Worst President in U.S. History

[Dad2three]

[



True, but Obama DIDN'T blow up spending, and as the right wing moron earlier wants to posit, Gov't doesn't just shut it's doors because there wasn't a budget under Dubya. He gets credit (or blame) on his watch (and the last F/Y that started under him) like EVERY other past Prez.

And in honesty, MOST of the past6 years of debt can be traced back to Dubya's policies that crashed the US economy, or the 2 UNFUNDED wars, UNFUNDED Medicare expansion or 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts. (To you right wingers, NO the POLICY change done under ONE Prez DOESN'T end the day he leaves, no one has the balls to put US back to the tax levels the US had thanks to Clinton/Dems 1993 budget bill, DESPITE the 4 straight surpluses before GOP ideology took over!!!)

One of the things that Moon Bats always conveniently forget to mention is the last two years of Bush's administration where we had the most debt, worse economic record and most government spending the Democrats were completely in charge of Congress and that shithead Obama voted for the budgets.

If Bush's budgets were so bad why did the Democrats and that shithead Obama pass them?

In other words thank the Democrats for the screwing up the economy and putting this country so much in debt.

The Democrats never take responsibility for the damage they do to this country. They always try to blame their failures on somebody else.

Bush's crime was going along with the filthy ass Democrats. The economy was doing OK until the filthy ass Democrats took over in after the disastrous 2006 mid term election.

It is always a dumb thing to elect Democrats. Bad things happen.

Bush's documented policies and statements in time frame 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
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional 440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standard

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.”

YEAH, THE DEMS *SHAKING HEAD*

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

 

[Dad2three]

That graphic needs some correction ... first of all, Reagan did not inherit a recession. Though interest rates and inflation were ridiculously high, GDP was +7.6% in the 4th quarter of 1980 and +8.5% in the 1st quarter of 1981. There was a recession earlier in 1980 but it ended in July. The next recession didn't start until July of 1981. Also, we are past "half way though their 5th year." At this point in Reagan's term, the unemployment rate was 6.6%. Today it's 5.5%. As far as the deficit, it's unrealistic to say Obama cut it in half since that is starting from FY2010, but Obama signed an Omnibus budget bill and a continuing resolution bill in FY2009 because Bush never signed a budget bill for FY2009. He too signed a continuing resolution to carry the government through the first half of FY2009. But the second half of FY2009 is attributable to Obama.

Agree with all BUT:

"But the second half of FY2009 is attributable to Obama."

Nonsense, WHOEVER was Prez would be inheriting the Bush economy

January 08, 2009
CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009

12 days pre Obama

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.


How Much Did Obama Add?

• $114 billion in stimulus spending. Obama signed the stimulus bill Feb. 17. While headlines proclaimed a $787 billion price tag, about 27 percent of the total was actually for tax cuts, not spending. And most of the spending didn’t take place until after fiscal 2009. CBO initially put the total spent in fiscal 2009 at $107.8 billion, but the following year it revised the figure upward to $114 billion, in a report issued in August 2010 (page 13).

Obama s Spending Inferno or Not

Yes, Obama has actually cut the deficit by 2/3rds from Dubya's final F/Y budget (the one like EVERY other US Prez, he gets EVEN if he chose not to sign bills BECAUSE he wanted to later say it wasn't his!)

You can blame Bush for the decrease in revenue, which was directly attributable to the Great Recession he handed Obama, but you can't blame him for all of the increase in spending in FY2009. Again, Obama signed the budgets for the second half of FY2009. And the total deficit for FY2009 was $1,9t.

You absolutely CANNOT blame Bush for the FY 09 spending levels.

The final appropriations for FY 09 were not passed until after Obama took office. The government operated on continuing resolutions till that point.

What you may not understand about how appropriations work, is that they supercede any CRs. And government spending over the course of the year is not a steady line. Grants and contracts are not awarded on a steady basis, like salaries. And during CRs, agencies often postpone filling positions, thus lowering their salary costs.

I see this all the time -- it was really Bush in 09. But you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The spending for that fiscal year is on the watch of the President who signs the final appropriations for that year.

In the case of FY 09, it was Barack Obama.

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Yeah, BECAUSE Gov't would've shut down, right? lol

Honesty. Try it!

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Agree with all BUT:

"But the second half of FY2009 is attributable to Obama."

Nonsense, WHOEVER was Prez would be inheriting the Bush economy

January 08, 2009
CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009

12 days pre Obama

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.


How Much Did Obama Add?

• $114 billion in stimulus spending. Obama signed the stimulus bill Feb. 17. While headlines proclaimed a $787 billion price tag, about 27 percent of the total was actually for tax cuts, not spending. And most of the spending didn’t take place until after fiscal 2009. CBO initially put the total spent in fiscal 2009 at $107.8 billion, but the following year it revised the figure upward to $114 billion, in a report issued in August 2010 (page 13).

Obama s Spending Inferno or Not

Yes, Obama has actually cut the deficit by 2/3rds from Dubya's final F/Y budget (the one like EVERY other US Prez, he gets EVEN if he chose not to sign bills BECAUSE he wanted to later say it wasn't his!)

You can blame Bush for the decrease in revenue, which was directly attributable to the Great Recession he handed Obama, but you can't blame him for all of the increase in spending in FY2009. Again, Obama signed the budgets for the second half of FY2009. And the total deficit for FY2009 was $1,9t.

You absolutely CANNOT blame Bush for the FY 09 spending levels.

The final appropriations for FY 09 were not passed until after Obama took office. The government operated on continuing resolutions till that point.

What you may not understand about how appropriations work, is that they supercede any CRs. And government spending over the course of the year is not a steady line. Grants and contracts are not awarded on a steady basis, like salaries. And during CRs, agencies often postpone filling positions, thus lowering their salary costs.

I see this all the time -- it was really Bush in 09. But you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The spending for that fiscal year is on the watch of the President who signs the final appropriations for that year.

In the case of FY 09, it was Barack Obama.

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Agree with all BUT:

"But the second half of FY2009 is attributable to Obama."

Nonsense, WHOEVER was Prez would be inheriting the Bush economy

January 08, 2009
CBO Projects $1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009

12 days pre Obama

CBO Projects 1.2 Trillion Deficit for 2009 - Memphis Daily News

Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.


How Much Did Obama Add?

• $114 billion in stimulus spending. Obama signed the stimulus bill Feb. 17. While headlines proclaimed a $787 billion price tag, about 27 percent of the total was actually for tax cuts, not spending. And most of the spending didn’t take place until after fiscal 2009. CBO initially put the total spent in fiscal 2009 at $107.8 billion, but the following year it revised the figure upward to $114 billion, in a report issued in August 2010 (page 13).

Obama s Spending Inferno or Not

Yes, Obama has actually cut the deficit by 2/3rds from Dubya's final F/Y budget (the one like EVERY other US Prez, he gets EVEN if he chose not to sign bills BECAUSE he wanted to later say it wasn't his!)

You can blame Bush for the decrease in revenue, which was directly attributable to the Great Recession he handed Obama, but you can't blame him for all of the increase in spending in FY2009. Again, Obama signed the budgets for the second half of FY2009. And the total deficit for FY2009 was $1,9t.

You absolutely CANNOT blame Bush for the FY 09 spending levels.

The final appropriations for FY 09 were not passed until after Obama took office. The government operated on continuing resolutions till that point.

What you may not understand about how appropriations work, is that they supercede any CRs. And government spending over the course of the year is not a steady line. Grants and contracts are not awarded on a steady basis, like salaries. And during CRs, agencies often postpone filling positions, thus lowering their salary costs.

I see this all the time -- it was really Bush in 09. But you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The spending for that fiscal year is on the watch of the President who signs the final appropriations for that year.

In the case of FY 09, it was Barack Obama.

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Yeah, BECAUSE Gov't would've shut down, right? lol

Honesty. Try it!

NO. Because the full year approp could have cut the funds available for the full year.

Grants and contracts are not awarded on a pro-rata basis. Such awards are usually postponed, or highly curtailed, during CR periods.

You are no government financial manager.

 

[Faun]

You can blame Bush for the decrease in revenue, which was directly attributable to the Great Recession he handed Obama, but you can't blame him for all of the increase in spending in FY2009. Again, Obama signed the budgets for the second half of FY2009. And the total deficit for FY2009 was $1,9t.

You absolutely CANNOT blame Bush for the FY 09 spending levels.

The final appropriations for FY 09 were not passed until after Obama took office. The government operated on continuing resolutions till that point.

What you may not understand about how appropriations work, is that they supercede any CRs. And government spending over the course of the year is not a steady line. Grants and contracts are not awarded on a steady basis, like salaries. And during CRs, agencies often postpone filling positions, thus lowering their salary costs.

I see this all the time -- it was really Bush in 09. But you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The spending for that fiscal year is on the watch of the President who signs the final appropriations for that year.

In the case of FY 09, it was Barack Obama.

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

 

[Dad2three]

You can blame Bush for the decrease in revenue, which was directly attributable to the Great Recession he handed Obama, but you can't blame him for all of the increase in spending in FY2009. Again, Obama signed the budgets for the second half of FY2009. And the total deficit for FY2009 was $1,9t.

You absolutely CANNOT blame Bush for the FY 09 spending levels.

The final appropriations for FY 09 were not passed until after Obama took office. The government operated on continuing resolutions till that point.

What you may not understand about how appropriations work, is that they supercede any CRs. And government spending over the course of the year is not a steady line. Grants and contracts are not awarded on a steady basis, like salaries. And during CRs, agencies often postpone filling positions, thus lowering their salary costs.

I see this all the time -- it was really Bush in 09. But you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The spending for that fiscal year is on the watch of the President who signs the final appropriations for that year.

In the case of FY 09, it was Barack Obama.

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

Sure Bubba, the last Prez to cut spending like that was FDR when he listened to the conservative deficit scolds in 1937 and put US back into a GOP great depression with his 10% cut1

LIKE I SAID, TRY TO BE HONEST!

 

[Dad2three]

You can blame Bush for the decrease in revenue, which was directly attributable to the Great Recession he handed Obama, but you can't blame him for all of the increase in spending in FY2009. Again, Obama signed the budgets for the second half of FY2009. And the total deficit for FY2009 was $1,9t.

You absolutely CANNOT blame Bush for the FY 09 spending levels.

The final appropriations for FY 09 were not passed until after Obama took office. The government operated on continuing resolutions till that point.

What you may not understand about how appropriations work, is that they supercede any CRs. And government spending over the course of the year is not a steady line. Grants and contracts are not awarded on a steady basis, like salaries. And during CRs, agencies often postpone filling positions, thus lowering their salary costs.

I see this all the time -- it was really Bush in 09. But you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The spending for that fiscal year is on the watch of the President who signs the final appropriations for that year.

In the case of FY 09, it was Barack Obama.

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Yeah, BECAUSE Gov't would've shut down, right? lol

Honesty. Try it!

NO. Because the full year approp could have cut the funds available for the full year.

Grants and contracts are not awarded on a pro-rata basis. Such awards are usually postponed, or highly curtailed, during CR periods.

You are no government financial manager.

And YOU aren't honest. Shocking.

I know, IF only the US had more austerity like Europe did, following conservative economic theory, we would be doing better right? lol

 

[OKTexas]

You absolutely CANNOT blame Bush for the FY 09 spending levels.

The final appropriations for FY 09 were not passed until after Obama took office. The government operated on continuing resolutions till that point.

What you may not understand about how appropriations work, is that they supercede any CRs. And government spending over the course of the year is not a steady line. Grants and contracts are not awarded on a steady basis, like salaries. And during CRs, agencies often postpone filling positions, thus lowering their salary costs.

I see this all the time -- it was really Bush in 09. But you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The spending for that fiscal year is on the watch of the President who signs the final appropriations for that year.

In the case of FY 09, it was Barack Obama.

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Yeah, BECAUSE Gov't would've shut down, right? lol

Honesty. Try it!

NO. Because the full year approp could have cut the funds available for the full year.

Grants and contracts are not awarded on a pro-rata basis. Such awards are usually postponed, or highly curtailed, during CR periods.

You are no government financial manager.

And YOU aren't honest. Shocking.

I know, IF only the US had more austerity like Europe did, following conservative economic theory, we would be doing better right? lol

So tell me, how is delaying the inevitable and putting the responsibility to pay off our lavish spending on future generations so noble? The piper will come and someone will have to pay the bill.

 

[Dad2three]

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Yeah, BECAUSE Gov't would've shut down, right? lol

Honesty. Try it!

NO. Because the full year approp could have cut the funds available for the full year.

Grants and contracts are not awarded on a pro-rata basis. Such awards are usually postponed, or highly curtailed, during CR periods.

You are no government financial manager.

And YOU aren't honest. Shocking.

I know, IF only the US had more austerity like Europe did, following conservative economic theory, we would be doing better right? lol

So tell me, how is delaying the inevitable and putting the responsibility to pay off our lavish spending on future generations so noble? The piper will come and someone will have to pay the bill.

The US doesn't have a spending problem (except on that MIC Ike warned about) but a revenue problem as both Ronnie AND Dubya gutted them. Their policies can be traced back to 90%+ of current debt. Weird right?


"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

 

[OKTexas]

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Yeah, BECAUSE Gov't would've shut down, right? lol

Honesty. Try it!

NO. Because the full year approp could have cut the funds available for the full year.

Grants and contracts are not awarded on a pro-rata basis. Such awards are usually postponed, or highly curtailed, during CR periods.

You are no government financial manager.

And YOU aren't honest. Shocking.

I know, IF only the US had more austerity like Europe did, following conservative economic theory, we would be doing better right? lol

So tell me, how is delaying the inevitable and putting the responsibility to pay off our lavish spending on future generations so noble? The piper will come and someone will have to pay the bill.

The US doesn't have a spending problem (except on that MIC Ike warned about) but a revenue problem as both Ronnie AND Dubya gutted them. Their policies can be traced back to 90%+ of current debt. Weird right?


"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

Great deflection there, how about you answer the question I asked. 18+ trillion in debt, who's going to be stuck with the tab?

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah, BECAUSE Gov't would've shut down, right? lol

Honesty. Try it!

NO. Because the full year approp could have cut the funds available for the full year.

Grants and contracts are not awarded on a pro-rata basis. Such awards are usually postponed, or highly curtailed, during CR periods.

You are no government financial manager.

And YOU aren't honest. Shocking.

I know, IF only the US had more austerity like Europe did, following conservative economic theory, we would be doing better right? lol

So tell me, how is delaying the inevitable and putting the responsibility to pay off our lavish spending on future generations so noble? The piper will come and someone will have to pay the bill.

The US doesn't have a spending problem (except on that MIC Ike warned about) but a revenue problem as both Ronnie AND Dubya gutted them. Their policies can be traced back to 90%+ of current debt. Weird right?


"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

Great deflection there, how about you answer the question I asked. 18+ trillion in debt, who's going to be stuck with the tab?

You mean you don't understand WHO and how the debt was created? I'll boil it down for you Bubba

OVER THE PAST 35 YEARS CONSERVATIVES/GOP HAVE REFUSED TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, INSTEAD PUTTING EVERYTHING ON THE CREDIT CARD, THE ATTEMPTS BY THE LIBERALS/DEMS TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, WERE FOUGHT BY THE GOP/CONSERVATIVES. Weird you don't know that? But no one who is serious is worried about the current debt, why do you think money floods into the treasury to buy US bonds?


IF the GOP worked WITH Obama instead of fighting him, the US economy could grow it's way clear!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

ROFLMNAO!

I tell ya, they really do get funnier as the desperation spikes.

We're looking at full blown hysteria in the above cited drivel.

FUUUuuuNNY!

 

[OKTexas]

NO. Because the full year approp could have cut the funds available for the full year.

Grants and contracts are not awarded on a pro-rata basis. Such awards are usually postponed, or highly curtailed, during CR periods.

You are no government financial manager.

And YOU aren't honest. Shocking.

I know, IF only the US had more austerity like Europe did, following conservative economic theory, we would be doing better right? lol

So tell me, how is delaying the inevitable and putting the responsibility to pay off our lavish spending on future generations so noble? The piper will come and someone will have to pay the bill.

The US doesn't have a spending problem (except on that MIC Ike warned about) but a revenue problem as both Ronnie AND Dubya gutted them. Their policies can be traced back to 90%+ of current debt. Weird right?


"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

Great deflection there, how about you answer the question I asked. 18+ trillion in debt, who's going to be stuck with the tab?

You mean you don't understand WHO and how the debt was created? I'll boil it down for you Bubba

OVER THE PAST 35 YEARS CONSERVATIVES/GOP HAVE REFUSED TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, INSTEAD PUTTING EVERYTHING ON THE CREDIT CARD, THE ATTEMPTS BY THE LIBERALS/DEMS TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, WERE FOUGHT BY THE GOP/CONSERVATIVES. Weird you don't know that? But no one who is serious is worried about the current debt, why do you think money floods into the treasury to buy US bonds?


IF the GOP worked WITH Obama instead of fighting him, the US economy could grow it's way clear!

Right, because liberals have been so honest in debt negotiations, they say if you just give us more of your money we'll hold the line on spending. Never happened, never will. Every penny spent by the feds should be reflected in the budget, no off books expenditures and no base line budgeting. Let the citizens see exactly what shape we're in. Both parties are complicit and it needs to stop.

 

[Andylusion]

You absolutely CANNOT blame Bush for the FY 09 spending levels.

The final appropriations for FY 09 were not passed until after Obama took office. The government operated on continuing resolutions till that point.

What you may not understand about how appropriations work, is that they supercede any CRs. And government spending over the course of the year is not a steady line. Grants and contracts are not awarded on a steady basis, like salaries. And during CRs, agencies often postpone filling positions, thus lowering their salary costs.

I see this all the time -- it was really Bush in 09. But you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. The spending for that fiscal year is on the watch of the President who signs the final appropriations for that year.

In the case of FY 09, it was Barack Obama.

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

You get it.

That's rare here.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

You get it.

 

[Dad2three]

And YOU aren't honest. Shocking.

I know, IF only the US had more austerity like Europe did, following conservative economic theory, we would be doing better right? lol

So tell me, how is delaying the inevitable and putting the responsibility to pay off our lavish spending on future generations so noble? The piper will come and someone will have to pay the bill.

The US doesn't have a spending problem (except on that MIC Ike warned about) but a revenue problem as both Ronnie AND Dubya gutted them. Their policies can be traced back to 90%+ of current debt. Weird right?


"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

Great deflection there, how about you answer the question I asked. 18+ trillion in debt, who's going to be stuck with the tab?

You mean you don't understand WHO and how the debt was created? I'll boil it down for you Bubba

OVER THE PAST 35 YEARS CONSERVATIVES/GOP HAVE REFUSED TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, INSTEAD PUTTING EVERYTHING ON THE CREDIT CARD, THE ATTEMPTS BY THE LIBERALS/DEMS TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, WERE FOUGHT BY THE GOP/CONSERVATIVES. Weird you don't know that? But no one who is serious is worried about the current debt, why do you think money floods into the treasury to buy US bonds?


IF the GOP worked WITH Obama instead of fighting him, the US economy could grow it's way clear!

Right, because liberals have been so honest in debt negotiations, they say if you just give us more of your money we'll hold the line on spending. Never happened, never will. Every penny spent by the feds should be reflected in the budget, no off books expenditures and no base line budgeting. Let the citizens see exactly what shape we're in. Both parties are complicit and it needs to stop.

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Remember HOW Clinton got 4 surpluses, 3 AFTER vetoing the GOP $792= billion tax cut?

PLEASE don't go to the canard about Ronnie Reagan, I don't want to have to embarrass you!

 

[Andylusion]

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

You get it.

That's rare here.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

You get it.

yeah, it was quite obvious, which means of course that only right-leaning people get it, and leftists are clueless. The more obvious something it, the more they claim it isn't so.

 

[Dad2three]

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

LIE, LIE, LIE. Shocking, no critical thinking or honesty required to be a con today


REMEMBER THE US ECONOMY WAS TANKING 9%+ JAN 2009? ECONOMY SHEDDING 70,000+ JOBS A MONTH? Let me guess, THEN we should've went back to Clinton's policies? lol

Hint Jan 8, 2009 CBO said the next Prez inherited Dubya's $1.2+ trillion deficit!!

What it is with today's GOP is that the facts - whether scientific, historical, or just common sense - interfere with their ideological utopia


If Obama implements a growth policy on Tuesday and the nation is not back in the black on Thursday, this is a "failed policy."

If Bush in eight years brings us from surplus to crushing deficit, rampant unemployment, an economic black hole

a) his policies just "needed more time to work," and b) it was all Barney Franks' fault.

If Obama in eight years, with no economic engine left to work with and a 100% obstructionist congress opposing him at every turn recovers the stock market, reverses the unemployment trend and has a NET of 8+ million private sector jobs, restores growth, cuts Dubya's last F/Y deficit by 2/3rds and puts the nation back on sound economic footing, but after six years we're not as well off as at the end of the Clinton presidency, these are "failed policies."

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[Dad2three]

Bush signed a continuing resolution in September, 2008 for the first half of FY2009. He owns all spending for that period with the exception of spending bills Obama signed. On top of that, he also passed TARP during that same period. Bush owns that as well.

The full year appropriation supercedes the CR. The full year approp could have cut the funds available.

Money was spent before Obama signed it. Bush owns it.

HOWEVER, the amount Obama signed could have been much less than the previous year. It was all up to him.

CRs provide a very limited allowance, and because of their restrictions, agencies are very frugal during CR times.

Also, by law, agencies may not undertake new policies or programs during a CR unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Obama owns the whole year.

You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.

Your sycophancy is too funny.

So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.

So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.

We all agree.

Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.

If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.

Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.

Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.

Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days Fact Left

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

Smoke and mirrors.....Maybe less people are applying for unemployment benefits. Does that mean more aren't unemployed and getting no income at all? Does that mean more aren't underemployed? Does that mean people have greatly increased their assets? Does that somehow erase the fact that Obama has stolen trillions from the American people? Does that erase the chaos that Obama is facilitating in the Middle East? Does that erase Obama's racist politics? Does that erase Obama's corruption at all levels of government?

Honestly, there are some good things going on in America while Obama happens to be at the helm. But let's not pretend that this country doesn't have the cancer still.