The U.S. Govenment is Conducting a Ponzi Scheme

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

And of course, you totally ignored Obumbo's 5+ years after the 2009 fiscal year. Do you now want to address those years instead of ignoring them?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is inching up and recording new highs during the month of September 2014. On Thursday, September 4, 2014, the Dow Jones reached an all-time intraday high of 17,161.60, but the highest closing price thus far was recorded the following day, on September 5, 2014, at 17,137.36.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...ones-industrial-average-djia-alltime-high.asp



U.S. stocks were little moved on Monday, with the S&P 500 recording a 42nd record close of the year,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102191199


The dollar has long been the world's top business currency and viewed as a "safe bet" among investors. But the recent run up is partly because traders believe the American economy is improving, especially relative to other parts of the world. This will compel the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, which is generally seen as a good thing for a country's currency.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/29/investing/us-dollar-strong-four-year-high/

 

[71buickfreak]

LMFAO Clinton had a balanced budget. My @ss he did. on paper, maybe, but the actual spending was out of control.

 

[Sanford]

Y'all point fingers all you want but remember ... "the government" isn't in charge of "the economy."

According to the (Federal Reserve) Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve System "is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."

 

[JD8]

It's pretty amateurish to look at the Dow, Nasdaq, etc as a measure of economic policy. It's also kind of retarded to quote the dollar coming off a low as a measure also. Everyone likes the U.S. because everywhere else is actually THAT bad and it has nothing to do with our Savior the king.


Food stamps are at it's highest, wages are stagnant, corporate profits are meh, 15% poverty rate etc. etc. Whereas, the housing market looks good, interest rates have only one way to go, inflation is low.

However, let's consider how much King Hussein could do for economy with a stimulus with infrastructure, god forbid a comprehensive energy policy.... etc...etc.

 

[dennishoddy]

LMAO! That's one hell of a crystal ball you have! I bet your right Ace must really like Obama, I cant think of a worse president in my lifetime.... maybe Carter but that's a toss up. Nixon was impeached for doing some of the same things the Obama administration is doing.

Nixon resigned. He was not impeached.

 

[Riley]

Here ya go Ace...

http://www.redstate.com/2014/12/02/irresponsible-unpatriotic-18-trillion-national-debt/

This is the CBO chart you were looking for, you know the percentage of debt to gdp chart? Its right there...

Thank the hero's of the change, Reid and Pelosi for either the last two years of bush spending or the first 4years of obama's...Oh heck, may as well give them credit for both....they earned it.

 

[n2sooners]

"It also means that total US debt has increased by 70% under Obama, from $10.625 trillion on January 21, 2009 to $18.005 trillion most recently."

Interesting. They want to add every penny spent in 2009 to Obama's tally.

Since you like to question sources, and not the facts, this is from the most right-wing think tank there is, the CATO Institute.

...critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. ... it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt...But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.

Anyone that claims that Obama has added 70% to the nation debt is lying. Not fudging the numbers, not bending the truth, they are lying. At the end of the 2009 fiscal year, the last one that the Bush administration wrote the budget, the national debt was $11.9 trillion.

Bush, who started with a nearly balanced budget, more than doubled the debt and left a $1.4 trillion deficit. Reagan, the innovator of deficit spending, raised the debt 300%. If Obama added to the debt at the rate Reagan did, it would be $36 trillion when he leaves office. It will be less than $20 trillion.

The problem with blaming Bush for the 2009 budget is that the democrat controlled Congress didn't pass a budget for 2009 until April of 2009. And they did so with zero republican votes. Democrats should quit trying to blame Bush for all their failures, it's gone beyond parody.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Here ya go Ace...

http://www.redstate.com/2014/12/02/irresponsible-unpatriotic-18-trillion-national-debt/

This is the CBO chart you were looking for, you know the percentage of debt to gdp chart? Its right there...

Thank the hero's of the change, Reid and Pelosi for either the last two years of bush spending or the first 4years of obama's...Oh heck, may as well give them credit for both....they earned it.

First, I did include a chart of debt to GDP.

Second, from the linked article, " $7.4 trillion, an amount about equal to the amount Obama has added to our national debt so far...". That is flat out wrong, as I showed. That amount includes every penny added to the debt since the day Obama took office. A new president has next to nothing to do with the budget for the year he takes office. Blaming Obama for the nearly $1 trillion of debt added in 2009 after he took office is so deceitful it rises to the level of being a lie.

Third, from the linked article, "President Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first time." The deficit for 2013, the last one written by the Obama administration in the last year of his first term, included $680 billion of defict spending. That's half of the $1.4 trillion in Bush's last budget.

I wonder why RedState is so outraged by the 70% increase (which is not even true) under Obama, but not a word about the 100% increase under Bush or the 300% increase under Reagan.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

The problem with blaming Bush for the 2009 budget is that the democrat controlled Congress didn't pass a budget for 2009 until April of 2009. And they did so with zero republican votes. Democrats should quit trying to blame Bush for all their failures, it's gone beyond parody.

How about just blaming him for the mistakes he did make? Oh, that's right, he didn't make any he could think of.

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

It's pretty amateurish to look at the Dow, Nasdaq, etc as a measure of economic policy. It's also kind of retarded to quote the dollar coming off a low as a measure also. Everyone likes the U.S. because everywhere else is actually THAT bad and it has nothing to do with our Savior the king.


Food stamps are at it's highest, wages are stagnant, corporate profits are meh, 15% poverty rate etc. etc. Whereas, the housing market looks good, interest rates have only one way to go, inflation is low.

However, let's consider how much King Hussein could do for economy with a stimulus with infrastructure, god forbid a comprehensive energy policy.... etc...etc.

I bolded a few words, just for fun. I doubt you'll be able to connect the dots.

In 2013, after-tax corporate profits as a share of the economy tied with their highest level on record (in 1965), while labor compensation as a share of the economy hit its lowest point since 1948.

You're wrong about corporate profits. And while corporate profits soar, and wages stay flat, is that the fault of a president or corporate greed? Of course your answer would directly correlate with which party holds The White House.