An instructive table
-
-
I thought this was supposed to go in Al's reading thread.
Oh wait, you're a lib, so it's okay with Al, and Dan.
"never mind"
(Heck despises threads without any comment, you know)
-
Dan, I reformed my cut and pastes. And it wasn't me who whined about
"too many threads in a day" (only three were too many)
and
"cut and pastes with no comment" which led Al to
create his reading thread.
I guess the reading thread is only for conversatives.
Dan, you threw your non-partisanship out the window
long ago.
-
I wasn't aware of this rule, or of these things that I totally despise. Thought it was a good summary for everyone to see before they start in about how awesome the Bush tax cuts were, and how devastating a return to Clinton-era top rates would be.
-
and the NEW YORK TIMES is your last feeble line of defense of Buttock Otrauma ?
(yikes)
-
There are numbers from the CBO, Cal. Then made into a chart. Published by the New York Times. Yes.
-
And why, when the CBO gives you good news info, you go gaga?
But when they don't, info bad, not good news, right wing conspiracy?
(hint: megabaloney)
-
That's good news? Where's the good news in that chart?
As for the CBO, those are the numbers we always go by, mostly because they're not political. Perhaps you can produce a post where I dismiss the CBO numbers because they don't help make my case, but I'm 100% sure that you can't.
Why don't you just address what the numbers say instead of going off on the New York Times and me?
-
Heck's been banned. For violating a rule that never existed.
All that's been requested is that posters only start one thread a day. And not to start a new thread on a subject that's already being discussed in another thread. Clearly, Heck posting some interesting budget numbers doesn't violate either of those rules.
It continues to amaze me how some posters here are more interested in debating the politics of this board than they are in actual policy arguments. If it's over your head, feel free to ignore this thread.
-
Heck's been banned. For violating a rule that never existed.
All that's been requested is that posters only start one thread a day. And not to start a new thread on a subject that's already being discussed in another thread. Clearly, Heck posting some interesting budget numbers doesn't violate either of those rules.
It continues to amaze me how some posters here are more interested in debating the politics of this board than they are in actual policy arguments. If it's over your head, feel free to ignore this thread.
Aloysius said:
It continues to amaze me how some posters here are more interested in debating the politics of this board than they are in actual policy arguments. If it's over your head, feel free to ignore this thread.I heeded this advice 2 months ago. It seems Cal has been doing this since his Commodore 64.
-
Here's a good summary of the chart:
"You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bushโs policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.
The first category โ the business cycle โ accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. Itโs a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economistsโ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Obamaโs main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies โ together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama โ account for 20 percent of the swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obamaโs agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas."
-
How do you figure?
The $145 bill Obama "stimulus bill" budget arrow is each year. Yet they only count the arrow once, and it appears you have too. Let's give Barry's stimulus the benefit of doubt here and assume we only suffer through it for 4 years. $145 x4= $580 bil compared to "Bush's $671 bil" over 8 years. Might want to re-work those percentages.
Last paragraph in the link, if you're interested.
Oh, and hey: if this wreckless idiot shit from the last 8 years is such a damned Texas-sized stupid idea, why are we continuing it?
-
That's a really good question.
-
I guess I should have also added an appendix to the question:
Why are we adding more wreckless while continuing the original wreckless.
-
-
I guess I should have also added an appendix to the question:
Why are we adding more wreckless while continuing the original wreckless.
I guess I should have also added an appendix to the question:
Why are we adding more wreckless while continuing the original wreckless.
What recklessness are you referring to?
-
I thought this was supposed to go in Al's reading thread.
Oh wait, you're a lib, so it's okay with Al, and Dan.
"never mind"
(Heck despises threads without any comment, you know)
I thought this was supposed to go in Al's reading thread.
Oh wait, you're a lib, so it's okay with Al, and Dan.
"never mind"
(Heck despises threads without any comment, you know)
"Please only post links to articles in this thread. You can copy&paste articles in other threads, but please don't inundate the board with multiple threads/articles. You should limit yourself to one new thread a day, and that limit shouldn't be misconstrued as a daily requirement to start another thread.
We're trying to have more extended, substantive discussions on the board. So unless you think the article brings up a topic or issue not already discussed on this board, you should link to it in here instead."
LOL.....my ass....delete that instructive thread.
-
Obama's stimulus plan = new recklessness (thanks for being discrete with my typo).
Bush's Iraq war spending etc. = original recklessness.
-
Obama's stimulus plan = new recklessness (thanks for being discrete with my typo).
Bush's Iraq war spending etc. = original recklessness.
Obama's stimulus plan = new recklessness (thanks for being discrete with my typo).
Bush's Iraq war spending etc. = original recklessness.
it's typical crap.....point to what the other guy did so people don't focus on what you are doing.
-
Actually, I thought the misspelling was intentional to make a point.
Anyway, you don't agree with the idea of a stimulus, or the size, or the content? I think you'd have a tough time finding an economist that would argue with the need for some sort of government stimulus package at that point.
Do you not believe that the fact that we didn't slide into a depression/deep recession had anything to do with the steps the Bush and Obama administration's took to stabilize the banking sector and stimulate the economy?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better ๐
Register Login