Posted on 09/04/2011 10:24:05 AM PDT by Sons of Union Vets
Okay, we’ve been over this before. I just don’t think you want to listen.
Fiscal Year 2009 started in October of 2008. Bush signed a CR lasting until March 6th of 2009. TARP was requested and signed by Bush in October of 2008 and applied to FY09. Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009. Obama then signed a CR/budget taking us to the end of the fiscal year, i.e. September of 2009. The Obama stimulus applied to FY09 also. I think most intelligent people are about to figure out who did what and when. If they don’t already know, they can look it up.
There is nothing in error on the chart. I’m sorry it doesn’t say what you want it to say.
Two heads are better than one but there has to be some sort of conversation for that to be true. You’re not really saying anything other than “I don’t like it.” If you can point to some primary source that would add information to the discussion, I’m all eyes.
The blue line is what you claim is "right"; it's actually the red line. Why you want to excuse President Obama for $1 trillion in additional debt is beyond me, but you go ahead and be a tool of the MSM and the Democrats, you keep giving validation to the "BUSH'S FAULT!" meme...
Additionally, that graph assumes that the Bush tax cuts were only negative, that they could only drag down the deficit, not reduce it. The facts are - broad cuts in income tax rates tend to accelerate the GDP growth and more than compensate for themselves in total revenue growth.
One needs look no further than the massive increases in Federal revenue after the Bush tax cuts to see that they were - in fact - the Bush tax increases! The tax rates were cut, but the total tax dollars collected were increased (because of the massive growth in GDP). Tax rate cut, total tax increase.
But your graph doesn’t show that - it just looks at the “negative” part of the Bush tax cuts and ignores the gains made from those cuts. Your graph feeds right into the Democrats mantra of “tax cuts for the rich” as harmful to the overall economy and a cause of our deficit.
Want me to continue?
Everything you have stated has no factual basis, and when refuted, you don’t respond to any of the facts cited - just childish jibberish like this post, or respond to arguments not being made - if you even bother to comment at all. You then just proceed to say the same things you said before, as though they had not already been debunked.
Nothing you have stated has any factual basis - indicates an extreme ignorance of what happened, and also an extreme ignorance of how our system of government works in the first place - meaning even if you had gotten your facts straight historically, you would still not know how it all worked its way through the system.
You knew this guy didn’t have a clue what he was talking about with his first post that “defunding” Fannie and Freddie was ever an issue or would have had any effect on anything - that would have had no effect on the existance of the loans and the securities being traded based on them. Now he claims that Obama pushing for passage of TARP and voting for it himself in a coequal branch of government does not make him at all responsible for it, and failing to get behind legislation to create more oversight over Fannie and Freddie so it would have enough votes to get through cloture also makes him have no cupability in the crisis. The Democrats - and only the Democrats - fought the legislation every step of the way - even implying the efforts were racist (a “lynching” of Franklin Raines). The record is clear of all the parties involved, and the evidence is on video in living color. It’s irrefutable.
Okay. Let’s try again.
Fiscal Year 2009 starts in October of 2008 and ends in September of 2009. Bush signs TARP in October of 2008 and a CR lasting until March of 2009 in September of 2008. Obama is inaugurated in January of 2009. Obama signs the Stimulus and a CR early in 2009 lasting until the end of the Fiscal Year in 2009.
As for “whose fault it was” that we had a deficit of $1,413B in Fiscal Year 2009, well here are the changes since FY2008,
Change from ‘08.........Reason
$624B...................Economic Effects
$184B...................TARP
$155B...................Obama Stimulus
$78B....................Discretionary Spending
$51B....................Net Interest
$28B....................Other Tax Cuts
$44B....................Other Changes to Mandatory Programs
$954B...................Deficit (includes other smaller changes)
The big change is obviously the economic effects. Who owns what is (apparently) up for debate. That’s fine. I have no problem with that.
I think the lesson from the plot is that there was no ONE THING that caused the deficit we have today. It was all the ill advised things the Republicans then Democrats did leading up to today. I know that makes arguing on the internet hard (Obama Bad! / Bush Good!) but that’s the way it is. Being informed is hard work.
It’s sad when conservatives fall for and use the Left’s favorite mantra “BUSH’S FAULT!”. Bush was a problem, but nowhere near as bad as most state.
Note too that most conservatives bash Bush and the GOP over “6 years of doing nothing” - and conveniently forget not just the Tom Daschle-led Democrat majority Senate, but that for the other years there was a VERY slim majority in the Senate allowing the Democrats to stall anything they wanted.
I guess the sound reasoning and logic of Buckley, Sowell, and others is now a rare trait among conservatives...
Oh Pulease.
We are not victims and to describe ourselves as such is NOT conservative.
well stated
No factual basis? My goodness. I have provided fact after fact after fact.
Here. Here is the link to the CBO page with the numbers. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12187 Have fun.
“defunding” Fannie and Freddie was ever an issue or would have had any effect on anything - that would have had no effect on the existance of the loans and the securities being traded based on them.
My goodness. You’ve gone off the edge. We just had two loud fights between Congress and Obama on funding. It’s all about funding. Upon gaining the House, Senate and Presidency in 2003, the Republicans could have passed a law that said “No more funding for Fannie and Freddie so we aren’t covering any more loans.” It would have broken the Housing bubble before it started and we’d be much better off today.
Read the constitution.
I don’t like the Bush tax cuts as always negative either. That’s what the CBO assumes. I copied it over without editorializing. It’s pretty clear from the graph that the “Economic Effects” track with the S&P500 and that which helps the economy helps government revenue.
Yes, the graph completely ignores the revenue gains from any activities taken. It just looks at one half of the equation and ignores the other, which is a big problem.
Another problem with that graph is TARP - it shows TARP at its original proposed cost of $300 billion, but the actual outstanding amount is $75 billion - it never reached the level shown, and will end up being around $25 billion or so total cost. Still way too much, but not the hit shown.
There are quite a few problems with that graph...
Well TARP I’m not sure about. Some say “Well they paid it all back” but when I look into the details, there’s no telling what “all” means. Sometimes it means they are ready to pay it back. Google AIG and TARP or Chrysler and TARP or GM and TARP to be thoroughly confused.
My understanding is that of the $245 billion loaned out, $175 billion has already been paid back - predominantly that given to the banks. What’s outstanding is really the stock of AIG and GM. If sold at market rate today, we’d lock in about $45 billion in total losses.
So, at worst, it’s around a $45 billion hit - not the $300 billion as shown in the graph.
There are rolling estimates and authoritative (?) statements from the CBO from time to time. The latest I could find from the CBO was 3/2011, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12118/03-29-TARP.pdf . They say $11B is written off, $156B has not been paid back and $22B is “Anticipated Disbursements” (more TARP). Will the $156B be paid back? We’ll see. We haven’t fixed many of the problems around in March of ‘09 and I think the assumptions the CBO makes are optimistic at best.
>>OK, so you admit the graph is in error
Nope.
TARP was W’s. TARP was part of the policy in effect in FY09. So any way you slice it, the graph's timeline for W is correct.
>>bash Republicans.
Republicans no, RINOs, yes.
A Republic is a system, of governance characterized by the Rule of Law.
Was the Law ruling when the GodFather of Subprime’s little enterprise was “revolutionizing” the global financial infrastructure into systemic corruption?
NO.
Have a nice day on your RINOcerous perch.
Well, there you just keep on going. You are not addressing what is actually being discussed and just go around it and throw out something else to create another secondary argument to distract from what you said before.
I have. That's why I understand a U.S. Senator voting for passing a bill into law has responsibility for the bill becoming law. You do not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.