Oklahoma Unemployment Plummeting OKC Lowest in The Country

[Gaspar]

Where to even start...there are so many things.  And we HAVE told you - repeatedly.  

First, let's go to your $17 trillion...yep - we had $900 billion debt (all numbers approximately to within a few percent) when Reagan took office.  Today there is $17 trillion.  When Obama took office, it was about $14 trillion.  Stop for a second - do a little bit of math and see what number you find for the increase from Reagan to Obama (clue: $14 - .9 is roughly $13 trillion).  THAT is the debt increase while Republicans have held office over the last 33 years.  Simple enough...think you can handle it?  When we clear this little reality-disconnect hurdle, we can continue to the next point.

Part deux of that little exercise - Bush's last deficit was $1.9 trillion - after increasing every year throughout his term.  Obama's first deficit was about $1.6 trillion.  Do you see the trend there?  Let me spell it out - it was a DOWN trend.  And while Obama's pledge of reducing the deficit by half in his first term was not quite reached (about 40% reduction), that is a huge improvement over what anyone else has had happen in their first term...EVER !!  Even better than the reductions during Billy Bob's first term - the previous 'best' - and he got a tax hike to help.  If Obama has a fault in deficit reduction, it is that he didn't have stones enough to stand up and let the Bush reductions expire, like should have happened - based on 80 years of proof of how that works!  

So, see if you can digest this.  We can them move on to some more reality...but it's best to take little steps at this point in your development.

Not sure where your numbers come from but these are from the treasury department.  Lets not deal in "about" and "approximately."
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=01&startYear=2008&endMonth=07&endDay=29&endYear=2013

When Bush first came into office, the national debt was $5.77 trillion, and by the end of his 8 years, it grew to $9.229 trillion -- an increase of exactly $3.453 trillion.

Currently we are at $16.73 trillion.  That is a $6.10 trillion dollar increase in a little over 4 years.  During that time, government debt rose by $721,407,501,045 and private sector debt rose by $6,787,545,796,868.

Under Bush, the total debt rose by $431.6 billion a year (an atrocious and unsustainable amount).  Under President Obama it has increased by $1.326 trillion a year, or roughly 3X the yearly increase under Bush.

While Sauerkraut posts from emotion and is typically easy to unmount, please attempt to do so with real numbers.

Reagan was 100% devoted to private sector growth.  He spent like wild, but he had the revenue to do so. Clinton was a marvelous leader, also devoted to the promotion of private sector growth.  He could make a speech and cause the stock market roar, and companies to hire. He was also concerned with debt, far more than his predecessors, and understood the threat it posed to economic prosperity.  Bush was a miserable spender, but he enjoyed an artificially stimulated economy. He had little or no control over the housing crisis, though I think he should have tried a little harder.  He was lazy, especially during his second term.

Obama started in the weeds, and thought it was possible to spend his way out of them (ignoring the Keynesian failures of the past).  He made the private sector the enemy, blamed them, his predecessors, foreign countries, natural disasters, the weather, global warming, other law makers and any other external factor he could find for his inability to process a solution.  Instead of cutting through impediments to growth, he grew layer upon layer of new economic uncertainty, like onion-paper suffocating small business growth, and baring entry with banking regulations that did NOTHING to stifle the lending habits towards big companies.  Entire industries flush with cash were unwilling to hire because there was no longer a clear forecast of employment cost, or a clear picture of growth.  The amazing thing, is that he was able to accomplish most of his economic mess with words alone!  Beyond that, he seems completely unconcerned with the reality, and utterly consumed with the politics. The remedy to every issue, or crisis is a speaking tour.  How long will Democrats pretend this is leadership?

[swake]

Not sure where your numbers come from but these are from the treasury department.  Lets not deal in "about" and "approximately."
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=01&startYear=2008&endMonth=07&endDay=29&endYear=2013

When Bush first came into office, the national debt was $5.77 trillion, and by the end of his 8 years, it grew to $9.229 trillion -- an increase of exactly $3.453 trillion.

Currently we are at $16.73 trillion.  That is a $6.10 trillion dollar increase in a little over 4 years.  During that time, government debt rose by $721,407,501,045 and private sector debt rose by $6,787,545,796,868.

Under Bush, the total debt rose by $431.6 billion a year (an atrocious and unsustainable amount).  Under President Obama it has increased by $1.326 trillion a year, or roughly 3X the yearly increase under Bush.

While Sauerkraut posts from emotion and is typically easy to unmount, please attempt to do so with real numbers.

Reagan was 100% devoted to private sector growth.  He spent like wild, but he had the revenue to do so. Clinton was a marvelous leader, also devoted to the promotion of private sector growth.  He could make a speech and cause the stock market roar, and companies to hire. He was also concerned with debt, far more than his predecessors, and understood the threat it posed to economic prosperity.  Bush was a miserable spender, but he enjoyed an artificially stimulated economy. He had little or no control over the housing crisis, though I think he should have tried a little harder.  He was lazy, especially during his second term.

Obama started in the weeds, and thought it was possible to spend his way out of them (ignoring the Keynesian failures of the past).  He made the private sector the enemy, blamed them, his predecessors, foreign countries, natural disasters, the weather, global warming, other law makers and any other external factor he could find for his inability to process a solution.  Instead of cutting through impediments to growth, he grew layer upon layer of new economic uncertainty, like onion-paper suffocating small business growth, and baring entry with banking regulations that did NOTHING to stifle the lending habits towards big companies.  Entire industries flush with cash were unwilling to hire because there was no longer a clear forecast of employment cost, or a clear picture of growth.  The amazing thing, is that he was able to accomplish most of his economic mess with words alone!  Beyond that, he seems completely unconcerned with the reality, and utterly consumed with the politics. The remedy to every issue, or crisis is a speaking tour.  How long will Democrats pretend this is leadership?

Your numbers are wrong. Are you confused over when Obama took office?

Also, ask Europe what they think of going against the Keynesian model. Austerity is going just GREAT over there.

[Gaspar]

Your numbers are wrong. Are you confused over when Obama took office?

Also, ask Europe what they think of going against the Keynesian model. Austerity is going just GREAT over there.

Right you are.  Let me recalc.

When Bush first came into office, the national debt was $5.77 trillion, and by the end of his 8 years, it grew to $10.62 trillion -- an increase of exactly $4.85 trillion.

Currently we are at $16.73 trillion.  That is a $6.11 trillion dollar increase in a little over 4 years.  

Under Bush, the total debt rose by $431.6 billion a year (an atrocious and unsustainable amount).  Under President Obama it has increased by $1.32 trillion a year, still roughly 3X the yearly increase under Bush.

[swake]

Right you are.  Let me recalc.

When Bush first came into office, the national debt was $5.77 trillion, and by the end of his 8 years, it grew to $10.62 trillion -- an increase of exactly $4.85 trillion.

Currently we are at $16.73 trillion.  That is a $6.11 trillion dollar increase in a little over 4 years.  

Under Bush, the total debt rose by $431.6 billion a year (an atrocious and unsustainable amount).  Under President Obama it has increased by $1.32 trillion a year, still roughly 3X the yearly increase under Bush.

Bush also owns the first year of Obama's deficits, it was his budget. And Clinton owns Bush's surplus his first year.

[swake]

Bush's first budget took effect 10/1/2001, the debt was at 5.8 trillion, Obama's first budget started 10/1/2009 when the debt was at 11.9. Bush had an increase of 6.1 trillion in 8 years or a 105% increase. Obama is at 4.8 trillion in four years, a 40% increase, but then he has been tasked with cleaning up Bush's mess.

[Red Arrow]

Bush's first budget took effect 10/1/2001, the debt was at 5.8 trillion, Obama's first budget started 10/1/2009 when the debt was at 11.9. Bush had an increase of 6.1 trillion in 8 years or a 105% increase. Obama is at 4.8 trillion in four years, a 40% increase, but then he has been tasked with cleaning up Bush's mess.

How convenient to try to make a point in favor of Obama.  Compare an 8 year debt increase by Bush directly with a 4 year debt increase by Obama.

Too bad Bush didn't inherit a $11.9 trillion debt.  Then his $6.1 trillion increase over 8 years would have only been (approximately) 51%.

If Bush could have kept a balanced budget, then Obama's $4.8 trillion increase over $5.8 trillion would have been (approximately) 83% in only 4 years.

[Hoss]

How convenient to try to make a point in favor of Obama.  Compare an 8 year debt increase by Bush directly with a 4 year debt increase by Obama.

Too bad Bush didn't inherit a $11.9 trillion debt.  Then his $6.1 trillion increase over 8 years would have only been (approximately) 51%.

If Bush could have kept a balanced budget, then Obama's $4.8 trillion increase over $5.8 trillion would have been (approximately) 83% in only 4 years.

I think people can do the math.  Well, most on here can, anyway.

[Red Arrow]

I think people can do the math.  Well, most on here can, anyway.

I was just pointing out the obvious manipulation to distort events.

[Hoss]

I was just pointing out the obvious manipulation to distort events.

How is it manipulation?  The statement says 8 years of debt by Bush; 4 years by Obama.  That's stating fact.

If he'd have said the same thing and left the time frames off, I'd agree.  You're reading something that's not there, in my opinion.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not sure where your numbers come from but these are from the treasury department.  Lets not deal in "about" and "approximately."
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=01&startYear=2008&endMonth=07&endDay=29&endYear=2013

When Bush first came into office, the national debt was $5.77 trillion, and by the end of his 8 years, it grew to $9.229 trillion -- an increase of exactly $3.453 trillion.

Currently we are at $16.73 trillion.  That is a $6.10 trillion dollar increase in a little over 4 years.  During that time, government debt rose by $721,407,501,045 and private sector debt rose by $6,787,545,796,868.

Under Bush, the total debt rose by $431.6 billion a year (an atrocious and unsustainable amount).  Under President Obama it has increased by $1.326 trillion a year, or roughly 3X the yearly increase under Bush.

While Sauerkraut posts from emotion and is typically easy to unmount, please attempt to do so with real numbers.

Reagan was 100% devoted to private sector growth.  He spent like wild, but he had the revenue to do so. Clinton was a marvelous leader, also devoted to the promotion of private sector growth.  He could make a speech and cause the stock market roar, and companies to hire. He was also concerned with debt, far more than his predecessors, and understood the threat it posed to economic prosperity.  Bush was a miserable spender, but he enjoyed an artificially stimulated economy. He had little or no control over the housing crisis, though I think he should have tried a little harder.  He was lazy, especially during his second term.

Obama started in the weeds, and thought it was possible to spend his way out of them (ignoring the Keynesian failures of the past).  He made the private sector the enemy, blamed them, his predecessors, foreign countries, natural disasters, the weather, global warming, other law makers and any other external factor he could find for his inability to process a solution.  Instead of cutting through impediments to growth, he grew layer upon layer of new economic uncertainty, like onion-paper suffocating small business growth, and baring entry with banking regulations that did NOTHING to stifle the lending habits towards big companies.  Entire industries flush with cash were unwilling to hire because there was no longer a clear forecast of employment cost, or a clear picture of growth.  The amazing thing, is that he was able to accomplish most of his economic mess with words alone!  Beyond that, he seems completely unconcerned with the reality, and utterly consumed with the politics. The remedy to every issue, or crisis is a speaking tour.  How long will Democrats pretend this is leadership?

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

Go from year to year to year to get the total addition or subtraction to the national debt.  Does away with all those "hand waving" things like Bush keeping the two wars "off budget"....  Goes clear back to the beginning.  And you can see that as of the last day of the last fiscal year of Bush's regime, the debt HE and his spending binge was responsible for, the debt was $11,909,829,003,511.75.  Sept 30, 2009.  Ok, so I was off about a trillion.  Up from the $5.7 trillion - that actually is an increase of about $6.2 trillion.   About and nearly are plenty good for this type of discussion.  Notice, I gave Reagan the benefit of a few bucks in his favor when it was really only $997 billion....


Ahh...SOO glad you dragged Reagan into it - of course, you DO realize WHY he had the revenue to spend like wild??  Well, he really didn't...he tripled the national debt in 8 years....actually 286% increase...in 8 years.  Not even Bush was quite that bad - coming in at 200% increase in 8 years.  But the fact that was that he had a big fat juicy tax cut when the recession started - FOLLOWED BY the biggest tax hikes in the history of the world until that time!  After the recession started to abate, of course - THE time proven method to deal with recessions.  You are making Obama look better and better all the time by comparison - let's see if the deficit gets to $24 trillion in the next 3 years or so...that's what it would take for Obama to tie Bush...let alone get close to Reagan.


Platitudes, Gaspar,....platitudes....that last paragraph is right from "The Script".  And demonstrably and visibly wrong at least to this point in Obama's regime - who knows what is gonna happen for the next 3 years....?

As for companies not willing to hire - well that is a really distorted distortion.  Personal experience - 35% in the last 4 years...from about 122k to 165k.  Companies that have the foresight and have a plan are and have been hiring to cover the increasing needs, as well as be prepared for future expansion.  Lots of companies hiring - not enough - but lots.

[Red Arrow]

How is it manipulation?  The statement says 8 years of debt by Bush; 4 years by Obama.  That's stating fact.

If he'd have said the same thing and left the time frames off, I'd agree.  You're reading something that's not there, in my opinion.

I'm not disputing the numbers.  I do believe the presentation is intended to skew the interpretation.  If you don't see it that way, fine.  I am not defending Bush's spending though.  I just think Obama is as bad or worse.

[Gaspar]

I was just pointing out the obvious manipulation to distort events.

No.  I like it.  Goes with the theme. President Obama swooped into office blaming everyone before him, and he will squeak out blaming everyone around him, then he will enjoy a fabulous speaking career blaming everyone after him.

Swake makes a great point, president Obama is really not responsible for anything.  None of his budget proposals were ever considered by either party.  In fact last year his framework couldn't garner a single vote in the house 414-0 or in the senate 97-0.  His budgetary proposals have been considered unworkable by the legislative branch and incalculable by the Congressional Budget Office due to their lack of detail.

This means that the president can take no blame for the state of the economy when it comes to budget.  Of course the inability to present a cogent budget is not his fault either, because it was written by his advisors, overseen by Brian Deese who was the economic policy director for the 2008 Obama campaign. Before that he worked for The Center for American Progress, a think tank offering policy proposals, talking points, events, news and columns. It's not much of a surprise the Obama budget frameworks were of little substance.  Deese has a poly-sci and law degree with a mostly eco-political background.  The entire OMB office is staffed by these young political starlets (the Prius bumper-sticker club).

The one thing that President Obama cannot be denied is that he got Osama, and killed thousands of others with drones. Why do we have to focus on economy and budget when we got that?

[swake]

No.  I like it.  Goes with the theme. President Obama swooped into office blaming everyone before him, and he will squeak out blaming everyone around him, then he will enjoy a fabulous speaking career blaming everyone after him.

Swake makes a great point, president Obama is really not responsible for anything.  None of his budget proposals were ever considered by either party.  In fact last year his framework couldn't garner a single vote in the house 414-0 or in the senate 97-0.  His budgetary proposals have been considered unworkable by the legislative branch and incalculable by the Congressional Budget Office due to their lack of detail.

This means that the president can take no blame for the state of the economy when it comes to budget.  Of course the inability to present a cogent budget is not his fault either, because it was written by his advisors, overseen by Brian Deese who was the economic policy director for the 2008 Obama campaign. Before that he worked for The Center for American Progress, a think tank offering policy proposals, talking points, events, news and columns. It's not much of a surprise the Obama budget frameworks were of little substance.  Deese has a poly-sci and law degree with a mostly eco-political background.  The entire OMB office is staffed by these young political starlets (the Prius bumper-sticker club).

The one thing that President Obama cannot be denied is that he got Osama, and killed thousands of others with drones. Why do we have to focus on economy and budget when we got that?

Why don't you go back to predicting stocks. You are even worse at reality than you are stocks.

[Gaspar]

Why don't you go back to predicting stocks. You are even worse at reality than you are stocks.

Point out the inaccuracy.

[AquaMan]

Gas-the educated, erudite....Sauer.

Anyway, Sauer, do you see the difference between your bumper sticker platitudes and reasoned (somewhat supportable) discourse? There is always spin and folks are committed to their viewpoints but it isn't just yelling out like at a football game. They actually have a basis for those viewpoints.

I am an Obama supporter and a confirmed moderate liberal, but I do admit the failures of the party, the candidate and the extremists who inhabit my realm of thinking. You cannote expect people to give you much credit when you portray Fallin and the republican state legislature as the saviours of the state and yet ignore their obvious failures and the role of the federal government in our prosperity.