McCarthy Lives?

[moosetracker]

Agreed.. Our choice is between the less of two evils. Or, voting against who you hate more.

 

It is a choice of who has done little, against who has done nothing..

 

I have no idea why the Republicans choice a guy that even the Republican admit they dislike..

 

[TAHAWK]

"It is a choice of who has done little, against who has done nothing."

 

2008

[moosetracker]

I wasn't sure what you meant by 2008.. But it did trigger the memory that I am mistaken, After the Democrate Clinton year where we had a balanced budget (by a tax increase on the wealthy).. The Republicans left us in 2008 with a huge deficit, by removing those taxes from the rich..

 

If you are fighting for the Republicans, it is best for you to remember it is a risk to remind the voter about the Bush years..

[TAHAWK]

In 2008 we had a choice between Mac, who had done little, and Obama, who had done nothing. Too bad it didn't stay that way.

 

The official deficit in the last Shrub fiscal year year was, in fact, a disgusting $161 billion (Congressional Budget Office)

 

Wanna' talk about Obama's deficits?

 

USA Tday pronounced a plague on both parties:

 

"The typical American household would have paid nearly all of its income in taxes last year [2011] to balance the budget if the government used standard accounting rules [GAAP] to compute the deficit, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

 

 

Under those [GAAP] accounting practices, the government ran red ink last year equal to $42,054 per household nearly four times the official number reported under unique rules set by Congress.

 

A U.S. household's median income is $49,445, the Census reports.

 

The big difference between the official deficit and standard accounting: Congress exempts itself from including the cost of promised retirement benefits. Yet companies, states and local governments must include retirement commitments in financial statements, as required by federal law and private boards that set accounting rules.

 

The deficit was $5 trillion last year under those rules. The official number was $1.3 trillion. Liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other retirement programs rose by $3.7 trillion in 2011, according to government actuaries, but the amount was not registered on the government's books.

 

 

 

Key findings:

 

Social Security had the biggest financial slide. The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover. That's $9.5 trillion more than was needed in 2004.

 

Deficits from 2004 to 2011 would be six times the official total of $5.6 trillion reported.

 

Federal debt and retiree commitments equal $561,254 per household. By contrast, an average household owes a combined $116,057 for mortgages, car loans and other debts.

 

"By law, the federal government can't tell the truth," says accountant Sheila Weinberg of the Chicago-based Institute for Truth in Accounting."

 

Lies, damned lies, and politicians.

 

 

[moosetracker]

Oh I agree Obama should have gone back to the Clinton tax format as soon as he could, it was working..

 

I don't even care if that meant everyone went back to the old tax rate.. But, if I had to choose raising taxes on the middle class and allowing the wealthy more tax breaks (in a hope they might throw us a bone), or the wealthy getting the tax raise, then the wealthy should have gotten the tax raise.

 

He should have not waited to the end of his term to do this.

 

I don't get into the nitpicky of the budget, but I know the Republicans show one chart that says Obama raised the taxes, The Democrats shows a chart which shows the deficit didn't get better, but it didn't get worse. I know part of that is a debate of what costs were still being charged in 2009 due to contracts Bush set up, that couldn't be killed (People frown if you are half through building you a plane or ship and you say "I changed my mind).. I am sure though Democrats credited some of their own charges to the Bush era, and it wasn't his.. But, somewhere in the middle of that argument is the truth. Bushes deficit is higher then the Republicans chart, but Obama did add some (but I am confident not as much or more then Bush did..)

[TAHAWK]

Sources of numbers to support your loyalty?

[moosetracker]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

[TAHAWK]

The New Republic Blog from the N.Y. Times from a left-wing blog. That's about as reliable as Fatso.

 

Not sure why you cited CBS, but thanks:

 

"(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

 

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

 

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

 

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

 

Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

 

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

 

Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.

 

Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now.

 

As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it."

 

His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.

 

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

[moosetracker]

You simply asked for proof that the Democrats have a different interpretation on who the deficit belongs to, as if I made it up.. You did not tell me you had to approve of the place I gave you the chart from.. How about the wallstreet Journel?

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22

 

Here is the speech obama gave with this arguement.. Very well known speech, regardless of what side you are on. In fact the whole debate is very well known.. The fact you do not know about the Democrats version of how things came to be just proves you came to your choice of which side to vote fore, without listening to any debates, or have only listening on occasion to one sided news and really don't wish to hear both arguements.

 

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/obama-debt-deficits-were-baked-into-the-cake-125978.html

 

 

Personally, the war does belong to Bush and Obama couldn't turn it off like a faucet. Although claimed he would when he ran for office.. But then Romney is guilty of the same impossible claims as to what he can do on day one of his presidency.. As if he will not have to work with Congress, but will run his own dictatorship.

 

The first year of the stimulus package I will also give to Bush, Kind of hard to walk in mid-November to Presidency and get rid of the stimulous package for the 2008 tax year. But by the 2009 tax year the stimulus package should have been removed..

 

Arguing it is a tax raise (on anyone) is about as stupid as people who do alot of overtime, get use to it and complain that their employer cut their pay when the overtime is cut. The reduction of the taxes is a temporary thing.. And a plan that did work, as all that happened was the wealthy hoarded their wealth.

 

When it ends, it ends.. One thing proven, it did not work.. Who is proposing to continue with it? Not Obama, but Romney.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[TAHAWK]

Moose, I could have been clearer. I wanted evidence that Bush, whose deficit his last year was a fraction of Obama's average deficit, was actually responsible for the deficits in the Obama years. I didn't say you made it up. But if it makes you happier, go for it.

 

So your first article says the spending spree started before Obama. That's only half-truth. It started before the Shrub before the Bush and before Brother Jimmie. Congress started dipping into Social Security to meet current expenses under The Trick, and now all we have are thew IOU's - no actual funds in the Trust Fund. The G has been spending like drunken sailors (Sorry drunken sailors.) for almost all my life - D's, R's, and whatever.

 

So your article says Obama wanted to make it worse but the House frustrated him Good. "By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate."

 

I want government that works to prevent my grand-kids from facing an ever-increasing, economy-crushing mountain of debt. Do I trust Romney to lead in that direction? No. Could I be sane and think Obama wants to go in that direction? Hell no! Read the article you cited, or is it only good for what you wish to believe?

 

As for any President running over Congress, that's been tried -- and recently. Does not seem to have worked or be working.

 

Tax cuts temporary? Absolutely. It all property belongs to the G, they tell us how much we can keep. It's all for the general good, even if some are more equal than others.

[moosetracker]

Well someone started being responsible when the deficit started improving in Bush Sr. Term, and became Balanced in Clintons term.. Hmm.. pluses for one Republican and one Democrat.. And if you were born after 2001 you are very young like 11 or younger.. So, sorry you are doing great keeping abreast of the news, but you are too young to vote.

 

Honestly the info about the chart and Obama's speech and the debate back and forth about who was responsible for what between the two parties was weeks ago that I saw it.. I could not refind the exact thing I saw, I just knew if I went looking for a chart on it, I would find it, as it wasn't a single small minute hard to find article.. It was a big brew-ha-ha of bickering for a while. So I found a chart and pulled it.

 

But, your right otherwise.. Except for these two presidents, most Democrats and Republicans spend us into debt.

 

So now we have what both parties wanting to spend again.. And really the government cannot fire everyone, because with more millions out of work, the economy will get worse.. So what to slash and what not to slash..

 

Republicans want to approve a bill for spending as much in defense in the next few years as we did in the past 8 while we were now pulling out of the war (the difference between what the Senate wants (Dem.) and the house wants (Rep.) is the Republicans wants to spend 3 billion More in defense then the Democrats.. Democrats want to spend on small business and construction like roads. Hmmm.. more bombs (another thousand missiles, pointed at Iran because the first 20 thousand are not enough..) Or road construction, for bridges that are dangerously in need of repair.. And small business aide so that we can support those who will hire others (because I trust the small business owner over the billionaires)..

 

Both are going to spend, trying to dig us out of the hole..If we have to spend, in order to keep people employed, whose plan is a wiser smarter plan? For me, its the Democrates.. Now give me some sane, responsible Republicans that can keep the Democrats in check, but not hold the whole country hostage. If not, then I still want the bridges more then I want the overstock on ammunition, if I end up with all Democrate.. I just may get a bunch of other stuff I may not want also, but it is a higher possibility the thing I don't want may be something I could utilize, rather then spending to pamper the wealthy and stock pile bombs, missles, tanks and war planes..