Thanks for switching the subject as to who gets credit if TARP works. I never gave or denied credit either positive or negative to anyone for TARP. My point had nothing to with good or bad aspects of TARP. We are discussing deficits here. I simply said that at the current time TARP is an increase on the national debt, but it is supposed to be paid back, and about 10% has already been paid back. Its net effect on the national debt in the long run will be null. I believe there are democrats, and a lot of them who will use future cash flows from TARP to pad Obama's deficit numbers while making Bushs deficit numbers look bad. Thats all I said. I never argued anything pro or con about TARP. You seem to try to make claims for other people that they never made. You did this often in the GW thread. You tried to say that if someone doesn't believe in GW it meant they were against efficiency or geo-thermal power. Can you tell me what the weather will be next week? If not you should not try to predict years in the future.
This graph is wrong, and probably outrageously wrong as I've shown by a reference to the CBO's actual projections. That is all. I have no comment on TARP, don't care. It, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this incorrect chart except that it was passed under Bush and is (presumably) included in Bush's deficit numbers for 2009. In fact, these numbers are so cooked that they're probably just made with ill-intent to fool those unwilling or unable due to mental incapacity to look up the actual numbers.
First of all, Republicans arguing about the economic performance of their guys is always amusing, considering the overwhelming evidence that the economy does way better under Democrats than it does under Republicans. This of course would explain why deficits increase more under Republican presidents. Deficit increases are a function of how bad the economy is. Which brings us to the current situation. Arguing over Obama's deficits at this early stage is nuts. I looked up a number that I like because it takes in everything in a single number: the Aggregate Weekly Hours Index. (source: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=AWHI&s[1][transformation]=pc1) The year over year percent change since Obama got into office, which is all of five months of data, is worse in every single month than it has been since 1975. Under any president it would simply not be possible not to run a huge deficit when the economy is shrinking this fast. Bush had no such excuse. That's one. Now onto the relative performance, where someone came to an interesting and surprising conclusion, which I had to verify for myself. This index of hours worked, like any other economic number you could look up, does way better under Dems than under Reps. The median percent change is 2.23 in total, but 2.74 under Dems, while only 1.55 under Reps. But this article wonders how Republican get elected anyway, and points out the reason why: in election years the economy does far better under Republicans than under Democrats. This number confirms it: in election years, the percent change under Dems is 1.97, well below their normal performance, while under Reps it's an outstanding 2.9. Somehow, the Republicans manage to goose the economy in election years to their advantage, the only exceptions to this that I saw in the data being Dubya's dad in '92 and Dubya himself last year, of course. Republicans definitely play the political game better, but Democrats deliver better results. As for this extraordinarily unscientific debate (look! the deficits under Obama are bad! Wotta freakin' surprise. In other news, the sun rose in the east this morning.) inspired by a statement that is simply a fact in horrendous times like these, it would be a lot fairer to look at these numbers at the start of the next election year than it is looking at them now. Given the unbelievably bad economy he inherited from the incompetent idiot who preceded him, and the fact that he folded in the costs of Iraq into the budget so that it would actually tell the truth, unlike the liar who preceded him, if he can get the numbers down to merely normally bad from astronomically bad by then, that will be a huge accomplishment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html This is straight from the Washington Post. Sorry, you don't get to throw out every piece of data that disputes your view of the world.
Are you implying the economy didn't contract during the last year of Clinton as the Nasdaq was imploding by 82%? Or that 2001-Q1/2003 were easy times for Republican policy makers? This is what I think. You're a dumb fuck and a liar as well, masquerading as someone who actually believes he has a clue. During the Reagan years the Democrats had a decisive Congressional majority much like today. Imagine if McCain were President. Do you think he'd be able to contain a penny of spending as enacted by the Pelosi Congress? Hardly. Idiots use Presidents and Presidential cycles. Intellects look at Congressional rosters and examine recorded documentation of budget negotiations. Have you even heard of David Obey and aware of his influence on the Appropriation process during Bush's first term? No one asked Obama to expand the war in Afghanistan. Is NATO going along for the ride. Nope. No one asked Obama to waste trillions of taxpayer dollars providing free medical care to illegals either while tearing down a health care system that 80% of Americans approve. You're a mother fucker-and believe me-you and the other Leftists/Fascists on ET-are cock sucking parasites who should be shot in the head in the name of liberty.
I'm going to break my pledge to answer your posts by isolating the above, in order to emphasize it. The above is more than enough to point out just exactly who you are. In a place that had moderators who gave a fuck, you'd be banned instantly for the above threat to my life. Be happy you're here.
I've linked directly to the CBO, their projections and the graph simply does not match their baseline projections at all. I get to throw out bad data. That is bad data. It doesn't matter if it came from the Queen of England. This parrot is dead! So not only do I get to "throw it out" I get to slam it repeatedly on the way out and anyone who defends it after the original source was cited correcting it.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10296 Here is a direct link from the CBO. It matches the previously posted graph. You can look at the data in PDF or XLS format. Lets go to line 24 of the XLS which shows CBO's Estimate of the President's Budget. Here it is year by year. That numbers show the budget surplus/deficit in of billions dollars. 2009 -1,825 2010 -1,432 2011 -974 2012 -633 2013 -647 2014 -726 2015 -763 2016 -873 2017 -927 2018 -999 2019 -1,163 For a grand total of -9,139 for the years 2010 through 2019. There is the direct link to the CBO data so, it is not bad data. You don't get to throw it out. You were flat out wrong again.
It's pretty funny to see liberals arguing that liberalism helps the economy. You can argue all you want about safety nets, and free health care, but there's no doubt that the more socialism we have, the worse the average standard of living is. It's one thing to say that liberalism is a good we can afford to purchase, but it's a big lie to say that it's not a cost. If somebody tells you that welfare is the path to plenty, they not only a liar, but they also think you are a moron.
Hey, thanks! A relevant piece of data! I happily stand corrected as they've released that, in June, since their annual budget update. Now, to address other points: the CBO can't predict 10 years into the future, that Obama inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit, that Obama has included the Iraq war in the budget which the Bush administration never did, that the worst deficit year is 2009 which is Bush's budget set in 2008, and so on.