CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    CBO: If Debt Not Addressed, Stimulus Spending Will be a ‘Drag’ on Future Economic Growth

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-if-debt-not-addressed-stimulus-spending-will-be-drag-future-economic-growth

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    The timing is just too ironic.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    the mid terms should be interesting AGAIN!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    Just stop.  Take away Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts and Bush's recession, and you have a budget surplus and a thriving economy.  Your guys own all of this, and your guys are being punished for it.  If not for rigged districts, you would have no control of anything.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Ah, yes, let's cite the CBO favorably, now that it says something with which you can bescumber Obama



    Im not a CBO fan because they only can use info provided to them.

    I do think the timing is ironic and I do think the tax increases will hurt economic growth which I do think will make the mid terms interesting.

     

    Talk about not read and just spouting off. geez

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Just stop.  Take away Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts and Bush's recession, and you have a budget surplus and a thriving economy.  Your guys own all of this, and your guys are being punished for it.  If not for rigged districts, you would have no control of anything.




    Bush's wars---supported by Dems, Obama especially supported Afghanistan, didnt he?

    Bush's recession--officially ended in 2009...still good as a pathetic excuse for Obama after 5 years of failure, though.

    Worst economic recovery from a recession in 60 years, on Obama's watch.  His statist policies have been an abysmal failure.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Worst economic recovery from a recession in 60 years, on Obama's watch.  



    Because it was the worst recession in 70 years...

    ...presided over by Obama's predecessor.

    Period.

     

    Truth hurts, but that's when the healing can start.

     

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    Im not a CBO fan because they only can use info provided to them.


    Who cares whether you're a "fan"?

    They're smarter than you.

    Who's your go-to source for economic data?  Journalists?  Fortune cookies?

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    Just stop.  Take away Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts and Bush's recession, and you have a budget surplus and a thriving economy.  Your guys own all of this, and your guys are being punished for it.  If not for rigged districts, you would have no control of anything.

     




     

    Bush's wars---supported by Dems, Obama especially supported Afghanistan, didnt he?

    Bush's recession--officially ended in 2009...still good as a pathetic excuse for Obama after 5 years of failure, though.

    Worst economic recovery from a recession in 60 years, on Obama's watch.  His statist policies have been an abysmal failure.




    Not really - about 40% of the Dems in congress went along with the authorization to use force based on at best egregious intelligence errors and at worst out-right lies told by the commander in chief.  No Dem (or Republican for that matter) ever voted to go to war.

    A corrupt banking industry in crisis, a devastated housing market, an auto industry on the brink - interest rates (the chief factor in economic recoveries!) already at zero percent; no money to spend for stimuls (what little there was giving rise to the previously silent tea party quacks).  Stock markets plunging.  Gas prices doubled.  Out of control entitlement spending.  Out of control medical costs.  Your guy did absolutely nothing good in 8 years.  Nothing.  This is what you left the country with, patriots - thanks for your support.

    Republicans shot a man in the chest on Obama's door-step and came back the next day to blame him for the the blood lost.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    Just stop.  Take away Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts and Bush's recession, and you have a budget surplus and a thriving economy.  Your guys own all of this, and your guys are being punished for it.  If not for rigged districts, you would have no control of anything.

     




     

    Bush's wars---supported by Dems, Obama especially supported Afghanistan, didnt he?

    Bush's recession--officially ended in 2009...still good as a pathetic excuse for Obama after 5 years of failure, though.

    Worst economic recovery from a recession in 60 years, on Obama's watch.  His statist policies have been an abysmal failure.

     




     

    Not really - about 40% of the Dems in congress went along with the authorization to use force based on at best egregious intelligence errors and at worst out-right lies told by the commander in chief.  No Dem (or Republican for that matter) ever voted to go to war.

    A corrupt banking industry in crisis, a devastated housing market, an auto industry on the brink - interest rates (the chief factor in economic recoveries!) already at zero percent; no money to spend for stimuls (what little there was giving rise to the previously silent tea party quacks).  Stock markets plunging.  Gas prices doubled.  Out of control entitlement spending.  Out of control medical costs.  Your guy did absolutely nothing good in 8 years.  Nothing.  This is what you left the country with, patriots - thanks for your support.

    Republicans shot a man in the chest on Obama's door-step and came back the next day to blame him for the the blood lost.

     


    "Gas prices doubled.  Out of control entitlement spending.  Out of control medical costs. "

    You surely are speaking of your failure Obama, yes?

    "Out of control entitlement spending" under Bush?

    LOL...I agree. Obama's "solution"?  Triple/quadruple  down on it, massively expand entitlement spending and hook people on being government dependents...

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to slomag's comment:

    Just stop.  Take away Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts and Bush's recession, and you have a budget surplus and a thriving economy.  Your guys own all of this, and your guys are being punished for it.  If not for rigged districts, you would have no control of anything.




    Right up until Jan 2007 Bush presided over 42 months of growth.  Hmmmmm, what happened in Jan 2007?  Democrats took over both chambers with huge majorities.  You are better than this.  "Bush`s wars, Bush`s tax cuts, and Bush`s recession" are left-wing talking points and you know it.  We can admit that bush was a lousy president, you guys continue to blame him for the actions of the single worst president in American history.  Please, show a link, a report, a finding, ANYTHING that is credible and tangible to back up your "Bush" comments.  You cannot. Nobody can. 

    For once admit that Obama is a complete incompetent.  Do you realize how ridiculous you sound by still blaming Bush after 4-years of this disaster?  Do you really want to be one of the 52% that on Nov 6th 2012 still blamed Bush?  Everything Obama has touched in the last 4-years is worse.  Yet you low information voters scream like fools, "Bush`s fault".

    You, of all people here, are better than this.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    Worst economic recovery from a recession in 60 years, on Obama's watch.  

     



    Because it was the worst recession in 70 years...

     

    ...presided over by Obama's predecessor.

    Period.

     

    Truth hurts, but that's when the healing can start.

     

     

     



    So, that "predecessor" did a bad job  for 8 years, agreed.  Now, this guy has done an awful job "presiding" for the last 4 years, agreed?

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    Soooo, wingnuts refuse to attribute any wingnut ongoing policies, like Med Part-D, unfunded wars etc., to today's situation but they have no problem assigning a one-time capital expense in 2009 to some unknowable fiscal situation some 14 yrs in the future, 2023.

    Yep, makes perfect sense....




    "wingnuts" as you call them, have no problem at all understanding and aknowledging "ongoing policies".  That is the difference between us "wingnuts" and you "moonbats".  We know Bush was a lousy president and we admit it.  You guys seem to forget he was a lame-duck from Nov-2006 to Jan 2009 and he has been GONE for four years.  Obama OWNS the mess of the last 4 years and should be held accountable.  Admitting it is the first thing.  12AM needs a 12step program. Step 1, admit the problem.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    "At least things stopped crashing and started getting better after that date.  :)"

    Prove it.  This is the Left`s biggest talking point.  The Big Lie.  Imagine if the savior didn`t come in and stop the madness.  Bull-sh!t!  Everything is worse, EVERYTHING!  He (and the Dems) stopped nothing.  Stimulus-failure, Obamacare-failure, bailouts-failure, spending taxpayer money to help failing companies-failure.  Thye doulded down on everything and here we are with more on food stamps, more with EBT, more unemployed, increases in HC costs, gas prices doubled, food costs up 39%, N Korea testing nukes and playing footsie with Iran.

    Admit the problem.

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Prove it.

     


    Did you lose brain cells with the name change? Pathetic!

    Here's a start. I'm not doing any research for you because you will just lie about it.

    Go here, and click on "5y" above the chart. Then apologize.

     

    http://www.google.com/finance?cid=983582

     

     






    Cool.  I am a stock holder.  I have many different companies that I own and I do appreciate the DOW being back up around 14,000.  And, you are correct.  Many times in my beeeatching about Obama I do (did) mention the DOW.  And, 50%-plus of Americans today are in fact "in the market" at some capacity.  So, yes this is a good thing that Obama has presided over. 

    I was (sort of) directing the comments towards "war costs" and the fallacies surrounding those imaginery numbers.  There are thousands of opinions and articles that are not consistent.  Here`s another: (again, I disagree with it, but it`s another analysis)

    Did the stimulus cost more than the war in Iraq? Mostly False Share this story:  

    Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott warned readers Aug. 23, 2010, to expect to hear a lot from Democrats about the cost of the Iraq War. It might be expensive, he said, but not as expensive as President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus.

    Citing data from conservative writer Randall Hoven, Tapscott said, "Obama’s stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion more."

    Really? Could the nearly seven-year-long war cost less than the 2009 stimulus, which was designed to keep the U.S. economy from sliding into a depression?

    At first glance, the numbers look pretty close. The most recent figures from the Congressional Budget Office, released in August 2010, put the total cost for the stimulus -- from February 2009 through 2019 -- at $814 billion. Estimated funding for the war in Iraq totals $709 billion from 2003 to 2010, according to the same CBO report.

    But note the different time periods. The stimulus costs are projected through 2019. But the war spending is calculated only to the end of this year.

    We also should note that the $814 billion cost for the stimulus includes $70 billion to fix a problem with the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is designed to target the wealthiest taxpayers but is gradually affecting more people in the middle class.

    As for the war cost, we found a variety of opinions on the total. Some reports have higher estimates than the CBO’s for that same time period.

    A July 2010 report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the cost at $748 billion, which includes costs for the military, the State Department and foreign aid, and Veterans Administration medical costs related to the war. Add in supplemental appropriation from 2010, and you get about $750 billion, said James R. Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning group that studies tax and fiscal issues.

    Another expert on defense spending told us it’s also important to account for inflation. "The cost of the Iraq War going back seven years and the cost of the stimulus act through 2019 cover a broad stretch of time over which inflation becomes important," Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said in an e-mail. The center is a think tank that focuses on defense issues.

    Adjusted for inflation, the cost of the Iraq War to date totals $756 billion and the stimulus act totals about $820 billion, according to Harrison.

    So by that barometer, Tapscott is right that spending on the stimulus exceeds the cost of the Iraq war, although by $64 billion, rather than $100 billion.

    But there’s a big assumption in his logic. As Harrison put it to us, the comparison "assumes the cost of the Iraq War ends" this year.

    The costs are still adding up. Although the last combat troops have been withdrawn from Iraq, there are still 49,700 troops on the ground conducting security patrols and training Iraqis. And troops are expected to remain until the end of December 2011. Harrison noted that the president’s 2011 budget includes an additional $43.4 billion for Iraq, and "even if the withdrawal continues as planned, we are likely to see a request of $10 billion-$5 billion in the 2012 budget."

    And the number could be much higher depending how broadly you define the cost of the war. Some experts believe you should include the continuing costs of disability compensation and medical care for Iraqi war veterans -- costs that will last for decades.

    Linda Bilmes, senior lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and co-author of the Three Trillion Dollar War, argues that official government estimates of the war’s costs are too low because they do not take into account costs such as higher combat pay and recruiting costs, Social Security disability payments for veterans who can no longer work, the cost of restoring the military to its pre-war strength (replacing the bullets and bombs that have been used). She and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize winning economist at Columbia University, argue that the "true" cost of Iraq will be several trillion dollars.

    Bilmes also notes that there are a higher number of disabled veterans from the war in Iraq than in previous wars. According to Bilmes, there are eight veterans wounded in combat in Iraq per fatality,  compared with 2.6 wounded in combat per fatality in Vietnam. In addition, she said in an e-mail, 10 percent of Vietnam veterans enrolled in Veterans Administration health care -- whereas 44 percent of Iraq veterans have already enrolled in VA health care.  Her book estimates the long-term cost of continuing medical care of Iraq and Afghanistan vets to be hundreds of billions of dollars.

    So let’s recap. If it were true that the war and its costs had truly ended today, then Tapscott would be right. But he says that the stimulus will cost more than the "entire" war, and we are persuaded by the experts that with nearly 50,000 troops still in Iraq, it is premature to say the war is over. And when you make reasonable adjustments for inflation, the expected costs of the troops still there and the long-term cost of medical care and re-stocking the military for all the bullets and bombs, it appears likely the war costs will exceed the stimulus. So we find his claim Barely True.



     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    It's O.K.

    You can admit that Obama isn't 100% to blame for everything without looking like you think he's the messiah.

    Well...      that's as long as any fellow righties aren't watching.

     

    Man...you guys are seriously insecure.




    As I`ve said many times, (and so have most, if not all, conservatives here), I do not think W was a good president.  That doesn`t change the fact that Obama is an awful one.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    Hehe, heh, heh...

    This guy is hilarious!!!!

    Now he's posting sources which show that his charge that the stimulus cost more than Iraq war is MOSTLY WRONG!

    Not only that, the post is from 2010 and in it specifically states:

    But there'€™s a big assumption in his logic. As Harrison put it to us, the comparison "assumes the cost of the Iraq War ends" this year (2010).

    The costs are still adding up. Although the last combat troops have been withdrawn from Iraq, there are still 49,700 troops on the ground conducting security patrols and training Iraqis. And troops are expected to remain until the end of December 2011. Harrison noted that the president's 2011 budget includes an additional $43.4 billion for Iraq, and "even if the withdrawal continues as planned, we are likely to see a request of $10 billion-$5 billion in the 2012 budget."


    So that post is from 2 yrs ago. Hilarious!!!




    Maybe you missed where I CLEARLY said this:

    "I was (sort of) directing the comments towards "war costs" and the fallacies surrounding those imaginery numbers.  There are thousands of opinions and articles that are not consistent.  Here`s another: (again, I disagree with it, but it`s another analysis)"

    12 angrymen, airborne, truthhurts, and all of your other aliases as a conspiracy theorist over the years, and you still can`t read, huh?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    "So that post is from 3 yrs ago. Hilarious!!!"

     

    This coming from a guy that is blaming a president from 4 YRS AGO!   Talk about "Hilarious"!

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    Adjusted for inflation, the cost of the Iraq War to date totals $756 billion and the stimulus act totals about $820 billion, according to Harrison.



    First, the CBO also estimated that by 2050, the Iraq War will have cost 1.7 trillion dollars.
    Because caring for all the maimed and PTSD'd troops through then is going to be really expensive.

     

     

    Second, you are shifting the goalposts. In the other thread, I totalled the costs of the big expenditures under Bush in order to support my claim that they were more than the "2 trillion" you attibuted to Obama.

    I then also pointed out that not only was Bush spending higher, Obama revenue is way lower because of Bush tax cuts, plus the two crises for which each party bears different degrees of responsibility:

    Now you're saying, "oh, but if we compare the stimulus to the Iraq war and ignore everything else...."

     

    ________________________________________________

     

    Iraq: 800+ Billion, plus potentially up to another trillion through 2050 for vets, plus interest on all that debt service


    CBO, trusted when bad for Obama, hated when good for him, estimates long term cost at 1.7 trillion for Iraq. That was in 2007.

    Afghanistan: 600+ million

    Unfunded prescription: Between 400 and 600 billion over 10ish years, take your pick.

    "Initially, the net cost of the program was projected at $400 billion for the ten-year period between 2004 and 2013. One month after passage, the administration estimated that the net cost of the program over the period between 2006 (the first year the program started paying benefits) and 2015 would be $534 billion.As of February 2009, the projected net cost of the program over the 2006 to 2015 period was $549.2 billion"

    TARP: 25 billion or so, though perhaps more will be recovered.

    And of course, Tax cuts, a mortgage crisis (see my quote from Bush in 2002 "everyone must have a home" in the other thread), a financial crisis.......and trillions of revenue gets knocked out.


    Add in thousands of our soldiers dead, a hundred thousand civilians dead, far more maimed, the fact he kept his wars off the books.... and...well... you'll stat to see how awful Bush was.

     

     

     

    Changing "Iraq: 800+ Billion," in the above to the "756 billion" in your goalpost-shifted politifact article doesn't change much.




    Not "changing goal posts" at all.  That`s a lame defense and it`s simply untrue.  The article cited is an example.  There are thousands.  There are also thousands on Afganhistan, prescription drug, tarp, etc...........NONE are consistent or even similar for that matter.  What we do know for FACT is the current debt/deficit.  It has gone up and it`s growing every day.

    Again, I admit Bush was a problem.  When will you admit Obama is worse?

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    "So that post is from 3 yrs ago. Hilarious!!!"

     

    This coming from a guy that is blaming a president from 4 YRS AGO!   Talk about "Hilarious"!

     

     




    Ummm, hey barbie, your 'source' was counting the cost of a war before it was finished. Care to explain how that's possible?

     

    But hey, that makes perfect sense ....run with it.

     


    (QUOTE)

     

    I`ll say it again...............maybe louder will work, CAN YOU READ????

    That was ONE EXAMPLE of THOUSANDS!   Are you pushing the Q-Tip in too far?

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: CBO on Tuesday; spending will be a drag on economic growth; Obama Tuesday night we must spend more!

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    As I`ve said many times, (and so have most, if not all, conservatives here), I do not think W was a good president.  That doesn`t change the fact that Obama is an awful one.




     

    Except he isn't awful. He only looks awful when you Pretend that the incomming President is entirely at fault for things that happened before he came in which continue to exact a toll.


    I've criticized him left and right here. I don't think he's a great President. But he most certainly isn't awful, and the economy DID stop crashing and HAS been rebounding since he came in.

    That it has been slow is a GOOD thing, as I have noted.

    This should be obvious to any honest and logical person. He chose to inherit an economy that was in the dump because of two burst bubbles.

    If we were back out of the dump completely already, or getting out quickly, IT WOULD MEAN WE WERE JUST RIDING ON ANOTHER BUBBLE.

    I trust you agree that would not be a good thing?




    Agree, don`t need a "bubble".  So, the Clinton years............bubble?   Reagan-Revolution........bubble?  How do we avoid the dreaded 'bubble"?  Slow growth?

    We have a fundamental disagreement.  I don`t know anyone that would say (except for MSNBC) we are "rebounding".

    Again:

    unemployment up

    more than ever out of work

    HC costs up 20-25%

    Food costs up 39%

    gas prices up 100%

    57 million on food stamps

    101 million on government assistance

    $16.8 Trillion debt

    N Korea nuclear (Iran soon)

    family wealth down $5000 on average

     

    ...........rebounding?

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share