Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
List the problems caused by President Obama:
Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
List the problems caused by President Obama:
1. Obamacare
2. A tediously slow recovery
3. The Iran deal
4. Losing Iraq
5. The rise of ISIS
6. Pissing off Israel
7. The specter of immigration amnesty/overrun border
8. IRS, Fast and Furious, Secret Service, GSA, EPA, SEC management scandals
9. Politicization of the career civil service
10. DOJ run amuck
11. Partisan divisiveness worsened
12. Race relations worsened
13. Congressional relations worsened
14. Fake War on Women
15. Actual War on Christians
I could go on.
Flash, step in, please.
Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.
You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.
Wow, look at the numbers critically, put your biases aside, and you very well might come to a different conclusion. Consider, historical events and the time it takes for economic policies to take effect.
They have refused to blame Bush for any of the mess he made,hundreds of thousands of deaths, the enormous debt that now shows on Obama's record.
If (gawd forbid) a Republican were to be elected, they would be blaming Obama for every thing that president did.
You refuse to blame Obama. You live in total denial of all the problems he has caused.
List the problems caused by President Obama:
1. Obamacare
2. A tediously slow recovery
3. The Iran deal
4. Losing Iraq
5. The rise of ISIS
6. Pissing off Israel
7. The specter of immigration amnesty/overrun border
8. IRS, Fast and Furious, Secret Service, GSA, EPA, SEC management scandals
9. Politicization of the career civil service
10. DOJ run amuck
11. Partisan divisiveness worsened
12. Race relations worsened
13. Congressional relations worsened
14. Fake War on Women
15. Actual War on Christians
I could go on.
Flash, step in, please.
You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.
Your sycophancy is too funny.
So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.
So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.
We all agree.
Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.
If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.
Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.
Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.
Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.
Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.
Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.
Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.
If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.
So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.
The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.
You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?
You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.
Your sycophancy is too funny.
So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.
So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.
We all agree.
Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.
If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.
Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.
Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.
Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.
Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.
Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.
Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.
If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.
So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.
The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.
You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?
While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist
From the article:
It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.
But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.
Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.
But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.
The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.
Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:
Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.
Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.
I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.
RIGHT WING NONSENSE. SHOCKING
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?
A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
Bush's documented policies and statements in time frame leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2003)
Giving away 40,000 PER YEAR free down payments (2004)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)
But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT THESE BILLS THE DEMS PASSED JAN 2007-JAN 2009 THAT CRASHED THE US ECONOMY?? LOL
You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.
Your sycophancy is too funny.
So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.
So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.
We all agree.
Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.
If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.
Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.
Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.
Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.
Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.
Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.
Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.
If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.
So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.
The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.
You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?
You can say it until you're blue in the face and pass out. Obama will not be responsible for the whole fiscal year. Hell, he wasn't even president for nearly 1/3rd of FY2009.
Your sycophancy is too funny.
So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.
So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.
We all agree.
Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.
If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.
Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.
Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.
Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.
Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.
Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.
Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.
If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.
So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.
The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.
You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?
While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist
From the article:
It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.
But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.
Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.
But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.
The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.
Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:
Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.
Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.
I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.
Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.
You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.
Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.
