Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent.

That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms, notes Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The median household income increased during the two terms of Clinton (by 14 per cent, as we'll see in more detail below), Ronald Reagan (8.1 per cent), and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (3.9 per cent). As Mishel notes, although the global recession decidedly deepened the hole-the percentage decline in the median income from 2007 to 2008 is the largest single year fall on record-average families were already worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000, a remarkable result through an entire business expansion. "What is phenomenal about the years under Bush is that through the entire business cycle from 2000 through 2007, even before this recession...working families were worse off at the end of the recovery, in the best of times during that period, than they were in 2000 before he took office," Mishel says.
Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.

Lets see, Clinton coddled people and Bush did not.

I cannot wait to see the figures after the messiahs term.

Hope and change and not a fucking clue

DON'T LOOK AT OBAMA/GOD'S RECORD AT 3X THE SPENDING WE ARE STILL IN THE BLAME BUSH ERA...

Thank god the Iraqis are free.

"DON'T LOOK AT OBAMA/GOD'S RECORD AT 3X THE SPENDING"

And don't look at Atax's lie about the 3x spending, either.

"That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms"

Two presidential terms WELL MASSA OBAMA won't have to worry about that, he will be lucky to finish one term without being IMPEACHED for playing Chicago style politics...

And don't look at Atax's lie about the 3x spending, either.

#6 | Posted by Danforth

Ok Danforth I will find the link AGAIN and post it here for all to see...

"Ok Danforth I will find the link AGAIN and post it here for all to see..."

Make sure it uses real math, not Republican math.

DANFORTH HERE IS THE LINK AGAIN...

I Book Marked it so I can find it for you again next time...

At $13 trillion, that figure has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 500 days since President Obama took office, or an average of $4.9 billion a day. That's almost THREE TIMES the daily average of $1.7 billion under the previous administration, and led Republicans on Wednesday to place blame squarely at the feet of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats.

And don't look at Atax's lie about the 3x spending, either.

THE LINK Danforth and it is from the Washington Times one of the top ten right wing organizations...

Danforth you can admit you are wrong again at your convenience...

Washington Times? Didn't Korean Jesus sell that rag?

"That's almost THREE TIMES the daily average"

Sorry...Bush's last spending was $1.3 Trillion. (And that's not counting the trillion injected into the banking system a few days before TARP.) You don't get to go back and do AVERAGES when Bush leaves a standing deficit. The starting gate for the new President is the ending gate for the old one. IOW, you're being intellectually dishonest.

But it's funny: Bush adds a hundreds of billions in new interest on the debt, and morons want to go back to the AVERAGES, based on what Clinton left Bush. So Bush gains by what Clinton did, and Obama is hurt by what Bush did. Fair?

"and led Republicans on Wednesday to place blame squarely at the feet of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats."

Of course. If your wife divorces you and leaves an additional $10,000 a month credit card payment, it's your fault your expenses have risen.

Obama is responsible for the ADDITIONAL spending, but he was also give a shit sandwich by his predecessor, and now you want to charge him for it.

But if you want to do real math, use Bush's $2.3 Trillion TRUE deficit, and compare it to Obama's first-year $1.6 Trillion deficit. Still way, WAAAAY too much, but at least mathematically correct.

Washington Times? Didn't Korean Jesus sell that rag?

#13 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2010-06-15 10:53 AM

THIS IS A VAST RIGHT WING conspiracy The Washington Times is secretly owned by the EIB network and just makes up shit to make Danforth and Obama look stupid...

"Danforth you can admit you are wrong again at your convenience..."

Atax, you can admit you're math-challenged at your convenience.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-15 10:57 AM

Danforth what Bullshit will you tell us next the Health care cluster fuck saved the day and was also free...

Obama still wants to Wright checks with money we don't have...

All we heard from Liberal Democrats was Hope Change and Transparency what a laugh that was and still is, you people are starting to believe your own propaganda...

Get Well...

"A $13 trillion debt is an alarm bell and a wake-up call combined, but Democrats are not even trying to pass a budget," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "How out of touch can Washington Democrats get? Instead of continuing to pay lip service to this issue, President Obama should call on congressional Democrats to pass a budget that provides the fiscal discipline economists say is needed to create jobs and grow our economy."

Change we can count on...

"Danforth what Bullshit"

Really?

A trillion dollars was injected into the banking system a few days before TARP in the fall of 2008. Who gets charged for that in your book: Bush, or Obama?

""A $13 trillion debt is an alarm bell and a wake-up call combined"

Funny...it wasn't a wake-up call all those years when Boehner was helping amass it....

I guess he can only hear the alarm bell when it's in the key of (D).

I was going to weigh in here but I see that ataxpayer has EVERYTHING under control.............

OBAMA: POVERTY WE CAN COUNT ON...

It took the United States of America 233 years (1776-2009) to amass a national debt of $11 trillion. Yet President HUSSEIN OBAMA'S record large 2009 budget deficit estimated at $1.85 trillion and his own spending plans for the next 10 years (2010-2019) show that our national debt will likely double over the next 10 years.

Obama has submitted to Congress and the CBO his spending plans for the next decade. These numbers shocked even many of those who initially supported the $787 billion stimulus package. What follows are Obama's projected annual deficits for FY2009 and the next 10 fiscal years according to the non-partisan CBO:

I was going to weigh in here but I see that ataxpayer has EVERYTHING under control.............

#21 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-06-15 12:39 PM

It was easy Danforth's first mistake was picking Obama and Spending as a category to WIN a debate…
ROFLMAO…

Ahhhhhh like Candy from a baby…

"It was easy Danforth's first mistake was picking Obama and Spending as a category to WIN a debate… ROFLMAO…"

Before you totally laugh your ass off, why don't you honestly answer the question about the trillion dollars injected into the banking system a few days before TARP. Because NONE of your posts have proven your initial claim.

And the WT link uses NOMINAL dollars. Just like you: intellectually dishonest.

"A trillion dollars was injected into the banking system a few days before TARP in the fall of 2008. Who gets charged for that in your book: Bush, or Obama?"

Why did you run away from answering that question, Atax?

Bush was running about a $455 billion deficit. TARP added about $850 billion, totalling $1.3 Trillion. Where is the other trillion???

"Danforth's first mistake was picking Obama and Spending as a category"

I'm not defending Obama's spending. I'm simply calling you out as a math-challenged hack.

Frankly, I have no doubt that the economic decline of the USA is directly related to the global economy. Businesses have, and will continue, to move their manufacturing base to areas where labor is cheap and more easily exploited.
Individual presidents, especially GWB, may have made matters worse, but the trend was in place and will continue no matter who is in the White House.

Why did you run away from answering that question, Atax?

Bush was running about a $455 billion deficit. TARP added about $850 billion, totalling $1.3 Trillion. Where is the other trillion???

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-15 01:35 PM

Danforth your question pertains to a history lesson, while Obama campaigned on Transparency and Change. It is the LACK of Change that I am calling into question, Obama by his own numbers is planning on running an 11 plus Trillion dollar deficit accumulated by 2019. If it makes you feel better go ahead and blame Bush for the 1.3 Trillion, that being said why is Obama increasing the debt by his own numbers to 11 X the current debt by 2019...

BUSH 1 Trillion

Obama 11 Trillion

Ok so Bush WAS 1/11 as bad as Obama's new plan for increased spending…

"Danforth your question pertains to a history lesson"

No, it pertains to a math question, and your worthless initial claim.

" It is the LACK of Change that I am calling into question"

Only if you're moving the goalposts, which I guess you have to do if you can't answer the question.

Where's the other trillion? Who does it get charged to? And how is Obama's spending three times the correct number?

Where's the other trillion? Who does it get charged to? And how is Obama's spending three times the correct number?

#30 | Posted by Danforth

ANSWER

BUSH 1 Trillion

Obama 11 Trillion

Ok so Bush WAS 1/11 as bad as Obama's new plan for increased spending…

www.cbo.gov

2009 $1.845 trillion
2010 $1.379 trillion
2011 $970 billion
2012 $658 billion
2013 $672 billion
2014 $749 billion
2015 $785 billion
2016 $895 billion
2017 $945 billion
2018 $1.023 trillion
2019 $1.189 trillion

TOTAL $11.11 Trillion

"Obama by his own numbers is planning on running an 11 plus Trillion dollar deficit accumulated by 2019."

Google "posted by Danforth", "deficit" "slated to spike" and "leaves office". You'll see I've been warning of exploding deficits when Bush left office for years...regardless who his successor was. Bush built and left structural deficits, including Medicare part D and the atrocious tax cuts aimed at the wealthy. And all that, while we saw the twin tsunamis of Medicare & Social Security coming closer. The numbers you've proffered show Obama cutting Bush's final year of debt each year until 2013, when more & more baby boomers will qualify for SS & Medicare.

Anyway, this all began with your bogus bullshit backed by an economically illiterate Washington Times (using NOMINAL dollars? Still???), and wrongfully crediting Bush for what Clinton did, and wrongly blaming Obama for Bush's doing.

So...AGAIN...where is the trillion dollars the Fed injected into the banking system a few days before TARP? On Bush's balance sheet, or Obama's? Why can't you directly answer a simple, direct question?

"Ok so Bush WAS 1/11 as bad as Obama's new plan for increased spending…"

So let me get this straight: You get to ignore all the other debts Bush piled on, and only charge Bush for $1 trillion, but you're going to charge Obama for everything, even the two years after he leaves office?

How fucking intellectually dishonest can you get?

#31 | Posted by ATaxpayer

So, if an ex wife left you heavily in debt you'd blame yourself?

Danforth has explained 'structural deficits'.

How fucking intellectually dishonest can you get?

#33 | Posted by Danforth

The right exhibit it nonstop here on a daily basis

"It is the LACK of Change that I am calling into question"

Only if you're moving the goalposts, which I guess you have to do if you can't answer the question.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-15 03:03 PM

Ohhh that is good "moving the goal posts" is exactly what Obama has done from his first day in office. Would you still vote for Obama if he had told you his plan was to increase deficit spending to an accumulated total of 11 Trillion by 2019. Even if you attribute the 1.3 Trillion to Bush Obama still plans to spend 11 X that amount by his own numbers...

Come on Danforth will you not admit Obama HAS NOT delivered on the CHANGE part...

And is 11X worse than Bush...

"ANSWER
BUSH 1 Trillion"

Okay, so that makes Bush's last deficit $2.3 trillion. Now...you were saying Obama was doing 3X that.

Any proof, or are you going to fall back to Republican math again? Because in the math I learned, $2.3 trillion is HIGHER than Obama's spending, in any of those years.

"Even if you attribute the 1.3 Trillion to Bush"

Sorry, idiot. it's $2.3 trillion. You've already admitted as much.

"Obama still plans to spend 11 X that amount by his own numbers... "

Are you a fucking moron? You're ignoring the first $5 trillion of debt Dubya rang up, you're ignoring the extra trillion, you're ignoring the (minimally) $180 billion a year just to service that additional debt versus what Dubya inherited, you're using nominal dollars, and you're charging Obama for 10 years, not 8.

And even if you were granted all those mistakes, 11 divided by 1.3 is 8.5, NOT eleven.

So in reality, it's $9 trillion vs. $6 trillion. 50% more, versus 1000% more. You were only off by about 950%.

"Ok so Bush WAS 1/11 as bad as Obama's new plan for increased spending…"

How fucking intellectually dishonest can you get?

#33 | Posted by Danforth

Danforth I am citing Obama's own numbers submitted to the CBO. I am sure you must be smart enough to spot a trend in much higher deficit spending by Obama. We can split hairs all day long about the degree to which Obama is running up the deficit but at the end of the day does it really matter if the figure is 11X worse than Bush or little less. Will you ever admit Obama is spending much more than Bush ever thought of even after Obama promised CHANGE...

So in reality, it's $9 trillion vs. $6 trillion. 50% more, versus 1000% more. You were only off by about 950%.

#38 | Posted by Danforth

Finally you admit Obama is doing much worse than Bush by 50% , I knew you could spot the trend ...

Bush inherited a surplus and Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit. How's that for a trend?

"Danforth I am citing Obama's own numbers submitted to the CBO."

And using 10 years instead of 8, using nominal dollars, and lying about the size of Bush's debts, pretending they were only $1 trillion instead of $6 trillion.

"I am sure you must be smart enough to spot a trend in much higher deficit spending by Obama. "

Really? Because every budget I see is LESS than Bush's final deficit of $2.3 trillion. What kind of math are you using?

" We can split hairs all day long about the degree to which Obama is running up the deficit"

Splitting hairs? You were 950% off the truth.

"at the end of the day does it really matter if the figure is 11X worse than Bush or little less. "

11 times, equals half as much more? Is this more Republican math?

"Will you ever admit Obama is spending much more than Bush ever thought of "

Not until Obama's debts surpass $2.3 trillion.

"Obama promised CHANGE..."

I'd say cutting Bush's final year's deficit by 70% by the end of his first term, even with baby boomers being added to the SS & Medicare rolls, isn't as bad as taking structural long-term surpluses and turning them into long-term structural deficits.

I'd say cutting Bush's final year's deficit by 70% by the end of his first term

#42 | Posted by Danforth

So Obama with the Super Massive Healthcare plan and his admitted increased spending for the first EIGHT years in office is bringing the deficit down somehow. What are you smoking dude it must be some really good shit...

"So Obama with the Super Massive Healthcare plan and his admitted increased spending for the first EIGHT years in office is bringing the deficit down somehow."

Somehow? Well, yes, in the world of honest math, since we're comparing it to Bush's final year's deficit of $2.3 trillion.

How many lies do you have to be caught telling before you begin retracting them?

If I remember correctly, Bush2, who can't hold a candle to his War Hero Bush1 said "Compassionate Conservatism"
Where was this compassion? He could drink a beer with Joe the Plumber but between W and the Evil Genius Karl Rove, Darth Cheney and the POS Sec Of Defense, they ran this beloved Republic into the ground!

Somehow? Well, yes, in the world of honest math, since we're comparing it to Bush's final year's deficit of $2.3 trillion.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-15 03:51 PM

Danforth your claim of 2.3 Trillion in one year is absolutely absurd the MSM would have shit all over themselves waiting to tell the story. I am glad however too see you have not retracted your admission Bush did a better job by 50% over Obama that's a start...

"Danforth your claim of 2.3 Trillion in one year is absolutely absurd the MSM would have shit all over themselves waiting to tell the story. "

You do the math.

$455 billion deficit.
$850 billion TARP
$1 trillion injected into the banking system days before TARP.

Now, either you're going to be honest, add the numbers and charge the extra trillion to Bush, or you're going to use hack Republican math.

You make the call.

"I am glad however too see you have not retracted your admission Bush did a better job by 50% over Obama that's a start..."

As compared to your 1000% claim? Good God, you get pathetically desperate when you get your ass handed to you. And "better job" is relative: Bush inherited surpluses as far as the eye could see, and left deficits as far as the eye could see. You're tack is like blaming the guy running the anchor leg for losing the race, when the guy running third tripped, stumbled, and dropped the baton.

$1 trillion injected into the banking system days before TARP.

Danforth you can have the $1 trillion attributed to Bush see my post #29...

Now what about the mess using Obama's own numbers as submitted to the CBO for EIGHT years ONLY...

2010 $1.379 trillion
2011 $970 billion
2012 $658 billion
2013 $672 billion
2014 $749 billion
2015 $785 billion
2016 $895 billion
2017 $945 billion

Obama has no problems admiting he is going to run huge deficits every year he is in office, why will you not accept what Obama already concedes...

Obama promissed CHANGE where is it ??????????

"Danforth you can have the $1 trillion attributed to Bush see my post #29..."

Then that makes his final year $2.3 trillion, and his total debt over $6 trillion.

"Now what about the mess using Obama's own numbers as submitted to the CBO for EIGHT years ONLY... "

It's a mess, forced in some part by the shit sandwich he was left by Dubya, the structural deficits, and the baby boomers being added to the SS & Medicare rolls, something President McCain would have faced as well.

But it's still not 11X, or even the 3X you initially claimed. You're full of partisan shit, and keep trying to change the subject because you don't the nads to admit you're full of partisan shit.

Damn Pesky Facts it always ties the liberals hands especially when Obama runs around during the campaign yelling CHANGE CHANGE and instead it's more of the same only much much worse...

"Obama promissed CHANGE where is it ?"

He's paring down the deficit Bush left him. Do you always have this big a problem with math, or only when partisanship is concerned?

"Damn Pesky Facts"

After being smacked around the room with your lies, now you accuse others of having a problem with facts?!?

"more of the same only much much worse..."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Now it's time to pretend a 50% increase is the same as the 1000% you claimed.

It took Bush nearly eight years to wreck the joint and you want Obama to fix it up in two years? I'm not even sure it can be fixed and I sure don't know how things work in that parallel universe you Connies inhabit, but where I come from it almost always takes more time to fix something than it does to break it. But, then, that's just the way it is here on Planet Earth.

It's a mess, forced in some part by the shit sandwich he was left by Dubya,

Ohhhh how original Blame Bush for all eight years Obama plans to run huge deficits. Obama has to take responsibility for HIS spending at some point. Obama championed Healthcare and soon it will be time to pay for it with more money borrowed from China. Obama has not and can not deliver on CHANGE and the only reason offered is BLAME BUSH...

OBAMA'S PROPOSED SPENDING

2010 $1.379 trillion
2011 $970 billion
2012 $658 billion
2013 $672 billion
2014 $749 billion
2015 $785 billion
2016 $895 billion
2017 $945 billion

...

It's Bush's mess. Period.

Look at where we were 2001, with Clinton's plan to pay off the debt ignored.

"Obama has not and can not deliver on CHANGE"

I guess paring 70% of Bush's final deficit isn't enough for some.

And has Obama invaded a country that doesn't pose a risk yet?

"2010 $1.379 trillion
2011 $970 billion
2012 $658 billion
2013 $672 billion
2014 $749 billion
2015 $785 billion
2016 $895 billion
2017 $945 billion"

And none of them as high as Bush's $2.3 trillion.

Unless, I guess, you're using Republican math.

"how original Blame Bush"

It's nice seeing The Party of Responsibility demanding some responsibility, even if -- as usual -- it isn't theirs.

"Obama championed Healthcare and soon it will be time to pay for it with more money borrowed from China."

Flag: Never passed Macroeconomics

wow looks like ataxpayer is a completely dishonest person or failed 3rd grade math.

Flag: Never passed Macroeconomics

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-15 04:54 PM

Danforth more evidence Obama is spending much much more than Bush ever thought of...

How much of Pres Bush's spending was voted for by obama during his two years in the Senate (i.e., TARP, etc.)

Obama Approval Falls to New Low: 42%
Obama Approval Index: -20
Strongly Approve 24%
Strongly Disapprove 44%
Total Approval 42%

Obama is tanking in the polls because of his lack of interest in the Gulf and his unsustainable spending habits. Danforth you have to be in the 24% of Strongly Approve and you make a good argument for Obama's spending habits, but at the end of the day the numbers support what I have been saying all along. Regardless of weather we agree to what extent Obama is outspending Bush hands down...

How much of Pres Bush's spending was voted for by obama during his two years in the Senate (i.e., TARP, etc.)

#65 | Posted by MSgt at 2010-06-16 09:33 AM

I don't know but I am sure Danforth will be along very shortly to explain Obama voted Present. I agree with Danforth to the extent Bush ran up the national debt and that is where we part company. Obama is spending more money than ANY President in history to ignore that is simply Partisan...

" Obama is spending more money than ANY President in history to ignore that is simply Partisan..."

But to lie about it is simply to be a liar.

I didn't defend Obama's spending. I called you out as full of shit. If you can't see the difference, you're even dumber than I thought.

" at the end of the day the numbers support what I have been saying all along."

All along? Bullshit. You only moved the goalpost to "spends too much" after you got smacked around with your "3x", "11x", lies. I'll agree with "spends too much", but to pretend that was what you were "saying all along" is revisionist fantasy.

2010 $1.379 trillion
2011 $970 billion
2012 $658 billion
2013 $672 billion
2014 $749 billion
2015 $785 billion
2016 $895 billion
2017 $945 billion

"11x", lies. I'll agree with "spends too much", but to pretend that was what you were "saying all along" is revisionist fantasy.

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-16 09:58 AM

Danforth I would accept your statement: "I'll agree with spends too much" as in the numbers submitted by Obama to the CBO. Originally I did add 2018 and 2019 because Obama submitted that as part of his budget plans and those years should have been left out of my calculations. As for the 11X more spending it would have been much eaiser to have simply said spends more than Bush rather than debate an exact number based on a projected budget…

It took Bush nearly eight years to wreck the joint and you want Obama to fix it up in two years?

No, two days.

They also expected him to have unemployment to 4% in two weeks and cleaned up the oil spill in 48 hours.

I have to laugh when I see all the "deficits don't matter" crowd suddenly pissing and moaning about deficits.

Good deflection Atax....

Instead of focusing on the failure of tax cuts to stimulate prosperity that trickles down to the American households you got into a pissing match over 3x vs 11x.

I commend you.

So just how did those tax cuts work at stimulating the economy and bringing a new era of prosperity and security to the US?

The reality is that while the top 1% certainly made out like bandits, tax cuts fail to help the middle class and in the end actually hurt the middle class by creating the structural deficits that need to paid for.

"As for the 11X more spending it would have been much eaiser to have simply said spends more than Bush rather than debate an exact number based on a projected budget…"

No, as for the 11X more spending, you were full of shit. And off by 950%. No amount of backtracking or altering the parameters changes that.

And it's more than exact numbers; it's whether you're being intellectually honest. You're not.

Bubbles just hide the decline.

America has been in decline since the 1970s when women were forced into the workplace to support a family.

Meaningless political posturing.

I will say this one thing in Shrub's defense. He did what he said he was going to do, namely screw the worker and reward the Capitalist. You got what you saw. His team promoted a sick agenda with vicious determination. Shrub's economy depended on Greenspan's plan to inflate debt and prices and call it wealth creation. Shrub would have never been President except for the criminal interference in counting votes in Florida and without Greenspan's help he would never have been able to subsequently win the popular vote in 2004 much less tweek the edges of the Ohio, New Mexico, and Pennsylvannia votes enough to collect the necessary electoral votes.

Obama is saying one thing and doing another. In more ways than I like to think about he is continuing Shrub's sick legacy. Obama's need to get approval from Rethuglican's that spit in his face is destroying any chance for substantive change.

Good deflection Atax....

You got into a pissing match over 3x vs 11x.

I commend you.

#72 | Posted by 726 at 2010-06-16 11:19 AM

Very funny and yes I did Thanks, as for the Tax cuts it certainly did not help me with a rental property mortgage payment worth about the same amount as the rent collected I appear rich on paper and pay through the nose. As for the structural deficits if Obama keeps spending at the proposed rate along with universal healthcare we won't have enough money to pay the interest on the loan. I think Danforth agreed with some of what I was saying "Obama spends too much" but when I put a number on it I should have also placed Band-Aids on my finger tips to prevent typing blisters...

No, as for the 11X more spending, you were full of shit. And off by 950%. No amount of backtracking or altering the parameters changes that.

And it's more than exact numbers; it's whether you're being intellectually honest. You're not.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-16 12:23 PM

OBAMA'S PROPOSED BUDGET

2010 $1.379 trillion
2011 $970 billion
2012 $658 billion
2013 $672 billion
2014 $749 billion
2015 $785 billion
2016 $895 billion
2017 $945 billion

Your right Danforth Obama is a fucking genius and is actually spending less than Bush. Also Universal Healthcare will not cost anything it's free...

"Your right Danforth Obama is a fucking genius and is actually spending less than Bush."

First, you're confusing spending with deficits.

Second, Bush had a deficit of $2.3 trillion in his last year. You're STILL lying about that. What's it going to take to get you to finally admit the truth, or are you committed just to your tap dancing pretense? NONE of Obama's proposed deficits exceeds Bush last year of deficit.

Again, that's not defending the overspending: it's just calling you out as a dishonest liar.

Let's see. From 2010 to 2019, Obama projects annual deficits totaling $7.1 trillion; that's ATOP the $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009. By 2019, the ratio of publicly held federal debt to gross domestic product (GDP, or the economy) would reach 70 PERCENT, up from 41 PERCENT in 2008. That would be THE HIGHEST SINCE 1950 (80 percent). The Congressional Budget Office, using less optimistic economic forecasts, raises these estimates. The 2010-19 deficits would total $9.3 Trillion; the debt-to-GDP ratio in 2019 would be 82 PERCENT.

Yep Obama is a genius alright by his own estimates GDP to DEBT will be at 82%. Maybe we should just borrow the whole GDP from China now while we still have good credit and go for 100% GDP to DEBT...

"I think Danforth agreed with some of what I was saying "Obama spends too much" but when I put a number on it I should have also placed Band-Aids on my finger tips to prevent typing blisters..."

Or you could have just told the truth. Again, your claim was off by 950%. Not enough for you to admit the lie?

"that's ATOP the $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009"

FY 2009 was Bush's budget.

you to finally admit the truth, or are you committed just to your tap dancing pretense? NONE of Obama's proposed deficits exceeds Bush last year of deficit.

Danforth,

"Bush had a deficit of $2.3 trillion in his last year." And what will Obama have as his total spending by his own admission after 8 years. Even Obama admits it is way over 2.3 trillion but you won't admit what Obama already concedes why is that...

Liberals shouldn't spend too much time on Bush's legacy, because with the way things are going with this Commander and Joke he will be the next Jimmy Carter.

"As for the 11X more spending it would have been much eaiser to have simply said spends more than Bush rather than debate an exact number based on a projected budget…"

Ya' gotta keep it veeerrrry simple to prevent Danny from going numbers crazy. One or two-syllable words with no numbers will keep him on an even keel. If you had just said, "Bush spent a lot, Obama is spending more," he might not have gone ballistic on you. Otherwise, you'll never get him to stop trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper. Oh, he'll still argue with you but not to the extent you'll confuse him with Zatoitchy.
On top of that, you have to realize he's an Obamatron and still gets tingles up his leg even though Chris Matthews doesn't any more.

"that's ATOP the $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009"

FY 2009 was Bush's budget.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-16 01:05 PM

Exactly Bush left Obama 1.8 Trillion for 2009...

And Obama plans to spend this much

2010 $1.379 trillion
2011 $970 billion
2012 $658 billion
2013 $672 billion
2014 $749 billion
2015 $785 billion
2016 $895 billion
2017 $945 billion

Now use Vern's calculator and you will see Obama is clearly the big spender. Bush is at fault in this mess and Obama is doing the same damn thing only much much worse...

On top of that, you have to realize he's an Obamatron and still gets tingles up his leg even though Chris Matthews doesn't any more.

#84 | Posted by jestgettinalong

I just can not believe I am using Obama's own numbers as submitted to the CBO and it's as if they don't exist. The CBO by the way is not as optimistic...

Thanks for the Laugh...

Now come on Danforth you have to agree with Obama's own numbers...

The only numbers that matter are 9 & 11 and that was all Bush!

Surely it's not a shock that Bush was a poor steward of the economy.
Surely it's not a shock to anyone that Obama is a catastrophe.

Surely it's not a shock that Bush was a poor steward of the economy.
Surely it's not a shock to anyone that Obama is a catastrophe.

#88 | Posted by dr_dude2 at 2010-06-16 01:29 PM

Now come on Danforth I can agree with this post can you...

"come on Danforth you have to agree with Obama's own numbers..."

And which one is higher than $2.3 Trillion?"If you had just said, "Bush spent a lot, Obama is spending more," he might not have gone ballistic on you. Otherwise, you'll never get him to stop trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper."

Another math-challenged moron who doesn't recognize a number that's 950% off the truth. That's A LOT OF SHIT, and virtually no pepper.

"you have to realize he's an Obamatron and still gets tingles up his leg "

You've got to forgive Jest...the highlight of his day is thinking of tingles up my leg. Too bad he can't tell the difference between bashing the worst governance of my life, and praising or supporting Democrats.

"come on Danforth you have to agree with Obama's own numbers..."

Who ever said I didn't?

All I've said is your 3X, or 11X claims were total bullshit. And then I proved it.

Ever since you had you ass handed to you with the facts, you've been trying to pretend the debate was about something -- anything -- else.

Bush left Obama 1.8 Trillion for 2009...

And Obama plans to spend this much

2010 $1.379 trillion
2011 $970 billion
2012 $658 billion
2013 $672 billion
2014 $749 billion
2015 $785 billion
2016 $895 billion
2017 $945 billion

The CBO estimates are worse than what Obama submitted, and you will not admit Obama plans to spend Significantly more. I think you are just being stubborn and know damn good and well what the truth is…

"I think you are just being stubborn and know damn good and well what the truth is…"

I think my irony meter just exploded.

America has been in decline since the 1970s when women were forced into the workplace to support a family.
Meaningless political posturing.
#74 | POSTED BY SHAWN AT 2010-06-16 12:28 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Outsourcing good jobs to save a nickel at the WalMart was the nail in the coffin of America.

Instead of focusing our anger on the policies that have allowed corporate america to rape our economy both parties will destract with bullshit arguements over who spent more, abortion, etc.

Without real wage growth there will be no recovery and the policies of "
free" trade are directly opposed to the empowering of the middle class. The neocon agenda of opposing any program that benefits the middle class shows their true colors of operating the government at the behest of corporations.

Who ever said I didn't?

All I've said is your 3X, or 11X claims were total bullshit. And then I proved it.

Ever since you had you ass handed to you with the facts, you've been trying to pretend the debate was about something -- anything -- else.

#92 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-16 01:37 PM

Nobody handed my ass to me especially not the likes of you. You cling to 3X and 11X because you know you won the battle and lost the war...

Conservatroids have this bizarre illusion that Bush-hole policies of borrow and spend somehow meant that the deficit was not rising. They don't get that it was just being postponed... Now that Obama has to pay actual money... they get their tails all in a knot and freak out... squealing like pigs... about what it is actually going to cost them to live at the level they have become accustomed too.

The left was telling the rightytighties this way back when Bush-hole went from surplus to deficit... but you didn't think it important at that time... Well now it is..and all I can say is fuck you.

"you will not admit Obama plans to spend Significantly more."

Oh, for Christ's sake...I did the numbers, and Obama's deficit is currently slated to be 50% more than Bush's. Of course, he has the added burden of hundreds of billions annually to service Dubya debt, as well as the SS & Medicare baby boomers added to the rolls.

However, your first claim wasn't 50% more, it was 200% more. Your next claim was 1000% more. You were dead wrong both times, and are now reduced to pretending the debate was about something else. On top of that, you finally admitted the trillion injected into the banking system a few days before the TARP bailout rightfully belongs to Bush, yet when you compare numbers, you refuse to use the truthful one you've already admitted.

Danforth suppose you want to spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a "budget deficit". So you borrow (ie; use your credit card). The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you don't have enough money to cover your spending (another deficit), you must borrow some more, and you'll still have to pay the interest on the loan. If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don't have any money left over for anything else. This situation is known as BANKRUPTCY...

Danforth since you won the BATTLE and LOST the WAR I thought I would help you with a quick lesson in deficit spending...

"Nobody handed my ass to me especially not the likes of you."

Delusional.

"You cling to 3X and 11X because you know you won the battle and lost the war..."

No, I "cling" to that because it was central to your claim, and what began this whole debate at the top of the thread.

"you won the BATTLE and LOST the WAR"

Too funny. You got your ass kicked and then kept moving the goalposts until you could pretend you "won" something.

For the final time, I never defended Obama's spending; I merely called you out for the fool you are. I'm sorry you're so intellectually dishonest.

"you will not admit Obama plans to spend Significantly more."

Oh, for Christ's sake...I did the numbers, and Obama's deficit is currently slated to be 50% more than Bush's.

Thank GOD and beleive me I am exceedingly regretfull I ever ever used 3X and 11X, Boy are you stubborn you get an A+ for that one...

Be Well...

"Boy are you stubborn"

You're confusing "stubborn" with "correct".

Still using the dictionary you got at Vernon's Calculator Store?

Yep Obama is a genius alright by his own estimates GDP to DEBT will be at 82%. Maybe we should just borrow the whole GDP from China now while we still have good credit and go for 100% GDP to DEBT...
#79 | POSTED BY ATAXPAYER

Guys like you are fucking scum. You are dishonest aboput the circustance that put us here like two wars, a wave of boomers retiring, 15 million unemployed due to a crashed economy and the list goes on..

You act as this is all the doing of Obama when you know fully well it is not. The service to the debt is significant.

Things that contribute to the debt:

Unemployment- an outflow + reduced income tax
The military escapades to the tune of 2 trillion on the debt
Medicare and medicaid- not enough workers to cover the unfunded liability

2009- medicare and medicaid=632 billion
2009-military and defense = 822 billion

afghanistan and iraq separate from the defense budget through 2009 900+ billion and that is for direct expenditures not special unfunded money to contractors.

In 2008 - yeah thats right-2008. The US spent 451 billion just on interest payments on the debt. !/2 of 1 trillion dollars just on the debt.

Oh, for Christ's sake...I did the numbers, and Obama's deficit is currently slated to be 50% more than Bush's.
Thank GOD and beleive me I am exceedingly regretfull I ever ever used 3X and 11X, Boy are you stubborn you get an A+ for that one...
Be Well...
#102 | POSTED BY ATAXPAYER

again loser..

Interest on the debt is >451 billion a year now..

Interest on the debt is >451 billion a year now..

#105 | Posted by Legio

Yes.

It's scary.

We are on a Greece-like trajectory and our currently-elected leaders are doing everything in their power to exacerbate this.

We are approaching a tippintg-point that the Bush-lead GOP accelerated - YET, this Obama-crew is full-throttle-ahead. The looming-crisis is being accelerated. When in control, the GOP was horrific. They have been replaced by the Dems who are downright unconscionable...no...that is too "nice" of a term. Criminal is more accurate.

We are on a Greece-like trajectory and our currently-elected leaders are doing everything in their power to exacerbate this.

Has anyone here ever been to Greece? We are not Greece... we are a HUGE republic with far more resources than that teenie weenie island... our problems are very different... just as our economic landscape is.

We are going to go the way of Mexico... get old and worn out.

#107 | Posted by RightisTrite

Our debt-acceleration puts us on a trajectory that mirrors what Greece is experiencing right now.

Spending is the problem.

Based upon current trajectory, we WILL be Greece in 10-20 years.

Greece is the natural conclusion of the welfare-state:

Incentivize inactivity + punish productivity

Disaster ensues.

Atlas Shrugged has enjoyed a recent sales-spike for a reason - it's a prescient parody of our trajectory.

We are approaching a tippintg-point that the Bush-lead GOP accelerated - YET, this Obama-crew is full-throttle-ahead. The looming-crisis is being accelerated. When in control, the GOP was horrific. They have been replaced by the Dems who are downright unconscionable...no...that is too "nice" of a term. Criminal is more accurate.

#106 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I am not stating that Obama is doing things "different" than his predecessor but making a point that it is disingenuous to infer the whole problems was created by Obama when in fact a majority of the serviceable debt and current unfunded liabilities are not his from the get go.

I hear your concern, but it was not occurring when GWB was in office so it is faux.

Atlas Shrugged has enjoyed a recent sales-spike for a reason - it's a prescient parody of our trajectory.

#109 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

atlas shrugged is a conglomerate of horseshit.

Our debt-acceleration puts us on a trajectory that mirrors what Greece is experiencing right now.
Spending is the problem.
Based upon current trajectory, we WILL be Greece in 10-20 years.

#108 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Simple math..that ain't so simple.

-stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan = massive unemployment due to returning servicemen.

- downsize military= massive unemployment due to unemployed servicemen.

- downsize government benefits state and federal= massive poverty

the list goes on..

stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan = massive unemployment due to returning servicemen.

The real reason the troops are not home yet IMHO.

atlas shrugged is a conglomerate of horseshit.

#111 | Posted by Legio

It's a flawed-piece - no doubt.

However we, as a nation, are trending in that direction.

With new tax-codes, unsustainable federal debt and an ever-increasing ratio of recipients AND government employee (funded by tax-payers) relative to producers; when do we reach a tipping-point?

When does Atlas Shrug?

It's going to happen - it's already happening.

You little terd what do you think the interest will be after 8 years of Obama deficits you really are a stupid little dumbass Legio...

And your Daddy Hussein Obama is spending money we don't have far beyond the spending of any other President and you still lick the dingle berries out of his ass another liberal asswipe who says spend spend spend full speed ahead into the brick wall, what a dumbass you are...

#113 | POSTED BY ATAXPAYER

Do you understand linear versus exponential? The deficits are in large part due to the INTEREST and the listed reasons you fucking moron. These were unfunded liabilities before he even took office.

If we implement austerity measures like Europe has done to Greece, your ilk will be the first to whine and bitch.

It's going to happen - it's already happening.

#115 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I don't doubt that, but Atlas Shrugged won't be the step by step manual on how it progresses or ends.

"your ilk will be the first to whine and bitch"

Please define "your ilk"?

"Obama is spending money we don't have far beyond the spending of any other President"

Still lying, I see.

Where did Obama surpass what Bush's spent in his last year, leading to the $2.3 Trillion deficit?

you fucking moron. These were unfunded liabilities before he even took office.

#116 | Posted by Legio at 2010-06-17 10:20 AM

NO SHIT you little bitch do you not comprehend that your Daddy's interest will fall into the same debacle stupid ass...

Where did Obama surpass what Bush's spent in his last year, leading to the $2.3 Trillion deficit?

#119 | Posted by Danforth

Bush left Obama 1.8 Trillion for 2009...

And Obama plans to spend this much

2010 $1.379 trillion
2011 $970 billion
2012 $658 billion
2013 $672 billion
2014 $749 billion
2015 $785 billion
2016 $895 billion
2017 $945 billion

NO SHIT you little bitch do you not comprehend that your Daddy's interest will fall into the same debacle stupid ass...
#120 | POSTED BY ATAXPAYER

My daddy? I am afraid you are sorely mistaken. It must be painful to be mentally handicapped Ataxia. Why don't you address the facts in question idiot? Unfunded liabilities and interest accumulating already in place were not the direct result of Obama policy? If he perpetuates the policy then the "projections" are his legacy. The funny thing regarding projections are they are just that, "projections" and not "history".

If he perpetuates the policy then the "projections" are his legacy. The funny thing regarding projections are they are just that, "projections" and not "history".

#122 | Posted by Legio at 2010-06-17 10:36 AM

Right you are and the CBO said flat out Obama's projections are a little on the low side. Further more have you ever seen any President forecast a budget and it comes in lower...

Obama is going to run higher deficits than we have ever had by his own numbers obviously the interest to service the loan will go up...

"Bush left Obama 1.8 Trillion for 2009..."

Do you know how ridiculous you look when you admit the trillion injected into the banking system a few days before TARP, and after that pretend it isn't true?

Let's see if you are using Republican math, or math that would actually pass a grade school test?

$455 Billion deficit
$845 Billion TARP
$1 Trillion injected into the banking system by the Feds.

What does that total?

Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Obama is going to run higher deficits than we have ever had by his own numbers obviously the interest to service the loan will go up...
#123 | POSTED BY ATAXPAYER

You have no clue what he is going to do. Hold Congress responsible for austerity measures since that is the body elected that holds the financial keys.

three branches of government.

Executive branch which acts on the laws MADE by the
Legislative body which makes the laws and budgets
and the Judicial which enforces laws made by congress and signed by the president.

#125 | Posted by Legio at 2010-06-17 12:37 PM

And Obama has absolutely no control over the budget riiiiiiight do carry on...

Please tell us you are just acting this STUPID...

#124 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-06-17 11:49 AM

2010 $1.379 trillion
2011 $970 billion
2012 $658 billion
2013 $672 billion
2014 $749 billion
2015 $785 billion
2016 $895 billion
2017 $945 billion

What does that total?

Are you smarter than a 1st grader?

MOst of 2011-2017 is debt service on the national debt your pals ran sky high.

"What does that total?"

Once again: when caught in a lie, you move the goalposts.

Obama's spending and deficits wasn't the issue this time. It was your shitty partisan hack math. Again.

A simple question:
What does that total?

Answer
move the goalposts.

About what we'll pay in debt service on the national debt your buds ran sky high instead of paying off?

2010 $1.379 trillion
2011 $970 billion
2012 $658 billion
2013 $672 billion
2014 $749 billion
2015 $785 billion
2016 $895 billion
2017 $945 billion

What does that total?

Maybe Legio knows BTW great deflection Danforth...

It depends on your standards of success.

If your goal is to make rich people richer, which is all bush ever cared about, then he was a huge success.

If you had any other goal AT ALL, then he was the worst president ever. And no matter how bad obama is, HES NO WHERE NEAR AS BAD AS BUSH. The screaming is just louder now because the rich guys own the microphones.

While Bush was in office,

the median household income declined,

poverty increased,

childhood poverty increased even more,

and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked.

Yup... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Maybe Legio knows BTW great deflection Danforth...
#131 | POSTED BY ATAXPAYER

How much of those totals are service to the debt asshole?

In 2008 it was 451 billion of which your repuke butt buddies ran up under reagan, bushI and bushII. Under clinton the deficit was erased..

If you read factcheck they also state that there is a difference between debt and deficit much like credit card debt and interest owed.

I notice there's alot of deflection on this thread. How about we actually concetrate on what the article says.

If lowering taxes for the rich raises the economy, why aren't the middle class better off.

I can tell you why. As you raise the poor people up, they can spend more, which in turn creates jobs, where then those people can spend more, which in turn creates more jobs where those people can then spend more. But a rich person does not buy goods, sure they invest, but what good is investment if there is no one to buy the product?

Until we spend enough to raise the poor up, until we bring the jobs back to the US, our economy will slide and slide.

My 2 cents, since thats about all I got anymore.

And Obrainless's legacy will have to be the economy's burial site...if he gets enough time.