Whoops: PolitiFact's 'Lie of the Year' Turns Out to Be True

Discussion in 'Politics' started by John_Wensink, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. Yes it is.Add up the total cost of the bush tax cuts,bush increasing defense spending 400 billion a year,bushs medicare expansion,bushs government expansion(TSA/homeland security etc).Throw in what Reagan added to the debt (which was less then a trillion when he took office)and its easily over 8.3 trillion
     
    #31     Jan 20, 2013
  2. Yet when we made a bet on who could go the longest without posting on ET you lost(And then welched on the bet)
     
    #32     Jan 20, 2013
  3. Didn't the ad imply that jobs were "moving" to China? If so, it's still a lie. Jobs are being created in China to produce cars for the Chinese market. No net loss for America, unfortunately no gain either. Not to mention Jeep production in America has nearly tripled since 2009.

    If you didn't take any trades today, did you lose money? No, you just didn't make any.
     
    #33     Jan 21, 2013
  4. Wallet

    Wallet

    Dude, even your own MSM has been repeating the fact, you can't blame Bush anymore..... Obama's had a full term in office the first half he enjoyed a democratic congress and for all the things you blame Bush for.... nothings changed. Granted we've exited Iran because they wouldn't continue to grant our armed forces immunity past a previously agreed upon withdrawal date, we are about to toss in the towel in Afghanistan but we're sparking wars in at least three other ME countries...... Guantanamos still operational, Patriot Act still inplace, Personal freedoms and liberties are more at risk under the new NDAA provisions

    Spending hasn't shrunk, in fact it's expanded with even more spending requested by the Administration... the same ole list goes on and on.

    You know there's a problem when both sides campaign for their parties extreme right and left but nothing changes once in office.
     
    #34     Jan 21, 2013
  5. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Nice try, but grossly incorrect.

    Here is a breakdown as of the end of 2011

    [​IMG]

    Even if we focus on the 42% held by "US Individuals and Institutions", as of the end of 2011 the Federal Reserve was in that bucket, owning 1.7 Trillion, or 28% of that number. And that was before the entire year of 2012's QE/Twist and the latest QE4Eva program. Add another trillion on to that as of 2012, making the Federal Reserve's total to 44% of that US Individuals and Institution number. Another trillion will be added by the end of 2013, bringing it to 60%. But as of right now, your "mom, dad and grandparents" bullshit totals to 23%, and that is assuming ALL the rest of the debt outside of the Fed is owned by individuals. Which we all know is completely not true.

    But even if it were, that would mean 23%, no where near most.

    Try again.
     
    #35     Jan 21, 2013
  6. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    So now we're going back to Reagan, too, eh? Just casually pick all Republicans back to the civil war, why don't you? New Slogan: We Blamed Bush for the last four years, now it's Reagan's turn!" Why stop there? Gerald Ford and Tricky Dick could use some blame as well.

    You're a fucking idiot.
     
    #36     Jan 21, 2013
  7. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    NO, it's not. Take Obama's balls out of your mouth kid.
    Thereby taking that fur eye patch off in the process, so you can see what's really going on.
     
    #37     Jan 21, 2013
  8. Yes it is son.Obamas only major spending programs are the stimulus which cost 800 billion(Obamas stimulus would not have been needed if bush hadn't left him the worst economy since the great depression) and Obamacare which will cost 200 billion a year .The rest of Obamas spending is mostly paying the bills Bush left him










    The Bush Deficit

    Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate.

    By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending.

    In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them.

    Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

    Of course, tomorrow's deficit problem is a bit different from today's. Looking decades into the future, it's the rising cost of health care that seem likely to wreck federal finances. But health care reform addresses that too, by putting in places the policies and institutions necessary to curb spending on medical care.







    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html



    What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.

    To relate this specifically to the debt-ceiling debate, we’re not raising the debt ceiling because of the new policies passed in the past two years. We’re raising the debt ceiling because of the accumulated effect of policies passed in recent decades, many of them under Republicans. It’s convenient for whichever side isn’t in power, or wasn’t recently in power, to blame the debt ceiling on the other party. But it isn’t true.




    [​IMG]
     
    #38     Jan 21, 2013
  9. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    You always call your elders "son"?
    It's kinda stupid, if ya think about it kid.
     
    #39     Jan 21, 2013
  10. . :D .
     
    #40     Jan 21, 2013