Which?
No but it is there, unlike the average Joe who can loose his job and then have no income what so ever.
Wait for a trend if you want to have a solid argument about that. One month isn't a trend and cutting the deficit in half still leaves us with a huge deficit.
2009 | $1,471,297 |
2010 | 1,240,497 |
2011 | 1,249,569 |
2012 | 1,060,756 |
2013* | 216,528* |
Obama isn't black, either.
I don't think the "woman vote" is a big deal, either. Those fire-breathing feminazis that would vote based on gender are already hardcore democrats. I doubt any woman that would otherwise vote "republican" would be swayed by a female democrat. Republican woman are either pro-lifers or at the very least apathetic to the whole "women's rights" schtick. There's not that much upside due to that, in my opinion. Women who "feel oppressed" and would vote for a woman president based on the fact that she's a woman - and vote cross-party to do it..... not many of those, I think.
Then you have to deal with the fact that misogyny is absolutely not a "white thing" and democrats may find they'll lose votes from other races because of those individuals that would never vote for a woman. I have a hunch there are some of those in the black and hispanic communities; having lived in both.
Yes yes of-course.
It's the twisted reality of modern day liberal driven Fiscal rationalization.
Any news no matter how contrived is good news.
Applying this estimation for the remaining 6 months of 2013 (49%), the U.S. budget projects to be $424,565 million. A 71% decrease since Obama has been in office.
The data used for the calculations can be obtained here.
fire-breathing feminazis....Sorry I had to laugh at that one because it reminded me of the show married with children. For some reason I vision you being like Al Bundy.
Now all kidding aside, I don't think you guys can afford to underestimate the woman's vote. You mentioned the republican women not crossing party lines but you forgot about the independent woman vote. All I'm saying is why chance it?
One thing about #1....didn't Republicans call it "Obama's sequester" a couple of months ago when it went into effect? Wasn't it "Obama's failure" that led to it being implemented. Wasn't it a "White House plan" when Republicans were running from their failure to make cuts so that it wouldn't go into effect?
Keep in mind...sequestration was in lieu of other supposed cuts. The method was sequestration because Congress couldn't decide on what they would specifically cut. Both parties had agreed to cut how it was cut is the reason sequestration kicked in.
Sequestration was Obamas idea, though everyone eventually supported it.
Sure...as mentioned in my following post to Papa.
More fun analysis. Compare that to the budget deficit in 2007: 163 billion.
Granted, a 423 billion dollar deficit is better than his 1471 billion dollar deficit, but we are a long, LONG way from getting back to anything we've ever considered "normal". What we're seeing with the deficit is that we're still racking up a whopper of a debt and still going backwards but we're not going backwards as fast as we were a few years ago. Maybe it's reason to be a little less concerned, but it's not a reason to celebrate.
Sequestration was Obamas idea, though everyone eventually supported it.
More fun analysis. Compare that to the budget deficit in 2007: 163 billion.
Granted, a 423 billion dollar deficit is better than his 1471 billion dollar deficit, but we are a long, LONG way from getting back to anything we've ever considered "normal". What we're seeing with the deficit is that we're still racking up a whopper of a debt and still going backwards but we're not going backwards as fast as we were a few years ago. Maybe it's reason to be a little less concerned, but it's not a reason to celebrate.
Let use your personal budget as an example. Let say your household has been in red every month for the the last 6-10 years. Then one month you are working on your budget and you finally get a surplus. You are going to tell me that you wouldn't be excited about that? Not sayinf that you are out of debt, but atleast the meteor has alter its course.
We are racking up debt with record low interest rates.
Run a household that way for 6-10 years and you won't feel all giddy just because you didn't add as much to your debt this month as you did last month.
Not all households are "Average Joe" households. The threat of job loss is no different for a household than the threat of recession is for a nation. In fact, a job loss can be a lot easier to fix than a recession and the loss of income can be, proportionally, a lot less because of that. No, you've got to find other reasons to disassociate a "household budget" with a government budget if you want to assert there is no analogy that is meaningful.
We are racking up debt.
Sooner or later, that's got to stop.
You can't borrow exponentially.
No, but we are not talking about the uber rich.
We are talking about comparing the economy of a household/company to a sovereign nation. Fact is the only way a sovereign nation can loose all its income is by becoming Somalia. Now on the flipside it is pretty easy for a household/company to loose all its income... due to sickness, jail, or a multitude of reasons.
It always amazes me that in the last 5-7 years of kitchen household economics spreading from the US right, that they actually get away with this lunacy. For example... average Joe, who has a mortgage and a job, has a debt vs income ratio in the many hundreds of %... but a sovereign nation hitting 100%.. panic, the world is ending.. Brain dead economic theory I say.
Fact is, and always has been, the economics of a sovereign nation are far far different than your average household/company. In no way could a household/company go with 40+ years of deficits like the US has.. and quite a few other countries... but a country can.
Unemployment is still high.
Say's who? The U.S. government is a perpetual entity with unlimited funding capabilities.
You certainly can if you are repaying in inflated dollars. The key is to ensure (periods where economic growth > deficit growth) ≥ (periods where economic growth < deficit growth) is the long term average.
Debt vs. income ratio is as important to countries as it is to the average Joe. A nation's credit depends on them keeping a reasonable debt to income ratio. Ours keeps growing the wrong direction. That's not a good thing for us any more than it would be for a household. Of course, with a household, it's actually the debt to ASSET ratio that's truly critical. Having a debt to income ration of 2:1 isn't a big deal if we're talking about a house and car. It's a HUGE deal if it's just debt with no assets to show for it and that's what our government's deficit spending is like. We can't just sell the asset behind that debt and BAM, we're all squeaky clean again. No, it's more like credit card debt except the interest rate is a lot beter.
Just checked. The market is so impressed with this record budget surplus news that the DOW is down 41 points right now.
Well when the economy improves spending will go down (less need for safety nets) and revenue will increase (greater economic activity). So using a household debt situation (which I hate doing) it's no different than someone that has a seasonally dependent job borrowing offseason and paying it down during the busy time. Like a waiter in some beach town or something.
Stronger economic expectations have been factored in months ago. I know it isn't ideologically convenient at this point, but hey. Can't argue with the fact that the U.S. market capitalization reached an all-time high in May 2013.
You maybe right that the black turnout will
not be as high if the candidate was any other candidate but Hilary. We love the Clintons. If Obama didn't run I think Hilary would have still won because of the woman's vote.
A little advice to the GOP. If you want to dilute the black vote, stop ***king around with voting rights. We still have a bitter taste in our mouth from the 50s and that is a very sensitive subject. Honestly, I think that is what hurt you guys in the 2012 election. It was a self inflicted womb because you fire up the base.
Personally I am still shock that you guys are messing with women's right when you know the democrats are putting up the first woman presidential nominee in 2016 who is a very strong candidate. If Hilary is the democratic candidate, then you guys are going to destroyed with the women vote.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?