125
Debt and Deficits -- Presidents and Congress : Swingers Discussion 2101051041
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsDebt and Deficits -- Presidents and Congress
TOPIC: Debt and Deficits -- Presidents and Congress
GoTo Page: Less ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... More 
Start   41 to 50 of 305   End
User Details are only visible to members.
And the spin continues.........

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17025 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"This is the reason for the rise of the Tea Party. "

The reason for the 'rise of the tea party' is the hundreds of millions of funding from the likes of the Koch bros and others from the elite of American corporcracy. Not because some goofy seniors with tea bags glued to their hats threw a hissy fit.

Get a clue...

East Fishkill NY
Username hidden
(3597 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Democrats, including OweBama, passed a budget with almost 18% increase in spending."

For someone who preaches honesty, you sure do engage in an awful lot of half-truths. Federal spending for all of 2009 did increase $535 billion, an 18% increase over 2008. But it wasn't as part of the regular budget. 

Yes, there were increases in discretionary spending (the largest being $45 billion more for defense, on top of the $65 B increase the year before). But there were cuts in other areas to partially offset them too (e.g. $11 billion in education cuts). 

Most of the post-2007 increases in spending and debt resulted automatically from the recession. In 2009 almost $100 billion of the increased spending was in higher unemployment benefits paid.  The recession also kicked more people down to food stamp and Medicaid eligibility (more than $70 billion increase). It also helped incent the first wave of baby boomers to take early retirement. Social Security and Medicare payments increased by over $100 billion in 2009. 

The biggest increase in FY 2009 spending was over $250 B in outlays under TARP by the Bush administration before Obama even took office. (Most of which has since been recouped). 

If you want a culprit for the much higher spending in 2009, Bush's recession is the key one. 

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
" and 2009 that should "belong" (mostly) to Bush rather than Obama." 

NO.  =============  Yet again, you are wrong. 

I agree that the general rule (that the fiscal year budget during a presidential transition "belongs" to the outgoing president) applied less to Obama than usual. Note that I said the 2009 results were "mostly" that way. Which is true. 

When Obama took office the spending for a great many functions had already been set for the whole fiscal year, and the rest had been funded by continuing resolutions through March (i.e., half of the fiscal year. 

The omnibus appropriation bill that Obama signed on March 11 to complete the budget for FY 2009 was for $410 billion of discretionary spending, and was only $19 B more than Bush's own budget requests for the same programs.  

At the same time, Obama approved funding for $600 B in mandatory spending under essentially the same framework as Bush had requested (but with some extensions of unemployment and food stamp benefits due to the recession). 

Even if you include ALL the appropriations signed by Obama, they accounted for less than a third of the total (actual) outlays for FY 2009 of $3,517 billion. 

The spending pie for 2009 was mostly baked before Obama even arrived in the kitchen. Get your facts straight. 

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Fun: This is the reason for the rise of the Tea Party. They get it.

Tulare CA
Username hidden
(1880 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Although you claim to like pictures, I doubt you'll like this one:

supportingevidence. com/Government/fed_debt_as_percent_GDP_over_time.html

It's not color coded, but it shows more graphically where and when our debt problem came from. 

Note the steady decline in debt to GDP for over 35 years after WWII (which was mostly with Democratic congresses, and Presidents of both parties who believed in spending little if any more than we took in). 

Then note the sharp reversal of that trend in 1981-82 and dramatic rise in debt, unbroken except for the Clinton years. 

What accounts for such a dramatic trend reversal? Do you think it just might be that 1981 marked the beginning of the Reagan Revolution (aided by a newly-elected Republican Senate)? 

Ever since then, Republican dogma has focused on supply-side economics, and the fiscal policies for almost three decades has reflected that. (Except during Clinton's administration). 

Look at the picture. Study the trends. Understand what actually (not just theoretically) took place. Supply-side simply hasn't worked very well at controlling deficits. 

Belle Chasse LA
Username hidden
(10938 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
" and 2009 that should "belong" (mostly) to Bush rather than Obama."

NO.

In February of 2008 President Bush proposed a budget with about a 3% spending increase over the prior year. Fiscal year 2009 goes from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009. OweBama’s term began on January 20, 2009.

In 2008 Congress was controlled by Democrats, including OweBama, passed a budget with almost 18% increase in spending. Not only that but the Dems only passed THREE of TWELVE appropriation bills for Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security. They passed the rest IN 2009 and OweBAMA signed them.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17025 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Change 2003-2004 to red. It changes nothing.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17025 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"Republicans often had effective control of congress even when Democrats had nominal control of one house or the other"

That's funny as hell. It speaks volumes about the Democrats.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17025 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Everything I post you claim to inaccurate.........and you have no sources. lol!!!!

You have no credentials, and no sources. Go away straw man, or put up something other than your own biased opinion.

Pittsburgh PA
Username hidden
(17025 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... More 
Start   41 to 50 of 305   End
TOPIC: Debt and Deficits -- Presidents and Congress