unfortunately your "speedometer" doesn't differentiate between discretionary spending and mandatory spending such as social security, medicare and payback of previous debt. Perhaps a different picture would emerge.
This is a very misleading video. Its uses Obama's budgets estimates as a means of gauging his entire presidency. It also makes the assumption that Democrats will control Congress throughout Obama's presidency. Now back to reality. These large deficit predictions were around during the outgoing Bush Admin. Government economists can calculate how bad the US economy is and will be when its financial system collapses. We can easily roll back the clock a bit and use Bush deficit predictions to make a similar video. I mean how else can the US Government replace some of the lost money in the US financial system without borrowing and raising the US deficit? Do you know anybody who has $700 billion? Also, I must mention that the Bush tax cuts have a ten year price tag of $2.48 trillion. All of it financed by borrowing. We should all be rich right? Wrong.
This analogy isn't right. You are assuming each presidency ends, and each new one begins, with a clean slate.
How much spending that you attribute to Obama results from unfunded mandates for things like the prescription drug benefit? Or from the various military conflicts Bush mired us in before leaving office?
I'd think there would have to be a way to break down the spending based on spending Obama is proposing solely for new initiatives, and without things he inherited and has no control over.
I'm wondering, outside of your adjustments for inflation in monetary terms, did you also consider the amount of debt in relation to total GDP for each time period? If not, the 40mph spending after the great depression would be far higher than the spending projections of the next eight years.
I'm also wondering if you are assuming that the increased spending will be 100% funded by increasing sovereign debt in the coming eight years as it was in the past eight years? None of us can say for sure what the outcome will be with increased taxation over the next few years but we can say that it will cut into some of that increased spending.
I think what people mean when they say Bush was irresponsible in spending is that he gave tax cuts by increasing the national debt and increased spending for the military instead of domestic social programs. Do you think it is responsible to give borrowed money to taxpayers and call it a tax refund?
Im not sure how accurate this information is, here is why. Under Clinton didnt we have a surplus? And who much is the over lap from the previous administrations? Meaning if Bush had surplus from Clinton did this slow how fast his car would travel? So Obama car is traveling faster because of Bush. Seem to make sense if look at two wars, tax cuts for your friends and prescription drug bill all not paid for. Just added to the deficit. Things that make you say humm..
Don't forget, stupid fucking republican, debt isn't deficit. bush and the republicans DOUBLED the debt from 2001 to 2007, taking it from $5 trillion to $10 trillion.
There's no reset button when the new guy takes over. The tax cuts, expensive wars and economic meltdown effects are STILL with us. You remember the meltdown, right? The one that started before Obama was elected?
14 comments:
This is absolutely incredible! Thanks for posting this... I am definitely going to share.
You are so welcome!
-SAS Admin!
unfortunately your "speedometer" doesn't differentiate between discretionary spending and mandatory spending such as social security, medicare and payback of previous debt. Perhaps a different picture would emerge.
This is a very misleading video. Its uses Obama's budgets estimates as a means of gauging his entire presidency. It also makes the assumption that Democrats will control Congress throughout Obama's presidency.
Now back to reality. These large deficit predictions were around during the outgoing Bush Admin. Government economists can calculate how bad the US economy is and will be when its financial system collapses. We can easily roll back the clock a bit and use Bush deficit predictions to make a similar video.
I mean how else can the US Government replace some of the lost money in the US financial system without borrowing and raising the US deficit? Do you know anybody who has $700 billion?
Also, I must mention that the Bush tax cuts have a ten year price tag of $2.48 trillion. All of it financed by borrowing. We should all be rich right? Wrong.
This analogy isn't right. You are assuming each presidency ends, and each new one begins, with a clean slate.
How much spending that you attribute to Obama results from unfunded mandates for things like the prescription drug benefit? Or from the various military conflicts Bush mired us in before leaving office?
I'd think there would have to be a way to break down the spending based on spending Obama is proposing solely for new initiatives, and without things he inherited and has no control over.
I have a few questions about your methods.
I'm wondering, outside of your adjustments for inflation in monetary terms, did you also consider the amount of debt in relation to total GDP for each time period? If not, the 40mph spending after the great depression would be far higher than the spending projections of the next eight years.
I'm also wondering if you are assuming that the increased spending will be 100% funded by increasing sovereign debt in the coming eight years as it was in the past eight years? None of us can say for sure what the outcome will be with increased taxation over the next few years but we can say that it will cut into some of that increased spending.
I think what people mean when they say Bush was irresponsible in spending is that he gave tax cuts by increasing the national debt and increased spending for the military instead of domestic social programs. Do you think it is responsible to give borrowed money to taxpayers and call it a tax refund?
Obama is doing 174 for Disneyland.
Bush was only doing 60, but straight toward Hell.
You need to look at debt as a percentage of GNP for this conversation to have any meaning.
Yawn. Any economic credibility in your education?
Yeah, unfortunately the deficits we have now are the result of the bush years.
Don't believe me, republican assholes?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
If you can even read.
I'm so glad that your kids face a grim, diminished future thanks to 30 years of republican policies. I hope they all starve.
Im not sure how accurate this information is, here is why. Under Clinton didnt we have a surplus? And who much is the over lap from the previous administrations? Meaning if Bush had surplus from Clinton did this slow how fast his car would travel? So Obama car is traveling faster because of Bush. Seem to make sense if look at two wars, tax cuts for your friends and prescription drug bill all not paid for. Just added to the deficit. Things that make you say humm..
Don't forget, stupid fucking republican, debt isn't deficit. bush and the republicans DOUBLED the debt from 2001 to 2007, taking it from $5 trillion to $10 trillion.
There's no reset button when the new guy takes over. The tax cuts, expensive wars and economic meltdown effects are STILL with us. You remember the meltdown, right? The one that started before Obama was elected?
I hope you kids starve.
This is not my personal youtube video. I took the embed from Youtube and stuck it here. Contact the original creator with your questions.
-SAS Admin
Idon't think it is difficult to tell which blogs were written by Liberal wackos and which ones were written by self thinking realists.
Post a Comment