Obama General Discussion, vol. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Govt. sets record deficit in February - Washington Times

Another Record Set for US Budget Deficit in February

The federal government recorded its worst monthly deficit in history in February, according to a preliminary report Wednesday from the Congressional Budget Office that said the deficit in fiscal year 2012 is already more than half a trillion dollars.

The CBO’s figures show that despite repeated efforts to trim spending, the government has borrowed 42 cents of every dollar it spent during the first five months of this fiscal year.

The nonpartisan agency projected the government will run a deficit of $229 billion in February, the highest monthly figure ever. The previous high was $223 billion a year ago, in February 2011.

It is the 41st straight month the government has run a deficit — itself a record streak that dates back to the final months of President George W. Bush’s tenure. Before now, the longest streak on record was 11 months.

And how's this for leadership?

Mr. Obama last month released a budget that showed the government averaging $1 trillion deficits for the rest of this decade. House Republicans are working to write their own budget now, while Senate Democratic leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada has said he doubts his chamber will write a budget this year.

Funny how this story gets lost among important issues like the GOP's War on Women, Rush Limbaugh and all those crazy white folks stocking up on guns.
 
Govt. sets record deficit in February - Washington Times



And how's this for leadership?



Funny how this story gets lost among important issues like the GOP's War on Women, Rush Limbaugh and all those crazy white folks stocking up on guns.

You're telling me that the new cycle favours popcorn outrage over stupid people over hard facts about fiscal policy?

Who knew?

The debt-to-GDP ration is not looking too good at 115%, though. Call me when we approach 150%, which is when economists generally agree that the shit is hitting the proverbial fan.
 
The debt-to-GDP ration is not looking too good at 115%, though. Call me when we approach 150%, which is when economists generally agree that the shit is hitting the proverbial fan.

Exactly 10 years according to President Obama's 2012 budget. Not that anyone would know that from his words or actions.
 
After two rounds of QE, I wonder how much of that has actually been bought by the Fed. There's a reasonable argument to be made that the Fed's inability to purchase bonds directly from the Treasury is a bit of a problem sometimes. So many billions of dollars of fairly-liquid assets more or less vanished with the recession, and deflation was a major concern. Along with the Fed's own actions to replace bonds with printed money, Congress dumped borrowed money into the market to replace those more-or-less destroyed assets... but the bonds that investors bought have always been considered liquid and safe enough assets to not be that much different than cash themselves. There's part of me that thinks that things would be better if the Fed could have just directly printed the money that Congress used for stimulus, along the lines of Modern Monetary Theory.
 
And now for Barack and everyone's least favourite human penis, DCam, eating processed raccoons inside intestinal casing

XqWKI.jpg
 
To be fair, I would like to see numbers based on who controlled Congress during those respective time periods.
 
Here's an interesting nugget for you on the stimulus that I read today. The stimulus wasn't that substantial at all.

Total nondefense spending at all levels rose from 27.2% of potential GDP in the last quarter of the Bush Administration (2008Q4) to a shocking 29.9% by 2010Q4, before declining to 28.4% in the last quarter for which data are available for.

S4WSM.gif


Econbrowser: Re-Examining that "Massive Stimulus"
 
"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
President Obama 03/26/2012

Who was the president talking to?

1) Same-sex marriage supporters
2) Petrophobic environmentalists
3) Russian President Medvedev
4) Palestinian statehood advocates
5) Democratic lawmakers calling for more government spending
6) Accidentally caught on tape, C, but most likely all the above and many, many more hard-left supporters the president needs to assure before the election.
 
Everyone? It's not exactly news that a public official not seeking re-election has more flexibility, is it? Yeah, obviously there's certain implications when you point out that flexibility, but is that surprising?

I'd love to see Obama take the mittens off when dealing with the idiots on the right, that way he can just deal with the more intelligent beings on that side instead of everyone.
 
I'd love to see Obama take the mittens off when dealing with the idiots on the right, that way he can just deal with the more intelligent beings on that side instead of everyone.

Wholeheartedly agree.

If getting a second term causes Obama to start fighting harder to implement the things he actually wants, and his ideas start becoming reality, that would be fantastic :up:.
 
Who was the president talking to?

1) Same-sex marriage supporters
2) Petrophobic environmentalists
3) Russian President Medvedev
4) Palestinian statehood advocates
5) Democratic lawmakers calling for more government spending
6) Accidentally caught on tape, C, but most likely all the above and many, many more hard-left supporters the president needs to assure before the election.

I love how the hard right is having a circle jerk over this audio... :lol:
 
If getting a second term causes Obama to start fighting harder to implement the things he actually wants, and his ideas start becoming reality, that would be fantastic :up:.

But of course he has to keep those "wants" a secret :shh: from the majority of voting Americans who don't necessarily want "the things he actually wants."
 
EPA Proposes CO - WSJ.com

EPA Proposes CO2 Limits at New Power Plants

WASHINGTON—The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday proposed strict limits on greenhouse-gas emissions from new power plants, a move expected to curtail construction of new coal-fired power stations.

The agency proposed a standard of 1,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emissions per megawatt hour, a limit that analysts said would effectively ban new coal-fired stations unless they use carbon-capture technology, which hasn't yet been proven cost-effective.

plus,

Govt Stats Show Drilling Permits On Federal Land Down Under Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A7mpqstdN8&feature=player_embedded

President All-Of-The-Above :no:
 
But of course he has to keep those "wants" a secret :shh: from the majority of voting Americans who don't necessarily want "the things he actually wants."

Really?

I dunno, I think one might be surprised sometimes at what the "majority" wants.

Course, then again, I don't go by "the majority wants/doesn't want it" for why we should or shouldn't do something. I go by, "Will it help our country and make it better for the people living here? Yes? No?" Then go from there.
 
That statistic doesn't mean anything without more context. You know, like whether the actual number of available drilling sites on federal soil is decreasing over time.

Taking a single data point tells you absolutely nothing, but this is a cable news story being written to fit an editorial narrative, so why am I even bothering to type out these two paragraphs?
 
That statistic doesn't mean anything without more context. You know, like whether the actual number of available drilling sites on federal soil is decreasing over time.

If there is less federal soil it can't be due to rising sea levels because the mere election of President Obama ended that. Are we shrinking or something?
 
Obama Budget Rejected by House in 414-0 Vote

Obama Budget Rejected by House in 414-0 Vote

The House of Representatives rejected the Obama administration’s proposed budget 414-to-0; it failed to get a single Democratic vote. As Ed Morrissey noted, “the President wants to keep proposing massive deficits, increased spending, and higher taxes . . . This is the second year in a row that Obama’s budget couldn’t win a single Democratic vote in Congress. In parliamentary systems, that would be a vote of no confidence and the party would be looking for new leadership.”

The president's leadership on the debt and jobs gets a big :down:
 
Interesting... what is the DNC's reasoning?

House Unanimously Rejects Obama Budget; 414-0 | Red Dog Report
The vote came just hours after the White House cast the pending vote as a political “gimmick,” an apparent attempt to downplay what many expected to be an ugly-looking vote for the White House.

White House officials said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama’s top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics. On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney’s amendment was not, in fact, Obama’s entire budget proposal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom