"You didn't get there on your own"

[flacaltenn]

next

Sorry bub, we aren't that stupid. Here is a chart of the deficit. It clearly shows the effect of Obama's spending binge....

Here's your problem, there is no Obama spending binge.

Obama spending binge never happened

Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama, Austerity President


Feb 1 2012

Imagine an alternate reality where the first term of President Barack Obama coincided with one of the greatest periods of government austerity in recent memory. Imagine total government spending under his watch had the steepest annual decline in three decades.

Imagine total government employees fell by the fastest rate in more than 60 years.

Imagine that in his last two years, federal spending and federal employment grew by the slowest annual rate since the 1950s.

Now open your eyes. Welcome to Austerity USA. Total government employment -- that's federal, state, and local -- has indeed fallen by the sharpest annual rate since the 1940s. It's now at 2006 levels and declining.

Hey moron -- I agree with Zander -- we're not that stupid.. Spending rose in 2009 (supposedly the last year of the Bush budget- LOL) because of ADDITIONAL spending like the OBAMA STIMULUS and additional bailouts that had NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSH after Jan. of '09..

Take your spin and rotate on it.. The DEFICITS are ACTUALLY as Zander depicted.. And that's how REAL history will reflect it..

 

[Bfgrn]

Sorry bub, we aren't that stupid. Here is a chart of the deficit. It clearly shows the effect of Obama's spending binge....

Here's your problem, there is no Obama spending binge.

Obama spending binge never happened

Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama, Austerity President


Feb 1 2012

Imagine an alternate reality where the first term of President Barack Obama coincided with one of the greatest periods of government austerity in recent memory. Imagine total government spending under his watch had the steepest annual decline in three decades.

Imagine total government employees fell by the fastest rate in more than 60 years.

Imagine that in his last two years, federal spending and federal employment grew by the slowest annual rate since the 1950s.

Now open your eyes. Welcome to Austerity USA. Total government employment -- that's federal, state, and local -- has indeed fallen by the sharpest annual rate since the 1940s. It's now at 2006 levels and declining.

Hey moron -- I agree with Zander -- we're not that stupid.. Spending rose in 2009 (supposedly the last year of the Bush budget- LOL) because of ADDITIONAL spending like the OBAMA STIMULUS and additional bailouts that had NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSH after Jan. of '09..

Take your spin and rotate on it.. The DEFICITS are ACTUALLY as Zander depicted.. And that's how REAL history will reflect it..

Nothing to do with Bush...REALLY??? 2009 WAS the Bush budget.

United States federal budget

The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember TARP?

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George W. Bush: Auto bailout was mine!

“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” Bush told the 22,000 attendees. “Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy.”

“I said, ‘No depression.’”

In his memoir he said the move was “the only option” to avert immediate bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM and the loss of a million jobs and $150 billion in tax revenues.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I guess you ARE stupid.

 

[flacaltenn]

No -- you just ASSUME I'm stupid.. All of the additions that built up the debt in 2009 were not ON BUDGET.. Not the Reid-Pelosi Stimulus, not the extra tax breaks that steal the SS PREMIUMS, not the Green fantasies that have crashed horribly etc.. Over a Trillion Bucks in additional spending that had NOTHING TO DO with the established fiscal budget.

NO RATIONAL person attributes the total 2009 spending to GW Bush. Which leaves you in your own special short bus -- doesn't it?

 

[Listening]

More tripe from the left.

Obama didn't need to go on a binge.

He lost revenue and needed to cut spending. And he didn't.

End of story.

 

[Listening]

No -- you just ASSUME I'm stupid.. All of the additions that built up the debt in 2009 were not ON BUDGET.. Not the Reid-Pelosi Stimulus, not the extra tax breaks that steal the SS PREMIUMS, not the Green fantasies that have crashed horribly etc.. Over a Trillion Bucks in additional spending that had NOTHING TO DO with the established fiscal budget.

NO RATIONAL person attributes the total 2009 spending to GW Bush. Which leaves you in your own special short bus -- doesn't it?

Yeah,

Bush's budget was not based on the revenue losses that occured. But since they had "permission", they spent the money.

Obama is fiscally responsible !

 

[Amazed]

Obama hasn't passed a budget since being elected dipwad...

 

[The T]

Obama hasn't passed a budget since being elected dipwad...

Both Houses have rejected his budgets 100%.

 

[Bfgrn]

How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obama’s effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, it’s harder than it sounds.

Obama, for instance, is clearly responsible for the stimulus. The health-care law, too.

When Obama entered office, the Bush tax cuts were already in place and two wars were ongoing. Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?

So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obama’s policies.

In two instances, this made Obama’s policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obama’s decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years — at a total cost of $620 billion — to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.

The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obama’s spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obama’s planned deficit reduction.

There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have.

 

[Listening]

How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

5 Trillion.

Next question.

Oh, and let's not forget the way he's set us up to keep adding debt. Our air sucking economy isn't going to turn the flow of red ink around for a long time.

There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have.

ROTFLMA

The left always holds this up.

He wanted the tax increases now and the spending cuts later.

Everybody knows those spending cuts would not have happened. Ever.

 

[The T]

How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

5 Trillion.

Next question.

Oh, and let's not forget the way he's set us up to keep adding debt. Our air sucking economy isn't going to turn the flow of red ink around for a long time.

There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have.

ROTFLMA

The left always holds this up.

He wanted the tax increases now and the spending cuts later.

Everybody knows those spending cuts would not have happened. Ever.

Even modest decreases in spending is a total cut to Statists. Statists don't want to cut a thing. Tax/Spend. It's how they hold power.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

that explains why conservatives have wanted very limited government since they started the Revolution.

See why we say a liberal will be slow?? What other explanation is possible??

and of course we must note the liberal fear of saying who the aristocracy is. What does that fear tell us abut the IQ and character of a liberal.

 

[Zander]

How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obama’s effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, it’s harder than it sounds.

Obama, for instance, is clearly responsible for the stimulus. The health-care law, too.

When Obama entered office, the Bush tax cuts were already in place and two wars were ongoing. Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?

So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obama’s policies.

In two instances, this made Obama’s policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obama’s decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years — at a total cost of $620 billion — to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.

The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obama’s spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obama’s planned deficit reduction.

There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have.

Poor Obama. It's not his fault!! It's....... (wait for it!) ......BOOSH!!!!!!!
Obamacare is going to save money too!!! ......

 

[Listening]

Poor Obama. It's not his fault!! It's....... (wait for it!) ......BOOSH!!!!!!!
Obamacare is going to save money too!!! ......

David Axelrod to Obama....

"You didn't build that deficit....somebody else did !!!"

 

[Bfgrn]

You know, it is really funny (not really)...NONE of you right wingers with tiny little brains and big mouths EVER opened your pie holes when Republicans ran up most of our debt. Not a fucking PEEP.

Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. George W. Bush raised it 7 times. WHERE was the angst?

Did Bush include his 2 wars in his budgets?...NO, WHY NOT? Oh, that's right, the war was going to pay for itself.

If you can't read and comprehend THIS chart, then even the short bus is not for you...

Under Obama, federal spending (which has grown every year since then 1960s) is increasing at its slowest pace in half a century, and federal employment is in true decline. Eighteen months removed from the start of the Census, it's shrinking at its fastest rate since the mid-1950s.

So what were are left with is denial of the facts, because of your hatred for our President, and the dogma driven right wing pea sized brains you were born with.

 

[flacaltenn]

How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obama’s effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, it’s harder than it sounds.

Obama, for instance, is clearly responsible for the stimulus. The health-care law, too.

When Obama entered office, the Bush tax cuts were already in place and two wars were ongoing. Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?

So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obama’s policies.

In two instances, this made Obama’s policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obama’s decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years — at a total cost of $620 billion — to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.

The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obama’s spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obama’s planned deficit reduction.

There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have.

Never mind the important diff between a TAX CUT and SPENDING.. To a thread - hijacking leftist -- they are identical..

I don't see Obama being charged for CONTINUING the Bush Medicare Prescription program do you?

Anyway -- no more troll snacks.. I'd prefer to discuss the OP.. Which is EXACTLY why BFgrn is here to divert and distract from any conversation that touches on REAL FIXES to the job problem due to MODERN economical conditions that have NOTHING to do with Reagan or FDR..

Not surprisingly, many reputable market analysts dismiss the drought in new IPOs as not important to job creation. Mostly because they analyze only the jobs created WITHIN the start-up.. When you're talking about a new Battery Tech company or an Virtual Education company -- the jobs CASCADE from that creation into other existing and new companies not to mention the SECONDARY jobs created in the Service sector.

I'm convinced that we're having the wrong discussion about only jobs that the PREZ likes and can label with acceptable price tags (ie donations) to his labor and green constituents. And that Tech start-ups are the only flotsam available to grasp that will prolong the American standard of living..

 

[freedombecki]

Nothing to do with Bush...REALLY??? 2009 WAS the Bush budget!

Oh? My sources say that on May 11, 2009, Obama signed the 2009 budget into law and not Bush.

Good grief. When a President signs a budget into law, it's HIS.

Why do you think Obama isn't signing any more budgets into law?

He can't without someone else writing it.

 

[Bfgrn]

How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obama’s effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, it’s harder than it sounds.

Obama, for instance, is clearly responsible for the stimulus. The health-care law, too.

When Obama entered office, the Bush tax cuts were already in place and two wars were ongoing. Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?

So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obama’s policies.

In two instances, this made Obama’s policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obama’s decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years — at a total cost of $620 billion — to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.

The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obama’s spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obama’s planned deficit reduction.

There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have.

Never mind the important diff between a TAX CUT and SPENDING.. To a thread - hijacking leftist -- they are identical..

I don't see Obama being charged for CONTINUING the Bush Medicare Prescription program do you?

Anyway -- no more troll snacks.. I'd prefer to discuss the OP.. Which is EXACTLY why BFgrn is here to divert and distract from any conversation that touches on REAL FIXES to the job problem due to MODERN economical conditions that have NOTHING to do with Reagan or FDR..

Not surprisingly, many reputable market analysts dismiss the drought in new IPOs as not important to job creation. Mostly because they analyze only the jobs created WITHIN the start-up.. When you're talking about a new Battery Tech company or an Virtual Education company -- the jobs CASCADE from that creation into other existing and new companies not to mention the SECONDARY jobs created in the Service sector.

I'm convinced that we're having the wrong discussion about only jobs that the PREZ likes and can label with acceptable price tags (ie donations) to his labor and green constituents. And that Tech start-ups are the only flotsam available to grasp that will prolong the American standard of living..

Maybe you are just uninformed?

Obama Signs Jobs Act, Easing IPO Rules - WSJ.com

Obama looks to spur private sector hiring

WASHINGTON

Limited in his ability to create jobs through direct spending, President Barack Obama is considering measures to encourage the private sector to free up its cash reserves and hire more workers to ease the nation's unemployment crush.

As Obama prepares to unveil a new jobs agenda next week, his aides are reviewing options that would provide tax incentives to employers who expand their payrolls. That approach is a more indirect effort to spur the economy and relies less on direct intervention and massive public works projects.

Among the proposals circulating in the White House is a $33 billion tax credit that Obama first proposed early last year but that Congress whittled into a smaller one-year package.

Under one version of the plan, employers would receive a tax credit of up to $5,000, subtracted from their share of federal payroll taxes, for every net new hire. White House officials caution that the overall jobs plan is still subject to change.

The tax credit, however, is a relatively untested idea. Congress passed a version in March 2010, known as the HIRE Act, which provided $13 billion in tax credits to qualified employers who hired new workers. But there is no government data to track its success.

"The HIRE Act was very small," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics and an occasional adviser to Democrats and Republicans. "It really didn't add to payrolls."

"It would have to be bigger," he added. "Something more along the lines that the Obama administration proposed in 2010."

While promising a major jobs package, Obama is hamstrung by budget cuts and a tight debt ceiling that he had a hand in negotiating.

As a result, economists predict that while the president's initiatives could eliminate some drag on the economy and maintain the status quo, they won't be enough to propel it to new heights

At a minimum, the president's plan will call on Congress to extend current payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits, spend money for new construction projects and offer incentives to businesses to hire more workers.

 

[freedombecki]

"At a minimum, the president's plan will call on Congress to extend current payroll tax cuts and jobless benefits, spend money for new construction projects and offer incentives to businesses to hire more workers."

Soon as he passes a budget, Obama may get a little more cooperation. But until then, he cannot be trusted.

He isn't fooling us again.

 

[Zander]

You know, it is really funny (not really)...NONE of you right wingers with tiny little brains and big mouths EVER opened your pie holes when Republicans ran up most of our debt. Not a fucking PEEP.

Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. George W. Bush raised it 7 times. WHERE was the angst?

Did Bush include his 2 wars in his budgets?...NO, WHY NOT? Oh, that's right, the war was going to pay for itself.

If you can't read and comprehend THIS chart, then even the short bus is not for you...

Under Obama, federal spending (which has grown every year since then 1960s) is increasing at its slowest pace in half a century, and federal employment is in true decline. Eighteen months removed from the start of the Census, it's shrinking at its fastest rate since the mid-1950s.

So what were are left with is denial of the facts, because of your hatred for our President, and the dogma driven right wing pea sized brains you were born with.

Get your head out of Obama's ass and face reality. Obama is a failure. He had a huge majority in the House and Senate for 2 years. He had a bad economy to deal with. So what did he do? He decided to spend his entire first 2 years on ramming a hugely unpopular entitlement program, "Obamacare", down our throats- and totally ignored the economy. He was rewarded with a massive defeat in 2010 - he is facing a second rebuke in 2012. He's a failure.

 

[Bfgrn]

You know, it is really funny (not really)...NONE of you right wingers with tiny little brains and big mouths EVER opened your pie holes when Republicans ran up most of our debt. Not a fucking PEEP.

Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. George W. Bush raised it 7 times. WHERE was the angst?

Did Bush include his 2 wars in his budgets?...NO, WHY NOT? Oh, that's right, the war was going to pay for itself.

If you can't read and comprehend THIS chart, then even the short bus is not for you...

Under Obama, federal spending (which has grown every year since then 1960s) is increasing at its slowest pace in half a century, and federal employment is in true decline. Eighteen months removed from the start of the Census, it's shrinking at its fastest rate since the mid-1950s.

So what were are left with is denial of the facts, because of your hatred for our President, and the dogma driven right wing pea sized brains you were born with.

Get your head out of Obama's ass and face reality. Obama is a failure. He had a huge majority in the House and Senate for 2 years. He had a bad economy to deal with. So what did he do? He decided to spend his entire first 2 years on ramming a hugely unpopular entitlement program, "Obamacare", down our throats- and totally ignored the economy. He was rewarded with a massive defeat in 2010 - he is facing a second rebuke in 2012. He's a failure.

I don't have my head up anybody's ass. There are things I don't like about Obama. But, the Affordable Healthcare Act is hugely popular when each provisions is polled. The only provision that is not popular is the individual mandate. Which is a Republican idea. Obama, who you folks call a 'socialist', shut out the progressive and liberals during the health care debate. We should have had a public option, or the ability to buy Medicare before you are 65. Obama didn't have the 60 votes needed, because the Senator from Aetna, Joe LIEberman and blue dog Democrats.

The Stimulus Bill was a big success, it was just not big enough. But it did reverse the hemorrhaging of jobs that Bush left him with.

Do you people stand on your head when you read these charts?

Bush handed Obama the worst economy since the great depression. Obama immediately passed a job-stimulus bill which helped stop job losses faster than during the milder 1st Bush recession.

December 9, 2011. The economy was collapsing at its fastest rate since the Great Depression when Obama took office. In his second month he got Congress to pass a jobs stimulus bill worth about $900 billion. This helped stop the collapse and heightened the first spike in job growth. But the Republicans blocked more stimulus and by August 2010, falling stimulus spending began reducing job growth.