How much will the National Debt be in 2016?

[gebobs]

If we go by the results of the past 3+decades, it's going to be less than if Romney was elected. Since Reagan, deficits have increased under every Republican president and decreased under every Democrat.

It's a curious and somewhat counter intuitive fact. Anyone have any theories as to why that is?

[gameboy]

If we go by the results of the past 3+decades, it's going to be less than if Romney was elected. Since Reagan, deficits have increased under every Republican president and decreased under every Democrat.

It's a curious and somewhat counter intuitive fact. Anyone have any theories as to why that is?

Maybe I am missing something.

In your time frame, there has been exactly one Democrat president that presided during a time that deficits were reduced.

If you are claiming that the deficit has been reduced under Obama, I would suggest you are incorrect.

The economy is an immense thing that takes quite a while to turn, which in this conversation, gets to $ provided to the Treasury, which is the other part of the deficit formula. The income side.
It can be reasonably argued that Clinton benefited from a number of things that were completely unrelated to his party.

[gebobs]

I believe that. But I'll concede that it is my belief. Regardless the situation was dire and a severe recession still does not change the aftermath much.

It sure was...that 8.9% annualized drop in GDP in FY2008Q4 was the second worst quarter since WWII. Without drastic action, we might well have gone over the cliff. The drop in GDP in FY1930 was comparable (-8.6%), but Hoover and rest of the idiots in Washington thought it was just a blip.

Since WWII...

united-states-gdp-growth.png

[notacon]

I don't want to seem like I'm picking on you Marc. You know I like you. But, you bring up much abused talking points.

Let's go through your post.

no it really is silly; in 08' OBama said it was unAmerican of Bush to let the debt swell as much as it did under his watch. then he came in and didn't cut squat and the debt exploded at a much faster rate than ever before.

You have a mix of bull****, partisan talking points and misrepresentations all in one sentence.

No, the debt did not "explode at a much faster rate than ever before". Just look at WWII.

Then, you have to give reasons WHY the debt increased under Obama. Please tell me which policies, specifically, of Obama's that exploded the debt. Remember, Bush left Obama with a $1.3 trillion deficit the day he took office.

When the economy is losing, literally millions of jobs, and a reduction in GDP of 9% in the last quarter of 2008, before Obama took office, the debt is going to "explode". What, exactly would you have done differently to ease the increase in debt.

Cut spending? Increase taxes? Both are incredibly STUPID to do during a recession and would result in INCREASES of the debt even more.

It was "un American" to increase the debt during Bush's watch (btw...I would like to see the quote attributed to Obama and exactly when it was supposedly uttered) because of the reason the debt exploded under him and where we were when he took office.

The day Bush took office the federal budget was in surplus. We were paying down the debt. The expectation, if Bush did nothing, was that the full debt would have been paid off in less than 10 years. What did Bush do? Cut taxes, dramatically on mainly the rich. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do considering the situation we were in then. Then he cut taxes on the rich AGAIN withnan uneeded cut in capital gainsvtaxes. Then he cut taxes AGAIN on the rich by ending taxes on dividends. That's the problem with GOP fiscal policy. Times are good...cut taxes for the wealthy. Times are bad...cut taxes on the wealthy. Times of surplus and debt...cut taxes on the wealthy. Times of big debt and deficit...cut taxes on the wealthy.

Then, Bush raised spending incredibly high on what? Defense spending, that we mostly, did not need. And. He did not pay for it. Then, he started an unnecessary war, based on lies, and did not pay for it. Etc...etc...

When millions of people are losing their jobs, tax revenue goes down, and expenditures go up because of long standing safetly net provisions passed years ago. It's basic math.

Trying to reduce debt during this time is stupid and counter productive. Immoral too.

Romney insists all along that he'll cut spending in his campaign and hand picks a VP who is chiefly known for his spending cuts bill which Romney fully supported and which Obama didn't even give the time of day.

Again, spending cuts in today's economy, especially in 2009 and 2010, would prolong the recession and INCREASE the debt. Look at the supposed "cuts" that Ryan and Mitt want to make. ALL coming from those programs that benefit the poor and middle class. Would these cuts go toward debt and deficit reduction. NO WAY!!! Ryan/Romney want to CUT TAXES for the rich, and want to DRAMATICALLY increase defense spending. Their plan would EXPLODE THE DEBT. It's simple math. THAT is why Obama, correctly, scoffed at their bull****.

Romney does not = Bush. Romney was a moderate in his time as a governor. Your doing a guilt by association that is silly because it's your guy in there that has let the Bush BS go on and on. We dont' know if Romney would have succeeded in slashing spending; but he and Ryan were pretty adamant about it in their campaign - there was at least a chance that would have happened. with obama we already know it won't happen because we've seen what he does.

Romney is WORSE than Bush. He ran as a "severe conservative" and his constant flip flops would mean we would be at the whim of the radical Teabaggers that stupid policies are embodied in the math challenged Ryan budget...which is IMPOSSIBLE to do the cuts he proposed while the tax cuts would be aasy. Normal GOP bull****.

The Romney of his time as governor is NOT the same Romney we got in 2012. Empty suits like Romney that LIE at every turn cannot be trusted. He would be a pawn of Grover Norquist. Grover even said so.

Here is a new question that anyone can answer.

How does cutting spending help in today's economy?

Hint: It doesn't.

[gebobs]

Maybe I am missing something.

In your time frame, there has been exactly one Democrat president that presided during a time that deficits were reduced.

If you are claiming that the deficit has been reduced under Obama, I would suggest you are incorrect.

I am. Bush's last budget for FY2009 had a $1.4 trillion deficit. Deficits have been lower under Obama: $1.294 trillion...$1.299 trillion...$1.294 trillion...$1.100 trillion. Granted, the reductions aren't large, but they are reductions.

Next year is projected to be $640 billion to $1.0 trillion depending on what Congress and Obama do about the "cliff".

It's another curiosity that an outgoing president writes the budget that the incoming president has to live with. There is probably a good reason for it, like they are better prepared to do so and the incoming president has to deal with other elements of transition.

The economy is an immense thing that takes quite a while to turn, which in this conversation, gets to $ provided to the Treasury, which is the other part of the deficit formula. The income side.

Certainly. Deficit reduction is a tricky thing. Too aggressive and you risk cratering the economy. Check out the CBO Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022.

It can be reasonably argued that Clinton benefited from a number of things that were completely unrelated to his party.

Of course, but what about the wider trend? Republicans...larger deficits. Democrats...smaller.

[gameboy]

So you use Bush's last year budget, which as you know, contained a massive one off expenditure.

He was in office for eight years. Can you compare those other seven with Obama's four?

Better, speaking of budgets, can you name the total vote count oh his budgets?

FY 2013 budget, submitted to the House on Feb 13, 2012.
For----0
Against-----414

Year earlier budget.
Senate
For------0
Against---97

[gebobs]

So you use Bush's last year budget, which as you know, contained a massive one off expenditure.

He was in office for eight years. Can you compare those other seven with Obama's four?

It's quite simple. In 8 years, and not just the last, deficits rose under Bush. I know there was the craziness of the last budget but it's undeniable that we were in that position because of Bush administration policies and the reckless legislation passed by Congress (Dems included) and signed by Bush. It's undeniable that we were in that position, and continue to be in that position, because of two wars, one of which was waged based on trumped up information from Bush and both of which were universally supported by Republicans in Congress and nearly so by Democrats.

It's a fact that they are coming down under Obama. Again, I know Obama doesn't take all the credit for the modest reductions so far.

Your getting all defensive and arguing against the facts: Republicans...deficits go up. Democrats...deficits go down. I want to discuss this. If you want to argue what are cold facts then I'm not interested in continuing. On the other hand, if you want to blow off some steam and maybe figure out some big picture reasons why we get ourselves into these messes, then let's have at it.

Better, speaking of budgets, can you name the total vote count oh his budgets?

FY 2013 budget, submitted to the House on Feb 13, 2012.
For----0
Against-----414

Year earlier budget.
Senate
For------0
Against---97

I'm sure your spin on this will be quite entertaining.

[YardRat]

If we go by the results of the past 3+decades, it's going to be less than if Romney was elected. Since Reagan, deficits have increased under every Republican president and decreased under every Democrat.

It's a curious and somewhat counter intuitive fact. Anyone have any theories as to why that is?

Your sample size is too small, especially considering the data includes exactly one full Democratic administration, which is kind of a silly point to make. Go back farther...Clinton was the only president since Kennedy, regardless of party, to finish his term with smaller deficits than when he took office. Reagan had a modest increase (decrease) his last three years (but still higher than when he took office), and BushII was actually tracking at a better rate than Clinton until the bottom dropped out in '08. JR didn't have a chance in hell of ending up out of the red, though, as Clinton did.

Slick Willie's tenure is an anomaly, and it has nothing to do with D's and R's.

[gebobs]

Your sample size is too small

Too small for what? Are you going to calculate the appropriate sample size for me that would give us a probability distribution with a 90% confidence level? 95% maybe?

It's a trend. I'd like to discuss it. And it's 100% correlation. I'm not interested in your casual hand-waving. If you want to discuss this trend, fine. If you want to get defensive and spout out nonsense about "sample size", I'm not interested.

Reagan had a modest increase (decrease) his last three years (but still higher than when he took office), and BushII was actually tracking at a better rate than Clinton until the bottom dropped out in '08. JR didn't have a chance in hell of ending up out of the red, though, as Clinton did.

Reagan...deficits went up, despite all the rhetoric about small government. His very first budget deficit was up 62% over Carter's last. His biggest deficit was up 179%. And, yes, came down in his last 3 years to just 92% up.

Bush41...deficits went up, again despite all the rhetoric about small government. First budget was up 45% over Reagan's last, peaked at 90% up, before settling at 68% up. So not sure what exactly you were getting at about Bush "tracking at a better rate than Clinton".

Clinton...big government socialist that he is, came into office and his first budget deficit was, get this, immediately 20% lower than Bush's last. I know...crazy, right? But it didn't stop there. As a drop from Bush's final...36%, 58%, 127% (over 100% means were getting into the surpluses), 149%, 192%, 150%. Anomaly you say? No, it's more than that. There was real work done in Washington by Clinton and Congress to get that **** done. Did they have help from the economy? Sure. But there was real reform done. And The Republican congress deserves its share of the credit.

Bush43...deficits went up, once again, despite all the rhetoric about small government. In his first budget alone, the surpluses were wiped out and the deficit increased a whopping 224%. And Republican were cheering "Happy days!". And they ran up deficits and sauntered off to foreign wars like it was nobody's business. And the Democratic congressional caucus, nearly to a man, were complicit. Up, up over Clinton...as high as 461% in FY08. And meanwhile, as the ecponomy began to crumble, republicans were begging people not to use the R-word, remember that? And when the **** really hit the fan and the economy cratered (down 8.9% ann. in FY08Q4), Bush had to dig deep. Much deeper than he would have had to if he had gone all cowboy in Iraq and run up those deficits. Deep to the tune of $1.4 trillion. It had to be done. I was with him on this. But it hurt much more after the decade long binge.

Now Obama...deficits have gone down, 20% so far...50% projected drop by next year. Admittedly the deficits are still too big. But they will come down. And GDP growth, though modest, has recovered some. We've had 33 straight months o positive growth mostly in the range of 1-3%. But there are three basic paths. Austerity mode to balance the budget and you probably go into a deep recession. Boost the economy in high gear at the risk of elevating deficits and driving up inflation. Or, the saner course, gradual budget reform leading to a balanced budget in 8-10 years and a GDP growth back around 3-4%.

So to be clear...both sides are complicit in this. I just think there's got to be an underlying reason why this trend exists.

[YardRat]

Too small for what? Are you going to calculate the appropriate sample size for me that would give us a probability distribution with a 90% confidence level? 95% maybe?

It's a trend. I'd like to discuss it. And it's 100% correlation. I'm not interested in your casual hand-waving. If you want to discuss this trend, fine. If you want to get defensive and spout out nonsense about "sample size", I'm not interested.



Reagan...deficits went up, despite all the rhetoric about small government. His very first budget deficit was up 62% over Carter's last. His biggest deficit was up 179%. And, yes, came down in his last 3 years to just 92% up.

Bush41...deficits went up, again despite all the rhetoric about small government. First budget was up 45% over Reagan's last, peaked at 90% up, before settling at 68% up. So not sure what exactly you were getting at about Bush "tracking at a better rate than Clinton".

Clinton...big government socialist that he is, came into office and his first budget deficit was, get this, immediately 20% lower than Bush's last. I know...crazy, right? But it didn't stop there. As a drop from Bush's final...36%, 58%, 127% (over 100% means were getting into the surpluses), 149%, 192%, 150%. Anomaly you say? No, it's more than that. There was real work done in Washington by Clinton and Congress to get that **** done. Did they have help from the economy? Sure. But there was real reform done. And The Republican congress deserves its share of the credit.

Bush43...deficits went up, once again, despite all the rhetoric about small government. In his first budget alone, the surpluses were wiped out and the deficit increased a whopping 224%. And Republican were cheering "Happy days!". And they ran up deficits and sauntered off to foreign wars like it was nobody's business. And the Democratic congressional caucus, nearly to a man, were complicit. Up, up over Clinton...as high as 461% in FY08. And meanwhile, as the ecponomy began to crumble, republicans were begging people not to use the R-word, remember that? And when the **** really hit the fan and the economy cratered (down 8.9% ann. in FY08Q4), Bush had to dig deep. Much deeper than he would have had to if he had gone all cowboy in Iraq and run up those deficits. Deep to the tune of $1.4 trillion. It had to be done. I was with him on this. But it hurt much more after the decade long binge.

Now Obama...deficits have gone down, 20% so far...50% projected drop by next year. Admittedly the deficits are still too big. But they will come down. And GDP growth, though modest, has recovered some. We've had 33 straight months o positive growth mostly in the range of 1-3%. But there are three basic paths. Austerity mode to balance the budget and you probably go into a deep recession. Boost the economy in high gear at the risk of elevating deficits and driving up inflation. Or, the saner course, gradual budget reform leading to a balanced budget in 8-10 years and a GDP growth back around 3-4%.

So to be clear...both sides are complicit in this. I just think there's got to be an underlying reason why this trend exists.

You're trying to establish a trend that isn't necessarily there, and ,yes, only going back to Reagan in which Clinton is the only D to complete his administration at this point is equivalent to extracting a single data point and declaring "it's a trend".

Kennedy was pretty much stable, ending with no deficit or surplus.
Johnson's last year was down.
Nixon corrected LBJ on the front end, larger deficits his middle two years, then matched his last two with his first two.
Ford's deficits were larger, both years.
Carter's deficit was larger his last year.
Reagan fluctuated up and down, but his final deficit was larger than his first, despite the upward movement his last couple of years.
BushI trended down, the opposite of Clinton.
Clinton, of course, ended up with a surplus, and tracked unlike any other administration...straight up.
BushII destroyed Clintons surplus, but moving in a positive direction four consecutive years, until '08.
Obama inherited the highest deficit ever, and thus far has been trending upward (same as other administrations, not just Clinton), but he has four more years to determine if that trend continues a la Clinton, or if it reverses in the latter stages of his administration as it has for others.


The only trend going back to Kennedy is that Clinton is an aberration, and I'll reiterate party doesn't matter.

[gebobs]

You're trying to establish a trend that isn't necessarily there, and ,yes, only going back to Reagan in which Clinton is the only D to complete his administration at this point is equivalent to extracting a single data point and declaring "it's a trend".

Look bub, it's not a capital T trend like your trend to obfuscate and dismiss, but it is a small t trend that I'd like to discuss. 5 administrations or data points as you like to sound so sciency and all. 3 Republican administrations with deficits increasing enormously THROUGHOUT their terms despite small government rhetoric. Two Democratic administrations with deficits decreasing EVERY YEAR despite the big government characterization by their opponents. That's not 1 data point. That's like 30 data points. And with the caveats that the Republicans preach fiscal responsibility and cast Democrats as spendthrifts, where's the disconnect?

The only trend going back to Kennedy is that Clinton is an aberration, and I'll reiterate party doesn't matter.

I thought we could discuss this like adults, but apparently it's too soon after the election for you to do anything but be defensive. Schlong.

[jimmifli]

Look bub, it's not a capital T trend like your trend to obfuscate and dismiss, but it is a small t trend that I'd like to discuss. 5 administrations or data points as you like to sound so sciency and all. 3 Republican administrations with deficits increasing enormously THROUGHOUT their terms despite small government rhetoric. Two Democratic administrations with deficits decreasing EVERY YEAR despite the big government characterization by their opponents. That's not 1 data point. That's like 30 data points. And with the caveats that the Republicans preach fiscal responsibility and cast Democrats as spendthrifts, where's the disconnect?



I thought we could discuss this like adults, but apparently it's too soon after the election for you to do anything but be defensive. Schlong.

The small government rhetoric may not be the cause of Republican deficits. They get elected by promising tax cuts to the voters, and it's easier to pass tax cuts than spending cuts.

[notacon]

You're trying to establish a trend that isn't necessarily there, and ,yes, only going back to Reagan in which Clinton is the only D to complete his administration at this point is equivalent to extracting a single data point and declaring "it's a trend".

Kennedy was pretty much stable, ending with no deficit or surplus.
Johnson's last year was down.
Nixon corrected LBJ on the front end, larger deficits his middle two years, then matched his last two with his first two.
Ford's deficits were larger, both years.
Carter's deficit was larger his last year.
Reagan fluctuated up and down, but his final deficit was larger than his first, despite the upward movement his last couple of years.
BushI trended down, the opposite of Clinton.
Clinton, of course, ended up with a surplus, and tracked unlike any other administration...straight up.
BushII destroyed Clintons surplus, but moving in a positive direction four consecutive years, until '08.
Obama inherited the highest deficit ever, and thus far has been trending upward (same as other administrations, not just Clinton), but he has four more years to determine if that trend continues a la Clinton, or if it reverses in the latter stages of his administration as it has for others.


The only trend going back to Kennedy is that Clinton is an aberration, and I'll reiterate party doesn't matter.

Jesus, are you really going to stick to your "reality does not matter" meme??? "Clinton is an aberration"?!?!?! What 100% horse****!!!

This is the BIG problem with today's right wing. They want to have their own set of facts. If the truth does not fit their constipated viewpoint, they ignore it.

You see it it every issue, and it permeated the Romney campaign and the totality of the right wing media. They all convinced themselves that ALL the polls were wrong and they applied some stupid "unskewing" that had the convinced their guy was going to win. Wow...what I have been saying for YEARS now that the right wing is delusional is spot on.

Your post is just another illustration of putting your head in the sand.

[gebobs]

The small government rhetoric may not be the cause of Republican deficits. They get elected by promising tax cuts to the voters, and it's easier to pass tax cuts than spending cuts.

Now we are getting somewhere. An actual discussion. Real ideas. Well done. Keep going.

[YardRat]

Look bub, it's not a capital T trend like your trend to obfuscate and dismiss, but it is a small t trend that I'd like to discuss. 5 administrations or data points as you like to sound so sciency and all. 3 Republican administrations with deficits increasing enormously THROUGHOUT their terms despite small government rhetoric. Two Democratic administrations with deficits decreasing EVERY YEAR despite the big government characterization by their opponents. That's not 1 data point. That's like 30 data points. And with the caveats that the Republicans preach fiscal responsibility and cast Democrats as spendthrifts, where's the disconnect?



I thought we could discuss this like adults, but apparently it's too soon after the election for you to do anything but be defensive. Schlong.

We can discuss it like adults, but only if we both are willing to look at the actual facts, not manufactured themes. Decreasing deficits are not solely a characteristic of Democratic administrations, as I've already pointed out, and not characteristic of D admins if you go back further than the single Dem POTUS that has completed his term. Reagan had years in which the deficit decreased, as did BushII. No other prez back to JFK had a run like Clinton. Nobody, and Obama's administration is only at the halfway point. Most other administrations had increased deficits at the end of their term, regardless of party (LBJ, Ford, Carter, Reagan, BushI, and BushII). That's the trend we should be looking for in Obama's second term, rather than establishing one before his business is even finished.

Will Obama follow the pattern of most of his successors back to 1960 and suffer increased deficits at the end of his term, or will his administration duplicate Clinton's success and continue to shrink the deficit throughout his entire tenure? Come back in four years, and then we can all truly determine which outcome that will be. But any conclusion prior to that is just premature, especially considering the real trend displayed by previous administrations.

Personally, I hope he can enjoy the same success as Clinton regarding the deficit, because that's a win for everybody.

Jesus, are you really going to stick to your "reality does not matter" meme??? "Clinton is an aberration"?!?!?! What 100% horse****!!!

This is the BIG problem with today's right wing. They want to have their own set of facts. If the truth does not fit their constipated viewpoint, they ignore it.

You see it it every issue, and it permeated the Romney campaign and the totality of the right wing media. They all convinced themselves that ALL the polls were wrong and they applied some stupid "unskewing" that had the convinced their guy was going to win. Wow...what I have been saying for YEARS now that the right wing is delusional is spot on.

Your post is just another illustration of putting your head in the sand.

If you can't look back and see that the trends that I'm pointing out are actually reality, I can't help you. It is what it is.

For what it's worth, I've been on record from the beginning declaring Obama would experience a more comfortable victory than what was being portrayed in the media, so your other statements are simply complete falsehoods, at least regarding if they apply to me personally or not.

[YardRat]

Jesus, are you really going to stick to your "reality does not matter" meme??? "Clinton is an aberration"?!?!?! What 100% horse****!!!

Oh, and as for this point specifically, please feel free to list any POTUS's, from Washington through BushII, that 1-inherited a deficit... 2-shrunk the deficit every year, consecutively, for his entire term(s)...3-Left office with a surplus.

[gebobs]

Oh, and as for this point specifically, please feel free to list any POTUS's, from Washington through BushII, that 1-inherited a deficit... 2-shrunk the deficit every year, consecutively, for his entire term(s)...3-Left office with a surplus.

Oh goody...Clinton is not an aberration then! He didn't "shrink the deficit every every year, consecutively, for his entire term".

Or maybe Bush is the aberration? Because I cannot think of any president, from Washington through Obama, that:
1: inherited a 4-year running surplus and tanked it in one year
2: had the highest deficit in the nation's history by the end of his term
3: preached incessantly about the sins of big government

Heck, maybe all the presidents were aberrations regarding budgets. I mean, can't we find a few completely arbitrary criteria that make each unique...an "aberration"?

[gebobs]

We can discuss it like adults, but only if we both are willing to look at the actual facts, not manufactured themes.

"Manufactured themes" or as I call them...facts.

Decreasing deficits are not solely a characteristic of Democratic administrations, as I've already pointed out, and not characteristic of D admins if you go back further than the single Dem POTUS that has completed his term. Reagan had years in which the deficit decreased, as did BushII.

Deficits increased from the time they took office to the time they left.

[YardRat]

Oh goody...Clinton is not an aberration then! He didn't "shrink the deficit every every year, consecutively, for his entire term".

They didn't? In what years during the Clinton administration's deficit larger than the previous year?

Or maybe Bush is the aberration? Because I cannot think of any president, from Washington through Obama, that:
1: inherited a 4-year running surplus and tanked it in one year
2: had the highest deficit in the nation's history by the end of his term
3: preached incessantly about the sins of big government

Yes, BushII's term was an anomaly also, though he did have four consecutive years shrinking the annual deficit, after he blew up the surplus and before the **** hit the fan.

Heck, maybe all the presidents were aberrations regarding budgets. I mean, can't we find a few completely arbitrary criteria that make each unique...an "aberration"?

Each are unique if you want to break out the finer details, but generally speaking there are more consistent 'trends' such as...

"Manufactured themes" or as I call them...facts.
Deficits increased from the time they took office to the time they left.

...the bolded is not unique to republican administrations, the same can be said for LBJ and Carter, admittedly as well as Ford, Reagan and BushI, as well as others before them.

That point is actually 'the trend'. Clinton bucked it. Can Obama also? We'll see, he certainly has the opportunity to.

[notacon]

We can discuss it like adults, but only if we both are willing to look at the actual facts, not manufactured themes. Decreasing deficits are not solely a characteristic of Democratic administrations, as I've already pointed out, and not characteristic of D admins if you go back further than the single Dem POTUS that has completed his term. Reagan had years in which the deficit decreased, as did BushII. No other prez back to JFK had a run like Clinton. Nobody, and Obama's administration is only at the halfway point. Most other administrations had increased deficits at the end of their term, regardless of party (LBJ, Ford, Carter, Reagan, BushI, and BushII). That's the trend we should be looking for in Obama's second term, rather than establishing one before his business is even finished.

Will Obama follow the pattern of most of his successors back to 1960 and suffer increased deficits at the end of his term, or will his administration duplicate Clinton's success and continue to shrink the deficit throughout his entire tenure? Come back in four years, and then we can all truly determine which outcome that will be. But any conclusion prior to that is just premature, especially considering the real trend displayed by previous administrations.

Personally, I hope he can enjoy the same success as Clinton regarding the deficit, because that's a win for everybody.



If you can't look back and see that the trends that I'm pointing out are actually reality, I can't help you. It is what it is.

For what it's worth, I've been on record from the beginning declaring Obama would experience a more comfortable victory than what was being portrayed in the media, so your other statements are simply complete falsehoods, at least regarding if they apply to me personally or not.

Nonsense. Prove it.