The Official 2012 Election Day thread sponsored by Goldman Sachs

[Warlord23]

Maybe. The democrats won't. Without scare quotes...

So your argument is that people should vote based on what the GOP says, not what it has been doing.

"Matt Bonner says he is interested in winning a championship. Therefore he "might" win the championship. Let's give him a max contract". Completely disregarding Matt Bonner's actual track record.

The two major parties have done a great job of providing an illusion of choice while not having the stomach or a realistic plan to tackle the problem.

[pad300]

How fiscally responsible were the Republicans from 2001-2008 tbh

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/w...EFICITSCBO.jpg



Anything stick out to you? I'll admit the Bush II years were not particularly good financially, but...

[pad300]

How fiscally responsible were the Republicans from 2001-2008 tbh

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/w...EFICITSCBO.jpg



Anything stick out to you? I'll admit the Bush II years were not particularly good financially, but...

[pad300]

So your argument is that people should vote based on what the GOP says, not what it has been doing.

"Matt Bonner says he is interested in winning a championship. Therefore he "might" win the championship. Let's give him a max contract". Completely disregarding Matt Bonner's actual track record.

The two major parties have done a great job of providing an illusion of choice while not having the stomach or a realistic plan to tackle the problem.

Your argument is 1998. The Spurs have never won a ring. Therefore they never will. Except the personnel changed...
The Tea party is having a huge influence on the republican primary processes. The personnel is changing. Maybe not fast enough, but here's to hoping.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So a few things.

1) Does that graph account for the interest ac umating on the debt racked up from 2001-2008?

2) Does that graph account for the fact Bush didn't include the wars on his budget thereby grossly understating the deficit?

3) When Willard adds 5 trillion in tax cuts and 2 trillion in defense spending, how do you think that's gonna impact your graph?

4) Why did you dodge the question I asked regarding were the Republicans fiscally responsible from 2001-2008? It was a yes or no question that takes no effort to answer.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Your argument is 1998. The Spurs have never won a ring. Therefore they never will. Except the personnel changed...
The Tea party is having a huge influence on the republican primary processes. The personnel is changing. Maybe not fast enough, but here's to hoping.

thinking the tea party influence is gonna help. The crybaby tea partiers in congress were what prevented Obama and Boehner from getting a deal done and were the cause of the S&P's credit downgrade.

PS - Why did the tea baggers suddenly start caring about our deficit in 2009? Where was their concern when we had record deficits during Bush?

[Warlord23]

So a few things.

1) Does that graph account for the interest ac umating on the debt racked up from 2001-2008?

2) Does that graph account for the fact Bush didn't include the wars on his budget thereby grossly understating the deficit?

3) When Willard adds 5 trillion in tax cuts and 2 trillion in defense spending, how do you think that's gonna impact your graph?

4) Why did you dodge the question I asked regarding were the Republicans fiscally responsible from 2001-2008? It was a yes or no question that takes no effort to answer.

Bingo.

[Warlord23]

Your argument is 1998. The Spurs have never won a ring. Therefore they never will. Except the personnel changed...
The Tea party is having a huge influence on the republican primary processes. The personnel is changing. Maybe not fast enough, but here's to hoping.

If you think a bunch of intransigent ideologues who don't understand the mathematics behind policy will help solve a problem that will definitely need a multi-pronged solution, you're deluded.

[pad300]

So a few things.

1) Does that graph account for the interest ac umating on the debt racked up from 2001-2008?

2) Does that graph account for the fact Bush didn't include the wars on his budget thereby grossly understating the deficit?

3) When Willard adds 5 trillion in tax cuts and 2 trillion in defense spending, how do you think that's gonna impact your graph?

4) Why did you dodge the question I asked regarding were the Republicans fiscally responsible from 2001-2008? It was a yes or no question that takes no effort to answer.

1), 2) All gov't spending included. Interest, wars, all of it.
3) I doubt they will actually add $2 Billion in defence spending. A feature of your political system is they will have to compromise with the democrats somewhere. The tax cuts might just work out in the gov'ts favor overall. They did for Reagan.
4) Gone blind? "I'll admit the Bush II years were not particularly good financially, but... " Bush II still looks at LOT better than Obama.

[pad300]

So a few things.

1) Does that graph account for the interest ac umating on the debt racked up from 2001-2008?

2) Does that graph account for the fact Bush didn't include the wars on his budget thereby grossly understating the deficit?

3) When Willard adds 5 trillion in tax cuts and 2 trillion in defense spending, how do you think that's gonna impact your graph?

4) Why did you dodge the question I asked regarding were the Republicans fiscally responsible from 2001-2008? It was a yes or no question that takes no effort to answer.

1), 2) All gov't spending included. Interest, wars, all of it.
3) I doubt they will actually add $2 Billion in defence spending. A feature of your political system is they will have to compromise with the democrats somewhere. The tax cuts might just work out in the gov'ts favor overall. They did for Reagan.
4) Gone blind? "I'll admit the Bush II years were not particularly good financially, but... " Bush II still looks at LOT better than Obama.

[MannyIsGod]

Apparently the reason Romney Ryan is going to lose today is because they did their best campaigning in Canada.

[pad300]

thinking the tea party influence is gonna help. The crybaby tea partiers in congress were what prevented Obama and Boehner from getting a deal done and were the cause of the S&P's credit downgrade.

PS - Why did the tea baggers suddenly start caring about our deficit in 2009? Where was their concern when we had record deficits during Bush?

The US budget doesn't need another "deal" to kick the can down the the road. They ain't no more road. It needs bunch of "intransigent ideologues" with axes...

[pad300]

thinking the tea party influence is gonna help. The crybaby tea partiers in congress were what prevented Obama and Boehner from getting a deal done and were the cause of the S&P's credit downgrade.

PS - Why did the tea baggers suddenly start caring about our deficit in 2009? Where was their concern when we had record deficits during Bush?

The US budget doesn't need another "deal" to kick the can down the the road. They ain't no more road. It needs bunch of "intransigent ideologues" with axes...

[pad300]

Apparently the reason Romney Ryan is going to lose today is because they did their best campaigning in Canada.

I guess we will find out...

[Warlord23]

We've gone over the math regarding Bush and Obama's spending on this forum before. Scott pulled together the data in a prior thread:

Government Receipts & Expenditures by Year

Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Total receipts 1,159.3 1,237.0 1,337.2 1,422.8 1,543.9
Total expenditures 1,487.5 1,534.8 1,566.5 1,631.4 1,697.8
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -328.2 -297.8 -229.3 -208.7 -153.9

Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Total receipts 1,676.7 1,803.0 1,923.7 2,085.2 2,048.2
Total expenditures 1,728.8 1,761.0 1,828.7 1,900.6 2,014.1
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -52.1 42.0 95.0 184.7 34.2

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total receipts 1,884.6 1,907.1 2,038.5 2,315.1 2,552.4
Total expenditures 2,162.6 2,329.3 2,465.4 2,667.4 2,799.6
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -278.0 -422.2 -426.8 -352.4 -247.2

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total receipts 2,681.2 2,530.5 2,247.1 2,410.5 2,529.2
Total expenditures 2,996.2 3,286.7 3,704.5 3,901.0 3,923.2
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -315.0 -756.2 -1,457.4 -1,490.5 -1,394.1

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/

My subsequent analysis:

Bush
Expenditure that he inherited from Clinton [2000]: 1.9 Trillion
Expenditure at the end of his tenure [2008]: 3.286 Trillion
CAGR: 7.1% per annum over 8 years

Obama
Expenditure that he inherited from Bush [2008]: 3.286 Trillion
Expenditure at the end of last year [2011]: 3.923 Trillion
CAGR: 6.1% per annum over 3 years

Bush spent money while cutting taxes. Obama did nothing to reverse those tax cuts and continued spending. However, the numbers beg the question: why wasn't the Tea Party formed during 8 years of 7% spending hikes under a Republican president? Why did it get formed within the first year of Obama's presidency, and why are his spending hikes portrayed as much worse than his predecessor's?

johnsmith summarizing it eloquently:

This thread is such a kick ass example of what's wrong with politics in America and why guys like Boutons are actually right that this country is ed (I refuse to use the word un able because it sounds ing re ed).

OP: Our debt is 16 trillion
Repub: Thanks for nothing Obama
Dem: Your guy started it
Repub: Your guy made it worse
Dem: Yeah but your guy started it.

Repub/Dem: Vote for my guy and it will change.

[ElNono]

Jack is salty mad already and it's only noon... gonna be a long day

[ChumpDumper]

So I know the presidential election will get the most attention but there are a lot of other races that are interesting. There are some local bond issues here that I'm really interested in and things like the SA preK will be interesting to watch as well.

Here I'm mostly interested in which city council scheme is adopted. I've got a bad feeling there will still be at large council members after today. The richers won't give up so easily.

[ChumpDumper]

Jack is salty mad already and it's only noon... gonna be a long day

I love the "worst prez evah" being thrown around. Folks have no knowledge of history.

[Warlord23]

Conclusion: both sides know what the problem is, but they will not do what it takes to solve it.

The 10 biggest corporations will continue to pay less than 10% in taxes.
Oil company subsidies will continue.
Crony capitalism will be alive and well.
The boomers will get to keep their freebies.

But don't worry, Mitt Romney is here to assure you that he will cut taxes, buy more warships, magically create 12 million jobs (the rationale behind this number itself is hilarious, but that's a different topic altogether), de-fund PBS and Planned Parenthood and the budget will be balanced!

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

1), 2) All gov't spending included. Interest, wars, all of it.

So whoever made the graph went back and added the wars to what the deficit was reported as each year from 2001-2008? Methinks you're wrong.

3) I doubt they will actually add $2 Billion in defence spending. A feature of your political system is they will have to compromise with the democrats somewhere. The tax cuts might just work out in the gov'ts favor overall. They did for Reagan.

Oh where to begin.

1) Mitt Romney said he wants to add $2 trillion in defense spending. If him being fiscally responsible is contingent on the Democrats getting their way and lowering that number, it doesn't do much for your argument that the Democrats are fiscally irresponsible.

2) The tax cuts worked out well under Reagan? The national deficit exploded in his 8 years as president. It almost doubled as a percentage of GDP. Do you have more history you wish to revise?

4) Gone blind? "I'll admit the Bush II years were not particularly good financially, but... " Bush II still looks at LOT better than Obama.

You didn't answer the question. It was a yer or no question. Were the Republicans fiscally responsible from 2001-2008, yes or no? Lets see if you dodge it again.

[ElNono]

2) The tax cuts worked out well under Reagan? The national deficit exploded in his 8 years as president. It almost doubled as a percentage of GDP. Do you have more history you wish to revise?

StRonnie cut taxes then proceeded to *raise* taxes for just as much or more (depending who you ask). All the while expanding government and putting it all on the government credit card.

Nothing says fiscal conservative like Star Wars!

[scott]

We've gone over the math regarding Bush and Obama's spending on this forum before. Scott pulled together the data in a prior thread:



My subsequent analysis:


johnsmith summarizing it eloquently:

Do you have a link to this original thread? Would like to look back at it, too lazy/stupid to search.

[Heath Ledger]

Romeny wants to cut taxes and cut spending lol......... seems legit.

[Winehole23]

Here I'm mostly interested in which city council scheme is adopted. I've got a bad feeling there will still be at large council members after today. The richers won't give up so easily.

nope. there's been surprisingly little chatter on the facebook about the Travis Co. ballot, and there's plenty on it this time.

[Heath Ledger]

The governement has been raising taxes for years, by watering down our dollar in the form of inflation.