It’s Official: 2012 Deficit Was $1.087T; $1T+ All 4 Yrs of Obama’s 1st Term

reply to post by poet1b

The world is laughing at the US for ever electing GW, and those who pretend the economic collapse was not the direct fault of free market policies which allowed banks to get by with massive fraud.

That didn't have anything to do with Bush either.

Starting in the early 1960s federal banking regulators interpreted provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities. By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), many commentators argued Glass–Steagall was already “dead.” Most notably, Citibank’s 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board’s then existing interpretation of the Glass–Steagall Act. President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate."

Many commentators have stated that the GLBA’s repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the late-2000s financial crisis. Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks. Others have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass–Steagall Act.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by poet1b

While Republicans tried to pretend they weren't for the bailout, they certainly voted for the bailout, and completely supported the bailout.

According to voting results, 172 Democrats voted in favor of the bill while 62 opposed it; and 91 Republicans voted for it and 108 voted against it.

money.cnn.com...

It makes me laugh when Obama supporters congratulate themselves on the deficit declining, like when Homer Simpson said, "according to this news article, SAT scores are declining at a slower rate." But they are still declining! There is still a deficit, and what liberals won't talk about, there is also a huge debt.

But hey, poverty is declining at a slower rate, so all is well.

Originally posted by filosophia
It makes me laugh when Obama supporters congratulate themselves on the deficit declining, like when Homer Simpson said, "according to this news article, SAT scores are declining at a slower rate." But they are still declining! There is still a deficit, and what liberals won't talk about, there is also a huge debt.

But hey, poverty is declining at a slower rate, so all is well.

A great point.
They love to say that it is a move in the right direction... well, of course it is... BUT if we are spending more than we take in, we can't pay down the debt. It just keeps growing.

reply to post by poet1b

Dear poet1b,

I knew I shouldn't have been so blunt, my apologies.

You're response speaks entirely about the bailouts while not discussing the question of control of the budget. I'd like to get that question resolved before we move to other things.

By switching the subject, are you agreeing that the 2009 budget was a Democrat budget signed by Obama? If not, are you rejecting the idea that Obama approved it, or the idea that only two Republicans in all of Congress voted for it?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Deetermined


Posting a wiki opinion piece is just posting your own opinion.

Repeal of the Glass Steagal Act was just the ice on the cake of the grand republican/conservative plan to eliminate laws that prevented the banks from robbing the public blind. I was pretty much the final card, Newt's grand finally brought about by a right wing public radio programmed gullible public.

Anyone who denies that deregulation was not the goal of the free market supporters is clinging to pure fantasy at this point.

The deficits were created by free market policies, and it is clear to everyone but those clinging to the free market/communistic fantasy.

You can't be in debt when it's fake money you owe

reply to post by Deetermined


It is called gaming the vote, not all that clever or difficult to figure out, except for those who choose to be gullible.

Repubs have always been fully behind the bailouts.

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...

Last night, in a scramble to save the bill in the wake of Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) objections to the conference report, Democrats worked with moderate Republicans to figure out a new way to pay for Wall Street reform. What they came up with was pretty simple: end the TARP legislation (i.e., the much-maligned bank bailout) early. Every Republican negotiator on the conference committee objected, some vociferously.

reply to post by charles1952


Your specious argument is anything but blunt.

I'd be embarrassed.

Back to the subject, because Obama supported the bailout, working with GW and the republicans to keep the economy from collapsing, does not make Obama responsible for the mess created by the GW admin, in their refusal to enforce what remaining laws existed in preventing wide scale fraud throughout the 000s.

It is pathetic that people keep trying to pin the economic crisis that occurred under the GW admin on Obama.

reply to post by poet1b

Dear poet1b,

Rather than being embarrassed, I'm confused. Are you sure you're not addressing your comments to someone else? The only point I've ever tried to make in this this thread (as far as I can recall) is that the 2009 budget was entirely a creature of the Democrat party and President Obama.

I am not, as you seem to think, trying to pin the economic crisis on one cause or another. It seems that you've created a topic which I haven't discussed, assumed which side I would take, then criticized me for that position. Hardly reasonable of you.

May we return to the only point I was discussing?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Posting a wiki opinion piece is just posting your own opinion.

Opinion? Do some research on the subject. Since when does Wikipedia post "opinions" on what legislative bills took place when and who supported them?

Repeal of the Glass Steagal Act was just the ice on the cake of the grand republican/conservative plan to eliminate laws that prevented the banks from robbing the public blind. I was pretty much the final card, Newt's grand finally brought about by a right wing public radio programmed gullible public.

In reality, the way that Glass Steagal was written allowed misinterpretation and made it loop-hole prone. Although the GLB Act was written up by three Republicans to allow industries to merge together, it was Clinton who insisted that the bill expand the Community Reinvestment Act (against Gramm's better judgement) as part of the bill. In order for the businesses to be able to expand and merge, they had to meet CRA quotas and requirements first. Ultimately, it encouraged crappy lending practices, even though it wasn't meant to.

reply to post by poet1b

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...

Last night, in a scramble to save the bill in the wake of Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) objections to the conference report, Democrats worked with moderate Republicans to figure out a new way to pay for Wall Street reform. What they came up with was pretty simple: end the TARP legislation (i.e., the much-maligned bank bailout) early. Every Republican negotiator on the conference committee objected, some vociferously.

I'm not sure who these "moderate Republicans" are that your article is referring to, but six months prior to your article, here's what John Boehner had to say...

Later this afternoon, House Republicans will force a vote on a measure to shut down the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and use the money to reduce the national debt.

Washington Democrats ran up a record $1.42 trillion deficit for 2009 and are already planning to increase the debt limit next week by yet another $1.8 trillion. In other words: Washington is flat broke.

And even though the TARP bailout fund was supposed to expire at the end of this year, the Obama Administration has chosen to extend it and use it as a slush fund for politicians, fueling even more of the same “stimulus” spending that isn’t working.

www.facebook.com...

reply to post by Deetermined


It wasn't crappy lending policies, it was fraudulently rating bad loans as good that created the crisis, that resulted in a bailout.

Deregulation has increasingly expanded the loop holes that allows fraud to be practiced as standard procedure,

Ever notice someone who says one thing, but does another?

How about politicians?

The Obama legacy, perpetuation of the Bush policies that had increased the national debt.

He had the opportunity to stop some of those polices and legislate for change, he have done none.

President Obama's Legacy: $20 Trillion in Debt for 2016 Victor

This was predicted in 2012 if Obama didn't no change some of Bush polices, as we now so far he has increased the debt by 5 trillion, he still have another 3 years to go and with the Obamacrap mammoth program it will not be far off the mark of 20 trillion in his entire 8 years of presidency and growing even after he is gone.

The CBO’s bottom line: If we go over the fiscal cliff, the second Obama administration will accumulate $1.5 trillion in deficits for 2013-2017 ($300 billion per year), for a “modest” deficit of less than two percent of GDP. If Obama gets his full wish list and avoids the fiscal cliff, the CBO’s alternate fiscal policy projections yield a cumulated 2013-2017 budget deficit of $4.5 trillion. In this case, the second Obama administration will run annual deficits of almost a trillion dollars a year. Only this time round, Obama does not have the convenient excuse of a deep economic crisis inherited from the previous administration. As he assured voters in the election campaign – the recovery is underway. Do not worry.

Interestingly he is indeed running 1.5 trillion deficit a year right now and getting bigger in his second term.

www.forbes.com...

Long live Obama deficit records. Remember the fiscal cliff?

Here are Obama’s desired alternative fiscal policies to avoid the fiscal cliff in order of their effect on the five-year budget as estimated by the CBO:

1. Preserve Bush tax cuts and other tax provisions for everyone except the top 2 percent: Raises the five-year deficit by $2.0 trillion.


2. Drop the fiscal-cliff sequestration of spending and expand discretionary spending by the rate of inflation: Raises the five-year deficit by another trillion dollars.


3. Raise the tax rate on the top 2 percent: Lowers the five-year deficit by $300 billion.

4. Extend enhanced unemployment benefits: Raises the five-year deficit by $200 billion.

5. Do not cut Medicare payment rates to physicians: Raises the five-year deficit by some $100.

Four of the five fiscal policies on Obama’s wish list raise the deficit. Only one – the vaunted tax on the rich on which he based his campaign – lowers the deficit, but only by a miniscule $300 billion ($60 billion per year). If Obama gets the tax and spending changes he wants, his 2017 successor will inherit a national debt in excess of $20 trillion.

How many of those promises did he kept.

And that doesn't even include Obamcrap cost. By 2017, the federal government will be spending more on health care than on social security.

Proof that people believe what they want to believe.

www.usgovernmentspending.com...

In the 2000s federal spending increased modestly to about 20 percent of GDP before exploding to 24 to 25 percent in the Crash of 2008.

Spending is on the decline under Obama.

Obama inherited a mess from GW, because free market policies do not work. That is what caused the massive increase in spending in 2009, which was the last budget of the GW admin.

That people continue to believe in the free market/communist/fascist nonsense is beyond me. It is wallowing in ignorance.

reply to post by poet1b

Spending is on the decline under Obama.

Who cares when you still have $1 Trillion annual deficits making it impossible to pay back the debt?

reply to post by poet1b


So 1 T a year since Obama took office is nothing but "pocket change" by your understanding of how much Obama spend and your logic that he is reducing the deficit.

This is my answer to you.

I wish I could live in the same dream land you live but sadly I have bills and taxes to pay.

Originally posted by poet1b


Proof that people believe what they want to believe.

www.usgovernmentspending.com...

In the 2000s federal spending increased modestly to about 20 percent of GDP before exploding to 24 to 25 percent in the Crash of 2008.

Spending is on the decline under Obama.

Obama inherited a mess from GW, because free market policies do not work. That is what caused the massive increase in spending in 2009, which was the last budget of the GW admin.

That people continue to believe in the free market/communist/fascist nonsense is beyond me. It is wallowing in ignorance.

The graph you post reflects a comparison of spending vs GDP.

This chart is actual spending compared to nothing else.

Just keeping the focus on Spending .....

I don't understand this near obsession with comparing spending to GDP. Is there an advantage to taking the clear spending data and adjusting it for another factor?

Let me give you an example. Let us say (and I have not researched the data) that the average height of an NBA player has increased by 1/4 inch. Let us further say that the height of the avearge Americn has increased by 3/8 inch.

Using the same thinking as comparing the spending to GDP, we would have to conclude that NBA players are shrinking. That is clearly absurd.

Certainly the correct comment to make is that spending under Obama is greter than under Bush, but the GDP is also larger. Whether that has any significance has to wait until after GDP has been analyzed to determine it's relevance to this situation.

With respect,
Chales1952

Another interesting FACT:

[color=Cyan]
Total added to Federal Debt:

Last 4 years of Bush +$ 1,185,781,000,000 -- that's 1.185 Trillion Dollars

First 4 years of Obama +$ 5,092,755,000,000 -- that's 5.092 Trillion Dollars

W-O-W !!