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.
Your 100 miles behind the curve bud. in 2007 was the last GOP budget
it was within 163 billion of breaking even
UE was under 5%
By 2010 that same deficit was 1.4 trillion and that same UE was 10%
Now how simple can I make this for you?
did you look at the picture of Pitt. in 08 with BHO making a speech and today @ drudge?
Are you serious? Do you mean to tell me that you don't understand the costs involved in rescuing a $14 trillion economy from almost certain depression? Do you not fully understand that such an undertaking by definition must add to the national debt and deficit?
In 2007, the year you just gloated over as being some kind of bizarre demonstration of Republican fiscal responsibility (what a joke), the global economic meltdown and the economic implosion here at home had not yet been instantiated. There was no TARP in 2007 thus, there was no Stimulus, in 2007. So, of course, the budget delta from 2007 through 2010, would be greater.
I don't even understand why you made such a post, when its meaning is 100% MOOT!
But, what I do find rather glaringly obvious, is that you failed to mention the increase in the debt and widening of the budget shortfall between 2000 and 2004, after Bush had blown our projected surplus and catapulted the nation into unnecessary war with two nations that never attacked the United States of America and that never had the capacity to strike on U.S. soil strategically.
Stop spinning.
I am amused in a sickened way by the people who support Obama and don't even keep track of his speeches. No one yelled "you lie" at a State of the Union address.
Or, just sick, in an amusing way.
I'm more sickened at those who actually want to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye, to those who caused the problem we are in right now, while all of a sudden, being those who supposedly have all the answers when no solution was forthcoming from any of them when we needed it most, between 2000 and 2008.
At least Clinton, left Republican leadership and multi-hundred billion dollar projected surplus when he left office. What did Republican leadership do that that? They blew it on an illegal war that lacked any righteous causation or justification. In fact, they blew it on a total lie about a nonexistent threat to national security. That same leadership proceeded to get hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq/Afghanistan, killed for no reason whatsoever other than transnational oil contracts - period.
Yet, you can hold such disdain for Obama, when he was wise enough to speak out against the invasion in the first instance.
Face it - you dislike Obama, for "other reasons" that have no logical connection to his policies as President in the aggregate. There might be one or two policy missteps that he needs to account for, but on whole, he has done nearly precisely what he needed to do as President, given the last minute hurricane that came in the form of the global economic meltdown just before I got elected.
So, when this President promised to keep in touch directly with the American People during the campaign, which is something that he talked about a lot before 2008, by doing town hall meetings and remaining in constant contact with the American People, he's labeled by the Right as a "Media Hog." If President Obama, shut himself inside the White House and never came out like some executive hermit, then the Right would label him completely unwilling to remain in touch with the American People.
This is precisely the kind of thing that the Right as been doing since before Obama's inauguration - attempting to set-up the President up for failure, by establishing phony causalities for "why" he failed. All the while, never being intellectually honest about the double standard analysis of his performance at all. That's the height of hyper-partisan hypocrisy.
But at least try to tell the difference between the State of the Union and Obama's other speeches.
Now, that's amusing. You tracked his speeches so well, that you don't even understand why he's been in the "Media" as much as he has, when that's precisely what he told you that he would do out on the campaign trail.
At least attempt to keep track of reality.
Unbelievable!
Clinton did not leave a surplus. He left an illusion. We went into an official recession directly after Clinton left office. Nothing Bush did caused that. Bush's first round of tax cuts helped us get out of the recession. His second round of tax cuts were of less merit and we could argue about that. Bush did not cause the housing market to fail. The Republicans tried to address the problems of Fannie and Freddie but were called racist for their efforts.
Clinton on the other hand directly caused a stock market crash and brought about the bursting of the internet bubble when he ignored his own DOJ's recommendations and decided that Bill Gates needed to be taught a harsh lesson for daring to suggest that he was more powerful than Clinton. Innovation and R&D had to be put on hold and risks reconsidered across Silicon Valley and everywhere that people used Microsoft products because Clinton made it clear that he would punish success for personal reasons.
Obama talked a lot about a lot of things during his campaign which he didn't follow through on. His incessant speeches are about his need for attention, not about keeping in touch with us directly.
Obama's wisdom in speaking out against the invasion to begin with? LOL - he said what those in Illinois wanted to hear from the safety of his armchair. He has shown over and over that the supposedly principled statements he makes on one day mean zero when he is faced with reality. Like the time when he said it would be wrong to vote against John Roberts for the Supreme Court based on ideological reasons and said he thought Roberts was very well qualified and deserved a yes vote ... but then when reminded that it might hurt his presidential prospects he voted no.
My disdain for Obama exists for many reasons, from his own questionable positions and more questionable actions to my concerns about those who support him.
Poll: Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney All Beat Obama - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
you want a dose of reality?
DRUDGE REPORT: OBAMA PITTSBURGH 2008 VS. 2011
check that out
Clinton did not leave a surplus. He left an illusion.
We went into an official recession directly after Clinton left office. Nothing Bush did caused that.
Bush's first round of tax cuts helped us get out of the recession. His second round of tax cuts were of less merit and we could argue about that. Bush did not cause the housing market to fail. The Republicans tried to address the problems of Fannie and Freddie but were called racist for their efforts.
Clinton on the other hand directly caused a stock market crash and brought about the bursting of the internet bubble when he ignored his own DOJ's recommendations and decided that Bill Gates needed to be taught a harsh lesson for daring to suggest that he was more powerful than Clinton.
Innovation and R&D had to be put on hold and risks reconsidered across Silicon Valley and everywhere the people used Microsoft products because Clinton made it clear that he would punish success for personal reasons.
Obama talked a lot about a lot of things during his campaign which he didn't follow through on. His incessant speeches are about his need for attention, not about keeping in touch with us directly.
Obama's wisdom in speaking out against the invasion to begin with? LOL - he said what those in Illinois wanted to hear from the safety of his armchair.
He has shown over and over that the supposedly principled statements he makes on one day mean zero when he is faced with reality. Like the time when he said it would be wrong to vote against John Roberts' for the Supreme Court based on ideological reasons and said he thought Roberts was very well qualified and deserved a yes vote ... but then when reminded that it might hurt his presidential prospects he voted no.
My disdain for Obama exists for many reasons, from his own questionable positions and more questionable actions to my concerns about those who support him.
Poll: Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney All Beat Obama - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
you want a dose of reality?
DRUDGE REPORT: OBAMA PITTSBURGH 2008 VS. 2011
check that out
Good thing the media got what they wanted in 2008: Rudy vs. Hillary. The polls predicted it.
Oh wait.
Take some time and try to figure out what I'm saying. Maybe other posters will be nice enough to help you.Poll: Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney All Beat Obama - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
you want a dose of reality?
DRUDGE REPORT: OBAMA PITTSBURGH 2008 VS. 2011
check that out
Good thing the media got what they wanted in 2008: Rudy vs. Hillary. The polls predicted it.
Oh wait.
What are you trying to say?
do you think Obama gets re-elected?
Take some time and try to figure out what I'm saying. Maybe other posters will be nice enough to help you.Good thing the media got what they wanted in 2008: Rudy vs. Hillary. The polls predicted it.
Oh wait.
What are you trying to say?
do you think Obama gets re-elected?
I think I'm going to run with Herman.
Cripes, I'm still sweating it. But I think he is the only one that can meet my expectations and still nuke the punk from Chicago.
Clinton did not leave a surplus. He left an illusion.
That statement itself is delusional.
From 1992 through 2000, the Federal deficit as a percentage of GDP, turned down below zero percent between 1998 and 2000. Read it and at least try to remain intellectually honest when you reply to me, please.
Here's the data:
Year, GDP-US $ billion, Federal Deficit-fed pct
1992, 6342.3, 4.58 a (Clinton)
1993, 6667.4, 3.83 a
1994, 7085.2, 2.87 a
1995, 7414.7, 2.21 a
1996, 7838.5, 1.37 a
1997, 8270.46, 0.27 a
1998, 8727.02, -0.79 a (inversion)
1999, 9286.86, -1.35 a
2000, 9884.17, -2.39 a (Bush 43)
2001, 10218, -1.25 a (rise in debt & deficit)
2002, 10572.4, 1.49 a (reversion)
2003, 11067.8, 3.41 a
2004, 11788.9, 3.50 a
2005, 12554.5, 2.54 a
2006, 13310.9, 1.87 a
2007, 13969.3, 1.15 a
2008, 14270.5, 3.21 a
2009, 14014.8, 13.14 b
2010, 14551.8, 8.65 b
Legend:
a - actual reported
b - budgeted estimate in US fy10 budget
******************************************
Clearly, the data shows that in 2000, Bush was still riding the prosperity wave that was created during the Clinton Era, and not the other way around as you incorrectly stated.
We went into an official recession directly after Clinton left office. Nothing Bush did caused that.
Another, delusional statement. This has always been a systemic lie told by the Right, to excuse the poor leadership performance of George W. Bush. That facts are rather surprising for under-educated Republicans to learn.
The well established economic definition of recession, is GDP growth below zero (negative) for two consecutive quarters. Not merely declining GDP growth q/q.
Annual United States GDP Rate of Growth YoY
Clearly, U.S. GDP did not turn negative until AFTER 2001, which was AFTER the election of George W. Bush, in 2000. The Bush 43 administration never saw a GDP expansion figure that at any time, was higher than during the Clinton administration. Those are the facts clearly put before you.
Fannie and Freddie, did not cause the housing crisis. That's yet another illogical and irrational lie told by Republicans, to cover for their total lack of leadership from 2000 through 2008.
The housing crisis was caused because people could no longer pay their mortgage. People could no longer pay their mortgage because people lost their respective jobs. People lost their respective jobs, because corporations moved them off-shore. Corporations were allowed to move Middle Class American jobs off-shore, because of Congressional tax loopholes and a de-regulatory environment that enabled it. Republicans, favored deregulation and corporate tax loopholes and therefore, Republicans were the primary reason why American Middle Class jobs are mostly a thing of the past.
The very thing (under-regulated industry and tax breaks for the super rich) that Republicans promised would expand our economy, is the very thing that moved American Middle Class jobs overseas. Those are the facts.
That is absolutely nonsense. The stock market went ballistic under Clinton. The stock market has never been higher, than under Clinton. There were record numbers of new millionaires being created between 2000 and 2008, than at any other time in recorded American history.
The tech-bubble, was a direct net effect of too much capital, chasing too few deals and once again. This brought too many charlatans into the market and created an IPO frenzy that eventually lost steam because the market lost faith, precisely at the same time as enterprise technology (mostly software) was reaching its product development life cycle zenith. Those things combined, set the path for the tech-bubble correction and then the collapse.
Microsoft, was not an IPO between 2000 and 2008, nor was Microsoft beholden to high-tech venture capital. So, the Justice Department -vs- Microsoft, was a non-issue relative to the tech-bubble collapse in real terms. There were many companies providing too much of the same technology at the same time and in a market that had become saturated with look-alike profiles, and there were only so many large scale corporate entities to sell into for growing tech companies.
I worked in Silicone Valley, in the enterprise software industry during the entire time and I know what took place there on the ground.
That is some of the most hyperbolic nonsense gibberish that I've ever heard for the collapse of the enterprise software industry in SV. I lived it everyday of my life - I know what took place because I was there.
Innovation ran into a brick wall, because funding dried up. Funding dried up because of too many fake/phony profit models were created that would never pan out. That was caused by GREED - pure and simple. The market needed to shake-out the greedy, before stabilizing on moving on, but the market never got that chance under Clinton, and instead, was invited to 911 as a nail in the coffin of innovation.
Obama, in reality, has either delivered or attempted to deliver on campaign promises made at at time when there was NO economic meltdown. You seem to have amnesia on WHY Obama had to alter course in both his message and his focus during the campaign. The country was hit with the worse economic retracement since 1929/32. That forced a shift in Obama rhetoric and Obama actions/behavior with respect to the economy and his purposed pre-election agenda.
Safety of his armchair? Is that where Vice President Dick "Five Time Deferment" Cheney, sat when he was scamming CIA intelligence behind the scenes to place American Troops into harms way? Is the armchair, were Bush 43 himself sat, after he want AWOL at the TANG, only later in life and without a a conscious, set out to become a Commander In Chief? We STILL don't have an official copy of Bush 43's DD-214, do we?
I have my DD-214 and it shows precisely what I did in the military. Why can't we get a copy of Bush 43's DD-214? Or, did his Daddy, clean that up for him too?
He has shown over and over that the supposedly principled statements he makes on one day mean zero when he is faced with reality. Like the time when he said it would be wrong to vote against John Roberts' for the Supreme Court based on ideological reasons and said he thought Roberts was very well qualified and deserved a yes vote ... but then when reminded that it might hurt his presidential prospects he voted no.
Merely stating that it would be wrong to vote for someone to the U.S. Supreme Court based on purely ideological reasons, and then not voting for any one individual in particular, is NOT a demonstration of failed principles.
To put this out as some kind of indictment on Obama, is irrational at best. Should one declare that they would not refuse to purchase chocolate ice cream, merely because of the way it tastes when compared to vanilla ice cream, and then going out that Friday night to Basking Robbins and buying vanilla ice cream, does NOT demonstrate some kind of warped problem with personal principle.
He can say that people should not make decisions based on pure ideology, rather the issues at hand, but still decide to vote against any particular individual for the Supreme Court. That in no way reduces his principles and concluding as much is illogical on its face.
My disdain for Obama exists for many reasons, from his own questionable positions and more questionable actions to my concerns about those who support him.
Yet, you've failed miserably here to delineate one iota of truth about what you just claimed - as I have shown with data, charts and facts. You can sit back and throw stones from a glass house if you wish - it will only come back to haunt both you and the country down the road.
If your disdain for the President is predicated on irrational talking points and hyper-political dogma based in hate and woefully lacking in supportive data or facts, then the least of your concerns would be those who do support Obama, based on the very inverse of the same.
Now, you were saying something about how Obama has failed?
That is absolutely nonsense. The stock market went ballistic under Clinton. The stock market has never been higher, than under Clinton.
Obama, in reality, has either delivered or attempted to deliver on campaign promises made at at time when there was NO economic meltdown. You seem to have amnesia on WHY Obama had to alter course in both his message and his focus during the campaign. The country was hit with the worse economic retracement since 1929/32. That forced a shift in Obama rhetoric and Obama actions/behavior with respect to the economy and his purposed pre-election agenda.
I think I'm going to run with Herman.
Cripes, I'm still sweating it. But I think he is the only one that can meet my expectations and still nuke the punk from Chicago.
Wow a simple post that makes sense and is about the subject, thank you
Cain or Perry for me, Cain right now
and dont worry, Obama is done. who would really want 4 more years of this?
we not only were handed a recession in 01, we had began a job loss that did not stop until 03
2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847
2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524
What has the Drudge Report have to do with "reality?"Poll: Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney All Beat Obama - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
you want a dose of reality?
DRUDGE REPORT: OBAMA PITTSBURGH 2008 VS. 2011
check that out
Clinton did not leave a surplus. He left an illusion.
That statement itself is delusional.
From 1992 through 2000, the Federal deficit as a percentage of GDP, turned down below zero percent between 1998 and 2000. Read it and at least try to remain intellectually honest when you reply to me, please.
Here's the data:
Year, GDP-US $ billion, Federal Deficit-fed pct
1992, 6342.3, 4.58 a (Clinton)
1993, 6667.4, 3.83 a
1994, 7085.2, 2.87 a
1995, 7414.7, 2.21 a
1996, 7838.5, 1.37 a
1997, 8270.46, 0.27 a
1998, 8727.02, -0.79 a (inversion)
1999, 9286.86, -1.35 a
2000, 9884.17, -2.39 a (Bush 43)
2001, 10218, -1.25 a (rise in debt & deficit)
2002, 10572.4, 1.49 a (reversion)
2003, 11067.8, 3.41 a
2004, 11788.9, 3.50 a
2005, 12554.5, 2.54 a
2006, 13310.9, 1.87 a
2007, 13969.3, 1.15 a
2008, 14270.5, 3.21 a
2009, 14014.8, 13.14 b
2010, 14551.8, 8.65 b
Legend:
a - actual reported
b - budgeted estimate in US fy10 budget
******************************************
Clearly, the data shows that in 2000, Bush was still riding the prosperity wave that was created during the Clinton Era, and not the other way around as you incorrectly stated.
Another, delusional statement. This has always been a systemic lie told by the Right, to excuse the poor leadership performance of George W. Bush. That facts are rather surprising for under-educated Republicans to learn.
The well established economic definition of recession, is GDP growth below zero (negative) for two consecutive quarters. Not merely declining GDP growth q/q.
Annual United States GDP Rate of Growth YoY
Clearly, U.S. GDP did not turn negative until AFTER 2001, which was AFTER the election of George W. Bush, in 2000. The Bush 43 administration never saw a GDP expansion figure that at any time, was higher than during the Clinton administration. Those are the facts clearly put before you.
Fannie and Freddie, did not cause the housing crisis. That's yet another illogical and irrational lie told by Republicans, to cover for their total lack of leadership from 2000 through 2008.
The housing crisis was caused because people could no longer pay their mortgage. People could no longer pay their mortgage because people lost their respective jobs. People lost their respective jobs, because corporations moved them off-shore. Corporations were allowed to move Middle Class American jobs off-shore, because of Congressional tax loopholes and a de-regulatory environment that enabled it. Republicans, favored deregulation and corporate tax loopholes and therefore, Republicans were the primary reason why American Middle Class jobs are mostly a thing of the past.
The very thing (under-regulated industry and tax breaks for the super rich) that Republicans promised would expand our economy, is the very thing that moved American Middle Class jobs overseas. Those are the facts.
That is absolutely nonsense. The stock market went ballistic under Clinton. The stock market has never been higher, than under Clinton. There were record numbers of new millionaires being created between 2000 and 2008, than at any other time in recorded American history.
The tech-bubble, was a direct net effect of too much capital, chasing too few deals and once again. This brought too many charlatans into the market and created an IPO frenzy that eventually lost steam because the market lost faith, precisely at the same time as enterprise technology (mostly software) was reaching its product development life cycle zenith. Those things combined, set the path for the tech-bubble correction and then the collapse.
Microsoft, was not an IPO between 2000 and 2008, nor was Microsoft beholden to high-tech venture capital. So, the Justice Department -vs- Microsoft, was a non-issue relative to the tech-bubble collapse in real terms. There were many companies providing too much of the same technology at the same time and in a market that had become saturated with look-alike profiles, and there were only so many large scale corporate entities to sell into for growing tech companies.
I worked in Silicone Valley, in the enterprise software industry during the entire time and I know what took place there on the ground.
That is some of the most hyperbolic nonsense gibberish that I've ever heard for the collapse of the enterprise software industry in SV. I lived it everyday of my life - I know what took place because I was there.
Innovation ran into a brick wall, because funding dried up. Funding dried up because of too many fake/phony profit models were created that would never pan out. That was caused by GREED - pure and simple. The market needed to shake-out the greedy, before stabilizing on moving on, but the market never got that chance under Clinton, and instead, was invited to 911 as a nail in the coffin of innovation.
Obama, in reality, has either delivered or attempted to deliver on campaign promises made at at time when there was NO economic meltdown. You seem to have amnesia on WHY Obama had to alter course in both his message and his focus during the campaign. The country was hit with the worse economic retracement since 1929/32. That forced a shift in Obama rhetoric and Obama actions/behavior with respect to the economy and his purposed pre-election agenda.
Safety of his armchair? Is that where Vice President Dick "Five Time Deferment" Cheney, sat when he was scamming CIA intelligence behind the scenes to place American Troops into harms way? Is the armchair, were Bush 43 himself sat, after he want AWOL at the TANG, only later in life and without a a conscious, set out to become a Commander In Chief? We STILL don't have an official copy of Bush 43's DD-214, do we?
I have my DD-214 and it shows precisely what I did in the military. Why can't we get a copy of Bush 43's DD-214? Or, did his Daddy, clean that up for him too?
Merely stating that it would be wrong to vote for someone to the U.S. Supreme Court based on purely ideological reasons, and then not voting for any one individual in particular, is NOT a demonstration of failed principles.
To put this out as some kind of indictment on Obama, is irrational at best. Should one declare that they would not refuse to purchase chocolate ice cream, merely because of the way it tastes when compared to vanilla ice cream, and then going out that Friday night to Basking Robbins and buying vanilla ice cream, does NOT demonstrate some kind of warped problem with personal principle.
He can say that people should not make decisions based on pure ideology, rather the issues at hand, but still decide to vote against any particular individual for the Supreme Court. That in no way reduces his principles and concluding as much is illogical on its face.
Yet, you've failed miserably here to delineate one iota of truth about what you just claimed - as I have shown with data, charts and facts. You can sit back and throw stones from a glass house if you wish - it will only come back to haunt both you and the country down the road.
If your disdain for the President is predicated on irrational talking points and hyper-political dogma based in hate and woefully lacking in supportive data or facts, then the least of your concerns would be those who do support Obama, based on the very inverse of the same.
Now, you were saying something about how Obama has failed?
Two comments:
That is absolutely nonsense. The stock market went ballistic under Clinton. The stock market has never been higher, than under Clinton.
It did go ballistic, and then he slammed on the brakes when against DOJ's recommendations he decided he needed to rub Gates' nose in some poo. It dropped suddenly right after he rejected DOJ's recommendations. Sure, it recovered some, but not enough to avoid the recession.
Obama, in reality, has either delivered or attempted to deliver on campaign promises made at at time when there was NO economic meltdown. You seem to have amnesia on WHY Obama had to alter course in both his message and his focus during the campaign. The country was hit with the worse economic retracement since 1929/32. That forced a shift in Obama rhetoric and Obama actions/behavior with respect to the economy and his purposed pre-election agenda.
That would sure be noble and admirable if it were true that Obama did shift gears in response to the economic crisis. But he didn't. He kept on with his vanity healthcare legislation instead of paying attention to the efficacy of his stimulus and programs such as HAMP.
He failed in keeping many promises which had he honored them could have kept America on board with him.
His most egregious failure was when he explicitly promised the Hispanic community that there would be a comprehensive immigration bill in the congress within his first year and he would put his weight behind it. What made that most egregious is how he explicitly said that he was aware of how many times the Hispanic community had been given empty promises just for purposes of garnering their votes and he stated quite firmly that the promise he was making that day would not be one of those empty promises.
He was elected on the illusion that he would be a different kind of politician. But he is as much of a liar if not worse than any inhabitant of the oval office in my lifetime.
I reserve any further comments until I have time to read your essay in greater detail.
There is some really silly Hard Right punksta nonsense here.
Only Romney stands a good chance of beating Obama, Perry a minor chance, no one else any chance.
You far righters are not helping matters with your nattering.
Romney will be nominated, end of story. Hopefully, he will beat Obama.
If the far right messes this up once again, you will never be permitted any say in GOP matters.
what are you talking about?
Over projected surpluses?
The Tarp should have stopped at about 200 billion, and we got all of that back but AIG
what exactly did the stimulus do?
You have said nothing with allot of words there my friend
