obama affirms free market

[Beowulf]

Exactly. And what they are failing to understand is that the deficit is large because Obama has inherited the huge deficit from Bush. Even with a zero sum increase, the deficit would still be huge. Result of Obama's policies, or the fact that Bush left this country in a deplorable condition?

I agree. Obama has inherited the mess left by the previous administration and at least he is trying to do something about it. On the other side, though, we just hear shrill screams with no suggestions on how to fix the situation. Just impotent whining. Gimme a break. :roll:

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Yes, I agree with your posts #103 and #104 over fix Bush´s huge mess.

Kokonut, Why can´t you give Obama a chance instead of blame the whole on him? He is president of the USA for only few months.

Don´t forget that he is the one who repair the bad relations, Bush Admin. had with other countries. He has done very well.

 

[kokonut]

Like I said. Perhaps you are confused, as well. This is not the debate forum. I have made my statements and I stand behind them. Quite frankly, I have more important things on my mind right now, such as the death of a dear friend, than educating the uneducable.

You made only opinions...no statements. Statements imply truths. Which statements are you referring to anyway? (as if I'll get an answer here).

Whether it's a debate forum or not may be a moot point here but exercising intellectually dishonesty and not answering question(s) are certainly and glaringly apparent coming from you, Jillio. Everybody is confused except you. You repeat that byline of yours repeatedly throughout AD. Those are your favorite words.

Yeah, you have more important things yet you come in here and won't even answer a simple question(s). Hoping that your own evasiveness would go unnoticed in here is not really your forte.

 

[kokonut]

Yes, I agree with your posts #103 and #104 over fix Bush´s huge mess.

Kokonut, Why can´t you give Obama a chance instead of blame the whole on him? He is president of the USA for only few months.

Don´t forget that he is the one who repair the bad relations, Bush Admin. had with other countries. He has done very well.

yes, and in 100 days he managed to rack up a $1.8 trillion dollar deficit which was 4 to 5 times bigger than Bush's deficit spending in his first year as president. Do you know what that means? I sincerely hope so. It means he's spending money that we do not have. I'm all for fiscal responsibility and transparency. Obama has done neither of that. It's the same concept of having multiple credit cards and you continue to use them but have no means to pay off all of the debts. But in Obama's case he has and continues to max out on those "credit cards". Tell me, is maxing out on your credit cards the answer to solve your debt problem?

It boils down to common sense here. Something that some people here are not willing to acknowledge that very simple concept called "financial responsibility." When you are deep in debt, you DO NOT create more debts or buy more things you cannot afford like expand federal programs.

 

[kokonut]

Oh pleeeeease... Rush believes in getting coked to the gills as well. What's so credible about that?

Obama did the same thing. So...?

 

[kokonut]

I agree. Obama has inherited the mess left by the previous administration and at least he is trying to do something about it. On the other side, though, we just hear shrill screams with no suggestions on how to fix the situation. Just impotent whining. Gimme a break. :roll:

Problem is, Obama is creating a much, much bigger mess. This will become apparent in a few years and then it'll be impossible to try and blame Bush for his so called "mess."

Fix the situation? Which ones?

 

[jillio]

You made only opinions...no statements. Statements imply truths. Which statements are you referring to anyway? (as if I'll get an answer here).

Whether it's a debate forum or not may be a moot point here but exercising intellectually dishonesty and not answering question(s) are certainly and glaringly apparent coming from you, Jillio. Everybody is confused except you. You repeat that byline of yours repeatedly throughout AD. Those are your favorite words.

Yeah, you have more important things yet you come in here and won't even answer a simple question(s). Hoping that your own evasiveness would go unnoticed in here is not really your forte.

Oh, puleeze. You really are a piece of work. And quite obviously you are confused...very confused. You have simply seen an opportunity to spout off and attempt to fulfill your own personal political agenda. Anyone that is familiar with the internet realizes that this is your typical modus operandae, and gives it no more credibility than do I.

 

[jillio]

Problem is, Obama is creating a much, much bigger mess. This will become apparent in a few years and then it'll be impossible to try and blame Bush for his so called "mess."

Fix the situation? Which ones?

Gee, would you mind clueing us in to exactly where you purchased that crystal ball you are using? I think all of us would like to be able to foretell the future with such certaintly.:roll:

 

[darkdog]

Like I said. Perhaps you are confused, as well. This is not the debate forum. I have made my statements and I stand behind them. Quite frankly, I have more important things on my mind right now, such as the death of a dear friend, than educating the uneducable.

1. Congratulations for standing by your convictions, but have you ever heard the phrase "Specificity is the soul of credibility"? Why should anyone believe you? When one person is providing a fact-based analysis with numerous figures from government sources and the other person is making vague assertions, who do you think has more credibility?

2. Whether or not this is called "the debate forum", it's just common decency to explain with specifics when you accuse someone of grossly misinterpreting.

3. Anyone is uneducatable when you provide no information to educate them.

Exactly. And what they are failing to understand is that the deficit is large because Obama has inherited the huge deficit from Bush. Even with a zero sum increase, the deficit would still be huge. Result of Obama's policies, or the fact that Bush left this country in a deplorable condition?

Yes, Bush and Obama share the '09 deficits, so Bush deserves part of the blame. However, Obama is trying to use the "inherited" excuse even though he was in the Senate voting in favor of the spending that drove up the deficits before he took office. That indicates he would have done the exact same thing as Bush did were he President at the time. And it's not just the President- it's also the Congress.

But if you look at the chart, in the years after the recession is expected to end, the deficit projections still don't go down below their highest point from the years before the financial crisis (2004). Even the rosy White House projections say that. Bush's spending was excessive and this is dwarfing that problem.

But the whole point is that you can't say we're going to spend trillions of dollars we don't have and only the richest 5% will pay for it while the other 95% will get tax cuts. The math just doesn't bear out. You may be able to do that in the short term (which is great for politicians), but in the long term, we all will have to pay for it and then some, thanks to accumulating interest.

This isn't about attacking Obama or Democrats for its own sake. This is about the consequences of spending huge sums of money we don't have with no signs of financial responsibility in the future. It's no different than having a family member who has thousands of dollars in credit card debt and constantly goes out on spending sprees spending money he doesn't have. Yes, nobody can tell the future, but it's easy to look at that situation and say "This probably isn't going to turn out well." The same applies to the federal government.

 

[kokonut]

Exactly. And what they are failing to understand is that the deficit is large because Obama has inherited the huge deficit from Bush. Even with a zero sum increase, the deficit would still be huge. Result of Obama's policies, or the fact that Bush left this country in a deplorable condition?

Deplorable condition. What planet are you living on? Obama's deficit for this year is $1.8 trillion dollars when he's barely wet behind the ear. This country managed to boom in spite of two wars and 9/11 while combating terrorisms that wanted to attack the U.S. again. But thanks to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd at the Senate Finance Committee they managed to help tank the housing marking by not going after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush warned them and Congress that there needed to be better oversight on FM and FM for the last 7 years. Frank ignored that call in 2003 and 2005 and said that there isn't a looming financial crisis. Oh, how so wrong he was.

Bush Surplus/Deficit Fiscal Years 2001-2008 (billions of dollars)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Statistics
2001 128.2
2002 -157.8
2003 -377.6
2004 -412.7
2005 -318.3
2006 -248.2
2007 -160.7
2008 -454.8
TARP -750.0
Total -2,751.9 trillion dollars

Obama
2009 -1.8 trillion dollars -CBO's
2010 -1.4 trillion dollars

Obama would already have by then zoomed past Bush's total 8 years deficit with a grand total of -3.2 trillion dollars. What will the next two years bring? Obama's own spending is putting Bush to shame.

Again, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. You simply do not spend money that you do not have. And you simply do not expand more govt programs that cost an additional hundreds of billions of dollars more in times when we don't have the money to begin with! It's the same idea of maxing out your credit cards thinking it's the answer to solve your debt problems while living in a house you cannot afford along with a few cars and other luxury items. That's exactly what Obama is doing ...right....now.

 

[jillio]

1. Congratulations for standing by your convictions, but have you ever heard the phrase "Specificity is the soul of credibility"? Why should anyone believe you? When one person is providing a fact-based analysis with numerous figures from government sources and the other person is making vague assertions, who do you think has more credibility?

2. Whether or not this is called "the debate forum", it's just common decency to explain with specifics when you accuse someone of grossly misinterpreting.

3. Anyone is uneducatable when you provide no information to educate them.


Yes, Bush and Obama share the '09 deficits, so Bush deserves part of the blame. However, Obama is trying to use the "inherited" excuse even though he was in the Senate voting in favor of the spending that drove up the deficits before he took office. That indicates he would have done the exact same thing as Bush did were he President at the time. And it's not just the President- it's also the Congress.

But if you look at the chart, in the years after the recession is expected to end, the deficit projections still don't go down below their highest point from the years before the financial crisis (2004). Even the rosy White House projections say that. Bush's spending was excessive and this is dwarfing that problem.

But the whole point is that you can't say we're going to spend trillions of dollars we don't have and only the richest 5% will pay for it while the other 95% will get tax cuts. The math just doesn't bear out. You may be able to do that in the short term (which is great for politicians), but in the long term, we all will have to pay for it and then some, thanks to accumulating interest.

This isn't about attacking Obama or Democrats for its own sake. This is about the consequences of spending huge sums of money we don't have with no signs of financial responsibility in the future. It's no different than having a family member who has thousands of dollars in credit card debt and constantly goes out on spending sprees spending money he doesn't have. Yes, nobody can tell the future, but it's easy to look at that situation and say "This probably isn't going to turn out well." The same applies to the federal government.

The goss misinterpretation is obvious. I don't think it needs an explanation.

And since when has this government NOT spent huge sums of money that we didn't have? Like I said, history is your friend.

 

[kokonut]

Oh, puleeze. You really are a piece of work. And quite obviously you are confused...very confused. You have simply seen an opportunity to spout off and attempt to fulfill your own personal political agenda. Anyone that is familiar with the internet realizes that this is your typical modus operandae, and gives it no more credibility than do I.

Ah! Ah! Hear that folks? I mean, literally. Can you hear that! The word is now "confuzed..." Everybody is confuzed...except her.

Again, you have not once answered my questions regarding Obama's massive spending plan that will, obviously so, put the U.S. into an even deeper hole that we cannot possibly dig ourselves out. China will not make any more loans to the U.S. I doubt other countries will at this point. China has lent to the U.S. over $1 trillion dollars.

My M.O. is to provide links, discuss the issues and answer any questions and at the same time offer my opinions, sometimes professional ones, and show some facts to the matter. I don't say, "Obviously, you are confused" a hundred times over to practically each and every ADers that you don't agree with. Go and check AD and read up all of Jillio's old posts when there's a disagreement. It seems to go along the line that the person she disagrees with is somehow "confused." Not really a rebuttal in its own right but merely an opinion unless you can somehow back up that argument with a few links or sources instead of saying, "You're confuzed..." Really, really disengenious here.

I mean, really, Jillio.

 

[jillio]

Deplorable condition. What planet are you living on? Obama's deficit for this year is $1.8 trillion dollars when he's barely wet behind the ear. This country managed to boom in spite of two wars and 9/11 while combating terrorisms that wanted to attack the U.S. again. But thanks to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd at the Senate Finance Committee they managed to help tank the housing marking by not going after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush warned them and Congress that there needed to be better oversight on FM and FM for the last 7 years. Frank ignored that call in 2003 and 2005 and said that there isn't a looming financial crisis. Oh, how so wrong he was.

Bush Surplus/Deficit Fiscal Years 2001-2008 (billions of dollars)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Statistics
2001 128.2
2002 -157.8
2003 -377.6
2004 -412.7
2005 -318.3
2006 -248.2
2007 -160.7
2008 -454.8
TARP -750.0
Total -2,751.9 trillion dollars

Obama
2009 -1.8 trillion dollars -CBO's
2010 -1.4 trillion dollars

Obama would already have by then zoomed past Bush's total 8 years deficit with a grand total of -3.2 trillion dollars. What will the next two years bring? Obama's own spending is putting Bush to shame.

Again, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. You simply do not spend money that you do not have. And you simply do not expand more govt programs that cost an additional hundreds of billions of dollars more in times when we don't have the money to begin with! It's the same idea of maxing out your credit cards thinking it's the answer to solve your debt problems while living in a house you cannot afford along with a few cars and other luxury items. That's exactly what Obama is doing ...right....now.

Yes, deplorable conditon. The planet I am living on is Earth. The country is the United States. You want to tell us what you have named the little world you have created in your mind where you reside?

 

[kokonut]

The goss misinterpretation is obvious. I don't think it needs an explanation.

And since when has this government NOT spent huge sums of money that we didn't have? Like I said, history is your friend.

Oooh, there it is again!! "gross misinterpration is obvious" = "you're confused". Please, knock it off with that. It's an intellectual dishonesty at work there. You say it but do not offer the why or how it is a "gross misinterpretation." Simply saying it does not offer anything except an apparent show of intellectual dishonesty for all to see. Please, keep it up.

When it comes to spending there comes a point in time of no return. Once the U.S. steps across that event horizon on the increadibly MASSIVE spending spree now going into the trillions (instead of billions over the last several decades), we're a goner. Or didn't you noticed that? It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with this deficit spending much longer now that we are going into the trillions and the stake has now increased more more measurably so. People simply do not understand the largeness of the word "trillion". If you were to count one dollar bills at a rate of $120 dollars an hour (a count of two dollars each second) it would take you 15,854 years non-stop to count all the money versus 15.8 years to count a billion dollars worth.

No, math is your friend. Ignore it at your own risk.

 

[jillio]

Oooh, there it is again!! "gross misinterpration is obvious" = "you're confused". Please, knock it off with that. It's an intellectual dishonesty at work there. You say it but do not offer the why or how it is a "gross misinterpretation." Simply saying it does not offer anything except an apparent show of intellectual dishonesty for all to see. Please, keep it up.

When it comes to spending there comes a point in time of no return. Once the U.S. steps across that event horizon on the increadibly MASSIVE spending spree now going into the trillions (instead of billions over the last several decades), we're a goner. Or didn't you noticed that? It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with this deficit spending much longer now that we are going into the trillions and the stake has now increased more more measurably so. People simply do not understand the largeness of the word "trillion". If you were to count one dollar bills at a rate of $120 dollars an hour (a count of two dollars each second) it would take you 15,854 years non-stop to count all the money versus 15.8 years to count a billion dollars worth.

No, math is your friend. Ignore it at your own risk.

I suggest you spend some time in a calculus class, then, dear kokonut. It would open your eyes.

There is no intellectual dishonesty at work on my part. Perhaps that is a bit of projection coming from you.

Now back on topic.

 

[Jiro]

I suggest you spend some time in a calculus class, then, dear kokonut. It would open your eyes.

There is no intellectual dishonesty at work on my part. Perhaps that is a bit of projection coming from you.

Now back on topic.

I think you should spend some time in economic class

it shows.. really...

 

[kokonut]

Yes, deplorable conditon. The planet I am living on is Earth. The country is the United States. You want to tell us what you have named the little world you have created in your mind where you reside?

Define "deplorable condition." You must be suffering greatly while typing on your computer over the internet.

 

[kokonut]

Ah! Ah! There it is again! The dreaded..."You should...."

It's really funny about the calculus retort, jillio, since I majored in mathematics and have taken calculus, advanced calculus, number theory, differential equations, logic of proving theorem, probability and stats, abstract algebra, numerical analysis at Gallaudet University and George Washington University. Not to mention taking geophysics as my major in graduate school.

Really, really funny and ironic that you said that, Jillio.

 

[jillio]

I think you should spend some time in economic class

it shows.. really...

I daresay I have been in many more economic classes than you yourself have been in.

 

[kokonut]

I suggest you spend some time in a calculus class, then, dear kokonut. It would open your eyes.

There is no intellectual dishonesty at work on my part. Perhaps that is a bit of projection coming from you.

Now back on topic.

Back on topic? You've been avoiding it.

How ironic!!