If repubs can never come up with specific policy examples of their party helping the...

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Bush's tax cuts pitifully created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut.

Are you saying Americans got to keep millions more of their own earnings AND jobs were created?

That's awesome!!! Let's do that some more!!!

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US about 1/3rd the deficits (according to CBO) 2001-2010, yes, lets get the Gov't less revenues, it worked so well under Dubya/GOP

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

LOL How does a POTUS lose (or find for mattter) jobs

and how do you fund tax cuts?

LOL

Tax cuts are funded by cutting spending. POTUS's policies are a big deal on job creation policy. Not Reagan had 14 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years and Carter had 9+ million in 4 years


Then Clinton had 18+ million, Dubya lost over 1 million in 8 years, then Obama has had a NET of over 6+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in less than 6 years.

If President Obama and the democrats did SO well with the economy in creating jobs, why did the Anerican people vote Republican in the House and Nancy Polosi lose her job as speaker? Doesn't take a genius to realize if those numbers were accurate, John Boehner wouldn't have a shot in hell of attaining that position. President Obama would also have overwhelming approval numbers and a stronger re-election run - like the landslide attained by President Reagan.

 

[Dad2three]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

He spent way too much. Obama is worse.

The hell he is, brainwashed twit. Boosh was a total catastrophe in everything he touched. Without UE, welfare, and other assistance for victims of Booosh's WORLD DEPRESSION, there would be no deficit now.

Thank goodness Obama got in there to fix it all.
I love how he ended the Iraq war. Great job!!!
Didn't Obama get back the jobs Bush lost? End the wars?
So why can't he cut spending below Bush levels? LOL!

Weird, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policy why wasn't there jobs galore and a booming economy? Oops

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

He spent way too much. Obama is worse.

Sure, He's cut Bush's last F/Y deficit by 60%, got US back to Reagan level revenues (17%+ of GDP) but NOT to Carter/Clinton's 20%+

Nope. Every one of his deficits was higher than Bush's biggest deficit.

EXCEPT the final F/Y (2009, Started Oct 1, 2008) deficit Dubya had on Jan 8, 2009 CBO said would be $1.2+ trillion

OOPS

Why would you charge Bush for $250 billion in bank TARP loans that were repaid in 2009 and 2010?
Or for the auto TARP loans that Obama made in 2009 that weren't repaid?
Why would you charge Bush for all the added Obama and Dem spending after he left office?
Oh, right, you're a liberal. You can't tell the truth.

 

[Dad2three]

Bush's tax cuts pitifully created 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut.

Are you saying Americans got to keep millions more of their own earnings AND jobs were created?

That's awesome!!! Let's do that some more!!!

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US about 1/3rd the deficits (according to CBO) 2001-2010, yes, lets get the Gov't less revenues, it worked so well under Dubya/GOP

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

LOL How does a POTUS lose (or find for mattter) jobs

and how do you fund tax cuts?

LOL

Tax cuts are funded by cutting spending. POTUS's policies are a big deal on job creation policy. Not Reagan had 14 million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years and Carter had 9+ million in 4 years


Then Clinton had 18+ million, Dubya lost over 1 million in 8 years, then Obama has had a NET of over 6+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in less than 6 years.

If President Obama and the democrats did SO well with the economy in creating jobs, why did the Anerican people vote Republican in the House and Nancy Polosi lose her job as speaker? Doesn't take a genius to realize if those numbers were accurate, John Boehner wouldn't have a shot in hell of attaining that position. President Obama would also have overwhelming approval numbers and a stronger re-election run - like the landslide attained by President Reagan.

"GOP REDMAP Memo Admits Gerrymandering To Thank For Congressional Election Success"

As the memo notes, their resulting actions helped allow Republicans to maintain control of the House, even though Democratic candidates as a whole received more votes:
GOP REDMAP Memo Admits Gerrymandering To Thank For Congressional Election Success


Weird, didn't Obama become the only Prez in 50+ years to get 52%+ of the vote? Isn't Mittens sitting in his garage?


Reagan?

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Charts What if Obama spent like Reagan - The Washington Post

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

He spent way too much. Obama is worse.

The hell he is, brainwashed twit. Boosh was a total catastrophe in everything he touched. Without UE, welfare, and other assistance for victims of Booosh's WORLD DEPRESSION, there would be no deficit now.

Thank goodness Obama got in there to fix it all.
I love how he ended the Iraq war. Great job!!!
Didn't Obama get back the jobs Bush lost? End the wars?
So why can't he cut spending below Bush levels? LOL!

Weird, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policy why wasn't there jobs galore and a booming economy? Oops

Weird, after 6 years of Obama and over $7 trillion in new debt, things are so great he can't cut spending to Bush levels. LOL!

 

[Darkwind]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Revenue is what pays our government's expenses. If we have less revenue, the government has to borrow more. Thus more debt. If your point is that Obama has over spent, I agree. I never disputed that.

I don't know how many times this must be explained.

When revenue drops, the government MUST cuts spending to stay within the budget.

 

[Dad2three]

Why would you charge Bush for $250 billion in bank TARP loans that were repaid in 2009 and 2010?
Or for the auto TARP loans that Obama made in 2009 that weren't repaid?
Why would you charge Bush for all the added Obama and Dem spending after he left office?
Oh, right, you're a liberal. You can't tell the truth.

TARP passed under Dubya? WHY would we charge him for that?

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



As we have written twice before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected the fiscal year 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion two weeks before Obama took office. That fiscal year started Oct. 1, 2008. The fiscal year was already nearly one-third over when Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009.


Romney is wrong to characterize the amount repaid so far as a "small share." The Department of Treasury provides a "Daily TARP Update" that provides data on how much money was spent under the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The June 6 report, which came out the day that Romney was interviewed on CNN, showed that TARP's Automotive Industry Financing Program provided a total of $79.69 billion to the auto companies. Of that, $39.61 billion has been repaid — roughly half. That's not a "small share."

Romney Wrong on Deficits Auto Bailout


GET HONEST BUBBA

EVERY OTHER US PREZ IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LAST F/Y BUDGET, EXCEPT DUBYA IN CONS WORLD *SHAKING HEAD*

How Much Did Obama Add?

Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion. Ordinarily, an incoming president has little or no influence over spending that was approved under his predecessor. So in normal circumstances, all spending for fiscal year 2009 would have been rightly tied to Bush, and fiscal 2010 would be the first year for which Obama would have prepared a budget and signed the major spending bills.

Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not




TARP F/Y 2009 SPENDING


Spending on the TARP program turned out to be much less than the $700 billion originally authorized. Congress later reduced the authorization to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Obama signed on July 21, 2010. And not all was spent in 2009.

Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO.


Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not

 

[Dad2three]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

He spent way too much. Obama is worse.

The hell he is, brainwashed twit. Boosh was a total catastrophe in everything he touched. Without UE, welfare, and other assistance for victims of Booosh's WORLD DEPRESSION, there would be no deficit now.

Thank goodness Obama got in there to fix it all.
I love how he ended the Iraq war. Great job!!!
Didn't Obama get back the jobs Bush lost? End the wars?
So why can't he cut spending below Bush levels? LOL!

Weird, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policy why wasn't there jobs galore and a booming economy? Oops

Weird, after 6 years of Obama and over $7 trillion in new debt, things are so great he can't cut spending to Bush levels. LOL!

Sure he did, but Dubya dug a DEEP and wide hole, weird you don't know that?

 

[Dad2three]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Revenue is what pays our government's expenses. If we have less revenue, the government has to borrow more. Thus more debt. If your point is that Obama has over spent, I agree. I never disputed that.

I don't know how many times this must be explained.

When revenue drops, the government MUST cuts spending to stay within the budget.

Sure, because austerity has worked so well in recessions around the world before? ONE example EVER it being successful?


Austerity Has Made Europe's Depression Longer Than In '30s

Europe's governments are learning that spending cuts slowed economic growth and actually increased deficits. Meanwhile, America's "Great Recession" also drags on thanks to cutbacks in government spending.

Austerity Has Made Europe s Depression Longer Than In 30s Crooks and Liars

 

[Darkwind]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Revenue is what pays our government's expenses. If we have less revenue, the government has to borrow more. Thus more debt. If your point is that Obama has over spent, I agree. I never disputed that.

I don't know how many times this must be explained.

When revenue drops, the government MUST cuts spending to stay within the budget.

Sure, because austerity has worked so well in recessions around the world before? ONE example EVER it being successful?


Austerity Has Made Europe's Depression Longer Than In '30s

Europe's governments are learning that spending cuts slowed economic growth and actually increased deficits. Meanwhile, America's "Great Recession" also drags on thanks to cutbacks in government spending.

Austerity Has Made Europe s Depression Longer Than In 30s Crooks and Liars

You'll need to post actual studies, done by people who have no agenda to even get My attention. A blog won't cut it.

I don't usually even debate people who think that wealth is finite and tax cuts have to be funded. It shows they lack understanding of economies and even definitions of words.

 

[Dad2three]

You'll need to post actual studies, done by people who have no agenda to even get My attention. A blog won't cut it.

I don't usually even debate people who think that wealth is finite and tax cuts have to be funded. It shows they lack understanding of economies and even definitions of words.

In other words you can't give me ONE example of austerity EVER working in ANY recession. Got it


Demand Drives An Economy

Here's the deal. In a slowdown consumers and businesses are not bringing enough "demand" to an economy. This lack of customers causes businesses to lay off workers and those workers stop being consumers, so businesses have to cut back even more. So they lay off workers and those workers stop being consumers, so businesses have to cut back even more. You get the picture: "Death spiral."

This is when government (We the People) should step in. In the 20th century we learned a way out of recessions and depressions. During slowdowns government can spend, and this boosts the demand in the economy to make up for the demand shortfall from consumers and businesses. Government can invest in infrastructure, causing construction workers to be hired and suppliers of equipment and materials to thrive. Government can spend on things it needs like equipment and cars, etc. Government can hire to get things done that need to be done like teaching kids, daycare, adding police and firefighters ... so many things.

And all of those thing help make the lives of We the People better in the long run. Good, modern infrastructure, schools and teachers, universities, police, firefighters, parks, libraries, courts, scientific research, environmental protection, food inspectors, job-safety inspectors and all the rest of the things government does make our lives better – and boost our economy in the long term.

Stimulus Helped The U.S. Economy, Deficit-Cutting Hurt

Just after President Obama took office there were enough Democrats in the House and Senate to pass the "stimulus." This was the result:

Unfortunately Republicans gained seats in the Senate and have filibustered every single attempt to help the economy since. The post Three Updated Charts to Email to Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law explains how this has hurt us,

Government spending does not “take money out of the economy.” In fact it puts money into the economy, creates jobs and lays the foundation for future prosperity. ... this chart from The Atlantic, “The Incredible Shrinking U.S. Government,” shows how government spending to create government jobs helped us get out of the 1981, 1990 and 2001 recessions. But since the 2007 “Great Recession,” we instead have laid off hundreds of thousands of government employees, obviously making unemployment even worse.

Austerity Has Made Europe s Depression Longer Than In 30s Crooks and Liars


21 August 2014
Eurozone austerity a 'disastrous failure' claim Nobel economists as dismal data raises fears it's backsliding into crisis

Eurozone austerity a disastrous failure claim Nobel economists This is Money




this chart from Ben Wolcott at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Consider it an elegant tombstone for the austerity adventures of the past few years. The bottom axis measures how much each government cut spending and raised taxes after 2010. The left axis measures how the employment rate changed.

As Wolcott puts it: “This image very crisply suggests what Keynesians have been arguing in more nuanced ways for four years, namely that many countries cut fiscal spending too soon, prolonging the negative impacts of the Great Recession for workers.”
Economic austerity How it failed in one chart


IMF admits: we failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece

IMF admits we failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece Business The Guardian



It’s Official: Austerity Economics Doesn’t Work

It 8217 s Official Austerity Economics Doesn 8217 t Work - The New Yorker

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would you charge Bush for $250 billion in bank TARP loans that were repaid in 2009 and 2010?
Or for the auto TARP loans that Obama made in 2009 that weren't repaid?
Why would you charge Bush for all the added Obama and Dem spending after he left office?
Oh, right, you're a liberal. You can't tell the truth.

TARP passed under Dubya? WHY would we charge him for that?

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



As we have written twice before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected the fiscal year 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion two weeks before Obama took office. That fiscal year started Oct. 1, 2008. The fiscal year was already nearly one-third over when Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009.


Romney is wrong to characterize the amount repaid so far as a "small share." The Department of Treasury provides a "Daily TARP Update" that provides data on how much money was spent under the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The June 6 report, which came out the day that Romney was interviewed on CNN, showed that TARP's Automotive Industry Financing Program provided a total of $79.69 billion to the auto companies. Of that, $39.61 billion has been repaid — roughly half. That's not a "small share."

Romney Wrong on Deficits Auto Bailout


GET HONEST BUBBA

EVERY OTHER US PREZ IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LAST F/Y BUDGET, EXCEPT DUBYA IN CONS WORLD *SHAKING HEAD*

How Much Did Obama Add?

Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion. Ordinarily, an incoming president has little or no influence over spending that was approved under his predecessor. So in normal circumstances, all spending for fiscal year 2009 would have been rightly tied to Bush, and fiscal 2010 would be the first year for which Obama would have prepared a budget and signed the major spending bills.

Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not




TARP F/Y 2009 SPENDING


Spending on the TARP program turned out to be much less than the $700 billion originally authorized. Congress later reduced the authorization to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Obama signed on July 21, 2010. And not all was spent in 2009.

Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO.


Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not

TARP passed under Dubya? WHY would we charge him for that?

Charge Bush for every dollar of TARP he spent that wasn't paid back.
Do the same for Obama.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Considering Bush lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs

We'd get that many back with $217.4 billion in tax cuts, according to Billy's source.

and the UNFUNDED tax cuts cost US

Cost us? Are you the government, or a taxpayer?
Because they saved money for taxpayers.....AND created jobs.

Sure, a million new jobs at min wage for ANOTHER tax cutt for the rich. Shocking

Gov't IS US and weird how Dubya lost over a million private sector jobs with his 2.5+ trillion tax cuts WHILE he rammed up spending. Right wingers are NEVER correct on policy!

He spent way too much. Obama is worse.

The hell he is, brainwashed twit. Boosh was a total catastrophe in everything he touched. Without UE, welfare, and other assistance for victims of Booosh's WORLD DEPRESSION, there would be no deficit now.

Thank goodness Obama got in there to fix it all.
I love how he ended the Iraq war. Great job!!!
Didn't Obama get back the jobs Bush lost? End the wars?
So why can't he cut spending below Bush levels? LOL!

Weird, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policy why wasn't there jobs galore and a booming economy? Oops

Weird, after 6 years of Obama and over $7 trillion in new debt, things are so great he can't cut spending to Bush levels. LOL!

Sure he did, but Dubya dug a DEEP and wide hole, weird you don't know that?

Sure he did

Obama cut spending to Bush levels? LOL!
Link?

 

[Darkwind]

You'll need to post actual studies, done by people who have no agenda to even get My attention. A blog won't cut it.

I don't usually even debate people who think that wealth is finite and tax cuts have to be funded. It shows they lack understanding of economies and even definitions of words.

In other words you can't give me ONE example of austerity EVER working in ANY recession. Got it


Demand Drives An Economy

Here's the deal. In a slowdown consumers and businesses are not bringing enough "demand" to an economy. This lack of customers causes businesses to lay off workers and those workers stop being consumers, so businesses have to cut back even more. So they lay off workers and those workers stop being consumers, so businesses have to cut back even more. You get the picture: "Death spiral."

This is when government (We the People) should step in. In the 20th century we learned a way out of recessions and depressions. During slowdowns government can spend, and this boosts the demand in the economy to make up for the demand shortfall from consumers and businesses. Government can invest in infrastructure, causing construction workers to be hired and suppliers of equipment and materials to thrive. Government can spend on things it needs like equipment and cars, etc. Government can hire to get things done that need to be done like teaching kids, daycare, adding police and firefighters ... so many things.

And all of those thing help make the lives of We the People better in the long run. Good, modern infrastructure, schools and teachers, universities, police, firefighters, parks, libraries, courts, scientific research, environmental protection, food inspectors, job-safety inspectors and all the rest of the things government does make our lives better – and boost our economy in the long term.

Stimulus Helped The U.S. Economy, Deficit-Cutting Hurt

Just after President Obama took office there were enough Democrats in the House and Senate to pass the "stimulus." This was the result:

Unfortunately Republicans gained seats in the Senate and have filibustered every single attempt to help the economy since. The post Three Updated Charts to Email to Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law explains how this has hurt us,

Government spending does not “take money out of the economy.” In fact it puts money into the economy, creates jobs and lays the foundation for future prosperity. ... this chart from The Atlantic, “The Incredible Shrinking U.S. Government,” shows how government spending to create government jobs helped us get out of the 1981, 1990 and 2001 recessions. But since the 2007 “Great Recession,” we instead have laid off hundreds of thousands of government employees, obviously making unemployment even worse.

Austerity Has Made Europe s Depression Longer Than In 30s Crooks and Liars


21 August 2014
Eurozone austerity a 'disastrous failure' claim Nobel economists as dismal data raises fears it's backsliding into crisis

Eurozone austerity a disastrous failure claim Nobel economists This is Money




this chart from Ben Wolcott at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Consider it an elegant tombstone for the austerity adventures of the past few years. The bottom axis measures how much each government cut spending and raised taxes after 2010. The left axis measures how the employment rate changed.

As Wolcott puts it: “This image very crisply suggests what Keynesians have been arguing in more nuanced ways for four years, namely that many countries cut fiscal spending too soon, prolonging the negative impacts of the Great Recession for workers.”
Economic austerity How it failed in one chart


IMF admits: we failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece

IMF admits we failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece Business The Guardian



It’s Official: Austerity Economics Doesn’t Work

It 8217 s Official Austerity Economics Doesn 8217 t Work - The New Yorker

Read carefully.

Austerity has never been tried. I know you posted links, but if you look very, very carefully, you will see that not once, in any example you provided, did those government actually reduce spending.

Not once.

I posted a review of this a few years back.

You simply don't have an understanding of what is going on economically. You just regurgitate what others tell you. Say goodbye.

 

[Dad2three]

Why would you charge Bush for $250 billion in bank TARP loans that were repaid in 2009 and 2010?
Or for the auto TARP loans that Obama made in 2009 that weren't repaid?
Why would you charge Bush for all the added Obama and Dem spending after he left office?
Oh, right, you're a liberal. You can't tell the truth.

TARP passed under Dubya? WHY would we charge him for that?

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



As we have written twice before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected the fiscal year 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion two weeks before Obama took office. That fiscal year started Oct. 1, 2008. The fiscal year was already nearly one-third over when Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009.


Romney is wrong to characterize the amount repaid so far as a "small share." The Department of Treasury provides a "Daily TARP Update" that provides data on how much money was spent under the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The June 6 report, which came out the day that Romney was interviewed on CNN, showed that TARP's Automotive Industry Financing Program provided a total of $79.69 billion to the auto companies. Of that, $39.61 billion has been repaid — roughly half. That's not a "small share."

Romney Wrong on Deficits Auto Bailout


GET HONEST BUBBA

EVERY OTHER US PREZ IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LAST F/Y BUDGET, EXCEPT DUBYA IN CONS WORLD *SHAKING HEAD*

How Much Did Obama Add?

Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion. Ordinarily, an incoming president has little or no influence over spending that was approved under his predecessor. So in normal circumstances, all spending for fiscal year 2009 would have been rightly tied to Bush, and fiscal 2010 would be the first year for which Obama would have prepared a budget and signed the major spending bills.

Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not




TARP F/Y 2009 SPENDING


Spending on the TARP program turned out to be much less than the $700 billion originally authorized. Congress later reduced the authorization to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Obama signed on July 21, 2010. And not all was spent in 2009.

Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO.


Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not

TARP passed under Dubya? WHY would we charge him for that?

Charge Bush for every dollar of TARP he spent that wasn't paid back.
Do the same for Obama.

Thanks for admitting you don't have a clue on how F/Y budgets work. AGAIN, Jan 8, 2009 CBO said there was a $1.2+ trillion deficit

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would you charge Bush for $250 billion in bank TARP loans that were repaid in 2009 and 2010?
Or for the auto TARP loans that Obama made in 2009 that weren't repaid?
Why would you charge Bush for all the added Obama and Dem spending after he left office?
Oh, right, you're a liberal. You can't tell the truth.

TARP passed under Dubya? WHY would we charge him for that?

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



As we have written twice before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected the fiscal year 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion two weeks before Obama took office. That fiscal year started Oct. 1, 2008. The fiscal year was already nearly one-third over when Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009.


Romney is wrong to characterize the amount repaid so far as a "small share." The Department of Treasury provides a "Daily TARP Update" that provides data on how much money was spent under the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The June 6 report, which came out the day that Romney was interviewed on CNN, showed that TARP's Automotive Industry Financing Program provided a total of $79.69 billion to the auto companies. Of that, $39.61 billion has been repaid — roughly half. That's not a "small share."

Romney Wrong on Deficits Auto Bailout


GET HONEST BUBBA

EVERY OTHER US PREZ IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LAST F/Y BUDGET, EXCEPT DUBYA IN CONS WORLD *SHAKING HEAD*

How Much Did Obama Add?

Economist Daniel J. Mitchell of the libertarian CATO Institute — who once served on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee — has put the figure at $140 billion. Ordinarily, an incoming president has little or no influence over spending that was approved under his predecessor. So in normal circumstances, all spending for fiscal year 2009 would have been rightly tied to Bush, and fiscal 2010 would be the first year for which Obama would have prepared a budget and signed the major spending bills.

Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not




TARP F/Y 2009 SPENDING


Spending on the TARP program turned out to be much less than the $700 billion originally authorized. Congress later reduced the authorization to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Obama signed on July 21, 2010. And not all was spent in 2009.

Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO.


Obama 8217 s Spending 8216 Inferno 8217 or Not

TARP passed under Dubya? WHY would we charge him for that?

Charge Bush for every dollar of TARP he spent that wasn't paid back.
Do the same for Obama.

Thanks for admitting you don't have a clue on how F/Y budgets work. AGAIN, Jan 8, 2009 CBO said there was a $1.2+ trillion deficit

The CBO published an estimate. So what?

 

[francoHFW]

Hell, the dupes don't even know who started the SECOND Pub Great World Depression, or even that Pubs have stalled the recovery with phony crises and disfunction just to make Obama look bad. ANYWAY, O and Dems are leading the world out of their messes, and without another corrupt Pub bubble. The Pub drones on here will never learn- the 2 who did were pulled back in with racism...lost causes...

And socialism is not communism or stalinism, ya gd idiot cold war dinosaur ugly American, Pub hater dupe, functional morons. You're America's and the world's violent, loudmouth, greedy horror and laughingstock...

 

[francoHFW]

I am so tired of ignorant a-hole Pubs making Americans look so bad...

 

[Dad2three]

Sure he did

Obama cut spending to Bush levels? LOL!
Link?

How spending has fallen under Obama

At its height in 2010, "discretionary spending" under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983.




Today, levels are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962.

How spending has fallen under Obama - Jan. 27 2014

 

[Dad2three]

You'll need to post actual studies, done by people who have no agenda to even get My attention. A blog won't cut it.

I don't usually even debate people who think that wealth is finite and tax cuts have to be funded. It shows they lack understanding of economies and even definitions of words.

In other words you can't give me ONE example of austerity EVER working in ANY recession. Got it


Demand Drives An Economy

Here's the deal. In a slowdown consumers and businesses are not bringing enough "demand" to an economy. This lack of customers causes businesses to lay off workers and those workers stop being consumers, so businesses have to cut back even more. So they lay off workers and those workers stop being consumers, so businesses have to cut back even more. You get the picture: "Death spiral."

This is when government (We the People) should step in. In the 20th century we learned a way out of recessions and depressions. During slowdowns government can spend, and this boosts the demand in the economy to make up for the demand shortfall from consumers and businesses. Government can invest in infrastructure, causing construction workers to be hired and suppliers of equipment and materials to thrive. Government can spend on things it needs like equipment and cars, etc. Government can hire to get things done that need to be done like teaching kids, daycare, adding police and firefighters ... so many things.

And all of those thing help make the lives of We the People better in the long run. Good, modern infrastructure, schools and teachers, universities, police, firefighters, parks, libraries, courts, scientific research, environmental protection, food inspectors, job-safety inspectors and all the rest of the things government does make our lives better – and boost our economy in the long term.

Stimulus Helped The U.S. Economy, Deficit-Cutting Hurt

Just after President Obama took office there were enough Democrats in the House and Senate to pass the "stimulus." This was the result:

Unfortunately Republicans gained seats in the Senate and have filibustered every single attempt to help the economy since. The post Three Updated Charts to Email to Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law explains how this has hurt us,

Government spending does not “take money out of the economy.” In fact it puts money into the economy, creates jobs and lays the foundation for future prosperity. ... this chart from The Atlantic, “The Incredible Shrinking U.S. Government,” shows how government spending to create government jobs helped us get out of the 1981, 1990 and 2001 recessions. But since the 2007 “Great Recession,” we instead have laid off hundreds of thousands of government employees, obviously making unemployment even worse.

Austerity Has Made Europe s Depression Longer Than In 30s Crooks and Liars


21 August 2014
Eurozone austerity a 'disastrous failure' claim Nobel economists as dismal data raises fears it's backsliding into crisis

Eurozone austerity a disastrous failure claim Nobel economists This is Money




this chart from Ben Wolcott at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Consider it an elegant tombstone for the austerity adventures of the past few years. The bottom axis measures how much each government cut spending and raised taxes after 2010. The left axis measures how the employment rate changed.

As Wolcott puts it: “This image very crisply suggests what Keynesians have been arguing in more nuanced ways for four years, namely that many countries cut fiscal spending too soon, prolonging the negative impacts of the Great Recession for workers.”
Economic austerity How it failed in one chart


IMF admits: we failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece

IMF admits we failed to realise the damage austerity would do to Greece Business The Guardian



It’s Official: Austerity Economics Doesn’t Work

It 8217 s Official Austerity Economics Doesn 8217 t Work - The New Yorker

Read carefully.

Austerity has never been tried. I know you posted links, but if you look very, very carefully, you will see that not once, in any example you provided, did those government actually reduce spending.

Not once.

I posted a review of this a few years back.

You simply don't have an understanding of what is going on economically. You just regurgitate what others tell you. Say goodbye.

Got it, the weren't austere enough *shaking head*

Weird, you'd think you libertarians would have dozens of nations using your garbage, why aren't they?

AUSTERITY ISN'T JUST CUTTING FROM YEAR TO YEAR, BUT A CUT,. LIKE FDR DID WHEN HE LISTENED TO THE DEFICIT SCOLDS LIKE IN IN 1937 AND CUT THE BUDGET 10% AND PUT US BACK INTO THE GOP GREAT DEPRESSION!!!