The damage done by the New Partisans

Both extremes fucking suck
Left--->Stop supporting fucking criminals and THUGS because they're blacks.
Right---> Stop supporting super low taxes on the 1%!

Both need to do what is right for this country! Infrastructure, science, r&d, education and law enforcement!
 
Both extremes fucking suck
Left--->Stop supporting fucking criminals and THUGS because they're blacks.
Right---> Stop supporting super low taxes on the 1%!

Both need to do what is right for this country! Infrastructure, science, r&d, education and law enforcement!

Well here you just proven you believe in the far left religious dogma when you posted this:

"Right---> Stop supporting super low taxes on the 1%!"..
 
I cleared the waters, the legislation was written and re-written, however in the end 90 senators voted for, both parties had to be complicit in this to have strong support.

Right. And to your last dying breath I'm certain you believe that. As usual I feel like I wasted time I will never get back having any discussions with you. There are worse on this board but time gone is time lost.

I try and learn several things each day. Maybe I will learn something as valuable as time this morning.

So 90 Senators did not vote for this bill?

Thanks for wasting all the USMB members time for posting one sided stories.

90 Senators did not craft and sponsor the legislation. My post was not a "side". it was just the facts of how the bill came into being.. AKA it's genesis. You adding on the route it took along the way to implementation does not further my description of it's conception. You and people like you are willing...no...obsessed with finding democrats to blame for everything that ever happened. I don't care. I'm not a democrat and I do believe those that spawned that evil piece of legislation should get recognition. Blame all you want...the dems didn't write the bill.
I didn't say they crafted anything, sorry your reading comprehension sucks.

Just like many bills, you vote for it, I hold you accountable for it.

Loyalty is one thing. The lengths you will go to avoiding accepting responsibility isn't as brave as you probably imagine. Just because you don't directly blame Obama for the financial crisis as most of your fellow RW apologists do does not make you much less crazy. It just means you are slightly less of a robot for the Koch's. You are incapable of conducting an honest clean discussion.

Too much was on the line. Duh! The clock was ticking down and the big money boys pulled out all the stops when the bill actually made it to the floor for a vote. They already knew they had Clinton. How they got all the votes does not interest me. It happened. Why the legislation was drafted is what matters.

Who cleaned off the the knife as the murder was being executed is irrelevant. The heavy lifting in this plot to overthrow the rules of the financial institutions regulated by our government happened long before Clinton signed it into law.

You can stop your repetitive babbling. This thing was a child of the republicans. That is the true history.

I'm done arguing with a sycophant.

You are a complete fool, thanks for wasting my time.
 
Both extremes fucking suck
Left--->Stop supporting fucking criminals and THUGS because they're blacks.
Right---> Stop supporting super low taxes on the 1%!

Both need to do what is right for this country! Infrastructure, science, r&d, education and law enforcement!
Both parties are controlled by their zealots.

On one end, the Tea Party, on the other end, the PC Police.

I don't know how this gets fixed, as both of those factions have most of the energy and influence.

.
 
Both extremes fucking suck
Left--->Stop supporting fucking criminals and THUGS because they're blacks.
Right---> Stop supporting super low taxes on the 1%!

Both need to do what is right for this country! Infrastructure, science, r&d, education and law enforcement!
Both parties are controlled by their zealots.

On one end, the Tea Party, on the other end, the PC Police.

I don't know how this gets fixed, as both of those factions have most of the energy and influence.

.

Yes! The PC police have a controlling caucus in Congress. Absolutely. Brilliant.
 
This lie has been debunked many times over and over again. It relies on using Bush’s MASSIVE bailout spending as Obama’s baseline. That is ignorant as hell considering the huge expansion of government spending that year.

Facts are "ignorant as hell"?

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Most of the spending in Obama's term is either directly related to the severe recession Obama inherited or automatic, not discretionary.

Automatic expenditure (not surprisingly!) is expenditure that happens automatically. In other words, the government doesn't have exact control over the level of this type of expenditure. The most obvious example of this is spending on benefits. The government sets regulations for who is entitled to benefits, and it sets the level of the benefits. However, the one thing that it cannot dictate is the number of people who may then be entitled to them as this will often depend on the state of the economy. As the economy goes into recession and people lose their jobs, more people will be entitled to benefits. This will mean government expenditure will rise - not because the government chose to spend more, but simply because of the state of the economy. This spending is therefore automatic spending.

Discretionary spending is, by contrast, spending the government chooses to make. In a time of recession, it may choose to spend more to try to boost the level of aggregate demand and therefore equilibrium output. At other times, it may choose to lower the level of expenditure to avoid 'crowding out' private sector spending. Either way, it is operating a discretionary fiscal policy. ref

No, facts are not ignorant. You assertion that the yardstick with which to measure expenditures should be based on a single year that was bloated by 30% because of a bailout program is supremely ignorant. That is where you draw your incorrect assertions, using a yardstick that is broken and you know it.

I didn't make the assertion "that the yardstick with which to measure expenditures should be based on a single year that was bloated"....YOU DID.

The "yardstick" is the annual growth in spending of administrations for the last 35 years.

MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME11.jpg
In your mind, what does this chart demonstrate?

Are these words too big for you?

Annualized growth of federal spending
That's what the label says. I wasnt asking that. I was aasking what, in your mind, this chart demonstrates. Do I need to break it down for you?
 
Something that gets overlooked is that America didn't hear much of a conservative voice once TV came on strong. The left even got control over radio. It wasn't until the "Fairness Doctrine" got the ax that America started hearing conservatives on the airwaves. Now with talk radio, TV talk show and the internet we get more information. As the liberals lost their grip on information dissemination they had to up the ante and try to convince people that conservative values were not just wrong, but evil.
We don't actually get more information. Since Reagan sold the media to corporations (along with the election process), we don't get so much raw news anymore--we get opinions and propaganda. Retard Radio is a prime example. If you are unfortunate enough to hear any AM talk station now, be assured it is wall-to-wall right wing propaganda interlaced with advertisements for Sleep Comfort Beds and sales of gold coins.
 
Most of the spending in Obama's term is either directly related to the severe recession Obama inherited or automatic, not discretionary.

Automatic expenditure (not surprisingly!) is expenditure that happens automatically. In other words, the government doesn't have exact control over the level of this type of expenditure. The most obvious example of this is spending on benefits. The government sets regulations for who is entitled to benefits, and it sets the level of the benefits. However, the one thing that it cannot dictate is the number of people who may then be entitled to them as this will often depend on the state of the economy. As the economy goes into recession and people lose their jobs, more people will be entitled to benefits. This will mean government expenditure will rise - not because the government chose to spend more, but simply because of the state of the economy. This spending is therefore automatic spending.

Discretionary spending is, by contrast, spending the government chooses to make. In a time of recession, it may choose to spend more to try to boost the level of aggregate demand and therefore equilibrium output. At other times, it may choose to lower the level of expenditure to avoid 'crowding out' private sector spending. Either way, it is operating a discretionary fiscal policy. ref

 

Forum List

Back
Top