G.O.P. Succumbs To Rare Outbreak Of Sanity

Also the payroll tax deduction was lifted. Which generated about 600 more dollars a year per person in my tax bracket....

word

I think I stated the other day my discontent with that policy in a lot of budgets: (the bold).

That sooo much. I think you should have to pay a differential tax when importing goods from another country. If you that country offers the same economy no tax but if you are tossing bread to peasants then you have to pay the difference of what it cost to make in America.

Also it does us no good if we have the EPA running down American companies backs, if we don't at least tax the hell out of companies that run and escape our regulations.

The budget deficit adjusted for 2007 employment looks even more optimistic, too. We're headed in the right direction, but I don't think we're ready to make the kind of sacrifices required to speed it up. Public assistance will need massive reform as part of that sacrifice, but I'd like to see a revamp of appropriations and agency funding systems first, as well as some serious domestic manufacturing incentives. Creating jobs is all well and good, but when we create them in other countries, it's not helping us. Just look at the rates of illegal immigration and you can see the sad state of our domestic production.

Good job denouncing the evils of corporate news media outlets then resorting to referencing them later on (or was that me?).

I know what numbers they're using. What Bush did was he took the cost of the wars off the books so they wouldn't show up in the official numbers. When Obama went into office, he decided to reveal those numbers, which is why it looks like it spiked up all of a sudden.

What you have to do is look at the debt numbers and subtract each year by the previous year to find the deficit.

I made a cute graph for you.
http://www.satirealley.com/Untitled.png

The blue line is our national deficit by year.
The green area is how much Bush added to the debt.
The purple area is how much Obama added to the debt.

I hope you learned something today. Don't learn too much or you might become a liberal.

Take a look at that graph and tell me again that Obama is worst for the deficit/debt problem. Well, he's better at bringing down the deficit and controlling spending, just like his previous democratic predecessor.

You can find the numbers I used here:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

You can use the official numbers for 2013 since nothing was hidden.

Uh, that information confirms some of the things I was saying, especially the second link. I suppose the "triple deficit" could've been the result of fancy bookkeeping, so I'll grant you that. And the graph shows that Obama succeeded in bringing the 2009 deficit levels down to above what they were in 2007. I dunno, cute graph though.

I didn't really care about any secondary things you've mentioned along the ways, nor did I pay attention to them. The whole point of this is to correct your misunderstanding of how the deficit and the debt works.



The deficit is everything; it derives from multiple components. The debt derives entirely from the deficit as its only component; it's just a by product of the deficit.

You fix the debt problem by fixing the deficit problem, and it's clear to see who's better doing that.

Oh, and the left doesn't disregard Fox News because it's a right-wing source. We disregard Fox News because they lie on a regular basis under the disguise of having it be 'opinion news'. Thought I'd clear that up too.

Man I'm helpful tonight.

Well, you've succeeded in one thing. You've made me laugh. But you did say I was wrong when I mentioned that Obama added more debt than Bush. Let's do simple math directly from the government website.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49

Difference: 4,350,546,687,025.63

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89

Difference: 6,041,516,510,473.40

I'm aware that those dates don't correspond exactly with when each president entered office, but those numbers are pointing to an obvious trend, and that's just data from 2012.

You cut Bush off a year too early.

Bush left office Jan. 20, 2009. I cut him off by 4 months because those were the only dates given on the website. It would affect the data slightly, but I'm comparing eight years to four. My point stands.

You have to admit though, Bill-O does make for some great comical relief. I've known meteorologists that were correct more times than him on a regular basis.

Your point would have held more merit if you knew what a fiscal year was.

The problem with arguing with conservatives is that they almost always don't know basic facts, and yet they argue like they do.

Google it, please. Go to google, type in 'fiscal year' and press enter. Read a couple of links, then get back to me.

And I never said Bush added more to the debt than Obama. Before you address this, please read and learn a little about the topic you're trying to argue.

I forgot who it was, but someone on this site told me that Obama added 3+ trillion to the deficit and he got to that number because he added up the individual deficits by year. It's just depressing how uninformed conservatives are sometimes.

Backtracking are we? I said, "The debt has raised more in Obama's presidency (so far) than it did in Bush's."

You said, "The debt is dictated by the deficit. Are you sure you're a statistician?"

I then schooled you with simple subtraction. And who said I didn't know what a fiscal year was? I was simply pointing out that it didn't correspond with the dates that the presidents took office. Oh, but pointing out how uninformed one conservative was on this site that one time totally proves your point. Let me ask a bunch of random liberals what the difference between the debt and deficit is and watch them all magically know.

"The debt is dictated by the deficit. Are you sure you're a statistician?"

...does not mean Obama has added less to the debt. It means the debt is dictated by the deficit. Literally.

I don't think you're in a position to school anyone on anything. You don't even know what a fiscal year is and you're trying to argue about the deficit/debt. If you actually had basic knowledge of the topic you're trying to argue, you'd laugh at how hilariously limited your knowledge base is.

And you proved you don't know what a fiscal year is once you started talking about dividing up a year by months.

Far as I'm concerned, I've pointed out two conservatives who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I was an accounting major before getting into statistics. Keep telling me I don't know what a fiscal year is and maybe I'll believe it someday. Also, since you're trying too hard to salvage your argument and it's just getting old, here's this for good measure:

Fiscal year starts every year on October 1st and ends the next September 30th. The beginning of the fiscal year is when the budget should be decided and is set for the rest of the fiscal year. No, there is no cutting off any number of months when you're talking about the fiscal year.

Basic, basic knowledge that everyone who argues about this topic should know.


And no, a picture doesn't mean you 'win' either. I never said Obama added less to the debt than Bush; and that should be self evident by the fact that you can't even find one quote of me saying such things.

I said he's better for the deficit/debt than bush because he's better at dealing with the deficit, and I've repeated this multiple times. That was actually the whole point of the chart I created. I've visually confirmed for you that the deficit line goes up during Bush's term and down during Obama's term, and I've explained, using simple English (and via the graph), how the deficit controls the debt.

Why don't you just admit that you've misinterpreted my words because it fits your narrative.

But if you want to la-la-la-I-win-you-lose, sure. Go ahead.

A statistician who doesn't understand basic mathematical principles and an accountant that doesn't know what a fiscal year is. I wonder what other professions you're going to claim.

Well, I was done, but here we go for another round. The reason I didn't take into account the actual date for the fiscal year was because Congress is notorious for not passing real budgets, and instead passes continuing resolutions to keep things rolling. These are not planned according to a fiscal year. Also, Obama may have reduced the deficit, but he still hasn't been able to take it below what it was in 2007. And for the audience, please remind everyone how many budgets Obama has passed. I think that all the confusion has been from you trying to teach me things I already know because you think you're mentally superior. Get a degree in my field and we can talk.

Zero, since Obama doesn't pass budgets.

Congress does that.

But let me guess, you're a professor in US government now too.

He proposes one. Or he would if he did his job.

Here's a fun game. What do you think would happen if you typed in "Obama's proposed budget" into google?

BTW, I'm well aware that the "Obama hasn't passed a budget" line is something repeated on fox news ad nauseam. Like I said, they lie on a regular basis.

You would find one that he actually proposed for once. I guess he deserves credit for trying this year.

Not sure how he is good at dealing with the deficit.... The sequester seems to be helping him out a good deal.....

Better than bush yes, but he is no Clinton or Reagan.

Now what would happen if you type "Obama's proposed budget 2013" into google?




That's really all I'm arguing for.

It also helped that the bush tax cuts expired. Tax rates didn't go back to where they were during Clinton's term, unfortunately, but it's better than when the bush tax cuts were active.

Hmm, okay. It appears that he proposes budgets, but he does it past the deadline almost every year. A for effort?

Denied.

Where'd my goalposts go? Who's been moving them?

Actually, that did sound a bit off, so I decided to fact check that a little

2010 budget - Feb. 26, 2009
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/26/news/economy/obama_budget_outline/?postversion=2009022618
2011 budget - 2/2/2010
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-01-budget-analysis_N.htm?csp=N009
2012 budget - February 14, 2011
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/14/news/economy/obama_budget/
2013 budget - May 16, 2012
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/
2014 budget - April 10, 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-to-unveil-377-trillion-spending-plan/2013/04/10/843adef4-a18d-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.html

Yeah, all of Obama's budget proposals were several months in advance of the deadline.

So yeah, no A for effort.

Listen. Your side, the conservative side, controls half of the most powerful nation that has ever existed on the face of the Earth. It would be super if you guys would get some basic facts down straight.

That may be all you are arguing for, but I don't really thing that Raveal is trying to defend bush, I just think that he is saying Obama is not the awesome budget person you seem to think he is.

As of right now the big chunks that are helping him is the Sequester and as you said the payroll tax deduction. Which all he had to do was nothing....

In all actuality, and you may not mean this, but you seem to have the opposite tone that amadeius has. Raveal doesn't care who takes care of the deficit democrat or republican as he stated, but the current administration as it is, is responsible for 1/3 of the debt created in the first 4 years of it's existence.

It also likes to lie and take "credit" for budget cuts that are already appropriated by law when they failed to reach across party lines and agree on a budget.