GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/12/03/if-obama-cant-fix-the-economy-did-w-really-wreck-it/trackback/

  1. Can’t the Messiah fix anything?! If not, why not indeed?

    Or is this just a clever way of saying it will take eight years of BO and at least four more of Hillary to get things back to where they were when Bubba left office?

    Comment by RSG — December 3, 2012 @ 6:11 am - December 3, 2012

  2. Use your brain. Your friend said the President alone can’t fix the economy. He was indicating the need for cooperation from the legislative branch.

    It’s a lot easier to ruin things than it is to fix them, and that’s why George Bush still deserves blame for the recession. He had the help of the legislative most of the way.

    Comment by Levi — December 3, 2012 @ 9:33 am - December 3, 2012

  3. So Levi is giving credit to the Republican House for the boon in the 90′s? Impressive.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 3, 2012 @ 10:01 am - December 3, 2012

  4. Levi is also saying the recession is NOT George W Bush’s fault because there was a Democrat Congress from 2007 onward when the financial markets tanked.

    Levi please remember in the future by making this argument, you can not again blame Bush without being inconsistent–ie a person without principles.

    Comment by Louise B — December 3, 2012 @ 10:05 am - December 3, 2012

  5. Levi please remember in the future by making this argument, you can not again blame Bush without being inconsistent–ie a person without principles.

    Louise, Levi believes that brown people can’t comprehend democracy, President Bush was complicit in 9/11, and has shown a clear hater of women smarter than him. He showed his lack of principles a long time ago.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 3, 2012 @ 10:28 am - December 3, 2012

  6. People link politicians to economic booms and busts to an unfair degree. No President or congress can affect anything as well as the free market. Clinton got to be in office when the tech and internet industry came of age, and he got the benefit of it. Bush was in office when a bunch of poor people got duped into buying houses they couldn’t afford, which was the real cost of the deficit during his later years. Add to that the unnecessary tax cuts and a couple of wars, that’s his burden to bear. Now Obama gets to ride the wave back up, because that’s where it’s going to go with or without his policies. It may go a little slower or faster depending on what the politicians do, but it is inevitably going to go up.

    Just like after the Great Depression, people got a good dose of reality in the late 2000′s financial crisis. People are spending less and saving more, which relates to the slow growth because the real growth in the economy is based on continued consumption. Whether we go off the fiscal cliff, comprimise, or kick the can down the road, the U.S. economy will be fine. Remember after the debt ceiling crisis in summer 2011? What did everyone in the world do afterwards? Buy U.S. T-bills. It’s still the safest bet around.

    Comment by Aaron — December 3, 2012 @ 10:30 am - December 3, 2012

  7. He, citing “most economists”, insisted that the president alone can’t fix the economy.

    It’s true… because the Dear Reader can *never* fix the economy. He’s following the exact wrong policies, making it all much worse.

    many of the people insisting that the president alone can’t fix the economy are some of the very people who still blame… Bush

    Yes, but we all know that expecting reason from lefties is like expecting honesty from Nigerian scam artists. Another example would be leftists who insist that Bush’s $400B deficits were such a disaster for the Republic, that only Obama’s $1T+ deficits can fix the Republic. They routinely say things that make absolutely no sense. People are leftists because they want to get away with something; not from reason.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 10:45 am - December 3, 2012

  8. To the extent Bush is responsible for the current economy, it’s because of the progressive policies his administration embraced and advanced:

    - a vast increase in domestic social spending on education and health care

    - a push for home ownership and giving mortgage to the financially irresponsible in the expectation that it would make them responsible

    - getting the USA involved in “Nation Building.”

    - a vast expansion of Government regulation e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley.

    Each of these were Clinton policies that the Bush Administration continued or accelerated. Bush, at his core, was a progressive statist, and he pursued progressive-statist policies while mouthing conservative rhetoric.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 10:46 am - December 3, 2012

  9. Whether we go off the fiscal cliff, comprimise, or kick the can down the road, the U.S. economy will be fine.

    Because the laws of economics just don’t apply to us. We can extend our debt to infinity and pile as many regulations on the economy as Obama desires with no adverse consequences.

    Well, that’s a relief.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 10:48 am - December 3, 2012

  10. People link politicians to economic booms and busts to an unfair degree. No President or congress can affect anything as well as the free market. Clinton got to be in office when the tech and internet industry came of age, and he got the benefit of it.

    Wow Aaron, I agree so far.

    Bush was in office when a bunch of poor people got duped into buying houses they couldn’t afford, which was the real cost of the deficit during his later years.

    Not sure what that is saying. The cause of the housing bubble was not Bush’s deficits (which we now see were bush-league, so to speak, when compared to Obama’s).

    The main causes of the housing bubble were 1) most of all the Fed leaving interest rates too low for years; 2) the Community Reinvestment Act of the 90s, under which government basically ordered banks to lower their standards and make subprime loans, lest the regulators harass them for alleged “racism”; and finally 3) the government-chartered companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which funneled the excess Fed money into the housing market by a new invention (securitized mortgages), and which Barney Fwank and all congressional Democrats, plus about 1/3 of Republicans, refused to reform when Bush asked for reform in the mid-00s.

    Add to that the unnecessary tax cuts and a couple of wars, that’s his burden to bear

    No, the real cause of the Bush deficits – which, remember, were modest compared to what started happening when the Democrats regained Congress in Jan. 2007 – was his spending increases. Had Bush simply kept domestic spending at 1990s levels in real and per-capita terms, he would have had essentially no deficits.

    Buy U.S. T-bills. It’s still the safest bet around.

    LOL :-) You do that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 10:55 am - December 3, 2012

  11. V: Yes, exactly. I would add one item to your list, Bush’s re-appointment of Greenspan who was, we now see in retrospect, just a bubble artist. Greenspan inflated two bubbles (stocks, then housing). His successor Bernanke, re-appointed by Obama, has inflated a third bubble (U.S. Treasuries) whose collapse, which is still to come, will be the hardest yet.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 11:03 am - December 3, 2012

  12. (continued) And Obama, who will likely get that collapse sometime His second term, won’t have a clue what to do about it. Except to confiscate everything.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 11:08 am - December 3, 2012

  13. the unnecessary tax cuts

    … which Obama retained and and added to, saying they were, well, necessary. Another example of the irrational self-contradictions of our leftie friends.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 11:13 am - December 3, 2012

  14. If the host dies, the parasites die; a simple fact of biology and economics that lefties are too stupid to realize.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 11:24 am - December 3, 2012

  15. Yes, but we all know that expecting reason from lefties is like expecting honesty from Nigerian scam artists. Another example would be leftists who insist that Bush’s $400B deficits were such a disaster for the Republic, that only Obama’s $1T+ deficits can fix the Republic. They routinely say things that make absolutely no sense. People are leftists because they want to get away with something; not from reason.

    Let’s try this again:

    Bush’s Deficits = Buying a Ferrari and getting addicted to crack after quitting your job and betting your bank account on a coin flip.

    Obama’s Deficits = Desperately trying to repair the damage done by previously mentioned crack addict/gambler/moron.

    Comment by Levi — December 3, 2012 @ 11:43 am - December 3, 2012

  16. Nice to know Levi considers Medicare D equal to crack.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 3, 2012 @ 11:48 am - December 3, 2012

  17. If the host dies, the parasites die

    But first, the parasites tax the host’s carcass.

    Let’s try this again:

    Bush’s Deficits = Buying a Ferrari and getting addicted to crack after quitting your job and betting your bank account on a coin flip.

    Obama’s Deficits = Desperately trying to repair the damage done by previously mentioned crack addict/gambler/moron.

    JUST as I predicted!

    Levi is, of course, engaged in projection: It is the present $1T+ annual deficits of Obama, and not the past, *comparatively* modest 100-400B annual deficits of Bush, which wreck America as we speak and display the crazy, vicious behavior of the crack-addicted.

    And it is just like a parasitic crack addict (seeking money for their next hit) to try to claim the opposite, with a straight face.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 11:48 am - December 3, 2012

  18. Levi’s Comments – Incoherent idiocy from a cultist who knows jack squat about economics, jobs, or Ferraris.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 11:49 am - December 3, 2012

  19. ILC, I am pretty sure the host is already dead. The USA created a lot of wealth back when it was a free market economy, and I think it’s mostly been consumed. We’re not even consuming our own wealth any more, we’re consuming wealth other countries loan us.

    Idiots like Levi and Aaron think this condition is indefinitely sustainable… the rest of the world will be happy to support the USA as a welfare basket case. But eventually, our appetite will exceed the financial resources of others to sustain it.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 11:53 am - December 3, 2012

  20. The tax cuts have to go. I can understand what Obama was trying to do by letting them ride (stimulate the economy), but it’s time to let them expire. And I know you can’t just borrow money infinitly, but it’s not about the amount borrowed, it’s about the confidence in the lender that the borrower is going to repay. Look at the global GDPs, other than China no one is even close. And China’s economy is very dependent on ours. We have the ability to turn the deficit into a surplus and pay off the national debt. It’s obviously just about how you do it.

    If this looming U.S. treasuries bubble is about to burst, how should we go about solving it? Should we retract our growth by cutting spending and increasing taxes so we don’t default? Or should we cut Planned Parenthood and PBS, not raise taxes, and then see what happens? ILC said that Obama is following the exact wrong policies and making it all worse. I agree that another bubble could be forming on the national debt, but what is your solution?

    I’ll say you approach it (if it is in fact, a real, immanent threat to this country) the same way we did during WWII. For a a period of time, we’ll say five years, you make dramatic tax increases across the board, and (unlike WWII) cut a lot of spending, starting with defense. What will this lead to? Recession. But so what, if the T-bill bubble bursting is going to be much worse than four years ago, shouldn’t we enact some legislation that is demanding of its citizens so we all have a hand in fixing it? The GOP is the party of personal responsibility. Therefore, it shouldn’t be the governments job to make sure the economic climate is such that everyone has employment. Go make it on your own. After five years we can start some social programs to increase employment, typical stuff like infrastructure improvement which increases spending. Add that to some lower tax rates, and see what happens. So long as we’re still running a surplus afterwards. Remember that T-bills are structured like most other loans, after paying them off, it’s no longer debt! Run a surplus while not selling new T-bonds, and on a long enough timeline, the debt goes away. Let’s do it! Let’s take a recession right in the balls!

    But that’s just my idea, and I don’t know if it will work. Since Obama has been enacting these exact wrong policies, I want to know what the right policies are.

    Comment by Aaron — December 3, 2012 @ 12:07 pm - December 3, 2012

  21. The right policies:

    1. Lower the US Corporate income tax to something globally competitive. A 39.6% corporate income tax is not competitive when rest of the industrialized world is closer to 25%.

    2. Simplify and flatten the tax code; which currently runs to over 60,000 pages, the bulk of which create exemptions for wealthy connected people. Toss the whole thing and replace it with a tax code of <100 pages, with simple rates, and small number of universal deductions and exemptions.

    3. Defang the Federal regulatory bureaucracies. The biggest job killer in the USA is the Federal bureaucracy, from the environmental extremism of the EPA and Interior Department through the horrific regulations entailed in ObamaCare, Sarbanes-Oxley, and Dodd-Frank. The last three should be ditched, utterly. At some point, the environment is clean enough, going for surgical theater levels of purity is bankrupting us.

    4. Encourage states to adopt right-to-work laws.

    5. Defund everything the Federal Government doesn't need to be doing, including the CPB, Planner Parenthood, and ethanol subsidies.

    6. Secure the borders. With 24 million Americans out of work, there should be no need to import cheap labor from outside the country.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 12:18 pm - December 3, 2012

  22. Also, either we reform entitlements, or we resign ourselves to the inevitable collapse of our entitlement state. Remember how the Soviet Union collapsed because it’s economy couldn’t support it’s military spending? Yeah, the same thing will happen to us unless we control our entitlement spending or find some Star Trekkian way to produce unlimited wealth from minimal economic inputs. Even Chinese-like rates of Growth like 8% annually will not fully cover the explosion in entitlements.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 12:39 pm - December 3, 2012

  23. JUST as I predicted!

    Levi is, of course, engaged in projection: It is the present $1T+ annual deficits of Obama, and not the past, *comparatively* modest 100-400B annual deficits of Bush, which wreck America as we speak and display the crazy, vicious behavior of the crack-addicted.

    And it is just like a parasitic crack addict (seeking money for their next hit) to try to claim the opposite, with a straight face.

    Well, this is useless. You’re always going to have an excuse for the Republican who grew the deficit when he didn’t have to, and you’re always going to be hyper-critical of the Democrat who grew the deficit when he came into office during economic collapse.

    Comment by Levi — December 3, 2012 @ 1:16 pm - December 3, 2012

  24. The only economic tool the government really has is a brake. It can dump a little spending in, but as a percentage of GDP, it is a small amount. Government’s main three brakes are regulations, taxes and interest rates. Since Obama came to office they have been applying the regulatory and tax brake while releasing the interest rate brake. The problem is that the extent to which the first two are applied, even releasing the third one completely isn’t enough to allow the economy to accelerate.

    People need to put things into context. When Bush was President we had first the dot-com and energy market meltdown. We are headed into recession when Bush took office. Nine months later we had 9/11. Even with all the war spending, deficits were in decline for most of the Bush administration. In 2007, the federal deficit was about 1/10 of what it is today.

    Bush also warned about the GSE crisis and I suggest everyone become familiar with this timeline:

    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

    The key point comes in 2005 when legislation is introduced to more closely regulate the GSEs. The Republicans do not have 60 votes needed for cloture and Harry Reid refuses to support the legislation. That sealed the fate of what happened. Yes, the Bush administration HAD put out general policy guidelines asking that home ownership be given a higher priority but the specific regulations that were put into place at the GSEs were absolutely ludicrous and were not done by Bush appointees.

    When Bill Clinton came on board there was a massive purging of Reagan/Bush appointees within the administration and a stacking of all departments with “progressive” Democrats (remember “filegate”?). One of the more famous examples was the purging of every single US Attorney in the Justice Department. When Bush came on board, he let all of these people remain in their positions. He basically kept most of the Clinton appointees below to the top level. Frank Raines ran Fannie Mae until the end of 2004. Most of the policies that were to contribute to the crash that began toward the end of 2007 were already in place by the time he left. His Vice Chairman for most of that period was Jamie Gorelick, remember her?

    Richard F. Syron, head of Freddie Mac at the time was also a big time “progressive” Democrat though he seems to have switched to Republican recently judging from his political donations but up till this election cycle his donations were:

    Bill Bradley for President
    Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
    Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
    John Kerry for President

    So what we see here is a Republican President issuing policy that was carried out in a destructive manner by Democrats. We had Democrats in Congress that refused to take the steps necessary to fix the problem even though the Bush administration had been pointing it out since 2001. After 2006, nothing was going to happen because the Democrats took Congress.

    Bush did not cause this collapse of the mortgage industry and the resulting destruction of capital wealth that STILL haunts us, “progressive” Democrats did. They get to OWN this problem.

    Comment by crosspatch — December 3, 2012 @ 1:20 pm - December 3, 2012

  25. The right policies:

    1. Lower the US Corporate income tax to something globally competitive. A 39.6% corporate income tax is not competitive when rest of the industrialized world is closer to 25%.

    2. Simplify and flatten the tax code; which currently runs to over 60,000 pages, the bulk of which create exemptions for wealthy connected people. Toss the whole thing and replace it with a tax code of <100 pages, with simple rates, and small number of universal deductions and exemptions.

    3. Defang the Federal regulatory bureaucracies. The biggest job killer in the USA is the Federal bureaucracy, from the environmental extremism of the EPA and Interior Department through the horrific regulations entailed in ObamaCare, Sarbanes-Oxley, and Dodd-Frank. The last three should be ditched, utterly. At some point, the environment is clean enough, going for surgical theater levels of purity is bankrupting us.

    4. Encourage states to adopt right-to-work laws.

    5. Defund everything the Federal Government doesn't need to be doing, including the CPB, Planner Parenthood, and ethanol subsidies.

    6. Secure the borders. With 24 million Americans out of work, there should be no need to import cheap labor from outside the country.

    You don’t have to make lists like this. Save yourself some time and say the following:

    “Just let the rich people do whatever they want.”

    Comment by Levi — December 3, 2012 @ 1:20 pm - December 3, 2012

  26. But that’s just my idea, and I don’t know if it will work. Since Obama has been enacting these exact wrong policies, I want to know what the right policies are.

    Comment by Aaron — December 3, 2012 @ 12:07 pm – December 3, 2012

    The right policies are simple.

    1) If you want to be paid by the government as if you were working, you need to be working.

    You want all these infrastructure projects? Fine. Everyone who is on food stamps, everyone who is receiving welfare, everyone who is unemployed reports to work to dig ditches, lay road, build schools, and do all these things that the WPA and CCC did during the New Deal.

    Oh, and you will be taxed on that income. Period.

    And if you don’t show up to work, you don’t get paid.

    And once you do that, you’ll find a whole series of problems disappear. You won’t have to worry about entitlement growth because the vast majority of entitlements will have turned into actual infrastructure investment. Instead of paying people to sit on the couch, which creates only consumption, we are paying them to build things, which creates wealth.

    The problem with Levi and modern “progressives” is that they want New Deal program pay without putting in the New Deal work. This fixes that nicely.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2012 @ 1:20 pm - December 3, 2012

  27. The wealthy will always benefit when the economy gets better; the reason the cult fails is because they want to somehow design a growing economy where that doesn’t happen.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 1:32 pm - December 3, 2012

  28. The tax cuts have to go.

    No, actually. Higher marginal tax rates hurt the economy. There is little reason to believe that higher rates will mean more revenue in the long run. (Possibly not even in the short run.) Lower marginal tax rates help the economy.

    What we need to do, as V suggested, is rationalize/simplify the tax code. If they want more revenue, they can get it from closing special-interest loopholes and subsidies that distort the economy, misallocating resources. BTW, I would include the mortgage interest deduction in that, as it was yet another contributor to the housing bubble.

    I know you can’t just borrow money infinitly, but it’s not about the amount borrowed, it’s about the confidence in the lender that the borrower is going to repay

    You seriously have confidence that the U.S. is going to repay even the debts it already has? OMG!

    To be precise: the U.S. will repay its debts… in newly-printed, greatly-depreciated money. It is a dishonest form of default. “I borrowed $1000 of real money from you, now I am going to ‘repay’ you in $1000 of play money.” You just got ripped off, because the dollars you’re getting paid back in won’t buy you half the amount of gas or food as the dollars you lent.

    And China’s economy is very dependent on ours.

    A myth that lefties commonly comfort themselves with. “We CAN endlessly consume wealth that other countries loan us. Because we’re #1 / they love us so much / they have no choice but to let us / etc.”

    The reality is that the Chinese are getting ready to cut us out of their economy. They’re not quite there. They will be, in the next couple of years. The U.S. is a declining share of their trade. They have an increasing number of bilateral trade agreements with Russia, Brazil, India, Japan, Europe etc. that will enable them to discard the U.S. dollar in the rest of their trading. They increasingly look for ways to diversify their currency reserves out of the U.S. dollar (gold is one of the ways). They have recently stopped buying Treasuries. They are perfectly capable of “exporting to themselves” i.e. raising their people’s standard of living, rather than exporting to us and raising our people’s standard of living. And they are turning their ‘ship’ in that direction.

    We have the ability to turn the deficit into a surplus and pay off the national debt

    Only through MASSIVE spending cuts. (Since, again, it is very much doubtful if high taxes can raise any new revenue.)

    If this looming U.S. treasuries bubble is about to burst, how should we go about solving it?

    Balance the budget now, right now, through massive spending cuts… as in, entitlement reform. Note that entitlement spending is the largest problem; only entitlement cuts can solve that problem.

    I agree that another bubble could be forming on the national debt, but what is your solution?

    Simply this: Stop doing what we’ve been doing. To keep doing the thing that is pushing you over the cliff, is one definition of insanity. Flat-out reverse most of what Obama has done. I’ll even take a reversal of the Bush tax cuts that Obama extended (as harmful as tax increases would be), *IF* we get the even greater economic benefits of repealing Obamacare, Porkulus and bailouts, plus reforming entitlements.

    For a a period of time, we’ll say five years, you make dramatic tax increases across the board

    That will further worsen the problems. Not help.

    cut a lot of spending, starting with defense

    Defense is a much smaller portion of the budget than entitlements are. Why won’t you deal with entitlements?

    What will this lead to? Recession.

    What you don’t see (or are not admitting?) is that recession is inevitable. Recessions happen in response to government “stimulus” policies. Recessions are when the economy, much like a body rejecting a disease, tries to reject the government’s distorting policies that caused capital to be mis-allocated for years (think stock bubble, housing bubble, Treasury bubble).

    The point of a recession is to get it over with, just like when you must have a painful operation. The faster you do, the faster you can start your comeback. Government “stimulus” policies prevent adjustment – they stop the economy from rationalizing – which makes for tepid recoveries (or non-recoveries), as we have seen with Obama, AND an even larger recession down the road (when the next bubble bursts).

    Recession is inevitable. Get it over with. GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY of the recovery that follows. Had Obama reduced government in 2009, instead of jacking it up relentlessly, the economy would be doing well now.

    By the way:

    I’ll say you approach it (if it is in fact, a real, immanent threat to this country) the same way we did during WWII.

    That’s typical of your underlying philosophy of statist collectivism, that I reject.

    Since Obama has been enacting these exact wrong policies, I want to know what the right policies are.

    Well then, Amazon has a book for you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 1:41 pm - December 3, 2012

  29. Bush also warned about the GSE crisis

    Exactlyk, crosspath. Good link.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 1:48 pm - December 3, 2012

  30. Well, this is useless. You’re always going to have an excuse for the Republican who grew the deficit when he didn’t have to, and you’re always going to be hyper-critical of the Democrat who grew the deficit when he came into office during economic collapse.

    Comment by Levi — December 3, 2012 @ 1:16 pm – December 3, 2012

    LOL.

    The hilarious part about this, Levi, is that, during the so-called “economic damage” that Bush was creating, BOTH revenues and expenditures matched to within a couple hundred billion dollars of each other.

    Just think about that, screaming Levi. You and your fellow imbeciles ranted that Bush cut taxes, that no one was paying, that spending was out of control — and yet the deficit was getting smaller and tax revenues INCREASED.

    Now you and your fellow imbeciles have run up TRILLIONS in additional deficits and debts with direct payments to drunks and adult babies like you screamed would “stimulate” the economy — and the deficit gets larger while tax revenues shrink.

    This is what you don’t get and will never get, imbecile. Taking money from people who work to give it to people who won’t is a LOSS. It doesn’t create wealth; it just wastes it AND takes away from people who earn it.

    Why? Because you are one of those people who won’t work. You scream and bitch and bitch and bitch about “the rich”, but you won’t lift a finger to get an education or job so you could actually earn the money to BE rich. You just want your government mommy and daddy to take it from others and give it to you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2012 @ 1:59 pm - December 3, 2012

  31. You want all these infrastructure projects? Fine. Everyone who is on food stamps, everyone who is receiving welfare, everyone who is unemployed reports to work to dig ditches, lay road, build schools, and do all these things that the WPA and CCC did during the New Deal. Oh, and you will be taxed on that income.

    But it would still leave those programs intact, to the economy’s detriment. It would still be a misallocation of resources. Not quite as awful, I admit. And would have some entertainment value.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 1:59 pm - December 3, 2012

  32. the Democrat who grew the deficit when he came into office during economic collapse

    … and lied about it, to get elected. Obama campaigned in 2008 on a “net spending cut”, as Dan B. has mentioned repeatedly.

    That’s late 2008. October. The second or third (I forget) presidential debate. When the financial crisis was already happening. People thought they were voting for a net spending cut. “Obama lied, the economy has died.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 2:01 pm - December 3, 2012

  33. The wealthy will always benefit when the economy gets better; the reason the cult fails is because they want to somehow design a growing economy where that doesn’t happen.

    In your desired scheme, the wealthy would benefit regardless of whether or not the economy gets better.

    Comment by Levi — December 3, 2012 @ 2:07 pm - December 3, 2012

  34. Defense is a much smaller portion of the budget than entitlements are. Why won’t you deal with entitlements?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 1:41 pm – December 3, 2012

    Three reasons.

    First, Aaron and his ilk are purchasing votes with entitlements. Obamaphone Lady made it clear; people voted for Obama because he gave away free sh*t.

    Second, Aaron and his ilk use taxes as revenge. They believe that anyone who has more money than they do and doesn’t support higher taxes stole their money. It is impossible for Aaron and his ilk to admit that anyone who has more money than they do earned it, because that would open questions about their OWN failure to earn more; hence, they assume that they are perfect and that the only reason they don’t have as much money as Mitt Romney is because Mitt Romney is a criminal.

    Third, they are living off entitlements. Aaron and Levi don’t want to work for a living; they want to confiscate other peoples’ money. Hence they come up with the elaborate rationalization that those people don’t deserve their money, as seen in #2 above, and that government should confiscate and redistribute wealth in the name of “fairness”.

    The World War II obsession, I have to admit, is funny. You recognize how little liberals know about world history when you see them comparing the late 1940s and 1950s, where the United States was literally the only country in the world with an intact industrial base, to our current global economy, in which there are numerous countries from which to choose in which to do business.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2012 @ 2:07 pm - December 3, 2012

  35. In your desired scheme, the wealthy would benefit regardless of whether or not the economy gets better.

    Comment by Levi — December 3, 2012 @ 2:07 pm – December 3, 2012

    And the reason you have a problem with that, Levi, is that you know you will never be wealthy unless the government takes money from other people and gives it to you at gunpoint.

    You’re too lazy to work or educate yourself. You’re too stupid to stop yourself from making dumb decisions. You’re too irresponsible to mind your own money, and you’re unwilling to budget or make sacrifices to afford the things you want to have.

    You literally are a child, Levi. Your only recourse is to nag Mommy and Daddy Government for more toys and then scream that, unless they get you that new Xbox, the BMW convertible, the apartment in the posh side of town, the spending money for binges, the abortion, that they hate you.

    You want not working to pay the same as working. That’s your basic problem, Levi.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2012 @ 2:13 pm - December 3, 2012

  36. But it would still leave those programs intact, to the economy’s detriment. It would still be a misallocation of resources. Not quite as awful, I admit. And would have some entertainment value.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 1:59 pm – December 3, 2012

    You are absolutely right, ILC.

    But it’s way better than them sitting on the couch and doing nothing. :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2012 @ 2:14 pm - December 3, 2012

  37. In your desired scheme, the wealthy would benefit regardless of whether or not the economy gets better.

    No, actually: in YOURS. It’s the situation we have today, now. You support Big Government, and the giant deficits money printing that goes with it. Who does that benefit? Obama’s wealthy donors, the non-productive rich. Heads they win, tails they win. That is the economic system we are living under, Levi: because of leftism.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 2:15 pm - December 3, 2012

  38. BTW, I would include the mortgage interest deduction in that, as it was yet another contributor to the housing bubble.

    I would leave it in place, but with a cap and limit it to primary residences. It would kill the time-share industry but SFW.

    As for the wonders of Stimulus Infrastructure spending, can anyone name even one example of major infrastructure that was built with the Obama Stimulus of 2009? Or was it wasted teaching Africans to wash their pee-pees?

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 2:17 pm - December 3, 2012

  39. … and lied about it, to get elected. Obama campaigned in 2008 on a “net spending cut”, as Dan B. has mentioned repeatedly.

    That’s late 2008. October. The second or third (I forget) presidential debate. When the financial crisis was already happening. People thought they were voting for a net spending cut. “Obama lied, the economy has died.”

    He didn’t campaign on it. He said the words ‘net spending cut’ in a debate, the context of which you and Dan (especially Dan) ignore completely.

    The context, by the way, is similar to what I’ve described; deficits should go up temporarily to pull the economy out of recession. The idea is that government deficits in the short term stave off larger government deficits in the long term. This is consistent with liberal economy theory and with what Obama said over and over again during the campaign. So for you to seize on three words, pretend that this was the centerpiece of Obama’s campaign, and further insist that his promising of a net spending cut was the reason people voted for him, is all bullshit!

    Here’s the transcript:

    SCHIEFFER: All right. Let’s go to another topic. It’s related. So if you have other things you want to say, you can get back to that.

    This question goes to you first, Senator Obama.

    We found out yesterday that this year’s deficit will reach an astounding record high $455 billion. Some experts say it could go to $1 trillion next year.

    Both of you have said you want to reduce the deficit, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ran the numbers on both of your proposals and they say the cost of your proposals, even with the savings you claim can be made, each will add more than $200 billion to the deficit.

    Aren’t you both ignoring reality? Won’t some of the programs you are proposing have to be trimmed, postponed, even eliminated?

    Give us some specifics on what you’re going to cut back.

    Senator Obama?

    OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it’s important for the American public to understand that the $750 billion rescue package, if it’s structured properly, and, as president, I will make sure it’s structured properly, means that ultimately taxpayers get their money back, and that’s important to understand.

    But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.

    Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. I haven’t made a promise about…

    SCHIEFFER: But you’re going to have to cut some of these programs, certainly.

    OBAMA: Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.

    OBAMA: And some of the cuts, just to give you an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn’t — under the Medicare plan — it doesn’t help seniors get any better. It’s not improving our health care system. It’s just a giveaway.

    We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don’t work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don’t work, we should cut. Programs that we need, we should make them work better.

    Now, what is true is that Senator McCain and I have a difference in terms of the need to invest in America and the American people. I mentioned health care earlier.

    If we make investments now so that people have coverage, that we are preventing diseases, that will save on Medicare and Medicaid in the future.

    If we invest in a serious energy policy, that will save in the amount of money we’re borrowing from China to send to Saudi Arabia.

    If we invest now in our young people and their ability to go to college, that will allow them to drive this economy into the 21st century.

    But what is absolutely true is that, once we get through this economic crisis and some of the specific proposals to get us out of this slump, that we’re not going to be able to go back to our profligate ways.

    And we’re going to have to embrace a culture and an ethic of responsibility, all of us, corporations, the federal government, and individuals out there who may be living beyond their means.

    Comment by Levi — December 3, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - December 3, 2012

  40. (continued) The American middle class, and the poor also, never did so well or progressed so far as in the 120 years we were on a gold standard, plus a relatively small government.

    And it is no coincidence that the American middle class has been struggling since 1971, when Nixon ended the dollar’s last tie to gold. The reason is that monetary inflation (deficits and money printing) – which, again, is the Obama economic regime – benefits a political elite, the Big Government / Big Banking nexus, at the expense of the middle class.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - December 3, 2012

  41. Destroying small and medium sized businesses through taxes and regulations, leaving only a few gigantic, too-big-too-fail state-dependent enterprises (e.g. General Motors, Bank of America) is part of the Democratic Socialist scheme to consolidate power.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 2:23 pm - December 3, 2012

  42. can anyone name even one example of major infrastructure that was built with the Obama Stimulus of 2009?

    No more than anyone can quote something enduring, historic or inspiring from an Obama speech.

    Levi: Can you really not read English? I will add highlighting to help you:

    OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it’s important for the American public to understand that the $750 billion rescue package, if it’s structured properly, and, as president, I will make sure it’s structured properly, means that ultimately taxpayers get their money back, and that’s important to understand.

    But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.

    Now, **what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut**. I haven’t made a promise about…

    SCHIEFFER: But you’re going to have to cut some of these programs, certainly.

    OBAMA: Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.

    OBAMA: And some of the cuts, just to give you an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn’t — under the Medicare plan — it doesn’t help seniors get any better. It’s not improving our health care system. It’s just a giveaway.

    We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don’t work…

    …we’re not going to be able to go back to our profligate ways.

    And we’re going to have to embrace a culture and an ethic of responsibility, all of us, corporations, the federal government, and individuals out there who may be living beyond their means.

    And that is what people thought they were voting for.

    Obama lied, the economy has died.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 2:23 pm - December 3, 2012

  43. Obviously, Levi is more concerned with punishing the “rich” than growing the economy; which is as The Cult commands.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 2:25 pm - December 3, 2012

  44. Destroying small and medium sized businesses through taxes and regulations, leaving only a few gigantic, too-big-too-fail state-dependent enterprises (e.g. General Motors, Bank of America) is part of the Democratic Socialist scheme to consolidate power.

    Exactly. And it destroys the middle class. And then people like Levi come here to try and spread lies about it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 2:26 pm - December 3, 2012

  45. ILC, thank you for bolding those lines. It’s even funnier to watch Levi refute his own lies by accident.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 3, 2012 @ 2:31 pm - December 3, 2012

  46. TL, and in his next volley, Levi will insist that he didn’t say what he said and the bolded lines don’t mean what they mean.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 2:35 pm - December 3, 2012

  47. And don’t forget that Levi screams and pisses that subsidizing rich Obama donors so that taxpayers absorb all their losses and they get fat bonuses creates jobs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2012 @ 3:23 pm - December 3, 2012

  48. I had that type of encounter with Cinesnatch once. He kept quoting a transcript that proved my point… then claiming I hadn’t proved my point and had refused to offer evidence. (Just not ‘getting it’, that the evidence was already right there.) It would have been a laugh, except he was doing it in a thread which was horribly inappropriate for other reasons.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 3:24 pm - December 3, 2012

  49. Entitlements are on the table for me. They are a big portion of the national debt, we can cut them. The 3 sacred cows of the federal budget are Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security, and defense, all taking up about 20%. Everything else is pennies comparetively. I focus on defense because of my job, and I see large amounts of money wantonly wasted everyday. You could easily cut it by 50% within a couple of years. You increase spending for special forces operators and intelligence agencies. These are the people who actually keep us safe. Gut the Army, keep most of the Air Force, and somewhere inbetween with the Navy/Marines. Sorry Army, this country doesn’t need fleets of tanks or a huge ground force designed to occupy foreign countries anymore. We still need the Air Forces for the air-space dominance, and the Navy for the same thing, but not the huge ridiculous fleet we have now. It could be very easily done.

    Entitlements are a bit trickier because people are entitled to them. I wouldn’t feel ethical cutting someones social security check if they worked there whole life to earn it, like my parents and grandparents. How about young people keep funding the program, but they don’t get the benefit? As soon as all the people collecting SS die, then we don’t have to fund it anymore. Time to take your retirement into your own hands young people.

    Medicare is ridiculous too. We need death panels. I’m compassionate enough to give welfare recepients (the honest type, not the free-loading cariciatures depicted on this site) enough money to not starve or freeze to death, and that’s about it. But old people need to die and quit burdening the rest of us. Medicare does not need to be spending a half million dollars trying to extend some 92 year old womans life for three months. Let her die. The Native Americans used to just walk off in the woods after they had served there purpose, we need something similar in this day and age.

    So now that I have conceded that entitlement spending should happen, can everyone else agree that raising taxes should also happen? And that taxing the wealthy more will not adversely effect economic growth? Why would a rich person not make an investment if they were going to yield slightly less due to higher taxes? Wouldn’t they be stupider to not invest and therefore yield nothing?

    Comment by Aaron — December 3, 2012 @ 3:28 pm - December 3, 2012

  50. Why would a rich person not make an investment if they were going to yield slightly less due to higher taxes? Wouldn’t they be stupider to not invest and therefore yield nothing?

    Comment by Aaron — December 3, 2012 @ 3:28 pm – December 3, 2012

    Why don’t you ask Warren Buffett, who clearly has decided not to make investments based on paying more tax?

    Or how about the French?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2012 @ 4:00 pm - December 3, 2012

  51. And Aaron… like lower case concern troll mike… will always vote for fiscally irresponsible Democrats because of social issues, despite their claims that they agree with cuts and entitlement reforms that the Democrats they vote for will fight tooth and nail.

    Partly because people like Aaron and lower case mike are always lecturing Republicans about what *they should do,” instead of lecturing their own side on compromise and fiscal responsibility.

    Making all of their comments and protests about their willingness to endure cuts an insulting farce.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 4:02 pm - December 3, 2012

  52. Every day, there are about 1,000 articles and stories in the MFM lecturing John Boehner to accept tax increases. When have you ever seen any lecturing Harry Reid to enact entitlement reforms? (Articles with one throwaway line addressing entitlement reform after 3,000 words calling for tax increases do not count.)

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 4:07 pm - December 3, 2012

  53. Also, we don’t need death panels, we need people to take financial responsibility for their own health care. Life or death should not be a decision made by bureaucrats.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 4:15 pm - December 3, 2012

  54. And don’t forget that concern-troll mike, Aaron, and the rest of the Obama Party are now pushing the meme that, if you oppose higher tax rates, you’re a racist.

    This is how insane, sick, and delusional Barack Obama is. Barack Obama honestly believes that any opposition or criticism of anything he does is racist.

    That’s why people like Aaron, concern-troll mike, Cinesnatch, Passing By, and our other liberal trolls cannot be taken as anything other than deranged cultists. They endorse, support, and vote for Barack Obama’s belief that his skin color means he’s always right about everything.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2012 @ 4:38 pm - December 3, 2012

  55. I focus on defense because of my job, and I see large amounts of money wantonly wasted everyday.

    That sounds interesting, if you want to say more about that.

    Entitlements are a bit trickier because people are entitled to them.

    People are told they’re entitled. I don’t agree that they’re entitled morally.

    Furthermore, Romney-Ryan proposed a solution, which is that you keep the entitlements for people currently depending on them (or about to), and only change them for future members. R-R were pilloried for their trouble.

    I wouldn’t feel ethical cutting someones social security check if they worked there whole life to earn it, like my parents and grandparents.

    Except they didn’t really earn it; that is, at current benefit levels and life expectancy and on average, they are going to draw far more out of the system than they put in.

    How about young people keep funding the program, but they don’t get the benefit?

    Inter-generational theft. Well, it would be honest at least in the sense that it would set young people’s expectations correctly, and would expose these programs as the welfare/redistributionist programs that they have always been (and just pretended not to be).

    So now that I have conceded that entitlement spending should happen, can everyone else agree that raising taxes should also happen? And that taxing the wealthy more will not adversely effect economic growth?

    It’s nice of you to talk about entitlements as I requested; thank you. It’s not about trading concessions, though, but about truth. I see no reason to believe that higher marginal tax rates will raise revenue in the long term, and no reason to believe that they won’t hurt the economy.

    Why would a rich person not make an investment if they were going to yield slightly less due to higher taxes? Wouldn’t they be stupider to not invest and therefore yield nothing?

    Define “slightly”. Investments carry risk (unless, of course, you are George Soros or Goldman-Sachs, politically connected to the Fed and the Obama administration). That’s why. Lower the return, and sooner or later, the investment is not worth the headache i.e. the risk.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 4:59 pm - December 3, 2012

  56. “Just let the rich people do whatever they want.”

    Comment by Levi — December 3, 2012 @ 1:20 pm – December 3, 2012

    But then we would end up with an economy that looks like Singapore or Hong Kong with a huge middle class. Everyone knows that pesky middle class must be stamped out. But we are seeing the “progressives” making inroads even in Singapore and as a result, the middle class is shrinking, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Every time you see “progressive” policies applied, the disparity between richest and poorest increases and the middle class declines. Every time. That disparity, for example, is greater today in Venezuela now than it was before Chavez took power. His cronies get richer, the middle class evaporates, and more people become poor. That has been true ever since Roman times. Every single time it is tried. Why are “progressives” so stupid?

    Comment by crosspatch — December 3, 2012 @ 5:23 pm - December 3, 2012

  57. You have to remember, cultists look at economic outcomes differently than rational people do.

    Suppose someone put forth an economic plan that would create ten million good paying, middle class, private sector jobs and would also make millions for Mitt Romney, the Koch Brothers, Warren Buffett, George Soros, the Rockefellers, and the Obama cronies at Lehman Brothers.

    Rational people would say, “Everybody wins. Let’s do it.”

    But a cultist looks at and says, “No, it’s not fair that rich people profit from this plan.”

    Left-wing economics simply aren’t based on doing the most good for the most people; those considerations are secondary to the left’s primary agenda of revenging grievances and settling scores.

    Comment by V the K — December 3, 2012 @ 7:16 pm - December 3, 2012

  58. You don’t “pay for” tax cuts.

    The issue around the Bush tax cuts is moot, in my opinion. The only real solution is to throw the US tax code out completely and establish a flat tax rate that is just enough to run a surplus. And, since there is no way to bring in that much revenue, you have to cut spending. My suggestion is to start at zero, determine which things must be funded by the federal government, and regularly determine how much those things will cost and ajust the tax rates accordingly. And cut all other spending, after the obligations made by the US Federal Government have been met.

    Also, something else that should be done: relax regulations on extracting fossil fuels. The United States is incredibly rich in fossil fuels, and there is no reason to be buying your oil from places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

    Just let the rich people do whatever they want.

    They have the right to do whatever they want unless it violates the law (i.e. the actual law, not some arbitrary regulation).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — December 3, 2012 @ 10:58 pm - December 3, 2012

  59. The tax cuts have to go. I can understand what Obama was trying to do by letting them ride (stimulate the economy), but it’s time to let them expire.

    Really?

    Tax revenue kept climbing, up 6.4% for the year overall, and at $2.45 trillion it is now close to the historic high it reached in fiscal 2007 before the recession hit. Mr. Obama won’t want you to know this, but this revenue increase is occurring under the Bush tax rates that he so desperately wants to raise in the name of getting what he says is merely “a little more in taxes.” Individual income tax payments are now up $233 billion over the last two years, or 26%.

    This healthy revenue increase comes despite measly economic growth of between 1% and 2%. Imagine the gusher of revenue the feds could get if government got out of the way and let the economy grow faster.

    Soooooooooooooooooooo…..why do the tax cuts have to go?

    Comment by TGC — December 4, 2012 @ 12:35 am - December 4, 2012

  60. Whoops! Forgot:

    http://tinyurl.com/b339obg

    Still, would like to know why.

    Comment by TGC — December 4, 2012 @ 12:36 am - December 4, 2012

  61. I’ll take Bush’s “burden” any day. The country was richer, we had 52 straight months of job growth and thousands moved UP out of the much vaunted (why?) middle class and became the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich. Presidents can’t create jobs nor can they fix an economy, but they can enact policies to stimulate the growth or death of both.

    What we have now is a party in power that glorifies mediocrity, at best, and rewards failure, at worst. Why do these jackasses get the time of day from the American people is so far beyond me that it isn’t even funny. It’s a damn cryin’ shame that so many can be so motivated by hate, envy and….yes…GREED. There’s no greed in wanting to keep your own money that you earned. The greed comes when you demand someone else’s for your own. THAT is what the liberal bastards call “fair”. They should be spat upon and run out of town on a rail.

    Comment by TGC — December 4, 2012 @ 1:14 am - December 4, 2012

  62. I think I will mostly just nod to all of ILC’s posts.

    … and lied about it, to get elected. Obama campaigned in 2008 on a “net spending cut”, as Dan B. has mentioned repeatedly.

    Every day is opposite day in Obamaland.

    Net spending cut=net spending increase

    Comment by Just Me — December 4, 2012 @ 8:29 am - December 4, 2012

  63. Is it really that hard to understand why tax revenues went up even with the Bush tax cuts? Look at the posts above and you’ll see people talking about the bubble. When things were riding high on the housing bubble, most people were employed, and companies were making record profits. Now that the bubble has burst, fewer people are working, and more people are saving, thus reducing companies profits. So if there is less taxable income being made than in 2007, then you’re going to collect fewer taxes. If you have two people making the same amount of money to tax at 35%, than you’re going to collect more tax than taxing one of those people at 39.6%. It’s not hard to understand. Now that the economy has been on the rise again for a while, and we need to collect more revenues, than tax people more!

    Define “slightly”. Investments carry risk (unless, of course, you are George Soros or Goldman-Sachs, politically connected to the Fed and the Obama administration). That’s why. Lower the return, and sooner or later, the investment is not worth the headache i.e. the risk.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 4:59 pm – December 3, 2012

    I understand there are inherent risks with all investments. And if you’re profit margin is going to be undermined by tax increase, I wouldn’t expect a wise investor to take the risk. The implication is that these investors, or job creators, or whatever you want to call them would therefore be more careful with their investments, not necessarily stingier. Imagine if Dick Fuld and all those other corrupt bankers would have had to look at their books closer because they knew they were going to have a higher tax bill at the end of the year. Perhaps they would have figured out that the mortgage backed securites they were buying and selling were a horrible idea and they would have stayed away. Yes there would have been a lot of people who wouldn’t have been sold sub-prime mortgages, but then the real value of the property would have remained intact, and perhaps the housing market wouldn’t have collapsed. I know that that’s probably not true, because the market was still figuring out how to make money with the new financial tools they were allowed to use like the credit default swaps and derivative trading. Inevitably some banks would have taken the risk and gone under, but having to pay higher taxes would have been a factor in the equation.

    I focus on defense because of my job, and I see large amounts of money wantonly wasted everyday.

    That sounds interesting, if you want to say more about that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2012 @ 4:59 pm – December 3, 2012

    I could go on and on and on about waste in defense. I beleive it was Plato who figured out several thousand years ago that social property was a bad idea, because no one is going to treat community property with the same respect they show to private property, whether or not it is owned by that individual or someone else. This is the same problem with defense. Defense has never been charged with making a profit, it’s always about the mission. And if the easiest way to make mission is to spend more money, that’s what the DoD is going to do.

    Here’s an example from just this week. A unit had to go to a training exercise about a thousand miles away. The training required a lot of equipment. Instead of the unit driving their equipment to the training area, the government spent $400,000 to have it shipped there and back on flatbed trailers. What a waste right? It gets worse. The training area had all of the equipment available! They have fleets of vehicles of that don’t get used because these units like training on their own equipment (despite it being the exact same) So now the DoD has spent ??? money on a fleet of vehicles that don’t get used, because the DoD is also spending money to ship the same equipment back and forth. And there’s no accountability, no one cares. That’s just one example. One example I saw from my desk just this week. With a price tag of well over $1,000,000. Ask me anytime for more examples, I’m full of them.

    Comment by Aaron — December 4, 2012 @ 10:09 am - December 4, 2012

  64. I’ll take Bush’s “burden” any day. The country was richer, we had 52 straight months of job growth and thousands moved UP out of the much vaunted (why?) middle class and became the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich. Presidents can’t create jobs nor can they fix an economy, but they can enact policies to stimulate the growth or death of both.

    Durability is important. It’s abundantly clear that all of Bush’s job growth can be attributed to the housing bubble, which means it isn’t an accomplishment for him to brag about. If anything, the job growth worsened the financial crisis.

    You know what you get for being in first place at the All-Star break?

    Nothing.

    Comment by Levi — December 4, 2012 @ 10:42 am - December 4, 2012

  65. Hey dumbass. 911 was a massive financial crisis, yet bush was able to keep unemployment low.

    Your cult leader had 10% unemployment for 6 years. Well done retard, hope that you all drink the kool aid in Jonestown

    Comment by susan — December 4, 2012 @ 10:58 am - December 4, 2012

  66. HAHAHAHA who’s this person? Why doesn’t she post more often! Really good insight, I like it. When was the cult leader elected? Let’s see, if he came to office in Jan 2009, and it’s Dec 2012, he’s been in the office for…Yep! 6 years! You’re right!

    Comment by Aaron — December 4, 2012 @ 11:11 am - December 4, 2012

  67. Durability is important. It’s abundantly clear that all of Bush’s job growth can be attributed to the housing bubble, which means it isn’t an accomplishment for him to brag about. If anything, the job growth worsened the financial crisis.

    [Citation needed]

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 4, 2012 @ 11:17 am - December 4, 2012

  68. Shorter Aaron: I’ll jump on an obvious typo because I can’t refute the unemployment numbers.

    We’ll note Aaron wasn’t quick to jump on any math fail Levi made. (like 1.4T being 10% of 4B)

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 4, 2012 @ 11:20 am - December 4, 2012

  69. Bureau of labor statistics:

    J F M A M J J A S O N D
    2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
    2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
    2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
    2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5
    2012 8.3 8.3 8.2

    Comment by Aaron — December 4, 2012 @ 11:41 am - December 4, 2012

  70. The damage of the Obama regime to the national economy is hidden, in part, because the work force has shrunken dramatically as jobs have been eliminated permanently and people have simply given up looking for work. These people are no longer counted as part of the unemployed.

    If unemployment were measured using the size of the labor force under Bush, it would be over 12%.

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2012 @ 11:53 am - December 4, 2012

  71. Thnak you V the K.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 4, 2012 @ 12:08 pm - December 4, 2012

  72. Yeah the one trend Obama has had happen under his watch is the move towards people being employed part time.

    I have a friend who was laid off around May/June and she can’t find a full time job anywhere (she did office type work) and she is now working part time in retail because that is the only thing hiring and the job is part time only.

    My former employer moved and is moving a large portion of its employees to part time work.

    This trend is likely only going to get worse.

    Comment by Just Me — December 4, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - December 4, 2012

  73. Waste is an intractable problem in Government; it will never be solved. This is why it is important to keep Government limited to essential functions for which there is no practical private alternative.

    Thus, waste in the defense department is something I tolerate because defense is a unique and essential Government function; like administering the judiciary, where I also would tolerate waste.

    Where waste cannot and should not tolerated is in functions the Government has no business providing; such as housing, health care, agricultural subsidies, and managing a third of the total landmass of the USA as Federal Land. There is no way to separate waste from these functions, except to get the Government out of them. Which is exactly what I think should be done.

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2012 @ 1:32 pm - December 4, 2012

  74. I understand there are inherent risks with all investments. And if you’re profit margin is going to be undermined by tax increase, I wouldn’t expect a wise investor to take the risk.

    Comment by Aaron — December 4, 2012 @ 10:09 am – December 4, 2012

    And yet, this was completely incomprehensible to you before.

    Why would a rich person not make an investment if they were going to yield slightly less due to higher taxes? Wouldn’t they be stupider to not invest and therefore yield nothing?

    Comment by Aaron — December 3, 2012 @ 3:28 pm – December 3, 2012

    Oh, and this is entertaining.

    Imagine if Dick Fuld and all those other corrupt bankers would have had to look at their books closer because they knew they were going to have a higher tax bill at the end of the year. Perhaps they would have figured out that the mortgage backed securites they were buying and selling were a horrible idea and they would have stayed away. Yes there would have been a lot of people who wouldn’t have been sold sub-prime mortgages, but then the real value of the property would have remained intact, and perhaps the housing market wouldn’t have collapsed. I know that that’s probably not true, because the market was still figuring out how to make money with the new financial tools they were allowed to use like the credit default swaps and derivative trading. Inevitably some banks would have taken the risk and gone under, but having to pay higher taxes would have been a factor in the equation.

    Kind of hard to argue something is a “horrible idea” when the government is the one creating and encouraging the purchase of those securities, isn’t it?

    Page 3
    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fund the purchase of mortgages they securitize by selling the resulting MBSs to investors in the capital markets. An investor who buys a mortgage-backed security guaranteed by one of the GSEs will be paid the principal and any interest that is due even if borrowers default on the underlying loans.

    Page 22

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were rewarded for taking risks because the riskiness of their operations had little effect on their credit costs and their access to the market. When times were good, the GSEs’ stakeholders received the gains in the form of higher profits on riskier investments, but when times were bad, taxpayers were left with the losses.

    Page 23 – 24

    Their charters require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide ongoing assistance to the secondary mortgage market and to promote access to mortgage credit throughout the nation, including for low- and moderateincome families and residents of central cities. Subsequent legislation, the 1992 Federal Housing Enterprises and Financial Safety and Soundness Act, required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to establish affordable-housing goals expressed in percentages of total housing units financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Since then, regulators have set annual targets for all mortgages and, beginning in 2005, separate goals for home purchases (as opposed to refinanced loans). Those goals apply to low- and moderate-income families (defined as those with income at or below an area’s median income), families who have very low income (no more than 60 percent of the area median), and underserved areas (generally census tracts with large percentages of low-income people or minorities). Since 2001, slightly more than half of the loans purchased or guaranteed by the GSEs have counted toward those goals. Regulators have also set targets for mortgages on affordable multifamily rental housing, expressed in fixed dollar volumes for low-income renters overall and for low-income renters living in poor neighborhoods. In pursuit of those targets, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase mortgages on multifamily rental properties—which account for about 10 percent of the housing units they finance—and issue multifamilyhousing MBSs

    So let’s see; the government pushed for more risky loans to be make, demanded that more risky loans be purchased, securitized the risky loans, and sold them to the market with an implicit government guarantee that they would be covered to make them appear less risky — and then you blame the people who bought them.

    This is really what makes Obama supporters like Aaron and Levi total imbeciles. They haven’t actually researched this or done any reading; they just snip fancy words like credit-default swaps, etc. out of Obama talking points, blame “bankers”, and think they sound intelligent.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 4, 2012 @ 4:55 pm - December 4, 2012

  75. Let’s not forget that Clinton Era cronies Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines cleaned up eight-figure fortunes from Fannie Mae while they were making all those risky loans. (But Bush!). Or Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses, who lobbied Congress against regulating Fannie Mae while he was Barney Frank’s lover.

    The Democrat Party: a wretched hive of scum and villainy that makes Mos Eisley look like Disneyland.

    Comment by V the K — December 4, 2012 @ 6:22 pm - December 4, 2012

  76. It’s abundantly clear that all of Bush’s job growth can be attributed to the housing bubble,

    That would be the housing bubble the esteemed (why?) Bawney Fwank denied (and the liberals still refuse to believe) existed, right?

    Comment by TGC — December 4, 2012 @ 11:21 pm - December 4, 2012

  77. Looks like the serial liar has ran away again.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 5, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - December 5, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.345 Powered by Wordpress