They are incredibly stupid and believe any lies Obama says, no matter how big they are.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Gamecock on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- dearieme on COP29 Preview
- Greg in NZ on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on A Giant Eyesore
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
- arn on UK Labour To Save The Planet
- Tel on UK Labour To Save The Planet
If the deficit has been reduced, why did the federal debt go up $1.1 trillion last year. Don’t believe me, go out to:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Odd, but the first time I visited above link, I got the report just fine, but subsequent times now fail. In any case I do believe wayback machine has snagged a copy at
https://web.archive.org/web/20150211210311/https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Deficits turn into debts.
Obviously.
Hitler didn’t smoke.
Yeah, but did he play golf?
Hitler used mind-numbing drugs. So did Obama. I expect this explains why Obama learned so little that is right and so much that is wrong.
It’s a cult, which then logically leads one to focussing on swaying “independents” and that has its pitfalls also because you get into a trap of a political class in the same tent that want to monopolise the stage to tell you how to argue so as not to offend “independents” in the mushy centre. It’s such people supposed to be in the same tent that are the biggest problem, they marginalise the fighters, the ones with real substance, resulting in “pale pastels” instead of “bold colours”, hardly something that stands out as an obvious better alternative, just progressive-lite.
I think you misspelled “Kenyan” in your chart 🙂
Since I do not know you, you may be joking. On the other hand, the chart is referring to an economic viewpoint attributed to Lord Keynes.
Steve O is refering to the Republic of Kenya where the Obama’s brother is working for the Muslim Brotherhood.
This is an old report however more recent information has been reported.
August 19, 2013
MORE from Front Page Magazine
That brother (Malik Obama), also got an IRS exemption for a fraud organization.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2013/05/21/tax-exempt-charity-of-obamas-half-brother-is-a-complete-fraud/
Charles. Please tell me YOU were joking. I think that it was pretty obvious that SteveO was joking. Given Obama’s connection to Kenya. And the libs obsession with Keynesian economics.
Please say it ain’t so. I defend Americans when Europeans and Brits point out that Americans have absolutely no sense of irony or sarcasm. Or for that matter humor (or humour).
You case is going to be difficult though I can always point out the cleverness of SteveO’s quip (one of the smartest I’ve seen in a while) in defence.
Tax the wealthy….smart.
Who do they think builds the shopping malls, opens businesses, builds industry, subdivides land…? Certainly not Mr average income.
Excessive tax on this income class throttles back the economy and growth.
Hell, they may just take their resources and move away.
they don’t care, it’s a jealousy tax they are after to punish the more successful people. Punishing better people, more skilled people, more intelligent people, is what liberalism is all about.
OT, but stpaulchuck, you have an absolutely awesome avatar 🙂
thanks [sorry for the late response, was getting some honey-do items done]
When the state of Maryland increased its income tax on high income persons, that is exactly what they did. Enough moved away that the income tax collected from this high income group actually dropped.
————–
“Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around the table like it won.”
http://stateofthenation2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/13396131-large.jpeg
The Little Dick has grown the economy so rapidly that 92,000,000 Americans can’t find a job.
Funny, and even if that figure does not count the @ 80 million baby boomers 55+, there are still 12 million people out of work. This guy is in so-far over his head…..
Thanks for allowing me to share (not preach) what I discovered about dealing with progressives.
Progressive group-thinking, their tinkering(s), their ad hominen attacks, their use of Reductio ad Absurdum, their demagoging, their errors, their coercion politics, their memes (pro-choice) and their other mistakes must be factored-in just like any other variable; as they are just as much of a reality in an equation as any other carbon compound (no pun) would be.
If a decision-making process was a metaphorical highway that generally leads to and from the primary destination; then there could also be any number of emotional off-ramps (other than for fuel or food) for us all to consider or to take. I noticed that progressives seem to take these emotional exits much-sooner than conservatives. I also think that progressives tend to make the entire journey about an emotive off-ramp (a tangential thought process); failing to get back to the original destination. Progressives seem to be easily-distracted (perhaps lured) off the highway by emotive language, metaphors, examples, and/or illustrations.
Keynesian monetary policies (particularly where corporate hedging profits from) are certainly fueled by emotion, as they attempt to circumvent the natural order of highs and lows in order to give the appearance of financial equality (Obama phones).
Financial equality: Take ALL THE MONEY from the rich; distribute it ALL to the poor and the original amount of money (if not more) will end up back into the hands of the rich in 6 to 18 months.
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Keynes-Went-Wrong-Governments/dp/1604190442#
Excellent book. I’ve given a number of them away.
For the most part your comment is accurate. The average persons ability to understand how to spend, save, earn, and invest their money is very very poor. Hence why you can take 10 people earning the same amount of money and only 1 of them has anything in savings.
However, there are cases where opportunity for self improvement is just nonexistent. It’s everywhere in places like China and India, where someone can work 18 hours a day 7 days a week and barely feed a small family beans and rice, but, it does exist in the US too.
It does not exist in the USA… or rather. it exists… only if you are unwilling/unable to move. And as long as you don’t start a family too soon…. I don’t know who is actually unable to move.
You can’t start a family too soon if you actually start a family. A married couple can navigate through education just fine and actually do better after marriage than before. Been there, done that. Watched others do it.
Darn. I want to post an image. How do I do that?
I believe you post the link to the picture, can’t upload it from your PC, has to be hosted at a site somewhere. If I’m wrong, someone can correct me.
http://catholiclane.com/wp-content/uploads/Federal-Debt-Interest-2014.jpg
That did it. Thanks.
@ Lane: unfortunately your image suggests that the US Government (as opposed to the US taxpayers) has paid copious amounts of interest on US debt, and is thus a little misleading.
The TRUTH About Who Really Owns All Of America’s Debt
Hhhmmm…. I will consider that for the next version. Thanks.
About 170,000 metric tonnes of gold have been mined in the history of the world. This is about 5.6 billion troy oz of gold. At today’s price of $1229/troy oz, this amounts to $6.9 trillion. (sources: wikipedia-gold, http://demonocracy.info/infographics/world/gold/gold.html, and http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-20/putting-it-perspective-2013-fed-will-conjure-enough-paper-money-buy-11-all-existing-)
The US debt on January 31, 2015 stood at $18.08 trillion. The debt on January 31, 2009 was $10.63 trillion. The difference: $7.45 trillion. (sources: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2015/opds012015.prn; http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2009/opds012009.prn)
So, listen carefully here … All the gold in the world couldn’t pay off the INCREASE in the US debt since President Obama took office six years ago.
[i]All the gold in the world couldn’t pay off the INCREASE in the US debt since President Obama took office six years ago.[/i]
Personally, I’m hedging on a Francium-backed currency.
Shocking stupidity:
21% of Americans think Obama should be on Mt Rushmore.
But to be fair, they think he should be “staked out” on Mt Rushmore, “covered in honey, and left to the ants”.
That’s what the other 79% want.
We live in strange times, marked by increased public anxiety and loss of faith in world leaders.
Unfortunately, present world leaders may be unable to comprehend that the “powder keg of discontent” cannot be quieted by more deception.
Syd had nothing else to say?
The economy is positively driven by sentiment and severely hindered by “fundamental transformations”.
This administration seems to be frustrated that their plan could take another year or two!
Don’t get me wrong when I say this as I am not an Obama supporter by any means,
1. The 2009 deficit was approved under Bush.
2. The 2001 surplus was approved under Clinton.
3. Obama started with a 1.4 trillion deficit and has brought it back down to 490 billion.
4. Bush started with a a surplus and turned it into a trillion dollar deficit, 2/3 of which appear to have been due to the housing scam.
5. Obama continued the Bush policy of bailing out the banks by following the advice of Time’s man of the year, Bernanke.
I think people really need to evaluate the numbers because the budgets are approved by congress for the following fiscal year, hence, our 2015 budget was approved for the most part in 2014.
And if you really look into it, you really need to check to see which party is really “fiscally conservative”. Going back to Regan, the only people who have made large deficit cuts instead of large deficit increases have been Clinton and Obama.
In the past 75 years, we’ve only had 12 budget surpluses. I recognize that Clintons “surpluses” still borrowed from social security, but he would otherwise count for 1/3 of those surpluses.
Being fiscally conservative doesn’t mean spending trillions of dollars on war or having military bases in almost 100 countries.
Being fiscally conservative doesn’t mean spending trillions of dollars bailing out big banks – a large portion of which went to pad their profits.
Being fiscally conservative means not letting the military industrial complex gouge us for trillions of dollars when it takes China or Russia 1/10th of the cost – this is part of why the USSR collapsed to begin with. It also means not setting up new agencies that cost hundreds of billions of dollars to run each year.
And I forgot to say. To clear things up: the answer to our problems will not be found in a Democrat and it will not be found in a Republican.
Raindog, Obama approved the bailout to the banks. The housing crisis was created by both parties, but primarily democrats. For some two decades the Dems controlled the senate finance committee. Eight times Bush tried to rain in their policies of easy money, NINJA loans etc. Fannie and Freddie, under democratic supervision put together the early Mortgage backed security packages, leveraging debt to astronomical levels, and forced the banks to follow suit. Clinton with Janet Reno sued the banks about 10 times to force them to make insane loans. .Obama, as an attorney participated in red lining lawsuits against the banks, directly contributing to the crisis.
Clintons cuts were made and forced by a republican majority. It was not an actual surplus either. Regan made the foolish mistake of trusting democrats to live up to their word regarding spending, and at least his military spending forced the collapse of the USSR. At least he accomplished something with the deficits then. Obama’s spending has and will decrease the quality of medical care tremendously, and cost millions their jobs and or fulltime employment.
His foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster for the US, and the world. If he had gotten his way the Muslim Brotherhood would have authority in Egypt. The EPA is a runaway train wreck under Obama. Obama has asked for far more spending then he has received, and he continued the trillion dollar deficits, which he voted for, on his own well past the initial bail out.
The only thing keeping the US going is the remnants of their capitalistic free enterprise foundation, and the incredible weak statist policies of the rest of the world, allowing the US to win a least ugly contest, soon to be lost when the US dollar is no longer the currency of international trade. (This is happening now, and will continue in steps)
t will take twenty years to recover from Obama, if we do.
Actually Bush publicly called for reform 17 times before Congress acted.
TARP was a one time loan intended to be paid back and should have counted as a credit the next year. Obama did a $1 trillion stimulus bill in February 2009. Your argument is absurd.
When George Bush took office following Clinton, there was a “pseudo” surplus. But at the time the economy was going south fast. Using the metrics that saddled Bush with the 2009 recession would have meant that Clinton was responsible for the recession that Bush was held responsible for. As usual, the Democrats controlled the administrative offices and were able to rewrite how recessions were defined prior to Obama taking office. You can look at the surplus’s under Clinton and see how he inherited a healthy economy and got credit for the dotcom economy. The stock market took a hit under Clinton his last year in office when the European courts determined that Microsoft was in violation of some of their business policies. Once that court decision was made public, the stock market started diving had a hard time recovering.
From Wikipedia:
So in other words, Obama had every opportunity to veto that if he wanted to.
He also could have blocked TARP payments and of course the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was all Democrat, so Obama has no one to blame but himself.
Well, the one actual purpose that the Federal Government has is to defend the borders. When I say “defend” that does not mean invade the Middle East, which was an act of aggression and nothing to do with defense.
By the way, China and Russia basically spend money to defend themselves (not dollar-for-dollar comparable with the USA because labour is cheaper). The USA has troops defending many other contries (e.g. Japan and Germany) which costs a lot extra. Whether that helps world peace is a difficult thing to say, but one way or another someone has to pay for it. I think the USA has done OK out of printing greenbacks and having them accepted as the “world reserve” currency, and continues to do OK.
I accept that the cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan pretty much were something out of Obama’s control, they were a legacy of Bush for sure.
I probably should also point out that the 2009 budget came out of the 110th Congress which was had a Democrat Senate majority, and also a Democrat House majority.
Basically, the only thing Bush did for that budget was put in the initial request.
By my count, we protect Japan, Germany, (two of the wealthiest countries in the world), England, France, Poland, Spain, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, hmm, should I continue? None of those are within our borders, and most are very wealthy countries that we should see as freeloaders.
“A” budget was passed under Bush. But it didn’t run the full year, and it was nowhere near a $1.4 trillion deficit. That’s why there was an Omnibus spending bill that Obama signed in March 2009. Which famously had thousands of earmarks for billions of dollars in it. Both the Democrats and Bush took a chance on which party controlled the White House after the election, so they agreed to a partial year budget for much of the government.
TARP was added on top, but after the show grilling of bank CEO’s by the Democrats, the banks wanted to give it back right away. So it never fully funded and would have resulted in a lower deficit than forecast. The Treasury came up with their “stress tests” to force the banks to hold onto the TARP funds or else the large banks would probably have paid it back in 2009, which would have resulted in an even smaller deficit. Instead those funds came back in during following years, which helped those years.
The “stimulus” added hundreds of billions of dollars of spending to 2009 that wouldn’t have been there without it. The Omnibus spending bill added even a bit more of an increase on top. That’s why all these departments like the IRS and GSA blew money on seminars and training. They were given huge increases in their budget from a year prior.
Basically, even if you generously gave him a pass on the first trillion of the deficit, he’d have almost matched the prior record deficit just from his increased spending. In reality, he’s responsible for more with the stimulus and omnibus spending increases. If he had his way per his first budget, spending for 2014 would have been $4.1 trillion, and the deficit would still have been $1.1 trillion since tax receipts were $3.0 trillion. But after the House went back to Republicans in 2010, spending has stayed at about $3.5 trillion for 4 years. Have to go back to the 1950’s to find a similar 4 year string.
Well, we know that Bush was in favor of the bailouts. He also likely would have supported Bernanke’s advice for the stimulus as well. We also know that McCain was in favor of the Bailouts by his stopping his campaign to support it.
We can also ascertain that Romney would likely have supported some form of ACA (obama care) as the ACA is highly similar to what he supported in Mass, and he likely would have been in support of the bailouts as the President simply because he supports the Fed.
There was no “surplus” when Bush took office. It was a fictional construct of government accounting that would get any private sector accountant or CFO arrested. Budgeting for a 10% increase and “only” spending at a level for a 8% increase is considered having a “surplus” the way DC counts money. They then pretend that the 2% delta is “revenue” and put it in the right hand credit column as “income,” or even better, they “loan” it to themselves and count it for a third time even though it’s not real money… but since they run the printing press of our fiat currency they get away with it.
Raindog,
How could the deficit only be 490 billion, when the federal debt went up almost 1 trillion?
Ah, well let me know when we next have a fiscal year with only a $490000000000 increase in the debt.
See, now that is what is wrong with you and why they hate you.
You use facts. NOT FAIR!!!
Steve, you’re so off-base.
He can indeed be that stupid.
The Democrats took what was supposed to be a one-time emergency budget and used it to plunge the country into trillions more debt. The trick they used to was to fund the government using “continuing resolutions”. They took the emergency budget and used it as the template for all additional budgets for several years, which was improper. They used coercion to do this, forcing Republicans to pass a CR or have the government shut down.
Republicans should have taken the principled stand and allowed the government to shut down indefinitely until Obama and the Democrats passed a real budget.
I would also add that Obama’s Presidential budgets were defeated in the Democrat-run Senate by votes of 95-0 and 97-0. As reckless as the actual budgets were, Obama’s own budget proposals were far worse.
Maybe it is me, but it looks to me as if the two pictures are mixed up. Surely Regan should be in the frame with “cuts deficit in half” rather than “triples the deficit”.