OT: Why Obama is Mum About Harvard

[EconProf]

Drboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.

Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.

Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.

More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates. His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.
Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]Drboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.[/quote]

I do not have a party affiliation. See the California Secretary of State’s explanation. Thee Republican Party of California does not allow any but registered Republicans to vote in their primaries.

[quote]Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.[/quote]

I’ve explained it repeatedly. Read and understand this. It covers more than just the Social Security deficit manipulation scam. The conservatives over at the Heritage Foundation were freaking out when Clinton was doing the deficit numbers game, but I wonder if they were still screaming when Bush kept doing it?

You could look this stuff up, you know.

[quote]Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.

More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates.[/quote]

Erm, there is the small matter of an unnecessary war in Iraq that was going to “pay for itself”.

[quote]His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.[/quote]

The Medicare deal would have been great if he’d thunk of some way to pay for it. It was just a naked vote grab, and someone else will be left holding the bag.

As for making the poor into homeowners, the very existence of this web site has a lot to do with that “compassionate” goal. Actually, Bush fought on the right side of this issue against Barney Frank and his crew on the House Banking Comittee when he wanted stricter control of Fannie and Freddie. Now, “stricter control” would have gone against poorer aspiring homeowners, but it would have been good for the country.

[quote]Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years. [/quote]

“Relatively low”. Wow.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]Drboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.[/quote]

I do not have a party affiliation. See the California Secretary of State’s explanation. Thee Republican Party of California does not allow any but registered Republicans to vote in their primaries.

[quote]Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.[/quote]

I’ve explained it repeatedly. Read and understand this. It covers more than just the Social Security deficit manipulation scam. The conservatives over at the Heritage Foundation were freaking out when Clinton was doing the deficit numbers game, but I wonder if they were still screaming when Bush kept doing it?

You could look this stuff up, you know.

[quote]Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.

More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates.[/quote]

Erm, there is the small matter of an unnecessary war in Iraq that was going to “pay for itself”.

[quote]His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.[/quote]

The Medicare deal would have been great if he’d thunk of some way to pay for it. It was just a naked vote grab, and someone else will be left holding the bag.

As for making the poor into homeowners, the very existence of this web site has a lot to do with that “compassionate” goal. Actually, Bush fought on the right side of this issue against Barney Frank and his crew on the House Banking Comittee when he wanted stricter control of Fannie and Freddie. Now, “stricter control” would have gone against poorer aspiring homeowners, but it would have been good for the country.

[quote]Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years. [/quote]

“Relatively low”. Wow.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]Drboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.[/quote]

I do not have a party affiliation. See the California Secretary of State’s explanation. Thee Republican Party of California does not allow any but registered Republicans to vote in their primaries.

[quote]Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.[/quote]

I’ve explained it repeatedly. Read and understand this. It covers more than just the Social Security deficit manipulation scam. The conservatives over at the Heritage Foundation were freaking out when Clinton was doing the deficit numbers game, but I wonder if they were still screaming when Bush kept doing it?

You could look this stuff up, you know.

[quote]Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.

More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates.[/quote]

Erm, there is the small matter of an unnecessary war in Iraq that was going to “pay for itself”.

[quote]His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.[/quote]

The Medicare deal would have been great if he’d thunk of some way to pay for it. It was just a naked vote grab, and someone else will be left holding the bag.

As for making the poor into homeowners, the very existence of this web site has a lot to do with that “compassionate” goal. Actually, Bush fought on the right side of this issue against Barney Frank and his crew on the House Banking Comittee when he wanted stricter control of Fannie and Freddie. Now, “stricter control” would have gone against poorer aspiring homeowners, but it would have been good for the country.

[quote]Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years. [/quote]

“Relatively low”. Wow.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]Drboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.[/quote]

I do not have a party affiliation. See the California Secretary of State’s explanation. Thee Republican Party of California does not allow any but registered Republicans to vote in their primaries.

[quote]Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.[/quote]

I’ve explained it repeatedly. Read and understand this. It covers more than just the Social Security deficit manipulation scam. The conservatives over at the Heritage Foundation were freaking out when Clinton was doing the deficit numbers game, but I wonder if they were still screaming when Bush kept doing it?

You could look this stuff up, you know.

[quote]Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.

More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates.[/quote]

Erm, there is the small matter of an unnecessary war in Iraq that was going to “pay for itself”.

[quote]His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.[/quote]

The Medicare deal would have been great if he’d thunk of some way to pay for it. It was just a naked vote grab, and someone else will be left holding the bag.

As for making the poor into homeowners, the very existence of this web site has a lot to do with that “compassionate” goal. Actually, Bush fought on the right side of this issue against Barney Frank and his crew on the House Banking Comittee when he wanted stricter control of Fannie and Freddie. Now, “stricter control” would have gone against poorer aspiring homeowners, but it would have been good for the country.

[quote]Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years. [/quote]

“Relatively low”. Wow.

[drboom]

[quote=EconProf]Drboom:
You did not vote for Ron Paul because you were “unaffiliated”. What is that? Noncitizen? Please explain.[/quote]

I do not have a party affiliation. See the California Secretary of State’s explanation. Thee Republican Party of California does not allow any but registered Republicans to vote in their primaries.

[quote]Deficits are “flows” measured over a set period of time such as a fiscal year. Total government spending less total government revenues in that time period = the deficit.
The debt is nothing more than all past accumulated deficits. It is a “stock” measured at a specific point in time.
Ergo, the national debt on October 1, 2008 minus the national debt on October 1, 2007 would show the deficit accumulated during that fiscal year.
That’s the over $1 trillion figure you rely on that is still unexplained compared to the commonly-accepted $435 billion figure I am relying on.[/quote]

I’ve explained it repeatedly. Read and understand this. It covers more than just the Social Security deficit manipulation scam. The conservatives over at the Heritage Foundation were freaking out when Clinton was doing the deficit numbers game, but I wonder if they were still screaming when Bush kept doing it?

You could look this stuff up, you know.

[quote]Yes, I taught university-level economics for 23 years before taking early retirement to become a licensed glazing contractor and invest in TDs, commercial real estate, land, and apartments in various states.

More fundamentally, you seem to object to Obama’s “Keynesian” spending as well as Bush’s. I suspect you and I would agree on more things than we would disagree on.
To you and all those who condemn Bush for his big-spending ways, I’m with you. But generally he spent big when he lurched leftward in his politics, trying to attract democrats and moderates.[/quote]

Erm, there is the small matter of an unnecessary war in Iraq that was going to “pay for itself”.

[quote]His Medicare expansion with prescription drugs and his trying to make the poor and near-poor into homeowners were the compassionate part of compassionate conservatism.[/quote]

The Medicare deal would have been great if he’d thunk of some way to pay for it. It was just a naked vote grab, and someone else will be left holding the bag.

As for making the poor into homeowners, the very existence of this web site has a lot to do with that “compassionate” goal. Actually, Bush fought on the right side of this issue against Barney Frank and his crew on the House Banking Comittee when he wanted stricter control of Fannie and Freddie. Now, “stricter control” would have gone against poorer aspiring homeowners, but it would have been good for the country.

[quote]Now that the electorate has rejected that kind of Republicanism, were stuck with 4 – 8 years of a truly big spender. I’m afraid we will look back with fondness on the relatively low deficits of the Bush years. [/quote]

“Relatively low”. Wow.

[Arraya]

Here is what the socialists say about Obama. Not derogatory term socialist, real live ones. haha

Obama’s economic advisers predicted in January that with passage of the economic stimulus package, the US unemployment rate this year would not exceed 8 percent in 2009. It has already hit 9.4 percent, rendering meaningless the stimulus package’s modest promises of job creation. Most economists now believe that the US unemployment rate will top 10 percent by year’s end, and that it could rise to 11 percent at some point in 2011.

There is general agreement, moreover, that employment levels and conditions of labor will not return to those that prevailed prior to the financial crisis. This is no accident. The ruling elite, led by the Obama administration, has seized on the crisis as a long-awaited chance to restructure class relations to its advantage for decades to come.

They agree with the hard right. How funny is that.

The old system is dead as dead. We are on a loan treadmill that if we stop we fly off. This is an economic time bomb, 4 decades in the making brought to us by the financial wizards at the Fed.

The faux partisan finger-pointing will be a show. Though, Obama is going to live up to the worst fears of the right. So get ready lefties, it’s gonna be brutal defending him. It will be analogous to the right defending Iraq. The big spending democrat finally brought us to our knees. I predict Rush Limbaugh spontaneously combusts.

Attention all passengers this is your pilot speaking. Please prepare for economic armageddon. Thank you for flying keynesian airlines. Please be sure to blame your political party of choice

[Arraya]

Here is what the socialists say about Obama. Not derogatory term socialist, real live ones. haha

Obama’s economic advisers predicted in January that with passage of the economic stimulus package, the US unemployment rate this year would not exceed 8 percent in 2009. It has already hit 9.4 percent, rendering meaningless the stimulus package’s modest promises of job creation. Most economists now believe that the US unemployment rate will top 10 percent by year’s end, and that it could rise to 11 percent at some point in 2011.

There is general agreement, moreover, that employment levels and conditions of labor will not return to those that prevailed prior to the financial crisis. This is no accident. The ruling elite, led by the Obama administration, has seized on the crisis as a long-awaited chance to restructure class relations to its advantage for decades to come.

They agree with the hard right. How funny is that.

The old system is dead as dead. We are on a loan treadmill that if we stop we fly off. This is an economic time bomb, 4 decades in the making brought to us by the financial wizards at the Fed.

The faux partisan finger-pointing will be a show. Though, Obama is going to live up to the worst fears of the right. So get ready lefties, it’s gonna be brutal defending him. It will be analogous to the right defending Iraq. The big spending democrat finally brought us to our knees. I predict Rush Limbaugh spontaneously combusts.

Attention all passengers this is your pilot speaking. Please prepare for economic armageddon. Thank you for flying keynesian airlines. Please be sure to blame your political party of choice

[Arraya]

Here is what the socialists say about Obama. Not derogatory term socialist, real live ones. haha

Obama’s economic advisers predicted in January that with passage of the economic stimulus package, the US unemployment rate this year would not exceed 8 percent in 2009. It has already hit 9.4 percent, rendering meaningless the stimulus package’s modest promises of job creation. Most economists now believe that the US unemployment rate will top 10 percent by year’s end, and that it could rise to 11 percent at some point in 2011.

There is general agreement, moreover, that employment levels and conditions of labor will not return to those that prevailed prior to the financial crisis. This is no accident. The ruling elite, led by the Obama administration, has seized on the crisis as a long-awaited chance to restructure class relations to its advantage for decades to come.

They agree with the hard right. How funny is that.

The old system is dead as dead. We are on a loan treadmill that if we stop we fly off. This is an economic time bomb, 4 decades in the making brought to us by the financial wizards at the Fed.

The faux partisan finger-pointing will be a show. Though, Obama is going to live up to the worst fears of the right. So get ready lefties, it’s gonna be brutal defending him. It will be analogous to the right defending Iraq. The big spending democrat finally brought us to our knees. I predict Rush Limbaugh spontaneously combusts.

Attention all passengers this is your pilot speaking. Please prepare for economic armageddon. Thank you for flying keynesian airlines. Please be sure to blame your political party of choice

[Arraya]

Here is what the socialists say about Obama. Not derogatory term socialist, real live ones. haha

Obama’s economic advisers predicted in January that with passage of the economic stimulus package, the US unemployment rate this year would not exceed 8 percent in 2009. It has already hit 9.4 percent, rendering meaningless the stimulus package’s modest promises of job creation. Most economists now believe that the US unemployment rate will top 10 percent by year’s end, and that it could rise to 11 percent at some point in 2011.

There is general agreement, moreover, that employment levels and conditions of labor will not return to those that prevailed prior to the financial crisis. This is no accident. The ruling elite, led by the Obama administration, has seized on the crisis as a long-awaited chance to restructure class relations to its advantage for decades to come.

They agree with the hard right. How funny is that.

The old system is dead as dead. We are on a loan treadmill that if we stop we fly off. This is an economic time bomb, 4 decades in the making brought to us by the financial wizards at the Fed.

The faux partisan finger-pointing will be a show. Though, Obama is going to live up to the worst fears of the right. So get ready lefties, it’s gonna be brutal defending him. It will be analogous to the right defending Iraq. The big spending democrat finally brought us to our knees. I predict Rush Limbaugh spontaneously combusts.

Attention all passengers this is your pilot speaking. Please prepare for economic armageddon. Thank you for flying keynesian airlines. Please be sure to blame your political party of choice

[Arraya]

Here is what the socialists say about Obama. Not derogatory term socialist, real live ones. haha

Obama’s economic advisers predicted in January that with passage of the economic stimulus package, the US unemployment rate this year would not exceed 8 percent in 2009. It has already hit 9.4 percent, rendering meaningless the stimulus package’s modest promises of job creation. Most economists now believe that the US unemployment rate will top 10 percent by year’s end, and that it could rise to 11 percent at some point in 2011.

There is general agreement, moreover, that employment levels and conditions of labor will not return to those that prevailed prior to the financial crisis. This is no accident. The ruling elite, led by the Obama administration, has seized on the crisis as a long-awaited chance to restructure class relations to its advantage for decades to come.

They agree with the hard right. How funny is that.

The old system is dead as dead. We are on a loan treadmill that if we stop we fly off. This is an economic time bomb, 4 decades in the making brought to us by the financial wizards at the Fed.

The faux partisan finger-pointing will be a show. Though, Obama is going to live up to the worst fears of the right. So get ready lefties, it’s gonna be brutal defending him. It will be analogous to the right defending Iraq. The big spending democrat finally brought us to our knees. I predict Rush Limbaugh spontaneously combusts.

Attention all passengers this is your pilot speaking. Please prepare for economic armageddon. Thank you for flying keynesian airlines. Please be sure to blame your political party of choice

[Author]

Posts