Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Dutch fall out of love with windmills - Page 6

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Kurt Ullman on November 25, 2011, 12:26 am

  Jeez Louise,  how many times I gotta tell ya. The Surplus was gone
before Bush's first budget hit the stands. According to the CBO, the
U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001. This was the one
that started in October of 2000, a full month before the election.


Largely related to the biz cycle since 2006 or so. The fall in taxes
largely follows the fall in income.

    But they did not. Look at the pre-recession and you'll see rev went
up. Every year. In fact if you look at the scoring of the Joint
Committee on Taxation, you will note that the fall off the first wasn't
as bad as they said it would and it turned back positive the second year
with the JCT saying it would fall for the entire 10 years.

    It did not until the biz cycle kicked in.

     Fueled by a bubble like the Clinton year's dot com surplus.

 By 2007, in fact,

     Heavy lies the head that wears the crown.

And for the most part in a decidedly bipartisan manner. I saw a study a
year or so indicated that most of the really bad happening involving the
federal government took place when the vote was heavily bipartisan. Be
carefule what you wish for (g).


People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Posted by trader4@optonline.net on November 25, 2011, 3:18 pm

Newt ran the House just fine, thank you.  His contract with America
resulted in Clinton signing legislation that "ended welfare as we know

What does telling the truth have to do with Obama?

One of the few things you've posted that is true.  So, why the class
warfare that blames all the USA's problems on the wealthier,
Americans?   For example, you constantly complain that the loss of
maufacturing jobs is due to evil corporations.  Yet here you
acknowledge that there
are powerful world economic forces directly involved.

Welcome to the club.  It burns me when you claim the current
recession and collapse in housing prices is all Wall Street's fault.
I and others here have given you our list and it's long and includes
everyone from Wall Street, to govt, to those that bought houses
they could not afford because they believed housing only went up.

I also don't recall blaming all of the deficit on Obama.  Nor have
I seen anyone else here, ie Kurt, KRW, etc either.  What we
have said is that under Obama the rate of adding to the deficit
has increased greatly due to SPENDING.   Spending has increased
40% in just the past 4 years.   $tril in new debt has been added
under Obama, bringing the total to $5tril   $tril of the $5tril
in just 3 years.  Was there excessive spending under Bush
and the Republican Congress?   Yes.  But his deficits averaged
$50bil a year.  The current deficit is $.6 tril.  See the

We also take exception when someone tries to point to the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as being major contributors to
the $5tril deficit because it's simply not true.

Which shows why the tax cuts were needed and how well they worked.
Thank you.  And unless one had a crystal ball and could see the
collapse coming, it was reasonable to assume the deficit would
to decline. All that would have been needed was to control spending.
Or even better, under Bush, they could have controlled spending then,
which case the deficit would have been either smaller or non-existent.


Cool.  Sounds good.  A one time thing blew the deficit out to
So, tell us then, why is it that now, 3 years later, we have a deficit
of $.6tril?
And why Obama's last budget shows deficits of $tril a YEAR FOR THE
DECADE?  And that's under the assumption that the economy has
recovered soon and has a healthy growth rate.

True, but it took 8 years under Bush.  Obama has managed it in just 3

If that's true, then spending should have gone up one year, in 2009.
Yet, here we are in 2011 and spending is $.8 tril.  In 2008, it was
$.0 tril.
There goes that argument.

It's actually a bit less, from $.8 tril to $.0, but close enough.
You think
maybe 911 and all the money that had to be spent on homeland security,
taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, etc had something to do with it?
Granted, they should have cut spending elsewhere, but of course
you libs would have none of that, would you?

And again, that is over 8 years of Bush compared with 3 years of

It's actually $tril to $.8.

It hasn't declined one bit.  Right now the FORECAST is for it to
from $.8tril to $.7 tril.  That's a tiny decrease and only a
Meanwhile, your pal Obama is running around screaming "Pass it now!"
for his new $00bil spending bill.  Do what he wants and the budget
went up another .5tril in one shot.  See the problem here?

Sure, no one is denying that is a factor too.  But why is it that
Obama's own
budget shows deficits of $tril a year for the next decade?  A budget
that includes the forecast that the economy will have recovered?
See the problem?

It did have about the effect than many predicted it would though.

Nothing can satisfy the rabid loons that Obama has chosen to align
himself with.  Some hate him for keeping Gitmo open.  Some for
the war in Afghanistan.  Some for changing his mind on trying
in NYC.   Some for bombing Libya.  Some for not spending even more.
Many for not creating some ultimate socialist utopia.

And ironically those same loons fail to give him credit for even
Must be tough being Obama.

What collapse is that?  What we have is a SPENDING problem.

Yes, but as you acknowledge, the deficit was declining and down to
just $61bil
by 2007.  Here's a new question.  Are you for or against a balanced

What huge surge, Mr. Monday morning quaterback?  The ecomomy was
doing OK, but it wasn't spectacular.  There was no particular reason
think that housing was going to collapse suddenly.


No denying that.  But it's what Obama has done that in response that
is the
problem.  For example, the economy was already in a severe crisis.
Was that
the time to ram through Obamacare, which polls showed then and
to show now, the public did not want?   Was it a good idea to burden
with that cost and uncertainty?  Was it a good idea to halt all new
drilling in
the Gulf because of one oil well? Was it a good idea to vilify much of
from drug companies and healthcare companies to Wall Street?  Is it a
good idea to engage in classwarfare on those making $00,000 a year,
many of whom are small business owners, where most new jobs are
Is it a good idea to have the NLRB suing
Boeing to prevent a new factory in SC that will emply 2000 from
Is it smart to be screwing around with Boeing and the 787 with $00bil
orders and tens of thousands of jobs depending on it?

$00bil?   Where did that come from?   Just the one stimulus bill was
$50bil.  And if it was $00bil over 3 years, why is spending this
year at
$.8 tril and why is it forecast at about that level for next year?
be a magical $00bil.

If it was debt fueled book cooking under Bush, what the hell is it
under Obama?   Does Obama or you support a balanced budget

No war fairies.  Per your own statements above, the deficits under
Bush were declining and were down to $61bil in 2007.  With some
spending restraint and had not the subprime recession occured, the
deficit could have been taken to zero.

That's true.  But which side now is willing to address them?  Who
is in favor of a balanced budget ammendment?  Who has put forth
a plan to tackle entitlement spending?   From the whitehouse all
we hear is class warfare and crickets...

Funny, I thought what they showed was were socialism, big govt, and
reckless spending will get you.

Look where more govt spending has gotten us.  Solyndra done
anything for you lately?

My, my.  I would think you'd be in favor of military spending cuts.
don't like it when we use the military, so why not make cuts.  Don't
you just want to send Al-Qaeda a cake?

Posted by HeyBub on November 23, 2011, 2:38 pm
 Stormin Mormon wrote:

Slight correction: All TAX measures must originate in the House. SPENDING
bill may be introduced in either body.

Posted by (PeteCresswell) on November 21, 2011, 12:03 am
 Per Stormin Mormon:

I claim no expertise, but AFIK it is not a matter of running out
of oil: there will always be oil at a price.

The real issue is the crossover point between the cost curves of
fossil-based energy and renewable energy.

I have no clue what the slopes of those curves look like and
therefore not the faintest idea when they will cross... but that
*is* the issue, not "running out" of oil.

Posted by Han on November 21, 2011, 3:09 am

That is indeed the issue.  And if there wasn't a tree in front of my house
I'd go for some kind of solar yesterday.

Best regards
email address is invalid

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread