The GOP is desperate for a failing economy......sic

[charwin95]

No, dad, NOT weird. As a result, the record-setting deficit-spending ended, no more massive debt was added to the $6 trillion in new debt added on by Obama, and the annual budgets became balanced...which Obama has tried to take credit for.

The GOP says, 'YOU'RE WELCOME', Dad!

Oh right, thanks to Obama getting more revenues with ACA and increasing taxes on the top .08% of US he got US out of Dubya's les than 15% of GDP back at where Ronnie gutted it 17% of GDP, BUT STILL MUCH LOWER THAN CARTERS 19.6% OR CLINTON'S 20%. Where do you think it needs to be at?

You are arguing with me by using Obama's LIES, that the ACA has cost 'nothing' and has actually 'PAID FOR ITSELF?!?

ACA didn't bring in taxes or not? CBO say getting rid of it increases the deficits?



PLEASE argue otherwise? lol

FAIL! WORST PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY...DOCUMENTED...PROVEN!

'OBAMA INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA'

YOU - NO CREDIBILITY! BUH-BYE!

Documented proven by racist bigoted people like you. What a joke.

 

[easyt65]

No, char...the evidence I quoted, as shown, came from CNN...the libs' favorite news source. 'Racism' may be the charge from the left whenever anyone speaks the truth about their corrupt, failed heroes but it does not take away the validity of what is sad.

 

[tigerred59]

I've learned a long time ago that what Democrats support has failed every time it's been tried. Thinking handing one person another person's money will motivate them to do better has costs this country $22 trillion dollars over 50 years with NO success.

GET TYE FUKKK OFF YOUR RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS YOU DUMBFUKKK


You realize a HUGE portion of that "$22 trillion" was Medicare right? That it LBJ's great society cut the REAL poverty by HALF?

BUT I AGREE, OVER THE LAST 30+ YEARS THE GOP WARS ON THE WAR ON POVERTY HAS BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL!

You do realize that claim about Medicare is wrong. It was spend on social welfare programs.

Let me guess, the US poor have refers, microwaves and TV's? lol


This chart from Pew Research shows the poverty rate across racial lines going all the way back to 1963.

'

As you can see from the report prior to 1967, the overall poverty rate was nearly double what it eventually became "when all the programs were in place" by 1967, so Perino's suggesting that things are now worse than they were before these programs is flat-out false. From 1963 through the year 2000, ending when economic policies of Bill Clinton that balanced the budget by slightly raising taxes on the rich, the general trend for people of all races was for the poverty rate was to go down. After 2000, when President George W. Bush implemented his tax cuts, which went largely to the richest 10 percent of the population, the poverty rate has been slowly creeping back upward. Now, clearly there are other factors involved here.


Killing those zombie lies about the war on poverty

We just had a huge hiring frenzy at our company and the results are in, 75% of the people we hired...blacks, mostly young usta be welfare women.....25% of the people that were hired, elderly whites, especially women in their late 60's. That's who tops America's unemployed.

It's about time those young black welfare queens got a damn job and quit expecting the rest of us to support their children.

Wake me the hell up when you get with reality, you stupid white ****. White people dominate the welfare rolls today, especially those on disability, which is most of yaw.

 

[easyt65]

From CNNBusiness.com:

"Blame It on Global Cooling? Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record"

"Obama’s seven first quarters as president are at a combined average of NEGATIVE 0.43%.Obama is the only president in the history of America’s recorded economic measurement to accomplish this..."

MORE OBAMA 1STS / RECORDS....WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!

MORE:

"Latest GDP Report Proves that Obama is Purposefully Destroying America"

 

[easyt65]

FUN FACTS LIBERALS HATE:
Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but THEIR OWN!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the Stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!

BOTTOM LINE:
BUSH: $4 Trillion over 8 (EIGHT) years

OBAMA: $6+ Trillion in only 4 years;
Lowest 1st Quarter GDP: -0.43; holds records for most 'monthly', 'anual', and 'total' deficit spending; credited with the 1st US Credit Rating down-grade in history; records for food stamp and welfare participation; 94,610,000 Americans out of work - black adult unemployment twice that of whites, teen black unemployment three times that of whites...but not long ago gave approx 4 million illegals the authority to begin competing with out of work Americans for whatever jobs are available....

WORST PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY... ACCORDING TO CNN....

...and Carter rests easier knowing when he passes he will not have that title as his own.

 

[Conservative65]

GET TYE FUKKK OFF YOUR RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS YOU DUMBFUKKK


You realize a HUGE portion of that "$22 trillion" was Medicare right? That it LBJ's great society cut the REAL poverty by HALF?

BUT I AGREE, OVER THE LAST 30+ YEARS THE GOP WARS ON THE WAR ON POVERTY HAS BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL!

You do realize that claim about Medicare is wrong. It was spend on social welfare programs.

Let me guess, the US poor have refers, microwaves and TV's? lol


This chart from Pew Research shows the poverty rate across racial lines going all the way back to 1963.

'

As you can see from the report prior to 1967, the overall poverty rate was nearly double what it eventually became "when all the programs were in place" by 1967, so Perino's suggesting that things are now worse than they were before these programs is flat-out false. From 1963 through the year 2000, ending when economic policies of Bill Clinton that balanced the budget by slightly raising taxes on the rich, the general trend for people of all races was for the poverty rate was to go down. After 2000, when President George W. Bush implemented his tax cuts, which went largely to the richest 10 percent of the population, the poverty rate has been slowly creeping back upward. Now, clearly there are other factors involved here.


Killing those zombie lies about the war on poverty

We just had a huge hiring frenzy at our company and the results are in, 75% of the people we hired...blacks, mostly young usta be welfare women.....25% of the people that were hired, elderly whites, especially women in their late 60's. That's who tops America's unemployed.

It's about time those young black welfare queens got a damn job and quit expecting the rest of us to support their children.

Wake me the hell up when you get with reality, you stupid white ****. White people dominate the welfare rolls today, especially those on disability, which is most of yaw.

You should really learn what proportions mean. Until the percentage of whites on welfare rolls is 5 1/2 - 6x greater than blacks, blacks are a far greater proportional recipients of welfare. If you go by raw data, it doesn't tell reality since there are 5 1/2 - 6x more whites than you stupid black *****.

 

[Dad2three]

If by "failing" you meant the most consecutive months of private sector job growth EVER, cutting Dubya's deficits by 2/3rds and slowly getting US out of Dubya's mess, YES!

People make and have less, everything costs more. Net? Failure.

THAT can't be true, we had 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies??? Come on, get honest

We've had almost 7 years of Obama food stamp user creators. Get honest.

REALLY? I remember Clinton handing Dubya a projected $5+ trillion surplus with 20+ million private sector jobs created, yet Dubya handed Obama a projected debt of $19 trillion with the economy shredding 700,000+ jobs a month and the economy tanking 9%+ (and a loss of private sector jobs of 1+ million in just Dubya's 8 years, not counting the 4+ million under Obama's first 14 months)

I remember food stamp usage increasing by 70% under Obama despite claims that things are better.

You mean Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE AND DEEP hole. Yup

 

[Dad2three]

Haven't learned from 35 years of "trickle down" huh? Fukkn morons!

I've learned a long time ago that what Democrats support has failed every time it's been tried. Thinking handing one person another person's money will motivate them to do better has costs this country $22 trillion dollars over 50 years with NO success.

GET TYE FUKKK OFF YOUR RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS YOU DUMBFUKKK


You realize a HUGE portion of that "$22 trillion" was Medicare right? That it LBJ's great society cut the REAL poverty by HALF?

BUT I AGREE, OVER THE LAST 30+ YEARS THE GOP WARS ON THE WAR ON POVERTY HAS BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL!

You do realize that claim about Medicare is wrong. It was spend on social welfare programs.

I know that facts to you idiots is like Kryptonite, but Medicare and Disability top the charts of socialized spending in this country, dude that is fact...google the shit if you have doubt.

Social welfare spending on things like food stamps has increased 70% under the affirmative action President. Google the shit if you have doubt.

Yep, 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies HAVE consequences Bubba!

Where was that prosperity promised for the $4 trillion tax cuts? lol

 

[Dad2three]

If by "failing" you meant the most consecutive months of private sector job growth EVER, cutting Dubya's deficits by 2/3rds and slowly getting US out of Dubya's mess, YES!

People make and have less, everything costs more. Net? Failure.

THAT can't be true, we had 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies??? Come on, get honest

We've had almost 7 years of Obama food stamp user creators. Get honest.

We've seen what putting an unqualified black man in a government job did to the country.

Sure Bubba, sure. It was because he was black huh?


Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.

It was because he was unqualified to do the job yet elected to meet a concept you Liberals wanted.

My ideology has worked for me because I choose to work instead of expecting someone else to work so it can be handed to me.

Congrats, a lot of people chose to work and a lot of people don't....how the hell is that Obama's fault you moron?

When you do things that allow people to continue getting a check while not working thinking it is an incentive to go to work, you're an idiot.

Yes better to go back to the way BEFORE the safety nets were set up right?

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.



Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Dad2three]

If by "failing" you meant the most consecutive months of private sector job growth EVER, cutting Dubya's deficits by 2/3rds and slowly getting US out of Dubya's mess, YES!

People make and have less, everything costs more. Net? Failure.

THAT can't be true, we had 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies??? Come on, get honest

We've had almost 7 years of Obama food stamp user creators. Get honest.

If that is the case are we too assume that under Bush, everybody was working and nobody was on gov. assistance? And if that is true, what happened?

No one said people weren't unemployed under Bush. You want to talk about Bush yet fail to acknowledge that food stamp use went up 70% under Obama.

Yep that mean exactly what? Oh right:

 

[Dad2three]

I've learned a long time ago that what Democrats support has failed every time it's been tried. Thinking handing one person another person's money will motivate them to do better has costs this country $22 trillion dollars over 50 years with NO success.

GET TYE FUKKK OFF YOUR RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS YOU DUMBFUKKK


You realize a HUGE portion of that "$22 trillion" was Medicare right? That it LBJ's great society cut the REAL poverty by HALF?

BUT I AGREE, OVER THE LAST 30+ YEARS THE GOP WARS ON THE WAR ON POVERTY HAS BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL!

You do realize that claim about Medicare is wrong. It was spend on social welfare programs.

Let me guess, the US poor have refers, microwaves and TV's? lol


This chart from Pew Research shows the poverty rate across racial lines going all the way back to 1963.

'

As you can see from the report prior to 1967, the overall poverty rate was nearly double what it eventually became "when all the programs were in place" by 1967, so Perino's suggesting that things are now worse than they were before these programs is flat-out false. From 1963 through the year 2000, ending when economic policies of Bill Clinton that balanced the budget by slightly raising taxes on the rich, the general trend for people of all races was for the poverty rate was to go down. After 2000, when President George W. Bush implemented his tax cuts, which went largely to the richest 10 percent of the population, the poverty rate has been slowly creeping back upward. Now, clearly there are other factors involved here.


Killing those zombie lies about the war on poverty

We just had a huge hiring frenzy at our company and the results are in, 75% of the people we hired...blacks, mostly young usta be welfare women.....25% of the people that were hired, elderly whites, especially women in their late 60's. That's who tops America's unemployed.

It's about time those young black welfare queens got a damn job and quit expecting the rest of us to support their children.

The Real Welfare Queen is Uneducated, Single and White


The Real Welfare Queen is Uneducated, Single and White - Breaking Brown

 

[RandomVariable]

People make and have less, everything costs more. Net? Failure.

THAT can't be true, we had 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies??? Come on, get honest

We've had almost 7 years of Obama food stamp user creators. Get honest.

REALLY? I remember Clinton handing Dubya a projected $5+ trillion surplus with 20+ million private sector jobs created, yet Dubya handed Obama a projected debt of $19 trillion with the economy shredding 700,000+ jobs a month and the economy tanking 9%+ (and a loss of private sector jobs of 1+ million in just Dubya's 8 years, not counting the 4+ million under Obama's first 14 months)

I remember food stamp usage increasing by 70% under Obama despite claims that things are better.

You mean Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE AND DEEP hole. Yup

One is arguing for bleeding the patient more. One is for applying a bigger band-aide. No one seems to be arguing for actually curing the patient.

 

[Dad2three]

From CNNBusiness.com:

"Blame It on Global Cooling? Obama Has Lowest Average 1stQ GDP Growth of Any President on Record"

"Obama’s seven first quarters as president are at a combined average of NEGATIVE 0.43%.Obama is the only president in the history of America’s recorded economic measurement to accomplish this..."

MORE OBAMA 1STS / RECORDS....WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!

MORE:

"Latest GDP Report Proves that Obama is Purposefully Destroying America"

Yep, we agree, AFTER Dubya inherited a $5+ surplus with 20+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created he handed Obama a steaming pile of shit where the economy tanked 9% in 3 months (3 years growth), $1+ trillion deficits and was losing 700,000+ jobs a month. Woohoo, who was the failure?

 

[Dad2three]

FUN FACTS LIBERALS HATE:
Despite Obama calling Bush 'un-patriotic' for adding $4 trillion in debt over 8 (EIGHT) years - during 9/11/01, the economic meltdown after, and 2 wars - Bush only added 1.5 Trillion over 6 years. Democrats took over Congress and the purse strings the last 2 years and added 2.5 Trillion...IN THE LAST 2 YEARS - the time Liberals say the economy started declining. (Way to go, Liberals!)

Democtats held this near super-majority control through the end of Obama's 2nd year in office...which means, with Dems owning Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration & 1st 2 years of Obama's term, the economy Obama 'inherited' was not Bush's economy but THEIR OWN!

As already mentioned, Obama ended up adding over $6 Trillion in new debt in only 4 years and personally secured the 1st ever US Credit Rating Downgrade!

Through wonderful programs like nearly a trillion for the failed Stimulus, hundreds of billions for Obamacare and its failed web site, 7,ooo earmarks in the Stimulus, and millions to train 6 terrorists...liberals have engaged in CRIMINAL fiscal irresponsibility of epic proportions!

BOTTOM LINE:
BUSH: $4 Trillion over 8 (EIGHT) years

OBAMA: $6+ Trillion in only 4 years;
Lowest 1st Quarter GDP: -0.43; holds records for most 'monthly', 'anual', and 'total' deficit spending; credited with the 1st US Credit Rating down-grade in history; records for food stamp and welfare participation; 94,610,000 Americans out of work - black adult unemployment twice that of whites, teen black unemployment three times that of whites...but not long ago gave approx 4 million illegals the authority to begin competing with out of work Americans for whatever jobs are available....

WORST PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY... ACCORDING TO CNN....

...and Carter rests easier knowing when he passes he will not have that title as his own.

COPNservatives "math". Weird


Historical Debt Outstanding


Clinton's final F/Y budget ends
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 ($5.8 trillion)

Dubya's final F/Y budget ends
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 ($11.9+ trillion)

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014

 

[Manonthestreet]

would appear libs are desperate to cover up this economy.......

 

[Dad2three]

THAT can't be true, we had 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies??? Come on, get honest

We've had almost 7 years of Obama food stamp user creators. Get honest.

REALLY? I remember Clinton handing Dubya a projected $5+ trillion surplus with 20+ million private sector jobs created, yet Dubya handed Obama a projected debt of $19 trillion with the economy shredding 700,000+ jobs a month and the economy tanking 9%+ (and a loss of private sector jobs of 1+ million in just Dubya's 8 years, not counting the 4+ million under Obama's first 14 months)

I remember food stamp usage increasing by 70% under Obama despite claims that things are better.

You mean Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE AND DEEP hole. Yup

One is arguing for bleeding the patient more. One is for applying a bigger band-aide. No one seems to be arguing for actually curing the patient.

You mean AS the GOP has blocked ANYTHING that would help US?

What if Obama spent like Reagan?



How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT, AS THE GOP CANDIDATES PUSH MORE TAX CUTS RIGHT?

 

[RandomVariable]

We've had almost 7 years of Obama food stamp user creators. Get honest.

REALLY? I remember Clinton handing Dubya a projected $5+ trillion surplus with 20+ million private sector jobs created, yet Dubya handed Obama a projected debt of $19 trillion with the economy shredding 700,000+ jobs a month and the economy tanking 9%+ (and a loss of private sector jobs of 1+ million in just Dubya's 8 years, not counting the 4+ million under Obama's first 14 months)

I remember food stamp usage increasing by 70% under Obama despite claims that things are better.

You mean Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE AND DEEP hole. Yup

One is arguing for bleeding the patient more. One is for applying a bigger band-aide. No one seems to be arguing for actually curing the patient.

You mean AS the GOP has blocked ANYTHING that would help US?

What if Obama spent like Reagan?



How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT, AS THE GOP CANDIDATES PUSH MORE TAX CUTS RIGHT?

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

 

[Rustic]

What economy??
We have an economic stability of an banana republic...

Hashtag print more money

 

[Dad2three]

REALLY? I remember Clinton handing Dubya a projected $5+ trillion surplus with 20+ million private sector jobs created, yet Dubya handed Obama a projected debt of $19 trillion with the economy shredding 700,000+ jobs a month and the economy tanking 9%+ (and a loss of private sector jobs of 1+ million in just Dubya's 8 years, not counting the 4+ million under Obama's first 14 months)

I remember food stamp usage increasing by 70% under Obama despite claims that things are better.

You mean Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE AND DEEP hole. Yup

One is arguing for bleeding the patient more. One is for applying a bigger band-aide. No one seems to be arguing for actually curing the patient.

You mean AS the GOP has blocked ANYTHING that would help US?

What if Obama spent like Reagan?



How does government spending and investment during Obama's first term compare to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush's first terms? The answer is poorly. Whereas total government spending dropped in 10 out of the 16 quarters that comprised Obama's first term, it rose in 13 out of Reagan's first 16 quarters, and 13 out of Bush's first 16 quarters.

Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010. Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited. Each saw a recession in their first term, but Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

Basic economic theory would hold that you want a larger contribution from government spending during a big recession in which private demand is weak than you do during a mild recession or a healthy economy. But that's been the case in Obama's economy, and all signs are that the pace of government spending cuts will accelerate sharply over the next year.

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

BOTH EQUALLY AT FAULT, AS THE GOP CANDIDATES PUSH MORE TAX CUTS RIGHT?

This isn't the 80's and it is not even the turn of the century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and America is heading for one heck of an implosion.

Yep, kinda seems like some sort of plan since Reaganomics huh?

GUT federal revenues, blow up debt then claim you can't pay for it?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GUY WHERE 99% OF GOP'S SIGNED HIS NO TAX PLEDGE!

 

[Dad2three]

What economy??
We have an economic stability of an banana republic...

Hashtag print more money

When CONservatives/GOP work against US, it doesn't help. But the US actuality BY FARRRR is the largest economy and is better than most developed economies today after the Banksters world wide credit ponzi scheme collapsed. US is doing ESPECIALLY well when measured against the austerity freaks nations!