GOP - the economy, the Middle East - it has nothing to do with us. It's Obama's!

  • Thread starter Thread starter rdean
  • Start date Start date
Three Charts To Email To Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law (Updated)

These charts show what actually happened.

Spending

lightbox




Government spending increased dramatically under President Bush. It has not increased much under President Obama.


Is that after your belief in trying to convince me, that Obamacare is actually 100% funded? I think you better reexamine those figures, as I trust the knowledge of the CBO on our budget outlook more than your graphs.

Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today.

.... the GAO report concluded that even under these “more optimistic assumptions,” Obamacare’s cost-control provisions “were not sufficient to prevent an unsustainable increase in debt held by the public.”

GAO Report: Obamacare Adds $6.2 Trillion to Long-Term Deficit | National Review Online


... even with strong economic growth and low unemployment. Over the ten year period 2015 to 2024, CBO is now projecting a cumulative deficit of $7.9 trillion, which would push debt held by the public to nearly 80 percent of GDP in 2024. That is far above the post-war norm for the United States and perilously close to levels from which it is hard to recover

because entitlement spending will continue to rise rapidly with the aging population and health care inflation. The long-term projections would look even worse if not for the unrealistic Medicare cuts from Obamacare that are built into the current law baseline. If those cuts are overridden, and other unrealistic assumptions in the baseline are also replaced with more realistic scenarios, then CBO expects debt held by the public to reach 190 percent of GDP by 2038.

Obamacare and the coming debt crisis - Health - AEI

Obamacare Is (Still) Fiscally Responsible
Congress' scorekeeper confirms that the health care law will reduce deficits.



Critics of the Affordable Care Act are ignoring the facts.


CBO Confirms Obamacare Reduces Deficits - US News
 
Dean after the 2008 election the Democrats had both the House and Senate they were sworn in with the President in January of 2009 they held control of both until they lost the House in the 2010 midterms that group was not sworn in till January 2011 that is two years deal with it.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didnÂ’t pass more legislation doesnÂ’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left
The deal is I never said anything about a filibuster proof majority for two years what I said is the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate for two years and to be perfectly honest they controlled them for four years since they actually won control of them in the 2006 midterms.

Controlled? YET without a super majority in the Senate, couldn't do much right?

AND they took Congress in Jan 2007, that's when Dubya started his vetoing!
 
Somehow, they keep ignoring the fact Republicans were able to use reconciliation three times during the 6 years they controlled the entire government. What did they use it on and how did it help America? Why won't they answer that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didnÂ’t pass more legislation doesnÂ’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left
The deal is I never said anything about a filibuster proof majority for two years what I said is the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate for two years and to be perfectly honest they controlled them for four years since they actually won control of them in the 2006 midterms.

Controlled? YET without a super majority in the Senate, couldn't do much right?

AND they took Congress in Jan 2007, that's when Dubya started his vetoing!

Stop using the super majority excuse Reagan got things done without a super majority Clinton got things done without a super majority so have many other Presidents if the only way any President can get something done is if they have a super majority then their not much of a leader.
 
Dean after the 2008 election the Democrats had both the House and Senate they were sworn in with the President in January of 2009 they held control of both until they lost the House in the 2010 midterms that group was not sworn in till January 2011 that is two years deal with it.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didnÂ’t pass more legislation doesnÂ’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left


How do you explain the passage of OBAMACARE which the Republicans opposed? Do you remember when Speaker Pelosi bogged down Congress for months on that legislation over staying focused on the economy as a priority overall, and wouldn't let representatives go home to face their constituents in town hall meetings? It was the blue dog Democrats and NOT the Republicans who she worked hard to get enough votes for passage. Did we seem to forget all about that period of control the Democrats had in Congress? Democrats couldn't pass a thing without Republicans blocking it? Doesn't seem true as Republiacns are the biggest obstical opponents to Obamacare, yet it still managed to pass after months of closed door deals from an administration that quickly changed its tune about "transparency" and live detailed C-Span coverage Obama boasted would take place behind the crafting of this bill. Obama knows as much about transparency as he does following the Constitution.

"How do you explain the passage of OBAMACARE which the Republicans opposed?

On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against



Lieberman (ID-CT)
Sanders (I-VT)

Specter (D-PA), REMEMBER HIM?

Arlen Specter was a United States Senator from Pennsylvania. Specter was a Democrat from 1951 to 1965, then a Republican from 1965 until 2009, when he switched back to the Democratic Party


On April 28, 2009, Specter announced that, after 44 years as an elected Republican, he was switching membership to the Democratic Party.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left
 
The deal is I never said anything about a filibuster proof majority for two years what I said is the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate for two years and to be perfectly honest they controlled them for four years since they actually won control of them in the 2006 midterms.

Controlled? YET without a super majority in the Senate, couldn't do much right?

AND they took Congress in Jan 2007, that's when Dubya started his vetoing!

Stop using the super majority excuse Reagan got things done without a super majority Clinton got things done without a super majority so have many other Presidents if the only way any President can get something done is if they have a super majority then their not much of a leader.


Yeah, it's 'leadership' NOT that the Dems worked WITH Reagan? Clinton, I remember a Gov't shutdown and a ridiculous impeachment, that was about the time the GOPers BECAME the extreme party of today!!!!
 
Controlled? YET without a super majority in the Senate, couldn't do much right?

AND they took Congress in Jan 2007, that's when Dubya started his vetoing!

Stop using the super majority excuse Reagan got things done without a super majority Clinton got things done without a super majority so have many other Presidents if the only way any President can get something done is if they have a super majority then their not much of a leader.


Yeah, it's 'leadership' NOT that the Dems worked WITH Reagan? Clinton, I remember a Gov't shutdown and a ridiculous impeachment, that was about the time the GOPers BECAME the extreme party of today!!!!

It takes leadership to get those who disagree with you to work with you something many other Presidents have been able to do. I find your use of the word extreme funny given the extreme length's you will go to in order to defend Obama's poor leadership.
 
Three Charts To Email To Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law (Updated)

These charts show what actually happened.

Spending

lightbox




Government spending increased dramatically under President Bush. It has not increased much under President Obama.


Is that after your belief in trying to convince me, that Obamacare is actually 100% funded? I think you better reexamine those figures, as I trust the knowledge of the CBO on our budget outlook more than your graphs.




... even with strong economic growth and low unemployment. Over the ten year period 2015 to 2024, CBO is now projecting a cumulative deficit of $7.9 trillion, which would push debt held by the public to nearly 80 percent of GDP in 2024. That is far above the post-war norm for the United States and perilously close to levels from which it is hard to recover

because entitlement spending will continue to rise rapidly with the aging population and health care inflation. The long-term projections would look even worse if not for the unrealistic Medicare cuts from Obamacare that are built into the current law[COLOR] baseline. If those cuts are overridden, and other unrealistic assumptions in the baseline are also replaced with more realistic scenarios, then CBO expects debt held by the public to reach 190 percent of GDP by 2038.

Obamacare and the coming debt crisis - Health - AEI


Obamacare Is (Still) Fiscally Responsible
Congress' scorekeeper confirms that the health care law will reduce deficits.



Critics of the Affordable Care Act are ignoring the facts.


CBO Confirms Obamacare Reduces Deficits - US News



When it comes to financial government figures: like Federal spending and our national debt, I try to avoid basing the majority of my data on ideological news sources as much as possible. The reason being, your facts are only as good as it's source you are deriving them from.


Most of the anticipated growth in spending (beside interest payments) as a share of GDP over the long term is expected to come from the government’s major health care programs: Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). CBO projects that, under current law, total outlays for those programs would grow much faster than the overall economy, increasing from just below 5 percent of GDP now to 8 percent in 2039 (net of Medicare premiums and certain other offsetting receipts).

Those projected increases in spending for Social Security and the government’s major health care programs are attributable primarily to three causes: the aging of the population, rising health care spending per beneficiary, and the ACA’s expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance.


In CBO’s projections, which generally reflect current law, total federal spending for everything other than the major health care programs, Social Security, and net interest declines to a smaller percentage of GDP than has been the case for more than 70 years. Such spending has been more than 8 percent of GDP each year since the late 1930s, including about 12 percent of GDP in 1974 and about 10 percent in 1994; CBO estimates that it will be about 9 percent of GDP in 2014. Under the assumptions used for this analysis, that spending is projected to fall below 8 percent of GDP in 2020 and then to decline further, dropping to about 7 percent of GDP in 2039.

SOURCE: CBO?s Long-Term Budget Projections Show a Substantial Imbalance in the Federal Budget - CBO
 
Last edited:
It takes leadership to get those who disagree with you to work with you something many other Presidents have been able to do. I find your use of the word extreme funny given the extreme length's you will go to in order to defend Obama's poor leadership.

With normal people what you say is true. The condition which exists require dealing with extremists, not normal people. It is impossible for an extremist to carry on any meaningful negotiation because they can not be flexible.
 
Back
Top Bottom