Did Ronnie somehow have his name changed from Reagan to Regan posthumously ? I suspect that most Republicans are unaware of this, particularly the Boush family.
Printable View
Did Ronnie somehow have his name changed from Reagan to Regan posthumously ? I suspect that most Republicans are unaware of this, particularly the Boush family.
Yes it's a little known fact but the creator of Vodoo economics did change the spelling of his last name.
[QUOTE=HotRod11;441767]Yes it's a little known fact but the creator of Vodoo economics did change the spelling of his last name.[/QUOTE]I knew about the change from Brylcreem to Vitalis but this name thing comes as a great surprise !
[QUOTE=Dccpa;441724]Or as we say in the real world, every year under BO has resulted in a budget deficit higher than in any of his predecessors' worst years. Nice try at spinning the pathetic.[/QUOTE]Think you're being more than slightly disingenuous here, but hey, he's the black President, fuck him. And as for living in the real world..... Come and join us!
[QUOTE=SteveC;441772]Think you're being more than slightly disingenuous here, but hey, he's the black President, fuck him. And as for living in the real world..... Come and join us![/QUOTE]Even the smallest budget deficit under BO has been larger than the largest budget deficit of any of his predecessors. You tried to deceive us by posting this nonsense:
"it's now at a level lower than the average for the past 40 years.".
BO's black? I thought he was half white and half black. I guess everyone has been lying about his heritage. Pathetic but common liberal attempt to cry race when caught falsifying facts.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;441778]Even the smallest budget deficit under BO has been larger than the largest budget deficit of any of his predecessors. You tried to deceive us by posting this nonsense:
"it's now at a level lower than the average for the past 40 years.".
BO's black? I thought he was half white and half black. I guess everyone has been lying about his heritage. Pathetic but common liberal attempt to cry race when caught falsifying facts.[/QUOTE]Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. The 2014 federal deficit is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP, versus the average of 3.1% over the past 40 years (see [URL]http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45653[/URL] ). That's a result of both spending cuts and higher tax revenues, including those from an improving economy that has brought unemployment down to 5.9%. Your efforts to dismiss these statistics are hollow and baseless.
We've come a long way from the disaster of Bush's laissez-faire free market policies. But we still have more work to do. Obama tried to work out a large deficit reduction package with Boehner a couple years ago, but it fell through when Cantor and others balked at the revenue side and pulled Boehner back. They were unwilling to compromise and raise taxes, they would only allow additional revenue through economic growth. The common theme we see under Bush and then Obama is clear: conservative ideology decreasing federal revenues, and increasing deficits.
[QUOTE=Esten;441779]Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. The 2014 federal deficit is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP, versus the average of 3.1% over the past 40 years (see [URL]http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45653[/URL] ). That's a result of both spending cuts and higher tax revenues, including those from an improving economy that has brought unemployment down to 5.9%. Your efforts to dismiss these statistics are hollow and baseless.
We've come a long way from the disaster of Bush's laissez-faire free market policies. But we still have more work to do. Obama tried to work out a large deficit reduction package with Boehner a couple years ago, but it fell through when Cantor and others balked at the revenue side and pulled Boehner back. They were unwilling to compromise and raise taxes, they would only allow additional revenue through economic growth. The common theme we see under Bush and then Obama is clear: conservative ideology decreasing federal revenues, and increasing deficits.[/QUOTE]Boehner tried to work out a large deficit reduction package with Obama a couple of years ago, but it fell through when the Democrat political strategists balked at the spending side and pulled Obama back. They were unwilling to compromise and cut spending. The common theme we see under Obama and Reid is clear: liberal ideology increasing federal spending and increasing the national debt.
Annual deficits ran in excess of a trillion dollars for four years during the Obama administration. They never ran over $500 billion in any year before that. I have not adjusted for inflation or size of the economy.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;441781]Boehner tried to work out a large deficit reduction package with Obama a couple of years ago, but it fell through when the Democrat political strategists balked at the spending side and pulled Obama back. They were unwilling to compromise and cut spending. The common theme we see under Obama and Reid is clear: liberal ideology increasing federal spending and increasing the national debt.[/QUOTE]Just switching words around without any research, pretty pathetic Tiny.
The sticking point was the revenue side, this is from Boehner himself. He said "Obama moved the goal posts", this is well documented. Obama already had agreed to spending cuts Republicans wanted. He was not pulled back. Cantor and others pulled Boehner back, and then they pulled out instead of continuing negotiations. They were too spineless to try to convince their peers, and their peers too headstrong to be reasoned with.
Everyone knows it is mainly the Republican Party that is unwilling to compromise. If we had more people in Washington willing to compromise, we could reach a big debt deal.
[QUOTE=Esten;441779]Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. The 2014 federal deficit is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP, versus the average of 3.1% over the past 40 years (see [URL]http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45653[/URL] ). That's a result of both spending cuts and higher tax revenues, including those from an improving economy that has brought unemployment down to 5.9%. Your efforts to dismiss these statistics are hollow and baseless.
We've come a long way from the disaster of Bush's laissez-faire free market policies. But we still have more work to do. Obama tried to work out a large deficit reduction package with Boehner a couple years ago, but it fell through when Cantor and others balked at the revenue side and pulled Boehner back. They were unwilling to compromise and raise taxes, they would only allow additional revenue through economic growth. The common theme we see under Bush and then Obama is clear: conservative ideology decreasing federal revenues, and increasing deficits.[/QUOTE]Ah another liberal tactic of attacking facts by trying to divert attention to meaningless statistics. You keep pointing to the falsified unemployment statistics that millions of not working and no longer counted as unemployed Americans will tell you is a lie.
You know what has helped the GDP during BO's time in office? The evil fracking industry. They have helped the USD, the unemployment rate, the balance of trade, income, the deficit, etc. Etc. All of these improvements from fracking are in spite of BO, not because of him. BO has blocked the Keystone Pipeline which would have been better for the environment and better for the American economy. But avoiding pissing off the Environmental Wing of his party is far more important than the American economy. And any idiot, Democrat or Republican, can get the percentage down as the overall deficit has exploded. What I stated was 100% factual. The percentage deficit argument you are making is as stupid as the argument made by Republican operatives under Reagan that deficits don't matter.
Now that the BO has sufficiently pissed off the Saudis and they are going to attempt to kill off our fracking industry, we are going to find out just how much deficits matter. Who are you going to blame when the deficits start widening as a percentage of the GDP as fracking start declining?
When fracking declines, I personally will clap my hands.
[URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/jobs/u-s-unemployment-claims-14-year-article-1.1976301[/URL]
US unemployment claims drop to lowest level in 14 years. This from the NY Post, the Fox of Print Media. The original report came from the Associated Press.
Is that good or bad news? Is the cup half-full or half-empty? Should we be cheering or moping? Does this mean that things are better now or worse compare to 6 years ago? Ah, so confusing! So many unhappy people in AP. Well, I guess you would be if things were so bad that you are eating wieners and beans everyday. No wonder, so much flatulence in the air.
[QUOTE=Esten;441787]Just switching words around without any research, pretty pathetic Tiny.
The sticking point was the revenue side, this is from Boehner himself. He said "Obama moved the goal posts", this is well documented. Obama already had agreed to spending cuts Republicans wanted. He was not pulled back. Cantor and others pulled Boehner back, and then they pulled out instead of continuing negotiations. They were too spineless to try to convince their peers, and their peers too headstrong to be reasoned with.
Everyone knows it is mainly the Republican Party that is unwilling to compromise. If we had more people in Washington willing to compromise, we could reach a big debt deal.[/QUOTE]Everyone knows it is mainly Obama, Harry Reid and other Democrats who are unwilling to compromise. If we had more people in Washington willing to compromise, we could reach a big debt deal.
The reason negotiations fell apart was because Obama backtracked from his agreement with Boehner and Cantor to raise taxes by "just" $800 billion, and instead insisted on raising them by $1.2 trillion. This is well documented.
Just cause I want to see Esten try and spin it.
Smoke and mirrors accounting.
Bill Clinton claimed to have a budget surplus for several years which was nonsense. Now Obama is back with more smoke and mirrors accounting.
If the US Deficit is ‘only’ $483 Billion, why does the Government Have to Borrow $1.1 Trillion to Fill the Hole?
By Wolf Richter • October 16, 2014.
On Wednesday, the Treasury Department released its Monthly Treasury Statement for September and the fiscal year 2014. It’s the official account of how the US government arrives at its infamous deficit. And it was a doozie.
Without giving it a second thought, the media gushed about the headline number, how good it looked, how the US government was getting its fiscal mess in order.
Receipts rose $247 billion to $3,021 billion, outlays rose $50 billion to $3,504 billion (including “on-budget” and “off-budget” items) for a deficit of $483 billion. At 2.8% of GDP, as the media gleefully pointed out, it was proportionately the smallest since 2007. The deficit monster has been tamed. And unthinkable as that seemed a couple of years ago, it has disappeared as a political issue, even before the election!
There is just one teeny-weeny problem:
To fill that $483 billion hole, the US government borrowed $1.086 trillion.
Turns out, the US gross national debt, as I’d reported in early October, ended fiscal 2014 at 17.824 trillion, up $1.086 trillion from fiscal 2013. This is the real increase in real Treasury debt that real taxpayers will have to deal with in the future.
The chart of the gross national debt below is a mesmerizing picture of America’s fiscal condition as it developed over the years, with some peculiarities:
One, the US, had four years of official “surpluses” between 1998 and 2001 that at one point exceeded 2% of GDP. They should have brought down the gross national debt by the amounts of the surpluses. But not these “surpluses!” Instead, the debt increased in every one of those four years, in total by $394 billion. That’s how much real debt it took to cover these government accounting “surpluses.”.
Two, following four years of “surpluses,” the debt began to grow exponentially. Since 2002, the government has borrowed $12 trillion, or two-thirds of the total debt! Since 2008, it has borrowed $8.8 trillion, or about half of the total debt.
Three, in fiscal 2014, with that smallish deficit of $483 billion, well, look what happened: the debt soared by $1.1 trillion.
US-Gross-National-Debt-1972-2014-B.
We’re shocked and appalled.
Are they lying to us here in the land of open and transparent governance? Well, they’re not actually lying. They’re using government accounting. It’s like corporate accounting: a purposeful mix of revelation and obfuscation.
Part of the discrepancy is a result of last year’s debt ceiling charade. In March 2013, Treasury debt hit the ceiling set by Congress. To fund the government deficit, the Treasury Department borrowed from other accounts to be repaid later. “Extraordinary measures,” it was called. On October 17 last year, so in fiscal 2014, after Congress and the White house had agreed on a deal to avoid default, the gross national debt jumped by $328 billion in one fell swoop. Since most of it was spent in fiscal 2013, we can subtract it from the $1.086 trillion debt increase in fiscal 2014, which brings it down to $758 billion.
In the same vein, the debt jumped on October 1 – the first day of fiscal 2015 – by $51 billion, which kicked that portion of the debt increase into fiscal 2015. So, to get a better feel for fiscal 2014, we add it to the $758 billion debt increase. Hence, $809 billion (more on that below).
And then what happened?
Government accounting. On page 3 of the Treasury Statement, under the bottom line of “Total On-Budget and Off-Budget Financing” of $483 billion – so the official deficit – there is a section with three more lines, called “Means of Financing.” It explains the mega-difference between the official deficit and the official increase in the debt.
It states right there, in clear text:
“Borrowing from the Public”: $797.6 billion. That’s how much the Treasury admitted it borrowed in fiscal 2014 to cover the deficit of $483 billion; one line beneath the other. Pretty close to my estimate above of $809 billion. So let’s go with the Treasury’s number. And how was that $797.6 billion in newly borrowed money used?
$483 billion of it covered the official deficit. Got it.
$69.9 billion was ascribed to an “Increase in operating cash.” Ok, makes sense.
And the remaining $244 billion in borrowed money? That’s the doozie. It’s in the last line labeled “By Other Means.” It’s over 50% of the “deficit.”.
But it’s NOT included in the deficit.
That line doesn’t shows up again. After a brief appearance of how $244 billion was borrowed from the public and loaded onto future taxpayers, it disappeared from the statement into a complex web of government accounting to never be seen again by the public.
But it’s part of the deficit, as much as it is part of the debt. With it, the US deficit in fiscal 2014 amounted to $727 billion – over 50% higher than the stated deficit of $483 billion.
That’s one way to solve a nagging problem.
OK, I get it. Government accounting, like corporate accounting, is designed to pull a bag over our heads. We minions don’t need to know these silly details. This is the equivalent of Wall Street: don’t dig through the footnotes, just buy, buy, buy! It works with the mainstream media which abounded in praise for the economy and the government’s adroit fiscal management as the deficit is withering away before our very eyes. At this pace, pretty soon, they’re going to discuss once again how to spend the “surplus.”.
Theories abound why this is suddenly happening, after years of deceptive calm. Read… Toxic Mix Blows up: Oil Price Collapse & Junk Bond Insanity.
Where do the fines and settlements paid by corporate America come into play? The government minions obviously do not think they are part of government intake from taxpayers, because rather than debt reduction, they want to spend this "windfall" on new furniture, cars, offices, etc. In other words, when corporate America rips off the taxpayer and gets caught, rather than apply the penalty to the debt, and reduce the deficit, government wants to spend this money as if it belonged to the government, and not the taxpayers who were ripped off.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;441794]Everyone knows it is mainly Obama, Harry Reid and other Democrats who are unwilling to compromise. If we had more people in Washington willing to compromise, we could reach a big debt deal.
The reason negotiations fell apart was because Obama backtracked from his agreement with Boehner and Cantor to raise taxes by "just" $800 billion, and instead insisted on raising them by $1.2 trillion. This is well documented.[/QUOTE]Who walked away from the table ?
BTW, the $800 billion was not a tax increase in terms of tax rates. It was $800 billion mainly from an improving economy, done in a way so that Republicans wouldn't violate their Tax Pledge to Grover Norquist. So really, there wasn't any compromise from the Republican side, and Obama was correct to ask for more revenue. Most Americans supported a balanced approach to deficit reduction, but the headstrong Republicans would not accept any tax increase.