Bridenstine vs. Sullivan

[nathanm]

In reality, under Obama the deficit has only decreased by about 17% since the last Bush budget. And is actually higher than the last full year of the Bush administration. If you want to keep ringing that bell go ahead. But I think it has been thoroughly debunked.

No, since FY05, the last (fiscal) year Congressional Republicans were fully in control:

2005-09-30   -318346 (a 22% decrease over the previous year)
2006-09-30   -248181 (-22%)
2007-09-30   -160701 (-35%..amazing what a property bubble can do for revenues!)
2008-09-30   -458553 (+208%)
2009-09-30  -1412688 (+208%)
2010-09-30  -1293489 (-8.4%)
2011-09-30  -1299595 (+0.4%)

So, since Obama was fully in control of spending, it has fallen somewhat and stayed pretty much flat. Not sure where H gets his 42% figure, though.

[heironymouspasparagus]

No, since FY05, the last (fiscal) year Congressional Republicans were fully in control:

2005-09-30   -318346 (a 22% decrease over the previous year)
2006-09-30   -248181 (-22%)
2007-09-30   -160701 (-35%..amazing what a property bubble can do for revenues!)
2008-09-30   -458553 (+208%)
2009-09-30  -1412688 (+208%)
2010-09-30  -1293489 (-8.4%)
2011-09-30  -1299595 (+0.4%)

So, since Obama was fully in control of spending, it has fallen somewhat and stayed pretty much flat. Not sure where H gets his 42% figure, though.

Same place I have referenced many times - the federal debt history at the Treasury Dept.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Outstanding debt - no matter what the "waving of hands" about cut this, spent that, here is the final end of year number as defined and reported by the US Treasury.

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005  7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004  7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003  6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002  6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001  5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000  5,674,178,209,886.86


I took the 1.9 trillion from Bush's last year (09/30/2008 thru 09/30/2009) and compared to this last years deficit of about 1.1 trillion.  That's a 42% reduction.

(1.9 - 1.1)/1.9 times 100 to get percentage.

(0.8/1.9) x 100 = 42%


By the way, Obama's first deficit was about 1.65 trillion - too big, but a noticeable reduction the first year!

[nathanm]

Same place I have referenced many times - the federal debt history at the Treasury Dept.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Outstanding debt - no matter what the "waving of hands" about cut this, spent that, here is the final end of year number as defined and reported by the US Treasury.

Hmm. Interesting. We apparently had a 1.29 trillion deficit that increased the debt 1.6 trillion dollars. Did social security run a $310 billion surplus in FY10? That should be after the wars were brought on budget, so I'm not sure what else it might be.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hmm. Interesting. We apparently had a 1.29 trillion deficit that increased the debt 1.6 trillion dollars. Did social security run a $310 billion surplus in FY10? That should be after the wars were brought on budget, so I'm not sure what else it might be.

Some of it also goes to the way Bush had so much reported "off budget" - to hide the cost of the war.  So a "reported" deficit is really just smoke and mirrors and a wave of the hand to make some point.

And yes, Social Security was having surpluses up until last year, I think - maybe year before.  So depending on what games are played there,...


I like some of the early 1800's reports...

[Conan71]

Uh, who here is supporting Bridenstine or Sullivan and why?

If we want to continue to argue debt, deficit, and taxes, I'm sure we've got plenty of other threads available for that.

Oh yeah,

Marshalls!

[heironymouspasparagus]

Uh, who here is supporting Bridenstine or Sullivan and why?

If we want to continue to argue debt, deficit, and taxes, I'm sure we've got plenty of other threads available for that.

Oh yeah,

Marshalls!

Not arguing - just reporting - fair and balanced.  Unlike the poser's on the TV....


Neither yet.  For now, Sullivan has blown it with his embracing Fred Davis as campaign guru (Strategic Perception, Inc).  And the fact that he spends more time drunk or in rehab than doing anything for the state of Oklahoma.

Bridenstine - ??  Is museum director enough to give background we need??  (I have a friend who is museum director in another state, and she would be more than qualified, so it is all about him, not the job.)  Army veteran with combat zone.  The signs are stupid.  Need more info.

John Olson has automatic credibility - University of Tulsa, business owner, Army veteran with combat zone.  Need more info.

Craig Allen -  Who??

[erfalf]

Uh, who here is supporting Bridenstine or Sullivan and why?

If we want to continue to argue debt, deficit, and taxes, I'm sure we've got plenty of other threads available for that.

Oh yeah,

Marshalls!

Sorry for getting off topic. Let's move the whole debt/deficit thing back to the Spending that DIdn't happen thread or whatever it was called.

I too would like to learn more about Bridenstine as well. Better or worse than Sullivan (not a high bar mind you)?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sorry for getting off topic. Let's move the whole debt/deficit thing back to the Spending that DIdn't happen thread or whatever it was called.

I too would like to learn more about Bridenstine as well. Better or worse than Sullivan (not a high bar mind you)?

We haven't heard reports of him stumbling around drunk or going to rehab, so already a step or two better...throw in Fred Davis, and ya got 5 or 6 steps.

[nathanm]

I too would like to learn more about Bridenstine as well.

Ok. He is treasurer of a PAC called "Friends of Jim Bridenstine", formed March 5th, which has reported no receipts or expenditures yet and lists Erik Zoellner as its registered agent. His campaign has itself raised $138,568, 96% of which was from individual donors. This stands in stark contrast to Sullivan, who has thus far raised $797,962, mostly (61%) from PACs, with most of the rest coming from a who's who of lobbyist/special interest front groups.

Bridenstine thus far appears to be raising money from a few local businesses and some old Navy buddies. The top industry donating to him: "Retired". As in retired people, not AARP.

Don't get confused, though. It was "James A Bridenstine" that donated to Obama's Inauguration, not the one we're talking about now.

Seriously, though, looking at the reports it becomes pretty clear that there's a lot of influence peddling going on. On what planet does a sitting congressman in a safe seat whose competitors have (combined) raised less than $200,000 need a million dollars for a re-election campaign? Sullivan has already spent over a quarter of a million dollars!

[heironymouspasparagus]

In Fred Davis/Jim Inhofe world.  There will be lying soon.


I want a SuperPAC!!  But I heard that Jon Stewart ran out of his SuperPAC kits!!  Oh, the tragedy of it all....

[Teatownclown]

Please. Sullivan is a Teahead. If you support him then you support them....obstrictionists and righties. Not the true type of patriots and not the representation we deserve.

[Teatownclown]

Uh, who here is supporting Bridenstine or Sullivan and why?

If we want to continue to argue debt, deficit, and taxes, I'm sure we've got plenty of other threads available for that.

Oh yeah,

Marshalls!

Yea... independents don't count. hahahaha TFB

[Conan71]

Yea... independents don't count. hahahaha TFB

Yeah, figures the one election I really want to vote in...

Small sacrifice for no longer being associated with a bunch of bathwater swilling morons in the Oklahoma GOP.

[Red Arrow]

not the representation we deserve.

You may want to re-think that last part.

[Red Arrow]

Yeah, figures the one election I really want to vote in...

Small sacrifice for no longer being associated with a bunch of bathwater swilling morons in the Oklahoma GOP.

Real people swill Gin.