90,609,000 not included in work force

[edthecynic]

The economy is better today than it was in January, 2009. This is a fact. Celebrate the good news, nutters. Urge your representatives to work toward making things better...regardless of who occupies the WH.

Be Americans who root for America to succeed. It will feel good. I promise.

17 trillion debt reasons your full of shit..... and 47 million on welfare reasons your full of shit.....

Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov?t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid | CNS News
49% on the govt nickel and things are good?
we spent 162 billion more than we brought in with the last GOP budget, 2007
by 2009 that number was over 1.3 trillion
UE from the 80s to 08 was around 5% with a couple of 6-7% years and some 4% years
It is, well in reality somewhere between 7-12%
I think U6 is at 14 now
U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends
with 90 million not included

We borrowed half a trillion dollars in 2007 and 1.47 trillion in Bush's last fiscal year. The difference was not who controlled Congress but the SS surplus running out.

 

[JRK]

The problem with that "logic" is the Bush tax cuts were still in effect during all those job losses!!!!! When you include Bush's doubling of the number of unemployed he had a net job loss as a result of his tax cuts.

So 5 and 7 year old tax policy caused inflated assets and people loaning people money that neither had any business doing?
net job loss?
from 2003 to the end of his term there was 4 million jobs added

So you finally admit Bush's tax cuts had nothing to do with job gains or losses, but instead it was inflated assets that increased jobs as the bubble inflated and lost jobs after it burst.

No
what I said was that the wealth bubble was a creation of mis managing assets and making bad loans
had 0 to do with tax policy
Job creation was influenced to some degree with these events
short term and in just a few states
But a long term stable economy with real job growth was in part due to the tax policy GWB put in place
if I am allowed to keep 2000.00 a year more
and there are 30 million of us doing that
that is allot of wealth being spread in the economy not to mention the billions the capital gain tax alloed to be put back into the economy

I bought a pick-up and a travel trailer with the income that was generated from GWB tax cuts

There is no doubt that allowing the middle class to keep more of its wealth creates jobs
what RR did was still a tax cut in the end

 

[JRK]

17 trillion debt reasons your full of shit..... and 47 million on welfare reasons your full of shit.....

Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov?t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid | CNS News
49% on the govt nickel and things are good?
we spent 162 billion more than we brought in with the last GOP budget, 2007
by 2009 that number was over 1.3 trillion
UE from the 80s to 08 was around 5% with a couple of 6-7% years and some 4% years
It is, well in reality somewhere between 7-12%
I think U6 is at 14 now
U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends
with 90 million not included

We borrowed half a trillion dollars in 2007 and 1.47 trillion in Bush's last fiscal year. The difference was not who controlled Congress but the SS surplus running out.

what?
GWB last year had the failed stimulus and the omnibus bill
GWB signed no budget in 2008
his base line was 800 billion below what BHO ended up getting, not including the last 50% of tarp
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it was a 2.7 trillion dollar estimate from Ws base-line
we ended up spending 3.5
thats not GWB

2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100 billion dollars difference in spending on SS
400 billion less in revenue
750 billion more on spending from 07-2010
so spending had nothing to do with it?

 

[edthecynic]

So 5 and 7 year old tax policy caused inflated assets and people loaning people money that neither had any business doing?
net job loss?
from 2003 to the end of his term there was 4 million jobs added

So you finally admit Bush's tax cuts had nothing to do with job gains or losses, but instead it was inflated assets that increased jobs as the bubble inflated and lost jobs after it burst.

No
what I said was that the wealth bubble was a creation of mis managing assets and making bad loans
had 0 to do with tax policy
Job creation was influenced to some degree with these events
short term and in just a few states
But a long term stable economy with real job growth was in part due to the tax policy GWB put in place
if I am allowed to keep 2000.00 a year more
and there are 30 million of us doing that
that is allot of wealth being spread in the economy not to mention the billions the capital gain tax alloed to be put back into the economy

I bought a pick-up and a travel trailer with the income that was generated from GWB tax cuts

There is no doubt that allowing the middle class to keep more of its wealth creates jobs
what RR did was still a tax cut in the end

But the economy was not stable in the "long term" as it exploded by the end of 2007 and crashed and burned in 2008 and 2009. There was no "real" job growth, the few jobs created were more than offset by the doubling of the unemployed from 6 million to 12 million under Bush.

 

[JRK]

So you finally admit Bush's tax cuts had nothing to do with job gains or losses, but instead it was inflated assets that increased jobs as the bubble inflated and lost jobs after it burst.

No
what I said was that the wealth bubble was a creation of mis managing assets and making bad loans
had 0 to do with tax policy
Job creation was influenced to some degree with these events
short term and in just a few states
But a long term stable economy with real job growth was in part due to the tax policy GWB put in place
if I am allowed to keep 2000.00 a year more
and there are 30 million of us doing that
that is allot of wealth being spread in the economy not to mention the billions the capital gain tax alloed to be put back into the economy

I bought a pick-up and a travel trailer with the income that was generated from GWB tax cuts

There is no doubt that allowing the middle class to keep more of its wealth creates jobs
what RR did was still a tax cut in the end

But the economy was not stable in the "long term" as it exploded by the end of 2007 and crashed and burned in 2008 and 2009. There was no "real" job growth, the few jobs created were more than offset by the doubling of the unemployed from 6 million to 12 million under Bush.

again
what did the tax poicy have to do with that?
there was 4 million more people working in 2009 when he left office than in 2003 after 9-11, Enron and the Clinton Recession
at one time that number was 10 million

we are still far below the jon numbers of 2008
BHO could do a better job, but that number is not his fault
the lack of job growth is

yout trying to compare 4-5% UE up until the crash which had nothing to do with any govt official to 5 years later with the U6 @ 13.7 today compared to 14 the day Obama took office http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate
5 years
and some how an event that had nothing to do with GWB nor his policy you blame him for
crazy

BHO should have focused as hard on jobs as he did giving the UAW tax payers wealth and the ACA and we would be fine by now, W/ GWB tax policies still in place

 

[edthecynic]

Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov?t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid | CNS News
49% on the govt nickel and things are good?
we spent 162 billion more than we brought in with the last GOP budget, 2007
by 2009 that number was over 1.3 trillion
UE from the 80s to 08 was around 5% with a couple of 6-7% years and some 4% years
It is, well in reality somewhere between 7-12%
I think U6 is at 14 now
U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends
with 90 million not included

We borrowed half a trillion dollars in 2007 and 1.47 trillion in Bush's last fiscal year. The difference was not who controlled Congress but the SS surplus running out.

what?
GWB last year had the failed stimulus and the omnibus bill
GWB signed no budget in 2008
his base line was 800 billion below what BHO ended up getting, not including the last 50% of tarp
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it was a 2.7 trillion dollar estimate from Ws base-line
we ended up spending 3.5
thats not GWB

2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100 billion dollars difference in spending on SS
400 billion less in revenue
750 billion more on spending from 07-2010
so spending had nothing to do with it?

Bush signed the fiscal year 2008 budget in Dec 2007 and submitted a 3.1 trillion base budget for FY 2009. He then signed a number of supplamental spending bills bringing the total FY 2009 budget he signed to 3.5 trillion.

From the Right Wing Mises Foundation:

Bush?s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama

One such tactic they’re using these days is to blame Obama for some of the massive increases in federal spending that occurred during the eight years of Bush’s two terms. A Google search for “federal spending under Obama” and related terms yields a wide variety of articles and media stories (largely from Foxnews) blaming Obama for the massive spending increases that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year.


This is very clever of course, since few people out in the public understand how federal budgeting works, but the fact is that the spending that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year is almost totally the result of appropriations bills signed by George W. Bush during the 2008 calendar year. By shifting Bush’s 2009 spending to Obama, one can then understate the amount of federal spending authorized by Bush while inflating the spending authorized by Obama. This then helps perpetuate the myth that one party is more “responsible” with taxpayer funds than the other party.



The Budget Process and Presidential Terms

The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.



This framework for calculating presidential spending should be applied generally to all presidential terms of office. It would be inaccurate and dishonest to attribute most 2001 federal spending to Bush, just as it would be wrong to attribute most 1993 spending to Clinton. Presidents can and do add to the budgets passed by their predecessors by signing supplemental appropriations bills early in their terms, but this can only account for a small portion of total spending that might occur during a president’s first year in office.



The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.

 

[edthecynic]

No
what I said was that the wealth bubble was a creation of mis managing assets and making bad loans
had 0 to do with tax policy
Job creation was influenced to some degree with these events
short term and in just a few states
But a long term stable economy with real job growth was in part due to the tax policy GWB put in place
if I am allowed to keep 2000.00 a year more
and there are 30 million of us doing that
that is allot of wealth being spread in the economy not to mention the billions the capital gain tax alloed to be put back into the economy

I bought a pick-up and a travel trailer with the income that was generated from GWB tax cuts

There is no doubt that allowing the middle class to keep more of its wealth creates jobs
what RR did was still a tax cut in the end

But the economy was not stable in the "long term" as it exploded by the end of 2007 and crashed and burned in 2008 and 2009. There was no "real" job growth, the few jobs created were more than offset by the doubling of the unemployed from 6 million to 12 million under Bush.

again
what did the tax poicy have to do with that?
there was 4 million more people working in 2009 when he left office than in 2003 after 9-11, Enron and the Clinton Recession
at one time that number was 10 million

we are still far below the jon numbers of 2008
BHO could do a better job, but that number is not his fault
the lack of job growth is

yout trying to compare 4-5% UE up until the crash which had nothing to do with any govt official to 5 years later with the U6 @ 13.7 today compared to 14 the day Obama took office U6 Unemployment Rate | MacroTrends
5 years
and some how an event that had nothing to do with GWB nor his policy you blame him for
crazy

BHO should have focused as hard on jobs as he did giving the UAW tax payers wealth and the ACA and we would be fine by now, W/ GWB tax policies still in place

Notice how the Right has no trouble blaming Clinton for what happened after he left office, but have a shit fit if Bush is blamed for what happened during his time in office!

You say 4 million jobs were created by the time Bush left office, but there were 6 million more unemployed by the time he left also, producing a net LOSS of jobs during the Bush Regime.

Clinton passed a steady 4% U3 rate to Bush and Bush passed a skyrocketing 7.4% U3 rate to Obama.

 

[JRK]

We borrowed half a trillion dollars in 2007 and 1.47 trillion in Bush's last fiscal year. The difference was not who controlled Congress but the SS surplus running out.

what?
GWB last year had the failed stimulus and the omnibus bill
GWB signed no budget in 2008
his base line was 800 billion below what BHO ended up getting, not including the last 50% of tarp
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it was a 2.7 trillion dollar estimate from Ws base-line
we ended up spending 3.5
thats not GWB

2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100 billion dollars difference in spending on SS
400 billion less in revenue
750 billion more on spending from 07-2010
so spending had nothing to do with it?

Bush signed the fiscal year 2008 budget in Dec 2007 and submitted a 3.1 trillion base budget for FY 2009. He then signed a number of supplamental spending bills bringing the total FY 2009 budget he signed to 3.5 trillion.

From the Right Wing Mises Foundation:

Bush?s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama

One such tactic they’re using these days is to blame Obama for some of the massive increases in federal spending that occurred during the eight years of Bush’s two terms. A Google search for “federal spending under Obama” and related terms yields a wide variety of articles and media stories (largely from Foxnews) blaming Obama for the massive spending increases that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year.


This is very clever of course, since few people out in the public understand how federal budgeting works, but the fact is that the spending that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year is almost totally the result of appropriations bills signed by George W. Bush during the 2008 calendar year. By shifting Bush’s 2009 spending to Obama, one can then understate the amount of federal spending authorized by Bush while inflating the spending authorized by Obama. This then helps perpetuate the myth that one party is more “responsible” with taxpayer funds than the other party.



The Budget Process and Presidential Terms

The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.



This framework for calculating presidential spending should be applied generally to all presidential terms of office. It would be inaccurate and dishonest to attribute most 2001 federal spending to Bush, just as it would be wrong to attribute most 1993 spending to Clinton. Presidents can and do add to the budgets passed by their predecessors by signing supplemental appropriations bills early in their terms, but this can only account for a small portion of total spending that might occur during a president’s first year in office.



The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.

First, Nutting writes, “In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.” This is inaccurate for two reasons: first, as Nutting notes in a separate chart, Obama was responsible for $140 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Therefore, insinuating that the 2009 deficit was garnered entirely under President Bush’s watch is misleading.

Second, and related, Nutting fails to place blame for a number of other spending items President Obama signed into law on the President, particularly those from the $410 billion H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. This Act, signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009, included the following:
1. Five billion dollars worth of earmarks added by Members of Congress.
2.A funding increase of $8.5 billion in the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the law, excluding emergency appropriations.
3.A $31 billion increase in nine bills funding various federal agencies over FY 2008, as totaled by the U.S. Conference of Mayor.

All told, as noted by the Canada Free Press, the omnibus increased total spending in the relevant departments by 8% over the prior year. And while $31 billion is not a large amount of money compared to the federal budget in 2009 (it was less than one percent of spending in that year), it was 22% of the $140 billion in deficit spending Nutting credits to Obama. Nutting should still have put the blame for those increases on Obama’s shoulders – as he eventually, and rightly, did with stimulus spending.

Third, Nutting cites the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to claim FY 2013 spending is supposed to go down by 1.3%. This is extremely misleading. In citing the CBO, Nutting is looking at the its 2012 baseline report on spending. This report looks at how current law will impact spending and the deficit. However, in the same report, CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario (what I like to call the politically realistic scenario, with explanations of the likely course Congress will take regarding specific tax and spending programs) expects certain spending reductions to be delayed by Congress. These include cuts to doctor payments in Medicare and the sequestration cuts scheduled to take place in 2013. These and other examinations of fiscal reality cause the CBO to note “deficits would average 5.4 percent of GDP over the 2013–2022 period, rather than the 1.5 percent reflected in CBO’s baseline projections.” The CBO also expects the difference in deficits between the baseline report and alternative fiscal scenario to be about two percent of GDP, or over $300 billion in 2013.

Finally, while Nutting’s thesis focuses exclusively on the time President Obama has been in office, it should be pointed out that then-Senator Obama voted for at least two big-ticket items opposed by many Republicans and signed by Bush – TARP and the auto bailouts. While not looking at these is consistent with Nutting’s thesis, it also leads the reader to forget that it takes three to tango in Washington…and by having control of the House and the Senate Senator Obama and his Democratic allies were two of those partners in spending in Fiscal Year 2009.


Correcting the media on Obama?s spending record? again « Hot Air

 

[edthecynic]

what?
GWB last year had the failed stimulus and the omnibus bill
GWB signed no budget in 2008
his base line was 800 billion below what BHO ended up getting, not including the last 50% of tarp
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it was a 2.7 trillion dollar estimate from Ws base-line
we ended up spending 3.5
thats not GWB

2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100 billion dollars difference in spending on SS
400 billion less in revenue
750 billion more on spending from 07-2010
so spending had nothing to do with it?

Bush signed the fiscal year 2008 budget in Dec 2007 and submitted a 3.1 trillion base budget for FY 2009. He then signed a number of supplamental spending bills bringing the total FY 2009 budget he signed to 3.5 trillion.

From the Right Wing Mises Foundation:

Bush?s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama

One such tactic they’re using these days is to blame Obama for some of the massive increases in federal spending that occurred during the eight years of Bush’s two terms. A Google search for “federal spending under Obama” and related terms yields a wide variety of articles and media stories (largely from Foxnews) blaming Obama for the massive spending increases that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year.


This is very clever of course, since few people out in the public understand how federal budgeting works, but the fact is that the spending that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year is almost totally the result of appropriations bills signed by George W. Bush during the 2008 calendar year. By shifting Bush’s 2009 spending to Obama, one can then understate the amount of federal spending authorized by Bush while inflating the spending authorized by Obama. This then helps perpetuate the myth that one party is more “responsible” with taxpayer funds than the other party.



The Budget Process and Presidential Terms

The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.



This framework for calculating presidential spending should be applied generally to all presidential terms of office. It would be inaccurate and dishonest to attribute most 2001 federal spending to Bush, just as it would be wrong to attribute most 1993 spending to Clinton. Presidents can and do add to the budgets passed by their predecessors by signing supplemental appropriations bills early in their terms, but this can only account for a small portion of total spending that might occur during a president’s first year in office.



The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.

First, Nutting writes, “In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.” This is inaccurate for two reasons: first, as Nutting notes in a separate chart, Obama was responsible for $140 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Therefore, insinuating that the 2009 deficit was garnered entirely under President Bush’s watch is misleading.

Second, and related, Nutting fails to place blame for a number of other spending items President Obama signed into law on the President, particularly those from the $410 billion H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. This Act, signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009, included the following:
1. Five billion dollars worth of earmarks added by Members of Congress.
2.A funding increase of $8.5 billion in the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the law, excluding emergency appropriations.
3.A $31 billion increase in nine bills funding various federal agencies over FY 2008, as totaled by the U.S. Conference of Mayor.

All told, as noted by the Canada Free Press, the omnibus increased total spending in the relevant departments by 8% over the prior year. And while $31 billion is not a large amount of money compared to the federal budget in 2009 (it was less than one percent of spending in that year), it was 22% of the $140 billion in deficit spending Nutting credits to Obama. Nutting should still have put the blame for those increases on Obama’s shoulders – as he eventually, and rightly, did with stimulus spending.

First of all, the Mises article I linked to, which you obviously didn't read, was written by Ryan McMaken not Nutting. And even backing out $140 billion still leaves Bush spending $3.38 trillion.

From the ultra CON$ervative Mises article I linked to earlier:

 

[Rebelitarian]

The economy is better today than it was in January, 2009. This is a fact. Celebrate the good news, nutters. Urge your representatives to work toward making things better...regardless of who occupies the WH.

Be Americans who root for America to succeed. It will feel good. I promise.

17 trillion debt reasons your full of shit..... and 47 million on welfare reasons your full of shit.....

Agreed !!!!!!!!!!!!

When the dollar collpases and the riots happen America will have to take a real hard look at itself.

John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqIHKWd9rSc]John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"Extended Interview 2008 - YouTube[/ame]

The American Dream Film-Full Length




The Money Masters.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H56FUHgqRNE]The Money Masters - Full-Length (3hrs 19m) - YouTube[/ame]


The warning signs were there for all to see, but America will be the first republic to allow foreign banks to take them over, when they had the power of the vote to stop it all along.

 

[Rebelitarian]

W's entire presidency was an economic clusterfuck of multiple bad ideas that taken in total, destroyed the US economy and created this recession. Reagan had the good sense to realize his tax cuts hadn't worked and late in his second term signed the biggest tax bill in US history but not W. Bush and his buddies were too busy outsourcing government to Haliburton and other companies owned by members of the administration and robbing the treasury.

Wall Street greed also contributed. With a corrupt administration leading the way, everybody was out for what they could get. Corporations outsourced American manufacturing to Third World countries and pocketed huge profits. No thought was given to reports of slave labour, child labour, or health or safety conditions coming out of those countries. Loss of jobs in the US was blamed on union demands and excessive regulations but it was greed. The price of goods sold didn't go down because costs were cut. The corporations simply increased profits to historic levels and Wall Street cheered.

Earned income credits which Bush enshrined in the tax code were in answer to those who wanted the minimum wage in the US increased. In other words, they were a subsidy to big business to keep wages in the service industry as low as possible. Now conservatives rail that 47% of Americans pay no tax and these people are "takers".

In order to buy the votes of retires, W came up with Medicare Part D - a huge boon to the elderly, but completely unfunded. Adding to the deficit. He kept his wars off the books to hide those expenses and the American people had no idea how large the deficit truly was.

Huge increases in military spending helped fuel job creation. There were so many soldiers deployed overseas that members of the reserves were called into active service and shipped to Iraq.

When home ownership fell to the lowest levels in years due to the erosion of disposable income for the working class, the solution wasn't to raise working class wages, but rather to artificially lower interest rates and, as has already been explained, this lead to the housing bubble.

Bush and his buddies were too busy lining their pockets with taxpayers' money to know or care what the long term effects of these policies would be. They were getting richer and corporations were getting richer. That was all that mattered.

It all came crashing down in the run up to the 2008 elections. When Obama took over, the economy was in free fall, jobs were being lost in unprecedented numbers and banking institutions were failing left and right.

There was never going to be a quick fix to this mess. And no matter what Obama and the Democrats were able to do, this train wreck was never going to turn around quick enough to satisfy the American public. Jobs losses continued unabated through the first two years of Obama's presidency as consumers just stopped spending, banks stopped lending, corporations stopped hiring, and housing prices were in the toilet.

Republicans made no secret of their intentions. They were going to make sure Obama was a one term President. So much for getting the country out of the mess. They filibustered every bill, delayed and obstructed every piece of legislation. And they gerrymandered relentlessly in Republican states. The economy and the American people be damned.

Once they reclaimed Congress in the midterm elections, they blocked every jobs bills proposed by the President. And that continues to this day.

Republicans have been obstructing, delaying and make ridiculous demands, while voting endlessly to repeal the ACA. At every opportunity, they go on TV to complain about Obama and the left wing media. Media Matters found that television appearances by Republicans outnumbered those by Democrats by 3 to 1.

Despite all of their efforts, Obama was re-elected. You can't gerrymander the Presidential election.

And yet Obama hasn't really repudiated the Friedman economic policies that got the US into this mess in the first place. Large corporations and high income earners are still paying much lower effective tax rates than the middle class. He just appointed a Friedman acolyte to head up the Federal reserve. Large service and retail industry corporations are using food stamps and Medicaid to subsidize minimum wages paid to workers.

Unless and until American corporations stop shipping jobs overseas, unemployment will remain high. Until wages for low income workers, which have been losing purchasing power since Reagan came to power, start increasing, the recovery will have little impact on 80% of the American public.

This is W's long term legacy. One that the Republican Party is determined to preserve no matter what the cost.

Both parties take orders from Bilderberg to implode America and declare martial law.

Endgame

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho]EndGame HQ full length version - YouTube[/ame]


See Republicans and Democrats both go to Bilderberg meetings and it is all yes sir yes sir yes sir when they get there.



What's worse is that this has been well known since 2006 and yet Americans still vote for the 2 Bilderberg parties all the time.

 

[JRK]

Bush signed the fiscal year 2008 budget in Dec 2007 and submitted a 3.1 trillion base budget for FY 2009. He then signed a number of supplamental spending bills bringing the total FY 2009 budget he signed to 3.5 trillion.

From the Right Wing Mises Foundation:

Bush?s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama

One such tactic they’re using these days is to blame Obama for some of the massive increases in federal spending that occurred during the eight years of Bush’s two terms. A Google search for “federal spending under Obama” and related terms yields a wide variety of articles and media stories (largely from Foxnews) blaming Obama for the massive spending increases that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year.


This is very clever of course, since few people out in the public understand how federal budgeting works, but the fact is that the spending that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year is almost totally the result of appropriations bills signed by George W. Bush during the 2008 calendar year. By shifting Bush’s 2009 spending to Obama, one can then understate the amount of federal spending authorized by Bush while inflating the spending authorized by Obama. This then helps perpetuate the myth that one party is more “responsible” with taxpayer funds than the other party.



The Budget Process and Presidential Terms

The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.



This framework for calculating presidential spending should be applied generally to all presidential terms of office. It would be inaccurate and dishonest to attribute most 2001 federal spending to Bush, just as it would be wrong to attribute most 1993 spending to Clinton. Presidents can and do add to the budgets passed by their predecessors by signing supplemental appropriations bills early in their terms, but this can only account for a small portion of total spending that might occur during a president’s first year in office.



The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.

First, Nutting writes, “In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.” This is inaccurate for two reasons: first, as Nutting notes in a separate chart, Obama was responsible for $140 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Therefore, insinuating that the 2009 deficit was garnered entirely under President Bush’s watch is misleading.

Second, and related, Nutting fails to place blame for a number of other spending items President Obama signed into law on the President, particularly those from the $410 billion H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. This Act, signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009, included the following:
1. Five billion dollars worth of earmarks added by Members of Congress.
2.A funding increase of $8.5 billion in the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the law, excluding emergency appropriations.
3.A $31 billion increase in nine bills funding various federal agencies over FY 2008, as totaled by the U.S. Conference of Mayor.

All told, as noted by the Canada Free Press, the omnibus increased total spending in the relevant departments by 8% over the prior year. And while $31 billion is not a large amount of money compared to the federal budget in 2009 (it was less than one percent of spending in that year), it was 22% of the $140 billion in deficit spending Nutting credits to Obama. Nutting should still have put the blame for those increases on Obama’s shoulders – as he eventually, and rightly, did with stimulus spending.

First of all, the Mises article I linked to, which you obviously didn't read, was written by Ryan McMaken not Nutting. And even backing out $140 billion still leaves Bush spending $3.38 trillion.

From the ultra CON$ervative Mises article I linked to earlier:

I am going to say this one more time
GWB last GOP budget we had a defict of 162 billion
by 2009 that same defict was 1.4 trillion
The president signs and requests
congress approves

BHO added all of this spending with the failed stimulus as well as as post 2009 having no budget passed sense
Not GWB
Not the GOP
but with a continuing resolution based on the inflated 2009 budget that had additional spending by the dems and BHO
GWB signed nothing in 2009 but the spring tax rebate and Tarp
his 50% of tarp was paid back
He got the last 50% for Obama in 1/2009

Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-8), that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled “2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.” From CQ, “the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion — $410 billion of it for discretionary programs — and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.” If accepted as true, this statement alone undercuts Nutting’s whole premise that FY 2009 is wholly Bush spending.

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.
The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

 

[Dragonlady]

What has not been mentioned is that Ronald Reagan changed the fundamental way that the US government works and is financed, in the same way that FDR's New Deal changed the fundamental way that the US government works and is financed. While FDR changed the economy to the benefit of the workers and the general population, Reaganomics changed the economy to the benefit of the wealthy and large corporations, redistributing money from the poor and lower middle class upward to the wealthy.

Post Reagan, all Presidents, including Clinton and Obama, have continued the economic changes made under Reagan, all appointing Chicago School of Economics acolytes to positions in the IMF, the World Bank, and the Federal Reserve. Unless and until Frieman economics loses sway with American policiticians of all stripes, the economy will see stagnate wages and high unemployment, which are hallmarks of Friedman economics.

 

[The Rabbi]

What has not been mentioned is that Ronald Reagan changed the fundamental way that the US government works and is financed, in the same way that FDR's New Deal changed the fundamental way that the US government works and is financed. While FDR changed the economy to the benefit of the workers and the general population, Reaganomics changed the economy to the benefit of the wealthy and large corporations, redistributing money from the poor and lower middle class upward to the wealthy.

Post Reagan, all Presidents, including Clinton and Obama, have continued the economic changes made under Reagan, all appointing Chicago School of Economics acolytes to positions in the IMF, the World Bank, and the Federal Reserve. Unless and until Frieman economics loses sway with American policiticians of all stripes, the economy will see stagnate wages and high unemployment, which are hallmarks of Friedman economics.

Who appointed Paul Volker?

Oops. Another tiny-brained theory blown apart.

 

[Mustang]

First, Nutting writes, “In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.” This is inaccurate for two reasons: first, as Nutting notes in a separate chart, Obama was responsible for $140 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Therefore, insinuating that the 2009 deficit was garnered entirely under President Bush’s watch is misleading.

Second, and related, Nutting fails to place blame for a number of other spending items President Obama signed into law on the President, particularly those from the $410 billion H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. This Act, signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009, included the following:
1. Five billion dollars worth of earmarks added by Members of Congress.
2.A funding increase of $8.5 billion in the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the law, excluding emergency appropriations.
3.A $31 billion increase in nine bills funding various federal agencies over FY 2008, as totaled by the U.S. Conference of Mayor.

All told, as noted by the Canada Free Press, the omnibus increased total spending in the relevant departments by 8% over the prior year. And while $31 billion is not a large amount of money compared to the federal budget in 2009 (it was less than one percent of spending in that year), it was 22% of the $140 billion in deficit spending Nutting credits to Obama. Nutting should still have put the blame for those increases on Obama’s shoulders – as he eventually, and rightly, did with stimulus spending.

First of all, the Mises article I linked to, which you obviously didn't read, was written by Ryan McMaken not Nutting. And even backing out $140 billion still leaves Bush spending $3.38 trillion.

From the ultra CON$ervative Mises article I linked to earlier:

I am going to say this one more time
GWB last GOP budget we had a defict of 162 billion
by 2009 that same defict was 1.4 trillion
The president signs and requests
congress approves

BHO added all of this spending with the failed stimulus as well as as post 2009 having no budget passed sense
Not GWB
Not the GOP
but with a continuing resolution based on the inflated 2009 budget that had additional spending by the dems and BHO
GWB signed nothing in 2009 but the spring tax rebate and Tarp
his 50% of tarp was paid back
He got the last 50% for Obama in 1/2009

Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-8), that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled “2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.” From CQ, “the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion — $410 billion of it for discretionary programs — and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.” If accepted as true, this statement alone undercuts Nutting’s whole premise that FY 2009 is wholly Bush spending.

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.
The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

War funding was off-budget under Bush. (That's the defense supplemental bills people remember hearing about on the news). Then Obama came into office and stopped that practice which meant that the costs of the war would be directly reflected in the budget and the deficit.

The questions are these: Were you fooled by that practice? Or did you already know that and you're just perpetrating the fraud?

 

[bitterlyclingin]

49.2 per cent of all Americans receiving some sort of government pay out. Sounds like an economic program and policy straight out of Cloward and Piven and the Saul Alynski playbook.

"Those people receiving government welfare along with the working poor constitute a critical mass that if manipulated properly could lead to the installation of a Communist ibn office and maintaining him there for a considerable time" Barack Obama at Loyola University 1998.

Who dares claim Baracky Obammunist a failure in his campaign to bring America into what he believes is its Communist future.

 

[The Rabbi]

War funding was off-budget under Bush. (That's the defense supplemental bills people remember hearing about on the news). Then Obama came into office and stopped that practice which meant that the costs of the war would be directly reflected in the budget and the deficit.

The questions are these: Were you fooled by that practice? Or did you already know that and you're just perpetrating the fraud?

There has never been a budget passed under Obama's presidency. Ergo the costs cannot be reflected in his budget.
Nice try but you need more up to date talking points. Go back to your masters.

 

[Dragonlady]

Who appointed Paul Volker?

Oops. Another tiny-brained theory blown apart.

Volker isn't a Friedman economist. He favours increasing taxes if necessary, breaking up the biggest US banks, increased banking regulations, and says Wall Street bankers are "overpaid".

Reagan retained Volker from the Carter Administration but fired him because Volker wasn't sufficiently deregulating the banking industry. Volker has been highly critical of economic management and deregulation of the US economy, both under Reagan and subsequent Presidents.

 

[The T]

Are you kidding me?
The gov'ts actions directly caused the crash, as the Fed kept interest rates too low too long, raising incentives for mortgage lending i a real estate bubble.
The gov'ts actions after 2009 directly caused the slow recovery, as dysincentives for hiring and wealth accumulation kicked in.
This is Econ 101. A subject most libs are completely ignorant of.

The govt keeping intrest rates low had nothing to do with people making bad loans.
that was a choice made in the free market, not in Washington
do a root cause and you will agree
easy money was only easy because people in the free market made bad choices
I agree there has been little effort to help the economy get back to where it was from 80s to late 07 sense 2009
Obama spent his first 2 year 100% focused on ACA

It had everything to do with it.
Low interest rates by the Feds made it immensely profitable to make mortgage loans (difference between interest rate on mortgage loan and rate on fed funds equals profit), which were packaged and sold. Only way to increase borrower pool is to lower cost and/or lower credit quality. They did both. Eventually lower credit quality caught up.
Easy money was easy because the Fed sets monetary policy.
Obama spent his first year focused on the Porkulus Bill, Cash for Clunkers, and Dodd-Frank. ACA was in there somewhere.

Just wait until QE insert number here ceases? Talk about bubble burst? Try nuclear explosion that will be heard around the world.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

First of all, the Mises article I linked to, which you obviously didn't read, was written by Ryan McMaken not Nutting. And even backing out $140 billion still leaves Bush spending $3.38 trillion.

From the ultra CON$ervative Mises article I linked to earlier:

I am going to say this one more time
GWB last GOP budget we had a defict of 162 billion
by 2009 that same defict was 1.4 trillion
The president signs and requests
congress approves

BHO added all of this spending with the failed stimulus as well as as post 2009 having no budget passed sense
Not GWB
Not the GOP
but with a continuing resolution based on the inflated 2009 budget that had additional spending by the dems and BHO
GWB signed nothing in 2009 but the spring tax rebate and Tarp
his 50% of tarp was paid back
He got the last 50% for Obama in 1/2009

Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) maps out a history of the FY 2009 final appropriations bills (H.R. 1105 and PL 111-8), that would lead one to attribute most of the accelerated spending in FY 2009 to President Obama in a piece titled “2009 Legislative Summary: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus.” From CQ, “the omnibus provided a total of $1.05 trillion — $410 billion of it for discretionary programs — and included many of the domestic spending increases Democrats were unable to get enacted while George W. Bush was president.” If accepted as true, this statement alone undercuts Nutting’s whole premise that FY 2009 is wholly Bush spending.

President Bush signed only three of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009: Defense; Military Construction/Veterans Affairs; and, Homeland Security. President Bush also signed a continuing resolution that kept the government running until March 6, 2009 that level of funding the remaining nine appropriations bills at FY 2008 levels. President Bush and his spending should only be judged on these three appropriations bills and FY 2008 levels of funding for the remaining nine appropriations bills. Bush never consented to the dramatic increase in spending for FY 2009 and he should not be blamed for that spending spree.
The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

War funding was off-budget under Bush. (That's the defense supplemental bills people remember hearing about on the news). Then Obama came into office and stopped that practice which meant that the costs of the war would be directly reflected in the budget and the deficit.

The questions are these: Were you fooled by that practice? Or did you already know that and you're just perpetrating the fraud?

Problem here is.. there isn't a budget. Once again.. you lie. The Obama regime is financed through CR's.