Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is only because people don't understand that it's the congress and not so much the President. And we all know who has run congress for most of the last 50 years.
For like the millionth time.
Congress DOES NOT WRITE THE BUDGET.
Who pays the bills? Who approves the spending? Who controls the money?
For like the millionth time.
Congress DOES NOT WRITE THE BUDGET.
Who pays the bills? Who approves the spending? Who controls the money?
He also ignores that congress can and does amend the budget. They regularly add more spending to it before they pass it. They can remove parts they do not like.
The ultimate control over spending does indeed lie with the Congress.
We were losing 1 million jobs A MONTH the first month Obama took office. That's republican policy that is responsible. Everytime the repubs fuck shit up they turn to the ol "it's everybodies fault" meme. The party of personal responsibility takes no responsibility ever!
Go cry about it...71% blame bush. You poll lovers denying this?
It's Bushs fault...go cry about it and tell us Americans are too dumb to realize it. I'll remember to quote it and put it into one of the future "Obama thinks were too dumb to realize how good his policies are" threads.
Even Milton Friedman himself would tell you that Hoover's initial response was to try to balance the budget. Anything he did that remotely resembles FDR did not take place until much later, under tremendous pressure from economists the world over telling him his approach was making the problem worse.
In Hoover's defense, he really had no other established recourse to the situation; Keynes' philosophies were still in their infancy, and a crisis of this magnitude had never before been seen.
Keep in mind further that our deficits today are much lower as a percentage of GDP than they were in the WWII years. We got out of it just fine; Not by gutting the government and throwing consumers to the wolves, like I hear around here so much; But by investing in our infrastructure and growing out of the problem.
What did Hoover do, with the two years he had the problem? That is what I was asking, like I said, it certainly wasn't all about balancing a budget, as it wasn't.
Ok, it wasn't "All about" balancing a budget. It was a refusal to bring deficit spending to the table; Deficit spending that was desperately needed at that point in time. He was all about what he called Volunteerism- Predominantly asking more powerful financial institutions to prop up less powerful ones, and urging private and public entities not to lay off workers or cut wages.
It wasn't until 1932 - In the full throws of global depression and 24% unemployment - That he initiated deficit-funded public works projects. That's the only thing he did (Shortly before his loss to FDR) that remotely resembles FDR's approach.
The need to recapitalize insurer American International Group (AIG) with US$85 billion of debt provided by the US federal government.[15] An AIG subsidiary had lost more than US$18 billion over the preceding three quarters on Credit Default Swaps (CDS) it had written.[16] It was reported that the recapitalization was necessary because further losses were foreseeable over the next few quarters.
The loss of US$7.2 Billion by Société Générale in January 2008 through mis-use of futures contracts.
The loss of US$6.4 billion in the failed fund Amaranth Advisors, which was long natural gas in September 2006 when the price plummeted.
The loss of US$4.6 billion in the failed fund Long-Term Capital Management in 1998.
The loss of US$1.3 billion equivalent in oil derivatives in 1993 and 1994 by Metallgesellschaft AG.[17]
The loss of US$1.2 billion equivalent in equity derivatives in 1995 by Barings Bank.[18]
Who pays the bills? Who approves the spending? Who controls the money?
He also ignores that congress can and does amend the budget. They regularly add more spending to it before they pass it. They can remove parts they do not like.
The ultimate control over spending does indeed lie with the Congress.
Arguably a case could be made that either entity has "ultimate control." The budget comes out of the White House, but congress must pass it. If they amend it, they must do so in a way that POTUS will approve, or he won't sign it.
I'm also not clear on the relevance of this particular argument - But that's the way it works. The President writes the budget, and both Congress and POTUS must approve it.
He also ignores that congress can and does amend the budget. They regularly add more spending to it before they pass it. They can remove parts they do not like.
The ultimate control over spending does indeed lie with the Congress.
Arguably a case could be made that either entity has "ultimate control." The budget comes out of the White House, but congress must pass it. If they amend it, they must do so in a way that POTUS will approve, or he won't sign it.
I'm also not clear on the relevance of this particular argument - But that's the way it works. The President writes the budget, and both Congress and POTUS must approve it.
Yep you are correct. To dismiss eithers complaisance in this reckless spending is to ignore reality.
Poll: George W. Bush still gets blamed for economic woes - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than a third of those surveyed said George W. Bush deserved a great deal of the blame for economic woes and a third said he should get a moderate amount of it. Not quite another third called that unfair, saying Bush warranted not much or none of the responsibility.
The 71% saying Bush should get blamed was a modest decline from the 80% who felt that way about a year ago, in July 2009.
What about President Obama?
In the July 2009 poll, a third, 32%, said he should shoulder a great deal or moderate amount of the blame
I suppose there is some revelance to this poll?
Unfortunately, for Obama, he is not, and will not, be running against Bush in 2012.
Poll: George W. Bush still gets blamed for economic woes - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than a third of those surveyed said George W. Bush deserved a great deal of the blame for economic woes and a third said he should get a moderate amount of it. Not quite another third called that unfair, saying Bush warranted not much or none of the responsibility.
The 71% saying Bush should get blamed was a modest decline from the 80% who felt that way about a year ago, in July 2009.
What about President Obama?
In the July 2009 poll, a third, 32%, said he should shoulder a great deal or moderate amount of the blame
I suppose there is some revelance to this poll?
Unfortunately, for Obama, he is not, and will not, be running against Bush in 2012.
Well at least not the same Bush.
I don't know about that.[...]
No one will EVER forget Bush standing in front of the nation looking scared and announcing the bailout of the banks.
When things are fucked up its important to KNOW how they got fucked up so you can change what needs to be changed.
The right just wants no one to be reminded that THEY FCUKED IT UP.
Its the ideas of the right that fucked everything up.
So those who belong to Bush are psychologically incapable of acknowledging any negative aspect of his behavior, especially the appearance of his being shaken or afraid. They simply will not accept it.
For like the millionth time.
Congress DOES NOT WRITE THE BUDGET.
Who pays the bills? Who approves the spending? Who controls the money?
He also ignores that congress can and does amend the budget. They regularly add more spending to it before they pass it. They can remove parts they do not like.
The ultimate control over spending does indeed lie with the Congress.
They are OWNED by their corporate masters and will never cut the chains , they polish the chains and think they are gifts of jewelry.
They are OWNED by their corporate masters and will never cut the chains , they polish the chains and think they are gifts of jewelry.
and so is the Democratic party.....all those billions of dollars were given to the people who were up to their eyeballs in this shit.....so lets give them more......the money, OUR money, should have been given back to us to stimulate this Economy.....tell me if giving 30-40 thousand dollars to family would not have helped people laid off,behind on their bills....and to those who were not....they could have gone out and bought a new car,a major appliance....put it in their savings.....either way Millions would have gone to the banks and the Corporations that got this money in the first place,but before they got it.....WE THE TAXPAYERS would have had some relief.....maybe thousands of homeowners would have saved their houses.....paid medical bills....but we would have stimulated this economy and paid down some bills.....but of course to the Govts way of thinking ....only they know how to spend our money.....not us....end of rant.....
It's Bushs fault...go cry about it and tell us Americans are too dumb to realize it. I'll remember to quote it and put it into one of the future "Obama thinks were too dumb to realize how good his policies are" threads.
