Bloomberg: U.S. to Lose $400 Billion on Fannie, Freddie, Wallison Says

[Larry]

LOL, So instead of defending my original claim, which I still stand by, due to the fact that no one has used any factual data to refute it, I change gears in order to prove my point.

Your original point is so incredibly laughable that not even you at your most partisan could believe it.

That Obama has outspent Bush, with facts mind you.

You have not even attempted to provide one. (Not on that subject. You've moved to a completely different claim, and point at things that don't support that claim, either.)

Numbers don't lie. say what you want.

But you do.

Show me some numbers that say that spending, in the 10 months that Obama has been in office, have exceeded all government spending for the entire eight years that Bush was in there.

Edit:

I'll even give you some help, here.

Here's a link to the first hit my Google search on "total federal spending US by year" got me. From the web site "USGovernmentSpending.com"

This link points to a .xls spreadsheet which shows federal government revenues, spending, and deficit, for each fiscal year 1940-2014. (In then-current dollars, constant year 2000 dollars, and percentage of GDP.)

According to them, total government spending for FY09 (of which, I'll point out, only 3/4 of which occurred during the Obama administration) was $3.1T (in constant, y 2000, dollars.)

Since it doesn't break down spending by month, I think it makes sense to assume constant spending throughout the year, and say that 3/4 of that, or 2.3T was spent during Obama's administration.

According to the same chart, the Bush administration spent $1.9T on FY02 (the first year which was entirely under Bush), $2.0 on '03, $2.1 in '04.

I've looked at only three years of Bush's eight, and I've accounted for $6T.

If I assume that Bush spent zero dollars during his last three months in office, (and that the entire FY09 was Obama's spending), then Obama has still spent less than half of what Bush spent in three years.

Now are you willing to concede your claim that Obama has spent more money in 10 months than Bush spent in eight years? The one which you still continue to claim that you stand behind?

[Baculus]

I supplied a graph and the story(with link) to back it up. If you disagree with the story fine, but the graph used numbers from the CBO. Unless you want to argue with CBO and past facts.

This isn't posting "facts." You are throwing up some image without even trying to dissect the numbers behind it. For the third time, the Obama deficit includes spending from Bush's term: This is a vital piece of information when we're trying to argue over these figures. Those numbers were carried over to the 2009 budget.

Look at it like this: If I said, "The entire eleven trillion dollar deficit is Bush's fault," it would be dishonest. This is basically what you are trying to do without even mounting a credible defense.

Is there a reason why you won't DIRECTLY respond to what I ask? Can you PROVE that Obama has "tripled the debt," when the debt he inherited was $1.2 trillion (after Bush's last term in office)? The graph you showed even proves my point, and you don't even know it, which is the irony behind this entire exchange.

Can you actually defend your argument? Can you PROVE Obama has "tripled" the spending deficit (which means it would be OVER THREE TRILLION DOLLARS)?

Meanwhile, I have provided you with three Bush-era points of spending -- the War on Terror, the Bush tax cut, and the Medicare drug benefit bill -- which was, in fact, over THREE TRILLION dollars. Spending that is above and beyond anything Obama has done.

Can you address that?

[Baculus]

LOL, So instead of defending my original claim, which I still stand by, due to the fact that no one has used any factual data to refute it, I change gears in order to prove my point. That Obama has outspent Bush, with facts mind you.

I ask this again: Show me a single Obama program which is larger in spending than these three Bush programs.

1. Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/07/recovery-v-bush-tax-cuts/

2. $850 to $900 billion War on Terror.

http://www.costofwar.com/

3. Medicare drug benefits bill -- estimated cost: Up to $1.2 trillion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html

PROVE OBAMA HAS OUTSPENT BUSH. Prove that Obama has spent over FIVE BILLION dollars. Show me facts, figures, and points of evidence.

I challenge you to do this.

You CANNOT, because it has NOT happened. Incredulously, though, you are mouthing this claim without so much as a shred of proof.

Yet you use my FACTS in order to disprove my original point to which you disagree with. THIEBEAR got my point unlike you chasing something in order to make you look right.

Dude, quit using the word, "facts" when you have abstained all efforts to present "facts." If your data was actual "facts," then you would actually try to intelligently defend them using said "facts." You don't. because once you actually dig into your "facts," then your argument falls apart, like a water-laden soggy cake.

Numbers don't lie. say what you want.

Numbers often do lie. Anyone who has watched the Redskins defense this year would agree this. Being a "top five" defense does not always mean you are one of the league's best. "On paper" sometimes does not add up to a hill of beans.

[Hubbs]

And again,

Somehow, my suspicion (and I'll admit, it's just an opinion) is that had we allowed the complete collapse of all of the nation's debt that had been secured by real estate, (and forced the lending institutions to come up with the lost money out of their own pockets), that this would have had a profoundly negative effect on the availability of all borrowing.

Well, yes. Of course, the real problem is that borrowing has had a negative effect on the availability of borrowing. Which creates quite the little pickle.

I mention this because our whole conversation started when twa suggested that our esteemed national leaders were working extra-super hard to prop up a failed economic model, and you responded by saying that he was referring to "borrowing." Now, I'm always one to appreciate a good sarcastic snip, but at the same time, it appeared to me that you were serious about the underlying point of your post - that twa was wrong about the propping and the failing and the model. And, honestly, given your intelligence, that surprised me quite a bit.

[81artmonk]

This isn't posting "facts." You are throwing up some image without even trying to dissect the numbers behind it.

Oh I see, now not only do I need to provide proof. But also facts, and now I need to hold a seminar to explain them in order for my point to be valid.

Wow, that's alot of :pooh: to do in order to be taken seriously on this board.

Do you and all the other posters intend on living up to those rigorous standards too or am I the only one who has too :doh:

[81artmonk]

Your original point is so incredibly laughable that not even you at your most partisan could believe it.

You have not even attempted to provide one. (Not on that subject. You've moved to a completely different claim, and point at things that don't support that claim, either.)

But you do.

Show me some numbers that say that spending, in the 10 months that Obama has been in office, have exceeded all government spending for the entire eight years that Bush was in there.

Oh, ok so I'll change my original quote. Hope this helps.

Obama quadrupled the defifict. BETTER :doh:

[Larry]

Oh I see, now not only do I need to provide proof. But also facts, and now I need to hold a seminar to explain them in order for my point to be valid.

Or you could

a) Actually make even a feeble attempt to actually defend your original statement. (We all know that it's utterly impossible for you to even come up with bogus, spin-altered numbers to support it. But so far, you haven't even attempted to do that.)

(That's why I was willing to pretend that you never said it, and move on to demolishing your

second

bogus claim. I figured that you were smart enough, once you got caught, to pretend that you never said it.)

or

Admit that your original statement was a load of :pooh: to begin with. (Say you mis-spoke. We'll pretend to believe you.)

(In which case, we can then move on to pointing out why your second claim, the one you tried to use to run away from the first one, is just as bogus as the first one.)

Wow, that's alot of :pooh: to do in order to be taken seriously on this board.

:secret:People on this board usually take posters seriously when they aren't posting jokes.

Your original claim was a joke. Which probably explains why you've been hiding from it ever since you made it. (Until you decided to resurrect it, for some reason I can't figure out.)

(The second one is a lie, peddled by deception.)

Do you and all the other posters intend on living up to those rigorous standards too or am I the only one who has too :doh:

:secret:Both of us have provided actual figures to show you why your original claim (the one that you still claim is true) are completely laughable.

Your total contribution of what you so grandiosely claim are FACTS, is a pretty picture which was created for the specific purpose of trying to deceive people into believing your second fraud.

[Larry]

Oh, ok so I'll change my original quote. Hope this helps.

Obama quadrupled the defifict. BETTER :doh:

1) Does this mean that you're abandoning the "Obama spent more money in 9 months than Bush did in 8 years" claim?

(I won't even hold it against you if you do. I certainly wouldn't want to try to defend a statement that's that laughable. I have trouble believing that even you believe it.)

2) Gee, where are you getting your numbers for what the deficit was when Obama took over, and what it's been since then? I haven't seen any numbers that actually break it down that way.

(Do you want me to tell you what my next question is going to be, just in case you manage to find some numbers that actually deal with your claim? Or would you rather wait for me to surprise you with it?)

[81artmonk]

1) Does this mean that you're abandoning the "Obama spent more money in 9 months than Bush did in 8 years" claim?

(I won't even hold it against you if you do. I certainly wouldn't want to try to defend a statement that's that laughable. I have trouble believing that even you believe it.)

2) Gee, where are you getting your numbers for what the deficit was when Obama took over, and what it's been since then? I haven't seen any numbers that actually break it down that way.

(Do you want me to tell you what my next question is going to be, just in case you manage to find some numbers that actually deal with your claim? Or would you rather wait for me to surprise you with it?)

No, I said my piece and provided proof for this most current statement. If you don't believe the proof that's your thing.

[Larry]

No, I said my piece and provided proof for this most current statement. If you don't believe the proof that's your thing.

You've done absolutely nothing of the kind, and it's been pointed out probably a dozen times exactly why.

Here's a hint: Who was President during FY 09?

Here's a second hint: Why do you suppose that even the intentionally dishonest web site that you got your pretty picture from, (the one that is intentionally trying to get you to think they said what you said, while intentionally not saying it), doesn't say what you claim?

In fact, I covered what they actually say, here:

The Heritage blog piece which 81 quoted:

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious.

Contains a nifty little weasel word in it. It's the word "helped".

Yes, Obama helped massively increase the deficit.

So did Bush.

And, frankly, a lot of it wasn't helped at all. I'd bet that a big chunk of the increased deficit is due to the recession slashing revenues. And while I have no doubt that there are several people quite willing to claim that if Obama had simply allowed the Great Depression to happen, we'd all be millionaires today, and we'd own China, I think we can both agree that trying to blame Obama for the recession is laughable. (It's questionable the extent to which you can blame Bush.)

But, again, I'll wholeheartedly agree that Obama was forced, by circumstances he did not create, to do a bunch of deficit spending. And I'll also agree that, if he hasn't voluntarily increased the deficit a chunk, too, that it's only a matter of time before he does.

I don't think it's fair to blame Obama for the deficit yet. But certainly by the time the election is gearing up, he'll "own" a chunk of it.

I'll give you another hint: The reason they said "Obama helped quadruple the deficit", instead of "Obama quadrupled the deficit"? It's because the second statement isn't true. And they knew it.

[Larry]

Still waiting for you to produce those numbers on the deficit when Obama took office, and how much he added to them.

[81artmonk]

Still waiting for you to produce those numbers on the deficit when Obama took office, and how much he added to them.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/02/obama-will-nearly-quadruple-deficit-this-year/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ithVH4Ug3oRQrgZI01k0DKW6fQnQ

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/03/21/Obama_budget_deficit_may_triple_deficit_record/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2370328/posts

[Larry]

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/02/obama-will-nearly-quadruple-deficit-this-year/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ithVH4Ug3oRQrgZI01k0DKW6fQnQ

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/03/21/Obama_budget_deficit_may_triple_deficit_record/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2370328/posts

All four of which are pushing the exact same lie that you were caught pushing two pages ago.

Not one of those articles show what the deficit was when Obama took office. They show what the defgicit is projected to be for FY 09. Which began over a month before Obama was even elected.

And no matter how many other places you find that are peddling the lie that FY09 = Obama, it still won't be true.

Your (false) claim is "Obama quadrupled the deficit".

In order to show that, you have to show

1) What the deficit was when Obama took office. (That means, January of '09. Not September of '08.) Obama did not take office on November 1st of '08.

2) And showing what Obama did that increased the deficit. ("Revenues declined 10% because of the recession" does not equal "Obama caused the deficit to increase".)

So far, you've run away from even attempting to prove either.

[Thiebear]

So we can subtract 2 months and call it even?

You messed up my topic you underlining freak.

Edit: I take that back. you do that in each and every topic you ever enter.

you pick one person you disagree with and then nitpick his post (in most cases its not the same issue) for 3 pages.

and technically the first thing he said was:

I've resigned that by the time Obama runs for re-election China will own the USA. He's printing money quicker than Milton bradley is for it's monopoly games.

I also pointed out what must have been the 3rd thing he said that was with said chart/link.

But you focus on the 2nd thing he said excluding all other points.. its as dishonest as saying all of 2009 was the fault of Obama.

Though he gets it by default for being elected that year. Bush doesn't get a pass on the year 2000.

15 years from now they wont break out the 2 months difference

NBC News reported that Obama advanced his economic agenda with Bush, asking him to attempt to pass a stimulus package in a lame duck session of Congress before the inauguration. He also urged Bush to accelerate the disbursement of $25 billion in funds to bail out the automobile industry and expressed concern about additional Americans losing their homes as mortgage rates increase again.[15][16]

The Bush administration reportedly went out of its way to make the transition as seamless as possible for the incoming administration, earning accolades from Obama staff members and outside experts alike. According to nearly all accounts, the Bush administration streamlined the process for new officials to obtain security clearances and planned training exercises for the incoming national security team, to ensure that they would be ready to face a possible crisis on the first day in office. Part of this enhanced cooperation is required by laws passed at the behest of the 9/11 Commission, while part is attributed to the difficulty that the Bush administration had with its own transition, which lasted only five weeks and was felt to have had a deleterious effect on Bush's ability to govern. "I'm not sure I've ever seen an outgoing administration work as hard at saying the right thing," said Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution. "This is really quite memorable."[17]

[Larry]

So we can subtract 2 months and call it even?

You messed up my topic you underlining freak.

Edit: I take that back. you do that in each and every topic you ever enter.

you pick one person you disagree with and then nitpick his post (in most cases its not the same issue) for 3 pages.

Actually, I do that when people say things that were known to be untrue the day the spin was first released, months ago.

and technically the first thing he said was:

I've resigned that by the time Obama runs for re-election China will own the USA. He's printing money quicker than Milton bradley is for it's monopoly games.

Actually, the first thing he said was:

I've resigned that by the time Obama runs for re-election China will own the USA. He's printing money quicker than Milton bradley is for it's monopoly games.

What humors me so, is that people will bring up bush, yet Obama has out spent bush in a matter of months for results that aren't working and he plans on doing more of the same. Which I do believe is the definition of insanity isn't it?

A whopper that's so outrageous that I've been offering for three pages to ignore it. But you keep bringing it back up, and he keeps claiming that he stands behind it.

I've offered (several times) to ignore that one, and get on to debunking the second untrue thing he said.

(I've also pointed out that if he wants to claim that "The deficit during Obama's administration will be considerably larger than it was under Bush", I'd wholeheartedly agree with him. However, it's subject to considerable debate as to how much of that increase is Obama's fault.)

(I'll also observe that the American Voters are famous for not caring a whole lot about "fault", only "results".)

I also pointed out what must have been the 3rd thing he said that was with said chart/link.

But you focus on the 2nd thing he said excluding all other points.. its as dishonest as saying all of 2009 was the fault of Obama.

Though he gets it by default for being elected that year. Bush doesn't get a pass on the year 2000.

15 years from now they wont break out the 2 months difference

Except that during those two months, huge deficit spending was put through, at the request of Bush. (In fact, practically at the demand of Bush.)

His first site claims numbers for FY08 and FY09 (which it dishonestly labels as "Bush's last year" and "Obama's first year") are $459B and $1,750B

Shift Bush's $700B "Bailout, Part 1" from the "Obama" column (where the GOP spin machine, and 81, is frantically, desperately, trying to put it) to the "Bush" column, and now what happens to the claim of "Obama quadrupled the deficit"?

Looks to me like if I take those numbers, and simply place that one, single item under the President who actually requested and signed it, then those numbers change from "Bush:459 Obama:1750" to "Bush:1159 Obama:1050".

Yep, that's right. Put Bush's bailout under "Bush", and Obama's first deficit is 10% smaller than Bush's final one.

(Actually, I have to admit to being rather stunned at that result. I have trouble believing that Obama's deficit will be smaller. But that's what I get when I take his numbers, and do the math.)

If you simply assign that one, single, item to the President who did it, the whole lie falls apart.

[81artmonk]

Actually, I do that when people say things that were known to be untrue the day the spin was first released, months ago.

Actually, the first thing he said was:

A whopper that's so outrageous that I've been offering for three pages to ignore it. But you keep bringing it back up, and he keeps claiming that he stands behind it.

man oh man. If you take out my outspend comment, my whole statement still stands pretty true. But as THIEBEAR said, you are going to focus on one sentance out of a few and try to pin your whole arguement on that.

Obama is printing money making us entitled to china. We are coming really close to worthless paper. And yes there haven't been results, to which he thinks doing the same thing is another good idea.

[Hubbs]

Obama is printing money making us entitled to china. We are coming really close to worthless paper. And yes there haven't been results, to which he thinks doing the same thing is another good idea.

and technically the first thing he said was:

I've resigned that by the time Obama runs for re-election China will own the USA. He's printing money quicker than Milton bradley is for it's monopoly games.

:secret:

The federal government doesn't print money.

[Larry]

man oh man. If you take out my outspend comment, my whole statement still stands pretty true. But as THIEBEAR said, you are going to focus on one sentance out of a few and try to pin your whole arguement on that.

"My whole argument" (on that subject) is that that one sentence is laughably untrue.

"Gee, if you take out the part I said that wasn't true, then I'm completely right"

I'll also observe:

I've offered, several times, to drop discussing that line, and move on to the whopper you tried to spread next. I point out, again, that the only reason that subject keeps coming up, is because other people (including you) keep bringing it back into discussion.

And how ironic, that what you just did was to:

1) Bring the subject back up.

2) Quote my post, while removing my offer to drop the subject

3) And claim that you hate it when I fixate on one subject to the exclusion of the rest of your post.

I keep offering to drop it. You and others keep bringing it back up. And the reason you're bringing it back up, this time, is so that you can claim that I'm fixating on it.

[Larry]

:secret:

The federal government doesn't print money.

I wouldn't quibble about that. I think I understand what he's saying.

[Hubbs]

(Actually, I have to admit to being rather stunned at that result. I have trouble believing that Obama's deficit will be smaller. But that's what I get when I take his numbers, and do the math.)

If you simply assign that one, single, item to the President who did it, the whole lie falls apart.

Well... that's not really right, either. It's still hard to compare Obama and Bush down to the last dollar, because a lot of Obama's spending hasn't technically been done yet (passing the stimulus and accounting for the stimulus are two different things), and, quite frankly, we don't know what some of the final numbers will be (TARP, for example). But I think it's safe to say that the first year of actual spending under Obama involved a deficit that was larger by a couple hundred billion than the last year of actual spending under Bush. (But the gap is probably only around 1/4 of what 81 is claiming it is.)

[Hubbs]

I wouldn't quibble about that. I think I understand what he's saying.

Well, I'm glad that you do, but I'm a big boy, and I can quibble for my own reasons.

The difference is significant, in my opinion, especially when you want to make a point about the value of the dollar.

[Larry]

Well... that's not really right, either. It's still hard to compare Obama and Bush down to the last dollar, because a lot of Obama's spending hasn't technically been done yet (passing the stimulus and accounting for the stimulus are two different things), and, quite frankly, we don't know what some of the final numbers will be (TARP, for example). But I think it's safe to say that the first year of actual spending under Obama involved a deficit that was larger by a couple hundred billion than the last year of actual spending under Bush. (But the gap is probably only around 1/4 of what 81 is claiming it is.)

Yeah, I don't think there's any way in hell Obama's deficits will be smaller. At least not for a few years.

Heck, if they changed nothing, the deficits would have been considerably larger, simply because the recession dropped revenues. (I don't think you can blame Obama for that fact. But it's a fact that it's going to happen.)

[chipwhich]

Yeah, I don't think there's any way in hell Obama's deficits will be smaller. At least not for a few years.

Heck, if they changed nothing, the deficits would have been considerably larger, simply because the recession dropped revenues. (I don't think you can blame Obama for that fact. But it's a fact that it's going to happen.)

Not to jump in on this thread but the saddest part is to defend EITHER administration and to IGNORE there is a problem.

Of course the DEFICIT is increasing. To PRETEND it's not is just silly. To BLAME it on a PARTY is just silly.

Spending is out of control, and moreso now than ever. Blame it on whoever you want, but to continue the trend should make you pissed off.

Obama isn't doing us any favors in this recession. To defend it is asinine.

[Thiebear]

partial quote:

But I think it's safe to say that the first year of actual spending under Obama involved a deficit that was larger by a couple hundred billion than the last year of actual spending under Bush. (But the gap is probably only around 1/4 of what 81 is claiming it is.)

I believe the article linked says at the bottom twice the amount...

Actually, I do that when people say things that were known to be untrue the day the spin was first released, months ago.

that made me laugh.

[Larry]

Not to jump in on this thread but the saddest part is to defend EITHER administration and to IGNORE there is a problem.

Of course the DEFICIT is increasing. To PRETEND it's not is just silly. To BLAME it on a PARTY is just silly.

Spending is out of control, and moreso now than ever. Blame it on whoever you want, but to continue the trend should make you pissed off.

Obama isn't doing us any favors in this recession. To defend it is asinine.

I'm going to assume that you have some kind of problem with my post. (Since you quoted it.)

I'm not certain that this is so, since many of the things you've said, here, are things that I've said, too.

But, assuming that you're directing your comment at me, could you point out to me the places where I've been defending either administration, or claiming that Obama is doing us favors?