This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Visualizing The Abyss: An Itemized Representation Of The (Endless) U.S. Budget Deficit

Tyler Durden's picture


A terrific chart out of the New York Times, demonstrating succinctly the endless abyss that the actual US budget is becoming (ignore the rosy expectations for a surplus - the likelihood that the US can claw its way back out of the hole at this point are slime to none). The attached article by David Leonhardt, America's Sea of Red Ink Was Years In The Making, is also a great read, and shows just how deep the sovereign debt rabbit hole goes.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 02/01/2010 - 18:43 | 213915 GrinandBearit
GrinandBearit's picture

Just like 40 is the new 20... trillion is the new billion.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:39 | 214010 MarketTruth
MarketTruth's picture

And next will be quadrillion being the new trillion.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:46 | 214265 Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture

Quintillion, sextillion, octillion, this octomom sex titillation stuff insures we'll never return to sound money! Fiat money debt and fractional reserve banking holds out the promise of a free lunch, money for nothing and chicks for free to the most number of people for the maximal amount of time.....until it doesn't.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 18:47 | 213922 Zé Cacetudo
Zé Cacetudo's picture

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Maybe in another ten years the trillions will be replaced by quadrillions.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:02 | 214070 Shameful
Shameful's picture

Why wait ten years?  Come on 5 baby!

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:30 | 214250 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

I'm going with 5 years, unless someone gives Ben some viagra, in which case maybe 2...

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 18:48 | 213923 phaesed
phaesed's picture

So the purely Obama programs total $201 Billion so far?

LOL, I'm sure you "fiscal conservatives" (please don't miss my sarcastic, heckling tone) will scream otherwise.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 18:52 | 213930 Dr Horace Manure
Dr Horace Manure's picture

GWB entered office in 2000 as a social conservative, and left office as a conservative Socialist.

Just because we elected one asshole in 2000 doesn't mean it was okay for you to elect another asshole in 2008.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:03 | 213941 phaesed
phaesed's picture

It was either social services or military services for a man who had an arranged marriage set to push his political career while he was married to another woman. Money + politics. Could you imagine Palin in office? This woman believes she will see Jesus in her lifetime. I'm happy we elected the current asshole than the old rich white war maniacal one :) (of course Ron Paul should have run though, but that's the best of all worlds)


Oh gee... Cramer is bullish again, LOL.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:43 | 214029 Carl Marks
Carl Marks's picture

Jesus the Rodriguez?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:06 | 214080 Shameful
Shameful's picture

I disagree.  If only because we could hope for the old war maniac to fall ill and be replaced by Palin.  Now I do NOT like Palin in any way(standard neo-con) but she would be so hated by the Congress and Senate we would have sweet sweet gridlock.  With her and them pissing at each other not much would get through.  Sure not an ideal situation because America would continue to rot but at least the team of looters would be less unified.  Still would be ruinous to America but maybe buy another year or 2.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:01 | 213943 Gold...Bitches
Gold...Bitches's picture

not to be technical, but he was elected in 2004.  He was selected in 2000 by SCOTUS.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:06 | 213950 phaesed
phaesed's picture



Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:56 | 214057 GoodBanker
GoodBanker's picture

^ +1107.30 = LOL


Good one... good call last Friday, btw. Nailed it.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:38 | 214006 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

And some folks still say that if the SCOTUS mattered a GS alum would be serving there.  In this case I agree with them.  What difference would it have made?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 21:03 | 214166 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Wrong, Bush won in every recount.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 23:16 | 214296 PD Quig
PD Quig's picture


Don't harsh their leftard buzzes. Obviously, there simply weren't enough recounts to find all the dead people and illegal aliens ballots.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 01:53 | 214444 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

+a lot

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 00:29 | 214383 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Actually, a consortium of media entities led by the NYT and AP went back and counted ALL the votes, not just the handful of districts that Gore wanted recounted.
Bush won Florida. You can look it up on the Internet.
Oh yeah, here is that chart ref'ed above. Note that the Bush numbers include the wars. Obama's are projections but are from White House and CBO not some fly by night group.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 18:52 | 213929 Seal
Seal's picture

googols actually

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 18:54 | 213931 mynhair
mynhair's picture

Isn't it missing something?  Like today's budget?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 18:55 | 213934 JR
JR's picture

Roubini Sees ‘Dismal” Growth as Summers Rues ‘Human Recession’

Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Nouriel Roubini, the New York University professor who anticipated the financial crisis, said the U.S. growth outlook remains “very dismal” and White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers said the economy is still mired in a “human recession.”

Speaking at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, after the U.S. reported the fastest growth in six years, their comments underscored concern that that emergency measures to rescue banks and fight the recession may be withdrawn too soon.

“The headline number will look large and big, but actually when you dissect it, it’s very dismal and poor,” Roubini said in a Jan. 30 Bloomberg Television interview following a U.S. Commerce Department report that showed economic expansion of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter. “I think we are in trouble.”

Roubini said more than half of the growth was related to a replenishing of depleted inventories and that consumption was reliant on monetary and fiscal stimulus. As these forces ebb, the rate will slow to 1.5 percent in the second half of 2010...

He says now that while the world’s largest economy won’t relapse into recession, U.S. unemployment will rise from the current 10 percent amid “mediocre” growth.

“It’s going to feel like a recession even if technically we’re not going to be in a recession,” he said in the interview.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:02 | 213944 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

“It’s going to feel like a recession even if technically we’re not going to be in a recession,” other words, welcome to 1984.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:14 | 213961 rrbluefin
rrbluefin's picture

We're not technically in a recession because we're in a depression :-)


Welcome to 1932 with 1984 overtones.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 02:38 | 214466 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

I'm going to one up ya. Dark ages of oppression and control with a great depression backdrop. Nobody expects the IMF inquistion.

Just admit you cheated on your taxes and we'll let you die.

Sign the confession!!

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:26 | 214122 ThreeTrees
ThreeTrees's picture


Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:04 | 213942 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Hows abouts some alchemy?

Good thing 'Mericans are so productive and can pay back the debt ;)

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:05 | 213948 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

At what point does the 'current recession' start belonging to the current administration? Ever?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:24 | 213978 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

They will never take responsibility for it nor for deepening it. It's not in the Left's DNA to take responsibility for anything. It's OK, though, because at this point, they're only fooling themselves and everyone else sees through it.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:40 | 214018 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

What recession? We are in a recovery, green shoots

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:15 | 213963 ReallySparky
ReallySparky's picture

Bargain, not sure it has to belong to the current adminstration.  Lack of change does though, and paybacks are a mofo.  I can see the ads now, O on screen, change montra going, campaign speeches recap, there are enough televised appreances to hang him now next election season.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:29 | 213986 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

I agree, it doesn't matter much who got us here, but I guess that's my problem with the chart: it looks to me like it was drawn up with the intention of shifting blame away from the current administration, at least on that 'current recession' portion.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:36 | 214002 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

...not to mention the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000...why not go back to Clinton? Or Reagan? In fact I think I would have preferred to see a graph going back at least to 1913.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:47 | 214038 Carl Marks
Carl Marks's picture

It all stated with the Mad King, George III.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:29 | 214125 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Prior to Reagan, the national debt was 400-500 billion in 1975.  Most of the problem can be traced to Reagan, as this chart shows.

I know I posted it for somebody else, and it's a partisan chart, but it doesn't change the validity of the numbers.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:59 | 214160 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Except that it doesn't show Clinton jacking the SSTF while he was getting blown

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 09:37 | 214568 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Gee, I wonder who creates the budget each year (subliminal voiceover: Congress)?

Do you know what Reagan asked to do to the size of the federal government?

He was repelled at every turn by the Democrat Congress. To get the cuts he did achieve, he had to rely upon using the bully pulpit to get to the American people.

And during that time the media incessantly marketed all the "homeless" because the cruel, evil and stupid Reagan was slashing redistribution schemes.

Vis a vis Clinton: say, I wonder whether the invention of the world-wide web by Tim Berners-Lee... and the subsequent giant tech boom... had anything to do with the economic recovery during the Clinton Crime Family's years?

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 09:38 | 214569 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Gee, I wonder who creates the budget each year (subliminal voiceover: Congress)?

Do you know what Reagan asked to do to the size of the federal government?

He was repelled at every turn by the Democrat Congress. To get the cuts he did achieve, he had to rely upon using the bully pulpit to get to the American people.

And during that time the media incessantly marketed all the "homeless" because the cruel, evil and stupid Reagan was slashing redistribution schemes.

Vis a vis Clinton: say, I wonder whether the invention of the world-wide web by Tim Berners-Lee... and the subsequent giant tech boom... had anything to do with the economic recovery during the Clinton Crime Family's years?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:16 | 213966 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Wow, and the biggest down arrow in the surplus vs. deficit is "Bush Policies"

I wonder if all the people (like doc j) who were blaming Obama in the last piece are reading this.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:21 | 214244 docj
docj's picture

Read the thread again - I didn't blame Barry for anything that wasn't Barry's doing.

FWIW, I gave-up defending Bush when he let Teddy Kennedy write Education reform and Medicare Part D-for-Disaster.  So that's - what? - mid-2002?  Bush was a disaster - Barry is on track to be a disaster^2.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 00:09 | 214360 lawrence1
lawrence1's picture

And let us not forget how Bush privatized war and everything else under the sun.  While Obama is following most of the same policies, at least he is not the intellectual eyesore that Bush was.... and this made him even more effective as a Trojan whorse for more of the same.

As the prince says in The Leopard by Lampedussa, ¨Everything has to change in order to remain the same.¨



Tue, 02/02/2010 - 02:10 | 214454 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

So this is the same NYT that is all excited about Obama taking people's 401K retirement money and diverting them to Treasury bonds in order to prop up the gov't a little longer?

A record of excellent and unbiased advice.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:21 | 213974 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

All you Obama bashers should look at what is the largest contributor to our current deficits.

What IS the biggest arrow downward on the chart?

DING DING DING.  Bush policies.

Did the man do anything right???

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:26 | 213980 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Am I allowed to bash both Obama and Bush? Or is that breaking some kind of rule.

Further, Bush is not in power now. Obama is, and is therefore the more relevant party to criticize at this point.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:29 | 213985 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

Are there really two parties in American politics?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:30 | 213989 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

I was using 'party' in the 'person' sense, not the 'political party' sense. Bad choice of wording.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:40 | 214015 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

All good after my blunder the other day concerning AIG vs the whole of the financial services disaster... :-]

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:40 | 214014 waterdog
waterdog's picture

American politics is a party.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:32 | 213993 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

I see we've got a similar reaction to the logic-challenged Obama supporters who assume that if you're criticizing Obama, it must be because you thought Bush was great.

Also, from the graphic, you'd think history started with Bush as President. How much of the spending attributed to Bush was actually the detritus of moronic spending initiated by big government Presidents on the Left? I read somewhere that some of FDR's "emergency" farm programs from the Great Depression are still running, so you know that almost any program created since then is, too. No one's got the balls to cut these things off and give taxpayers a break. It's all just "empire-building", only in a government context, not a corporate context.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:34 | 214000 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

The graphic clearly states that while history did not start when Bush was the president, deficits in the government budget did - and at record levels.

Government deficits add to the debt.  The debt is why our economy is fucked.

Without the deficits, our economy could recover much better, the dollar would be worth more, etc, etc.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:40 | 214019 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Also, in an era of tax-and-spend (by either of the duopoly), a recession puts a major damper on the 'tax' part of the equation.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:42 | 214024 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

The graphic clearly states that while history did not start when Bush was the president, deficits in the government budget did - and at record levels.


Actually, as a percentage of GDP, Bush's deficits weren't that high. If you knew how to do an analysis, you'd have seen that "record deficits" in absolute dollars are pretty much a given when the economy is growing.

Also, as I mentioned, a lot of government spending is legacy programs that the Dems set up due and which the GOP has never had the balls to cut. Calling all of that accumulated shit "Bush Policies" is retarded.


Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:22 | 214114 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Even your own chart doesn't work for ya, buddy.

You have huge deficits during world war II, and then relatively small ones up until 1980, when they started increasing again until about 1993 or so, then they decreased until 2001, when they increased again.

Notice a pattern of increasing during *certain* administrations, especially since 1980?

Here's a chart that's better at articulating what I've been saying all along.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:39 | 214258 Lexington Duffet
Lexington Duffet's picture

The Republicans have created a myth that the democrats created the deficit.  Stockman's book about the Reagan years makes it very, very clear that it was their budget which caused the initial large deficits.  In the early Reagan years, times were relatively flush, Reagan had a mandate, and people willing to support his agenda.  Worked out poorly.

     Since the Republicans during much of those 8  years controlled the Congress and the Presidency, its delusional and dishonest to lay blame on the Demos, as Stockman and recently Bruce Bartlett have pointed out in detail.   That debt was never paid off.  Also never paid off were the huge extra costs of the 1980's bail out of the S&L industry, for which there were huge extra costs caused by de regulation of that industry.  

     Same for the George Bush Number 2 years.  The costly medicare bill was passed over demo opposition.  The tax cuts worked great for guys like Mozillo of Countrywide, adding millions in wealth to his compensation for an intrepid, far reaching business model. 

    Bill Clinton reduced the # of goverment workers by 260,000.  Ran a surplus.  And is reviled by the republicans as a curse word.   Reagan increased the goverment (40 extra employees after 8 years) and ran huge deficits.  He is apparently a hero and fiscal conservative.  Bush, his tax cuts, wars, and spendthrift ways--all run through Congress by Republicans over Democratic opposition--added at least 4-5 trillion to the US debt.

    Anyone doubting should read Mr. Stockman's book and Mr. Bartlett's recent books  Imposter and Reaganomics.  You can also plot the US debt on a timeline against who was President and which party controlled Congress.  Only the ignorant or truly partisan can believe the demos ran up the debt. 

    If the Pubs were REALLY the fiscal conservative party, then their 2010 party platform would have specific recommended cuts instead of platitudes and nice sound bites. 


Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:09 | 214088 baserunr
baserunr's picture

Ya know, it only took 100+ years to get rid of the emergency Spanish American War telephone tax.  Looks like those Great Depression Programs have a little longer to run.

Assuming a lot there, I know.....

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:32 | 213995 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

I get what you're saying.  It's like firing somebody because they did a bad job and then blaming his replacement for the job that the fired person did.

That makes logical sense to me.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:37 | 214005 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

No, it's not like that, but never mind.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:41 | 214022 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

What is it then?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:43 | 214027 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

It's like blaming his replacement for continuing to do a bad job.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:51 | 214046 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Bad, but better.  Much, much better.

I mean, who's the alternative anyway?  Palin? 

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:15 | 214099 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Realistically there are no alternatives, all the 'viable' candidates will achieve the same result.

Idealistically there are many alternatives, which will remain unknown to the vast majority of people who believe 'being realistic' is the only option.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:17 | 214106 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

I caucused for Ron Paul in 2008, and would have voted for him if he got the nomination.  I was still going to vote for McCain, but then we got Palin for the VP, also.  I didn't want a mongoloid running the country when McCain died, also.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:27 | 213982 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

Did the man do anything right???

If I say "No", do I then get the "privilege" of criticizing Obama?

OK, Bush didn't do anything right. And, apparently, Obama is determined to follow in Bush's footsteps.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:38 | 214008 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture


So why criticize Obama for attempting to fix Bush's mistakes, though?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:41 | 214021 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Ah. There's the problem. One man's 'fix' is another man's 'push it off the cliff'.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:43 | 214030 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

I can agree with that.  I'm not happy with what Obama has done so far.  He tried to lasso the car as it was freefalling into the ravine, but he can't. 

The truth is that it was pushed off the cliff before Obama laid hands on it.

The graph even says so.  Still, I can't say that he's doing a much better job.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 21:01 | 214164 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

The graph says exactly what the NYT wants you to think it says.

Compressing 8 YEARS of Bush policies into one arrow, and splitting ONE YEAR of Obama policies into multiple arrows is the kind of water-carrying Obot propaganda only a nitwit would fall for. And only the Times would print.

673 over 8 years.

618 in one.

Yeah, Obama's a real fiscal hawk.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:50 | 214270 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

No, it's 673 billion carrying forward to the 2009 deficit, not 673 billion in eight years.

How could it possibly be "over eight years?"  Because you want to make it sound like slightly less?

Bush had nearly 673 billion in deficits in one year of presidency alone, not even counting 2008 where it was more than that.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:46 | 214035 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

So why criticize Obama for attempting to fix Bush's mistakes, though?

Dude, so you're telling me that the cost of fixing the mistakes is higher than the cost of the original mistakes? How does that work, even? If you're saying that Bush spent too much and that was a "mistake", how is spending more "fixing" that "mistake"?

Get your facts and logic straight before responding, please.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:50 | 214043 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Who said Obama is spending more?  Without the stimulus, he's spending less than 100 billion more a year than Bush, which is what, 3%, the amount of inflation?

The rest of the deficit comes from budget shortfalls due to lower tax receipts as a result of Bush tax cuts and worse economic conditions.

Obama's stimulus is mainly going to pay unemployment benefits and the like for people who lost their jobs, and to keep government services running at the state level.

Bush's TARP wrote checks to Goldman Sachs and the like.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:57 | 214060 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

Who said Obama is spending more?  Without the stimulus, he's spending less than 100 billion more a year than Bush, which is what, 3%, the amount of inflation?

Two minutes ago, spending one more dollar was a crime against humanity if Bush was doing it, now $100 billion is no big deal?

Does that $100 billion even include the current year portion of the $787 billion stimulus? Because, if it does, you're saying that Obama is actually spending less than Bush on an ongoing basis, because the $787 will all be spent out by the end of this year, as I recall, meaning at least ~$300 billion was spent in 2009.

Forgive me for thinking you don't know what you're talking about.




Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:03 | 214073 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

"Without the stimulus... less than 100 billion more than Bush... less than 3% of the budget... rate of inflation."

If your reading comprehension was up to par, you would see that I said "without the stimulus".

Bush Policies were responsible for more than HALF of the current budget deficit, says the chart.

New Obama policies were what percentage?

The stimulus costs less than the war this year even.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:30 | 213987 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Uh. The job of the current guy is to make the arrow go up

Period. Full stop

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:30 | 213988 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

It's called american government policies.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:33 | 213996 glenlloyd
glenlloyd's picture

I beg to differ, some of the blame has to go back to the Clinton era Fed and Community Reinvestment Act. This problem is not new and does not belong to any one adminstration or party...when are people going to finally come to terms with that fact, it's a US problem, not Repub / Demo, and that's why the solution is not demo or's everyone.

This is the result of three decades of excess credit creation and there will be no painless fix to any of it regardless as to what anyone thinks.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:37 | 214004 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Oh, you mean the legislation that the Republican congress (1994-2006) passed, along with Gramm Leach Bliley.


Why is it that people shift the blame off of Bush by blaming Clinton anyway?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:38 | 214007 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Why does the pot call the kettle black?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:39 | 214011 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Because it is.

Just like I place the blame where it lies, with the people responsible.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:42 | 214023 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

OK, then Obama is responsible for what now exactly?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:45 | 214033 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

For passing legislation and economic policy after 2009.

The other failed policies were passed before he came into office.
The economy was failing when he came into office.
The country was at war when he came into office.
The housing bubble was created before he came into office.
The system was broken before he came into office.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:52 | 214051 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

For passing legislation and economic policy after 2009.

The other failed policies were passed before he came into office.
The economy was failing when he came into office.
The country was at war when he came into office.
The housing bubble was created before he came into office.
The system was broken before he came into office.


Sounds like you agree with Obama's self-assessment at "B+". Funny, but most of the rest of the country disagrees. As for the fact that those problems existed before Obama came into office, last I recall, he asked for the job and, unless he's an even bigger idiot than he seems to be, he knew all of those things. Now, if he can't do the job, which, clearly, he can't, he should step down.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:58 | 214063 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

No, but I definitely don't believe that he is to blame for the afforementioned problems.

Who would take his place?  The intellectual Sarah Palin?

Bush had eight years to fuck up.  Obama should at least have four to try to fix his problems.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:11 | 214092 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

Who would take his place?  The intellectual Sarah Palin?

I'd take Trig Palin over Obama. What is it with you and false dichotomies?

Bush had eight years to fuck up.  Obama should at least have four to try to fix his problems.

Obama will get his four years, according to the law. I doubt he'll fix one thing. Once again, Reagan's classic "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" will be the question of the day.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:15 | 214101 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

AHAHA.  I bet Trig Palin is smarter than Sarah Palin, also, don'tchaknow.

Remember the last time a democrat was elected after 12 years of Republican administration? 
"It's the economy stupid."

And yet, the next time after a Republican administration had complete control for eight years
"It's the economy stupid."

It seems like a pattern to me.

Are we better off than we were 8 years ago?

No, we're much much much worse.  That's why the Dems got control back.

We'll see how they do.
History shows how the previous eight years went.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:41 | 214133 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

I bet Trig Palin is smarter than Sarah Palin, also, don'tchaknow.


He's probably smarter than you, too.

We'll see how they do.

This is what you don't seem to get. We ARE SEEING how they will do and most of the country doesn't like it. It is not some abstract question, "Gee, I wonder how things would be if the Dems were in charge". They are in charge and most people are watching in wonder at how stupid they are. Spending a year on health care reform when unemployment was skyrocketing?

Whatever. Obviously, that Kool Aid tastes wonderful to you, so enjoy it.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:49 | 214144 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

No, we're much much much worse.  That's why the Dems got control back.

One last point, which will also probably be lost on you. I remember the 1970's although I was just a kid. The 1970's were god-awful, especially the tail-end. Yet, I don't recall Reagan whining about how "I inherited these problems" from Carter, although he just as easily could have.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 21:05 | 214172 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Wow.  Another Republican telling me that I drink Kool Aid!  Now that's some original shit.  Next thing, you'll tell me to "read a history book" or some other cliche.

The 1970's were god awful because Carter tightened monetary policy.  Reagan just opened up the flood gates on monetary policy and deficit spending, which is how he averted the problems of Carter.

"You're as smart as Trig Palin"
Wow, another insult, due to your lack of ability to argue policy with facts.

Yeah, we're seeing how the Democrats are doing.  Hey, at least they didn't start two new wars and turn a great economy into a terrible one.
They want to help bring the costs of health care down?  Oh, for shame.

How DARE they want to ensure that people get health care?  Those assholes.

And what did Bush do?  Cut education and health care in the United States to build schools and hospitals in iraq?  Now that was a great policy decision.

Every time my tuition increases exponentially, I'm glad that somewhere in Iraq there are children getting the health care and education that i can't afford - in newer schools and hospitals.

Reagan's first two years in office weren't so great either.  And by the end of his term, the economy was sliding back into recession again.
Obama's first year in office hasn't been great, but at least he didn't CAUSE the problems like Bush and Bush did (and to more of an extent than HW, Reagan).
Don't forget the 1982 recession - the worst on record before this one.

That's funny.  Every time there's a Republican, there's a recession.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 21:12 | 214177 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Another interesting point - Bush blamed every bit of the 2001 recession on Clinton.  Fox News was still blaming Clinton in 2007 for anything Bush did wrong.

Also, you say I shouldn't blame Bush, but you bring up Carter.  That's interesting.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:56 | 214059 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

The fact remains that no matter how hard anyone tries the holder of the office of President of the United States is bound by the decisions of their predecessors.  If previous actions mattered not then the whole concept of precedence would be rendered moot.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:59 | 214067 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Yeah, the previous decisions definitely matter.  We're living them every day.

The 15 million out of work know all about the "previous decisions."

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:05 | 214077 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

Sure, but the options aren't quite that stark. The GOP had plenty of opportunity to cut spending and didn't. That's Bush's fault, at least for his tenure as President. The idea that the ongoing spending associated with the Federal government before Obama got into office is "Bush's Spending" is false and intellectually dishonest. The Dems ran Congress for almost 40 years straight and, since Congress is the one who approves spending, the Dems PROBABLY are responsible for approving most of the ongoing expenditures the government incurs. While I would like it if a GOP President and Congress would really take the hatchet to those programs, doing so would likely take up all of their time and effort, leaving little time and effort for other things. That would not bother me, of course, but I don't think many people actually run for office simply to undo things others have done. As I mentioned above, the problem is "empire building" within the bureaucracy. It's a problem wherever large groups of human beings in hierarchies aggregate. Thinking that the government is any different or immune to the imperatives of "empire building" is naive.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:11 | 214084 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

If you follow my postings here you would know that I hold both political parties as one and the same, the crumbs excepted.  For a better concept of where I am coming from might I suggest the following..

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:19 | 214108 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

Well, I'm just responding to what I see, I don't necessarily know anyone's ongoing posting background. In any case, I like Bastiat, so I can guess that there's probably some common ground in our views.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:08 | 214085 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture


The Dems ran congress for 40 straight years.  (Until 1994)

The GOP had the opportunity to cut spending and didn't.  (In fact, they increased it nearly 50%, from a hair over 2 trillion, to close to 3 trillion)

While I would like it if a GOP president and congress would take the hatchet to those programs (they didn't, they increased them) it would leave little time and effort for other things (like increasing spending and starting two wars)

The problem is "empire building" (by starting two wars) within the bureaucracy.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:01 | 214224 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Look you're obviously an idiot for thinking that there is any difference between NeObama and Busch, so this is probably wasted on you.

There are very specific reasons we are in Iraq and they are so all-encompassing that Al Gore would have had to invade too.  We simply cannot NOT be in a nation such as Iraq.

The rest of your tripe about O'bamma "fixing" Busch's fuckups..whatever.  Partisan bullsh!t rah rah cheerleading.  Both parties are the same, Bama is simply going to do what Busch did except bigger.

Know why the surpluses turned into deficits?  Because the tax receipts the "economy" was based on were a fucking SHAM.  It was all a ponzi and has been for 20 years.  The stock, housing, everything bubble.

And SS has hit parity on payouts compared to receipts and Medicare is effing bankrupt.  These are ancient programs that are gnawing away at the budget because they went to parity FAR SOONER as a result of the collapse of 20-year bubbles than anyone expected.  No amount of "policy change" would have mattered.

Peak oil collapsed shit and that is outside of the control of Busch, Clitton, or Bama.  We sit in Iraq because Mexico is not going to be exporting a drop by the end of the year.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:55 | 214281 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Actually, it's been a ponzi for 30 years.  Don't forget your boy Reagan.

At least you admit that Bush went to Iraq for oil.  You should learn how to spell his name so you don't look retarded.

And, Peak oil hasn't collapsed either.  Oil use is actually down.

Also, I doubt Obama will start two wars or add as many government jobs as Bush did.  Who knows though, he might!

I have history to look back to, but not a crystal ball like you seem to have.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 08:48 | 214537 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Yup. Tecumseh had a curse on the white house. Supposed to kill every president every 20 years. Reagan broke it. We had shit economy by 1984, black monday by 1987 and plunge protection team by 1988.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:09 | 214087 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Geithner is Obama's man, Bernanke is Obama's man, the war in Afghanistan is now Obama's. Government is still opaque, contrary to his promises. The health insurance bill...we we'll see where that takes us. He's not making many steps in the right direction so far.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:12 | 214093 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture


Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:12 | 214094 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Wasn't Bernanke in the Bush administration?

It sucks that we're still in Afghanistan.

The health care bill sucks.

Cap and trade sucks.

Agreed on the not many steps in the right direction.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:17 | 214104 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Wasn't Bernanke in the Bush administration?

Yes, ergo "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 01:58 | 214449 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

haven't we just gotten done spending 100s of billions of dollars....and state gov'ts and unions and big banks got the money.
but the u/e is worse.
and now there's no money left.
explain to me how that's an improvement?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:04 | 214075 hbjork1
hbjork1's picture

+10  IMO, it started with the "success" California S&L bailout

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:10 | 214090 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

And when were the savings and loan bailouts?

Who was in charge then?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:20 | 214112 jwthomps
jwthomps's picture

When we think in terms of politics, we choose to be blind in one eye or the other.  I am working to extract myself.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:28 | 213984 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

Since I don't have the figures handy, in a percentage basis how much of the proposed 2011 budget is financed through borrowing?  35%?  40%?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:40 | 214016 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

How high's the debt mama.....

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:44 | 214031 pak
pak's picture

The purpose of the NY Times article is to clear the name of Obama and the Dems in general. But who cares?

It's amazing how everything in the US is seen through a bipartisan prism. American bipartisan politics in its present form is nothing but smoke & mirrors, an escapist circus.

What matters however are the people who surround the incumbent. If you look at Obama, the ones around him are the ghosts of the Clinton era, totally non-emblematic of hope and change.

The Times chart gives you an illusion that Clinton years were some sort of a "golden era", and it's only after the "2000 crash" when the chocolate hit the fan. Absolute BS. Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" speech: 1996. The .com bubble: 1998–2000.

If Obama wants to survive politically, he has to put on an exorcist's dress and stage a mini coup d'etats against the gosts. I'm not sure he's got the guts, but I may be wrong.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:46 | 214034 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

If not for the "peace dividend" of reducing America's armed forces by 500,000 + Clinton would have been eating a soup sandwich.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:47 | 214037 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Yes, anything that tells the truth in strict factual terms has a left wing bias.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:09 | 214089 BS Inc.
BS Inc.'s picture

How are those "factual" IPCC reports on the Himalayan glaciers working out for the Left, bud?

Grow up. The Left in the Western world has been lying its collective, and collectivist, ass off since everyone found out about what was really going on in the Soviet Union. Google "Walter Duranty" and "Ukraine" for a gist of what the Left things of "strict factual terms".

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:59 | 214283 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Yes, because the Soviet Union has to do with the American left somehow in your Glenn Beck world.

And why does every douche that disagrees flag my posts as junk?

Because they can't make an argument that doesn't somehow link Obama to the Soviet Union?

Global warming is a lot more real than Reagan's image as a fiscal conservative.

There used to be ice, and now there isn't.

There used to be a good economy, and now there isn't.

Here comes some lame attempt to make the progressive party into Nazi collaborators, I'm sure.  You've already compared them to Russia.  What's next, North Korea?

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 01:18 | 214421 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

global warming is a global hoax....

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:14 | 214098 boiow
boiow's picture

right wing, left wing, same bird.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 02:40 | 214467 i.knoknot
i.knoknot's picture


Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:24 | 214118 JR
JR's picture

Good analysis, pak. I respect some observations but not "smoke and mirrors" from the NY Times.  IMO, we’d better wait for some nonpartisan analyses.  We’re dealing with red ink that has been increasing all along and the NY Times is trying to compare this red ink with Obama promises.  After the 2000 election, the Senate was divided evenly between the parties, going back and forth for control. In the 2006 elections, Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233-202) and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats). You can’t use Bush years or Obama years in this way, without counting the effect of the party majorities.

As for the President’s budget proposal, it’s just propaganda..  Congress will pump stuff in there like you’ve never seen before.  The Democrats did not run for office and fight for a majority in both Houses to cut spending. That is not what Pelosi and Reid and the Democrats do.  They’ve got their people at home waiting for the promised transfer of wealth into their projects and pockets—what they voted for.  They didn’t send these guys and gals to Washington to cut the deficit.

At the same time, Obama and the Democrats are heavy on the kinds of things that cost money—child credits, child care, more health care for illegals,  clean energy, more education funding, subsidies--the kinds of things that are the opposite of money-making operations.   

As for Obama’s $800 Billlion stimulus bill?  What was that for?  It was to create jobs, right?  But it didn’t create jobs.  So what do we have now. Why this time we have a Jobs Bill.  No more of that stimulus stuff; this is a jobs bill!

As Bruce McQuain said in Record Budget, Record Budget Deficit Proposed By Obama Administration, The President, Democrats and some pundits “talk about how important deficit reduction is in the long term, but claim that when the economy is bad and unemployment is high that is not the time to be pursuing that goal. Paul Krugman, for one, has been saying it for months. And Obama made that claim in his State of the Union address. The entire reason behind the prep was to prepare the public for massive spending and budget deficit proposal – neither of which we can afford. In anticipation of this, Democrats quietly raised the debt ceiling $1.9 trillion last week.”

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:14 | 214235 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Does anyone actually believe that the Repugnicon vote against the ceiling lift was anything OTHER than political theatre?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 23:14 | 214295 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

A better question is: how many times did those same Republicans vote to raise the debt ceiling under Bush?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 23:07 | 214288 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Actually, the Republicans had a full majority in congress pretty much from 1994-2006, with the exception of two years where the Dems had a ONE seat lead in the senate... if you count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat.

Do you really think that the Dems increased spending more than Bush et al?

If you do, maybe you should learn to read budgets.

Bush increased spending by nearly 50%.  The dems have increased spending (with the stimulus included) by 25% over the Bush years.  And it's pretty much a wash if you include Bush's TARP bailout for Goldman Sachs.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 00:06 | 214357 mnevins2
mnevins2's picture

MB, I'd accept your "Democrats=Saints & Republicans=Devils" line regarding spending during the Bush years IF you told me what the Democrats in Congress did during this period OTHER THAN demand that MORE money be spent!

My recollection is that the percentage of D's who voted for the spending bills was much higher than the R's.

Translated: the higher spending that Bush signed (which makes me despise him!), was enabled by the D's and would not have occurred if they didn't.

We're seeing this right now in spades - Pelosi/Reid and their gang is doubling down on just about anything related to spending. Why? Because, as Clyburn said, "they are going to spend their way out this recession!"

Yes, blame the R's during this period - they deserve it - but you betray your ideology when you overlook that NO D's stood up and said "NO!" to this. All they said was "where's mine?"



Tue, 02/02/2010 - 14:53 | 214952 pak
pak's picture


Why would they mess with a "Jobs Bill"? Why not just call it an "Ultimate Prosperity Bill"? That fixes everything, doesn't it?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:52 | 214050 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

June 2009 NY Times article?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:35 | 214254 docj
docj's picture

Good catch.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 19:53 | 214052 exportbank
exportbank's picture

I've gotten to the point of "who cares" - it's not going to be fixed by either party so until some "Black Swan or Murphy's Law" event blows the economy sky high - the ball will just keep getting kicked down the road.

For sure Pensions and Health Care - will bring their time-bombs with them.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:19 | 214109 Dr Horace Manure
Dr Horace Manure's picture

Can.  We kick the can down the road.  Pardon me, but I'm in my asshole moody right now.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:05 | 214078 duo
duo's picture

Don't most high imcome households lose their mortgage interest deduction if the AMT patch goes away?  Irony, people are bribed to go into debt and buy a house, then lose the tax advantage.   I don't see how the AMT patch gets fixed.  It's the easiest way to screw the top 20%.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:12 | 214095 boiow
boiow's picture

there is no point really in blaming the 'frontmen' for america's problems. clinton was a liar, bush was the village idiot, and obama is just a 'coke and a smile'.

the bottom line is vote for someone that knows whats going on, although he's got his faults ron paul stands head and shoulders above anyone else, trouble is he would probably be shot.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:25 | 214120 Dr Horace Manure
Dr Horace Manure's picture

Ron Paul is actually my Congresscritter.  And to think a few years ago we thought he was a wack job. But of course all of us "neocons" kept voting for him anyway.

With all the talk of voting all the bastards out, I'm disappointed that I don't have a bastard that needs to be voted out.

Just my luck.  TeaParty on mofos.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:23 | 214117 ThreeTrees
ThreeTrees's picture

Hank Paulson:  Does this man actually understand the things he's talking about?


Kinda O/T but fuck it.  That man was in charge of the Treasury??

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:58 | 214158 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

They are scrambling war ships to the mid east to provide advance cover for the coming oil surge which they know is going to rocket higher once they announce QE2, Blame it on Mideast tension.. but what will they do about gold ?

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 21:04 | 214167 SlorgGamma
SlorgGamma's picture

So we're running a deficit of 10% of GDP, big deal. Cut our bloated Cold War dinosaur of a trillion dollar war machine in half, and hey presto -- the deficit would be only 6%. Soak the rich with a 10% surcharge on the top 5%, and the deficit goes down to an entirely manageable 4%.


You have a choice, America. You can subsidize greedhead financial oligarchs and failed colonial wars, or you can invest in schools and green jobs. You can't have both.


It's time to choose.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:50 | 214269 trav7777
trav7777's picture

"Green" jobs?  LOL.

Schools?  We waste so much money on them already. 

The war machine needs to be cut, but the good fiscal picture of the 90s was a mirage.  Everyone should see that now

2 parts SS surplus, 1 part capgains off of a stock ponzi

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 23:16 | 214297 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Unemployment in the 1990's = 4-5%

Unemployment after Bush's term = 7.7% (and climbing at 700000 jobs per month.)

Unemployment now = 10.2%

We need more money for schools much more than we need money for the war.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 21:33 | 214202 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Lately it's the prescription drug bill the Dem's like to point to that lead to these massive deficits. It was Ted Kennedy that wrote that bill same as no child left behind.

After the drug bill passed I remember Bush and Teddy traveling the country bragging up the bill. The day after the tour Teddy was on the senate floor whining about the donut hole and how we needed to spend more to fill it.

Same with the education bill which doubled the budget for the Dept of Ed.

My point is these same people voted for all this spending but because Bush signed it it's all his fault. These same whiners today railed about supposed cut after cut.

IMHO Bush should have never signed any of that crap but those who voted for it are just as guilty.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 23:12 | 214291 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

"these same people" voted for "all this spending."

No child left behind was clearly a BUSH program, as was the medicare prescription drug benefit.

"These same people" = Republicans in both houses of congress as the majority.

Doubled the budget for the department of ed?  WTF are you smoking?  No child left behind was largely unfunded, and tuition has MORE THAN DOUBLED for university from the time I attended in 2000 until the time I attend today.

The department of ed's budget has decreased by a ton.  If you can find a fact that shows it has increased, I would love to see the link.

Bush should have never signed (any of his proposed legislation, including the wars) but (the Republican majority in the legislature) who voted for it are just as guilty.

(last sentence edited to reflect the truth)

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 04:45 | 214476 kurt_cagle
kurt_cagle's picture

No Child Left Behind was a Bush photo-op - a way of reaching out to the soccer-moms and claiming to care for the children (as well as a way to brush those all important bipartisan credentials), while knowing full well that the Congress could be relied upon not to fund the damn thing. It also ended up being yet another subsidy for the rich - poor performing schools, most commonly due to being in poor tax-base school districts, would see their funding cut, while the best schools (usually in the highest tax-base school districts) would be rewarded. It laid in a lot of provisions for private schools, and opened up the school system even wider to privatization.

Even with the increases that Obama has written back in, most school districts (and public universities) are now in a position where their operating budgets are about at 1996 levels, and as the tax funding dries up for government in general, local funding of schools is dropping dramatically as well. This means that most teachers now have 30+ (and in some cases more than 40) students in classrooms intended for 20, are operating with decade old books, have computer systems that were state of the art in 1995 (with software to match) and are cutting bus and school lunch programs that typically have been of most importance to the poor. Remember that these are the same students who will end up having to be the next scientists, engineers, political and corporate leaders that will lead us out of all this mess.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 22:35 | 214255 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

So if you live in portland Oregon your new taxes will be 63%? Well this worked just fine in the USSR. They had endless riches and prosperity.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 23:03 | 214287 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

BS, Inc. sure lives up to his name, eh? 

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 23:08 | 214289 Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture

So much Demo-Repub emotion and nonsense. We'll never have honesty and truth as long as we have a fiat (ponzi) currency.  Why do you think Christ spoke more about money than virtually any other subject?  Because we need God's wisdom to handle it right.

Mon, 02/01/2010 - 23:18 | 214298 Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

Because religion would love to control money if they could.

Look at the Vatican.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 00:02 | 214349 Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture

No, the  Vatican would have you look at the Vatican.  Look at Christ.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 00:08 | 214363 Mark Beck
Mark Beck's picture

Okay so we see that funding of our debt is unsustainable. The CBO frames the issue in terms of GDP, but this is not correct. Our debt is so large, that what is important is finding buyers. Closing the debt gap is not possible with tax revenue, even with massive increases. The tax base is tapped out.

You here from a lot of people in the media about if we do not do this or we do not do that, but they are very careful not to talk about the collapse or crisis or the pink elephant, or whatever else you would like to call it. If by ignoring the problem it will somehow go away. No, we need to be big boys and girls talk about what is projected to happen, what the time line is, and what this will mean to the citizens of the US.

Mark Beck

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 07:54 | 214523 boiow
boiow's picture

"Closing the debt gap is not possible with tax revenue, even with massive increases. The tax base is tapped out."

just heard today that for every $1.60 the government spends only $1. is raised through taxes.      not good.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 00:51 | 214400 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

Anybody buying CEF by the handfull at this point? Just a random thought that occurred....

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 05:08 | 214479 loup garou
loup garou's picture

This “Master Bates” kid ought to check with Obama’s Fisting Czar, Kevin Jennings, and see if they might have an opening for him.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 06:19 | 214495 perchprism
perchprism's picture


His M.O. is to hijack a thread, take the most obnoxious stance possible, and shit all over it.  A true punk troll.

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 07:19 | 214511 Anton LaVey
Anton LaVey's picture

And some people say Greece is a problem for Europe! HA!

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 13:12 | 214825 Cyan Lite
Cyan Lite's picture

Chart is already outdated.  Obama's budget released yesterday says it will be a $1.56 trillion deficit for 2010.  This of course will rise to $2+ trillion after it passes through Congress and various pork programs are attached...

Tue, 02/02/2010 - 13:22 | 214834 Anonymous
Anonymous's picture

No Child left Behind did include a doubling of funding to the D of E. you check your facts.

If it wasn't funded why did every Dem vote for it? It was Teddy's bill that's why he accompanied Bush around the country. Calls of "Unfunded Mandate" were just another sop to the teachers union. Besides we need to increase funding massively to add a few texts per year? Please.

The Department of Education should be closed along with the EPA and 100s of other worthless departments. Let the states handle it. If the wacko's like masturbates want to drop the hammer on business and individuals with outlandish regulations and taxes they can move to more friendly states or throw the bums out.

I could balance this budget in a long afternoon and the only one's effected would be overpaid, useless bureaucrats.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!