Discussing politics with you guys has become worthless in my opinion due in large part to all of the ridiculous rhetoric you all buy in to. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/it-s-official-obama-s-spending-today-dwarfs-fdr-s-depression-era-spending http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/presidential-spending-expenditures-by-year/
Oh please..... I'll miss discussing fiscal policy, governmental over-regulation, justice department misconduct and hearing about someone's health care insurance bills, job history and property values. Worthless.....LOL! :roll:
America On Track To Add Three Times More Debt Than Eurozone Over 5 Years Amazingly, Keynesian shitheads like Paul Krugman think this is a wonderful idea. Via Weekly Standard: The eurozone might be cracking up, but as far as debt goes, America appears to be in worse shape than the entire eurozone in the long run. According to a new chart set to be released later today by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee, America is on track “to add three times more debt than [the] eurozone over [the next] 5 years.” Already, as the chart shows, America’s debt exceeds the eurozone’s, roughly $16.6 trillion to $13.3 trillion. (These numbers are based on what the debt is expected to be by the end of this year.) But by 2017, that gap is projected to widen, and America’s debt is expected to be $22.3 trillion, while the eurozone’s debt will be $15.2 trillion. That means, over the next five years, America will have added $5.7 trillion to the national debt, while the eurozone will have added only $1.9 trillion.
I know Gipper....the economic realities left behind by George Bush just simply bore many Republicans like yourself.
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/presidential-spending-expenditures-by-year/ Interesting that the chart shows Bush spent more on pensions and less on defense than Obama. And that's my point about rhetoric. In Florida we are being bombarded by TV ads that plead "Mr. Obama.......stop the spending...etc etc..." The chart I posted above shows that W was quite a spender himself compared to Clinton and just behind Obama. Rhetoric..... :roll:
Yep. That's why a "compassionate Conservative" is NOT a conservative. He's a middle of the road go-with-the-flow moderate. Add that to a spend happy congress like he had in his second term, throw in a two front war, and you see figures rivaling a complete spendaholic.
Bush was not JUST behind Obama. he was light years behind. Bush spent and average of $410 billion per year over budget; shameful for sure for a man who calls himself a conservative. Obama exceeds his "budget" by $1.2 trillion per year.
It appears to me that it's very clear a third term by Bush would have seen similar numbers over budget because the revenue vanished after the Bush led crash. I actually would be very curious to see just where in the hell Romney would get the incresed revenue he would need to narrow that gap and just what GOP sponsored programs would get their money while other areas would be cut? And given the recent history of the Bush clan I wonder how long before Romney would have us fighting in Iran or Syria......I would give it 2 years tops before that would become reality.
1. There was no "Bush led crash." 2. One year ago Obama's drones were bombing 8 different countries at the same time. 3. The federal government isn't the solution: it's the problem. 4. The additional revenue comes from the trillions of dollars tied up in domestic industries that are being strangled by excessive regulation and higher corporate taxes than Communist China.
OBAMA’S BIG ECONOMY SPEECH: NO HOPE, NO CHANGE Home - by Cardigan - June 15, 2012 - 07:00 America/New_York - 14 Comments Big Government President Obama’s campaign speech on the economy today was an utter disaster for him. It was a bromide of tired old arguments, pathetic blame-placing, and shopworn con tricks. And even liberals like Jonathan Alter had to admit that it was, overall, a dramatic failure. He began where he always does: with blame. “We’ve been wrestling with these issues for a long time,” he said. “The problems we’re facing right now have been more than a decade in the making …. For more than a decade, it had become harder to find a job that paid the bills, harder to save, harder to retire, harder to keep up with rising costs of gas and health care and college tuitions.” Translation: Blame Bush. The Blame Bush nonsense continued apace: We were told that huge tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest Americans, would lead to faster job growth. We were told that fewer regulations, especially for big financial institutions and corporations, would bring about widespread prosperity. We were told that it was OK to put two wars on the nation’s credit card; that tax cuts would create a enough growth to pay for themselves. Fact: huge tax cuts did lead to greater job growth. Bush oversaw 52 consecutive months of job growth under his watch, beginning in September 2003 and December 2007. Fact: tax cuts did begin to pay for themselves. The deficit began to shrink under President Bush between 2005 and 2007 thanks to increased tax revenue generated from economic growth.
"getting involved" in Libya is a far cry from a full scale invasion of Iraq.....or Iran.....or Syria. RE: Bush Led crash....hmmmm....that's right.....I keep forgetting that none of our trouibles began before Jan. 21, 2009.......how forgetful of me. I need to listen to Rush to be reminded of that I guess.... :lol: :lol: :wink:
Fact.....we almost had a full scale Depression in 2008.......negating any and all of the borrowing from Peter to pay Paul "good" that occurred beforehand and leaving us with a morass of problems that not even the great John MCCain could have put a dent in. The thing is.....it's the middle class that has to pay both Peter and Paul back while the rich get richer. With Romney you think that formula changes one bit??
- I don't listen to Rush: never have. - Bush didn't crash the economy: Chris Dodd and Barney Frank crashed it. Then they were allowed to write the new rules. - Nobody on my side of the aisle ever called McCain "great" that I'm aware of. - You make no attempt to understand the problems or seek solutions.
That's right....I forget also the all powerful President Frank and his VP Dodd. 8) Damn... I am so forgetful.....
What the chart shows to me is something we all should know anyway...Spending has increased UNABATED through all of these guys (and the Congress they work with...let's not forget that much of the spending decisions are based on their decisions). These are our elected officials. THIS IS US. It is we who are demanding all of this spending that is running us off of the cliff. We all want our little bennies and perks...just get rid of the other guy's. Why even bother discussing the differences in percentages?...What they show is a consistency amongst all of the presidents. Here's what the graph shows me...the unabated increases in spending despite the grinding to the halt of the GDP during Obama's term. I know you will blame it all on GW despite the multifactorial nature of the causes. However our response to it has been disaster. In all of the previous terms at least the GDP was rising so the increased spending had some kind of "support". And this graph is missing the last two years of data, but I bet the projections are even worse.
As I said, you make no attempt to understand anything. The economy imploded, because the housing market collapsed. Beginning with Jimmy Carter, banks were forced to lend money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back for home mortgages. This was expanded under Clinton and the whole scam was protected by Barney Frank in the House and Christopher Dodd in the Senate. When the entire Ponzi scheme collapsed, the failed housing market took down the banking and insurance industries with it. Bush certainly deserves some blame for not fighting hard enough against this foolhardy, vote-buying, nonsense; but to say that these policies were his is dishonest. Remember, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it and the real causes of the "Great Recession" have still not been addressed.
....what Stu said. It's just that I do not trust the present GOP leadership to truly make the difference with the changes needed. Instead of taking Stu's approach they just point the finger and promise they can do better without a full and clear explanation as to how.....legitimately I might add.....they would do it. If elected....I see Romney costing the middle class more in terms of program cuts and increases in healthcare expenses while providing nothing in return in terms of better paying jobs and salary increase in existing jobs while the upper 1% continues to thrive and widen the gap between themselves and the other 99%. ( 15% to 85% if you want ) I saw a chart that showed healthcare expenses increasing under Clinton and Obama but at a significantly higher rate under Bush. Why would that kind of **** change with Romney? With his background I expect the rate of those increases would just get worse...faster... and you can call that whining but I have a frigging family to provide healthcare for and I cannot afford the $1100.00 per month premium plus high co-pays if I took my company's plan where I work. Therefore if my wife changed jobs....and she really wants to....we will be stuck again in a Cobra limbo hoping no one gets really sick until her new more affordable insurance kicked in. You can be elitist....GOP elitist.....Romney elitist......but that's the effing reality in America.....for most Americans anyway.....for the middle class and probably worse for those below.