Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: andreisdaman on September 01, 2015, 05:27:42 PM
-
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/budget-deficit-reach-seven-year-low
Just wanted to dispel the idiotic notion that Obama is a big spender and that our deficits are going up and up under his presidency.....if you look at the chart after you click the link, you'll see the deficit HAS ACTUALLY GONE DOWN LOWER AND LOWER FOR SIX YEARS STRAIGHT.... 8)
I just like to destroy all the stupid idiotic Obama haters whop have no idea what they are talking about
ENJOY HATERS!!!!
-
i
-
i
This is genius.....Good job.. 8) :D
-
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/budget-deficit-reach-seven-year-low
Just wanted to dispel the idiotic notion that Obama is a big spender and that our deficits are going up and up under his presidency.....if you look at the chart after you click the link, you'll see the deficit HAS ACTUALLY GONE DOWN LOWER AND LOWER FOR SIX YEARS STRAIGHT.... 8)
I just like to destroy all the stupid idiotic Obama haters whop have no idea what they are talking about
ENJOY HATERS!!!!
Obama is a fiscal responsible communist dictator.
-
Thanks to Republicans getting control of the House in 2010 and the ensuing sequester.
-
Thanks to Republicans getting control of the House in 2010 and the ensuing sequester.
NOT TRUE....getting us out of two wars and keeping us out of a third played a big part..and Obama agreed with the financial deal that resulted from the sequester....
so he gets credit as well..SORRY
-
Uh, yeah. http://www.usdebtclock.org
-
Uh, yeah. http://www.usdebtclock.org
Liberal math.
-
so we're matching cumulative against annual comparatives now?\
epic subtle change of direction.
(http://media2.giphy.com/media/HQfS5pz6xCANO/giphy.gif)
-
Liberal math.
Anything they can say to make themselves feel better about The Messiah.
-
Who was the last President who DIDN'T double the debt?
Go ahead... I'll wait.
-
Who was the last President who DIDN'T double the debt?
Go ahead... I'll wait.
You mean within the first 4 years?
-
You mean within the first 4 years?
No need to pick on Bush1 for only being a one-termer. He's still an American hero.
-
You mean within the first 4 years?
Period.
-
Again....look at the graph in the article.....end of story.....you Obama haters can make up anything you want...the graph and stats don't lie
Sorry to DESTROY you......AGAIN
-
No need to pick on Bush1 for only being a one-termer. He's still an American hero.
;)
-
Again....look at the graph in the article.....end of story.....you Obama haters can make up anything you want...the graph and stats don't lie
Sorry to DESTROY you......AGAIN
Just the fact you used MSNBC and that dude Rachel Maddow as a legit source immediately discredits anything you've ever said on here.
"Steve Benen/Maddow Blog" at the bottom of that graph...lollololol
-
Just the fact you used MSNBC and that dude Rachel Maddow as a legit source immediately discredits anything you've ever said on here.
"Steve Benen/Maddow Blog" at the bottom of that graph...lollololol
So if the source is Rachel Maddow then you assume it's false
Is that a fair assessment of your statement and belief?
-
Just the fact you used MSNBC and that dude Rachel Maddow as a legit source immediately discredits anything you've ever said on here.
"Steve Benen/Maddow Blog" at the bottom of that graph...lollololol
Rachel is well respected....and the graph appeared on her show......and is based on legit stats...go to the government page and it will say the same.....but then again, guys like you don't really care about facts
-
Rachel is well respected....and the graph appeared on her show......and is based on legit stats...go to the government page and it will say the same.....but then again, guys like you don't really care about facts
lol
-
lol
I rest my case
-
I rest my case
let's face it
This type of forum is the ONLY PLACE that people like our retarted phony coach even has a chance to pretend to be part of a political dialogue
He humiliates himself daily and then wipes the hard drive clean and comes back again for the same beating
In real life I suspect he only talks to people who share and echo is idiotic beliefs and just plain outright lies
-
let's face it
This type of forum is the ONLY PLACE that people like our retarted phony coach even has a chance to pretend to be part of a political dialogue
He humiliates himself daily and then wipes the hard drive clean and comes back again for the same beating
In real life I suspect he only talks to people who share and echo is idiotic beliefs and just plain outright lies
agreed X2
-
An MSNBC graph by Rachel Maddow then name calling and demonizing and nothing else. The way of the left. lol.
-
An MSNBC graph by Rachel Maddow then name calling and demonizing and nothing else. The way of the left. lol.
Hey phony coach.
Can't you answer a simple question
I'm just trying to understand the boundaries of your willful ignorance.
I already know your natural born ignorance is a bottomless pit
so again, If the source is Rachel Maddow then you assume it's false
Is that a fair assessment of your statement and belief?
-
Hey phony coach.
Can't you answer a simple question
I'm just trying to understand the boundaries of your willful ignorance.
I already know your natural born ignorance is a bottomless pit
so again, If the source is Rachel Maddow then you assume it's false
Is that a fair assessment of your statement and belief?
Oh fuck yes!! This is a known liar just like the rest of the left including yourself. You have a supposed "professor" (Andre) and supposed clown (you) that supposedly has a finance degree. Now I know you're calling me out and now you probably have some bullshit article you're going to cut and paste even though it's been proven that Oshithead delegates any numbers he wants to be skewed in his favor. You know, like the UE numbers, global warming and anything else that fits the left zero commonsense agenda. LOL at "phony coach" haha
The FACT is the left has lied so much they're never to be trusted that's why want votes from people like you who believe whatever they say. You know, the uninformed voter.
-
An MSNBC graph by Rachel Maddow then name calling and demonizing and nothing else. The way of the left. lol.
1) yes, maddow is a rude, crass, gotcha-style tv pundit, unlikeable and annoying as piss at times
2) yes, her info is well-sourced and often really good at detecting things others miss (like Beck does)
You discount ALL info from a PhD cause you dislike her politics. But do you still consider OReilly to be credible, despite all those documented lies?
-
1) yes, maddow is a rude, crass, gotcha-style tv pundit, unlikeable and annoying as piss at times
2) yes, her info is well-sourced and often really good at detecting things others miss (like Beck does)
You discount ALL info from a PhD cause you dislike her politics. But do you still consider OReilly to be credible, despite all those documented lies?
Last time I checked an election that neck predicted he was not only proven right but was dead fucking on and the proverbial "I told you so was in order".
-
Last time I checked an election that neck predicted he was not only proven right but was dead fucking on and the proverbial "I told you so was in order".
I don't know what you wrote there.
-
Oh fuck yes!! This is a known liar just like the rest of the left including yourself. You have a supposed "professor" (Andre) and supposed clown (you) that supposedly has a finance degree. Now I know you're calling me out and now you probably have some bullshit article you're going to cut and paste even though it's been proven that Oshithead delegates any numbers he wants to be skewed in his favor. You know, like the UE numbers, global warming and anything else that fits the left zero commonsense agenda. LOL at "phony coach" haha
The FACT is the left has lied so much their never to be trusted that's why want votes from people like you who believe whatever they say. You know, the uninformed voter.
I asked you a simple question dipshit and why you referring to me as Andre?
Third time's the charm?
If the source is Rachel Maddow then you assume it's false
Is that a fair assessment of your statement and belief?
-
I asked you a simple question dipshit and why you referring to me as Andre?
Third time's the charm?
If the source is Rachel Maddow then you assume it's false
Is that a fair assessment of your statement and belief?
What part of "OH FUCK YES" did you miss? Past my bed time. I'll pick this back up this weekend.
-
I think the wisest people in the world are the ones who listen to, and understand, the viewpoints of people of all belief systems. You don't have to AGREE with any of them - but it makes you a much smarter person to understand what makes them tick, as well as to see if they have anything you agree with.
even the ultra-evil have some points others will agree with. Repubs of today might agree with Hitler's desire for a strong military or to keep certain groups unarmed, as Dr Ben Carson has suggested.
-
What part of "OH FUCK YES" did you miss? Past my bed time. I'll pick this back up this weekend.
good, so now we know one of the boundaries (though perhaps not the outer boundary) of your willful ignorance
That chart was compiled by data from the CBO so is the data just discounted to zero when Maddow repeats it or is all CBO data just willfully ignored
Again, just trying to define the boundaries of your willful ignorance....to we push it out to CBO data as well?
-
data from the CBO
CBO become a liberal thinktank sometime around mid January, 2009.
-
Ouch....
http://www.usadebtclock.com/national-debt-facts.php
-
Ouch....
http://www.usadebtclock.com/national-debt-facts.php
ooh, the goofy usdebtclock site
Hey fake coach
tell us what you know about that site and it's source data
If it's from the CBO I may just want to call it horseshit...you know just to be consistent your prior beliefs.
If it's not even from a source like that then just tell us the source, who site it is, where their info is from etc.
I wouldn't have bothered to mention it but I know stuff like that is important to you
-
ooh, the goofy usdebtclock site
Hey fake coach
tell us what you know about that site and it's source data
If it's from the CBO I may just want to call it horseshit...you know just to be consistent your prior beliefs.
If it's not even from a source like that then just tell us the source, who site it is, where their info is from etc.
I wouldn't have bothered to mention it but I know stuff like that is important to you
Never EVER trust a liberal.....
http://i.word.com/idictionary/straw%20man
-
Ouch....
http://www.usadebtclock.com/national-debt-facts.php
you realize the difference between debt and deficit right? I mean the debt is not an accurate reflection of Obama's role, his deficits are however.
Do you understand this?
-
you realize the difference between debt and deficit right? I mean the debt is not an accurate reflection of Obama's role, his deficits are however.
Do you understand this?
He doesn't understand.......and in his mind every government statistic that is favorable to Obama has been manipulated and cooked up by Obama so as to make himself look good.....
BUT..when the UE rate was 10% and deficits rose under Obama's first year we heard no such accusation from Coach or the other conservatives on here..they were delighted and to them the figures were absolutely gospel
-
Never EVER trust a liberal.....
http://i.word.com/idictionary/straw%20man
how many times are you going to remind us that you don't understand that definition
let's get back to the content of your post
you posted that debtclock website so tell us what you know about that site and it's source data
If it's from the CBO I may just want to call it horseshit...you know just to be consistent your prior beliefs.
If it's not even from a source like that then just tell us the source, who site it is, where their info is from etc
I'm just trying to follow your standard
remember?
don't be a pathetic hypocrite Joe
just provide the data so that we can make the decision as to whether we should consider it or not
-
you realize the difference between debt and deficit right? I mean the debt is not an accurate reflection of Obama's role, his deficits are however.
Do you understand this?
I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that Joe doesn't know the difference between his elbow and his asshole
Even people on this board who consider him a friend also call him a moron
-
I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that Joe doesn't know the difference between his elbow and his asshole
Even people on this board who consider him a friend also call him a moron
Hahaha, whatever you say.
-
Maddow is a loon. Aside from Morning Joe, everything I've seen on MSNBC is very much "entertainment", and not news.
We should never run a deficit. Too bad that chart only goes back to 2008 and shows the deficit to only be shrinking since then and not "EVER" like the thread title says... ::)
Look back further and see that deficits in the last 7 years have been higher than any time since WW2. And this "recovery" has also been the worst since then.
And yes, before someone blames Bush, they were also going up under Bush.
But we should never run a deficit.
Here's something really scary: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S)
-
Hahaha, whatever you say.
so you can't even comply with your own standards
serious question
do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously or do you just know you're a pathetic joke and you just roll with that?
-
so you can't even comply with your own standards
serious question
do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously or do you just know you're a pathetic joke and you just roll with that?
You fucking idiot. By your standards you're basically saying that one has nothing to do the other. Is that what you're trying to say? I absolutely know the difference. So answer, do you think one has nothing to do with other?
-
You fucking idiot. By your standards you're basically saying that one has nothing to do the other. Is that what you're trying to say? I absolutely know the difference. So answer, do you think one has nothing to do with other?
Are you trying to get him to answer the question for you?
How is running record low deficits (meaning creating surplus) and reducing hte deficit at the fastest rate in history bad?
-
you realize the difference between debt and deficit right? I mean the debt is not an accurate reflection of Obama's role, his deficits are however.
Do you understand this?
O Rly? Then why did Obama call Bush unpatriotic for increasing the national debt?
-
O Rly? Then why did Obama call Bush unpatriotic for increasing the national debt?
Which meant he was running a hefty deficit.
-
Which meant he was running a hefty deficit.
But you said "the debt is not an accurate reflection of Obama's role," so why was Obama calling Bush unpatriotic over the debt?
-
But you said "the debt is not an accurate reflection of Obama's role," so why was Obama calling Bush unpatriotic over the debt?
bush invested the $ in iraqi infrastructure....at least obama is giving the $ to americans on welfare.
the billions 'lost' in iraq, just mind-numbingly idiotic.
-
You fucking idiot. By your standards you're basically saying that one has nothing to do the other. Is that what you're trying to say? I absolutely know the difference. So answer, do you think one has nothing to do with other?
I'm saying I gotta know the owner of that debtclock website and it's source of data (all data points)
if the sources are from places that I personally deem to be unnaceptable then I can just ingore them or say it's horseshit
You can totally understand that.....right?
That your own standard as defined on this thread
Surely you must remember that and agree that it's an acceptable way to decide what data to include or ignore when forming an opinion
right?
-
Maddow is a loon. Aside from Morning Joe, everything I've seen on MSNBC is very much "entertainment", and not news.
We should never run a deficit. Too bad that chart only goes back to 2008 and shows the deficit to only be shrinking since then and not "EVER" like the thread title says... ::)
Look back further and see that deficits in the last 7 years have been higher than any time since WW2. And this "recovery" has also been the worst since then.
And yes, before someone blames Bush, they were also going up under Bush.
But we should never run a deficit.
Here's something really scary: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S)
When I said lower than ever, I meant under Obama...I did add "7 year low".....
-
Are you trying to get him to answer the question for you?
How is running record low deficits (meaning creating surplus) and reducing hte deficit at the fastest rate in history bad?
We're not running record low deficits, we're not in a surplus, and the rate of reduction is not the fastest in history.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFSGDA188S (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFSGDA188S)
-
We're not running record low deficits, we're not in a surplus, and the rate of reduction is not the fastest in history.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFSGDA188S (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFSGDA188S)
please clarify your statement
Here's the graph in your link
The deficit is going down (approaching zero as a % of GDP)
No one ever said we're in a surplus at the moment (note the last surplus was toward the end of the Clinton Administration and then it dived into a deep deficit under that fiscially responsible Republican POTUS who's name I can't recall)
-
ooh, the goofy usdebtclock site
Hey fake coach
tell us what you know about that site and it's source data
If it's from the CBO I may just want to call it horseshit...you know just to be consistent your prior beliefs.
If it's not even from a source like that then just tell us the source, who site it is, where their info is from etc.
I wouldn't have bothered to mention it but I know stuff like that is important to you
There are a couple similar websites that have these national "debt clocks" on them. Some of them don't list a source, but for those that do, it looks like they get their data from the US Treasury, which typically reports it daily (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current). Then they can just use the budget deficit, as well as outlook provided by the government on future debt levels, to determine how fast to increase it on their clock. It isn't actually going up at the exact rate shown on the clock, they just normalize the data over time based on the estimated increase. See below for an explanation:
What determines the speed of the clock?
Some days the debt actually goes down, and others it goes up extra fast. Since no one knows what it will do on any given day we just show it increasing at its average rate, because that’s the best guess. But what average rate?
The Office of Management and Budget at the White House predicts the “Gross Federal Debt” for the next few years. At the end of the fiscal year 2005, (Sept. 30 2005) they list the debt at $8,031.4 billion. They predict it will be $676 billion higher at the end of the next fiscal year. That is the average rate of increase per year assumed by the clock.
-
And the budget deficit has definitely gone down over the past several years; this can be verified from pretty much any source. Now people can certainly argue whether the Republican controlled Congress or President Obama are more responsible for the shrinking deficits, but I don't see how anyone can actually try to claim that the deficit hasn't shrunk.
-
The shrinking of the deficit - just like the "Clinton surpluses" - are mostly the result of clever accounting tricks. Our debt is still through the roof, don't you worry ;D
-
The shrinking of the deficit - just like the "Clinton surpluses" - are mostly the result of clever accounting tricks. Our debt is still through the roof, don't you worry ;D
What would those "clever accounting tricks" be? Anytime economists make a change in terms of methodology, it is always applied to prior data retroactively. So any changes in how the data is collected or presented would reflect back in time in order to normalize the data so that comparative analysis can still be done.
-
Economists usually look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP, rather than just looking at the raw numbers. There is nothing wrong with running a defecit, so long as your economy is growing and can support it. Usually anything around 3% or less would be considered optimal. This first chart shows the deficit as a percentage of GDP under Bush (2001-2009), and the second shows it under Obama (although it only goes through 2014). These are custom charts from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The numbers are negative because we are in a deficit; for a surplus, they would be positive.
-
What would those "clever accounting tricks" be? Anytime economists make a change in terms of methodology, it is always applied to prior data retroactively. So any changes in how the data is collected or presented would reflect back in time in order to normalize the data so that comparative analysis can still be done.
You might want to investigate the difference between public debt and what is referred to as "intra-government" debt (that is, when the government essentially borrows money from itself) and how that relates to the numbers being reported vis-à-vis deficits and surpluses.
I am currently on an iPhone and don't have the numbers right in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet that for every year where there was a "surplus" reported under Clinton, the intra-government debt for that year when up by about as much as the claimed surplus as the Government borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. Whoever said that social security wasn't useful? It's all kinds of useful when you want to do accounting tricks! And silly ole Al Gore wanted to put the funds in a lock box...
-
There are a couple similar websites that have these national "debt clocks" on them. Some of them don't list a source, but for those that do, it looks like they get their data from the US Treasury, which typically reports it daily (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current). Then they can just use the budget deficit, as well as outlook provided by the government on future debt levels, to determine how fast to increase it on their clock. It isn't actually going up at the exact rate shown on the clock, they just normalize the data over time based on the estimated increase. See below for an explanation:
What determines the speed of the clock?
Some days the debt actually goes down, and others it goes up extra fast. Since no one knows what it will do on any given day we just show it increasing at its average rate, because that’s the best guess. But what average rate?
The Office of Management and Budget at the White House predicts the “Gross Federal Debt” for the next few years. At the end of the fiscal year 2005, (Sept. 30 2005) they list the debt at $8,031.4 billion. They predict it will be $676 billion higher at the end of the next fiscal year. That is the average rate of increase per year assumed by the clock.
Good read....thanks
-
You might want to investigate the difference between public debt and what is referred to as "intra-government" debt (that is, when the government essentially borrows money from itself) and how that relates to the numbers being reported vis-à-vis deficits and surpluses.
I am currently on an iPhone and don't have the numbers right in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet that for every year where there was a "surplus" reported under Clinton, the intra-government debt for that year when up by about as much as the claimed surplus as the Government borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. Whoever said that social security wasn't useful? It's all kinds of useful when you want to do accounting tricks! And silly ole Al Gore wanted to put the funds in a lock box...
thanks for the info
-
You might want to investigate the difference between public debt and what is referred to as "intra-government" debt (that is, when the government essentially borrows money from itself) and how that relates to the numbers being reported vis-à-vis deficits and surpluses.
I am currently on an iPhone and don't have the numbers right in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet that for every year where there was a "surplus" reported under Clinton, the intra-government debt for that year when up by about as much as the claimed surplus as the Government borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. Whoever said that social security wasn't useful? It's all kinds of useful when you want to do accounting tricks! And silly ole Al Gore wanted to put the funds in a lock box...
Intragovernmental debt is currently about $5 trillion and is included in the $18 trillion number that you hear about in the news and see on these debt clock websites. However, people do sometimes make the argument that we should only worry about the public debt, which is currently about $13 trillion, on the grounds that intragovernmental debt is basically money that we owe to ourselves. Anyway, here is a chart showing the breakdown of public vs. intragovernmental debt as of Aug. 31, 2015. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2015/opds082015.pdf
If you look at the document I linked to below, you will see that intragovernmental debt has increased at a fairly stable rate over the past several decades (it is the column that says "held by federal government accounts").
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2016-TAB/xls/BUDGET-2016-TAB-8-1.xls
But even if you did have a large increase in intragovernmental debt, that shouldn't have an effect on the deficit/surplus, as this is just looking at total cash receipts minus total cash outlays. So for example, let's say the government borrows $500 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for an infrastructure project. That $500 billion cash outlay that goes toward that project will be recorded the same, regardless of whether it was funded with public debt or by borrowing from Social Security. The cash received from the debt, as well as the principal repayments on debt don't factor into the deficit calculation, only the interest expense. Therefore, the basic accounting shouldn't change regardless of the type of debt that is used to finance the deficit.