Skip to main content

View Diary: If you really want to fix the deficit, elect a Democratic Congress!!! (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Where is TARP in those graphs? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    TARP was mostly paid back - with interest.  Where does it show that?

    Most graphs about deficits erroneously assign all of TARP to Bush, but never account for the payback or assign it to Obama, which is just plain wrong.

    (Hint: Take TARP out of the equation and Obama's growth balloons incredibly)

    Last - your numbers are missing something.

    When President Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.6 Trillion.

    In the next few days, it will hit $16 Trillion.

    I'll leave it up to you to find the missing trillions.

    •  Did you read the piece at all? (2+ / 0-)

      Tarp is clearly on the graph in the piece.  Here is the graph again:


      A major point of the piece, from its very first paragraph, is that you can't blame any president for all the spending that occurs during his term.  But you can blame him for the things he does.  Ezra Klein discussed in great detail, here, what both Bush and Obama specifically did that added to the deficit.  No one is giving Obama credit for TARP repayments that Bush should get credit for.  And there aren't missing trillions unaccounted for.  

      If you don't like that President Obama is better at managing money than you want him to be, you need to find some other way to express that disappointment.

      The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

      by mikepridmore on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:43:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ezra Klein plays with numbers... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That is one of the stupideist two graphs in history.

        He pretends that President Obama did not extend the Bush policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        So, he stops attributing monies going toward those enterprises.  Obama could have shut down those wars on day 1.  He didn't, so assign the costs since inauguration day to his policies.

        Next - the Bush tax cuts ended in 2010.  The tax cuts in place currently are Obama Tax Cuts, not Bush's.  He signed legislation putting them into place.  You cannot keep callng them Bush's tax cuts.  The Obama admin loves to keep calling them Bush's so he can skate free on the effects of his Obama Tax Cuts.  Sorry.. you cannot have it both ways.

        Next - You still cannot find the payroll tax?  Neither can I, though you take his explanation for granted that it must be in there somewhere!

        But here's the kicker:

        Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.
        The Budget Control Act saved $21 Billion in 2012 spending.  $21 Billion!  That is all you can attribute to Obama, because the other spending cuts have not been enacted.  Overall, that act cut 900 Billion over ten years.. 90 billion per year on average!  I would argue they will never take place in a second Obama term.

        ACA?  What a joke.  From 2014 on this will cost more than that $100 billion per year!

        •  My apologies. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          I did not realize you were illiterate.  You must be because if you were not, you would plainly see that the extension of the Bush tax cuts are counted against Obama.  

          The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

          by mikepridmore on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:36:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site