What really drives me nuts is when the republicans pretend to be concerned about the deficit and that they are not big spenders. Any research I have done clearly shows that the Bush era accounts for the majority for national debt. Many of the decisions which were made then are still hiting the books now. Obviously the economic colapse accounts for much of it as well...and when did that start? Here is a link demonstrating much of what I am talking about http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...o-fix-the-deficit-elect-a-Democratic-Congress The graphs are from sources such as CBS News, Wall Street Journal, Center on Budget & Policy Priorities Is Obama been great? Hell no. But let's look at the actual facts of what has brought us to where we are today.
Look at this link. It shows unemployment rates since the 40's. http://www.forecast-chart.com/forecast-unemployment-rate.html The unemployment rate on average was about the same under Bush as it has been since 1970. Not nearly as bad as the media would lead you to believe. Better in his last term, excluding the end of his last year. Yes , the economy collapsed in his last year, but we all know why, even if you won't admit it to yourself. We need energy independence in this country to add more stabilization to the oil market as well as new energy resources. Oil prices will still be whatever the market dictates but stabilizing the supply would stabilize the market. The second part to this is individuals holding some of the blame. How many borrowed themselves one disaster from going bankrupt. I was layed off under clinton due to unequal trade with china and once under bush. I survived without having to sell anything. BARELY If it happens today, i will have to start selling.:banghead: it would be my fault for some bad moves on my part. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Bush was NOT a conservative when it came to spending money. Even the republicans complained about this. However he did finance two wars. Weather or not you agree with the wars is definitely debatable. I happen to think it was necessary. Obama holds the largest share of where we are today. Heading toward a socialist society. Just like he told us he was going to do Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Imo, this link shows a very REAL PROBLEM in this country. This has to be addressed. http://m.research.stlouisfed.org/fred/series.php?sid=LNS14000031 Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos What would you think of something that I posted from Fox news? Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I'm Independent…I don’t vote for parties....I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in the past and will again this year in various elections....so I don't care what site you post from...as long as the information is factual
Well first of all, you're not fooling anyone. You're a liberal Democrat, not an independent thinker/voter. Second, Bush is no longer president. Whatever he and Congress has done in the past, is just that, the past. O'Bama has been president for the past 3 1/2 years and the Democrats had complete control of Congress for two full years and still control the Senate. Did they fix anything? Did they correct all those atrocious mistakes made by the Bush administration? No, they flushed trillions of dollars of our money down the sewer, imposed a national health care fiasco that we didn't want, and put two raving, anti- second amendment liberals on the Supreme Court. Unemployment is still unacceptable, gas prices have doubled and groceries are becoming more and more expensive. What is the administration's solution? They want to cram all this alternative energy nonsense down our throats. If Bush and the Republicans spent too much money, the solution is obvious. Spend less than they did, not more. May The Sheep Be With You
That's what is called an oxymoron. In a perfect world, being independent is a great idea. The problem is the 2 party system is a broken one and votes follow party lines. At this current time in history, the dems are too liberal for my belief system so i must vote against liberalism which means voting against dems. Imo, the republican party is not conservative enough, ie, George Bush and his spending but imo, conservatives spend money in better areas than libs. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I read this ealier today and thought it would be appropriate here: Lately, there has been some controversy about the growth of spending under Barack Obama. It began on May 22 with a column by Rex Nutting of MarketWatch, which concluded that the rate of growth of federal spending under Obama has actually been trivial compared to the last 4 presidents. According to Nutting’s calculations, spending has grown only 1.4 percent per year under Obama – one-fifth the rate under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Following is a chart accompanying the article. There has been a considerable amount of debate about Nutting’s calculations, which fly in the face of Republican dogma. Much involves technical accounting issues, such as how to allocate spending during fiscal year 2009. This is important because fiscal year 2009 began on September 1, 2008 during Bush’s administration, reflecting his priorities. By the time Obama took office on January 20, 2009 the fiscal year was almost half over; he didn’t submit his first budget until February 26, 2009 and the fiscal year 2010 budget is really the first one that reflected his priorities. Nutting assigned the bulk of fiscal year 2009 spending to Bush, an assumption that other analysts have questioned. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post found that Nutting overstated his argument in various ways. But the PoliFact site of the Tampa Bay Times concluded that the Nutting column was essentially correct. Aside from the political implications, the reason this debate is important is because there is a tendency for people to conflate spending, deficits and debt, as well as confusing rates of change with absolute levels. The difference between fiscal years 2008 and 2009 is very significant because the economic crisis hit hard late in calendar year 2008 and early 2009 – just as Bush was leaving office and Obama was coming in. According to the Congressional Budget Office, spending shot up from 20.7 percent of the gross domestic product in fiscal year 2008 to 25 percent in 2009 – an extraordinarily large increase. When looking at the rate of change of spending, the base year is critically important; the higher spending is in the base year, the smaller subsequent increases will appear. If the base year is lower, subsequent increases will be larger in percentage terms. Thus if we compare CBO’s latest estimate for spending in 2012 to 2008 we get a total increase of 21.7 percent, but if we compare it to 2009 the increase is just 3.1 percent. I don’t want to get into the nitty-gritty of whether to allocate all spending in fiscal year 2009 to Bush or Obama. I just want to note that the president has very little control over the budget one way or another; the vast bulk of spending is baked in the cake the day he takes office and changes can only be made incrementally and over time. This fact is illustrated by looking at CBO’s last spending projection of the Bush administration, which was issued on January 8, 2009 – 2 weeks before Obama took office and containing no Obama initiatives. It shows that spending was projected to rise to 24.9 percent of GDP in 2009 under laws that Obama inherited – almost exactly what it ended up being. Moreover, CBO data show that the biggest increase in spending between 2008 and 2009 was for mandatory programs such as Medicare and Social Security that are not appropriated by Congress annually, but continue automatically unless the underlying law governing beneficiaries is changed. This portion of the budget rose from 12.4 percent of GDP in 2008 to 16.4 percent in 2009. By contrast, the discretionary portion of the budget, which is appropriated annually and includes national defense, rose from 7.9 percent of GDP to 8.9 percent between 2008 and 2009. Another thing that is clear from the CBO data is that the budget deficit is as much the result of lower taxes as higher spending. Revenues fell from 17.5 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2008 to 14.9 percent in 2009 and 2010, rising to just 15.4 percent in 2011 and 15.8 percent this year. Had revenues stayed at their 2008 level, combined federal deficits would have been $1.3 trillion smaller since 2008. And this estimate actually understates the extent to which Bush’s policies devastated the government’s revenue-raising capacity. In the postwar era, federal revenues have averaged 18.5 percent of GDP. They averaged 18.2 percent during Ronald Reagan’s 8 years and 19 percent under Bill Clinton’s 8 years, but 17.6 percent during George W. Bush’s 8 years and just 15.2 percent for Obama’s 4 years thus far. At a minimum, this puts a lie to the ideas that we are overtaxed, that Obama has raised taxes, or that low taxes stimulate growth. Indeed, based on history, one can easily argue the opposite – that high taxes stimulate growth. The expansions of both the Reagan and Clinton administrations were preceded by big tax increases in 1982 and 1993, and revenues as a share of GDP were considerably higher during their administrations than under either Bush or Obama. It’s an old political trick to blame the other side for things that your side is actually responsible for. I remember clearly that Democrats often attacked Reagan for economic conditions and policies that really belonged to Jimmy Carter. Today, Republicans are blaming Obama for those that rightfully should be attributed in large part to Bush. It is not as if Obama is unaware of what Republicans are doing. He called them out on it in a December 8, 2009 speech. Republicans, Obama said, passed tax cuts and expansive entitlement programs without paying for any of it -- even as health care costs kept rising, year after year. As a result, the deficit had reached $1.3 trillion when we walked into the White House. And I'd note: These budget-busting tax cuts and spending programs were approved by many of the same people who are now waxing political about fiscal responsibility, while opposing our efforts to reduce deficits by getting health care costs under control. It's a sight to see. Obama was right about Republican hypocrisy, but he has seldom made this point since, allowing Republicans to dominate the debate on budget issues and attribute to themselves an undeserved record of fiscal responsibility. If he hopes to win in November, Obama needs to remind voters that Bush and his party are largely responsible for the budget deficit. He will find a receptive audience; the New York Times/CBS News poll has consistently found that Americans blame Bush by a 3 to 1 margin over Obama. In January of this year, 43 percent of them held Bush responsible and only 14 percent blamed Obama. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/01/Whos-the-Biggest-Spender-Obama-or-Bush.aspx#page1
Check out the link and then compare it to the 10 year rate of unemployment for black americans. This issue has to be fixed before this country can move forward. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
You don't know me from Adam and quite frankly I don't give a rats arse what you THINK you know about me. I actually just mailed my North Dakota absente ballet today (will be on a hunting trip during elections). I'm not going to go over every vote I made but one example would be Jack Dalrymple for Governer. He is a REPUBLICAN in case you are not aware. I know plenty of people like you who think that everyone who does not consider themself to be a Replican must be a Liberal Democrat....it's ignorant thinking at best but that seems to suite you
I copied the graphs. This is not a prejudice post but rather one of concern. I am far from prejudice so please don't take it that way. This is more of a social issue that we need to quit pandering to and address it as a society instead. Instead, the black average is about twice the national average. Look at the graphs and imagine where we could be as a nation if black american unemployment just kept up with the overall national average. It's a shame when black leaders(celebrities) stand up such as Bill Cosby and speak about this issue and are ridiculed for it. We, as a nation need to fix this problem and more government programs aren't going to do it. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Your post consistently reflect that of a liberal thinking democrat. Just as mine reflect a conservative repubican. But i am a registered democrat and am more conservative than republican. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
If anything I might lean towards conservative democrat if I had to label myself at this time. I think the Republican Party has changed a lot over the past 12 years. But feel free to show me some examples of all this liberal talk i've been doing on here. Mostly what I do is call people on their BS. Since most of the people on here are hard core Replicans...most of the BS coments are made by them
As i stated earlier, Bush was not a fiscal conservative, but he did have 2 wars to finance as well. (that i agree with) but i agree with the criticism, however, he is not the total blame of the issues facing the country today. Neither is Obama but the direction Obama is taking us is that of a liberal, socialist society and one that I vehemently oppose. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Don't open the war can of worms. The man used a national tragedy to get Americans on board with invading a country that had no part in it. I mean, I know they found the WMDs in Ir... wait.. nevermind. Couldn't have possibly been a ploy to go kill the man that tried to assassinate his father.... Don't worry, the Iraqi oil will pay for... wait.. nevermind... It's ok, once they vote it'll be gre... wait.. sorry.. nevermind. Why do you agree with the wars? At least, the Iraq war? Saddam was a bad man! Yeah, so are a ton of other rulers/leaders (that we didn't put in power, and supply with arms), you don't see us invading them... I think his VP was on the board at Haliburton. I wonder who profited the most from the wars... And hey... why do we need to pay for it... we have credit!
Now your spatting liberal bs. Congress could have stopped it but they were on board until it benefited them politically. Simple question. Is the world(particularly America) in a better place with Saddam dead and a new government in place in Iraq( middle east) I say HELL YES. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
