Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Who's Holding The Gun?

"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion." ~ George Bernard Shaw

Trader Rick has asked me to post another blog entry, and although I am not feeling particularly passionate at this time about anything other than Obama's ongoing destruction of America, the moral decline in our country, and the continual media love affair with Obama and all things Democrat, I have blogged on those things ad infinitum.

What more can I say?

The only thing everyone is talking about right now is the question of whether raising the debt ceiling would be beneficial in solving the economic crisis or economic suicide.

I don't know.

I consider myself woefully inadequately educated, economically speaking, to address this subject with any kind of expertise.

I try to be objective but, I've heard both sides of the issue explained, and they all sound feasible in different ways, so instead of clarifying the issue for me, I am left further confused than before.

I just watched this video:



I've always made it clear that I am no economist. I don't understand economics. I'm sure if I did, I'd have more money in my bank account.

All I can do is relate the economic crisis is this country to my own economic situation. Throughout 40+ years of having to balance my income against my outgo, I have some practical experience with which to draw some (what I consider to be ) common sense conclusions.

Coincidentally, America's economic problems appear to be remarkably similar to my own, to wit:

Too much debt, and not enough money to pay it off.

Obama says Republicans are "holding a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners."

(and, by the way, isn't he one of the ones who blamed Republicans for the incendiary rhetoric that resulted in the shooting of that Democratic Congresswoman in Tucson, Arizona? I guess when you're the President, or at least a Democratic President, you can be as insensitive as you want)

Personally, I don't see it that way. The way I see it, Obama is the one holding the gun. He has been suggesting the Republicans want to take away senior citizen's social security, medicare, and medicaid if they succeed in not allowing him to raise the debt ceiling.

I don't believe for one minute that would be the consequence.

But, I admit, I don't know.

What I do know is this:

Raising the debt ceiling would simply increase the amount of debt we owe. That makes it harder to pay off. (duh!)

Example: If I have reached my limit on my credit card, and the credit card company offers to raise my debt limit so I can continue to charge more purchases to my account, eventually, I am going to be expected to repay that money. If the credit card company continues to raise my debt ceiling over and over again, I will come to the point where I can no longer make those payments. Then, I will default.

It's inevitable.

The Democrats insist we will be in default if we don't raise the debt ceiling, but in my experience, we will reach default status if we do.

The more we borrow, the more we are expected to pay back.

If we raise our debt to the point where our income cannot keep up with the pace of the increasing interest on our debt, how will we ever pay the debt back?

Especially if Obama wants to continue his reckless spending (and there is no evidence that he intends to stop). As I said, I don't know economics, but it seems logical to me that one cannot spend his way out of debt.

If we want to reduce the debt, we must stop spending so much, stop borrowing, and start living within our means.

Just as it works in my personal life.

51 comments:

Mark said...

If I were a Congressman, I wouldn't even consent to be on this idiot race-baiter's show, but that's just me.

Fredd said...

The concept ain't hard to understand. You are correct - if you ask for more credit, then you are expected to pay it back: with interest.

Raising the debt ceiling is bad. Duh.

A perfect analogy would be the crack dealer extending the junkie another fix (on top of the hundreds already extended to the junkie in exchange for pieces of the junkies' hyde and a percentage of the junkie's paycheck every week), but asking the junkie to hand over the keys to their car in exchange for this additional vial of crack.

A bad deal, regardless.

George W. Bush almost had it right: we are not addicted to oil, we are addicted to spending money we don't have (also called debt).

Trader Rick said...

Having to fight the boy president and his anti-American socialist buddies bent on destroying the American way of Life is like trying to fight slimy smelly drooling mindless zombie reptilian alien monsters from outer space on crack with the nightmarish rule that since they claim to be human , we can't throw grenades at them.

FTS! PBR ME ASAP!!!

Jim said...

A great part of the reason that we don't have the money is that Bush either gave it away or he spent it in the middle east (or on drugs).

If you had a home with a mortgage and a car that you borrowed to buy and a job 20 miles away and that job reduced your hours by 40%, would you sell your house and your car that got you to work rather than borrow for a period of time until your boss restored your previous hours?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

Typical - it all goes back to Bush. Obamacare, stimulus, and all sorts of entitlements have nothing to do with it.

Actually, Obama has spent more than Bush and the presidents before him! The problem is that the government thinks money grows on trees and rather than do what I do when debt stares me in the face and I reduce spending because I can't get more income, the gov't just prints more money!

Then they want to tax people even more - you know, the "rich" - as if they should be punished for having more money. 50% of the population pay no taxes in this stupid system.

There is no need to raise taxes - the need is to stop unConstitutional spending. When federal dollars are paying for researching queer penis sizes, there is no excuse to demand more taxes!

Jim said...

"queer penis sizes"

Tell me, which sizes would be queer?

"Obamacare, stimulus, and all sorts of entitlements have nothing to do with it."

I didn't say that. But I will say that PPACA saves more than a trillion dollars over 20 years. The stimulus kept things from getting worse, and entitlements have been here a lot longer than Obama.

Still, Bush cut revenues while engaging in wars, and the budget still suffers from that.

"Actually, Obama has spent more than Bush and the presidents before him!"

Stupidly false statement.

"50% of the population pay no taxes in this stupid system."

Another false statement. Almost all working people pay payroll taxes. Anybody who buys goods pays sales tax. Anybody who drives a car pays taxes. Income taxes are only part of the system.

"the need is to stop unConstitutional spending."

If it's unconstitutional, why is no one suing?

It is clear that you and yours don't care about the deficit and don't care about the debt. You only care about shrinking government. Problem is, most people like Social Security and Medicare. And FAA, NIH, CDC, FDA and a lot of other things government provides.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

You fully understood my meaning about "queer penis sizes." The NIH is spending millions of tax dollars to study the sizes of penises of queers. Yes "queers." I am sick of political-correctness when talking about perverts and their perversion. They aren't "gay" - which means "happy, cheerful" - nor are they "homosexual" -which is an adjective describing the perverse sexual behavior they enjoy. It is foolishness like this which has plummeted our country into massive debt.

PPACA doesn't save any money - it is federal dollars which were never spent before. What sort of weird economics claims if we spend money on something we've never spent before is actually saving money?!?!?

The "stimulus" did not keep things from getting worse - it only postponed the inevitable. It is unconstitutional to use tax dollars to bail out businesses. It is unconstitutional to force company leadership to resign, bail out their company and turn ownership over to the unions (Government Motors). It is unconstitutional to bail out banks who mismanaged finances. ETC.

It wasn't the Bush wars that destroyed the economy, but Obama is just as much to blame for those wars because he has not stopped them and in fact has added another unconstitutional war against Libya.

Obama has spent more in his first two years than has been spent in the full term of any previous president. That is not a stupid statement - it is a fact.

I should have clarified - 50% of the people in this nation pay no income taxes. How the hell is that fair? Everyone should be paying income taxes if anyone is.

No one is suing over unconstitutional spending because every single government member - Republikan or Demokrat - have pet projects and special interest groups to give entitlements to, and most of the people in this nation have been led to believe that they are entitled to have a government trough.

Social Security and Medicare should be phased out - if people are not already on it they should not be added to the rolls. These were unconstitutional programs to start with. Of your lists of government bureaucracies, the FAA is a constitutional organization because you need standardization between states and it is international in scope. I have seen nothing from the NIH that benefits the nation - only stupid studies that common sense answers, and other studies that are totally worthless like studying the penis sizes of queers! CDC and FDA may have federal application but abuse their position most of the time. How about the most worthless Dept. of Ed., which was given to the NEA as their own cabinet because of their support for Jimmy Carter? That is an empty hole of cash sucking.

People have come to rely on the gov't for everything because the Demokrats especially have made this an entitlement nation.

Craig said...

"But I will say that PPACA saves more than a trillion dollars over 20 years."

Maybe it's just me, but this sentence makes absolutely no sense. How does one declare as fact something that hasn't happened?
The estimates may suggest that such savings are possible, but that is certainly not grounds to treat this estimate as fact.

Mark said...

I'm still trying to figure out what PPACA is. I don't know what the letters stand for.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - aka Obamacare

Jim said...

Yes Glenn, I knew what you were talking about but I was having fun with you. You are apparently queer yourself since pretty much only homosexuals use the word queer anymore. The proper term in these parts is apparently "homo".

"it is federal dollars which were never spent before."

Proving, Glenn, that you have no idea what you are talking about. PPACA is NOT new spending to the government. It is reconfiguring how government money is spent and finding systemic efficiencies in the health care system which over 2 decades will, according to the CBO, save over $1 Trillion.

"Obama has spent more in his first two years than has been spent in the full term of any previous president. That is not a stupid statement - it is a fact."

USGovernmentSpending.com proves that actually IS a stupid statement. Ridiculous, in fact.

"It is unconstitutional...yada yada yada." File suit. Nobody else has

"Social Security and Medicare ... were unconstitutional programs to start with."

Who are you? Robert Bork?

"How does one declare as fact something that hasn't happened?"

Well, technically I wasn't claiming it was a fact. I was however using figures from the Congressional Budget Office.

If you can't use estimates using valid methods and assumptions to predict the future, then all business endeavors must just be operating on fingers in the wind.

"I'm still trying to figure out what PPACA is. I don't know what the letters stand for."

That's because you've never heard it on Fox News.

Jim said...

I said, "File suit. Nobody else has."

I should have said successfully since I'm sure some nut has at one time or another.

Z said...

that Einstein quote is amazingly true...truer every day.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

Liberals always resort to saying those who are against homosexuality are probably queer themselves. You didn't disappoint me.

If you think PPACA is not adding new federal dollars into the system, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you. Smoke and mirrors is what you get every time a liberal says no new money is in a government program.

All I have to say about your link to "prove" Obama is a spendthrift is statistics mean never having to say you are certain.

Who has the money to file suit against Congress of un-Constitutional spending?

I noticed you didn't address my charge of SS and Medicare as being un-COnstitutional except to ask if I was Robert Bork. No, I don't have his brains, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to actually read the document and determine whether government spending is authorized by it. You obviously don't have that sort of reading and comprehension skills.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Hey Jim,

Take a look at this and then tell me again that PPACA is not spending more money. Not only that, but tell me any of this is Constitutional!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ

Craig said...

"Well, technically I wasn't claiming it was a fact. I was however using figures from the Congressional Budget Office."

Perhaps if you were to re read your original claim you could see how your statement could be interpreted as such.

I might have been more precise to have said something like this.

""But I will say that (the CBO estimates that the) PPACA (could) save(s) more than a trillion dollars over 20 years."

Further given the fact that we are looking at approximately 4 trillion in deficits per year for the near future, "saving" 1 trillion over 20 years really doesn't seem like a huge deal.

Ducky's here said...

I've always made it clear that I am no economist. I don't understand economics. I'm sure if I did, I'd have more money in my bank account.

-----------
No, you'd invest it. What's your ban account paying, 1/2% taxable? That's for suckers. Doesn't even cover inflation.

You can find some REITs that are doing fine in mortgage backed securities and paying 12%. Get with it.

Meanwhile the government can borrow at ridiculously low interest rates just like the rate your bank account is paying. Even modest normal inflation (your moneterist heroes don't believe it can be kept much under 2%) will cover the cost to service the debt.

So you would rather risk tanking the world economic situation even further rather than borrow at virtually no borrowing costs. Bad news.

Meanwhile let's review the causes of the deficit:

1. Giving Trader Rick a 1 trillion dollar reason to feel moy mucho macho in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Peace Prize can save a bundle by getting out.

2. The Bush tax cuts. Repeal or does your ignorance of economics cause you to believe the ridiculous canard that raising taxes will cost jobs? Hint: Jobs will increase when demand increases.

3. Tarp and the half hearted stimulus. These have wound down and it's a pity the stimulus sucked so badly. It was a weak ass effort.

4. The economic slowdown - A tough one. Myself, I don't think anything improves significantly till the housing market expands and prices stabilize. It's kind of a chicken or the egg problem. Housing stabilizes - spending (hence jobs) increases. I don't know but I would attack housing first. Tax credits, mortgage cram downs.

Then maybe we get things going and we can discuss the 70% increase in the useless military budget over the last decade (NOT including the two fiascoes). Agricultural subsidies, big pharma, oil company subsidies ... we can get this done.

Jim said...

"Take a look at this and then tell me again that PPACA is not spending more money."

I'm supposed to take the non-sourced word of a "healthcare analyst" posted on Youtube for heaven's sake, instead of the word of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office? Don't waste my time.

"Who has the money to file suit against Congress of un-Constitutional spending? "

Hmmmm, I don't know. Maybe ask the Attorney's General of 23 States suing over PPACA.

"it doesn't take a rocket scientist to actually read the document and determine whether government spending is authorized by it."

Hmmmm, SS has been in effect for 80 some years and no Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional. Does that make them rockets scientists or not? I'm confused. Same thing for medicare for 45 years. Because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional.

"Further given the fact that we are looking at approximately 4 trillion in deficits per year for the near future"

Proving once again that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You clearly don't even know what "deficit" means.

Ducky's here said...

@Chatfield -- Typical - it all goes back to Bush.

--------

No in fact it really starts with Saint Ronnie Raygun who pulled out the credit card BIG TIME. Your hero was a complete stooge.

Then Clintoon extended Raygun's profoundly successfully financial deregulation(remember the savings and loan collapse that Knuckles McCain tried to smooth over?) with even dumber deregulation.

Then cam Chucklenuts who had an economic policy that was just this side of "whoopee". Bons temps roulez -- crash.

Then The Black Bush came along with all the Clintoon/Bush holdovers like "Fat" Larry Summers, Goldman Sachs' cabana boy Timmy "Taxes" Geithner and the whole Rubin crew from the Clintoon years.

Got it. That's a thumbnail but Chucklenuts was no angel.

Ducky's here said...

"queer penis sizes"

Tell me, which sizes would be queer?

---------

Yeah Jim, Chatsworth and Trader Rick are doing the field research.

Trader Rick said...

I think Daffy's lost it....

On the bright side, Gloria and I are bar-shopping since our beach dive is closing down, and I met a guy from my brigade in Vietnam, a door gunner, 65 years old full head of black hair that he attributes to "Kiwi"--I wonder if I should go that route???

FTS PBR me asap!

Ducky's here said...

nor are they "homosexual" -which is an adjective describing the perverse sexual behavior they enjoy.

---------
Oh come one Chatsworth, haven't you been a little loaded some nights and come home through the back door?

Ducky's here said...

All I can do is relate the economic crisis is this country to my own economic situation. Throughout 40+ years of having to balance my income against my outgo, I have some practical experience with which to draw some (what I consider to be ) common sense conclusions.

------------

You didn't borrow to buy your house? Probably the initial loan was a multiple of your yearly income, a higher ratio than the national debt.

Craig said...

Jim,

My bad the 4 trillion was an incorrect number based on something I thought I heard, I should have checked.

However the 2009 budget deficit was actually $1.42 trillion. With the the 2010 deficit at $1.29 trillion (the second highest on record). With projected deficits in the 1.25 trillion range for until 2012.

So you of course are correct, the estimate of a relatively paltry $1 billion over 20 years will significantly offset current spending.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I know liberals are typical bullies, but the name ain't "Chatsworth"!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

If you don’t believe the guy on the youtube, why don’t you read the bill for yourself and prove him wrong?

The reason 23 states are suing about Obamacare is because it will cost them money. Every other un-Constitutional expense gives them money. No one sues when they are sucking the gov’t teat.

Just because SS and Medicare have not been challenged by the Supreme Court, that doesn’t make them Constitutional. The court doesn’t take up cases which nobody brings to them. Besides which, they have been predominantly socialist and liberal judges since FDR. The Supreme court had no problem with slavery either, if I remember correctly.

Always On Watch said...

Raising the debt ceiling would simply increase the amount of debt we owe. That makes it harder to pay off. (duh!)

I can understand the concept as to why the debt ceiling will be raised.

However, if an individual is going to get more credit extended, then that individual should show a plan not to continue mad spending. The same concept should apply on a governmental level.

Obama wants the debt ceiling raised and, at the same time, wants to contract for additional spending.

Now, what makes this entire national debt disaster so awful is that some 41% of our national debt consists of money that the federal government borrowed from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds; another 1/2 of 1% consists of money borrowed from the federal workers' pension fund.

If Obama were to null the August Social Security checks, the health-care industry would tank -- including doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, etc.).

Let's remember that Medicare and Social Security are inextricably tied.

My mother-in-law, who is in the end stage of Alzheimer's and catatonic, lives in a nursing home (a very inexpensive one as it is a private residence run by Mongolian immigrants). One half of the cost of her care in that facility is paid for via her monthly Social Security check.

My mother-in-law is only one of thousands in that same situation.

So, what happens if these helpless old people's checks don't arrive? Do we just roll them out into the streets and let them die? Or do we expect the facilities to take care of these poor folks at no charge?

Oh, sure, we can say, "Let their families take care of them." But that won't work if their families are disabled (as is Mr. AOW) and, more crucially, if they can't even be transported to another location.

Ducky's here said...

No AOW, we do it the Eric Cantor way (thanks for that short bus moron) and cut her social security payments rather than take some measures that would cost military contractors and hedge fund managers.

You don't get it, do you?

Jim said...

"So you of course are correct, the estimate of a relatively paltry $1 billion over 20 years will significantly offset current spending."

No, it's $1.3 TRILLION. With a T.

Yes, the deficits are pretty high for a few years. That is what one would expect when revenues are severely reduced due to a recession.

"The reason 23 states are suing about Obamacare is because it will cost them money."

Maybe, maybe not. Not the point though. The point is that they can "afford" to sue.

"Just because SS and Medicare have not been challenged by the Supreme Court..."

The Supreme Court does not challenge. As you point out, they decide cases that people bring before it.

"Besides which, they have been predominantly socialist and liberal judges since FDR."

Really?

Laws are unconstitutional when the Supreme Court says they are unconstitutional, not when you say they are.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

"Laws are unconstitutional when the Supreme Court says they are unconstitutional."

Yeah but they reinterpret the Constitution to find a "penumbra" where abortion is constitutional. They practice eisegesis with the Constitution the way false teachers practice eisegesis with the Bible. In fact, I can remember which justice is was, but he said something like, "the Constitution says what WE say it says." So much for what the authors meant.

Same judges also found "separation of church and state," which none of the founders and signers of the document put there.

BenT - the Unbeliever said...

AH HA! Now I understand why all you conservatives are so loopy over the debt ceiling.

You think it's for future expenditures.

Boy are ya'll wrong. The debt ceiling increase is so we can have the other 44% of the government for the rest of this year and the next.

The debt ceiling won't allow CONGRESS to submit new expenditures. It isn't for Obamacare or another stimulus or war overseas. No it's so the united states government can continue providing the basic services it is currently offering.

Government revenues do not cover all the government expenses this year and they aren't projected to cover next year's expenses or the next or the next, etc.

But back in November when the Pres and republicans were wrangling over the budget, they didn't trim the government costs by 44% (the amount the federal revenue will be short this year). I mean how could they? What parts of the government could you cut to get a 44% reduction?

So they said, "Let's just ride things out and put whatever we don't get tax revenue for on the home mortgage loan. Hopefully the economy will pick up and tax receipts will be better than projected and the shortfall won't be too bad."

Well now which party is acting all shocked and amazed that revenues are short? ... Republicans

So they're using this as an opportunity to trim the federal budget of some programs they don't like. And Dems are saying, "OK if that's the way we're gonna do it. Then let's compromise and get us some of our priorities. No more oil subsidies and lets end the Bush tax cuts. After all no one was eating cat food during the Clinton years."

It's republicans saying, "Not gonna do it. You give us everything we want or we're going to welch on the stuff we put on the home equity loan."

Tea Party Representatives are threatening not just to leave the checkerboard, but to, turn over the table, then dowse it with gasoline and set it on fire.

Trader Rick said...

BURN BABY BURN!

Ducky's here said...

Ranger Rick, when do you think we can get a profile here of the right wing Christian who committed the Norway attacks?

We may need to step up profiling of folks like you and Chatfield.

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
I get it just fine.

There will have to be limits on what Medicare and Medicaid pay. Those electric scooters, for one thing. Ever seen those Hoveround commercials? Hoveround might actually go out of business if not for Medicare/Medicaid.

Or maybe the price of the scooters will come down.

BTW, when have I ever said a word about Eric Cantor -- one way or the other.

Always On Watch said...

I'm for sacrifices ACROSS THE BOARD. Let's start with the politicians' salaries and perks.

And other of "the elite" too.

Craig said...

OK then a relatively paltry 1.3 trillion with a T. Please forgive the typo.

Ducky's here said...

AOW, I personally do not believe you should have to pay for your husband's transport. As a nation we are fully capable of insuring our citizens against catastrophic health events, and should.

However, the country is going in the direction of "wage war for business and let the working class pay for it."
You are making no attempt to counter this trend.

Interesting enough is that Obummer is leading it. He is holding up the debt ceiling deal in order to get medicaid cuts. He is a corporate dream and you want something even more radical.

As I say, I'm a perverse person and in the case of the right wing in America, I hope they get what the ask for. It's the only way they'll learn. But be ready because you better have means. Obummer is getting the plank and the vaseline.

Lone Ranger said...

One has to wonder what Obama would have to do to lose the faith of his fanatic liberal worshipers, which brings me to Immutable Truth About Liberals #23.

As for blaming our current problems on Bush -- that would be Talking Point #20.

I am not defending Bush's spending, but Obama is spending three times as fast. And he's blaming Bush for the deficit.

Conservatives continually criticized Bush's spending, but I don't hear a peep of opposition from liberals about obama's plundering of our economy.

Once again, one has to wonder what Obama would have to do to lose the faith of his fanatic liberal worshipers

BenT - the Unbeliever said...

"I am not defending Bush's spending, but Obama is spending three times as fast. And he's blaming Bush for the deficit."

Because it was under the Bush presidency the nation's balance sheet moved from black to red.
War in Afghanistan - Paid for with deficit spending
War in Iraq - Paid for with deficit spending
Medicare Part D Expansion - paid for with deficit spending
Bush Tax Cuts - Not offset, increased deficit

All these projects are still ongoing and they're still being paid for with deficit spending. That's why Democrats consider ending our military actions abroad as deficit reductions.

"Conservatives continually criticized Bush's spending, but I don't hear a peep of opposition from liberals about obama's plundering of our economy."

Then here's my challenge: Find a quote from ANY Conservative Leader condemning Bush's spending.

Mostly I like and agree with the things Pres. Obama is spending money on. I think the economy needs stimulus, and government spending can employ people, increase industry and jump start the economy. I'm concerned that almost 50-million Americans don't have basic healthcare. I think spending money to bring those people basic preventative care will save us money in the long-run.

Liberals don't care about the size or cost of government, as a rule, we care about what the government is doing more.

Where conservatives could make common economic cause with liberals is in the area of civil liberties and security theatre. The TSA employs ten of thousands of screeners, yet journalists and researchers keep getting test bombs onto planes. Billions of dollars in grants are going to states and municipalities for "homeland security", but does jackson, MS really need a radiation/chemical/bio security treatment facility?

What if we took that money and redirected it to the small business administration for service-members leaving the armed forces. Get an employee of the federal books and maybe seed thousands of new businesses.

Anyway that's going to be as much spending compliant you get out of democrats, Pres. Obama has continued the wasteful spending of the previous administration.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

For those who claim Obama is not really that much of a spender compared to past presidents, I offer the following:
http://www.xerraireart.com/blog/2011/07/23/mr-obama-is-expected-to-have-added-as-much-debt-as-all-the-prior-43-presidents-combined/

Jim said...

Glenn,

Your linked article claims....

By the end of his first term, Mr. Obama is expected to have added as much debt as all the prior 43 presidents combined.

This is incorrect. Most of the debt added during Obama's term so far was not added by him. It is the result of continuing deficits due to unfunded wars, unfunded tax cuts, and the recession.

At the end of Clinton's last budget year, the national debt was $5.8 Trillion. At the end of Bush's last budget year, the national debt was $11.9 Trillion. That is $6.1 Trillion in added debt under Bush, a doubling of the national debt. There is no projection anywhere that shows Obama adding $11.9 Trillion to the national debt.

A better measure is what the cost of new policies have added to the debt and deficit under Bush and Obama. Check that out here.

Ducky's here said...

Actually what he did regarding the two fiascoes was put them on the books rather than keeping them off budget as supplemental expenditures as Chucklenuts did. My guess is that the right wingers here don't know what a supplemental is so they are suckered easily.

Keep trying to keep the right wing honest. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.

Ducky's here said...

Did someone bring up the unfunded big pharma legislation under Chucklenuts Bush?

They probably count that against Obama in the deficit calculation and lump it under the health insurance legislation.

Trader Rick said...

"unfunded Tax cuts"

seriously dudes, that's just plain looney.

Ducky's here said...

Come on Ranger Rick, you know what it means.

Cuts that aren't reinvested in the economy.

The bleating of your ilk that tax cuts create jobs should be reevaluated but from a look at your site all you do is sit around and drink.

Jim said...

If you have a balanced budget, as we did in 2001, and then you reduce revenue by cutting taxes, you get a deficit, as we did right after the tax cuts and every year since.

So if you don't raise revenues elsewhere or you don't reduce spending, you don't have a balanced budget due to "unfunded tax cuts."

Got it?

Trader Rick said...

"Daffy" said:

"The bleating of your ilk that tax cuts create jobs should be reevaluated but from a look at your site all you do is sit around and drink."

My "ilk" (Red-blooded Americans who want this country to continue being a world leader for peace, freedom and prosperity, not turn it into a pathetic third world cesspool) do have a lot of fun partying. We also work hard and are not on welfare. We do have a lot of fun poking sticks at sick weirdos that would turn our beloved country into a communist hell0hole, daffy. Glad you're enjoying our 'site", son. Salud!!

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
Late response here.

I personally do not believe you should have to pay for your husband's transport.

As it turns out, we got a second-hand scooter all on our own -- and for a mere $500! Had we gone the route of the health-insurance company, the cost would have been some $5000, $1000 paid by private insurance.

The scooter we got isn't exactly the same model.

But I think that you see my point. Health insurance and Medicare payments have caused the cost of these scooters to go high. As the nursing home said to me, "Isn't there a pool of money we can get?"

A lot of people order these scooters because of the ads on TV, then find out that they cannot successfully use them. Medicare and other insurance picked up the tab -- only for the scooters to end up on E-Bay or Craig's List.

Ducky's here said...

Why do you assume there would be downward price pressure on the scooters if insurance weren't involved.

There is a limited demand for the device so bulk is not going to decrease prices.

Without insurance it would probably be a higher priced item due to much lower demand. The cost is relatively small if it is spread over the population of insureds.

Jim said...

"it would probably be a higher priced item due to much lower demand."

Sorry, Ducky, but I'm going to have call basic economics on you for that one.

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
Why do you assume there would be downward price pressure on the scooters if insurance weren't involved.

Because providers have the attitude of "Isn't there a pool of money we can get?"

I've found that going through insurance for some things does actually increase the cost. For example, I got a shower transfer chair for much less than the given price by offering to pay the pharmacy on the spot instead of filing through Mr. AOW's health plan.