American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[TejanoLibre]

A Suspended Lawyer.

An Illegal Alien.

A Pathological Liar.

A Muslim,

A Communist,

A Terrible golfer.

And a Black Guy walk into a BAR.

Bartender says.

"What'll it be Mr. President?".

[Rev BS]

Another blind liberal. 1998? Find anything I posted about him BO in 1998. Heck let's move forward to this millennia look at 2008 or 2009. Don't see any posts there either.

Here is my first political post on this board (8-12-10).

"Toymann,

I am curious as to how you think the Republicans will take the Senate? I don't believe there are enough Democratic Senators up for reelection to realistically expect the Senate to turn over. I agree about the House turning Republican.".

Yep that's me, guilty of having eyes to see and common sense to think. Credibility. Seems like being 100% correct about that election gives me credibility. How was your call on that election?

And then there's you. Blinded by the need to defend a bad President. Everything you wrote was false, but then to apologize you would have to admit you were wrong. Btw, that stuff you wrote shows how far detached you are from reality. To give you a little guidance back the real world, BO wasn't up for election in 2010, that was a mid term election. Esten is way off on most of the stuff he writes, but you aren't even on planet Earth. But please come back for more verbal abuse, I think you enjoy it.

My post was not a reply to your post and not directed specifically at you, but you have chosen to shoulder the cross. Good for you, and I appreciate your reply. I woke up early and was inspired to write it. I wrote 2010 instead of 2012, and most independent thinking person would have pick up on that typo. But everything I said can be validated by going to the thread archives. My thoughts on the Presdential candidates are my own, of course.

And yes, I live in Bangkok and it flies on it's own orbit. And as far as verbal abuse, I have been getting it on AP regularly, so nothing new.

[Tres3]

Esten is of the belief that a good lie will travel half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on.

Tres3.

[Esten]

The 2014 federal deficit is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP, versus the average of 3.1% over the past 40 years

I will use your own source to make a fool of your statements. Look at the first few years under Obama. Notice the extreme increase in deficits as a percentage of the GDP. I believe you wrote the decade average was 3.1%.

Look who's the fool, reading too fast in his excitement to prove me wrong ! I said 40 years not 10 years. LOL You keep embarrassing yourself, give it up.

BTW, the deficits in Obama's first few years were triggered by the financial crisis -- a result of Wall Street greed and conservative free market ideology. Funny how conservatives always fail to mention that.

The deficit is now at a manageable level, but we need to get back to surpluses. I am a strong supporter of balanced budgets and hope we can get there soon. But we need politicians who can compromise. Americans should not (and won't) accept cuts to social programs and entitlements without corresponding tax increases on the top 1%, who have realized 95% of income gains in recent years, while incomes for the middle class have been largely flat. This is a result of capitalism, which is increasingly dominated by large corporations and Wall Street interests.

[Dccpa]

Oh Esten,

Bragging about the deficit improving as a percentage of GDP? Did you actually look at the chart or stick with the large print? I will use your own source to make a fool of your statements. Look at the first few years under Obama. Notice the extreme increase in deficits as a percentage of the GDP. I believe you wrote the decade average was 3.1%. Looking at the CBO's own chart in 2012, it shows Obama's first deficits were in the 8-10% range. Looking at the historical data, the average for the last decade would be closer to 5%. That 5% average is due to Obama's terrible percentages. He raised the average so high that he could walk under it and you are bragging about that. Wow. That is some shameless spinning. And did you notice the deficit percentage starts increasing in a couple of years. Obama has to get credit for that too.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...to_Outlook.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...land-table.png

When the government doesn't like the statistics they change the inputs. And voila instant improvement in the numbers. I give you the instant 3% increase in GDP.

http://blog.bea.gov/2013/07/23/gdp_changes/

Keep spinning Esten, that way you can keep your eyes closed to what is really happening.

[Dccpa]

The arguments, the debates, the trash talk point to one Barack Obama. You dislike him in 1998, and you dislike him even more in 2014. But unfortunately, you still have 2 more years of the man. You have stated that you prefer gridlock over any progress. You have never been fair enough to give the man a chance. All you have done is ridicule, taunt, name-call and more bitching. You have said that the Fuller Brush salesman would beat Obama in 2010. So yes, you have been found guilty of being prejudiced from Day One. Especially when you are still defending Bush, Jr.

So how can you have any credibility? Especially when you are in favor of one Sarah Palin, that drowned McClain. Romney was a good pick, but you saddled him with a Paul Ryan. And so your claims of being Independents have me laughing all the way to the outhouse.

Another blind liberal. 1998? Find anything I posted about him BO in 1998. Heck let's move forward to this millennia look at 2008 or 2009. Don't see any posts there either.

Here is my first political post on this board (8-12-10).

"Toymann,

I am curious as to how you think the Republicans will take the Senate? I don't believe there are enough Democratic Senators up for reelection to realistically expect the Senate to turn over. I agree about the House turning Republican.".

Yep that's me, guilty of having eyes to see and common sense to think. Credibility. Seems like being 100% correct about that election gives me credibility. How was your call on that election?

And then there's you. Blinded by the need to defend a bad President. Everything you wrote was false, but then to apologize you would have to admit you were wrong. Btw, that stuff you wrote shows how far detached you are from reality. To give you a little guidance back the real world, BO wasn't up for election in 2010, that was a mid term election. Esten is way off on most of the stuff he writes, but you aren't even on planet Earth. But please come back for more verbal abuse, I think you enjoy it.

[Rev BS]

The arguments, the debates, the trash talk point to one Barack Obama. You dislike him in 1998, and you dislike him even more in 2014. But unfortunately, you still have 2 more years of the man. You have stated that you prefer gridlock over any progress. You have never been fair enough to give the man a chance. All you have done is ridicule, taunt, name-call and more bitching. You have said that the Fuller Brush salesman would beat Obama in 2010. So yes, you have been found guilty of being prejudiced from Day One. Especially when you are still defending Bush, Jr.

So how can you have any credibility? Especially when you are in favor of one Sarah Palin, that drowned McClain. Romney was a good pick, but you saddled him with a Paul Ryan. And so your claims of being Independents have me laughing all the way to the outhouse.

[Dccpa]

I hope you're comfortable in your little cocoon of self-delusion.

The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted. That figure is now at 5.9%. The pool of "discouraged workers" shrank to 698,000 in September and is in a multi-year downtrend. So only a fraction of these "millions" of people you keep mentioning gave up. The rest have not re-entered the workforce for other reasons -- and if they don't want a job, why should they be counted in the unemployment rate ? I know you're upset the private sector has come back strong under Obama, but you were lied to by right wing politicians and media.

You poor delusional liberal. BO has really done a number on your psyche. You can't argue the facts, so spin the trend. Unlike you Esten, I don't pollute my mind with sources from the either fringe. All deficits under BO have been larger than the largest deficits of any of his predecessors. Spin away. Must be hard being a liberal under the worst liberal President since Richard Nixon. BO will probably set up a government funded support group for you.

"The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted." Not true Esten and you know better. There are several versions of unemployment. That is why they are called U3, U6, etc. Of course, they now use the rate that counts the least unemployed. But that was not the rate that was used in the days of less dishonest government.

And as far as the calculations themselves not being changed, wrong as usual Esten. Do you research any of these things or just defend BO with liberal spin? The funny thing about this article is that it proves my point against a liberal and it was written by liberals attacking Republicans.

http://chipshirley.blogspot.com/2012/05/obama-did-not-change-unemployed.html

You are making this way too easy Esten.

[Moore]

The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades.

OK, but the problem is that there is no precedent for the current situation.

Look at labor stats going back 70 years - the size of the labor force grows at the rate of population growth, or higher.

Until 2009, when the labor force stopped growing.

[Tiny12]

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.

Go ahead and re-write history. Obama agreed to $800 billion in increased tax revenues, which indeed would not have come from higher rates, but rather elimination of loopholes. In addition, the Republicans were counting on some contribution to tax revenues from a more rational, simplified tax system, and Democrats were not. But they would have come together, except that Obama got push back from his party, especially after it looked like the majority of the Senate (but not the House) would support even higher taxes. So instead of sticking with the framework, he demanded 1.2 trillion in revenues, and the deal fell apart.

This is typical of Democrats. They have no concept of the distortions caused by the tax system, and the time and expense eaten up complying with it.

[Esten]

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.

I hope you're comfortable in your little cocoon of self-delusion.

The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted. That figure is now at 5.9%. The pool of "discouraged workers" shrank to 698,000 in September and is in a multi-year downtrend. So only a fraction of these "millions" of people you keep mentioning gave up. The rest have not re-entered the workforce for other reasons -- and if they don't want a job, why should they be counted in the unemployment rate ? I know you're upset the private sector has come back strong under Obama, but you were lied to by right wing politicians and media.

[Esten]

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.

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.

[Tres3]

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.

[Dccpa]

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.

[Tiny12]

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.

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.