Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Meanwhile, that's exactly what Bush did. Did you vote for him anyway?Bush said he was giving us a tax rebate upon entering office because there was a surplus. Are you saying he was lying? Should he not have given us that rebate?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!
So your saying the national debt declined during those 4 fantasy surpluses? Let's do a honesty and reality check here.
Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.
I agree with the prior poster, and your assessment.
Was there a surplus? Well the most obvious way to find out if there was a surplus, is to look at the total national debt, and if the amount goes up, then clearly there was not.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
The US Treasury, is the final authority on how much debt is outstanding, obviously because they are the ones paying back, and issuing the debt to being with.
From the table on that link, you can clearly see the debt increased year over year. That would be impossible if there was a surplus.
The problem is, the Admininstration used cooked numbers and fuzzy math to make it look like there was a surplus.
That got politicians scrambling over each other on how to spend it, or cut taxes.
I have never supported tax rebates. I do however support tax cuts, and I support cutting government spending.
Bush did cut taxes, which I support. He also said he supported allowing people to invest their social security money in their own investments.
It was primarily these two issues that prompted my vote for Bush.
Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
List the problems caused by President Obama:
Meanwhile, that's exactly what Bush did. Did you vote for him anyway?Bush said he was giving us a tax rebate upon entering office because there was a surplus. Are you saying he was lying? Should he not have given us that rebate?So your saying the national debt declined during those 4 fantasy surpluses? Let's do a honesty and reality check here.
Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.
I agree with the prior poster, and your assessment.
Was there a surplus? Well the most obvious way to find out if there was a surplus, is to look at the total national debt, and if the amount goes up, then clearly there was not.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
The US Treasury, is the final authority on how much debt is outstanding, obviously because they are the ones paying back, and issuing the debt to being with.
From the table on that link, you can clearly see the debt increased year over year. That would be impossible if there was a surplus.
The problem is, the Admininstration used cooked numbers and fuzzy math to make it look like there was a surplus.
That got politicians scrambling over each other on how to spend it, or cut taxes.
I have never supported tax rebates. I do however support tax cuts, and I support cutting government spending.
Bush did cut taxes, which I support. He also said he supported allowing people to invest their social security money in their own investments.
It was primarily these two issues that prompted my vote for Bush.
LOL, AND YOU SUPPOSEDLY WORKED ON THE BUDGET? LOL
Grow a brain Bubba, YEARLY BUDGETS are NOT tied to whether the debt go up or down (however Clinton paid off nearly $400 billion PUBLIC debt)
A YEARLY BUDGET SURPLUS OR DEFICIT IS JUST MEASURING MONIES COMING IN VERSUS GOING OUT IN THE F/Y. NOTHING MORE!!! Get honest ONCE!
The Low Wage, Max Barrow, Home Ownership Society is what destroyed the economy!When you see Liberals deny that the CRA caused the credit failure they are doing the ole "mybabydidntdonutin" bullshit.
They never take responsibility for the damage they do to this country. Never.
Wages should to be set by the free market not the filthy ass government.
Lending institutions in the US did fine until the filthy ass government decided to put pressure on the lending institutions to give credit (for social justice reasons) to people that neither had the means or inclination to ever pay back the money.
Credit for homes ownership should be given to the people that have the means and responsibility to pay back the money, not given to minorities because they are potential Democrat voters.
The filthy ass government needs to stay out of the business of manipulating the economy for the benefit of the party in power.
Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
List the problems caused by President Obama:
1. Obamacare
2. A tediously slow recovery
3. The Iran deal
4. Losing Iraq
5. The rise of ISIS
6. Pissing off Israel
7. The specter of immigration amnesty/overrun border
8. IRS, Fast and Furious, Secret Service, GSA, EPA, SEC management scandals
9. Politicization of the career civil service
10. DOJ run amuck
11. Partisan divisiveness worsened
12. Race relations worsened
13. Congressional relations worsened
14. Fake War on Women
15. Actual War on Christians
I could go on.
Flash, step in, please.
Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
List the problems caused by President Obama:
1. Obamacare
2. A tediously slow recovery
3. The Iran deal
4. Losing Iraq
5. The rise of ISIS
6. Pissing off Israel
7. The specter of immigration amnesty/overrun border
8. IRS, Fast and Furious, Secret Service, GSA, EPA, SEC management scandals
9. Politicization of the career civil service
10. DOJ run amuck
11. Partisan divisiveness worsened
12. Race relations worsened
13. Congressional relations worsened
14. Fake War on Women
15. Actual War on Christians
I could go on.
Flash, step in, please.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
List the problems caused by President Obama:
1. Obamacare
2. A tediously slow recovery
3. The Iran deal
4. Losing Iraq
5. The rise of ISIS
6. Pissing off Israel
7. The specter of immigration amnesty/overrun border
8. IRS, Fast and Furious, Secret Service, GSA, EPA, SEC management scandals
9. Politicization of the career civil service
10. DOJ run amuck
11. Partisan divisiveness worsened
12. Race relations worsened
13. Congressional relations worsened
14. Fake War on Women
15. Actual War on Christians
I could go on.
Flash, step in, please.
More right wing nonsense. Shocking
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
List the problems caused by President Obama:
1. Obamacare
2. A tediously slow recovery
3. The Iran deal
4. Losing Iraq
5. The rise of ISIS
6. Pissing off Israel
7. The specter of immigration amnesty/overrun border
8. IRS, Fast and Furious, Secret Service, GSA, EPA, SEC management scandals
9. Politicization of the career civil service
10. DOJ run amuck
11. Partisan divisiveness worsened
12. Race relations worsened
13. Congressional relations worsened
14. Fake War on Women
15. Actual War on Christians
I could go on.
Flash, step in, please.
Oh, you forgot to post evidence with your allegations. Simply an oversight, I know. So, I grade your post incomplete, failure to provide the necessary and probative evidence will result in a failed grade.
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.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.
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.
Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.
Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.
Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.
If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.
So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.
The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.
You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?
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.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.
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.
Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.
Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.
Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.
If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.
So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.
The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.
You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?
While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist
From the article:
It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.
But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.
Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.
But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.
The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.
Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:
Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.
Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.
I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.
The rightwing denial in this thread would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.
Of course the leftwing denial is worse.
The Democrats passed the CRA when that idiot Carter was President and years later it comes back and bites this country in the ass big time almost collapsing our economy. Who would have ever thunk that using government pressure to give credit (for social justice reasons) to people that neither had the means or the inclination to pay back the money would tank our economy? Answer: not the Liberals. They never think about the consequences of their failed policies.
The CRA was enhanced during the Clinton administration but when Barney Queerboy, Obama, Peloski and Reid took over Congress after the 2006 election it really was able to do its damage.
After that it was just poor management by the Democrats. Bush was an idiot going along with the Democrats in 2007 and 2008. However, when that shithead Obama took over it got worse and we still haven't recovered.
Meanwhile the Democrats have given us a poor recovery, tremendously more debt, much larger destructive government, lowest workforce participation in 40 years, very high U-6 unemployment, highest poverty rate ever, most number of people on welfare, more taxes, worse health care and declining family income , not to mention a really shitty foreign policy. Thanks a lot Obama.
Now these butt pirates Democrats didn't do it all by themselves. The Republicans didn't stop the Democrats so they are partially responsible. When you elect big government shitheads whether they be Republican or Democrats you always get bad government.
RIGHT WING NONSENSE. SHOCKING
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
The Presidents Working Groups 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. "
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
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 (2004)
Lowering Investment bank's 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 (2003)
Giving away 40,000 PER YEAR free down payments (2004)
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
PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT THESE BILLS THE DEMS PASSED JAN 2007-JAN 2009 THAT CRASHED THE US ECONOMY?? LOL
Bush said he was giving us a tax rebate upon entering office because there was a surplus. Are you saying he was lying? Should he not have given us that rebate?So your saying the national debt declined during those 4 fantasy surpluses? Let's do a
honesty and reality check here.
Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.
Got it, an ignorant tool conflating a yearly budget versus debt. Shocking
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Budget Surplus'
When spending exceeds income, the result is a budget deficit, which must be financed by borrowing money and paying interest on the borrowed funds, much like an individual spending more than he can afford and carrying a balance on a credit card. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income. The U.S. government has only had a budget surplus in a few years since 1950. The Clinton administration (1993-2001) famously cured a large budget deficit and created a surplus in the late 1990s.
Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia
More freaking word games, they should have said, A balanced budget occurs when on budget spending equals on budget income, the deficit does not reflect the total debt incurred by the federal government in a given year.
The fact is the federal government has carried a national debt most of it's existence and just servicing that debt will rise to near 1 trillion a year, in fact if there is a hiccup in interest rates it could exceed that. So just keep playing your word games, they won't mitigate the on coming disaster.
MORE nonsense. Shocking. A yearly balanced budget, surplus OR deficit is created through ALL spending in a given year, whether through normal yearly budgets OR off-budge, debt is ONLY a byproduct of it, NOTHING to do with whether income coming in versus go out are balanced or in deficit. Weird you don';t know that? Oh right the conservatives get most of their economic advice from guys who barely made it through high school, Rush, Hannity and Beck!
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.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.
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.
Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.
Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.
Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.
If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.
So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.
The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.
You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?
Again, Obama wasn't even president for almost a third of FY2009. But walk me through this ... a budget is a law ... the House is granted Constitutional authority to initiate all spending bills ... explain how an incoming president can unilaterally "repeal" the existing budget approved and signed into law by the previous president and congress....?
Because the budget, i.e., the annual appropriations, were not yet signed into law. They were not passed by Congress and not signed by the President.
Yes, BECAUSE the US federal Gov't would just stop on a dime right? Fkkking dishonest cons today!
Why is it EVERY other US Prez accepts responsibility for their first budget AFTER they are in office and get their players in place with the next fiscal year budget, but Obama, he had super powers and accepts responsibility for most of Dubya's final and 8th fiscal year budget??? lol
Because he signed the final approps bill for that year AND because his party was in power in Congress and they set it up so he could do that.
MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking
AGAIN, Dubya, like every other US Prez isn't responsible for the 8th and final F/Y budget BECAUSE he chose to evade signing it? lol The F/Y that started 4 months prior to Obama coming into office and that the CBO predicted was $1.2+ trillion in deficit 12 days pre Obama? *shaking head*
Gawdddmn POS conservatives!
Bush did not evade signing it, you fool. Congress did not present him with full year appropriations.
They intentionally waited till Obama took office to pass the full year approps.
You are too stupid and obtuse on this issue to post to.
Meanwhile, that's exactly what Bush did. Did you vote for him anyway?Bush said he was giving us a tax rebate upon entering office because there was a surplus. Are you saying he was lying? Should he not have given us that rebate?
Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.
I agree with the prior poster, and your assessment.
Was there a surplus? Well the most obvious way to find out if there was a surplus, is to look at the total national debt, and if the amount goes up, then clearly there was not.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
The US Treasury, is the final authority on how much debt is outstanding, obviously because they are the ones paying back, and issuing the debt to being with.
From the table on that link, you can clearly see the debt increased year over year. That would be impossible if there was a surplus.
The problem is, the Admininstration used cooked numbers and fuzzy math to make it look like there was a surplus.
That got politicians scrambling over each other on how to spend it, or cut taxes.
I have never supported tax rebates. I do however support tax cuts, and I support cutting government spending.
Bush did cut taxes, which I support. He also said he supported allowing people to invest their social security money in their own investments.
It was primarily these two issues that prompted my vote for Bush.
LOL, AND YOU SUPPOSEDLY WORKED ON THE BUDGET? LOL
Grow a brain Bubba, YEARLY BUDGETS are NOT tied to whether the debt go up or down (however Clinton paid off nearly $400 billion PUBLIC debt)
A YEARLY BUDGET SURPLUS OR DEFICIT IS JUST MEASURING MONIES COMING IN VERSUS GOING OUT IN THE F/Y. NOTHING MORE!!! Get honest ONCE!
This was not a post I made. Address it to the proper poster.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
List the problems caused by President Obama:
1. Obamacare
2. A tediously slow recovery
3. The Iran deal
4. Losing Iraq
5. The rise of ISIS
6. Pissing off Israel
7. The specter of immigration amnesty/overrun border
8. IRS, Fast and Furious, Secret Service, GSA, EPA, SEC management scandals
9. Politicization of the career civil service
10. DOJ run amuck
11. Partisan divisiveness worsened
12. Race relations worsened
13. Congressional relations worsened
14. Fake War on Women
15. Actual War on Christians
I could go on.
Flash, step in, please.
More right wing nonsense. Shocking
If it's nonsense, please refute my post, point by point.
If you can't do that, well, then, your positions are not well thought out.
Because the budget, i.e., the annual appropriations, were not yet signed into law. They were not passed by Congress and not signed by the President.
Yes, BECAUSE the US federal Gov't would just stop on a dime right? Fkkking dishonest cons today!
Why is it EVERY other US Prez accepts responsibility for their first budget AFTER they are in office and get their players in place with the next fiscal year budget, but Obama, he had super powers and accepts responsibility for most of Dubya's final and 8th fiscal year budget??? lol
Because he signed the final approps bill for that year AND because his party was in power in Congress and they set it up so he could do that.
MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking
AGAIN, Dubya, like every other US Prez isn't responsible for the 8th and final F/Y budget BECAUSE he chose to evade signing it? lol The F/Y that started 4 months prior to Obama coming into office and that the CBO predicted was $1.2+ trillion in deficit 12 days pre Obama? *shaking head*
Gawdddmn POS conservatives!
Bush did not evade signing it, you fool. Congress did not present him with full year appropriations.
They intentionally waited till Obama took office to pass the full year approps.
You are too stupid and obtuse on this issue to post to.
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml
On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki
WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??
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.
Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.
Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.
Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.
If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.
So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.
The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.
You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?
While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist
From the article:
It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.
But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.
Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.
But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.
The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.
Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:
Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.
Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.
I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.
Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.
You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.
Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
List the problems caused by President Obama:
1. Obamacare
2. A tediously slow recovery
3. The Iran deal
4. Losing Iraq
5. The rise of ISIS
6. Pissing off Israel
7. The specter of immigration amnesty/overrun border
8. IRS, Fast and Furious, Secret Service, GSA, EPA, SEC management scandals
9. Politicization of the career civil service
10. DOJ run amuck
11. Partisan divisiveness worsened
12. Race relations worsened
13. Congressional relations worsened
14. Fake War on Women
15. Actual War on Christians
I could go on.
Flash, step in, please.
More right wing nonsense. Shocking
If it's nonsense, please refute my post, point by point.
If you can't do that, well, then, your positions are not well thought out.
A list that means about as much as your farts? AND? Grow a brain, want to make a posit, show WHY, how and by whom!!!
