AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I give up. You are incapable of reading and comprehending.
Dr. Sowell said that he did not intend to write 'debt' but intended to write 'deficit'.
You seem to have a real disability in understanding the difference between those two terms.

They don't want to understand anything you post, they just want to shut you up.

1 Reply

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....******* blah.

I'm amazed that anyone posting is actually wasting so much of their time.

I can't believe, I'm wasting my time glancing by it. I'm going to recollapse this thread I think. The participants are ******* lame.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Dr. Sowell said that he did not intend to write 'debt' but intended to write 'deficit'.

We have no evidence that this is true. We only have your claim to that effect, and that is not evidence. As has already been pointed out, the text at his web site had not been edited.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

The liberal participants are ******* lame.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Who gives a ****?

I have a hard time believing that he thinks that Obama quadrupled our national debt. That would mean that he thinks Obama caused our debt to go from 11 Trillion to 44 Trillion in just 6 short months. You'd have to be some sort of a moron to actually believe that.

The much much much much more likely scenerio is that he made a mistake.

Why the ******* fuss? Why are you wasting 6 pages now of post, after post, after post....a ******* load of grandstanding, and vitriol, on something so ******* stupid.

3 Replies

@H2O MAN,

I know. Even my friend Maporsche now describes me as '******* lame'. I still would like to discuss the thesis in Dr. Sowell's essay, but they won't allow it to happen here. So I'll withdraw on that for now and visit a couple of other sites where the members do have sufficient intellectual curiosity to discuss a topic like that.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

I mean really, for those of you who think he MEANT debt.

You really think this guy is so uninformed that he thinks our debt went up to 44 trillion, from 11?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Thanks Maporsche. You give me hope that we have a few members left who can actually think. Smile

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I have a hard time believing that he thinks that Obama quadrupled our national debt.

maporsche wrote:

I mean really, for those of you who think he MEANT debt.

How much do you believe Obama has increased our national dept since taking office?
How much will ObamaCare and Cap and Trade add to our national dept?

0 Replies

It's simple, Fox is making claims she can't back up. Despite her claim about Sowell, his web site still says debt. Can i believe he's that stupid? Without a doubt. But the really important reason that this has continued so long is that Fox continues to deny the truth about the Sowell article, and has descended to personal reflections on those who have pointed out to her that she is wrong. That is particularly poignant considering the number of times she has whined that those who disagree with her don't argue but just used "ad homs," as she likes to call them.

The Sowell article is obviously full of ****. Absent any reliable evidence to the contrary, Fox's claims about having an e-mail from Sowell is very likely bullshit. And calling other people names because you can't defend your position, when you've been so sanctimonious about that yourself, is the stinkiest bullshit in this thread.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Who gives a ****?

I have a hard time believing that he thinks that Obama quadrupled our national debt. That would mean that he thinks Obama caused our debt to go from 11 Trillion to 44 Trillion in just 6 short months. You'd have to be some sort of a moron to actually believe that.

The much much much much more likely scenerio is that he made a mistake.

Why the ******* fuss? Why are you wasting 6 pages now of post, after post, after post....a ******* load of grandstanding, and vitriol, on something so ******* stupid.

Sure. Even the term 'quadrupled' is false however; doubled is more like it, given the hundreds of billions which were added on in the last few months of Bush's term.

I agree though, let's move on.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

let's move on.

Yes, let's move on to the Trillions PrezBO plans to add before years end.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure. Even the term 'quadrupled' is false however; doubled is more like it, given the hundreds of billions which were added on in the last few months of Bush's term.
Cycloptichorn

Would you care to revise and extend your remarks even after taking into account Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Quote:

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/10/us-budget-deficit-2008-double-2007.htm
The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal deficit for fiscal 2008 (which ends September 30) at $407 billion for fiscal 2008, more than double last year's figure. Next year's deficit is currently projected at $438 billion -- that's before taking into account Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Quote:

March 20 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s budget will generate a $1.9 trillion deficit this year, $100 billion more than the administration projected, according to a person familiar with a Congressional Budget Office report to be released today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aOP6L_5_pEF0

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

He's talking about Bush pushing through the TARP program before Obama took office. He'd authorized 700billion (of which he spent 350 billion, before 1/20). If you add that into the projected 2009 deficit, that's where the double comes in.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure. Even the term 'quadrupled' is false however; doubled is more like it, given the hundreds of billions which were added on in the last few months of Bush's term.
Cycloptichorn

Would you care to revise and extend your remarks?

Quote:
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/10/us-budget-deficit-2008-double-2007.htm
The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal deficit for fiscal 2008 (which ends September 30) at $407 billion for fiscal 2008, more than double last year's figure. Next year's deficit is currently projected at $438 billion -- that's before taking into account Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Quote:
March 20 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s budget will generate a $1.9 trillion deficit this year, $100 billion more than the administration projected, according to a person familiar with a Congressional Budget Office report to be released today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aOP6L_5_pEF0

F0x, look at the date on your first link; that doesn't include TARP funds, GM bailout funds, or any of the billions of dollars we gave to the FED in order to provide liquidity in the market. You picked the week before the disaster happened - of course the numbers look better before you add in the massive debts took on in the last few months of Bush's term. Smile

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

blah, blah, blah... before you add in the massive debts took on in the last few months of Bush's term.

PrezBO's 100 day spending spree makes all of what Bush spent in 8 years look insignificant.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

I agree with you there.

Bush was horrible regarding spending; Obama's worse.

0 Replies

You must all remember one simple fact; TARP monies will be paid back with interest.

Including TARP as part of the deficit totally misrepresents the federal budget.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

He's talking about Bush pushing through the TARP program before Obama took office. He'd authorized 700billion (of which he spent 350 billion, before 1/20). If you add that into the projected 2009 deficit, that's where the double comes in.

Don't forget that then Candidate Obama signed off on that TARP program and voted for it. And the House of Representatives swelled it to closer to $800 billion by the time they added on a few special 'goodies' they demanded and the Senate went along with it. The dichotomy are those defending the 'bail out' as essential to save our banks, etc., but they blame President Bush as the bad guy for doing it. While President Bush can't absolve himself of his part in it, I personally think the whole bunch of them, including President Bush, got it wrong, but I know there is honest opposition to my opinion about that.

Dr. Sowell almost certainly took his numbers from reports like this:

Quote:

The director of the Congressional Budget Office today updated his projections for the budget and economic outlook and is now anticipating a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, and $1.4 trillion in 2010.

This is up from CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf's January 2009 projection of a $1.2 trillion deficit this year. In short, the US government is borrowing 50 cents for every dollar it spends.

The new projected deficit is four times the 2008 deficit, which was a record high for its time.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/deficit-now-pro.html

Dr. Sowell's article overall was critical of both Republicans and Democrats and the current President, and what he actually said about the deficit was this:

Quote:

The stakes in all this are far higher than which element becomes dominant in which party or which party wins more elections. Both the domestic and the foreign policy direction of the current administration in Washington are leading this country into dangerous waters, from which we may or may not be able to return.

A quadrupling of the national deficit* in just one year and accepting a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism like Iran are not things from which any country is guaranteed to recover.

(*I substituted 'deficit' in place of 'debt' as it appeared in the article as he clearly intended to say deficit.)

Can any among us who can still think really quarrel with Dr. Sowell's statement here?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie arrives at the conclusion that saving the banks were wrong, but doesn't provide any alternative to our banks going out of business. What are the other options, Foxie? You're so smart about economics, I'm sure you have several ideas better than the bank bailouts.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know