Why the GOP base wants Trump:

[HereWeGoAgain]

Actually, it's not just Trump. Look at who is making the headlines on the right; they are all non-professional politicians.

I think what's happening is that we are sending a message to our party leaders. We don't want talk, we want action. Too many times, politicians on both sides have one objective, and that is to stay in power and keep their job. The citizens, the country, the economy, they all are at the bottom of the list.

So now we have Trump, a guy who could care less about reelection because he doesn't care about this election. He's not playing any word games just to make people happy. Trump talks like many of us when discussing politics; no political correctness. Just say it as it is.

We are sick of people who get into office and then it's business as usual. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. No Republican that I know wanted Boehner or McConnell as our party leaders, yet, they are sitting tall and pretty. Who's listening to us? We still don't want these guys.

So I hope the Republican party is getting the message now. No more professional politicians and no more business as usual. When we elect you to do something, just do it and keep your mouth shut.

lol, You ignorant tools probably believe that nonsense, the low informed base of the GOP *shaking head*

THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE PLUTOCRATS THAT HAVE CAPTURED GOV'T OUT, IS TO GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS, OF COURSE THE GOP OPPOSES THAT!

We don't give the rich anything. giving them tax cuts is not the same as giving them money.

Sorry GUTTING tax revenues AS the GOP ramps up spending, IS giving money to those "job creators"


UNLESS they also cut the spending ALL it does is create debt!

Ramps up spending?
Yeah ...because obama is such a spend thrift.

"Obama spending binge never happened."

'
Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Obama spending binge never happened


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That's in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it's also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.

This isn't an unusual analysis. You can see the numbers for yourself if you head to the Bureau of Economic Analysis's GDP data and scroll through column 21 of table 1.1.2. It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: 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.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Go pedal your bullshit somewhere else.

 

[Dad2three]

It's actually a couple of reasons.

First, the GOP base has been lied to for the last 40 years. Everything from the deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts would create jobs, which they didn't create to you don't need health care. Remember the last election? Ebola, refugee children and Isis will be in your back yard? We know the truth about Benghazi. The GOP base sent their kids off to Iraq for no apparent reason. Education is for snobs, Obama is from Kenya and so on.

Then he is fear mongering worse that the GOP leadership. He would create a wall. He would strip certain Americans of their citizenship. He would protect us from scary outside countries.

So now, they are believing the guy who will turn out to be the biggest liar of all.

rdean explaining why Republicans want something is hilarious.

Your ad hom against a well presented posit is noted Bubs

Here's another ad hom - you're a retard.

Said the "moderate" lol


Perhaps TRY to refute the post with SOMETHING Bubs?

 

[Dad2three]

lol, You ignorant tools probably believe that nonsense, the low informed base of the GOP *shaking head*

THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE PLUTOCRATS THAT HAVE CAPTURED GOV'T OUT, IS TO GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS, OF COURSE THE GOP OPPOSES THAT!

We don't give the rich anything. giving them tax cuts is not the same as giving them money.

Sorry GUTTING tax revenues AS the GOP ramps up spending, IS giving money to those "job creators"


UNLESS they also cut the spending ALL it does is create debt!

Ramps up spending?
Yeah ...because obama is such a spend thrift.

"Obama spending binge never happened."

'
Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Obama spending binge never happened


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That's in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it's also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.

This isn't an unusual analysis. You can see the numbers for yourself if you head to the Bureau of Economic Analysis's GDP data and scroll through column 21 of table 1.1.2. It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: 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.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Go pedal your bullshit somewhere else.

In other words you are a hate talk radio/Faux "News" follower, don't let reality into your world right Bubs

 

[Toro]

Said the "moderate" lol


Perhaps TRY to refute the post with SOMETHING Bubs?

Says the uneducated C&P Master!

lol

 

[Dad2three]

Said the "moderate" lol


Perhaps TRY to refute the post with SOMETHING Bubs?

Says the uneducated C&P Master!

lol

You mean the stuff BASED IN REALITY that you right wingers can't refute? lol

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

We don't give the rich anything. giving them tax cuts is not the same as giving them money.

Sorry GUTTING tax revenues AS the GOP ramps up spending, IS giving money to those "job creators"


UNLESS they also cut the spending ALL it does is create debt!

Ramps up spending?
Yeah ...because obama is such a spend thrift.

"Obama spending binge never happened."

'
Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Obama spending binge never happened


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That's in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it's also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.

This isn't an unusual analysis. You can see the numbers for yourself if you head to the Bureau of Economic Analysis's GDP data and scroll through column 21 of table 1.1.2. It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: 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.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Go pedal your bullshit somewhere else.

In other words you are a hate talk radio/Faux "News" follower, don't let reality into your world right Bubs

We'll be 20 trill in debt before bozo leaves office.
Thats all on your messiah.

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry GUTTING tax revenues AS the GOP ramps up spending, IS giving money to those "job creators"


UNLESS they also cut the spending ALL it does is create debt!

Ramps up spending?
Yeah ...because obama is such a spend thrift.

"Obama spending binge never happened."

'
Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Obama spending binge never happened


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That's in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it's also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.

This isn't an unusual analysis. You can see the numbers for yourself if you head to the Bureau of Economic Analysis's GDP data and scroll through column 21 of table 1.1.2. It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: 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.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Go pedal your bullshit somewhere else.

In other words you are a hate talk radio/Faux "News" follower, don't let reality into your world right Bubs

We'll be 20 trill in debt before bozo leaves office.
Thats all on your messiah.

Right, MORE right wing mythology, US debt on Oc1 2009, the start of the first F/Y budget (like ALL Prez) was nearly $12 trillion, and policies INHERITED account for the VAST majority of debt.



Whereas Ronnie Raygun GUTTED tax revenues as he blew up spending AND TRIPLED EVERY OTHER PREZ DEBT AND DUBYA JUST DOUBLED IT WITH HIS POLICIES (AFTER Clinton left 4 straight surpluses!)....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Ramps up spending?
Yeah ...because obama is such a spend thrift.

"Obama spending binge never happened."

'
Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Obama spending binge never happened


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That's in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it's also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.

This isn't an unusual analysis. You can see the numbers for yourself if you head to the Bureau of Economic Analysis's GDP data and scroll through column 21 of table 1.1.2. It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: 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.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Go pedal your bullshit somewhere else.

In other words you are a hate talk radio/Faux "News" follower, don't let reality into your world right Bubs

We'll be 20 trill in debt before bozo leaves office.
Thats all on your messiah.

Right, MORE right wing mythology, US debt on Oc1 2009, the start of the first F/Y budget (like ALL Prez) was nearly $12 trillion, and policies INHERITED account for the VAST majority of debt.



Whereas Ronnie Raygun GUTTED tax revenues as he blew up spending AND TRIPLED EVERY OTHER PREZ DEBT AND DUBYA JUST DOUBLED IT WITH HIS POLICIES (AFTER Clinton left 4 straight surpluses!)....

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Toro]

Said the "moderate" lol


Perhaps TRY to refute the post with SOMETHING Bubs?

Says the uneducated C&P Master!

lol

You mean the stuff BASED IN REALITY that you right wingers can't refute? lol

Your ignorance has already been exposed, C&P poser.

Talk to the hand.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ramps up spending?
Yeah ...because obama is such a spend thrift.

"Obama spending binge never happened."

'
Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Obama spending binge never happened


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That's in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it's also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.

This isn't an unusual analysis. You can see the numbers for yourself if you head to the Bureau of Economic Analysis's GDP data and scroll through column 21 of table 1.1.2. It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: 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.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Go pedal your bullshit somewhere else.

In other words you are a hate talk radio/Faux "News" follower, don't let reality into your world right Bubs

We'll be 20 trill in debt before bozo leaves office.
Thats all on your messiah.

Right, MORE right wing mythology, US debt on Oc1 2009, the start of the first F/Y budget (like ALL Prez) was nearly $12 trillion, and policies INHERITED account for the VAST majority of debt.



Whereas Ronnie Raygun GUTTED tax revenues as he blew up spending AND TRIPLED EVERY OTHER PREZ DEBT AND DUBYA JUST DOUBLED IT WITH HIS POLICIES (AFTER Clinton left 4 straight surpluses!)....

One, there was no surplus, only a projected surplus. Two, Presidents can't control spending unless they threaten to not sign a budget and shut down the government. Congress are the people with the US checkbook. Three, from factcheck.org, here was the official debt by Bush and Obama:

And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion).

Dueling Debt Deceptions

 

[Dad2three]

"Obama spending binge never happened."

'
Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Obama spending binge never happened


Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy. That's in large part because state and local cutbacks have been so severe, but it's also because federal spending and investment has, on the whole, been falling since 2010.

This isn't an unusual analysis. You can see the numbers for yourself if you head to the Bureau of Economic Analysis's GDP data and scroll through column 21 of table 1.1.2. It's simply a fact that real government spending fell in three of President Obama's first four years.

That made me curious: 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.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Go pedal your bullshit somewhere else.

In other words you are a hate talk radio/Faux "News" follower, don't let reality into your world right Bubs

We'll be 20 trill in debt before bozo leaves office.
Thats all on your messiah.

Right, MORE right wing mythology, US debt on Oc1 2009, the start of the first F/Y budget (like ALL Prez) was nearly $12 trillion, and policies INHERITED account for the VAST majority of debt.



Whereas Ronnie Raygun GUTTED tax revenues as he blew up spending AND TRIPLED EVERY OTHER PREZ DEBT AND DUBYA JUST DOUBLED IT WITH HIS POLICIES (AFTER Clinton left 4 straight surpluses!)....

One, there was no surplus, only a projected surplus. Two, Presidents can't control spending unless they threaten to not sign a budget and shut down the government. Congress are the people with the US checkbook. Three, from factcheck.org, here was the official debt by Bush and Obama:

And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion).

Dueling Debt Deceptions

So, UNLIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ, Obama takes responsibility for Dubya's final F/Y budget that started Oct 1, 2008 and the CBO projected a $1.2+ trillion deficit, 13 days BEFORE Obama??? lol

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


Obama's FIRST F/Y budget begins

US Begins Fiscal Year $11776112848656.17 in Debt



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Go pedal your bullshit somewhere else.

In other words you are a hate talk radio/Faux "News" follower, don't let reality into your world right Bubs

We'll be 20 trill in debt before bozo leaves office.
Thats all on your messiah.

Right, MORE right wing mythology, US debt on Oc1 2009, the start of the first F/Y budget (like ALL Prez) was nearly $12 trillion, and policies INHERITED account for the VAST majority of debt.



Whereas Ronnie Raygun GUTTED tax revenues as he blew up spending AND TRIPLED EVERY OTHER PREZ DEBT AND DUBYA JUST DOUBLED IT WITH HIS POLICIES (AFTER Clinton left 4 straight surpluses!)....

One, there was no surplus, only a projected surplus. Two, Presidents can't control spending unless they threaten to not sign a budget and shut down the government. Congress are the people with the US checkbook. Three, from factcheck.org, here was the official debt by Bush and Obama:

And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion).

Dueling Debt Deceptions

So, UNLIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ, Obama takes responsibility for Dubya's final F/Y budget that started Oct 1, 2008 and the CBO projected a $1.2+ trillion deficit, 13 days BEFORE Obama??? lol

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


Obama's FIRST F/Y budget begins

US Begins Fiscal Year $11776112848656.17 in Debt



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Okay, so who was running Congress before Obama invaded the White House?

As my FactCheck article points out, their estimations were from the Debt To The Penny website. But if you still refuse to believe documented evidence, don't blame his debt on Bush, blame it on the Democrat led Congress if anything.

 

[Dad2three]

In other words you are a hate talk radio/Faux "News" follower, don't let reality into your world right Bubs

We'll be 20 trill in debt before bozo leaves office.
Thats all on your messiah.

Right, MORE right wing mythology, US debt on Oc1 2009, the start of the first F/Y budget (like ALL Prez) was nearly $12 trillion, and policies INHERITED account for the VAST majority of debt.



Whereas Ronnie Raygun GUTTED tax revenues as he blew up spending AND TRIPLED EVERY OTHER PREZ DEBT AND DUBYA JUST DOUBLED IT WITH HIS POLICIES (AFTER Clinton left 4 straight surpluses!)....

One, there was no surplus, only a projected surplus. Two, Presidents can't control spending unless they threaten to not sign a budget and shut down the government. Congress are the people with the US checkbook. Three, from factcheck.org, here was the official debt by Bush and Obama:

And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion).

Dueling Debt Deceptions

So, UNLIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ, Obama takes responsibility for Dubya's final F/Y budget that started Oct 1, 2008 and the CBO projected a $1.2+ trillion deficit, 13 days BEFORE Obama??? lol

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


Obama's FIRST F/Y budget begins

US Begins Fiscal Year $11776112848656.17 in Debt



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Okay, so who was running Congress before Obama invaded the White House?

As my FactCheck article points out, their estimations were from the Debt To The Penny website. But if you still refuse to believe documented evidence, don't blame his debt on Bush, blame it on the Democrat led Congress if anything.

So Prez policy DOESN'T matter? Dubya/GOP policy like UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED wars, UNFUNDED Medicare expansion doesn't matter huh?




AS YOUR FACTCHECK POINTS OUT, IT IS FROM THE DAY HE TOOK OFFICE, IS THAT HOW IT WORKS???? Lol


HINT POLICY MATTERS, Dubya's failed policies INCLUDING his cheering on the Banksters bubble which DIRECTLY lead to the Dubya recession, is on Obama's shoulders? lol

 

[Kondor3]

It's actually a couple of reasons.

First, the GOP base has been lied to for the last 40 years. Everything from the deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts would create jobs, which they didn't create to you don't need health care. Remember the last election? Ebola, refugee children and Isis will be in your back yard? We know the truth about Benghazi. The GOP base sent their kids off to Iraq for no apparent reason. Education is for snobs, Obama is from Kenya and so on.

Then he is fear mongering worse that the GOP leadership. He would create a wall. He would strip certain Americans of their citizenship. He would protect us from scary outside countries.

So now, they are believing the guy who will turn out to be the biggest liar of all.

 

[browsing deer]

It's actually a couple of reasons.

First, the GOP base has been lied to for the last 40 years. Everything from the deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts would create jobs, which they didn't create to you don't need health care. Remember the last election? Ebola, refugee children and Isis will be in your back yard? We know the truth about Benghazi. The GOP base sent their kids off to Iraq for no apparent reason. Education is for snobs, Obama is from Kenya and so on.

Then he is fear mongering worse that the GOP leadership. He would create a wall. He would strip certain Americans of their citizenship. He would protect us from scary outside countries.

So now, they are believing the guy who will turn out to be the biggest liar of all.

I don't. And I am as republican base as you can get!

 

[Dad2three]

It's actually a couple of reasons.

First, the GOP base has been lied to for the last 40 years. Everything from the deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts would create jobs, which they didn't create to you don't need health care. Remember the last election? Ebola, refugee children and Isis will be in your back yard? We know the truth about Benghazi. The GOP base sent their kids off to Iraq for no apparent reason. Education is for snobs, Obama is from Kenya and so on.

Then he is fear mongering worse that the GOP leadership. He would create a wall. He would strip certain Americans of their citizenship. He would protect us from scary outside countries.

So now, they are believing the guy who will turn out to be the biggest liar of all.

October 17, 2008

The Economic Blue Screen of Death

"work done by James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy."

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death


December 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush


The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

 

[Dad2three]

It's actually a couple of reasons.

First, the GOP base has been lied to for the last 40 years. Everything from the deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts would create jobs, which they didn't create to you don't need health care. Remember the last election? Ebola, refugee children and Isis will be in your back yard? We know the truth about Benghazi. The GOP base sent their kids off to Iraq for no apparent reason. Education is for snobs, Obama is from Kenya and so on.

Then he is fear mongering worse that the GOP leadership. He would create a wall. He would strip certain Americans of their citizenship. He would protect us from scary outside countries.

So now, they are believing the guy who will turn out to be the biggest liar of all.

I don't. And I am as republican base as you can get!

All statements involving Donald Trump

That's not the case


Donald Trump
Under the Iran deal: "If Israel attacks Iran … we’re supposed to be on Iran’s side."

— PolitiFact Virginia





Number is vastly inflated


Donald Trump
"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed."

— PolitiFact National


In the middle of the pack, if not lower


Donald Trump
"We’re the most highly taxed nation in the world."

— PolitiFact National


More outsourcing to China


Donald Trump
"Our companies are moving into Mexico more than almost any other place right now."

— PolitiFact National


More like a handful


Donald Trump
"Many of the great scholars say that anchor babies are not covered" by the 14th Amendment.

— PolitiFact National



Some missing context, but correct figure


Donald Trump
"The annual cost of free tax credits alone paid to illegal immigrants quadrupled to $4.2 billion in 2011."

— PolitiFact National


Cherry-picks a high estimate


Donald Trump
Says "if the (Iran nuclear) deal gets rejected, they still get" $150 billion.

— PolitiFact National


Lots of people thought he won, but even more thought he lost


Donald Trump
"Every poll said I won the debate."

— PolitiFact National


Kelly's claims check out


Donald Trump
"Some of the things that (Megyn Kelly) said, I didn’t say."

— PolitiFact National




It's been a hot topic for a long time


Donald Trump
Illegal immigration "wasn’t a subject that was on anybody’s mind until I brought it up at my announcement."

— PolitiFact National




Trump's doubles down on a claim that's wrong


Donald Trump
"The Mexican government ... they send the bad ones over."

— PolitiFact National


Key statistics have been much worse historically


Donald Trump
Under President Barack Obama, income levels and unemployment numbers "are worse now than just about ever" for African-Americans.

— PolitiFact National

Donald Trump
The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is "30 million, it could be 34 million."

— PolitiFact Florida

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We'll be 20 trill in debt before bozo leaves office.
Thats all on your messiah.

Right, MORE right wing mythology, US debt on Oc1 2009, the start of the first F/Y budget (like ALL Prez) was nearly $12 trillion, and policies INHERITED account for the VAST majority of debt.



Whereas Ronnie Raygun GUTTED tax revenues as he blew up spending AND TRIPLED EVERY OTHER PREZ DEBT AND DUBYA JUST DOUBLED IT WITH HIS POLICIES (AFTER Clinton left 4 straight surpluses!)....

One, there was no surplus, only a projected surplus. Two, Presidents can't control spending unless they threaten to not sign a budget and shut down the government. Congress are the people with the US checkbook. Three, from factcheck.org, here was the official debt by Bush and Obama:

And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion).

Dueling Debt Deceptions

So, UNLIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ, Obama takes responsibility for Dubya's final F/Y budget that started Oct 1, 2008 and the CBO projected a $1.2+ trillion deficit, 13 days BEFORE Obama??? lol

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


Obama's FIRST F/Y budget begins

US Begins Fiscal Year $11776112848656.17 in Debt



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Okay, so who was running Congress before Obama invaded the White House?

As my FactCheck article points out, their estimations were from the Debt To The Penny website. But if you still refuse to believe documented evidence, don't blame his debt on Bush, blame it on the Democrat led Congress if anything.

So Prez policy DOESN'T matter? Dubya/GOP policy like UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED wars, UNFUNDED Medicare expansion doesn't matter huh?




AS YOUR FACTCHECK POINTS OUT, IT IS FROM THE DAY HE TOOK OFFICE, IS THAT HOW IT WORKS???? Lol


HINT POLICY MATTERS, Dubya's failed policies INCLUDING his cheering on the Banksters bubble which DIRECTLY lead to the Dubya recession, is on Obama's shoulders? lol

As been pointed out, there were many players in the housing collapse. It didn't all take place under Bush, it was in the making for years.

FactCheck is an organization that typically leans left. When possible, they give the Democrats as much slack as they can. But one thing FactCheck doesn't do is make things up. They investigate claims, point to their sources, and come to honest conclusions even if it kills them.

 

[Dad2three]

Right, MORE right wing mythology, US debt on Oc1 2009, the start of the first F/Y budget (like ALL Prez) was nearly $12 trillion, and policies INHERITED account for the VAST majority of debt.



Whereas Ronnie Raygun GUTTED tax revenues as he blew up spending AND TRIPLED EVERY OTHER PREZ DEBT AND DUBYA JUST DOUBLED IT WITH HIS POLICIES (AFTER Clinton left 4 straight surpluses!)....

One, there was no surplus, only a projected surplus. Two, Presidents can't control spending unless they threaten to not sign a budget and shut down the government. Congress are the people with the US checkbook. Three, from factcheck.org, here was the official debt by Bush and Obama:

And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion).

Dueling Debt Deceptions

So, UNLIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ, Obama takes responsibility for Dubya's final F/Y budget that started Oct 1, 2008 and the CBO projected a $1.2+ trillion deficit, 13 days BEFORE Obama??? lol

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


Obama's FIRST F/Y budget begins

US Begins Fiscal Year $11776112848656.17 in Debt



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Okay, so who was running Congress before Obama invaded the White House?

As my FactCheck article points out, their estimations were from the Debt To The Penny website. But if you still refuse to believe documented evidence, don't blame his debt on Bush, blame it on the Democrat led Congress if anything.

So Prez policy DOESN'T matter? Dubya/GOP policy like UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED wars, UNFUNDED Medicare expansion doesn't matter huh?




AS YOUR FACTCHECK POINTS OUT, IT IS FROM THE DAY HE TOOK OFFICE, IS THAT HOW IT WORKS???? Lol


HINT POLICY MATTERS, Dubya's failed policies INCLUDING his cheering on the Banksters bubble which DIRECTLY lead to the Dubya recession, is on Obama's shoulders? lol

As been pointed out, there were many players in the housing collapse. It didn't all take place under Bush, it was in the making for years.

FactCheck is an organization that typically leans left. When possible, they give the Democrats as much slack as they can. But one thing FactCheck doesn't do is make things up. They investigate claims, point to their sources, and come to honest conclusions even if it kills them.

SO NO, YOU CAN'T USE LOGIC AND REASON. Did Obama take responsibility for the US budget Jan 20th 2009? UNLIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

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


Lets see, Dubya hoses the GSE's with unrealistic goals and mandates (that Dems warned about in my thread), he cheered on the Banksters, FOUGHT ALL FIFTY STATES (2003) WHO WANTED TO REGULATE THE PREDATORY BANKSTERS, HE GUTTED THE FBI WHITE COLLAR CRIME DIVISION BY 2/3RDS AFTER BEING WARNED OF AN "EPIDEMIC OF MORTGAGE FRAUD THAT COULD RIVAL THE S&L CRISIS"


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004-2008)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR 2004-2007
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

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

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's actually a couple of reasons.

First, the GOP base has been lied to for the last 40 years. Everything from the deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts would create jobs, which they didn't create to you don't need health care. Remember the last election? Ebola, refugee children and Isis will be in your back yard? We know the truth about Benghazi. The GOP base sent their kids off to Iraq for no apparent reason. Education is for snobs, Obama is from Kenya and so on.

Then he is fear mongering worse that the GOP leadership. He would create a wall. He would strip certain Americans of their citizenship. He would protect us from scary outside countries.

So now, they are believing the guy who will turn out to be the biggest liar of all.

October 17, 2008

The Economic Blue Screen of Death

"work done by James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy."

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death


December 2007

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush


The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

Stop posting the same old bullshit over and over....because anyone with a brain knows it's bullshit.
Seriously dude...you're full of shit.