goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 24, 2011, 08:01:27 PM
-
Who the debt is owed to:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/-14-Trillion-Debt-But-Who-atlantic-40631997.html?x=0
-
"Debt that the Government owes to Itself" - 5.7 trillion
hmmm, wonder who that could be
-
"Debt that the Government owes to Itself" - 5.7 trillion
hmmm, wonder who that could be
they should exercise their right of setoff
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2011%2F07%2F24%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2F24editorial_graph2%2F24editorial_graph2-popup.gif&hash=899f95540ede25f9f10cb76d9ca32c9215a53561)
-
Tax cuts are not a cost...
What exactly is Bookcat arguing with all these threads? Pretty obvious we need to drastically cut spending, everything else (tax adjustments) can follow.
-
Tax cuts are not a cost...
Deficits don't matter.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2011%2F07%2F24%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2F24editorial_graph2%2F24editorial_graph2-popup.gif&hash=899f95540ede25f9f10cb76d9ca32c9215a53561)
Teresa Tritch :facepalm:
Ms. Tritch, a Los Angeles native, holds a B.A. in German from the UCLA and an M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University.
I guess that explains this overly simplistic, rather awkward and factually challenged look at fiscal policy. Teresa Tritch is like a poor [wo]man's version of Suze Orman. You'd think the Times could afford to hire a real economics editor, probably doesn't fit their anit-intellectual agenda.
TT should stick to writing articles about clipping coupons and buying one less carmal macchiato per week so you finally take that trip you've always wanted.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2011%2F07%2F24%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2F24editorial_graph2%2F24editorial_graph2-popup.gif&hash=899f95540ede25f9f10cb76d9ca32c9215a53561)
Teresa Tritch :facepalm:
Ms. Tritch, a Los Angeles native, holds a B.A. in German from the UCLA and an M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University.
I guess that explains this overly simplistic, rather awkward and factually challenged look at fiscal policy. Teresa Tritch is like a poor [wo]man's version of Suze Orman. You'd think the Times could afford to hire a real economics editor, probably doesn't fit their anit-intellectual agenda.
TT should stick to writing articles about clipping coupons and buying one less carmal macchiato per week so you finally take that trip you've always wanted.
I anticipate your accurate rebuttal numbers, no bullshit explanations, just raw data accurately disproving this chart.
tia
-
meh, the fake sugar dick has a point.
-
meh, the fake sugar dick has a point.
just raw data accurately disproving this chart.
Generally when trying to disprove someone else's stats it would help to have some of your own. He attacked her degrees, I doubt that sugar dick is one that a network would call for economic breakdowns, so no he doesn't have a point at all. I don't give a damn if the chick was a waitress at Club Orleans, either the info is factual or not. Who she is isn't at all relevant, he didn't attack the info just the messenger.
You're both goddamn idiots.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2011%2F07%2F24%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2F24editorial_graph2%2F24editorial_graph2-popup.gif&hash=899f95540ede25f9f10cb76d9ca32c9215a53561)
Teresa Tritch :facepalm:
Ms. Tritch, a Los Angeles native, holds a B.A. in German from the UCLA and an M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University.
I guess that explains this overly simplistic, rather awkward and factually challenged look at fiscal policy. Teresa Tritch is like a poor [wo]man's version of Suze Orman. You'd think the Times could afford to hire a real economics editor, probably doesn't fit their anit-intellectual agenda.
TT should stick to writing articles about clipping coupons and buying one less carmal macchiato per week so you finally take that trip you've always wanted.
I anticipate your accurate rebuttal numbers, no bullshit explanations, just raw data accurately disproving this chart.
tia
how do you disprove conjecture? While the Bush numbers may be accurate (2002-2009), the Obama numbers are pure fantasy or wishful thinking. (2009-2017).
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2011%2F07%2F24%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2F24editorial_graph2%2F24editorial_graph2-popup.gif&hash=899f95540ede25f9f10cb76d9ca32c9215a53561)
Teresa Tritch :facepalm:
Ms. Tritch, a Los Angeles native, holds a B.A. in German from the UCLA and an M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University.
I guess that explains this overly simplistic, rather awkward and factually challenged look at fiscal policy. Teresa Tritch is like a poor [wo]man's version of Suze Orman. You'd think the Times could afford to hire a real economics editor, probably doesn't fit their anit-intellectual agenda.
TT should stick to writing articles about clipping coupons and buying one less carmal macchiato per week so you finally take that trip you've always wanted.
I anticipate your accurate rebuttal numbers, no bullshit explanations, just raw data accurately disproving this chart.
tia
how do you disprove conjecture? While the Bush numbers may be accurate (2002-2009), the Obama numbers are pure fantasy or wishful thinking. (2009-2017).
This might be true, but since you think the debt ceiling has something to do with Obama spending money, I'm going to pretend it's pure conjecture. Raising the debt ceiling, is not as Boehner said tonight, giving a blank check to Obama. It would help if people like you took the time to learn what is actually being discussed before bitching about crap you know nothing about.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2011%2F07%2F24%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2F24editorial_graph2%2F24editorial_graph2-popup.gif&hash=899f95540ede25f9f10cb76d9ca32c9215a53561)
Teresa Tritch :facepalm:
Ms. Tritch, a Los Angeles native, holds a B.A. in German from the UCLA and an M.S. in Journalism from Columbia University.
I guess that explains this overly simplistic, rather awkward and factually challenged look at fiscal policy. Teresa Tritch is like a poor [wo]man's version of Suze Orman. You'd think the Times could afford to hire a real economics editor, probably doesn't fit their anit-intellectual agenda.
TT should stick to writing articles about clipping coupons and buying one less carmal macchiato per week so you finally take that trip you've always wanted.
I anticipate your accurate rebuttal numbers, no bullshit explanations, just raw data accurately disproving this chart.
tia
how do you disprove conjecture? While the Bush numbers may be accurate (2002-2009), the Obama numbers are pure fantasy or wishful thinking. (2009-2017).
It's neither wishful thinking or fantasy, it's a projection. You are well aware of the point. Many of you clowns who act like Obama has a patent on spending when it is nearly impossible for his spending to reach that of GWB. All of the whining about Obama's spending is purely partisan. Who cares when fools on message boards do it, its a huge problem when partisan lawmakers do it and potentially send the world economy into a tailspin doing so. Then their borderline illiterate base buys it hook line and sinker.
-
She did not come up with the projections, CBO did.
HTH, carry on
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
-
She did not come up with the projections, CBO did.
HTH, carry on
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
The numbers the CBO are given to work with come from projections by politicians. Crap in = crap out.
-
She did not come up with the projections, CBO did.
HTH, carry on
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
The numbers the CBO are given to work with come from projections by politicians. Crap in = crap out.
lol, wut?
-
She did not come up with the projections, CBO did.
HTH, carry on
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
The numbers the CBO are given to work with come from projections by politicians. Crap in = crap out.
lol, wut?
Well, take Obama care for example. The figures given to the CBO for evaluation include 575 billion taken from Medicare over 10 years. These numbers are assumptions that the government will pay hospitals less than they do now for the same services and actually increase some services for more people. Is that going to actually happen? Maybe, maybe not. They are projections by politicians, but the CBO must to use those numbers.
-
She did not come up with the projections, CBO did.
HTH, carry on
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
The numbers the CBO are given to work with come from projections by politicians. Crap in = crap out.
lol, wut?
Well, take Obama care for example. The figures given to the CBO for evaluation include 575 billion taken from Medicare over 10 years. These numbers are assumptions that the government will pay hospitals less than they do now for the same services and actually increase some services for more people. Is that going to actually happen? Maybe, maybe not. They are projections by politicians, but the CBO must to use those numbers.
putting the whole system on trial. rick daris should be in here any second now.
-
She did not come up with the projections, CBO did.
HTH, carry on
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Hand picking a few numbers from the CBO does not make your goofy chart's source the CBO. The fact that those numbers were selected from multiple different points in time makes the chart completely dishonest. That and it misrepresents policies ratified by B.O. and his Dem controlled congress as if they had nothing to do with it.
Counting tax cuts as expenditures is satanist retardation at its finest. To even say as much necessarily presumes the Federal Govt has super priority to its citizens income, a frightening proposition in this so-called capitalist country and an affront on the due process rights articulated throughout the constitution (those due process rights that libs think only protect racial minority, abortions, and homosexuals).
Where the chart utterly fails is it is a completely one sided view of "spending" without accounting for the actual affects of said policy. Ever heard of a "cost/benefit analysis", well this is just a "cost conglomeration" (an incomplete one at that). For example, increased tax revenue, increased personal wealth, high levels of employment, capital investment etc. all attained historic highs during GWB's tenure yet are no where to be found on this chart, but certainly affect the size of the deficit (more employment equals more employment and income tax, more income equals more tax revenue, more capital investment equals more taxable spending, etc. etc.). This is what some refer to as "supply-side econcmics" a dirty word in liberal circles, although universally acknowledged by economists of all persuasions as effective government policy (the multiplier being what the great disagreement is about).
If you looked at this chart you would assume the Bush tax cuts cost the country $1,812 Billion, end of story. In fact, after the tax cuts all people in all brackets instantly paid less in taxes and therefore had more disposable income. What the government would have done with that money is unknown, but it sure as hell wasn't going to use it to balance the budget.
As I said, overly simple, awkward, and factually challenged. Teresa Tritch is in way over her head here, per usual.
All that being said, tortuga. I believe it was you that said
Fascinating, did not know Obama had the power to unilaterally budgets. Must be part of his redefinition of america everyone's been talking about. Congrats Hussein!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
I assume this logic applies to GWB, right? He didn't unilaterally pass all that legislature then fail to budget accordingly did he?
/thread
-
"What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today."
:lol:
-
"What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today."
:lol:
While I am no republican (or democrat for that matter), this bitch is just rough ridin' stupid. Like, needs to be in a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) home stupid.
-
This seems more relevant:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-rXdL-3-IL7c%2FTizxtcpTiTI%2FAAAAAAAAAMw%2FH1yvwr-OlOw%2Fs640%2Fobama-federal-deficit-chart-2011.jpg&hash=c0f9ed8765596e12558a958814524aada2b6920a)
Note the trend reversals just after the Bush Tax Cut and again in '07 when the lefties retook Congress. :driving: <--- Ditch ahead