Mitt Romney: He built that

[FantasticDan]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-30-2012/rnc-2012---the-road-to-jeb-bush-2016---mitt-romney--a-human-who-built-that

:p

[Tom]

Barack Obama...he build this.

[FantasticDan]

http://www.presidentialdebt.org/

"Interest expense & US national debt by president, year, as % of GDP, per capita & % of per capita income"

Red text: Trend is worsening
Green text: Trend is improving

All green for stinky BO! :blush:

[Tom]

35 >>>>>>>> 48

[FantasticDan]

Yeah, in my haste I failed to look at all the columns in that chart.. plenty o' red ink for N'Obama as well.. :sleeping:

[bigmack]

Yeah, in my haste I failed to look at all the columns in that chart.. plenty o' red ink for N'Obama as well.. :sleeping:
Good gawd, man, you're not quite as grand of a sycophantic suck-up for all things BO as Mostie, but you a close 2nd.

Barry does no wrong in your book.

[FantasticDan]

Oh please!

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/EconomicDownturnGraph.jpg

[dartman51]

http://www.presidentialdebt.org/

"Interest expense & US national debt by president, year, as % of GDP, per capita & % of per capita income"

Red text: Trend is worsening
Green text: Trend is improving

All green for stinky BO! :blush:

You should be embarrassed, posting this as trying to show your boy doing well. How the hell, is adding over 5 TRILLION dollars to the National Debt, in LESS than 4 years, something to brag about?? Since when is having the National Debt surpass the GDP, a GOOD thing?? Unbelievable.

[mostpost]

Oh please!

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/EconomicDownturnGraph.jpg

Wait. Does that chart mean that the biggest factor in the increase in debt is not increased spending, but the Bush tax cuts. That can't be. We all know how tax cuts help the economy. :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

Wait. Does that chart mean that the biggest factor in the increase in debt is not increased spending, but the Bush tax cuts. That can't be. We all know how tax cuts help the economy. :rolleyes:
Are you even remotely aware the extent to which those rates helped/are helping the little guy?

[mostpost]

Oh please!

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/EconomicDownturnGraph.jpg
You should be embarrassed, posting this as trying to show your boy doing well. How the hell, is adding over 5 TRILLION dollars to the National Debt, in LESS than 4 years, something to brag about?? Since when is having the National Debt surpass the GDP, a GOOD thing?? Unbelievable.
Try to keep up. Look at Fantastic's chart. Causes of the deficit.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Started by George W. Bush.
Tax cuts enacted by George W. Bush.
Recovery measures made necessary by George W. Bush
TARP Fannie and Freddie also made necessary by George W. Bush.
Economic downturn which reduced revenues relative to normal and was caused by the policies of Republicans and you know who.

The fact is the increase in spending under Obama is smaller than under any President since Eisenhower.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

After 2009 which was Bush's budget and was heavily influenced by the factors above:
In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

[ArlJim78]

George Soros - shaping tomorrows progressive minds.

[wisconsin]

http://www.presidentialdebt.org/

"Interest expense & US national debt by president, year, as % of GDP, per capita & % of per capita income"

Red text: Trend is worsening
Green text: Trend is improving

All green for stinky BO! :blush:


Yeah, really? Did you actually look at anything there? We are financially upside down. If we applied every dollar for goods to the national debt, we can't pay it off. Why?

Becuase Debt exceeds GDP, and that has never happened, and oh, look at Bush and then Obama in the same column, and then get back to us. FAIL. :bang:

[NJ Stinks]

Dan, I saw that clip last night and couldn't stop laughing! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

To take part of a recent PA quote somewhere here in OT, anybody "with half a brain" - who the Republicans were trying to win over this week - is not going to buy the BS presented at this week's convention.

[rastajenk]

Could somebody do the research and come up with the last time Jon Stewart was funny? I'm too lazy to look it up, but I sure can't think of any time off the top o' my head.

[bigmack]

Could somebody do the research and come up with the last time Jon Stewart was funny? I'm too lazy to look it up, but I sure can't think of any time off the top o' my head.
Between Stewart, Leibowitz (By the way, is it REALLY necessary for anyone considering a career in show bidness, to wipe the Jewishness from their name?) and Colbert, (any other Colbert known to man pronounces it ColBert) they have 60 writers. 58 of them without a speck of talent.

[FantasticDan]

Dan, I saw that clip last night and couldn't stop laughing! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:Clip? Oh, that's right.. I forgot why I started this thread :rolleyes:

What is the ACTUAL debt to GDP ratio now? The chart I linked says over 100% of GDP, but the CBO says 70%..

[mostpost]

Clip? Oh, that's right.. I forgot why I started this thread :rolleyes:

What is the ACTUAL debt to GDP ratio now? The chart I linked says over 100% of GDP, but the CBO says 70%..
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2012-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2012-TAB.pdf
That is the official government link. In 2012 est. the gross percentage is 105.3%
but 30.2% is money we owe ourselves-one government agency borrowing from another. The amount we owe to the public and to others is 75.1% of GDP. We exceeded that 75.1% several times around the end of WWII, including percentages of 106.2% and 108.7% in 1945 and 1946. Corresponding gross percentages were 117.5% and 121.7%. So Wisconsin is incorrect when he says debt has never exceeded GDP. It has happened a few times.

Of course we all know what a disaster that was for the economy in the post WWII era. :D

According to Wikipedia, GDP is Private consumption plus gross investment plus government spending plus(exports minus Imports) for a specified period-one year. I'm not saying it is a great idea to have debt in excess of GDP, but isn't this the same thing we do in our private lives when we buy a $500,000 house even though we are earning only $100,000 a a year.

[iwearpurple]

But when you buy a house for $500,000.00 you have an asset worth $500,000.00

[ArlJim78]

you guys are doing a bang up job spinning the economic data. If only the credit rating agencies had consulted you guys before downgrading our credit. you could have explained how this debt is no big deal. maybe you could do some consulting for all of the cities who are going bankrupt, maybe they don't realize that things are no worse than after WWII.

[rastajenk]

If I were to buy a half a mil house on a tenth of mil income, I'd do it once; not year after year after year after year........

[bigmack]

Stand back. Between Wiki and the mind of Mostie, the debt is a gift.

He's going rogue again with his brain. NOT normally a good thing, but certainly entertaining.

GO MOSTIE!

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_7_09_13_51_54.png

[mostpost]

you guys are doing a bang up job spinning the economic data. If only the credit rating agencies had consulted you guys before downgrading our credit. you could have explained how this debt is no big deal. maybe you could do some consulting for all of the cities who are going bankrupt, maybe they don't realize that things are no worse than after WWII.

I don't think it is no big deal. But we have been in similar and worse situations and we have survived. I think it is absolutely impossible to solve the problem just by cutting spending, which is all I hear Republicans talking about. In fact Romney is talking about more tax cuts. :bang: :bang:

Maybe we don't want to go back to the 91% or even 70% of the past, but we need to raise taxes enough to pay for services and to start reducing the debt.

I've said that we survived nicely when taxes were higher. People who don't think past the end of their nose, criticized me for saying higher taxes created prosperity. Prosperity was created in part by the retooling from WWII; in part by our status as the only fully functioning economy; and by other factors. Yet we had higher taxes and somehow they did not have a negative effect on the economy.

[Greyfox]

But when you buy a house for $500,000.00 you have an asset worth $500,000.00

That was true before Obama.

A friend of mine bought a condo in Hawaii for $750.00 in 2008.

Today similar condos are listed at $450,000.

The same is true for a number of cities in America. Your assets have depreciated significantly while Nero fiddled....I mean golfed.

[rastajenk]

....I mean golfed.Whoa...I'd have never expected such racism from you.




(Although I can't see how golf is racist...I'm just going by what I'm told.)

[ArlJim78]

I don't think it is no big deal. But we have been in similar and worse situations and we have survived. I think it is absolutely impossible to solve the problem just by cutting spending, which is all I hear Republicans talking about. In fact Romney is talking about more tax cuts. :bang: :bang:

Maybe we don't want to go back to the 91% or even 70% of the past, but we need to raise taxes enough to pay for services and to start reducing the debt.

I've said that we survived nicely when taxes were higher. People who don't think past the end of their nose, criticized me for saying higher taxes created prosperity. Prosperity was created in part by the retooling from WWII; in part by our status as the only fully functioning economy; and by other factors. Yet we had higher taxes and somehow they did not have a negative effect on the economy.
we've never been in a worse situation. we're running full speed ahead at an immovable object. our foundation is crumbling all around us due to the enormous weight of the debt on our backs.

your quip about Romney is amusing because he forgot more yesterday about management, turning things around, managing resources, etc, than Obama will ever know.

[mostpost]

That was true before Obama.

A friend of mine bought a condo in Hawaii for $750.00 in 2008.
Seven hundred and fifty dollars. Sounds like a deal to me, but then I know nothing about real estate in Hawaii. :lol: :lol:

Today similar condos are listed at $450,000.

The same is true for a number of cities in America. Your assets have depreciated significantly while Nero fiddled....I mean golfed.
Couldn't resist.

[Greyfox]

Couldn't resist.

My bad. A typo.
His condo cost $750,000 in 2008'
Today it's worth $450,000.

Many on this board are probably in the same boat where their houses have depreciated in value.

[Beachbabe]

Dan, I saw that clip last night and couldn't stop laughing! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:



To take part of a recent PA quote somewhere here in OT, anybody "with half a brain" - who the Republicans were trying to win over this week - is not going to buy the BS presented at this week's convention.

The Reps can't win over people with "half a brain". The Dems have them all wrapped up.

[PaceAdvantage]

Many on this board are probably in the same boat where their houses have depreciated in value.Is it written in stone somewhere that homes are not allowed to depreciate in value over time? They all must appreciate?

There is no guarantee, ANYWHERE (nor should there be), that the stock you buy today, or the home you buy today, will be worth more ten years down the line.

Yet, people act all shocked and bothered when the unlikely happens, and their homes are worth less than what they paid for them years later. Or the Facebook stock they bought on hype is now worth far less than what they paid for it.

It may be termed an "investment," and as such, can move in one of three ways. Up, down or sideways. We just happen to be in a down to sideways cycle when it comes to housing.

Even if the 2008 crash didn't happen, eventually, home prices would correct. All overpriced investments eventually do...except Gold of course... :lol:

[Greyfox]

It may be termed an "investment," and as such, can move in one of three ways. Up, down or sideways. We just happen to be in a down to sideways cycle when it comes to housing.

Even if the 2008 crash didn't happen, eventually, home prices would correct. All overpriced investments eventually do...except Gold of course... :lol:

Absolutely true.
My point here is that most people are not as financially well off today as they were 4 years ago, particularly home owners.

[badcompany]

you guys are doing a bang up job spinning the economic data. If only the credit rating agencies had consulted you guys before downgrading our credit. you could have explained how this debt is no big deal. maybe you could do some consulting for all of the cities who are going bankrupt, maybe they don't realize that things are no worse than after WWII.

In their spinning, they conveniently leave out the unfunded liabilities, and exponentially higher consumer debt, which are why post wwII comparisons are absurd.

A more accurate comparison would be the current situation in Spain. Instead of radically reducing the size of government, they raised taxes. Not surprisingly, the economy swirled deeper down the porcelain bowl.

That said, it's always funny to hear liberals harkening back to the good ol' days of the 50s. Make you wonder why there was so much rebellion against that decade in the 60s. :lol:

[boxcar]

Wait. Does that chart mean that the biggest factor in the increase in debt is not increased spending, but the Bush tax cuts. That can't be. We all know how tax cuts help the economy. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it "could be". The same tax cuts (rates) that BO insisted we keep back toward the end of 2010, remember?