Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, February 01, 2012

The U.S. government faces a $1 trillion deficit for the fourth consecutive year in 2012 and servicing the debt will soon cost as much as Medicaid, according to new Congressional Budget Office projections. The spending picture won't substantially improve unless Congress comes to grip with changes needed in tax and spending policy, Politico reports. "For years, politicians from both political parties have failed to be honest with the American people about the size and scope of the debt threat," said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). "The CBO's report today confirms that it is past time for serious leaders to put aside politics and start forging solutions."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

ExpsRedemption

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

A trillion here and trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

It's working!

Does that include magic underwear and pixie dust adjustments that assume 8% economic growth, forever?

But...

BUSH'S FAULT. Change takes time. Et cetera, et cetera.

It really is a remarkable statement about the human condition, when you can look at trillion dollar deficits and still say they don't matter, or that taxes alone will fix it, or that any cuts will kill everyone.

"It really is a remarkable statement about the human condition, when you can look at trillion dollar deficits and still say they don't matter, or that taxes alone will fix it, or that any cuts will kill everyone."

But no one is saying that though some are saying that only cuts and no increases to revenue are teh path to prosperity. It doesn't matter, apparently, that those people have been wrong about everything for thirty years. "Deficits don't matter" was their mantra when they ruled both houses and the presidency. When Clinton raised taxes we had a great economy, lots of jobs and didn't run up lots of debt as we did during his two predecessor's administrations. I suspect the same will happen again.

When Clinton raised taxes we had a great economy, lots of jobs and didn't run up lots of debt as we did during his two predecessor's administrations. I suspect the same will happen again.

Other than creating the policy that lead to our current economic crisis, Clinton had a pretty decent pulse as to how an economy runs.

Danni, how can you lament GOP deficits and then applaud Obama's deficits which are FAR greater than any under GOP leadership?

Reagan's tax cuts were accompanied with spending cuts. The Dem house balked and the comprimise was deficits.

I know in your world Dems=good Reps=bad, but it has been over 1000 days since the Dem senate passed a budget, which they are legally obligated to do. It must be all of that Republican obstructionism.

"Other than creating the policy that lead to our current economic crisis"

When did he create policy which forced lenders to leverage bad paper against bad paper at unprecedented ratios?

When did he create policy which forced lenders to leverage bad paper against bad paper at unprecedented ratios?

That came after the fact.

His policy put regulators on the same team as those who they were supposed to be policing (Partners in homeownership).

The bad paper STARTED with bad mortgages.

Reagan's tax cuts were accompanied with spending cuts. The Dem house balked and the comprimise was deficits.

LOL...reagan didn't cut taxes, reagan raised taxes and spent more than raised. Clinton raised taxes and spent more than raised.

Wish people would get their facts straight, JeffJ and Danni make shit up for their own beloved party.

Obama is just continueing the bad policies by increasing taxes at the same time as giving billions away to the people who really don't need the gift.

if there is ever a time for the population to boot out the government representatives it is now.

When Clinton raised taxes we had a great economy, lots of jobs and didn't run up lots of debt as we did during his two predecessor's administrations. I suspect the same will happen again.
#6 | Posted by danni

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
en.wikipedia.org

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection."

In 1981 Reagan cut taxes, MW.

Get your own facts straight before lecturing others regarding their facts.

"The bad paper STARTED with bad mortgages."

We've always had bad mortgages. And no policy forced the idiocy.

"In 1981 Reagan cut taxes, MW. Get your own facts straight before lecturing others regarding their facts."

Bwahahahahaha! Everyone in the tax biz knows Reagan as a massive tax increaser. His 7.5% floor of AGI against medical, 2% AGI floor against employee expenses, elimination of the personal interest deduction, and 50% limitation on meal & entertainment expenses have cost more taxpayers more money over the years than any other President in my lifetime.

In short, get your own facts straight before lecturing others regarding their facts.

We've always had bad mortgages. And no policy forced the idiocy.

Nowhere near to the degree that we had after Partners in Homeownership was established. Fannie Mae (with the implicit backing of government) started the whole process of grossly easing lending standards. Greedy banks were quick to follow suit.

These bad mortgages were then bundled with other sound paper toxifying good paper.

That ratings agencies grossly understated the risk value of these mortgages compounded things.

Obviously there was a lot more going on than just bad mortgages, but they were the core of it and it wouldn't have been possible without government.

Bwahahahahaha! Everyone in the tax biz knows Reagan as a massive tax increaser. His 7.5% floor of AGI against medical, 2% AGI floor against employee expenses, elimination of the personal interest deduction, and 50% limitation on meal & entertainment expenses have cost more taxpayers more money over the years than any other President in my lifetime.

OK then. I was looking only at income tax rates.

Everyone in the tax biz knows Reagan as a massive tax increaser. His 7.5% floor of AGI against medical, 2% AGI floor against employee expenses, elimination of the personal interest deduction, and 50% limitation on meal & entertainment expenses have cost more taxpayers more money over the years than any other President in my lifetime.

some of that has hit me personally.

so how much then? how much more has it "cost taxpayers in your lifetime"?

OK then. I was looking only at income tax rates.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-01-31 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag

LOL...such short sightedness throughout our economic presidentials have always convoluted what each president and party actually does.

They all raise taxes and spend more, the difference is how they raise the taxes and how they spend the money.

And sadly, obama is raising taxes wrong and spending the money wrong and will create another bush economic crisis in a few years.

"so how much then? how much more has it "cost taxpayers in your lifetime"?"

I don't see any other ongoing provisions which changed the code as much as the Reagan Codes, especially the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (jokingly referred to as the CPA's Full Employment Act). You've got to hand it to tax simplification which makes the code longer and more complex.

Let's take a couple who makes $100,000 and has $8,000 in medical expenses. Under pre-Reagan rules, they'd see a refund increase of about $2200. Now, $140. Someone with $400 in business meals would see the value of their deduction cut in half. Anyone with personal interest, multiply that by your rate to see how much that costs you, and if you have $2000 in expenses as an employee (uniforms, education, unreimbursed driving for the company), now none of it is deductible. In a 28% marginal bracket, that just cost $560.

"These bad mortgages were then bundled with other sound paper toxifying good paper. "

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. And where did Clinton's legislation force this bullshit bundling?

And where did Clinton's legislation force this bullshit bundling?

It didn't.

I said that the bad mortgages were at the "core" of the problem and they were.

That core problem was brought to us by government.

"That core problem was brought to us by government."

That's like saying the Murrah building was the government's fault, because they put it there.

No law, no policy forced otherwise sensible men to trade greed for sanity.

Danforth,

Anything to say about these continuous trillion dollar deficits under Obama?

Fannie Mae did just that. They got the ball rolling and THEN these otherwise sensible men began trading greed for sanity.

The absurd lending standards were STARTED by government.

"I said that the bad mortgages were at the "core" of the problem and they were. "

That's like blaming glycerin for a bombing.

#24 | Posted by Danforth

Government created the problem and Wall Street badly exacerbated it.

#24 | Posted by Danforth

Government created the problem and Wall Street badly exacerbated it.

"Anything to say about these continuous trillion dollar deficits under Obama?"

Yeah: I was screaming about the abysmal economic conditions Dubya was leaving for his successor long before the meltdown and long before we knew who the nominees would be.

The Housing Bubble was started intentionally to create the impression of a thriving economy. Bush said "everyone should be able to afford a house," and he was right; they SHOULD, but many CAN'T. He lowered the rates to a point where they could even though they couldn't because of that backdoor massive interest raise in the wording many didn't notice.

Unlike other bubbles, which were natural progressions of greed, the Housing Bubble was started only to distract us.

Are you still screaming about it now? Does this screaming occur on the DR? Can you direct me to the thread where this is taking place?

"The absurd lending standards were STARTED by government."

That in and of itself wasn't enough to bring down the world economy. It was the leveraging which did that.

And you're conflating lending with leveraging. One was bad. The other was the reason for the downfall.

Fannie Mae's problems started in 1991 when Maxwell retired.


Fannie Mae's problems started in 1991 when Maxwell retired.

Posted by JeffJ at 2012-01-31 04:03 PM |

Which makes Bush's playing with the Housing Market in 2003 even more criminal.

"Are you still screaming about it now?"

Yeah, it sucks, and I've spoken out against a lot of Obama initiatives, from the HB credit, to MWP, to Cash for Clunkers, to always dicking with the tax code.

That said, how about if you do an honest analysis of the deficits, and their roots? Specifically, try the tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and Dubya's Operation Iraqi Liberation. Then add to it a President given surplus budgets while seeing the twin tsunamis of SS and Medicare heading toward us and deciding that reseting the course toward Debtsylvania was the best idea.

That in and of itself wasn't enough to bring down the world economy. It was the leveraging which did that.

Absolutely. I thought I acknowledged that already. What I am saying was the bad mortgages were the core of the problem, the impetus of the problem. A lot of OTHER shit happened afterwards that turned a big problem into a calamity.

And you're conflating lending with leveraging. One was bad. The other was the reason for the downfall.

I am not conflating anything.

Let me say it a different way. Were it not for these bad mortgages, this calamity never would have happened. They turned good paper toxic.

Greenspan's absurdly low interest rates exacerbated this as well, encouraging more home purchases during a time where lending practices all but ceased to exist.

#33

Medicare is definitely a tsunami (one that Obama is silent about, but I digress). Social Security is just a really big wave.

Where'd the free money come from for all this "speculation" and "gambling"????

That's the first ingredient in the shit sandwich, settle that and then move on to the whodunnit bullshit (none of which would have happened to the bloated extent it did without the free money).

Any program that is sitting on piles of T-bills is a tsunami waiting to happen. Bond holders are the new whipping boys of politicians.

Oh, wait, we are all being forced, at gunpoint to buy bonds from the government. It's called the government bond purchase program, also known as Medicare and SS.

"What I am saying was the bad mortgages were the core of the problem"

And I'm saying you're wrong. The core of the problem was leveraging bad bets against bad bets at unprecedented ratios. It could have been anything. The mortgages themselves weren't enough to drown the system.

"Were it not for these bad mortgages, this calamity never would have happened. "

Of course it would've: look at the S&L crisis. As a recent guest on Charlie Rose quipped, 'it happened the same way in a lot of countries: people were alone in a room with a lot of extra money, and folks got greedy.' It's not specifically mortgages: it's greed.

"Greenspan's absurdly low interest rates exacerbated this as well, encouraging more home purchases during a time where lending practices all but ceased to exist."

Again, the bad mortgages wouldn't have been enough to take down the system without the trillions in derivatives.

"Let me say it a different way. Were it not for these bad mortgages, this calamity never would have happened."

True, but without those bad mortgages we would have been in a recession since 2001 and George Bush would not have been reelected. We would not have invaded Iraq. Many things would be different but they conspired to create a false economy based on building unnecessary housing much like they build unnecessary strip shopping centers in his father's era.

"Let me say it a different way. Were it not for these bad mortgages, this calamity never would have happened."

True, but without those bad mortgages we would have been in a recession since 2001 and George Bush would not have been reelected. We would not have invaded Iraq. Many things would be different but they conspired to create a false economy based on building unnecessary housing much like they build unnecessary strip shopping centers in his father's era.

it sucks

Oh. Good to know. From what I've seen, the only thing you care about are the people who were okay with Bush's obnoxious but aren't okay with Obama's obnoxious deficit spending. Nice to know that you think "it sucks." Feel free to return to character-bashing and the blame-game now that you've done your semi-annual acknowledgment of what is destroying America.

obnoxious "deficit spending"

Again, the bad mortgages wouldn't have been enough to take down the system without the trillions in derivatives.

#38 | Posted by Danforth

I've acknowledged that more than once.

Were it not for the sheer volume of bad mortgages, bad paper would not have been leveraged against bad paper.

It was government that caused the easing of lending standards and Wall Street was all to happy to follow suit.

Don't forget Ginnie Mae...

The inventor of the derivative as a way to commoditize and bundle mortgages into mystery meat...

Gotta love the GSE's.

"Let me say it a different way. Were it not for these bad mortgages, this calamity never would have happened."

And...it was Clinton who was responsible for the bad mortgages, right? He's the one who loosened the lending standards in 2004? He's the one who stepped in to keep states from enforcing their own lending standards in 2003? He's the one responsible for F/F taking every POS loan that came along?

"Nice to know that you think "it sucks.""

Okay, let me be more specific: Bush is responsible for the lion's share of what is now being considered Obama's deficit. Bush sucks, and economic illiterates who don't look at the entire balance sheet at handoff, including future liabilities, really, really suck.

Clearer?

"Were it not for the sheer volume of bad mortgages, bad paper would not have been leveraged against bad paper."

What part of "at unprecedented ratios" escapes you?

Many things would be different but they conspired to create a false economy based on building unnecessary housing much like they build unnecessary strip shopping centers in his father's era.

Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 04:21 PM | Reply

Translation... when an R was in charge it was bad, now that a D is in charge, its good.

(and I totally agree with the first half of your post btw, I just think inflation is bad no matter who does it)

Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-31 04:30 PM | Reply

I concur with the sucks.

Not so confident your team cares.

And...it was Clinton who was responsible for the bad mortgages, right?

I said it STARTED with him. A lot of other shit happened afterwards that had nothing to do with Clinton.

I've said that several times now on this thread.

"I said it STARTED with him."

You said, "creating the policy that lead to our current economic crisis".

Clinton did NOT "create the policy" of leveraging bad paper against bad paper, no matter how much you want to tie the two together.

That's like blaming Lamar Hunt because you made some incredibly bad bets on the Super Bowl.

Clinton did NOT "create the policy" of leveraging bad paper against bad paper, no matter how much you want to tie the two together.

I didn't say that he did!

What I said was his policy was the impetus for the bad lending practices that created a shit-ton of bad mortgages that were later bundled with good paper making it bad.

Were it not for the sheer volume of bad mortgages, initiated by Clinton, this meltdown would not have happened because the volume of bad paper being leveraged would have been greatly reduced.

The Genisis of this was government inserting itself into the housing market.

When Clinton raised taxes we had a great economy, lots of jobs and didn't run up lots of debt as we did during his two predecessor's administrations. I suspect the same will happen again.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 02:33 PM | Reply |

Danni-- why do you insist on leaving out the little thing called the PC? it turned the economy and it grew in spite of clinton- not because of him.

Bush is responsible for the lion's share of what is now being considered Obama's deficit.

Define "lion's share."

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending. In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending. Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year -- or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.
www.npr.org
Do you actually care about deficit spending, or do you only care about playing the blame game? If it's the latter, time isn't on your side.

"What I said was his policy was the impetus for the bad lending practices that created a shit-ton of bad mortgages that were later bundled with good paper making it bad. "

Riiiiiiiiight. And Lamar Hunt calling it the Super Bowl was the impetus for my own bad decisions many, many years later. That's silly. Nothing Clinton did forced folks the better part of a decade later to give into greed over sense, nor was he responsible for the "impetus".

"Were it not for the sheer volume of bad mortgages, initiated by Clinton"

Stop right there. Greenspan and Bush lowered the interest rates. Then Dubya stopped states from enforcing their own stricter standards, right before demanding higher goals be reached in 2004. Clinton's idea may have been fine; you can't deny Dubya was the one who fucked with the markets.

"The Genisis of this was government inserting itself into the housing market. "

Well, that certainly wasn't begun by Clinton. Care to try moving the goalposts again?

" Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year -- or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush."

Great, more moron math.

Dubya takes advantage of Clinton's budgets, fucks things royally, missing the targets by $15 Trillion and handing off a melted down economy and record deficits, with Medicare Part D expenses backloaded and SS & Medicare starting to go the baby boomers...

...and Joe falls for moron math.

Great, more moron math.

Show me your alternative calculations, dickhead.

"Show me your alternative calculations"

If I sign on for delivery of a product on credit, and the bill comes after I leave and you take over, is that my bill or yours?

That's Medicare Part D. Dubya backloaded the highest costs until after he left the Oval Office. If you did something like that, would that be your debt, or the fault of the guy in the office the day the bill arrives?

Are those calculations? I don't see those numbers on my calculator.

"Are those calculations? I don't see those numbers on my calculator."

Nice to see you avoiding the issue once the questions get to the adult level.

www.washingtonpost.com

I guess that's the last we'll hear from Joe on this topic.

#60 | Posted by Danforth

If that is your idea of adult accounting you really suck at your job. Only in Danforthville is a projected revenue loss from tax cuts placed on the Debit side of a balance sheet.

"Only in Danforthville is a projected revenue loss from tax cuts placed on the Debit side of a balance sheet."

The morons we both elected can't seem to stop the spending. We either pay for it now, or pay later, with interest.

Only in Lokisfurville is a deficit only a thing of imagination.

62 | Posted by Danforth

If Bush and Barry have not taught anyone what a deficit is then there is no hope for them.

It really is a remarkable statement about the human condition, when you can look at trillion dollar deficits and still say they don't matter, or that taxes alone will fix it, or that any cuts will kill everyone.

Here's why taxes can't fix the problem. This is worth the time to watch.
www.youtube.com

#64 | Posted by dr_dude2

Thanks, I saw that at a 912 meeting a long time ago. I think all libs should be duck taped to a chair and forced to watch that.

Not sure they would understand it.
One must have the ability to add.

Nice to see you avoiding the issue once the questions get to the adult level.

Like you did in the SOPA thread? Hilarious.

#64 | Posted by dr_dude2 at 2012-01-31 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Good watch.

Wars must be paid for! Obama started two wars with no way to pay for them.

Thanks, I saw that at a 912 meeting a long time ago. I think all libs should be duck taped to a chair and forced to watch that.

#65 | Posted by paneocon at 2012-01-31 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Careful now, that sounds like a Liberal tactic. Forcing people to do something because you think you know better.

If people want to be ignorant, they'll remain ignorant. No matter how many times we explain things to them. Case in point, Danni.

Obama has increased the federal debt by about $5 trillion in a mere four years. Thanks to higher revenues, the federal deficit will decline to $1.08 trillion in 2012, or 7% of GDP. But that is still the highest deficit since 1946â€"except for the previous three years. In other words, the four years of the Obama's Presidency will mark the four highest years in spending and deficits as a share of the economy since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office.

To sum it all up, CBO's facts plainly show that Mr. Obama has the worst fiscal record of any President in modern times. No one else is even close.

-Obama has increased the federal debt by about $5 trillion in a mere four years.

Wrong yet again.

www.drudge.com

72 | Posted by Corky

-Obama has increased the federal debt by about $5 trillion in a mere four years.
Wrong yet again.
www.drudge.com
--------------

From your link "When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it's about $15.2 trillion."

That was from your link, so under his watch the debt went up 5 trillion.

-so under his watch

He doesn't control long term spending (see borrowing) done in the previous admin and paid out now.

Try reading the linked article honestly and see if you can't clear the Heritage Plantation kool aid from your eyes long enough to see the economic data as it really is, not as you were told it is.

"That was from your link, so under his watch the debt went up 5 trillion."

So if I charge a bunch of stuff, and then leave, those are bills YOU rung up?

#75 | Posted by Danforth

"That was from your link, so under his watch the debt went up 5 trillion."

So if I charge a bunch of stuff, and then leave, those are bills YOU rung up?
--------------
Medicare, S.S. and Medicaid which account for most of the debt were created by FDR and LBJ.Do we blame them for the debt? No we always blame the current office holder, which in most cases is misleading.

Every President has to deal with previous administrations baggage, and this one is no different.

Bush's fault!

That's a good idea, actually. It's LBJ's fault!

"Medicare, S.S. and Medicaid which account for most of the debt..."

I didn't finish reading. Bullshit overload.

"cost more taxpayers more money over the years than any other President in my lifetime."

#14 | Posted by Danforth

So you are saying that Reagan raised taxes and thus you are implying that the deficits during the Reagan administration must have been the result of not cutting spending, which places blame squarely on the Democrats. Much different than what you have stated before Danny boy.

You raise taxes and cut spending when faced with a deficit. The idea that it is an "or" question just boggles the mind.

"thus you are implying that the deficits during the Reagan administration must have been the result of not cutting spending, which places blame squarely on the Democrats. Much different than what you have stated before Danny boy."

Regarding Reagan? Now you're just making shit up.

Last Friday (1-27) the US Bureau of Economic Analysis announced that in the last quarter of 2011 the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.8% in real inflation-adjusted terms, an increase from the annual rate of growth in the third quarter.

Good news, right?

Wrong. To know the truth turn to John Williams at shadowstats.com.

What the presstitute media did not tell us is that almost the entire gain in GDP growth was due to "involuntary inventory build-up," that is, more goods were produced than were sold. Net of the unsold goods, the annualized real growth rate was 0.8%.

And even that tiny growth rate is an exaggeration, because it is deflated with a measure of inflation that understates inflation. The US government's measure of inflation no longer measures a constant standard of living. Instead, the government's inflation measure relies on substitution of cheaper goods for those that rise in price. In other words, the government holds the measure of inflation down by measuring a declining standard of living. This permits our rulers to divert cost-of-living-adjustments that should be paid to Social Security recipients to wars of aggression, police state, and banker bailouts.

When the methodology that measures a constant standard of living is used to deflate nominal GDP, the result is a shrinking US economy. It becomes clear that the US economy has had no recovery and has now been in deep recession for four years despite the proclamation by the National Bureau of Economic Research of a recovery.

For example, according to the government's own data, payroll employment in December 2011 is less than in 2001. Meanwhile, there has been a decade of population growth. The presstitute media calls the alleged economic recovery a "jobless recovery," which is a contradiction in terms. There can be no recovery without growth in employment and consumer income.

Real average weekly earnings have never recovered their 1973 peak. Real median household income has not recovered its 2001 peak and is below the 1969 level.

Consumer confidence shows no recovery and is far below the level of a decade ago. How does an economy recover without consumer confidence? Housing starts have remained flat since 2009 and are below their previous peak. Retail sales are below the index level of January 2000. Industrial production remains below the index level of January 2000.

The Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan compensated for the absence of US consumer income growth with a policy of easy credit and a policy of driving up home prices with low interest rates. This policy allowed people to refinance their homes and to spend the inflated equity in their homes that Greenspan’s policy created. An increase in consumer indebtedness and dissavings drove the economy in the place of the missing growth in consumer incomes.

The consequences of a dead economy when the government is wasting trillions of dollars in wars of naked aggression and in bailouts of fraudulent financial institutions can only be financed by printing money. The consequence of printing money when jobs have been moved offshore is an inflationary depression. This catastrophe could begin to unfold this year or in 2013. If Europe's problems worsen, flight into dollars could delay sharp rises in US inflation until 2014.

The emperor has no clothes, and sooner or later this will be recognized.

from genius PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

-you are implying that the deficits during the Reagan administration must have been the result of not cutting spending,

www.rollingstone.com

Reagan's Republican Budget Directors tell a different story.

St Ronnie had to raise taxes 11 times to make up for his earlier cuts.

Corky reminds ne of my old Lionel Train that always jumped the tracks.
Focus, son.

"Every President has to deal with previous administrations baggage, and this one is no different."

Simply preposterous.

Wissy reminds me of my old Lionel Steam Train that huffed and puffed a lot of smoke, but always just went around in circles.

(hoisted/own petard, lol)

"Regarding Reagan? Now you're just making shit up."

#82 | Posted by Danforth

No you have said before that Reagan caused deficts by cuttng taxes for the rich. Now you say Reagan raised taxes.

Were you lying then or now? I hope you are not in a financial related business

"No you have said before that Reagan caused deficts by cuttng taxes for the rich."

Reagan caused deficits because he ramped up military spending to bankrupt the Soviet Union.

"Now you say Reagan raised taxes."

I've always said Reagan raised taxes. Everyone in the tax business knows that.

"Were you lying then or now?"

Clearly, you were stupid, then and now. You're confusing me with someone else.

"I hope you are not in a financial related business"

I hope you are not in a memory related business. Or one which relies on facts, for that matter.

Congress comes to grip with changes needed in tax and spending policy, Politico reports.

When Republicans read this it looks like this:

Congress comes to grip with changes needed in spending policy, Politico reports.

Congress comes to grip with changes needed in spending policy, Politico reports.

#90 | Posted by donnerboy

yeah, so?

Cut spending, then you might get Republicans on board with raising taxes.

Your kind of thinking is why Democrats are not being reelected into Congress.

To sum it all up, CBO's facts plainly show that Mr. Obama has the worst fiscal record of any President in modern times. No one else is even close.

online.wsj.com

Congress comes to grip with changes needed in spending policy, Politico reports.

#90 | Posted by donnerboy

Then tell us donner, why has the Democratic Senate not yet come up with a budget for over 1000 days??? Is THAT how they 'come to grips'? By putting their head in the sand!!

I am willing to go back to the tax rates of the 90s during Clinton only if our government goes back to the spending levels during the same period.

Here's a chart of the debt limit from 1940 to present.
www.ritholtz.com

Fundamentally, it means government deficit spending is out of control. It means the politicians you vote for are criminally insane.

Then tell us donner, why has the Democratic Senate not yet come up with a budget for over 1000 days??? Is THAT how they 'come to grips'? By putting their head in the sand!!

#93 | Posted by DavetheWave

I am sure in your mind it is Obama's Fault.

Fact is, there are multiple reasons and it is quite complicated.

Here is the short version.

Why bother to submit a budget that won't be passed?

Let me know if you want the long version because that will take some effort and quite frankly not sure you are worth it.

If you really cared you could google it too.

Cut spending, then you might get Republicans on board with raising taxes.

No.. we won't. THAT is part of the problem.

No.. we won't. THAT is part of the problem.
#97 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Liberal. Meet reality.

Debt and the money supply going towards infinity.
research.stlouisfed.org
research.stlouisfed.org

The dollar going towards zero.
www.nowandfutures.com

Debt cannot go to infinity. The dollar can't go below zero. What cannot be sustained, won't.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable