimed it again.
C. You were the moron who (stupidly) claimed GHWB "knew" he'd be leaving office 5 months before the election he lost.
#129 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-09 11:54 PM

"What a moron. Can't spell, and can't punctuate.
Carry on, dipshit."

What's wrong with this sentence teacher?

("Um...that's all budgets are...")

What's wrong with this sentence teacher?
"("Um...that's all budgets are...")"

Post what I was responding to, stupid student.

I believe Danny's saying that Clinton would've had a surplus in his 12th year in office

;)

And that he handed a "plan" for surplus to W. like W. handed a "plan" for Afghanistan to O.

#116

Telling, isn't it, Mr. Pee omitted the salient post that predated them all:

"You are correct that the investigation officially ended in 2008. Although the OIG found that between June of 1992 to December 2008... That would about five months of HW's watch."

I'd call omitting that intellectually dishonest, if I thought Mr. Pee had a lick of intelligence.

What's wrong with this sentence teacher?
"("Um...that's all budgets are...")"

Post what I was responding to, stupid student.

#118 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-11 02:51 PM

Would a stupid student not write Um... that's "how" all budgets are..." Or do you want to continue to look like an idiot and claim that sentence you defend would pass a second grade grammar class? For the 6th time now?

"Would a stupid student not write Um... that's "how" all budgets are...""

Probably not, when responding to that specific post. A stupid student would add unneeded words, like "that's all that budgets are". Smarter students would omit the second "that".

"do you want to continue to look like an idiot and claim that sentence you defend would pass a second grade grammar class?"

It's not my fault you don't know any better. And btw, as long as you're taking off for "second grade" stuff, you forgot to open your quote before "Um".

Carry on, dipshit.

I have to admit that i am confused watching this argument.

Perhaps this is a waste of time but.......would you guys start with agreeing on what a "surplus" is?

surplus = tax revenue - spending = positive #
deficit = tax revenue - spending = negative #

#113 | Posted by eberly

Eberly, I don't know what Dan is talking about--he talks about the fact that Clinton hd budget surpluses and passed them on to Bush---In my posts #61 and #62 I pretty much explained to Dan that Clinton did not in fact have budget surpluses and therefore, couldn't pass surpluses forward if that is the case---the info is from the US Treasury site. Then Dan started the Abbott and Costello's "Who's On First" routine.

#122...

For whatever it is worth. I understand I fucked up and see my incredible error, including the huge hypocrisy by trying to point out a gaffe, all the while being the one who screwed up. I apologize to you and anyone else for wasting the space and can't be more embarrassed or downplay the shame. That said, I think it would be wise for me to take a self imposed penalty from posting for a while, until the bitter taste of embarrassment goes away. Not playing the martyr card or feel bad for making a mistake. Just feel taking away something I enjoy is just punishment for my incredible stupidity and foolishness allowing my anger to cloud my actions.

crispee

The way cuntservatives so smugly applaud the demise of our economy, with a certain pride about them, as if they have finally accomplished their ultimate goal of 'Starving the Beast' and are amused at the feeble attempts by the other side to overcome their vile work. It's sickening.

You people are fucking sick. What is wrong with you? What happened to your faith in what man could be?? In what America could be??

"he talks about the fact that Clinton hd budget surpluses"

You didn't read Posts #85 and #77 enough times to understand.

Either that, or you're just a moronic liar.

#122

Thanks for that post.

And, btw, thanks for coming to my defense the other day regarding the health care bill.

All the best.

You didn't read Posts #85 and #77 enough times to understand.

Either that, or you're just a moronic liar.

danforth, you are saying Clinton had projected budget surpluses in future years (when he wouldn't be in office) as supposed to running budget surpluses in years either current or past after the books were closed on a the year.

right?

#122...

For whatever it is worth. I understand I fucked up and see my incredible error, including the huge hypocrisy by trying to point out a gaffe, all the while being the one who screwed up. I apologize to you and anyone else for wasting the space and can't be more embarrassed or downplay the shame. That said, I think it would be wise for me to take a self imposed penalty from posting for a while, until the bitter taste of embarrassment goes away. Not playing the martyr card or feel bad for making a mistake. Just feel taking away something I enjoy is just punishment for my incredible stupidity and foolishness allowing my anger to cloud my actions.

crispee

#124 | Posted by crispee_oc

I understand and this will be my last posting on this subject---all I want to know is where do people like this come from---are they aliens, did they only graduate from first grade, are they allowed to vote, have they taken drugs their whole lives?

The way cuntservatives so smugly applaud the demise of our economy, with a certain pride about them, as if they have finally accomplished their ultimate goal of 'Starving the Beast' and are amused at the feeble attempts by the other side to overcome their vile work. It's sickening.

your welcome.

now shut the fuck up and get back to the back of the bus where you belong.

(a little cross thread humor)

"danforth, you are saying Clinton had projected budget surpluses in future years (when he wouldn't be in office) as supposed to running budget surpluses in years either current or past after the books were closed on a the year. right?"

Exactly.

All Presidents leave projections behind. And the revenue and spending trends showed surplus budgets, even without counting the SS overcollections, which folks do every time they erroneously claim Clinton ran a surplus budget. But that doesn't change the fact the projections were for (iirc) about a ten trillion dollar surplus over the next decade, or the fact Dubya chose tax cuts mostly for the wealthiest instead and left behind projections of deficit budgets as far as the eye could see.

Ultimately, Clinton did what he could to get toward a balanced budget, and got closer as a % of outlay than a generation of his predecessors. Had he held office for another year, we would have seen a true surplus budget. Instead, we got a 60% rate cut on dividends for those making over $350,000.

Here are some graphs.

Note: they obviously count SS overcollections. Clinton did NOT run "true" surplus budgets.

Clinton did NOT run "true" surplus budgets.

www.data360.org

www.usgovernmentspending.com

#132 | Posted by Danforth

Thank you

"Thank you"

If you could read, you'd know I'd already said that multiple times, including posts #77 & #85. You also might know there's a difference between running a surplus, and leaving a projected surplus for your successor, i.e., "laying a surplus budget at his feet". Had Bush done nothing, FY 2002 would have shown a true surplus. Dubya chose massive tax cuts instead.

I love hearing about how Obama inherited such a bad economy, as if it should mitigate his hand in all of this, when in response to inheriting such a horrible mess he nominated a member of the Paulson / Goldman Sachs crowd.

Yes, Obama inherited a mess that was Bush's fault.

But he has made decisions since then that have not been good for the economy at all, and should be made to account for those mistakes. Crying "Bush's fault" every time the economy comes up is just partisan bull shit meant to eradicate any responsibility on Obama's part.

"The Dirty Little Secret Everyone's Ignoring"

This is somehow a new tactic? Accuse me of a 'Bushit deflection' if you like (couldn't care less) but this is hardly new and Trent Lott pretending it is by now talking about it is pathetic...much like Lott supporters.

Selling off/outsourcing our ability to feed ourselves is a great strategy for the communists in our government that want to pound the final nails in our once capitalistic economy.

#10 | Posted by Washboard at 2010-01-10 09:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tard Rant.

Accuse me of a 'Bushit deflection' if you like (couldn't care less) but this is hardly new and Trent Lott pretending it is by now talking about it is pathetic...much like Lott supporters.

I won't accuse you of a Bushit deflection but I will accuse you of not reading the article.

This is somehow a new tactic? Accuse me of a 'Bushit deflection' if you like (couldn't care less) but this is hardly new and Trent Lott pretending it is by now talking about it is pathetic...much like Lott supporters.

#136 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-01-11 05:13 PM

LOL!

Tard Rant.

#137 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-01-11 05:14 PM | Flag: Ironic considering post #136

"Crying "Bush's fault" every time the economy comes up is just partisan bull shit meant to eradicate any responsibility on Obama's part."

Obama certainly bears responsibility for the overspending, but as you pointed out, he was left a mess. Bush left NOTHING in the treasury, and rigged it so deficits would increase after leaving office.

It's like being cleaned out by an ex-wife and then being castigated for pulling out a charge card.

That said, the Dems could have, for example, allowed importation of Canadian drugs, or negotiating with American drug manufacturers. HUGE failures, much like their failure to rewrite the Estate Tax laws before January 2010. No excuse.

Obama certainly bears responsibility for the overspending, but as you pointed out, he was left a mess. Bush left NOTHING in the treasury, and rigged it so deficits would increase after leaving office.

It's like being cleaned out by an ex-wife and then being castigated for pulling out a charge card.

#141 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-01-11 05:25 PM

" I wanted to see some crack down on the banks that largely caused our economic problems in return for the tax payer bailing them out."

You'll get no disagreement from me on that.

Tard Rant.

#137 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-01-11 05:14 PM | Flag: Ironic considering post #136

#140 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-01-11 05:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

My mistake.

My opinion on the rant still stands.

A gross of comments already.

That Palin sure does draw a crowd.

Bidden wishes he were so damn sexy instead of a bumbling bumble.

Anyone heard from Joe?

Bidden, that is.