The GOP is desperate for a failing economy......sic

[Rustic]

What economy??
We have an economic stability of an banana republic...

Hashtag print more money

When CONservatives/GOP work against US, it doesn't help. But the US actuality BY FARRRR is the largest economy and is better than most developed economies today after the Banksters world wide credit ponzi scheme collapsed. US is doing ESPECIALLY well when measured against the austerity freaks nations!

Agreed, we such the least...

Hashtag print more money

 

[RandomVariable]

I remember food stamp usage increasing by 70% under Obama despite claims that things are better.

You mean Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE AND DEEP hole. Yup

One is arguing for bleeding the patient more. One is for applying a bigger band-aide. No one seems to be arguing for actually curing the patient.

You mean AS the GOP has blocked ANYTHING that would help US?

What if Obama spent like Reagan?



How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT, AS THE GOP CANDIDATES PUSH MORE TAX CUTS RIGHT?

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

 

[Rustic]

You mean Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE AND DEEP hole. Yup

One is arguing for bleeding the patient more. One is for applying a bigger band-aide. No one seems to be arguing for actually curing the patient.

You mean AS the GOP has blocked ANYTHING that would help US?

What if Obama spent like Reagan?



How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT, AS THE GOP CANDIDATES PUSH MORE TAX CUTS RIGHT?

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

Grover is cool...

 

[RandomVariable]

One is arguing for bleeding the patient more. One is for applying a bigger band-aide. No one seems to be arguing for actually curing the patient.

You mean AS the GOP has blocked ANYTHING that would help US?

What if Obama spent like Reagan?



How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT, AS THE GOP CANDIDATES PUSH MORE TAX CUTS RIGHT?

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

Grover is cool...

I do not believe in small government. I believe in big government for the people. The problem is we have big government for corporations. Democrats want to make the government bigger so it covers the people and Republicans supposedly want to kill government. No one seems to want to take government out of the hands of the corporations.

 

[Dad2three]

You mean Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE AND DEEP hole. Yup

One is arguing for bleeding the patient more. One is for applying a bigger band-aide. No one seems to be arguing for actually curing the patient.

You mean AS the GOP has blocked ANYTHING that would help US?

What if Obama spent like Reagan?



How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT, AS THE GOP CANDIDATES PUSH MORE TAX CUTS RIGHT?

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

You mean after 40+ years of CONservatives/GOP trying to break US with their policies, starting with Lewis Powell's memo to the Chamber of Commerce?

Yep, when your SOLE goal is to gut social spending and policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class (FDR New Deal), you do it by destroying Gov't LIKE the GOP has done!

 

[Dad2three]

One is arguing for bleeding the patient more. One is for applying a bigger band-aide. No one seems to be arguing for actually curing the patient.

You mean AS the GOP has blocked ANYTHING that would help US?

What if Obama spent like Reagan?



How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT, AS THE GOP CANDIDATES PUSH MORE TAX CUTS RIGHT?

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

Grover is cool...

If by cool you mean someone who "believes" in the Randian fetish that has NEVER been used successfully ANYWHERE. Yep

 

[Dad2three]

You mean AS the GOP has blocked ANYTHING that would help US?

What if Obama spent like Reagan?



How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT, AS THE GOP CANDIDATES PUSH MORE TAX CUTS RIGHT?

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

Grover is cool...

I do not believe in small government. I believe in big government for the people. The problem is we have big government for corporations. Democrats want to make the government bigger so it covers the people and Republicans supposedly want to kill government. No one seems to want to take government out of the hands of the corporations.

Yeah, BOTH equally at fault, ONE party didn't get Citizens United overturned at SCOTUS to get money out of politics


The opposite party isn't trying to get Buffet rule, min 30% tax on $1,000,000+ incomes

Or trying to get Corps to bring jobs back to US by giving them tax credits and incentives, being blocked by the GOP...

ONE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DIDN'T CALL CORPS ARE PEOPLE MY FRIEND RIGHT?

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

 

[RandomVariable]

One is arguing for bleeding the patient more. One is for applying a bigger band-aide. No one seems to be arguing for actually curing the patient.

You mean AS the GOP has blocked ANYTHING that would help US?

What if Obama spent like Reagan?



How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT, AS THE GOP CANDIDATES PUSH MORE TAX CUTS RIGHT?

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

You mean after 40+ years of CONservatives/GOP trying to break US with their policies, starting with Lewis Powell's memo to the Chamber of Commerce?

Yep, when your SOLE goal is to gut social spending and policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class (FDR New Deal), you do it by destroying Gov't LIKE the GOP has done!

And political Democrats have used the system to make themselves rich. One wants to use the system to their advantage and one wants to destroy the system to their advantage. No one wants to fix the system.

 

[RandomVariable]

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

Grover is cool...

I do not believe in small government. I believe in big government for the people. The problem is we have big government for corporations. Democrats want to make the government bigger so it covers the people and Republicans supposedly want to kill government. No one seems to want to take government out of the hands of the corporations.

Yeah, BOTH equally at fault, ONE party didn't get Citizens United overturned at SCOTUS to get money out of politics


The opposite party isn't trying to get Buffet rule, min 30% tax on $1,000,000+ incomes

Or trying to get Corps to bring jobs back to US by giving them tax credits and incentives, being blocked by the GOP...

ONE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DIDN'T CALL CORPS ARE PEOPLE MY FRIEND RIGHT?

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

And the TPP is not a multi-national corporation's dream come true?

 

[Dad2three]

You mean AS the GOP has blocked ANYTHING that would help US?

What if Obama spent like Reagan?



How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT, AS THE GOP CANDIDATES PUSH MORE TAX CUTS RIGHT?

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

You mean after 40+ years of CONservatives/GOP trying to break US with their policies, starting with Lewis Powell's memo to the Chamber of Commerce?

Yep, when your SOLE goal is to gut social spending and policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class (FDR New Deal), you do it by destroying Gov't LIKE the GOP has done!

And political Democrats have used the system to make themselves rich. One wants to use the system to their advantage and one wants to destroy the system to their advantage. No one wants to fix the system.

Yep, BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT RIGHT?

Hint 60% of Dems voted against EVERY "free trade agreement", against Dubya's war of choice



99% of GOP voted for Dubya's tax cuts for the rich and 97% against Obama's stimulus (even though a year earlier 95% of them voted for Dubya's stimulus in a MUCH better economy)

EQUALLY AT FAULT RIGHT? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

Grover is cool...

I do not believe in small government. I believe in big government for the people. The problem is we have big government for corporations. Democrats want to make the government bigger so it covers the people and Republicans supposedly want to kill government. No one seems to want to take government out of the hands of the corporations.

Yeah, BOTH equally at fault, ONE party didn't get Citizens United overturned at SCOTUS to get money out of politics


The opposite party isn't trying to get Buffet rule, min 30% tax on $1,000,000+ incomes

Or trying to get Corps to bring jobs back to US by giving them tax credits and incentives, being blocked by the GOP...

ONE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DIDN'T CALL CORPS ARE PEOPLE MY FRIEND RIGHT?

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

And the TPP is not a multi-national corporation's dream come true?

You mean that thing that will ONLY pass IF the GOP AGAIN decides to vote against US? Yep, the majority of Dems (60%+) have voted against EVERY free trade deal the past 2 decades. Weird right?

 

[RandomVariable]

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

You mean after 40+ years of CONservatives/GOP trying to break US with their policies, starting with Lewis Powell's memo to the Chamber of Commerce?

Yep, when your SOLE goal is to gut social spending and policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class (FDR New Deal), you do it by destroying Gov't LIKE the GOP has done!

And political Democrats have used the system to make themselves rich. One wants to use the system to their advantage and one wants to destroy the system to their advantage. No one wants to fix the system.

Yep, BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT RIGHT?

Hint 60% of Dems voted against EVERY "free trade agreement", against Dubya's war of choice



99% of GOP voted for Dubya's tax cuts for the rich and 97% against Obama's stimulus (even though a year earlier 95% of them voted for Dubya's stimulus in a MUCH better economy)

EQUALLY AT FAULT RIGHT? LOL

Give the Dem's 100% of everything; WH, Senate, House, what would they do with it? Pass lots of freebies and make themselves rich? Seems to be the plan.

 

[RandomVariable]

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

Grover is cool...

I do not believe in small government. I believe in big government for the people. The problem is we have big government for corporations. Democrats want to make the government bigger so it covers the people and Republicans supposedly want to kill government. No one seems to want to take government out of the hands of the corporations.

Yeah, BOTH equally at fault, ONE party didn't get Citizens United overturned at SCOTUS to get money out of politics


The opposite party isn't trying to get Buffet rule, min 30% tax on $1,000,000+ incomes

Or trying to get Corps to bring jobs back to US by giving them tax credits and incentives, being blocked by the GOP...

ONE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DIDN'T CALL CORPS ARE PEOPLE MY FRIEND RIGHT?

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

And the TPP is not a multi-national corporation's dream come true?

You mean that thing that will ONLY pass IF the GOP AGAIN decides to vote against US? Yep, the majority of Dems (60%+) have voted against EVERY free trade deal the past 2 decades. Weird right?

So Dems have a different plan, not a better plan, just a different plan. (Actually I don't think they have a plan except self interest.)

 

[Dad2three]

Grover is cool...

I do not believe in small government. I believe in big government for the people. The problem is we have big government for corporations. Democrats want to make the government bigger so it covers the people and Republicans supposedly want to kill government. No one seems to want to take government out of the hands of the corporations.

Yeah, BOTH equally at fault, ONE party didn't get Citizens United overturned at SCOTUS to get money out of politics


The opposite party isn't trying to get Buffet rule, min 30% tax on $1,000,000+ incomes

Or trying to get Corps to bring jobs back to US by giving them tax credits and incentives, being blocked by the GOP...

ONE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DIDN'T CALL CORPS ARE PEOPLE MY FRIEND RIGHT?

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

And the TPP is not a multi-national corporation's dream come true?

You mean that thing that will ONLY pass IF the GOP AGAIN decides to vote against US? Yep, the majority of Dems (60%+) have voted against EVERY free trade deal the past 2 decades. Weird right?

So Dems have a different plan, not a better plan, just a different plan. (Actually I don't think they have a plan except self interest.)

We have to decide which kind of capitalism we want- plutocratic capitalism where all the money is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the population, leaving the rest in debt or poverty, or democratic capitalism, where economic growth is created by as much of the population as possible

The conservatives have favored plutocratic capitalism, the belief in supply side economics, that the rich are the job creators but those jobs have to pay the smallest wages possible with no benefits in order to increase profits at the top end, that they should receive favorable treatment like low taxation and little oversight and regulation

Liberals favor democratic capitalism, where the profits are created by a consumer middle class who are paid wages that are sufficient, that the wealth of capitalism is spread and passed from hand to hand, that a welfare state is created for the working force so when there is an economic downturn or a personal disaster or emergency that member of the workforce is not expendable and their families will survive, and in their elder years they will have a pension and healthcare, aliviating that burden on their younger family members in the work force

In the last thirty years the conservative view came back into vogue and the results have been a huge jump in the wealth of a few with the deterioration of the middle class

Now the conservatives are going for the middle class jugular with their agenda of cutting the social safety net

 

[Dad2three]

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

You mean after 40+ years of CONservatives/GOP trying to break US with their policies, starting with Lewis Powell's memo to the Chamber of Commerce?

Yep, when your SOLE goal is to gut social spending and policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class (FDR New Deal), you do it by destroying Gov't LIKE the GOP has done!

And political Democrats have used the system to make themselves rich. One wants to use the system to their advantage and one wants to destroy the system to their advantage. No one wants to fix the system.

Yep, BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT RIGHT?

Hint 60% of Dems voted against EVERY "free trade agreement", against Dubya's war of choice



99% of GOP voted for Dubya's tax cuts for the rich and 97% against Obama's stimulus (even though a year earlier 95% of them voted for Dubya's stimulus in a MUCH better economy)

EQUALLY AT FAULT RIGHT? LOL

Give the Dem's 100% of everything; WH, Senate, House, what would they do with it? Pass lots of freebies and make themselves rich? Seems to be the plan.

We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20% of GDP and 4 straight surpluses (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut) . Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then.

 

[RandomVariable]

I do not believe in small government. I believe in big government for the people. The problem is we have big government for corporations. Democrats want to make the government bigger so it covers the people and Republicans supposedly want to kill government. No one seems to want to take government out of the hands of the corporations.

Yeah, BOTH equally at fault, ONE party didn't get Citizens United overturned at SCOTUS to get money out of politics


The opposite party isn't trying to get Buffet rule, min 30% tax on $1,000,000+ incomes

Or trying to get Corps to bring jobs back to US by giving them tax credits and incentives, being blocked by the GOP...

ONE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DIDN'T CALL CORPS ARE PEOPLE MY FRIEND RIGHT?

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

• Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
• Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
• Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
• Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
• Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
• Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

And the TPP is not a multi-national corporation's dream come true?

You mean that thing that will ONLY pass IF the GOP AGAIN decides to vote against US? Yep, the majority of Dems (60%+) have voted against EVERY free trade deal the past 2 decades. Weird right?

So Dems have a different plan, not a better plan, just a different plan. (Actually I don't think they have a plan except self interest.)

We have to decide which kind of capitalism we want- plutocratic capitalism where all the money is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the population, leaving the rest in debt or poverty, or democratic capitalism, where economic growth is created by as much of the population as possible

The conservatives have favored plutocratic capitalism, the belief in supply side economics, that the rich are the job creators but those jobs have to pay the smallest wages possible with no benefits in order to increase profits at the top end, that they should receive favorable treatment like low taxation and little oversight and regulation

Liberals favor democratic capitalism, where the profits are created by a consumer middle class who are paid wages that are sufficient, that the wealth of capitalism is spread and passed from hand to hand, that a welfare state is created for the working force so when there is an economic downturn or a personal disaster or emergency that member of the workforce is not expendable and their families will survive, and in their elder years they will have a pension and healthcare, aliviating that burden on their younger family members in the work force

In the last thirty years the conservative view came back into vogue and the results have been a huge jump in the wealth of a few with the deterioration of the middle class

Now the conservatives are going for the middle class jugular with their agenda of cutting the social safety net

"Republicans are bad. Democrats are good. We think everyone should live happily ever after." I'm paraphrasing you a bit there but I think I got the gist of it. Again, second decade of the twenty-first century. Dems need to get their head out of the ground and their hand out of the till and start doing something useful. (Key word there being useful.)

 

[RandomVariable]

You are looking at the other guy's picture and saying what is wrong with it but you are missing the big picture. America is crumbling.

You mean after 40+ years of CONservatives/GOP trying to break US with their policies, starting with Lewis Powell's memo to the Chamber of Commerce?

Yep, when your SOLE goal is to gut social spending and policies that CREATED the worlds largest middle class (FDR New Deal), you do it by destroying Gov't LIKE the GOP has done!

And political Democrats have used the system to make themselves rich. One wants to use the system to their advantage and one wants to destroy the system to their advantage. No one wants to fix the system.

Yep, BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT RIGHT?

Hint 60% of Dems voted against EVERY "free trade agreement", against Dubya's war of choice



99% of GOP voted for Dubya's tax cuts for the rich and 97% against Obama's stimulus (even though a year earlier 95% of them voted for Dubya's stimulus in a MUCH better economy)

EQUALLY AT FAULT RIGHT? LOL

Give the Dem's 100% of everything; WH, Senate, House, what would they do with it? Pass lots of freebies and make themselves rich? Seems to be the plan.

We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20% of GDP and 4 straight surpluses (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut) . Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important. The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then.

Clinton capitalized on the Information Revolution by deregulating capital. He can and went and so the did money. Clinton (both/either) have nothing to show for years and years of opportunity they had been blessed with.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Don't worry, obama made sure those gas cans are empty.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

THAT can't be true, we had 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies??? Come on, get honest

We've had almost 7 years of Obama food stamp user creators. Get honest.

REALLY? I remember Clinton handing Dubya a projected $5+ trillion surplus with 20+ million private sector jobs created, yet Dubya handed Obama a projected debt of $19 trillion with the economy shredding 700,000+ jobs a month and the economy tanking 9%+ (and a loss of private sector jobs of 1+ million in just Dubya's 8 years, not counting the 4+ million under Obama's first 14 months)

I remember food stamp usage increasing by 70% under Obama despite claims that things are better.

You mean Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE AND DEEP hole. Yup

One is arguing for bleeding the patient more. One is for applying a bigger band-aide. No one seems to be arguing for actually curing the patient.

I've been pointing out the cure for seven years; domestic oil extraction.
Obama has removed the band-aid and deepened the cut.

 

[Conservative65]

People make and have less, everything costs more. Net? Failure.

THAT can't be true, we had 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies??? Come on, get honest

We've had almost 7 years of Obama food stamp user creators. Get honest.

We've seen what putting an unqualified black man in a government job did to the country.

Sure Bubba, sure. It was because he was black huh?


Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

It was because he was unqualified to do the job yet elected to meet a concept you Liberals wanted.

My ideology has worked for me because I choose to work instead of expecting someone else to work so it can be handed to me.

Congrats, a lot of people chose to work and a lot of people don't....how the hell is that Obama's fault you moron?

When you do things that allow people to continue getting a check while not working thinking it is an incentive to go to work, you're an idiot.

Yes better to go back to the way BEFORE the safety nets were set up right?

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.



Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Are you saying they deserve someone else's money? I disagree. Since you're not one of those paying for it, it's understandable why you would support it. It costs you nothing.