Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's relevant how?
The fact is revenue has gone up for the last three years, both as a percent of GDP and in absolute numbers. When confrotned with facts you run away or deflect of make stuff up.
Again, how did Bush let the recession happen on his watch? What was he supposed to do instead?
Uh yeah it went up a percent. That's good, but obviously not good enough.
If you are so content with exclaiming how much Obama has failed to pull us through this recovery in full, then why shouldn't I blame Bush for letting it happen?
So what would be a good figure? What difference what it make? How do you propose to do that?
Your question is a non sequitur and a deflection.
Obama's policies have produced the worst recovery in history, despite (actually because of) spending the most money on them. This is undoubted.
I can point to every policy just about and show that it distorted the market reaction that would have produced recovery and a strong one. You cannot point to any policy by Bush and say it was responsible for the recession.
Here is a balanced perspective on the success and failure of TARP.
Public opinion and the bailouts: How effective was TARP, really? | The Economist
It wasnt really balanced.
And you know Bush proposed and signed TARP, right?
Uh yeah it went up a percent. That's good, but obviously not good enough.
If you are so content with exclaiming how much Obama has failed to pull us through this recovery in full, then why shouldn't I blame Bush for letting it happen?
So what would be a good figure? What difference what it make? How do you propose to do that?
Your question is a non sequitur and a deflection.
Obama's policies have produced the worst recovery in history, despite (actually because of) spending the most money on them. This is undoubted.
I can point to every policy just about and show that it distorted the market reaction that would have produced recovery and a strong one. You cannot point to any policy by Bush and say it was responsible for the recession.
Bush spent a lot of money on the economy. More than Obama. In terms of the economy, he spent 787 billion. It was overall a great success. Not all of it, but most of it.
Okay go over every policy you think Obama has hindered economic growth. Everything you present must have unbiased sources attached that prove there was economic stall because of Obama.
So what would be a good figure? What difference what it make? How do you propose to do that?
Your question is a non sequitur and a deflection.
Obama's policies have produced the worst recovery in history, despite (actually because of) spending the most money on them. This is undoubted.
I can point to every policy just about and show that it distorted the market reaction that would have produced recovery and a strong one. You cannot point to any policy by Bush and say it was responsible for the recession.
Bush spent a lot of money on the economy. More than Obama. In terms of the economy, he spent 787 billion. It was overall a great success. Not all of it, but most of it.
Okay go over every policy you think Obama has hindered economic growth. Everything you present must have unbiased sources attached that prove there was economic stall because of Obama.
Obama' stimulus program (the ARRA) was $831 billion by itself. Then there was cash for clunkers, HAMP, and a host of other programs, including the GM and Chrysler bail outs.
So don't tell me Bush spent more than Obama. It is simply not true,
OMFG! You can't be serious!Bush spent a lot of money on the economy. More than Obama. In terms of the economy, he spent 787 billion. It was overall a great success. Not all of it, but most of it.
Okay go over every policy you think Obama has hindered economic growth. Everything you present must have unbiased sources attached that prove there was economic stall because of Obama.
Obama' stimulus program (the ARRA) was $831 billion by itself. Then there was cash for clunkers, HAMP, and a host of other programs, including the GM and Chrysler bail outs.
So don't tell me Bush spent more than Obama. It is simply not true,
Ok probably not more, but I would venture close to the same. Obama had much more success with it though.
OMFG! You can't be serious!Obama' stimulus program (the ARRA) was $831 billion by itself. Then there was cash for clunkers, HAMP, and a host of other programs, including the GM and Chrysler bail outs.
So don't tell me Bush spent more than Obama. It is simply not true,
Ok probably not more, but I would venture close to the same. Obama had much more success with it though.
Cash for clunkers for $3B
HAMP was $50B
ARRA was 831B
TARP was $700B. So don't tell me their spending was about the same.
Bush's spending prevented the banks from going under. He wasted money on GM and some other companies, although all the TARP money was repaid with interest so it actually brought in money.
Obama's spending has been a dead loss for the economy.
OMFG! You can't be serious!Ok probably not more, but I would venture close to the same. Obama had much more success with it though.
Cash for clunkers for $3B
HAMP was $50B
ARRA was 831B
TARP was $700B. So don't tell me their spending was about the same.
Bush's spending prevented the banks from going under. He wasted money on GM and some other companies, although all the TARP money was repaid with interest so it actually brought in money.
Obama's spending has been a dead loss for the economy.
Oh gee why am I not surprised you didn't include the Bush tax cuts that introduced very early on in his presidency.
OMFG! You can't be serious!Ok probably not more, but I would venture close to the same. Obama had much more success with it though.
Cash for clunkers for $3B
HAMP was $50B
ARRA was 831B
TARP was $700B. So don't tell me their spending was about the same.
Bush's spending prevented the banks from going under. He wasted money on GM and some other companies, although all the TARP money was repaid with interest so it actually brought in money.
Obama's spending has been a dead loss for the economy.
Oh gee why am I not surprised you didn't include the Bush tax cuts that introduced very early on in his presidency.
He didn't waste money on GM. He saved GM. GM returned to its once dominating profitable business.
OMFG! You can't be serious!
Cash for clunkers for $3B
HAMP was $50B
ARRA was 831B
TARP was $700B. So don't tell me their spending was about the same.
Bush's spending prevented the banks from going under. He wasted money on GM and some other companies, although all the TARP money was repaid with interest so it actually brought in money.
Obama's spending has been a dead loss for the economy.
Oh gee why am I not surprised you didn't include the Bush tax cuts that introduced very early on in his presidency.
Because they are irrelevant? Because tax cuts arent spending? Any other deflections?
Oh gee why am I not surprised you didn't include the Bush tax cuts that introduced very early on in his presidency.
Because they are irrelevant? Because tax cuts arent spending? Any other deflections?
Lol you know your stupidity is more funny than it is annoying. I will give you that.
Oh gee why am I not surprised you didn't include the Bush tax cuts that introduced very early on in his presidency.
Because they are irrelevant? Because tax cuts arent spending? Any other deflections?
Lol you know your stupidity is more funny than it is annoying. I will give you that.
Because they are irrelevant? Because tax cuts arent spending? Any other deflections?
Lol you know your stupidity is more funny than it is annoying. I will give you that.
Are you ever going to explain how tax cuts hurt the economy?
Or is that one piece of stupidity you no longer subscribe to........
Bush spent a lot of money on the economy. More than Obama. In terms of the economy, he spent 787 billion. It was overall a great success. Not all of it, but most of it.
Okay go over every policy you think Obama has hindered economic growth. Everything you present must have unbiased sources attached that prove there was economic stall because of Obama.
Obama' stimulus program (the ARRA) was $831 billion by itself. Then there was cash for clunkers, HAMP, and a host of other programs, including the GM and Chrysler bail outs.
So don't tell me Bush spent more than Obama. It is simply not true,
Ok probably not more, but I would venture close to the same. Obama had much more success with it though.
OMFG! You can't be serious!
Cash for clunkers for $3B
HAMP was $50B
ARRA was 831B
TARP was $700B. So don't tell me their spending was about the same.
Bush's spending prevented the banks from going under. He wasted money on GM and some other companies, although all the TARP money was repaid with interest so it actually brought in money.
Obama's spending has been a dead loss for the economy.
Oh gee why am I not surprised you didn't include the Bush tax cuts that introduced very early on in his presidency.
Because they are irrelevant? Because tax cuts arent spending? Any other deflections?
Lol you know your stupidity is more funny than it is annoying. I will give you that.
Are you ever going to explain how tax cuts hurt the economy?
Or is that one piece of stupidity you no longer subscribe to........
He can't. He is incapable of such thought. Just like he can't wrap his mind around the idea the federal gov't is taking in more money now than ever before, and still running record deficits.
Or that Obama spent far more and achieved far less than Bush.
Oh gee why am I not surprised you didn't include the Bush tax cuts that introduced very early on in his presidency.
Because they are irrelevant? Because tax cuts arent spending? Any other deflections?
Obama continued those Bush era tax cuts as well. Must have been successful for a far left president to keep them in place.
Because they are irrelevant? Because tax cuts arent spending? Any other deflections?
Obama continued those Bush era tax cuts as well. Must have been successful for a far left president to keep them in place.
They weren't. Obama shouldn't have extended them.
Obama continued those Bush era tax cuts as well. Must have been successful for a far left president to keep them in place.
They weren't. Obama shouldn't have extended them.
Far left idealism at it's best.
I'll wait for your answer.
Sorry..I'm kind of shocked.
But I guess you are about 16 or so and your parents never gave you the bad news about Reagan.
Sorry to screw up the myth, kid.Savings & loan crisis[edit]
Savings and loan crisis in which 747 institutions failed and had to be rescued with $160 billion in taxpayer dollars.[28] Reagan's "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments which used this tax break as a premise, which in turn bankrupted 747 Savings and Loans, many of whom were operating more or less as banks, thus requiring the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to cover their debts and losses with tax payer money. This with some other "deregulation" policies, ultimately led to the largest political and financial scandal in U.S. history to that date, the savings and loan crisis. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD $150 billion, about $125 billion of which was directly subsidized by the U.S. government, which further increased the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. See Keating Five.
As an indication of this scandal's size, Martin Mayer wrote at the time, "The theft from the taxpayer by the community that fattened on the growth of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in the 1980s is the worst public scandal in American history. Teapot Dome in the Harding administration and the Credit Mobilier in the times of Ulysses S. Grant have been taken as the ultimate horror stories of capitalist democracy gone to seed. Measuring by money, [or] by the misallocation of national resources... the S&L outrage makes Teapot Dome and Credit Mobilier seem minor episodes." [29]
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith called it "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[30]
Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMAGARePPZ8"]Freddy vs Comic Book geek and D&D Nerd - YouTube[/ame]
Reagan gave us massive tax cuts, reduced inflation from double digits down to 4%.
Revenues went from $599 billion in FY 1981 all the way down to $991 billion in FY 1989.
But that doesn't count, because the S&L bailout cost $125 billion?
Sorry to laugh at your myth.
