Best
166 Comments
Post
  • #11
    !
    it's racist to even put Obama on that graph. he's had absolutely nothing to do with the deficit in this country.. it's all been Bush's fault in fact Obama is an innocent bystander.
  • #14
    !
    Exactly it's not like he is the president and can do anything about the economy! He has bigger fish to fry like outlawing guns so us crazy Christian white males are such a danger to the NWO! Or making it legal for men to marry men. Or making it so every illegal can have free healthcare, free college educations, and voting rights! Much bigger fish to try than to worry about the economy!!!
  • #47
    !
    I think the point from the beginning has been that the high deficit was Bush's and that Obama had not only not raised the deficit since the Bush years, but had been shrinking it.
  • #69
    !
    @Saving_USA no the point is to try to mislead people into thinking that Obamacare is not going to triple the deficit. show me the graph 3 years from now. this graph does not take into account the trillions of dollars that the unaffordable health care tax is going to add to the deficit of the future
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    !
    It looks good, but the known future deficit is immense. The reason the deficit appears to be falling is the way ACA was written. Right now we are going to be collecting revenue for future services to be rendered. When we are scheduled to perform services the deficit will sky rocket. In addition, the calculations assume that young people will buy overly expensive insurance instead of opting out for a small penalty. The calculations ignore that. This is an illustration that there are 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
  • #15
    !
    Exactly. This graph is the equivalent of you taking 10k in credit card debt, opening a new credit card with a 0% interest fee for 2 years and saying you are decreasing your debt. When in reality you are just going to have the same debt if not more when the 2 years are over.

    ACA is a ticking time bomb and Obama knows it hence why he is kicking it down the road until after the midterm elections so his cronies won't have to pay for the sins of their father.
  • #22
    !
    Correct, it's as if we all bought a house, paid for it for 4 or more years before moving in. Now, what rational person who do that? But that's exactly how Obamacare was structured, pay for it in advance, make the numbers look good to the public and only worry about it now that the public is beginning to see that the man behind the curtain sold them a false bill of goods, all smoke and mirrors.
  • #32
    !
    Here's how the article should've read without the left wing slant -

    "Woohoo: Finally some good news about America's deficit?

    Jul. 9, 2013 11:02 am Meredith Jessup

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced Monday that this year's deficit will shrink to a mere $759 billion! Isn't that good news?!

    Well, "good" is a relative term...

    NRO's Jim Geraghty offers some context for this figure:


    Looking at the inflation-adjusted numbers for our annual deficit, year by year ...$500 billion used to be considered a really big annual deficit. We hit that in 2004; unadjusted for inflation, it came in at $413 billion. Back in 1991, the year's deficit came in at $453 billion. So a half a trillion was the pre-Obama all-time high.

    Now look at the Obama era:


    2009:$1.5 trillion

    2010:$1.36 trillion

    2011:$1.32 trillion

    2012:$1.1 trillion

    In other words, Obama's best year is 50 percent worse than it's ever been before.

    Uh, well done...?"

    http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/07/09/wooho...
  • #70
    !
    @No_Bama excellent post

    People get fixated on the deficit, but it is the national debt that is destroying us. The deficit interest rate is manipulated by the Federal Reserve Board to look artificially low, but sooner or later the bill comes due.

    We need to run a big *surplus* for 15-20 years in the 21st Century economy to clear the debt.
  • #75
    !
    @PolitixMary How about doing an article on the FACT that it was the ProgressiveProgressive Democrats and their monetary policies that put America in this financial mess in the first place. 1-Wilson= Federal Reserve Act, created fiat currency. 2-Carter= Community Reinvestment Act, forced banks to make bad loans. 4-Clinton=Banking & Commodities deregulation act of '99 & '00
  • #76
    !
    @No_Bama Talk about slant and then quote The Blaze! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! LOOK! MY PROPAGANDA IS BETTER!

    There was no slant to this article, FACTS are not slanted in a political fashion because they show how Bush destroyed our country and it takes time to correct the incredible mess HE made.
  • R Load more replies

  • #18
    !
    It's good it's going down, but one small thing left out of this article was that a record amount of cap. gains was taken in 2012 leading to a higher than expected tax revenue for 2013 revenues. The CBO, in turn, now projects the same for next year when in all likelihood it will be lower. But any drop is better than nothing, now if we could just get our growth higher than 1.7%.
  • #44
    !
    Good morning Tralee. Good argument. We got more in capital gains taxes than expected. That sure is bad news NOT. Under Bush we didn't have this problem because very few people had capital gains other than bankruptcy lawyers! HAHAHAHAHA.
  • #83
    !
    @PNWest Gee, lover of putting words in my post, just when did I say it was bad? Didn't, but take a gander at the graph again, just when did the deficit start to get so big and just who controlled both the senate and the house at the time? Just who argued, successfully (if one can use that word to describe that fiasco) that Fannie and Freddie were just fine, sure didn't need any oversight? Hint, both answers are the same and both start with the letter D. And just how great is our growth again? Have we ever, really without any corrections, gotten over the sad and anemic 2%? Not in the mood today for this.
  • #85
    !
    @PNWest Just caught the last bit, really? Hmmph, seems to me a ton of us, my family and I included, took lots of cap. gains under Bush, we took about a million to build and furnish a vacation home (along with at least 40 others just here in this little gated community in SC) since the tax was so low. Why do you think so many took them LAST year (us again too - 1/2 mill. renovation of perm. home to pay for) while the rate was lower? Really, this concept isn't rocket science. Take your money when you pay less taxes on it, sit on the gains and let them grow when the tax is high.
  • #89
    !
    @Tralee Don't make exucese for Bush. Under Bush the stock market went down rough;ly 25%. Under Obama it has about doubled. The sub-prime mess happened because Bush and the GOP feel that business can regulate itself. None of this would have happened had Bush and company been keeping any eye on these banksters and the sub-prime mortgage scams.
  • #91
    !
    @Tralee If you captured any capital gains under Bush you were extremely lucky. Under his horrible administration the stock market lost roughly 25%. The worst performance since the great depression (which was also caused by GOP laissez faire policies).
  • R Load more replies

  • #72
    !
    Let me have a stab at that:
    1. Obama = 4 x Bush
    2. We need to get Monica back into the White house quick!
    3. 9 million jobs lost over a decade doesn't look so bad on a bar chart
    4. Well at least Obama isn't starting a war in Syria considering our economic situation.
    5. Is that 2013 bar projected or YTD?

    Good thing its just spin though! Would be pretty upset if this were real.
  • #140
    !
    Whether conservatives like it or not, the deficit has been falling. Something is working. Conservatives can bitch and whine and say these numbers are lies, but, regardless what they think, fact is: deficit is falling.

    We all should be happy about that.
  • #147
    !
    @Starsplash - Just a clarifier. The annual deficit has been reduced since a high in 2009 to almost Bush's average. In other words, we are still moving in the wrong direction but not as fast.
  • #67
    !
    @politixmary, could we get an Aleve badge for all those people straining themselves to find a downside to this news?:-)
  • #65
    !
    If, as you say, the sequester is responsible for the deficit decrease, how do you account for the reductions in years prior to the sequester's initiation in March of this year?
  • #71
    !
    @DARSB

    I don't. The sequester isn't the only aspect at work. However the drop from '12 to '13 is larger than previous reductions. I have to think the spending reductions in the sequester had something to do with that.
  • #12
    !
    Yeah right to be a whole lot easier to pay for the bush /Obama wars without the added burden of the unaffordable Obama tax/ Healthcare scam
  • #19
    !
    You should be reported for vile language. CAn you not make even one comment without calling names? You are thisclose (as if you could care) to being blocked by me for lack of content and abundance of foul language.
  • R Load more replies

  • #62
    !
    Thank God for gridlock and sequestration! Just like the Clinton-Newt era slowed Dem desires to expand federal spending.
    Except for looming two-winged albatross of Obamacare and Immigration Amnesty, the jobs and economy situation would resemble the '90s again today.
    Shame on one party rule of Obama-Pelosi era!!
    Shame in those protesting gridlock today!!
  • #59
    !
    Don't think Obama ... think the Tea Party! Remember Obama wanted another trillion dollar round of failed stimulus spending! Now if we could just stop the Federal Reserve from printing money and systematically destroying the value of the dollar!
  • #50
    !
    It's good, but the job won't be done until we start paying down the debt, even if only a little.

    And we need to find a way to do it that doesn't screw the poor or the environment.
  • #46
    !
    @PolitixMary Thank you for the great reporting on this story and for the story suggestion credit to yours truly. You dug up quite a bit more good info on this. And I give you special props for the picture used of GW Bush on the graph. It catches his best simian qualities. There is nothing I like more than waking up in the morning and seeing a story like this and the righties flailing about. The sky is bluer, the birds are sing more sweetly and my coffee tastes great. Thanks for starting my Monday morning off so nicely.
  • #16
    !
    Oh yeah, and we all know how trustworthy and credible "facts" [sic] coming from WhiteHouse.gov are. Again @PolitixMary, why not just start basing your articles on stories from Weekly World News and The National Enquirer while you're at it?
  • #25
    Managing Editor
    !
    @No_Bama Well, they get their figures from the White House, so I went to the original source. Are you saying you put more faith in the Blaze/WSJ than in me to evaluate White House numbers? ;)
  • #27
    !
    @PolitixMary Uh, not quite what they said. There you go again distorting the facts and taking Conservative's words way out of context. Per the Blaze article-

    "Woohoo: Finally some good news about America's deficit?

    Jul. 9, 2013 11:02amMeredith Jessup

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced Monday that this year's deficit will shrink to a mere $759 billion! Isn't that good news?!

    Well, "good" is a relative term...

    NRO's Jim Geraghty offers some context for this figure:


    Looking at the inflation-adjusted numbers for our annual deficit, year by year ...$500 billion used to be considered a really big annual deficit. We hit that in 2004; unadjusted for inflation, it came in at $413 billion. Back in 1991, the year's deficit came in at $453 billion. So a half a trillion was the pre-Obama all-time high.

    Now look at the Obama era:


    2009:$1.5 trillion

    2010:$1.36 trillion

    2011:$1.32 trillion

    2012:$1.1 trillion

    In other words, Obama's best year is 50 percent worse than it's ever been before.

    Uh, well done...?"
  • #28
    !
    @PolitixMary After all the lies oming from the Whitehouse in the just the past year alone, I wouldn't trust them to give me the "numbers" off the Presidents bike...; )
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    These are phony statistics because the Bush Administration excluded all war costs from deficit calculations and Obama is including them!
  • #49
    !
    UPDATE: Many Obama defenders are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included.
  • #51
    !
    @Mia No, they don't. These are BUDGET deficits and the Iraq and Afghan wars were off budget. It was added directly to the debt and were never included on budget deficits. It wasn't until Obama that they were added back to the budget. You're right, the spending did not vanish, but it could never be added to the budget deficit because, as you admit, these were not allocated utilizing the budget process.
  • #52
    !
    @Denizen_Kate It's common knowledge that the wars were not paid for utilizing the budget tools available and therefore not added to the budget deficits.
  • #54
    !
    @AceLuby - obviously it isn't common knowledge. I don't exactly live under a rock, and I was not aware, which is why I asked for a link so that I could learn about it. "... the wars were not paid for utilizing the budget tools available ... " -- what does that mean?
  • R Load more replies

  • #165
    !
    There would be no deficit by now if several things had happened:

    - George Bu**sh** Sr. never put troops in Saudi Arabia, inciting Al Qaeda
    - McCain and Gramm had never repealed Glass-Stegall
    - George Bu**sh** Jr. had never given TWO BILLION in tax cuts to the rich
    - George Bu**sh** Jr. never started two illegal wars
    - Blockhead Obama had actually ended tax cuts, reinstated Glass-Stegall (or it had never been repealed) and did not continue wall street's demand for a worldwide fascist occupation of oil producing nations

    Among others. But why let the facts get in the way? Why address the real source of the problem when you can blame someone else and get rich doing it?
  • #159
    !
    That depends on if we are in the hole that far or if it is lower. I'm sorry we are in a huge amount of debt. More debt than Bush or Clinton or any other president put us in.
  • R Load more comments...
Post