Contributors

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Are These Numbers Accurate?

Take a look at these numbers.

2001 – $5.871 trillion in debt
2008 – $10.640 trillion in debt

Jan 31st 2009 = $10.569 trillion in debt
Jan 31st 2011 = $14.131 tr­­illion in debt

But of the $3.56-tril­­lion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:

Bush: $910-billi­­on = Interest on Debt 2009/2011
Bush: $360-billi­­on = Iraq War Spending 2009/2011
Bush: $319-billi­­on = TARP/Bailo­­ut Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
Bush: $419-billi­­on = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
Bush: $190-billi­­on = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2011
Bush: $211-billi­­on = Bush Meicare Part-D 2009/2011
Bush: $771-billi­­on = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2011

So that means...

Bush’s contributi­­on:

2001 to 2008: $4.769-tri­­llion
2009 to 2010: $3.181-tri­­llion

Total: $7.950-tri­­llion

Increase Since 2001 = $14.131 – $5.871 = $8.26-tril­­lion

Bush’s contributi­­on: $7.950-tri­­llion / $8.26-tril­­lion = 96%

Increase caused By Bush’s Programs: 96%
Increase caused by Obama’s Programs: 4%

My simple question is...are these numbers accurate? And, if so, why is Obama's spending portrayed as much worse when the numbers show quite clearly that it has not been worse.

81 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'll just assume they are accurate. Bush was certainly not a model of fiscal conservatism.

But you have already been told that.

Over and over.

I can't recall any apologists on this blog for Bush's spending.

Can you?

Besides, we never have to payback the debt.

Anonymous said...

Why are they portraying Obama as much worse?

For the same reason that, now that Obama is president, everyone talks about the "real" unemployment rate, which includes people who are underemployed, stopped looking for work, and so on. Something they NEVER mentioned when Bush was president.

In other words, the media cooperate with Republicans in spreading the message that everything is bad and always getting worse, and it's all Obama's fault, even though Bush and his policies are mostly to blame for those problems. And now that Obama's president, it's time to change the metrics so that we're no longer comparing apples to apples.

And the same reason that so many people in the media say, "Both parties are controlled by extremists on the right and left, making compromise impossible."

Which is completely false: the Republicans are controlled by the right (because they're afraid they'll be stabbed in the back if they cross Grover Norquist -- with good reason: Norquist will crush you if you cross him), while the Democrats are constantly disappointing the left (with the health care plan, inaction on real financial reform and mortgage problems for the little guy, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.), which is the main reason the Democrats lost the House in 2010. The left mostly just stayed home and didn't go all out last year like they did for Obama.

The media bend over backwards to make it appear that there's some kind of equivalence between Repblican and Democratic responsibility for our current problems and the extremist views that prevent progress on serious issues. When in reality inaction on the debt ceiling, immigration, the economy, and on and on, is due to Republican intransigence, delusional thinking and incompetence in years past.

Anonymous said...

Are they accurate? I don't know, why don't you cite your sources?

Anonymous said...

What metrics have been changed anon? I don't hear anyone talking about the 'real unemployment rate', other than the blogosphere. Has it been mentioned on the big three networks?

Would it be reasonable to assume, that when the 'official' unemployment rate is very low, and therefore not newsworthy, that nobody cares about the people that don't fit neatly into the unemployed category. But when the rate is high, as it is now, that it is considered newsworthy to make it seem really bad?

I don't need to see any media bias there, I just see ratings grab. But maybe you are right.

"When in reality inaction on the debt ceiling, immigration, the economy, and on and on, is due to Republican intransigence, delusional thinking and incompetence in years past."

Can you give me some specific example? I've seen some pretty stupid stuff come from the Republican party, so I believe you. Just give me an idea what you are talking about.

And who is this Norquist fellow that seems to be popping up on this blog only? Isn't he that liberal guy for gay rights? Did he do or say something stupid recently?

I can't come up with a simple fake name so just call me anonymous said...

According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending. In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011, and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

This doesn't take into account Obamacare which will of course 'save money'.

-just dave said...

Hmmm, not so sure on that assessment...

In other news...
Obama said during the ’08 campaign: “I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated . . . not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world.”

A headline last week: “Obama’s ratings plummet in Arab World.”

So, is Obama an egomaniac or a fool?

Narcissus said...

Can't he be both?

last in line said...

I need to see a source. These numbers can't be true unless they are out there on the internet somewhere (that is where all knowledge exists, remember?), and the source had better be bias free with no bias whatsoever for the last 29 years in my opinion or I am just going to ignore the data and call bias.

Bernanke on CSPAN said...

"On entitlements you are also correct that ah they are not true insurance programs, I think many Americans believe that the money they put in Social Security or Medicare is somewhere in the bank someplace, that's not really quite right, what's happening mostly is younger generations are paying through their taxes for older generations benefits and that worked okay as the population was shaped much more like a pyramid"

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/BenBernank/start/3689/stop/7777

Anonymous said...

But, but, no! That's got to be some right-wing teabagging LIE! There's no way it can be related to anything like a pyramid-shaped, like a pyramid (or Ponzi) scheme. Marky personally assured me of that! And he's like a tennis coach, not some sleazy banker.

sasquatch said...

It's utterly fascinating to watch how the minds work here. Even though we have candid openess about social security and Medicare, it's still a scheme. It.just.has.to.be.

Anonymous said...

Even though we have candid openess about social security and Medicare, it's still a scheme. It.just.has.to.be.

You have never, even once in your life, had a salesman talk to you, huh sasquatch? They are usually very careful not to lie, to be very candid and open and not say anything that isn't actually true. And of course, no salesman ever in the history of the world has tried to sell some sort of scheme, huh?

Anonymous said...

Any sources for those numbers? Hello?

Merrill Stubing said...

Does it make a difference if the numbers are true or not?

The Titanic is racing full speed ahead into a solid wall of icebergs, and Marxy wants to make sure the new captain isn't blamed.

Mark Ward said...

Here is my source.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/national-debt-increased-by-75-under-bush-and-25-under-obama/

I double checked the numbers with the usual government sources (CBO, White House, Treasury) and they were accurate.

And of course, no salesman ever in the history of the world has tried to sell some sort of scheme, huh

The government is not a salesman. They don't work for profit. But somehow it must all be a scheme because it's the (dum dum dah!!!) GUBMINT.

Larry said...

Government's not a salesman? Hoo-boy, have you ever been sold a bill of goods. Good lord, what universe do you inhabit?

"The Gubmint" may not be a salesman, but politicians sure as shit are, as are their supporters.

And Mark, your "source" is an apparently anonymous blog with unattributed numbers that could have been pulled out of any number of asses. You are a teacher, right? I know sources aren't used on tennis courts, but if you were ever to grade a paper, what would be wrong with this "sourcing", hmm?

Anonymous said...

…if you were ever to grade a paper, what would be wrong with this "sourcing", hmm?

Nothing! It agrees with him, therefore it's valid.

Anonymous said...

What metrics have been changed anon?

Anonymous said...

What metrics have been changed anon?

Anonymous said...

What metrics have been changed anon?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, delete those extras at my request, please.

Anon

Anonymous said...

Looks to me like static tax analysis. Of course, static analysis doesn't have any flaws at all, right Mark?

stonesfreak said...

The numbers from the blog are pulled right from the Treasury Dept. Go look it up, numb nuts.

Anonymous said...

The government is not a salesman. They don't work for profit.

Politicians aren't salespeople? They don't promise _____ program in return for votes?

What planet did you say you were from again?

Anonymous said...

Here is my source.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/national-debt-increased-by-75-under-bush-and-25-under-obama/

I double checked the numbers with the usual government sources (CBO, White House, Treasury) and they were accurate.


Care to link to the sourcing you checked it against, instead of just the accusation you quoted verbatim?

Mark Ward said...

Um, that would be the sources I listed above. I think you are perfectly capable of finding those sties on your own and doing your own work. If you'd like another source, here is one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Anonymous said...

Some of those numbers were pulled out of Anomymous Blogger's nether regions. They can't be found on CBO, White House, or Treasury sites. Nor can Sir Mark of Cloud Cuckoo Land or his band of merry sycophants point them out.

juris imprudent said...

I'm curious, but since when is wiki a govt website, as in "I double checked the numbers with the usual government sources (CBO, White House, Treasury) and they were accurate."

You really shouldn't be so lazy if you are also going to be so dishonest (and childish).

Mark Ward said...

I put up the Wiki site in addition to the other one in case we didn't trust the government sources. It's fairly easy to find the numbers on the government web sites. If you can't be arsed to do it, that's not my fault.

sasquatch said...

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

It took me all of five seconds. What was the hold up, morons? Too busy trying to prove Mark wrong rather than do some simple investigation. And you butt wipes claim to be schooled in the scientific method. Now, let's talk about the facts that these numbers show. Bush is responsible. Obama is not.

Anonymous said...

Finally, sasquatch offered evidence! It's a big day here! A first! Yes!

Okay, celebration's over.

That's support for 2 of the numbers. Now, how 'bout the other 9?

6Kings said...

Here is another one:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/spend_it_like_bush.html

Showing Bush spending, while not responsible, was aligned historically. Obama spending is not even in the ballpark.

Anonymous said...

Ah, little hairy skunk-ape, your source verified two of the least important numbers, but those aren't the numbers Anonymous Blogger pulled out of his nether regions to be eagerly slurped up by Markus Erroneous. Please try again.

Anonymous said...

Interesting…

6Kings links to an article comparing Bush spending to Obama spending. That article, in turn, links to its government sources for the numbers used in the article. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for source of those numbers from the Bloggers for Covering Obama's Heinie.

Jaxson said...

As easy as it is to make fun of Mark for his shortcomings, let's get past that shall we?

Somebody spent the money.

In a sense, you and I did. Or at least, our fathers and grandfathers did.

Can any of you economic geniuses (genii?) do the math that turns the country around?

What do you cut out of the budget to stop borrowing money? Defense? SSA? DOJ?

Rather than attempt to re-invent the wheel every time Marxy says something stupid, can someone show me a way out of this dead-end?

Anonymous said...

Jaxson,

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44945

"Questionable behavioral studies and a student supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are “bizarre” and border on pornographic, says the Traditional Values Coalition which is asking for a freeze on future studies.

The studies examine the organ size of gay men, and sexual positions, sexual behavior and drug abuse at circuit parties attended by gay men, the habits of rats on cocaine and how virtual games can eliminate bias against women.

“It’s really shocking,” said Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition.

With Congress debating this week on whether to raise the debt ceiling, the group wants legislators to place a moratorium on grants to the health agency, which it says has spent a half billion in taxpayer dollars to pay for questionable studies.

Anonymous said...

Marxy posted a link to a wikipedia page listing national debt by President. There's just one itty, bitty, tiny problem with analyzing government spending that way; one that's so small it's hardly worth mentioning. [/sarc]

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
—Article I, Section 7, United States Constitution

The President doesn't get to decide spending.

A more appropriate way to look at government spending is by comparing it to the party in control of the House of Representatives.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeef1s7/richardpersingcom22/id15.html

Here are the key numbers (with a reference to the treasury.gov web site for verification):

Average Debt Incurred by Month

Republicans in power: $26,800,064,826


Overspending by $26.8 billion dollars every freakin' month is horrendous. That incredible level of overspending is why conservatives haven't been standing solidly behind Republicans come election time. So how did the Dems do?

Democrats in power: $82,927,155,937

More than $82.9 billion a month in overspending? That's more than THREE TIMES the overspending the Republicans did!

And you guys expect us to think Democrats are actually trying to waste less money than Republicans?!? What are you smoking?

Anonymous said...

Too busy trying to prove Mark wrong rather than do some simple investigation. And you butt wipes claim to be schooled in the scientific method.

It's fairly easy to find the numbers on the government web sites. If you can't be arsed to do it, that's not my fault.

Are you guys under the impression that the scientific method is such that someone only has to make a claim, they don't have to provide supporting evidence? And that those contesting such claims have to figure out where he got his numbers and then refute them or else it must be true?

No wonder you believe the IPCC.

That's support for 2 of the numbers. Now, how 'bout the other 9?

Did you guys miss that? Or are you just ignoring it?

juris imprudent said...

What do you cut out of the budget to stop borrowing money?

Demolish the Depts of Education, Energy, and Agriculture for a start. Not one additional dime for HLS until there is a full audit and analysis of the value that HLS adds to the federal govt. Means test SS as Medicare already is. Repeal the Prescription Drug Benefit in addition to ObamaCare. Cut DoD by reducing our military presence around the world - seriously, do we need 100K troops in Europe to keep it from erupting in war?

Is that a fair start?

Mark Ward said...

At least juris puts forth some solid ideas here. I don't agree with all of them but many do have to happen in order fix many of our problems. Juris, would you have the states or cities then take on funding for education or would it all be privatized?

And I can't speak for the hairy beast from the northwest but all of those numbers are easily verified from the site he listed. You have to do the work, though.

Anonymous said...

Bullshit.

Jaxson said...

Education, Energy, Agriculture.

OK. Gone. I don't know all the possible ramifications of just erasing them... but ok, done.

Based on this webpage
http://www.usaspending.gov/explore?fiscal_year=2010&tab=By+Agency&fromfiscal=yes&carryfilters=on&Submit=Go

[disclosure- this website looks pretty right wing by Mark's standards, please parse the numbers as you see fit]

you just eliminated 180 billion$.

Sounds like a lot.

According to:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

So far this fiscal year (9 months), the US has spent 386 billion $ on debt interest.

206 b. $ to go....

I submit to you that means testing SS may well COST money, vice saving money. Arguable, yes... but it's my argument.

PDB? 55 b. a year.

So we need to cut 151 billion dollars from defense.

DD budget = 680 b. (FY'10)

So essentially, you want to cut the entire Navy budget.

All we've done so far is pay for the interest on the existing debt.

Jaxson said...

Oh, and I forgot that interest was just for the last 9 months.

You can also cut the Marines (29b), EPA (10b), Interior, Treasury, Labor, and Commerce. (~50b)

Then, just getting rid of the entire HUD department (43b)will allow us to pay off the yearly interest on the debt.

Anonymous said...

But the deficit and debt don't really matter! Marxy told us so!

juris imprudent said...

I submit to you that means testing SS may well COST money, vice saving money.

Not sure how you get that, given that the only function of means testing is to remove recipients - there'd be no way to add new ones. Not that I expect huge savings, and what savings there are will likely need to be plowed back into the program to keep it viable.

Another thing I didn't mention is that you freeze the budget for at least one year. One of the problems with all so-called "cuts" is that they are cuts in future [increased] spending. No one, save me and some other crazy people, is actually saying spend less tomorrow than you did today. THAT is a cut, not spending $5 more than today but $10 less than you previously planned to spend.

So essentially, you want to cut the entire Navy budget.

No I want to mostly close down our presence in Europe. There is no need for us to have 100K (dated number, not sure what it is today) troops there.

From M: would you have the states or cities then take on funding for education

I would think you knew that your salary and virtually all of the operating expenses of your school come out of state and/or local taxes already - not the feds. If the Dept of Ed went away tomorrow, I doubt you could tell in your job - and you are far closer to that than I am.

Anonymous said...

You may be right about means testing, but an administrative program costs money, and the number of SS recipients that would be removed is trivial. As I said, it is arguable, and at best is a fraction of a percent.

So we cut all overseas troops.

I can live with that. I'll ignore all the costs associated with that drawdown, and assume we sell our prime real estate at a profit. Call it even on a yearly basis.

You have just managed to pay the interest on our debt for one year.

We got rid of what exactly?

Education, Energy, EPA, Labor, Treasury, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and 100,000 troops.

Does that seem realistic to you? Remember, we've done nothing yet except pay the interest on the debt.

If you can make the math work out, then you are better than me. I've taken Eng. math through Calc III and Differential Equations, but still can't see a different ending.

Keep in mind that GDP has a government spending component, so cuts to government (in the short run) will make it all worse.

Is there a long run left?

Anonymous said...

Mine ^

Jaxson

Juris Imprudent said...

Interesting. I'm willing to make much larger [real] cuts in the military than are on the table - nightmare stuff to the right or wet-dreams of the left. I've eliminated major departments. I've called for a one year freeze on all other spending [presumably discretionary only, but there probably isn't all that much of that left]. We've taken the mistakes of Prescription Drug and PPACA back (which we know are going to cost loads more in the future than they do today).

We've even put a small dent in SS, and we still haven't made all that much progress. So what is the big chunk that has gone untouched? How have we not gotten spending back down to the more historical rate of 18% of GDP? [It is currently around 24-25%].

BTW, this is an excellent illustration of why we must keep our credit rating at the very top of the heap. If interest is chewing up so much of the budget now, imagine what happens to the budget if the rates go up for the govt - you have no choice but to make even more draconian cuts than I am suggesting.

Lastly, thank you jaxson for engaging in this kind of discussion. That is all too rare around here.

6Kings said...

Only one-third of the federal budget, discretionary spending, is subject to annual budgets. The remainder, mandatory spending, is set on autopilot without congressional debate and has increased more than five times faster than discretionary spending. Most of the current increase is due to entitlement spending.

Ugly Mandatory Spending


So as you try to balance the budget, it gets harder and harder to do using only discretionary spending because that portion is shrinking fast. Past administrations have put in place a serious structural spending problem and nobody has a backbone to address it.

This looks like a decent plan that isn't too radical and can address most of the issues. Take a look.

Heritage Plan

Mark Ward said...

Juris, I'm of two minds when it comes to troops in Europe. On the one hand, I totally agree with you. Why the fuck do we have so many troops there when WWII ended 70 years ago? On the other hand, many of them are support for the problems in the Middle East so I do think some are necessary.

I'm a Democrat but I don't favor as deep of cuts in the military budget. Some, yes, because everyone has to sacrifice. But we are talking about a huge industry here with thousands of jobs on the line. I don't support idiotic ventures like Vietnam or the second Iraq war but AfPak and general security in the Middle East is a good thing, no? Especially with so much riding on the world economy.

Good call on the credit issue as well. Why don't people understand this simple fact?

Juris Imprudent said...

I'm a Democrat but I don't favor as deep of cuts in the military budget.

Which puts you closer to the average Republican than to me.

The are two large depts (at the link) in terms of spending that I only partially addressed - Homeland Sec and HHS. Both of which dole out billions of dollars in grants to states, etc. The top 5 spending items from DHS was FEMA flood insurance payments. So apparently we need a whole 'nother discussion of subsidizing stupid people who build their homes in major flood plains, and why it is a really dumb idea to keep providing them with new homes after every flood.

Jaxson said...

Re: credit rating
Interest rates are set by the Fed (indirectly) for commercial loans, and corrolate to the interest rate on US bonds. The benchmark AAA bond (for now.)

The Fed is not shy about telling you that they 'monetized the debt' for the last several treasury auctions. US borrowing costs are artificially lowered, by the FED buying bonds. This was news not too long ago, remember? I'm just saying, it's not some right-wing conspiracy theory.

The question becomes, how long can the US invent money in order to buy their own bonds?

When inflationary pressures don't allow it anymore, they will either stop or they won't.

Therefore, following the laws of mathematics, it WILL stop at some point. The only way to save any face as a nation is to inflate the shit out of our dollars, and screw the bondholders.

Here's your money back, bitchez!

Or just don't pay it back, period. Nations tend to get mad though when tribute is withheld, historically speaking...

Anonymous said...

Me: That's support for 2 of the numbers. Now, how 'bout the other 9?

Other Anon Did you guys miss that? Or are you just ignoring it?

It's been days. The answer is, "Yes, they are ignoring it."

Of course, they are not going to admit that 7 of those numbers were apparently pulled out of someone's [beep] because it's "troo."

Mark Ward said...

To the Anons,

Perhaps if you set aside your laziness and studied the information contained in the Treasury Direct link as well as the other government links I have mentioned above you would find the verification you seek. Like the investmentwatch blogger, one has to do the work themselves. So either do it or stop playing games. And admit that with these accurate numbers, the premise is correct.

Juris and Jaxon, great discussion! Perhaps the two anons have something to add rather than the usual game playing?

So apparently we need a whole 'nother discussion of subsidizing stupid people

Yes, we do. As I have been saying quite a bit lately, subsidies distort markets just as much as taxes. Somehow eliminating subsides has become raising taxes which is ridiculous.

Jaxon, an excellent illustration of the "vomit or diarrhea" choice that our leaders are faced with on a daily basis. Astute and very witty observations!

Juris Imprudent said...

Somehow eliminating subsides has become raising taxes which is ridiculous.

Not sure how you got to that. In particular, I was quoting federal flood insurance payouts. As stupid as those are (for people who continually rebuild their homes in flood plains), I don't think anyone would argue that removing those is a tax increase.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps if you set aside your laziness and studied the information contained in the Treasury Direct link as well as the other government links I have mentioned above you would find the verification you seek.

YOU made the claims, YOU have to back them up. We've checked your links. One gave us two of the numbers. Two others were in line with those sources, but not listed by those sources. The other 7 were not listed at any source you listed.

You see, Marxy, we cannot read minds. And surely, somewhere deep inside, you realize that you cannot read minds either. We cannot know where those numbers came from or how they were calculated. It. Is. Not. Possible. (Yes, I know you like you pretend you can read our minds. You can't. In fact, you're wrong so often that even simple guessing would do better.)

Your tactic here is illegitimate. If it was, we could use the same tactic on you, and assert that those numbers don't actually exist. Then we could assert that it is up to you to prove that we are right. Do you see why your attempt to get us to do YOUR homework isn't legitimate?

Mark Ward said...

YOU made the claims, YOU have to back them up.

Well, initially, I didn't. I asked all of you if they were. The purpose of this post is investigative. It was up to you to see for yourself. It was nice that others provided some links but the information is easily verifiable...as I checked later. I think it would carry more weight if you found out for yourself. I hope that will happen rather than the continued game playing.

What's more interesting is how you are avoiding making any real contribution to this thread as juris and Jaxon have done. In fact, I''ll go as far to say that they've made more substantive comments than I have. Let's hear some responses to what they wrote rather than the continued obsession with me.

Anonymous said...

the information is easily verifiable...as I checked later. I think it would carry more weight if you found out for yourself. I hope that will happen rather than the continued game playing.

You just don't get it, do you? YOU are the one playing games. The lack of weight in your arguments comes from your constant REFUSAL to back up your assertions and/or answer questions about your assertions.

I am not interested in wasting time to do your homework for you. If the numbers are valid, then my side is compelled by our ideology to accept them. But YOU have to show us the source for those numbers.

The AAA* method of debate is an invalid tactic; especially when used by someone who has ventured so far into negative credibility, as you have.

* Assertions Asserted Assertively

Jaxson said...

The finger pointing is useless and counter-productive.

The situation exists. Bush's fault, Obama's fault, FDR's fault... no difference. We still own a shit-sandwich called 'now' and we have to start eating. Just getting up and leaving the table is no longer a viable option.

In the history of civilization, there has never truly been a structure that was 'Too Big To Fail'. It may have been assumed that way at the time, but it has never been accurate.

Any efforts to change that, by empirical evidence, must have failed.

A shame this post is no longer on the front page.

ty JI

jeff c. said...

YOU are the one playing games.

Unix-Jedi, you are being a colossal game playing asshole. You can easily verify whether or not the numbers are correct. Mark provided you with sources, a couple of which require you to do your own calculations and don't offer links. If you choose not to do so, that's your problem. This post was a question and you are supposed to provide the answer. Stop being a tool and do so. It's obvious you don't want to do anything other than fuck with Mark.

Serial Thrilla said...

Yes, Anonymous or Unix Jedi or whatever you are calling yourself, you are being an unconscionable butt wipe. Your wordy squirts are, as Mark's tennis student recently described, solely geared towards proving him wrong. He was never making a claim in the first place. He was asking all of us to back it up. Those of us who were not bent on being wankers found out that the numbers were accurate in about a minute. You know this to be true and are now just being obstinate and cowardly.

Anonymous said...

Those of us who were not bent on being wankers found out that the numbers were accurate in about a minute.

Then where are the links?

mjh said...

Mark, long time reader, first time poster. I think you might want to have a policy on trolls. This anonymous poster is clearly one bent on simply being contrary to continued and provided information. He or she may also be mildly retarded and I say this knowing that it is an insult to mentally challenged people.

Anonymous said...

This anonymous poster is clearly one bent on simply being contrary to continued and provided information.

Really? Where? The only "information" provided was to the overall debt numbers. (That's only 2 of the 11 numbers, 4 if you allow for the fact that 2 of the numbers are not actually listed at the provided link, but are in line with the numbers that are sourced.) If I'm so dense, perhaps you can point to where those other 7 numbers used to claim "it's Bush's fault" came from. If this information has been "provided," then you should have no problem giving a simple response listing who made the comment and the time it was posted. C'mon, it's easy! Right? You claim only a moron would miss them. And you're not a moron. Right?

Oh, and BTW, where is the response to the numbers (sourced back to treasury.gov) relating deficit spending to who is control of the House of Representatives, and contradicts the (so far) completely unsupported numbers put forth by Mark? Remember, the House is the only body that can actually produce the spending bills.

Anonymous said...

…contradicts the (so far) completely unsupported numbers put forth by Mark?

Correction: …contradicts the conclusion the (so far) completely unsupported numbers put forth by Mark supposedly show?

Anonymous said...

mjh:

Don't hide in the shadows. Waiting until a post is off the front page will never get your questions answered.

Of course, your post doesn't actually have any questions...

In fact, your post only insults a stranger, and then makes sure that you are politically correct. Do I have that right?

Don't expect a response... just answer as you see fit. You are completely anonymous you know. Especially on a 2nd page post.

Mark Ward said...

Jaxon, I agree with you regarding TBTF. It's more appropriate to say Too Interconnected To Fail. FDR had a system in place that compartmentalized our financial system but that was torpedoed by Graham-Leach-Bliley.

Even if this post is no longer on the front page, I have no problem continuing a discussion with you and juris. All of your comments, as well as juris's thoughts, were quite good!

Juris Imprudent said...

Well, this may never really get seen, but here is an article you really need to read M - since you seem to believe that any business failing is a catastrophe.

From the conclusion: "Failure is a sign of capitalism working, and it is what authors progress. The global economy will not grow as fast as it should so long as policy is in favor of saving wasteful governments, and by extension, badly managed financial institutions."

Mark Ward said...

Interesting article. It seems like a direct refutation of Manzi's interconnectedess, wouldn't you agree? Sorkin's book has been made into a film. I know you don't appreciate the medium as a way to illustrate history but it's worth checking out.

And I agree that failure is a sign of capitalism working. But if you read Sorkin's book, it didn't seem like failure was an option. Every indicator showed that we were a few weeks away from milk disappearing from the shelves. I have no problem in blaming the government for this but it was because of the removal of barriers set in place by Glass-Steagall.

Jaxson said...

I have to admit that I was not as well versed on the Gramm-Leach-Blilely Act as I needed to be in order to follow your line of thought.

I think I am now.

IYO, what exactly did the GLB Act do that caused a near societal collapse?

Feel free to link me to previous posts if I'm treading well-worn ground here.

Mark Ward said...

I'd say you could start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

With the barriers out of the way, banks and investment firms were allowed to do things they normally wouldn't have been able to do. All that was left from GS was FDIC which was a good thing because if it wasn't, none of us would have been able to get money from our banks in Sept of 2008. As Paul Krugman said around then, "Essentially all of us were protected by the spirit of Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

I'd also recommend the film "Inside Job."

Juris Imprudent said...

And perhaps you would elaborate on how the repeal of G-S played in the bailout of LCTM?

It seems like a direct refutation of Manzi's interconnectedess, wouldn't you agree?

I suppose. That might be something I overlooked in Manzi. I definitely stand by the need for bad decisions to live with the repercussions.

Anonymous said...

It's been two days since mjh chimed in to claim that the information supporting the other 9 (or 7, depending on how you look it) numbers had been provided, and that I was somehow mentally deficient for not seeing it. Oddly enough, after more than 48 hours, he still hasn't given an answer to the questions of Who? and When? Answers which are supposedly so simple that he claims only the mentally deficient could miss them.

Fascinating…

I don't pretend to know every place to cut, the best methods of cutting, or the best hard decisions about how to get the government back into living within its means. That's why I didn't bother giving much more than a starting point. (The post says 12:58 PM*.)

On the other hand, the difference between an assertion and an argument is one of my areas of expertise. So excuuuuuuuuse me if I focus on calling out bald assertions passed off as "Kosmic Trooth" from the keyboard of the "Almighty Markadelphia." After all, it's his mostest favoritist tactic, especially when overwhelming evidence which shows his position to be a truckload of bovine fecal matter is staring him right in the kisser.

(* If Blogger adjusts for time zones, your browser may list that post time as something different.)

jeff c said...

Unix-Jedi, It looks like Mark has thankfully given up engaging you as have most others. I think I'll continue for awhile until you admit that it's you or I get bored. Perhaps you might answer the question posed in the title of this post? The numbers are easily verifiable and most of us have already checked. He asked the question first and under your rules, you must answer.

Jaxson said...

That's where I started. Then I read all the linked footnotes on that wiki page. Then I did my own research, based on some thoughts I had while reading those footnotes.

I apologize if you've been this far before. Just a link to your past posts on the subject, and I'll shut up for a minute or two and read them.

Anonymous said...

…easily verifiable…

Hmmm… interesting…

You take the time to respond, but yet still don't link to the evidence for "easily verifiable" numbers. If it's so easy, why are we now nearly 80 comments into this thread without such a link? Why not just provide the "easy" link and end the argument? After a while, even those who would agree with you should begin to wonder if the reason for the refusal is that there is no such link.

Or is converting a bald assertion into an evidence backed argument some sort of mortal sin in your religion?

He asked the question first and under your rules, you must answer.

Posing an assertion/claim in the form of a question is still an assertion/claim. For example, the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is an assertion that you beat your wife, just in question form. When someone makes a claim, even in question form, only they really know what they're building the claim on. Therefore they are the only one who can accurately explain the justifications for that claim.

Oh, and BTW…

Unix-Jedi…

Nope.

Mark Ward said...

Jaxon, most of the discussions on GS and GLB have been in comments and there's no way to link to those. And I'm not so vain as to remember all of the various posts in which I talk about the collapse in 2008. I just started using tags (probably should have done it a long time ago) so there's much to search through.

Here are a few I came up with which are fairly decent.

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/01/shocked-not.html

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/11/beginning-when-in-middle-of-fdrs-first.html

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2008/10/usual-crap.html

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/01/state-of-union-part-seven.html

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/04/house-of-cards.html

mjh said...

yet still don't link to the evidence for "easily verifiable" numbers. If it's so easy, why are we now nearly 80 comments into this thread without such a link? Why not just provide the "easy" link and end the argument?

Because you are a troll and the finest example of an asshole I have seen in quite some time on these forums. It is nice to see that Mark is no longer engaging you. It must be driving you nuts. Good.

Anonymous said...

mjh, ever heard of the ad hominem fallacy? Name calling doesn't do the slightest shred of work in proving that those numbers are real.

If doggedly hanging on to the truth annoys you so much that name calling is your only possible retort, then where is the dishonor in being called such names?

If support for those numbers is so easy to find, then Why. Won't. Anyone. Who. Believes. Them. Provide. Evidence?

Honestly, I don't get the refusal. It makes no sense for an honest person to refuse to provide evidence to back up their claims; especially when that refusal is done so repeatedly, pointedly, and even belligerently.

Anonymous said...

Because apparently being asked to back up ones argument with actual facts is 'being made to dance like a monkey'.

A. Noni Mouse said...

(A few days later…)

> It makes no sense for an honest person to refuse to provide evidence to back up their claims…

Of course, what I didn't say a few days ago is that there is one instance where it makes sense to refuse to provide evidence; it just requires the removal of "honest" as a stipulation.

Bottom line, it's been nearly two weeks and those seven "easily verifiable" numbers have not been verified. That's a darn good reason to conclude that they came from the same source as unicorns and fairies.