How the Republican Government shutdown works

[Oldstyle]

Show me where I said that the Democrats had a super majority for the first year. I simply said that the GOP wasn't able to stop the Democrats from passing their agenda in the first year because they didn't have the votes unless other Democrats voted with them...which was the case.

"IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT THE GOP DID THAT FIRST YEAR...THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

^^^ definition of a super majority ^^^

Only in your mind. Where does it say super majority in that sentence?

You truly are dumb enough to believe that if you describe something, your description isn't what you're describing.

The words, "super majority, " don't have to appear there. What you described IS a super majority. I don't have to use the words "lunar module" to describe how we landed on the moon, but if I describe how we did, I would clearly be talking about the lunar module.

That's precisely what you did -- you described a super majority and now you're crying like a little bitch that you didn't use the words, "super majority."

So you claim that I said the Democrats had super majorities for the first two years...then backed off that claim because I never said that...then you backed off the claim that I said they had super majorities for the first year because I never said that either...and now you're claiming that I "described" a super majority and in your mind that's the same thing as SAYING super majority?

Can't bring yourself to admit that I didn't lie...can you?

Why would I say you didn't lie when you did?

A better question would be why won't you admit that you shouldn't have accused me of that in the first place?

 

[easyt65]

Obama Plan To Shut Down The Government:
- Set records for 'monthly', 'annual', and 'total' deficit spending while adding more debt than every other US President - from Washington to Bush - COMBINED: Over $6 trillion in ONLY 4 Years.

- In a struggling economy and trillions in debt, pass a 'job creation' bill that cost nearly $1 trillion, includes over 7,000 pieces of DNC-Only pork (Liberal 'Wish List') that contains money for non-existent 'shovel-ready projects' (then claim later there was no money for infrastructure ,which is the GOP's fault for not funding it anyway), and in the end costs tax payers over $742,000 per job 'created / saved'

- Reject the advice given by the bank that eventually downgraded the US Credit Rating for the 1st time in history that if you don't make more budget cuts to show you are serious about lowering the deficit the downgrade is coming. (Then send in multiple federal agencies for doing so after the fact and blame the GOP for the downgrade)

- Create a Race War in the US; fan the flames until it grown into a racial war against authority, specifically the Police who are responsible for our domestic safety and law enforcement, breaking down our society

- Impose massive agenda items against the opposition of the majority of Americans, adding at least a trillion to the debt (not to include the cost of billions for a web site you can't make work) while lying to the people about how the destruction of the existing health care system will pay for itself, won't cost a dime, won't cause people to lose their jobs / coverage, and how they can keep their plan / doctor if they like them.

- Like frogs in a pot of war water, gradually violate the Constitution and Rules of Law, imposing your will, so they won't know until it's too late how drastically you have changed this country until it it too late.

- Follow Alynski's 'Ruled for Radicals' like a Blue Print on how to turn this nation into a Socialist country, destroying it from within while aiding our nation's enemies take over (Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Al Qaeida in Libya, ISIS in Iraq/through the Middle East) and destroy us from without...

- Rewarding the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world - and the nation that aided the 9/11/01 terrorists and continues to call for the destruction of Israel and the US - with a deal that ends all sanctions on them, gives them billions, lets them keep their Uranium, lets them keep thousands of centrifuges, lets them keep refining uranium, prohibits any inspections of military locations - like the secret deep underground facility where they have thousands of centrifuges running, and allows them to monitor and report on themselves!

I know I have left a lot of the parts of the plan out, but this, which has been carried out already, is enough.

 

[MarcATL]

It's also amusing to me that you think the rich have been hurt by this Administration. The reason that there is a growing income disparity isn't some GOP plot...it's just that the poor have gotten poorer under Obama and the rich have gotten richer. But you'll never admit that...will you?

What do you propose be done about curbing the current disparity?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[easyt65]

"Oldstyle said: ↑
It's also amusing to me that you think the rich have been hurt by this Administration. The reason that there is a growing income disparity isn't some GOP plot...it's just that the poor have gotten poorer under Obama and the rich have gotten richer. But you'll never admit that...will you?"

---------

"President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn't quite match up. During the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country. Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts."

-- Huffington Post
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

 

[rightwinger]

"Oldstyle said: ↑
It's also amusing to me that you think the rich have been hurt by this Administration. The reason that there is a growing income disparity isn't some GOP plot...it's just that the poor have gotten poorer under Obama and the rich have gotten richer. But you'll never admit that...will you?"

---------

"President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn't quite match up. During the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country. Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts."

-- Huffington Post
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

All true

It reflects Americas comittment to supply side economics. Reaganomics did all it was advertised to do in concentrating wealth at the top, unfortunately, none of that trickle down never came about

 

[easyt65]

[QUOTE="rightwinger, post: 12314337, member: 20321'}All true

It reflects Americas comittment to supply side economics. Reaganomics did all it was advertised to do in concentrating wealth at the top, unfortunately, none of that trickle down never came about[/QUOTE]

You can't blame the rich getting richer, even faster under Obama than under Bush, on Reaganomics. There is so much corruption going on it's not even funny. Congress is one of the biggest examples of this. They do not work for the American people - they work for themselves, their parties, and for the people and special interest groups that invest in getting and keeping them elected. Almost / Every one of them are millionaires, and they insure the people who got them there and keep them there benefit, from individuals to businesses to COUNTRIES. Right now, for example, some of those 34 Reps supporting Obama's Iran deal are doing so because they are getting PAID by Pro-Iranian Special Interest Groups!

Meanwhile, LBJ's program of 'Economic Slavery' is in full swing. this 'program' is simple -- what started out as a way to keep blacks down has been adopted for all America. A strong, independent, self-sufficient American voter does not NEED the government and thus will make decisions base on something other than 'survival'. If you keep people broke, un-successful, destitute, hopeless, and worrying about survival - addict them to government handout on which they need to get by THEN you have an 'enslaved' dependent voter who will continue to vote for you to keep those benefits flowing. It's not an accident...it's a sick scheme implemented by greedy politicians on both sides of the aisle now by design!

 

[Oldstyle]

"Oldstyle said: ↑
It's also amusing to me that you think the rich have been hurt by this Administration. The reason that there is a growing income disparity isn't some GOP plot...it's just that the poor have gotten poorer under Obama and the rich have gotten richer. But you'll never admit that...will you?"

---------

"President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn't quite match up. During the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country. Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts."

-- Huffington Post
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

All true

It reflects Americas comittment to supply side economics. Reaganomics did all it was advertised to do in concentrating wealth at the top, unfortunately, none of that trickle down never came about

What's taken place over the past almost seven years has ZERO to do with Supply Side Economics!

And for about the thousandth time...there is no such thing as "trickle down" economics other than in the minds of people who don't understand a thing about economics or business.

 

[Oldstyle]

It's also amusing to me that you think the rich have been hurt by this Administration. The reason that there is a growing income disparity isn't some GOP plot...it's just that the poor have gotten poorer under Obama and the rich have gotten richer. But you'll never admit that...will you?

What do you propose be done about curbing the current disparity?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

How about instead of trying to make the wealthy poorer...we give the Middle Class more opportunities to become wealthy? What you liberals can never seem to grasp is that there is no finite amount of wealth that has to be "shared"! You can create more wealth. In order to do so however you have to have an environment that's conducive to making that happen. High taxes on those making $200,000 a year and a crushing layer of regulations burdening start-ups isn't the environment that makes that happen.

 

[Dad2three]

Simple explanations are for the simple people. Tell a lie often enough and simple people believe it to be true.

As a good liberal I'm always willing to educate those who confuse cause and effect:

Questionable Cause

How exactly does declaring "Questionable Cause" make what Mike posted a lie? Because you say that it is? Why do you think that the GOP accomplished a historic victory in 2010? What's your complex explanation of that? Barack Obama summed it up by saying "We got shellacked!" What would you like to add to that?

Stupid red staters voting against their own best interests, GOP gerrymandering and then recognize Dems received 20+ million more votes as minority in the Senate?

Oh, so the GOP crushed the Democrats in 2010 because voters were "stupid" in Red States? That's your complex explanation of why the Democrats suffered historic defeats both on the national level and locally in those midterms?

Don't understand gerrymandering is a state thing huh dummy? lol

But YES, the people ARE stupid in red states, I don't think there is much argument about that is there?

What did Iraq's invasion and occupation have to do with the economy? You are kidding, aren't you? If not, please refrain from calling anyone clueless.

Are you making the claim that our invasion of Iraq caused the financial collapse? Because if you are...that's one of the more absurd statements I've ever seen on here, Wry!

Nope, pretty sure Wry understands Dubya cheering on the Banksters bubble AS Dubya gutted the FBI after warnings about creating a larger EPIDEMIC than Ronnie's S&L crisis was the cause. You know the GOP's "USUAL" , let markets hose US philosophy!

Bush was one of the few people in Washington warning about the real estate bubble being something we needed to worry about. If you'll recall...when he cautioned Congress about it...people like Todd and Frank pooh poohed his concern telling everyone that things were just fine the way that they were!

Point that finger if it makes you feel good. Bush had no problem sending his team out to push for a war of choice. Why didn't he send them out when he became concerned about the housing bubble?

I suggest you read Paulson's book, On the Brink; you can probably find it at a used book store for around .50 cents. He spent a year writing it, keep in mind Paulson came to his job in the Bush Administration from Goldman Sachs, the ultimate insider.

I point out that Bush was one of the few voices in Washington warning about the dangers of a housing bubble and you respond that he should have pushed harder on it? What recommendation would you give to Barney Frank?

You mean Dubya was "WARNING" of a housing bubble AS he pushed his "home ownership society" ponzi scheme, fought ALL 50 states who wanted to reign in the Banksters AND FORCED F/F into bad policies, WHILE the Dems in the House, including Barney Frank could run through Congress nekkid and on fire, and not stop ONE GOP bill Jan 1995- Jan 2007?

 

[Dad2three]

Yes Dummy, the GOP's 2005 ENERGY POLICY that Dubya signed onto, AND CREATED A $10 BILLION RESERVE TO GET "GREEN ENERGY, CREATED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS, MOST UNDER OBAMA AND EVEN WITH SOLYNDRA, MADE MONEY FOR HE TREASURY, LOL

Now you're claiming that Solyndra made money for the Treasury? You're a complete moron, Dad! Seriously!

Yes Bubba, your cherry picking what people are saying make you look like special Ed, you have 2 accounts Bubba?


Yep, the GOP's/Dubya's 2005 energy bill, which included Solyndra, made the Gov't money, despite the GOP, setting aside $10 billion for losses!

How much money did the US make off of the Solyndra loan that was approved by the Obama Administration?

I think the green energy loan program created under Dubya/GOP 2005 Congress was like $40 million profit, despite setting aside $10 billion for losses Bubs, look I found a success the CONservatives can pointtto next time!!

You keep avoiding answering my question...
How much money did the Federal Government lose on the Solyndra loan approval?

How many other so called "green" companies that the Obama Administration touted as the engine that was going to create jobs also went belly up costing jobs as well as millions in tax payer monies?

For the LAST TIME DUMMY, Dubya/GOP's 2005 energy bill that included Solyndra tha Dubya pushed through, MADE THE US GOV'T MONEY! Even though the GOP set aside $10 billion for those "green losses" lol

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, you conservatives suck at math and history, I agree with that. When did Republicans "take credit" for the money the incompetent Obama spent shutting down government? I don't remember when you did that. But if you say so, you probably did. At least you are now. Conservatives are idiots, stop listening to Faux News and believing whatever they tell you

Conservatives are idiots and bad with math and history?

Liberals pretty much agree that the economy started going south under Bush his last 2 years in his final term in office. THIS was the economic decline Obama and Liberals claim Obama 'inherited'. Liberals also pretty much agree that whoever controls Congress controls the purse strings, and therefore the economy / budget as well....unless it is THEY who control Congress / the purse strings.

During Bush's 1st 6 years in office 9/11 occurred, the economic aftermath of 9/11 happened, and 2 wars were fought. No 'economic decline' was experienced, but approx. 2 1/2 Trillion was added to the debt...in 6 (SIX YEARS)...during a time when there was a pretty close split in Congress. (2 1/2 trillion in 6 years in approx. 1/3rd of the debt Obama added in his 1st 4 years!)

Democrats secured a Super-Majority Control of Congress, controlling the purse strings / budget the last 2 years of Bush's administration...during which time the Liberals say the economy started going south. During this 1 1/2 - 2 year period another 1 1/2 TRILLION was added to the debt...in only 2 years. WHAT was the difference between Bush's 1st 6 years and his last 2? Oh yeah, Democrats took over Congress! They held this Super Majority control of Congress through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office.

The economic decline Obama claims to have inherited came from 2 years of Liberal control of the budget and 2 more years of horrendous fiscal irresponsibility. For instance, while supposedly in a declining economy Obama and the Liberals passed the tremendously FAILED Stimulus bill, a nearly $1 TRILLION addition to the nation's debt in one shot that contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-ONLY pork, continued such horrible programs as 'Cash for Clunkers' that ended up hurting the economy/poor & middle class families, and ended up costing OVER $742,000 PER JOB Obama claimed to have created / saved!

In Obama's 1st 4 years he set US records for 'monthly', 'annual', and 'total' deficit spending - adding over $6 trillion to the US debt in ONLY 4 years, more debt added than by EVERY US President from Washington to Bush COMBINED, single-handedly securing the 1st US Credit rating down-grade by refusing to accept more budget cuts to prove he was serious about reducing the deficit as he was warned, and added a record number of job-creation / business-strangling regulations.

These are DOCUMENTED, HISTORICAL FACTS which speak for themselves. Responding with opinion or personal attacks do not effect me at all because you are arguing with these documented history / facts, not me.

The final statistical and historical fact is that Obama is ARGUABLY the worst President in US history. Personally, though, I would award that title to the racist LBJ, the man who started the whole liberal program of 'Economic Slavery' that has been used to oppress blacks, ensure more and more Americans remain UN-successful and dependent on the government, and that they continue to vote for the liberal politicians who will keep the 'free' money and handouts flowing.

So NO you can't present ANY bills the Dems passed 2007-2009 to change Dubya/GOP policy that created Dubya's recession. Thanks

Hint Ronnie Raygun TRIPLED every other US Prez debt AND Dubya doubled every other US POrez debt (while he lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs).. lol

I said W was the same as Obama, moron. As for Reagan, tax receipts doubled under him and the majority of spending increases were actually Tip and the Democrats. Double wasn't enough for them

Stop kazzing. In real figures...

1981: $715b
1987: $796b
1989: $853b
2009: $1054b
2015: $1661b

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2015 - Federal State Local Data

Increase of tax revenues under Obama: 58%

Increase of tax revenues under Reagan:

After 6 years: 11%
After 8 years: 19%

Leave it to a kazzer like you to call a 19% increase, a 100% increase.

Lets not forget under Ronnie, the 11 tax increases (to get the 19%) were on the poor/middle class AFTER he gutted them for the rich

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, I agree you didn't address the GOP plan, outlined and posted of the GOP obstruction planned for Obama from 2008!

You're pathetic. I've already pointed out that it didn't matter what "plan" the GOP outlined and posted to stop Obama and the Democrats in 2008 because they simply didn't have the votes to do so yet you keep right on pretending that wasn't the case.

So your earlier posit, that it was a year later before GOP obstruction became the norm, was BS. Got it!

It was a year later that Mitch McConnell made his remark. Are you always this clueless? Once again...IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT THE GOP DID THAT FIRST YEAR...THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF are you talking about? Democrats needed 60 votes to end a filibuster by Republicans -- and they didn't have that until September 24th, 2009. And even that was only until Brown was sworn in a few months later.

So what you've just admitted is that for a few months the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and could have passed whatever they wanted...correct? So why didn't they raise taxes on the wealthy and redo immigration?

There was this thing happening that the economy lost 9%+ and was losing 700,00+ jobs a month? You know the EFFECTS of 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies???

 

[Dad2three]

So they "focused" on healthcare...even though the number one concern of Americans back in 2009 wasn't healthcare but jobs and the economy? So at a time when the American people were begging for their elected officials to do something that would create jobs...Barry, Harry and Nancy decided that what THEY would focus on was seeing if they could get single payer healthcare passed something that was expected to COST jobs?

And then they wondered why they got their asses handed to them in the mid-terms...

WHEN DID ACA PASS DUMMY? Ooops

 

[Dad2three]

And if you read the article you cite from the New York Times it clearly states that all of the Republicans in the Senate voted against letting the Bush tax cuts expire along with five Democrats who also refused to go along with that despite a push from progressive leaders to do so. The reason that was given (also from your Times article) was that economists were warning about the danger of raising taxes during an economic slowdown. Obama only compromised when he couldn't sway those Blue Dog Democrats into going along with his plans to raise taxes on the wealthy. It wasn't the GOP that was preventing the progressive wing of the Democratic Party from getting what it wanted! It was Democrats in both the House and Senate that wouldn't go along with what they saw as unwise and potentially dangerous policies that were being pushed by their liberal colleagues.

Again, you demonstrate how retarded you are. Obama did not have to strike a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts. If Obama truly didn't want them extended, as you claim, he would have let them expire.

Obama didn't want them extended for Americans making over $200,000 a year. That was what the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration were calling for that first year. He couldn't get the Blue Dog Democrats to go along with that because they rightly saw that it was AWFUL fiscal policy. It wasn't from a lack of trying though. And he couldn't let them expire because that would have been seen as a tax increase on everyone which even the far left progressives didn't want!

"Obama didn't want them extended for Americans making over $200,000 a year. That was what the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration were calling for that first year. He couldn't get the Blue Dog Democrats to go along with that because they rightly saw that it was AWFUL fiscal policy."




LINKIE BUBBA?

 

[Dad2three]

"Oldstyle said: ↑
It's also amusing to me that you think the rich have been hurt by this Administration. The reason that there is a growing income disparity isn't some GOP plot...it's just that the poor have gotten poorer under Obama and the rich have gotten richer. But you'll never admit that...will you?"

---------

"President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn't quite match up. During the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country. Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts."

-- Huffington Post
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes, you conservatives suck at math and history, I agree with that. When did Republicans "take credit" for the money the incompetent Obama spent shutting down government? I don't remember when you did that. But if you say so, you probably did. At least you are now. Conservatives are idiots, stop listening to Faux News and believing whatever they tell you

Conservatives are idiots and bad with math and history?

Liberals pretty much agree that the economy started going south under Bush his last 2 years in his final term in office. THIS was the economic decline Obama and Liberals claim Obama 'inherited'. Liberals also pretty much agree that whoever controls Congress controls the purse strings, and therefore the economy / budget as well....unless it is THEY who control Congress / the purse strings.

During Bush's 1st 6 years in office 9/11 occurred, the economic aftermath of 9/11 happened, and 2 wars were fought. No 'economic decline' was experienced, but approx. 2 1/2 Trillion was added to the debt...in 6 (SIX YEARS)...during a time when there was a pretty close split in Congress. (2 1/2 trillion in 6 years in approx. 1/3rd of the debt Obama added in his 1st 4 years!)

Democrats secured a Super-Majority Control of Congress, controlling the purse strings / budget the last 2 years of Bush's administration...during which time the Liberals say the economy started going south. During this 1 1/2 - 2 year period another 1 1/2 TRILLION was added to the debt...in only 2 years. WHAT was the difference between Bush's 1st 6 years and his last 2? Oh yeah, Democrats took over Congress! They held this Super Majority control of Congress through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office.

The economic decline Obama claims to have inherited came from 2 years of Liberal control of the budget and 2 more years of horrendous fiscal irresponsibility. For instance, while supposedly in a declining economy Obama and the Liberals passed the tremendously FAILED Stimulus bill, a nearly $1 TRILLION addition to the nation's debt in one shot that contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-ONLY pork, continued such horrible programs as 'Cash for Clunkers' that ended up hurting the economy/poor & middle class families, and ended up costing OVER $742,000 PER JOB Obama claimed to have created / saved!

In Obama's 1st 4 years he set US records for 'monthly', 'annual', and 'total' deficit spending - adding over $6 trillion to the US debt in ONLY 4 years, more debt added than by EVERY US President from Washington to Bush COMBINED, single-handedly securing the 1st US Credit rating down-grade by refusing to accept more budget cuts to prove he was serious about reducing the deficit as he was warned, and added a record number of job-creation / business-strangling regulations.

These are DOCUMENTED, HISTORICAL FACTS which speak for themselves. Responding with opinion or personal attacks do not effect me at all because you are arguing with these documented history / facts, not me.

The final statistical and historical fact is that Obama is ARGUABLY the worst President in US history. Personally, though, I would award that title to the racist LBJ, the man who started the whole liberal program of 'Economic Slavery' that has been used to oppress blacks, ensure more and more Americans remain UN-successful and dependent on the government, and that they continue to vote for the liberal politicians who will keep the 'free' money and handouts flowing.

So NO you can't present ANY bills the Dems passed 2007-2009 to change Dubya/GOP policy that created Dubya's recession. Thanks

Hint Ronnie Raygun TRIPLED every other US Prez debt AND Dubya doubled every other US POrez debt (while he lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs).. lol

I said W was the same as Obama, moron. As for Reagan, tax receipts doubled under him and the majority of spending increases were actually Tip and the Democrats. Double wasn't enough for them

Stop kazzing. In real figures...

1981: $715b
1987: $796b
1989: $853b
2009: $1054b
2015: $1661b

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2015 - Federal State Local Data

Increase of tax revenues under Obama: 58%

Increase of tax revenues under Reagan:

After 6 years: 11%
After 8 years: 19%

Leave it to a kazzer like you to call a 19% increase, a 100% increase.

Lets not forget under Ronnie, the 11 tax increases (to get the 19%) were on the poor/middle class AFTER he gutted them for the rich

You are the epitome of a partisan hack when you post garbage like that! Reagan was a tax cutter. He did increase taxes 11 times but anyone who doesn't get their narrative from MSNBC or Think Progress would understand that overall Reagan cut taxes for everyone. You just can't stand the fact that his economic policies led to one of the greatest periods of growth this country has ever experienced.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Oldstyle said: ↑
It's also amusing to me that you think the rich have been hurt by this Administration. The reason that there is a growing income disparity isn't some GOP plot...it's just that the poor have gotten poorer under Obama and the rich have gotten richer. But you'll never admit that...will you?"

---------

"President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn't quite match up. During the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country. Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts."

-- Huffington Post
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

And when you're 7 years into an Administration it's rather pathetic that you're STILL blaming the guy before you for your failure to fix things! Barry came into office promising he had solutions. Only once he got there his vague promises turned out to be campaign year smoke and mirrors. He's been blaming the GOP ever since. It's coming up on eight years now and it's always the other guy's fault things still suck.

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives are idiots and bad with math and history?

Liberals pretty much agree that the economy started going south under Bush his last 2 years in his final term in office. THIS was the economic decline Obama and Liberals claim Obama 'inherited'. Liberals also pretty much agree that whoever controls Congress controls the purse strings, and therefore the economy / budget as well....unless it is THEY who control Congress / the purse strings.

During Bush's 1st 6 years in office 9/11 occurred, the economic aftermath of 9/11 happened, and 2 wars were fought. No 'economic decline' was experienced, but approx. 2 1/2 Trillion was added to the debt...in 6 (SIX YEARS)...during a time when there was a pretty close split in Congress. (2 1/2 trillion in 6 years in approx. 1/3rd of the debt Obama added in his 1st 4 years!)

Democrats secured a Super-Majority Control of Congress, controlling the purse strings / budget the last 2 years of Bush's administration...during which time the Liberals say the economy started going south. During this 1 1/2 - 2 year period another 1 1/2 TRILLION was added to the debt...in only 2 years. WHAT was the difference between Bush's 1st 6 years and his last 2? Oh yeah, Democrats took over Congress! They held this Super Majority control of Congress through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office.

The economic decline Obama claims to have inherited came from 2 years of Liberal control of the budget and 2 more years of horrendous fiscal irresponsibility. For instance, while supposedly in a declining economy Obama and the Liberals passed the tremendously FAILED Stimulus bill, a nearly $1 TRILLION addition to the nation's debt in one shot that contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-ONLY pork, continued such horrible programs as 'Cash for Clunkers' that ended up hurting the economy/poor & middle class families, and ended up costing OVER $742,000 PER JOB Obama claimed to have created / saved!

In Obama's 1st 4 years he set US records for 'monthly', 'annual', and 'total' deficit spending - adding over $6 trillion to the US debt in ONLY 4 years, more debt added than by EVERY US President from Washington to Bush COMBINED, single-handedly securing the 1st US Credit rating down-grade by refusing to accept more budget cuts to prove he was serious about reducing the deficit as he was warned, and added a record number of job-creation / business-strangling regulations.

These are DOCUMENTED, HISTORICAL FACTS which speak for themselves. Responding with opinion or personal attacks do not effect me at all because you are arguing with these documented history / facts, not me.

The final statistical and historical fact is that Obama is ARGUABLY the worst President in US history. Personally, though, I would award that title to the racist LBJ, the man who started the whole liberal program of 'Economic Slavery' that has been used to oppress blacks, ensure more and more Americans remain UN-successful and dependent on the government, and that they continue to vote for the liberal politicians who will keep the 'free' money and handouts flowing.

So NO you can't present ANY bills the Dems passed 2007-2009 to change Dubya/GOP policy that created Dubya's recession. Thanks

Hint Ronnie Raygun TRIPLED every other US Prez debt AND Dubya doubled every other US POrez debt (while he lost 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs).. lol

I said W was the same as Obama, moron. As for Reagan, tax receipts doubled under him and the majority of spending increases were actually Tip and the Democrats. Double wasn't enough for them

Stop kazzing. In real figures...

1981: $715b
1987: $796b
1989: $853b
2009: $1054b
2015: $1661b

Government Tax and Revenue Chart: United States 1980-2015 - Federal State Local Data

Increase of tax revenues under Obama: 58%

Increase of tax revenues under Reagan:

After 6 years: 11%
After 8 years: 19%

Leave it to a kazzer like you to call a 19% increase, a 100% increase.

Lets not forget under Ronnie, the 11 tax increases (to get the 19%) were on the poor/middle class AFTER he gutted them for the rich

You are the epitome of a partisan hack when you post garbage like that! Reagan was a tax cutter. He did increase taxes 11 times but anyone who doesn't get their narrative from MSNBC or Think Progress would understand that overall Reagan cut taxes for everyone. You just can't stand the fact that his economic policies led to one of the greatest periods of growth this country has ever experienced.

Right wing Mises, as well as several studies (including the treasury) say YOU are full of shit

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.

The Myths of Reaganomics



GREATEST PERIODS OF GROWTH? Oh right when Ronnie put EVERYTHING on the credit card AND ramped up spending by HUGE amounts?

Middle Class Series: The Failure of Supply-Side Economics


Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work




Investment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Productivity growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Overall economic growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Employment growth was weaker under supply-side policies

Income growth for middle-class households was lackluster under supply-side policies

Hourly earnings were flat or declined under supply-side policies

Our nation’s fiscal health deteriorated under supply-side policies
Some of the more dedicated supply-side devotees go so far as to argue that tax cuts for the rich will result in so much additional economic activity that they will actually increase government revenues, thereby “paying for themselves,” and have no negative impact on the bottom line. This assertion, as with the others, is not supported in the data. Not only did government revenues fall during the supply-side era, but the bottom line deteriorated noticeably, too. Publicly held debt rose during both supply-side eras, and fell substantially during the higher-tax period. (see Figure 7)

Conclusion
Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no. And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.

The Failure of Supply-Side Economics

 

[Dad2three]

"Oldstyle said: ↑
It's also amusing to me that you think the rich have been hurt by this Administration. The reason that there is a growing income disparity isn't some GOP plot...it's just that the poor have gotten poorer under Obama and the rich have gotten richer. But you'll never admit that...will you?"

---------

"President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn't quite match up. During the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country. Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts."

-- Huffington Post
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

And when you're 7 years into an Administration it's rather pathetic that you're STILL blaming the guy before you for your failure to fix things! Barry came into office promising he had solutions. Only once he got there his vague promises turned out to be campaign year smoke and mirrors. He's been blaming the GOP ever since. It's coming up on eight years now and it's always the other guy's fault things still suck.

Sorry Bubba, Obama hasn't even been in office 7 years yet AND yet has the RECORD for consecutive jobs growth, even as the GOP refused to help push the bus out of the ditch they drove US into!

 

[Faun]

Your claim that the Democrats were helpless against the GOP that first year is laughably false. Did they have to WAIT at times to pass legislation so that the GOP wasn't able to filibuster it? Yes they did. Did they still have plenty of time to pass that legislation once they did have filibuster proof majorities? Yes they did...IF THEY COULD GET THE BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS TO VOTE FOR IT!

Again, for the mentally challenged ... without a filibuster proof Senate, Republicans could block any bill they chose. And get this ... they didn't need support from any Democrats to do that.

But there were long stretches of time that first year when the Republicans didn't have the votes to filibuster in the Senate...did they? Long stretches of time when the only way that they COULD block bills was to get support from Democrats! You keep desperately trying to come up with excuses why this Administration wasn't able to pass legislation by blaming the GOP when in reality it came down to them not being able to convince members of their own Party to vote with them.

What you're calling a "long stretch," was in fact, the period from 9.24.2009 until 2.4.2010; during which period, the Senate was in session for 72 days.

If you've got legislation drawn up and you're waiting for the opportunity to pass it...a week would be enough time to get that done. You on the left keep trying to pretend that the only reason Obama didn't pass other things is that he didn't have enough time and that's a false narrative. He had time to pass the ACA. He could have passed immigration reform but he didn't have the stones to take that issue on. He could have passed Cap & Trade but couldn't get the realists in the Democratic Party to go along with that. He could have passed tax increases for the rich as well but smarter minds than his finally made him see that doing so would be terrible fiscal policy in the midst of an economic downturn as severe as they were in.

Bottom line...the narrative that the GOP "obstructed" Obama is laughably false. His own agenda obstructed Barack Obama because he couldn't get moderates in his own party to vote for much of it.

<sarcasm>Yeah, sure, Republicans weren't obstructionists. They didn't invoke a record busting number of filibusters since they had moderate Democrats obstructing Obama for them. </sarcasm>

Oh, wait ... reality ...