OT: Why Obama is Mum About Harvard

[drboom]

[quote=partypup]
There is simply no historical precedent for the debt that Obama is generating now. We are in uncharted territory. [/quote]

It’s pretty well charted, actually. We’re at about the level seen during the Truman administration, when compared to the GDP.

Of course we used to make stuff back then and sell it to other countries.

[Casca]

[quote=patb]

Oterwise STFU[/quote]

Considering your self-evident credentials as a blowhard, one prays that you might do the same.

The boy president is a huckster and a lightweight in over his head. Bullshit works until your bluff is called. He has unnaturally reached a table where he now must show his cards. It’s really bad news for all of us.

[Casca]

[quote=patb]

Oterwise STFU[/quote]

Considering your self-evident credentials as a blowhard, one prays that you might do the same.

The boy president is a huckster and a lightweight in over his head. Bullshit works until your bluff is called. He has unnaturally reached a table where he now must show his cards. It’s really bad news for all of us.

[Casca]

[quote=patb]

Oterwise STFU[/quote]

Considering your self-evident credentials as a blowhard, one prays that you might do the same.

The boy president is a huckster and a lightweight in over his head. Bullshit works until your bluff is called. He has unnaturally reached a table where he now must show his cards. It’s really bad news for all of us.

[Casca]

[quote=patb]

Oterwise STFU[/quote]

Considering your self-evident credentials as a blowhard, one prays that you might do the same.

The boy president is a huckster and a lightweight in over his head. Bullshit works until your bluff is called. He has unnaturally reached a table where he now must show his cards. It’s really bad news for all of us.

[Casca]

[quote=patb]

Oterwise STFU[/quote]

Considering your self-evident credentials as a blowhard, one prays that you might do the same.

The boy president is a huckster and a lightweight in over his head. Bullshit works until your bluff is called. He has unnaturally reached a table where he now must show his cards. It’s really bad news for all of us.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]

You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.

Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?

Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.

[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]

News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.[/quote]

For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.
Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit to be something over 1 trillion. But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.
But your site did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.
Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]

You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.

Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?

Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.

[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]

News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.[/quote]

For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.
Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit to be something over 1 trillion. But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.
But your site did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.
Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]

You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.

Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?

Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.

[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]

News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.[/quote]

For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.
Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit to be something over 1 trillion. But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.
But your site did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.
Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]

You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.

Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?

Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.

[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]

News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.[/quote]

For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.
Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit to be something over 1 trillion. But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.
But your site did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.
Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.

[EconProf]

[quote=drboom][quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]

You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.

Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?

Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.

[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]

News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.[/quote]

For starters, I voted for Ron Paul.
Your site did indeed show Bush’s last fiscal year deficit to be something over 1 trillion. But the site did not show how it arrived at that figure, or explain why that figure is more than double all other reports of the annual deficit. Do they use cash basis? Accrural? Social security unfunded future liability total? If so, under what assumptions? I can’t tell.
But your site did lead me to links published by the Treasury Department which support my claim that the last Bush deficit was in the neighborhood of $435 billion: Monthly Treasury Statements (MTS). These show monthly deficits and surpluses and I believe are the source of news releases the media relies upon. Totaling the fiscal year months comes to $435 billion, not far from the media’s $442 billion.
Of course last fall the deficit was on its way up sharply under Bush. But let’s agree on historical facts before we debate whether Bush or Obama is the most reckless spender.

[felix]

And Obama is the guy who based an entire speech on the French national motto, Liberté, égalité, fraternité and couldn’t remember the line without a teleprompter. That had some in his European audience recently laughing at him and prompting French President Sarkozy to question not only Obama’s intelligence but that of the American people who voted for him.

So much for the world-wide respect Obama was supposed to get us.

There are so many Obama gaffes they are had to choose from but how about saying he visited 57 states. As dumb as some may think W was I think he knows how many states we have. Even most Jay(Leno) Walk All stars can tell you there are 50 states.

And you are making something about not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni?

[felix]

And Obama is the guy who based an entire speech on the French national motto, Liberté, égalité, fraternité and couldn’t remember the line without a teleprompter. That had some in his European audience recently laughing at him and prompting French President Sarkozy to question not only Obama’s intelligence but that of the American people who voted for him.

So much for the world-wide respect Obama was supposed to get us.

There are so many Obama gaffes they are had to choose from but how about saying he visited 57 states. As dumb as some may think W was I think he knows how many states we have. Even most Jay(Leno) Walk All stars can tell you there are 50 states.

And you are making something about not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni?

[felix]

And Obama is the guy who based an entire speech on the French national motto, Liberté, égalité, fraternité and couldn’t remember the line without a teleprompter. That had some in his European audience recently laughing at him and prompting French President Sarkozy to question not only Obama’s intelligence but that of the American people who voted for him.

So much for the world-wide respect Obama was supposed to get us.

There are so many Obama gaffes they are had to choose from but how about saying he visited 57 states. As dumb as some may think W was I think he knows how many states we have. Even most Jay(Leno) Walk All stars can tell you there are 50 states.

And you are making something about not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni?

[felix]

And Obama is the guy who based an entire speech on the French national motto, Liberté, égalité, fraternité and couldn’t remember the line without a teleprompter. That had some in his European audience recently laughing at him and prompting French President Sarkozy to question not only Obama’s intelligence but that of the American people who voted for him.

So much for the world-wide respect Obama was supposed to get us.

There are so many Obama gaffes they are had to choose from but how about saying he visited 57 states. As dumb as some may think W was I think he knows how many states we have. Even most Jay(Leno) Walk All stars can tell you there are 50 states.

And you are making something about not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni?

[Author]

Posts